[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Issue

Supreme Court Ducks Key Second Amendment Issue — For Now

Ilya Shapiro

Alas this morning the Supreme Court declined to review Kachalsky v. Cacace the challenge to New York City’s effective ban on carrying firearms (which I’ve previously discussed).  To correct some early media reports, this does not mean that the Court upheld the law or affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  It simply means that the scope of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms outside the home remains an open question, subject to divergent rulings in the lower courts.

But those lower-court rulings have indeed diverged greatly, creating what lawyers call a “circuit split.”  The Second Circuit in Kachalsky applied a nominal intermediate scrutiny that ultimately became perfunctory deference to the legislature, with the burden on the plaintiffs to justify the exercise of their rights. The Seventh Circuit, meanwhile, in an opinion by Judge Richard Posner in Moore v. Madigan, struck down Chicago’s complete prohibition on carrying firearms, finding that Illinois could not justify such extreme measures.  For “a severe burden on the core Second Amendment right of armed self-defense,” the same court ruled in an earlier case, the government must provide “an extremely strong public-interest justification and a close fit between the government’s means and its end.””  The D.C. and Fourth Circuits, meanwhile, have presumed the constitutionality of legislated restrictions, although D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote an important dissent suggesting that the scope of the right to carry should be determined by analogizing historical practice and precedent.

Those who follow firearms policy now recognize that this issue that was left open by District of Columbia v. Heller – the scope of the individual right that the Second Amendment protects – is crying out for resolution.  As Cato said in the brief we filed supporting the Kachalsky petition:

The Second Amendment’s scope and the means of assessing restrictions on that right thus remain largely undefined. No other constitutional right has been so left to fend for itself in the lower courts. This Court has not hesitated to seize opportunities to ensure the protection of other constitutional rights—recognizing historically based categorical rules, developing comprehensive methodologies, and announcing robust standards. The Second Amendment merits, and now needs, the same solicitude.

Whatever analytical approach the Court ultimately employs, the time has come to begin filling in the picture that the Court outlined in Heller, and to bring some harmony to the cacophony below.

We’ll now have to wait a bit longer for the Court to do that. As is always the case, the Court doesn’t give reasons for granting or denying review, but it’s possible that the Court didn’t want to take a gun case from the Second Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Connecticut, where the Newtown shootings occurred.  Or it may be waiting for Moore v. Madigan, because taking a petition brought by a state government would be seen as less discretionary – and would also allow the Court to focus on a complete ban on the right to carry rather than severe restrictions.  (D.C. and Illinois are the only jurisdictions that have flat bans, while 10 states, including New York, “may issue” such licenses in practice, but most rarely do in practice except to celebrities and former law enforcement officers.  The vast majority of states “shall issue” carry licenses unless the applicant has a felony conviction or mental illness, while a handful don’t require a license at all.)  

In any event, the issue isn’t going away and there’s only so long that the Court will be able to bear the legal incongruity and uncertainty. As former solicitor general Paul Clement – who represented the NRA in McDonald v. Chicago put it, “They’re eventually going to have to take it.”

View full post on Cato @ Liberty

Technology and the Internet • Sources: White House to issue cybersecurity order Wednesday

Sources: White House to issue cybersecurity order Wednesday
By Jennifer Martinez – 02/11/13 05:00 PM ET

The White House is poised to release an executive order aimed at thwarting cyberattacks against critical infrastructure on Wednesday, two people familiar with the matter told The Hill.
The highly anticipated directive from President Obama is expected to be released at a briefing Wednesday morning at the U.S. Department of Commerce, where senior administration officials will provide an update about cybersecurity policy.

The executive order would establish a voluntary program in which companies operating critical infrastructure would elect to meet cybersecurity best practices and standards crafted, in part, by the government.
Observers are expecting the president to briefly mention the need for the country to improve its defenses against cyberattacks during his State of the Union address on Tuesday.
White House press secretary Jay Carney declined Monday to say whether the president would discuss cybersecurity during his Tuesday address to Congress, saying the president believes that it’s "a very important issue."
"It represents a huge challenge for our country. He has called on Congress to take action. Unfortunately, Congress has thus far refused legislatively," Carney said at a press briefing with reporters. "But I don’t have any previews to provide."
During last year’s address, the president made a brief mention about the cybersecurity legislative blueprint that his administration put forward in May 2011.
The White House began crafting the executive order after Congress failed to pass cybersecurity legislation last year. Officials said the threat facing the United States was too great for the administration to ignore and that it needed to take action as Congress grappled with passing a bill.
During his second term, the president is expected to exert his executive power on issues such as climate change, and it appears that cybersecurity is also on that list.

