There is an old saying, "when in doubt follow the money." These days investors have lots of doubt about pretty much everything (if not so much money). And with data from the government increasingly bearing the Quality Control stamp of approval of the Beijing Communist Party, there is much doubt in store courtesy of an administration which will stop at nothing in its competition with China as to who can blow the biggest asset bubble the fastest, data integrity be damned. Undoubtedly, of all government released data, the most important is, and continues to be, anything relating to unemployment. Which is why this is precisely where the government's propaganda armada is focused. Yet in matters of (un)employment, the ultimate authority is, luckily, the Treasury, and not the Fed. "Luckily," because when it comes to making money "difficult to follow" Tim Geithner's office still has much to learn. Which is why when we looked at the Daily Treasury Statement data we were very surprised: because it indicates that the government could be underrepresenting employment data by up to 32%!

The suddenly very prominent topic of Unemployment Insurance, whether it pertains to Initial Claims or to Emergency Unemployment, has one very useful characteristic: it is based on "money", specifically money outflows from the US treasury which goes to fund the weekly "paychecks" of those that have not been in the workforce for well over a year. And as pointed out earlier, money can be followed. The US Treasury presents a daily in and outflow of all money sources in the Daily Treasury Statement prepared by the Financial Management Service. And in the plethora of data presented here, probably the most relevant and useful data series is the Withdrawals quantified in the form of Unemployment Insurance Benefits.

Compiling the monthly data of Treasury Disbursements for Unemployment Insurance Benefits and then superimposing it with the total number of people receiving Insurance Benefits as disclosed by the Department of Labor is a useful exercise, as the two series have historically correlated with an R² of well over 0.90. Below is an indexed comparison of UIB outlays and Unemployment Insurance Receivers for Fiscal 2007.

Surely this is logical: the more unemployed collecting benefits from the government, the more the outlays.

Yet what struck us is the when this chart is presented from 2007 until today. Something unusual emerges. An absolute chart of the money spent by the government superimposed with the total insured unemployed is presented below:

Yet the best way to see what this chart indicates is on an indexed basis with a September 2007 baseline.

What becomes obvious is that a correlation which used to be almost 1.000 has diverged massively, and now the relative outlays surpass what the government highlights are the number of people actually collecting benefits by 32%! This implies two things: either the average unemployment monthly paycheck has surged, which is not the case, or there is some gray unemployment area which is not disclosed by the government, and which accounts for a shadow unemployed insurance economy. Because while the DOL indicates there are about 9.5 million total unemployed, for the correlation to return to its near 1.0 trendline the number of unemployed on benefits has to be 14 million. At least this is what the actual cash outlays by the Treasury suggest: the government spent a record $14.7 billion on Unemployment Insurance Benefits as of December 30, a 24% jump sequentially from the $11.8 billion in November. Yet the DOL has disclosed a mere 1.7% increase in those to whom insurance benefits are paid: from 9.4 million to just under 9.6 million. To put the $14.7 billion number in perspective, in December the Federal Government paid a total of $14 billion ($700 million less) in Federal Salaries! A cynic could be temped to say that effectively the number of people employed by the government is double what is disclosed. A yet bigger cynic could claim that America is now the biggest socialist state in the world. Both cynics would not necessarily be wrong. 

And some more perspective: in calendar 2009 the government has paid $140 billion in Unemployment Insurance Benefits. This is yet  another economic stimulus that nobody in the administration discusses, yet which undoubtedly has the biggest impact on the economy, as all those millions unemployed can moderate their pain courtesy of a passable weekly check from the government which should just about cover the rent and beer. Which is why more than anything, Obama is dead set on extending insurance benefit payments in perpetuity: because if the 10 million official and 14 million unofficial people who are on benefits (not to mention the tens of millions of unemployed unlucky enough to even get their weekly allowance from Uncle Sam) start thinking about their true predicament and their real "employability", then a landslide loss by this administration at the mid-term elections will actually be an upside surprise to what it can objectively expect.

h/t Michael

Those of you counting on getting your old assembly line job back in Detroit can forget it.

The recent eight year forecast published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that 4.19 million jobs will be gained in the US in professional and business services, followed by 4 million health care and social assistance jobs, while 1.2 million will be lost in manufacturing. This is great news for website designers, Internet entrepreneurs,  registered nurses, and masseuses in California, but grim tidings for traditional metal bashers in the rust belt manufacturing states like Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio.

