FedUpUSA

Archive for March 31st, 2010

King World News: This Could Be The Biggest Fraud in The History Of The World

(This is a MUST LISTEN!)
In this interview with GATA we continue the saga after just having interviewed Andrew Maguire, the whistleblower out of London. This gives a short and long-term view down the rabbit hole through the eyes of 3 of the GATA board members. GATA was so heavily involved not only in breaking the news at the CFTC meeting about the the metals manipulation but also at the same time quite possibly uncovering the largest fraud in history. The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee was organized in January 1999 to advocate and undertake litigation against illegal collusion to control the price and supply of gold and related financial securities. The committee arose from essays by Bill Murphy, a financial commentator, and by Chris Powell, a newspaper editor in Connecticut, published at Murphy’s Internet site, lemetropolecafe.com. In this GATA Roundtable we will have Bill Murphy, Chris Powell and Adrian Douglas.

Bill Murphy, at 1:40:
“six years ago my car was stolen, my website was hacked, and I was beat up with brass knuckles”

US Papers have been “bought”. Mainstream news did not have one word of this historic fraud! “All my news and radio interviews have been cancelled when I stated I had a bombshell to explain”.

Audio Listen Here..  (please be patient, their server seems to be overloaded)

Irish Banks Need $43 Billion in New Capital as “Worst Fears Have Been Surpassed”

Inquiring minds note Ireland’s finance minister is shocked to discover Irish Banks Need $43 Billion in New Capital on account of ‘Appalling’ Lending.

Ireland’s banks need $43 billion in new capital after “appalling” lending decisions left the country’s financial system on the brink of collapse.

“Our worst fears have been surpassed,” Finance Minister Brian Lenihan said in the parliament in Dublin yesterday. “Irish banking made appalling lending decisions that will cost the taxpayer dearly for years to come.”

The agency aims to cleanse banks of toxic loans, the legacy of plunging real-estate prices and the country’s deepest ever recession. In all, it will buy loans with a book value of 80 billion euros ($107 billion), about half the size of the economy.

“The information that has emerged from the banks in the course of the NAMA process is truly shocking,” Lenihan said.

Dublin-based Allied Irish needs to raise 7.4 billion euros to meet the capital targets, while cross-town rival Bank of Ireland will need 2.66 billion euros. Anglo Irish Bank Corp., nationalized last year, may need as much 18.3 billion euros. Customer-owned lenders Irish Nationwide and EBS will need 2.6 billion euros and 875 million euros, respectively.

“The regulator is taking the bank system by the scruff of the neck,” said James Forbes, senior equity strategist at Irish Life Investment Managers in Dublin. “Allied Irish has a lot of work to do to avoid majority state ownership, Bank of Ireland less so.”

Ireland may not be able to afford to pump more money into the banks. The budget deficit widened to 11.7 percent of gross domestic product last year, almost four times the European Union limit, and the government spent the past year trying to convince investors the state is in control of its finances.

“The bank losses, awful as they are, represent a one-off hit. It’s water under the bridge,” said Ciaran O’Hagan, a Paris-based fixed-income strategist at Societe Generale SA. “What’s of more concern for investors in government bonds is the budget deficit. Slashing the chronic overspending and raising taxation by the Irish state is vital.”

Economic Hit Parade

US: States have $5.17 Trillion in Pension Obligations, Gap is $3.23 Trillion; State Debt as Share of GDP

China: 10 Signs of Speculative Mania

Spain, UK, Japan, Greece: Eurozone Structural Problems; Spain’s Economic Woes; Pain In Britain; Deflation Persists In Japan

US, Canada: California USA vs. Ontario Canada – Which State (Province) Is In Worse Shape? Canadian Banks vs. US Banks Comparison

Australia: Money Madness In Oz

Is any major country in good shape?

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

The Ugly Truth If You’re Looking For Work

Posted by Karl Denninger

A post on the forum jogged me on this Ticker that I was writing months ago and never finished…. and pushed it back to the top of the line.  This is an echo of a topic I’ve raised a couple of times on Blogtalk as well, from my experience as a CEO and the “negotiator in chief” with health insurance companies during that time.

First, let me tell you how health insurance actually works from the employer perspective, because most people simply don’t understand this.

You probably have a line on your pay stub that says something like “Health Insurance: $100″ or similar.  You think that’s what it costs on your “group plan.”

You’re wrong.

The rules for deductibility of insurance expenses provided to employees are relatively simple but have profound implications.  Specifically:

• Employers cannot charge differential deductions.  That is, if I am going to hit your check for $50, I must hit everyone’s check for $50.  (I can have two deductions – one for “individual” and one for “family” coverage, but I can’t charge two individuals different deduction rates.)

• The majority of the actual expense for any particular person must exceed half of the total for the premiums to be deductible by the business from a tax perspective – that is, for the business to pay them with pre-tax dollars.

But in point of fact employees are individually rated.  That is, a 20 year old male with no medical problems – that is, in excellent health – might cost $200 a month in premiums.  The same policy with the same coverage for a morbidly obese 60 year old woman on multiple medications for chronic conditions might cost $1,000 – or more.

The law says I cannot deduct more than $100 a month or I can’t write off the cost of the insurance against gross income (that is, I can’t take the expense pre-tax.)  The law also says I can’t discriminate.  Therefore, if I want to deduct the premium expenses (in total) pretax I cannot deduct more than $100 monthly for “health insurance.”

Now consider the 20 year old kid.  He costs me, the employer, $100 for health benefits (he pays the other half.)  But the obese woman costs me $900 – nine times as much!

The law says that I cannot ask you certain questions when you come in for an interview.  For instance, I cannot ask if you have dependents, I cannot ask about your intention to have children (if you’re a woman) and a whole host of other topics.  It is explicitly unlawful for me to make such inquiries, as they evidence potential for me to engage in illegal discrimination in hiring.

But if you think this sort of decision-making doesn’t go on – when the impact is over $8,000 per year between two employees in cost to the employer – you’re nuts.  It most certainly does.

The law in this case is outrageous.  What many call “discrimination” is in fact nothing more than a cold economic calculation.  If I am hiring someone to do a job that pays $20/hour, that is, $40,000 in gross wages for 2,000 man-hours of work annually, a “hidden” embedded cost differential in hiring of $9,600 ($800/mo in embedded health insurance cost!) is a 25% increase in the cost of employing one person .vs. the other.  To make it “unlawful” for employers to consider legitimate costs that one employee imposes .vs. another is ridiculous – but it is, in fact, the law.

So here’s the deal folks: While I can’t ask you about your health status nor if you have dependents, nothing prohibits you from putting that information on your resume if it is to your advantage – and it is, if you are in excellent health and have no dependents.

Will this matter? 

In this economy you better believe it.  This has been true forever, but it has become even more true with the passage of Obama’s “Health Care” law.

So if you’re unemployed and have these cost-impacting facts in your favor, make damn sure you list them. 

An employer cannot ask about this, nor can you realistically discuss this in an interview, but absolutely nothing prohibits you from listing this as a “personal attribute” on your resume.

If nothing else, in a tie-breaking circumstance it will get you the interview you need to have a shot at the job.

PS: Whatever you do, don’t lie.  Prohibited topic of discussion or not, any false statement on a resume is a perfectly-legal cause for you to be fired for cause, and not only does that cost you your job it also makes you ineligible for unemployment!