Yet administration officials have also stressed that the executive order is not a substitute for cybersecurity legislation, which is needed to protect the country’s water plants, electric grid and other critical infrastructure from cyberattacks.
They note that an executive order cannot, unlike congressional legislation, grant new powers or authorities to federal agencies or departments.
"We need comprehensive cybersecurity legislation," Andy Ozment, a senior director for cybersecurity at the White House, said at a conference in Washington last week. "We cannot do everything under our existing authorities."
White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Michael Daniel, Commerce Department Deputy Secretary Rebecca Blank, Department of Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Jane Holl Lute and National Security Director Gen. Keith Alexander will be among the officials participating in Wednesday’s briefing, according to details obtained by The Hill.
A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on the timing of the executive order.
It has been revised several times over the past few months and would also encourage agencies to share intelligence about cyber threats with companies that operate critical infrastructure.
Over the past few months, the White House has engaged in outreach efforts to industry groups, think tanks, companies and advocacy groups to solicit feedback on what should and should not be included in the order.
A leaked copy of the draft order this fall revealed that the White House had incorporated some changes into the order that were an attempt to smooth over concerns that the high-tech industry had raised.
The White House began work on the executive order after the Senate failed to pass a sweeping cybersecurity bill by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). The bill included a measure aimed at improving information-sharing about cyber threats between government and industry.
However, it also had a more controversial provision that would encourage companies that operate critical infrastructure to adopt cybersecurity best practices and standards into their computer networks.
Critical infrastructure operators would receive incentives, such as added protection from legal action if they are hit with an cyberattack, in exchange for adopting those measures.
That section of the Senate bill, the Cybersecurity Act, provided the backbone for the White House’s executive order. The bill failed a second time when it was brought to the Senate floor before the end of 2012.
GOP senators and the influential U.S. Chamber of Commerce fought hard against the Senate bill, warning that it would apply burdensome new regulations to businesses. Business groups argued that new cybersecurity rules would slow down companies’ ability to respond to cyber threats because they would be more focused on complying with regulations than on securing their networks.
Instead, Republican lawmakers and business groups have advocated for Congress to pass legislation that is aimed at removing legal hurdles that prevent the government and companies from sharing intelligence about cyber threats in real time with each other.
House Intelligence Committee leaders Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) are set to re-introduce an information-sharing bill on Wednesday. That bill passed the House last year despite receiving pushback from the White House.
The bill aims to thwart cyberattacks by making it easier for private companies to share information about cyber threats and malicious source code with the intelligence community and the Department of Homeland Security.
Last year, privacy advocates argued that the bill would increase the pool of people’s electronic communications flowing to the military and the secretive National Security Agency (NSA). The White House issued a veto threat a day before the bill was taken up on the House floor for a vote, saying it repeals "important provisions of electronic surveillance law without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties safeguards."
The bill went untouched by the Senate last year. The upper chamber is expected to revive its work on cybersecurity legislation this year.
Rockefeller, Feinstein and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the new chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said enacting legislation would be a priority this year and introduced a resolution stating that cyberattacks are one of the most serious threats facing the United States.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle … z2KdHTvDbk

Statistics: Posted by yoda — Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:33 pm


View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com

Framing the Issue: We Need Growth, Not Taxes

By Roger Pilon

Today POLITICO Arena asks:

Is Grover Norquist right to warn of a looming tea party backlash?

My response:

Despite the mainstream media’s constant vilification of the Tea Party, especially in contrast with its treatment of the “Occupy” mobs, the movement remains a potent, albeit uneven, force in American politics. It reflects the responsible part of the American electorate, the part that recognizes the gravity of the nation’s economic and moral situation, unlike those Democrats and establishment Republicans for whom power is their only guiding principle.