I’m so old now that I am no longer asked for a driver’s license to get into a night club. Instead, they ask for a carbon dating. The real challenge for we aged career advisors is that probably half of these new service jobs haven’t even been invented yet, and if they can be described, it is only in a cheesy science fiction paperback with a half dressed blond on the front cover. After all, who heard of a webmaster, a cell phone contract sales person, or a blogger 40 years ago? Where are all these jobs going to? You guessed it, China, and other lower waged, upstream manufacturing countries like Vietnam, where the Middle Kingdom is increasingly subcontracting its own offshoring.

These forecasts may be optimistic, because they assume that Americans can continue to claw their way up the value chain in the global economy, and not get stuck along the way, as the Japanese did in the nineties. The US desperately needs no less than 27 million new jobs to soak up natural population and immigration growth and get us back to a traditional 5% unemployment rate. The only way that is going to happen is for America to invent something new and big, and fast. Personal computers achieved this during the eighties, and the Internet did the trick in the nineties. The fact that we’ve done diddly squat since 2000 but create a giant paper chase explains why job growth since then has been zero, real wage growth has been negative, and American standards of living are falling.

Alternative energy and biotechnology are two possible drivers for a new economy. Unfortunately, the last administration did everything it could to stymie progress in both these fields, coddling big oil so China could steal a lead in several alternative technologies, and starving stem cell researchers of Federal cash, ceding the lead there to others. While the current crop of politicians extol the virtues of education, the reality is that we are dumbing down our public education system. How do we invent the next “new” thing, while shrinking the University of California’s budget by 20% two years in a row? If my local high school can’t afford new computers, how is it going to feed Silicon Valley with computer literate work force? The US has a “Michael Jackson” economy. It’s still living like a rock star, but hasn’t had a hit in 20 years.

China can have all the $20 a day jobs it wants. But if it accelerates its move up the value chain, as it clearly aspires to do, then America is in for even harder times. I’ll be hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst. How do you say “unemployment check” in Mandarin?

For some reason Zero Hedge is prone to take a great deal of heat (both directly radiated and reflected) whenever we opine on the (rather obvious to us) prospect that interest rates might actually (quelle surprise) rise in this environment.  Today, rather than engage in "we told you so" gloating, or endure the repetitive pleadings of commentators that this or that Treasury auction was really a success if you just look a little deeper at the figures, we'll just quote Bloomberg quoting other fixed income observers on today's auction of two years, in an article "ambiguously" titled "U.S. 2-Year Yields Highest Since October After $44 Billion Sale."

Treasury two-year note yields reached the highest levels since October as an investor class that includes foreign central banks bought the least of the debt in five months at today’s record-tying $44 billion auction.

 

Indirect bidders purchased 34.8 percent of the notes, the lowest amount since July, and below the average for the past 10 sales of 45 percent. Treasuries of all maturities have fallen 3.6 percent this year, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch indexes. That would be the worst performance since at least 1978, when Merrill began collecting the data.

We aren't really sure how this will be spun into a "good thing,"™ but we are sure that someone will find a way.  Back to you, CNBC.

I hate bankers and so should you.  Why? Because bankers steal a little bit of Christmas cheer every year. For the past several years, bankers have stolen a lot of Christmas cheer. Like the Grinch from Dr. Seuss’s famous children’s tale, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, bankers have hearts two sizes too small, and by means of burglary, they do their best to deprive everyone of Christmas every year. Only unlike the Grinch, despite stealing from people every year, bankers never learn and never reform, they never return to the people the vast amounts of money they stole from them, and they are cold-hearted and arrogant enough to claim that they are doing “God’s work” (as stated by Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO Lloyd Blankfein, when in reality, they do much more harm to society as a whole than good. And this makes the majority of bankers worse than the even the loathed Grinch himself.

Since the institution of banking was founded, bankers have been guilty of deceit, fraud and theft. During Biblical times, “Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers [bankers]..And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, my house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? But ye have made it a den of thieves.” (Mark 11:15-17)

Fast forward almost a couple thousand years later, and bankers were still committing the same theft. In fact, over a period of eighteen hundred years, bankers learned nothing from being cast out by Jesus from the temples, and they continued to commit such questionable acts of morality that even a man of very questionable character himself showed nothing but contempt for them. Though historians noted that former US President Jackson committed numerous hateful acts against Choctaw, Chikasaw, and Cherokee American Indians, Jackson despised bankers so much, that in front of a delegation of bankers, he stated the following:

“Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out.”

Fast forward another one hundred and eighty years, and we discover that bankers have failed to evolve even a tiny iota from their deceitful nature. When ex-CEO and former US Secretary Henry Paulson lied to the American people and to US Congress by asking for more than $800 billion of funds for the purposes of helping American home owners and then committed the ultimate bait-and-switch fraud by handing this money to his banking friends, he epitomized the very warning Andrew Jackson levied against bankers in the 1800’s: “When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank.” In this case, Paulson acted beyond the normal level of immorality of bankers, and charged the banks’ losses to every single American citizen.  Unlike the Grinch, who repented from the error of his ways over a period of a few days, bankers have refused to repent for the unsound monetary system they have created for more than two thousand years!

To understand why Jesus threw bankers out of the temple, why a former governor of the Bank of England stated that banking “was born in sin”, and why Andrew Jackson, a focus of much hatred and contempt among American Indians, viewed bankers as so immoral, that despite his own immense character flaws, he made it his own personal crusade to throw out all bankers from US government, one must understand how bankers continually rob all citizens of their wealth every day. To state that bankers lie, deceive, rob and steal from all citizens every day is not an exaggeration. The means by which they do so today has drastically changed from the means they employed centuries ago, so this is why so few people understand that bankers continually rob them.  Most people don’t understand that bankers ensure the continual devaluation of the purchasing power of all money in the system by not only literally creating money out of nothing but also by creating money as debt.

This process, to which they cleverly assign the word “inflation” is in reality a tax that constitutes a direct theft of your savings, and no different than the tax British monarch King George imposed upon the American colonists that triggered the American Revolution. The bankers have only changed the mechanism by which they collect this tax, and the word that they use to describe this mechanism. In America, this hidden tax of inflation, which is a euphemism for the devaluation of the currency that sits in your savings account, is directly responsible for the following situation that Eric Schlosser described in his national bestseller, Fast Food Nation:

“It used to be, even in low income families, that the father worked and the mother stayed home to raise the children. Now it seems that no one’s home and that both parents work just to make ends meet, often holding down two or three jobs. Parents increasingly turn to the school for help, asking teachers to supply discipline and direction.”

The above paragraph described the family life of many families that lived in Middle America almost a decade ago. Due to an unsound monetary system that has led to relentless devaluation of the US dollar, the situation described above will explode in intensity and magnitude over the next five years, and affect everyone in America, no matter your income level and socio-economic status. As the US dollar continues to lose purchasing power, despite a current possible extended rally against the pound and Euro, middle-class America will sink into the ranks of the poor. If the world operated on a sound monetary system, even in low-income families, the mother could still stay home to raise the children. Today, even in middle-class families, thanks to bankers, the mother does not have the option to stay home and raise the children. When the situation of both parents working two or three jobs and their kids attending high school while working 20+ hours a week is still not enough to make ends meet, crime will explode in America during the next five years. It is the critical problems of these very families that the bankers are creating through their monetary policies that will come home to roost in America.

In reality, I don’t hold hatred in my heart for anyone. Christmas is a time for forgiveness and none among us are infallible and none among us are without sin. Yet, to be forgiven, those that continually do wrong must repent, and bankers have yet to do anything that demonstrates that they have even the slightest amount of regret and remorse for the economic upheaval and chaos that they have created throughout the world in recent years. The rich, though they may not care to understand the tale of How the Bankers Stole Christmas now, should make it their prerogative to understand this as soon as possible. Why? The current course the bankers have set us on has ensured that the rich will soon become victims of desperate masses of people in their country that will see a huge degradation in their quality of life due to the recent monetary policies bankers have elected to impose upon their citizens.  When large portions of the middle class are destroyed, masses of people that never considered stealing before, will steal and loot due to the simple instinct of survival, and a great battle between “the haves” and the “have nots” will ensue in future years in many developed countries, as crazy as this concept sounds today. Should the people choose to understand "How the Bankers Stole Christmas", the inevitable massive increase in crime that will accompany the sinking of the middle class into poverty can be avoided.