Dutifully reporting White House talking points, the media that filters our public discourse has portrayed the “fiscal cliff” as a tragedy to be avoided only by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, failing which everyone will pay higher taxes, the economy will be plunged into another recession, and the blame will fall squarely on Republicans, the party of the rich, for their obstinate protection of their wealthy benefactors. Our demagogue-in-chief says it daily — as do some establishment Republicans. It must be true.

Rarely do we hear that the only way we can hope to reverse our economic course — the product of decades of irresponsible politics — is by growing the economy — precisely what raising taxes, especially on the productive class, will undermine. Tea Party folks may have difficulty breaking through the conventional clatter, but they know how to make those Republicans who subscribe to it pay the price.

Framing the Issue: We Need Growth, Not Taxes is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog

View full post on Cato @ Liberty

Farm Subsidies Are Not A Partisan Issue, Episode 2153

By Sallie James

Further evidence of the nonpartisan nature of support for agriculture subsidies emerged yesterday, when Bloomberg’s Alan Bjerga published a story showing that of the 10 biggest subsidy-receiving counties, 9 of them voted for Mitt Romney (friend of subsidized agriculture himself, it should be noted):

“Farmers vote Republican but they like Democratic programs,” said former Representative Charles Stenholm of Texas, who served as the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee while in office and is now a lobbyist. “They consider themselves to be conservative, and if something is important to them, then they don’t consider that liberal.”

…Farmers “tend to be more conservative” in general than other voters, supporting less regulation while still wanting to maintain a safety net for food and livestock producers, said Robert Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the biggest U.S. farmer group. Still, the farm vote shouldn’t be dismissed by the White House, he said. “That doesn’t mean there aren’t large numbers who supported” the president, he said.

Mr Stallman clearly knows which side his bread is buttered on, doesn’t he? No need to alienate the most powerful man in the free world just because of a few pesky votes!

This is not the first time Republicans have exhibited hypocrisy on farm subsidies. In the aftermath of the 2010 congressional elections, a few “tea party” Republicans voiced support for farm subsidies, even though they are a terrific (in both senses of the word) example of all that is wrong with the bloated federal government. But now we have evidence based on voting records that—as I guess is supposed to be the case in a democracy—our congressional “leaders” are really just giving the voters what they want.

And giving it to them good and hard.

Farm Subsidies Are Not A Partisan Issue, Episode 2153 is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog

View full post on Cato @ Liberty

Farm Subsides Are Not A Partisan Issue, Episode 2153

By Sallie James

Further evidence of the nonpartisan nature of support for agriculture subsidies emerged yesterday, when Bloomberg’s Alan Bjerga published a story showing that of the 10 biggest subsidy-receiving counties, 9 of them voted for Mitt Romney (friend of subsidized agriculture himself, it should be noted):

“Farmers vote Republican but they like Democratic programs,” said former Representative Charles Stenholm of Texas, who served as the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee while in office and is now a lobbyist. “They consider themselves to be conservative, and if something is important to them, then they don’t consider that liberal.”

…Farmers “tend to be more conservative” in general than other voters, supporting less regulation while still wanting to maintain a safety net for food and livestock producers, said Robert Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the biggest U.S. farmer group. Still, the farm vote shouldn’t be dismissed by the White House, he said. “That doesn’t mean there aren’t large numbers who supported” the president, he said.

Mr Stallman clearly knows which side his bread is buttered on, doesn’t he? No need to alienate the most powerful man in the free world just because of a few pesky votes!

This is not the first time Republicans have exhibited hypocrisy on farm subsidies. In the aftermath of the 2010 congressional elections, a few “tea party” Republicans voiced support for farm subsidies, even though they are a terrific (in both senses of the word) example of all that is wrong with the bloated federal government. But now we have evidence based on voting records that—as I guess is supposed to be the case in a democracy—our congressional “leaders” are really just giving the voters what they want.

And giving it to them good and hard.