If instead, everyone chooses to buy into the propaganda of the bankers, then this same scenario, as crazy as it sounds today, will come true in the future just as the “crazy” stock market crashes I predicted in 2006 eventually materialized in 2008.  And the biggest culprit of this shameful scenario, should it materialize, will embarrassingly be our own refusal to see the truth about how bankers have commandeered today’s “modern” monetary system for their own benefit, and their own benefit only, to the detriment of every single citizen they claim to be helping. If one doubts the enormous reach of banker’s tentacles into governments, then perhaps now is a good time to review former IMF Chief Economist’s Simon Johnson’s brilliant article, “The Quiet Coup”.

Adam Smith, Charles Darwin and George Washington are not only rolling in their graves, they are dancing the macarena. A new study by the UMich School of Business has found what everyone has known since the crisis began, if not centuries prior: that the biggest, crappiest banks were guaranteed to get more bailout funding the more political ties they had (and more kickbacks they had offered). Is this sufficient to claim that capitalism in its purest sense has been corrupted beyond repair, courtesy of political intervention and constant pandering? Probably not, but it sure makes a damn good argument. In any case, the data is sufficient for all bears to start keeping a track of which banks are increasing their lobbying efforts and funding: those are the ones where the greatest weakness is likely still to be uncovered (if it hasn't already). And while the political relationship probably is not a big surprise to any realistic readers, another finding of the study makes a solid case for abolition of the "apolitical" Federal Reserve:

A new study by Ross professors Ran Duchin and Denis Sosyura found that banks with connections to members of congressional finance committees and banks whose executives served on Federal Reserve boards were more likely to receive funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the federal government's program to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector.

The unsupervised Federal Reserve gets to make or break banks, presumably under the gun of its one and only master, Goldman Sachs, which has already destroyed its major historical competitors: Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. This is a sufficient condition to not only audit the central bank but to immediately seek its abolition, and also to commence anti-trust proceedings against Goldman Sachs which is not only a monopoly, but by extension has veto power over the very regulatory mechanism that is supposed to keep it "fair and honest." The system is truly broken.

More findings from the study:

Further, their research shows that TARP investment amounts were positively related to banks' political contributions and lobbying expenditures, and that, overall, the effect of political influence was strongest for poorly performing banks.

Can someone reminds us what the core premise of capitalism is again, and why we pretend to live in anything other than a hard core socialist society?

One of the professors of the study had this to say:

"Our results show that political connections play an important role in a firm's access to capital. The effects of political ties on federal capital investment are strongest for companies with weaker fundamentals, lower liquidity and poorer performance — which suggests that political ties shift capital allocation towards underperforming institutions."

The US financial system now need a new four letter acronym: everyone knows TBTF. We hereby annoint the Too Blatantly Briby To Fail (TB²TF) category of financial institutions. We posit that in 5 years there will be two banks in the former group: JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, while every single other bank will make up the latter.

Among the specific data findings:

The researchers used four variables to measure political influence: 1) seats held by bank executives on the board of directors at any of the 12 Federal Reserve banks or their branches (the Federal Reserve is involved in the initial review of CPP applications from the majority of qualified banks); 2) banks with headquarters located in the district of a U.S. House member serving on the Congressional Committee on Financial Services or its subcommittees on Financial Institutions and Capital Markets (which played a major role in the development of TARP and its amendments); 3) banks' campaign contributions to congressional candidates; and 4) banks' lobbying expenditures.

They found that a board seat at a Federal Reserve Bank was associated with a 31 percent increase in the likelihood of receiving CPP funds, while a bank's connection to a House member on key finance committees was associated with a 26 percent increase, controlling for other bank characteristics such as size and various financial indicators.

The last data point is truly troubling: while it is one thing to pander to corrupt politicians, at least when their transgressions are made public they can and will be booted out. Yet what checks and balances exist to punish current and former Fed staffers who endorse near-bankrupt companies, in self-evident conflict of interest acts, for enhanced survival? As the Fed is accountable to nothing and nobody, save Goldman Sachs, one can argue that Goldman decides the fate of the very core of the US financial system: which firms get the thumbs up and down treatment. This is an unbelievalbe travesty of both the constitutional and the tenets of capitalism and must be rectified immediately. It certainly helps that the president, being a Constitutional law professor, will surely get right on it.

"Our findings also suggest that qualified financial institutions were more likely to receive an investment from CPP if they were bigger and had lower earnings and lower capital," said Duchin, U-M assistant professor of finance. "This is consistent with an investment strategy seeking to support systematically important institutions experiencing financial distress."

If this study's finding are confirmed and repeated independently by other research teams, it is safe to say that any pretense America has to being an efficient capitalism system (where those who can no longer compete, disappear) can be used to wipe the nation's collective backside. Between this, and a choice of US dollars and Treasuries, Cottonelle is starting to see some serious competition.

h/t Geoffrey Batt

Good morning, worker drones: This Week in Mayhem

by Project Mayhem

Project Censored releases top censored news stories of 2009, Market Skeptics highlights catastrophic fall in global food production, gold bounces off $1100, Copenhagen succeeds in building global governance framework, Pakistan and Yemen sink further into chaos..

LAST WEEK IN MAYHEM

Project Censored releases list of 25 censored news stories of the past year

* 1. US Congress Sells Out to Wall Street
* 2. US Schools are More Segregated Today than in the 1950s
* 3. Toxic Waste Behind Somali Pirates
* 4. Nuclear Waste Pools in North Carolina
* 5. Europe Blocks US Toxic Products
* 6. Lobbyists Buy Congress
* 7. Obama’s Military Appointments Have Corrupt Past
* 8. Bailed out Banks and America’s Wealthiest Cheat IRS Out of Billions
* 9. US Arms Used for War Crimes in Gaza
* 10. Ecuador Declares Foreign Debt Illegitimate
* 11. Private Corporations Profit from the Occupation of Palestine
* 12. Mysterious Death of Mike Connell—Karl Rove’s Election Thief
* 13. Katrina’s Hidden Race War
* 14. Congress Invested in Defense Contracts
* 15. World Bank’s Carbon Trade Fiasco

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/two-thousand-and-ten-book/




2010 Food Crisis for Dummies


The countries that make up two thirds of the world's agricultural output are experiencing drought conditions.

The following article is HIGHLY recommended for anyone trading in the commodities futures markets or interested in possible future outcomes in 2010.

"If you read any economic, financial, or political analysis for 2010 that doesn’t mention the food shortage looming next year, throw it in the trash, as it is worthless. There is overwhelming, undeniable evidence that the world will run out of food next year. When this happens, the resulting triple digit food inflation will lead panicking central banks around the world to dump their foreign reserves to appreciate their currencies and lower the cost of food imports, causing the collapse of the dollar, the treasury market, derivative markets, and the global financial system. The US will experience economic disintegration.

So far the crisis has been driven by the slow and steady increase in defaults on mortgages and other loans. This is about to change. What will drive the financial crisis in 2010 will be panic about food supplies and the dollar’s plunging value. Things will start moving fast."

http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/12/2010-food-crisis-for-dummies.html




Gold bounces off $1100

Gold has bounced off $1100, as expected, but the question  is whether this level will hold.  This is almost impossible to predict...what we do know is that gold is going much higher intermediate-term.  Short-term, we could see pricing pressures on gold until we get a new leg down in the economic crisis and/or war in Central Asia.  Things are heating up around the world, particularly in Yemen and Pakistan.  Regardless, we expect a hard floor for the gold price in the range of $1000-1050.  We will watch carefully for the next two business weeks leading into Jan 1st, as this will involve year-end mark-to-market for gold on many balance sheets so expect volatility.  In terms of the next year (2010) we are expecting a dollar crisis so it would be wise to own gold under such circumstances.

Tarpley - Hyperinflation possible in 2010
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9059

Gerald Celente - 2010 - Prepare for the Worse
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9060

Copenhagen Treaty yields start of Global Governance

The Copenhagen treaty was a success despite the massive scientific scandal; the global bankster-gangsters got precisely what they wanted.  The objective was to establish the framework for a world government, which is often called 'global governance' in policy planning circles. The seeds of this were successfully planted.  There were two main accomplishments at Copenhagen:  1) agreement on a global transaction tax on GDP, paid to the World Bank  and 2) agreement on preliminary funding for global governance, conservatively $100bn by 2020 but we believe this number will be much much higher (probably in trillions).