Farm Subsides Are Not A Partisan Issue, Episode 2153 is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog

View full post on Cato @ Liberty

Stumping for Waste: Amtrak Subsidies Become a Campaign Issue

Last year 30 million passengers road Amtrak, which on September 10 announced monthly ridership records for the last 11 months. That should come as no surprise with gasoline above $4 a gallon in much of the country. But Amtrak bosses, doubtless looking for more federal handouts, left out a few realities.

Last year Amtrak lost more than $450 million and the federal government pitched in $562 million just to keep the operations side rolling. Tack on $650 million for capital costs in 2011 and you have the better part of Amtrak’s $1.5 billion subsidy, about $50 per ticket. The massive federal subsidies continue regardless of ridership levels and other developments.

Despite its monopoly, Amtrak lost nearly $1 billion – $834 million, more than $80 million a year – on food and drink services since 2002, much of it due to fraud and theft. Despite federal dollars Amtrak is cutting key services in some areas and late arrivals continue to be a problem. Even seven-figure subsidies can’t make trains arrive on time.

Amtrak has become a campaign issue with Vice President Joe Biden who describes himself as “the biggest railroad guy you’ve ever known,” stumping for the subsidized system that recently renamed a station after him. Republicans claim they want to end Amtrak subsidies and privatize the system. In June, however, the GOP-controlled House increased Amtrak’s overall funding by $384 million to offset reductions in operating subsidies. That doesn’t sound like privatization.

One pro-Amtrak editorial conceded that “Even with a major infusion of federal funding Amtrak would be years away from matching European passenger rail systems, which include bullet trains that can run at top speeds in excess of 200 mph.” Speed and ridership aside, Amtrak remains years away from breaking even and that is unlikely to change.

California, meanwhile, wants to build a bullet train and in near-bankruptcy looks to federal funds. A major champion of the project is governor Jerry Brown, a former presidential candidate who in his first stint as governor during the 1970s pushed for California to have its own space program.

View full post on MyGovCost | Government Cost Calculator

Police State • Presidential race boils down to one issue

Presidential race boils down to one issue
Published: Sunday, August 19, 2012

THERE’S really only one issue in the 2012 presidential race; all the rest is trivia. That one issue is: Do you want to be in control of your life, or do you want government to control your life?

If you want to keep control over your life, then do not re-elect Barack Obama to a second term in the White House. Hold tight to your liberty.

If, however, you want your life defined, channeled and limited by Obama’s “we can’t wait” executive orders and the bureaucratic rules of government agencies, then Obama is your guy. But if he is re-elected, by the end of his second term in 2016, you won’t be living in the United States anymore. At least not the United States that gave your grandparents, parents and you the liberty to rise to the level of your dreams and talents.

The America of Obama’s “fundamental transformation” is one where if you’re successful, “you didn’t build that” success, and you are wrong if you want to keep your hard-earned income for your family and donate it to charitable causes as you see fit.

Obama’s America will be a place where other people who are less talented or less hard-working will have a government-backed claim on your income in this new era of “redistribution of wealth.”

This government will know how to spend your money better than you do, so more and more of your income will be taken from you in taxes, or penalties, or whatever they call it. Just don’t call it yours. It’s your job to feed the ever-growing government with your money, so that the bureaucrats and the politicians can spread it to whomever they see fit, however they decide, because, of course, they know better than you.

This won’t all happen overnight. Slow and steady is the preferred way of conducting their form of revolution. Each step will be cheered along as being perfectly reasonable, and the “American” thing to do. But one day you will suddenly realize that being American isn’t what it used to be back in 2012, and there’s no path back to home.

Being “American” will have become pretty much an unappealing gray, mush of mediocrity and few choices.

The Obama-like mindset that puts the state over the individual in an attempt to perfect society is a pernicious sickness that leads to the death of such societies: witness, the Soviet Union, which died 20 years ago, after three quarters of a century of oppressing and murdering its own population in the name of the state.

During that same period of world history, the United States of America grew strong and took its place at the head of the free world. America’s rise to superpower was fueled by men and families of vision, with the freedom to transform their dreams into reality, unhindered by suffocating, and punishing government regulations and red tape. It was a place where ordinary hard-working people could earn a paycheck, keep most of it to use as they saw fit, and give their children an even better standard of living.
That’s the America that Obama has vowed to “fundamentally transform” — and that’s the heart of this 2012 election.

Obama never said what he meant by “transform” in 2008, and now in 2012 it’s clear from his record that by “transform” he means “destroy.”

Destroy by ramping up the national debt to economy crushing proportions. Destroy by killing Americans’ ability to grow a business, buy a home, educate a family, save for a good retirement.

Destroy by sidelining Congress and dictating economically stifling environmental regulations and other business-choking rules. The longtime landmark electric power plant on Lake Erie’s shore in Avon Lake is to be shut down because Obama regulations make it a losing proposition to operate.

Destroy by infecting the world’s best medical system with ruinously expensive Obamacare. It will drive doctors out of practice while dumping millions of additional people into a system of Byzantine complexity without accountability. It will fail massively in its original goal of providing health care to all.

Destroy by abusing the Constitution to dictate by presidential executive orders and by executive agency rules: think of the order halting deportation of illegal aliens who arrived as children; think of the contraception coverage mandate violating religious rights issued by Obama appointee and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Destroy by slashing our military budget and leaving us with a dangerously weakened national security capability. History shows that evil leaders among the world’s nations are emboldened when they sense weakness. Obama aims to please Russian dictator Vladimir Putin with his “flexibility” after he is re-elected. Putin’s courts just threw a three-girl punk rock band into prison for two years for a brief protest against Putin’s co-opting of the Russian Orthodox Church. In response, a third-string Washington flunky noted that the White House was “disappointed” by the prison sentences. Putin spits on Obama and on liberty, and he is emboldened.

Obama hoodwinked the nation in 2008, and he thinks he can do it again in 2012 by buying votes with government benefits and the lure of medical care. The more government owns your life, the more repressive it becomes; that’s a given that flows from human nature. Control, when left unchecked, is a one-way street to tighter and tighter control over your life.

That’s what the Nov. 6 election is all about: Do you want to be in control of your life, or do you want government to control your life?

Tom Skoch is editor of The Morning Journal and www.MorningJournal.com, where his Tell the Editor blog appears. He is on Twitter as MJ_Tom_Skoch and can be contacted by e-mail at tskoch@morningjournal.com.

http://morningjournal.com/articles/2012 … =fullstory

Statistics: Posted by yoda — Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:17 am


View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com

Eurobonds: The Issue That Could Shatter Europe

Would you pool your debt with a bunch of debt addicts that have no intention of reducing their wild spending habits?  Of course you wouldn’t.  But that is exactly what Germany is being asked to do.  Increasingly, “eurobonds” are being touted as the best long-term solution to the financial crisis in Europe.  These eurobonds would represent jointly issued debt by all 17 members of the eurozone.  This debt would also be guaranteed by all 17 members of the eurozone.  This would allow all countries in the eurozone to enjoy the same credit rating that Germany does, and borrowing costs for nations such as Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain would plummet.  But borrowing costs for Germany would rise substantially.  In fact, it is being estimated that Germany could be facing an extra 50 billion euros a year in interest expenses.  So over ten years that would come to about 500 billion euros.  Needless to say, Germany is not thrilled about this idea.  But new French President Francois Hollande is pushing eurobonds very hard, and he has the support of the OECD, the IMF and many top Italian politicians.  In the end, this could be the key to the future of the eurozone.  If the Germans give in and decide that they are willing to deeply subsidize their profligate neighbors indefinitely, then the euro could potentially be saved.  If not, then this issue could end up shattering Europe.

It is easy to try to portray the Germans as the “bad guys” in all this, but try to step into their shoes for a minute.

If you had some relatives that were spending wildly and that had already run up $100,000 in credit card debt, would you be a co-signer on their next credit card application?

Of course not.

The recent elections in France and Greece made it abundantly clear that the populations of those two countries are rejecting austerity.

Instead, they want a return to the debt-fueled prosperity that they have always enjoyed in the past.

Unfortunately, they need German help to be able to do that.

That is why new French President Francois Hollande is pushing so hard for eurobonds.  He wants the rest of the eurozone to be able to “piggyback” on Germany’s sterling credit rating so that everyone can return to the days of wild borrowing and spending.

But Germans greatly fear what a co-mingling of eurozone debt could eventually mean.  Not only would Germany’s borrowing costs rise dramatically, but there is also a concern that the rest of the eurozone could eventually pull Germany down with them.

Austria, Finland and the Netherlands are also against eurobonds, but the key is Germany.

For now, Germany is not budging on the issue of eurobonds at all.  The following is a statement that German Chancellor Angela Merkel made during a recent speech in Berlin….

“It’s just about not spending more than you collect. It’s astonishing that this simple fact leads to such debates”

And she is right.

Why is it so controversial to insist that people not spend more than they bring in?

But this is the problem that is created when you create a false lifestyle fueled by debt that goes on for decades.  People become accustomed to that false standard of living and they throw hissy fits when that false standard of living begins to disappear.

The Germans don’t want to make great sacrifices just so the Greeks, the French and the Italians can go back to borrowing and spending wildly.

Why would the Germans want to do that?

And as a recent CNN article noted, German politicians believe that eurobonds are explicitly banned under existing EU treaties anyway….

“There is no way of introducing them under the current [EU] treaties. Indeed, there is an explicit ban on them,” one senior German official said, adding Berlin would not drop its opposition in the foreseeable future. “That’s a firm conviction which will not change in June.”

But politicians such as Hollande are complaining that austerity could seriously damage living standards throughout Europe.

And Hollande is right about that.

When you inflate your standard of living with borrowed money for many years, eventually there comes a time when you must pay a great price.

Anyone that has ever been in trouble with credit card debt knows how painful that can be.

It is shameful for the rest of Europe to be pleading and begging Germany to help them.

They should take care of themselves.

As I wrote about the other day, Greece would be much better off in the long run if it left the euro and created a new financial system based on sound financial principles.

But in the financial press all over the world there are calls for someone to come up with a “plan” to “rescue” Europe.  For example, the following is from a recent Wall Street Journal article….

There have been two main responses to the crisis: austerity, and kicking cans down roads. Austerity, in case you haven’t noticed, is so last year. It’s out. Which means that unless something else is found, some other comprehensive plan, the other main response, can kicking, is going to run out of road.

Just about everybody backed the idea of eurobonds, except for the Germans, and since they’re the ones with all the money, they’re kind of the only ones whose vote counts anyway. So, it’s time to go to plan B. Only there’s no Plan B, and there’s no time, either.

If Germany does not agree to subsidize the rest of the eurozone, will that ultimately mean that the eurozone will be forced to break up?

Probably.

And that would cause a huge amount of pain in the short-term.

But the euro never was a good idea in the first place.  It was foolish to expect a monetary union to work smoothly in the absence of fiscal and political union.

And to be honest, the entire world would be a better place with less European integration.  The EU has become a horrifying bureaucratic nightmare and it would be wonderful if the entire thing broke up.

But for now, the only thing that is in danger is the euro.

Increasingly, it is looking like Greece may be the first country to exit the euro.

This week, former Greek Prime Minister Lucas Papademos admitted that the Greek government is considering making preparations for Greece to leave the euro.

Not only that, Reuters is reporting that top officials in the eurozone are now working on “contingency plans” for a Greek exit from the euro….

Each euro zone country will have to prepare a contingency plan for the eventuality of Greece leaving the single currency, euro zone sources said on Wednesday.

Officials reached the consensus on Monday afternoon during an hour-long teleconference of the Eurogroup Working Group (EWG).

As well as confirmation from three euro zone officials, Reuters has seen a memo drawn up by one member state detailing some of the elements that euro zone countries should consider.

So obviously a Greek exit from the euro has become a very real possibility.

A recent Bloomberg article detailed how a Greek exit from the euro could play out during the 46 hours that global financial markets are closed over the weekend….

Greece may have only a 46-hour window of opportunity should it need to plot a route out of the euro.

That’s how much time the country’s leaders would probably have to enact any departure from the single currency while global markets are largely closed, from the end of trading in New York on a Friday to Monday’s market opening in Wellington, New Zealand, based on a synthesis of euro-exit scenarios from 21 economists, analysts and academics.

Over the two days, leaders would have to calm civil unrest while managing a potential sovereign default, planning a new currency, recapitalizing the banks, stemming the outflow of capital and seeking a way to pay bills once the bailout lifeline is cut. The risk is that the task would overwhelm any new government in a country that has had to be rescued twice since 2010 because it couldn’t manage its public finances.

Right now, nobody is quite sure what is going to happen next and panic is spreading throughout the European financial system.

At this point, everyone is afraid of what is going to happen if Greece is forced to start issuing drachmas again.  As CNBC is reporting, some big European corporations are already beginning to implement their own “contingency plans”….

Big tourism operators like TUI of Germany and Kuoni of Britain are demanding the addition of so-called drachma clauses to contracts with Greek hoteliers should the euro no longer be in use here. British newspapers are filled with advice columns for travelers worried about the wisdom of planning a vacation in Greece, or even Portugal and Spain, should the euro crisis worsen. Large multinational companies like Vodafone Group, Reckitt Benckiser and Diageo have taken to sweeping cash every day from euro accounts back to Britain to limit their exposure.

Sadly, this is probably only a small taste of the financial anarchy that is coming.

France is likely to keep pushing hard for the creation of eurobonds.

Germany is likely to keep fiercely resisting this.

At some point, a moment of crisis will arrive and a call will have to be made.

Will Germany give in or will political turmoil end up shattering Europe?

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.

View full post on The Economic Collapse

American • MF Global: The Issue Is Fraud

09 DECEMBER 2011

MF Global: The Issue Is Fraud and the Attempt to Cover Up a Wider Circle of Involvement

Janet Tavakoli does her usual great job of cutting to the heart of the matter. Below is an excerpt of her Huffington Post piece on MF Global today.

I keep thinking that nothing will shock me anymore in this US financial fraud fest. But the coverup of the MF Global stealing of customer money in a cloud of legal doubletalk, supposedly the one pristine and untouchable principle on Wall Street, is almost too much.

I suspect that this media and legal spin machine referenced in Tavakoli’s analysis is as much a coverup of the recipients of the customer money at the banks, and similar brokerage and banking schemes operating out of the City of London, as it is the actual misdeeds of the Corzine crowd.
Fraus est celare fraudem
And as sacred as a former US Senator may be, if one of the TBTF Banks is involved as the circumstances seem to indicate, this is the holy of holies in the Pax Americana.

I have heard speculation that this practice of misusing and leveraging customer funds is so widespread that an immediate cessation would cause a sharp contraction in the ‘shadow banking system.’

It is NEVER permissible to take customer money and use it for your own purposes and proprietary trading, exposing it to risk of loss. The idea behind this latest scheme evolved from the use of funds in margin accounts in order to generate a safe return for the loan risk taken by the broker. Give these jokers an inch and they will take your shirt.

This gambling with customer money is a distortion of the principle of hypothecation and the US regulators need to shut this rathole down immediately through enforcement of the law. Greed must be tempered by fear, if not by shame and the impulse to honesty.

And the regulators may wish to consider that when they continually turn a blind eye to glaring instances of market manipulation they foster a climate of lawlessness that opens the door for widespread fraud amongst normally law abiding participants. It becomes a competition in larceny and a moveable feast of fraud.
“Poverty wants, but greed wants everything, and more.”
Customers run for safety, from one place to another, not sure what or whom they can trust. One thing they may do is to stop trading on margin, and shut down their margin accounts, going to strictly cash investing wherever possible. And for your long term investments, you can take possession of the physical shares and keep them in a safer place than an account statement from any of the TBTF banks and hyper-hypothecating commodity brokers.

This will be a good test for the floundering Obama Administration, as he changes his tune to try and reverse his slide in the polls in an election year, and for the Republican opposition party, which cares nothing for the consumer and average investor with less than a million in yearly income. Let’s see what they do, not what they say. Maybe it is time for a third party President.

The real risk here is that the greed and coverup of these fraud is going to scare the customers away from US markets, and bring them back to the days of the 1970s in which the small speculator, sick of being abused and cheated, stayed away from the financial markets in droves.

Perhaps they can start giving origami lessons in the pits, for those dull moments between the open and the close.

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/

Statistics: Posted by yoda — Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:06 am


View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com