"In 2004, it was less than $300 million. But in 2005, the trade really started to soar, ending the year with $10.8 billion-worth of transactions. A year later, in 2006, the "carbon" market had grown to $31 billion. In 2007, again it more than doubled its turnover, to $64 billion. Last year, it did it again, reaching a colossal $126 billion. By 2020, some estimates suggest the annual value will reach $2 trillion."

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/protecting-big-carbon.html



"This is the biggest heist in history. As they poured carbon over snow-covered Denmark from their gas-guzzling jets, world leaders were congratulating themselves on securing a deal which will make their backers and financiers a trillion pounds a year. These riches will come from buying and selling permits, the so-called 'carbon credits' which allow industry and electricity generators in developed countries to emit carbon dioxide.

The frenzied negotiations we have just seen were never about 'saving the planet'. They were always about money."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1237235/ANALYSIS-Saved--trillion-pound-trade-carbon.html


Copenhagen accord keeps Big Carbon in business

"The part played at Copenhagen by all the tree-huggers, abetted by the BBC and their media allies, was to keep hysteria over warming at fever pitch while the politicians haggled over the real prize, to keep the Kyoto system in place.

The only tree they were concerned with hugging was the money tree and all the vast political apparatus that now supports it, allowing governments to tax and regulate us into handing over ever more of our money, largely without realising it, every time we drive a car, fly in a plane, pay our electricity bill or carry out any of a vast range of activities that involve the emission of CO2. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6845686/Copenhagen-accord-keeps-Big-Carbon-in-business.html

Saudis rain missiles down on Yemen





Saudi warplanes rain '1,011 missiles' on Yemen
"Houthi fighters say Saudi warplanes have fired some 1,011 missiles on the borderline with Yemen where the Shia population is already under heavy state-led and US-aided bombardment. "
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=114162&sectionid=351020206

US air raids kill 63 civilians in Yemen
"Yemen’s Houthi fighters say scores of civilians, including many children, have been killed in US air-raids in the southeast of the war-stricken Arab country."
http://dprogram.net/2009/12/19/us-air-raids-kill-63-civilians-in-yemen/

Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strike on Yemen Terrorists
"The Yemen attacks by the U.S. military represent a major escalation of the Obama administration's campaign against al Qaeda."
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236

Pakistan on brink ;  Obama feigns surprise


Internally displaced Pakistani women and children, aka alQueda

Pakistan continues to deteriorate, as we have been expected since the election of Obama.  There is definitely a new war brewing in the region.  The most likely conflict is either an event justifying going into Pakistan, or an event justifying going into Iran.  In either case, doing so would land us in deep deep trouble, and would escalate into a regional war.  Pakistan is a nuclear-armed country, with ballistic and cruise missiles, and Iran has advanced Russian weaponry.  War in either country would be a big mistake with catastrophic consequences for the world, but our fearless leaders do not seem to care about the people of the world or their lives.  Regardless, the CIA and ISI are doing an excellent job of destabilizing Pakistan, which seems to be the policy objectiive.

Pakistan political crisis deepens

"THE political crisis in Pakistan has deepened after the Government's anti-corruption agency sought a warrant for the arrest of the country's Interior Minister."

http://www.theage.com.au/world/pakistan-in-crisis-as-creeping-coup-unfolds-20091219-l6lf.html


Symptom of a Deeper Malady Pakistan's Refugee Disaster

In the meantime, with the winter months fast approaching, hundreds of thousands of "unintegrated" refugees who do not find more durable shelter, even as military sweeps continue, could face exposure and starvation. Some aid groups are demanding that the United States pressure Pakistan to respect international humanitarian law and allow independent access to the refugees.

http://uruknet.com/index.php?p=m61206&hd=&size=1&l=e

THIS WEEK IN MAYHEM

source: cmegroup

Not much happening this week due to the Christmas holiday. Tuesday brings us the GDP number and existing home sales, Wednesday is new home sales, and Thursday is durable goods orders and jobless claims.  This week we are watching Yemen and Pakistan.



Have a great week and Merry Christmas

Project Mayhem Research (PMR) is a DC/Baltimore-based grassroots think tank dedicated to exposing corruption worldwide. PMR is affiliated with Zerohedge.com, a popular and growing anti-corruption site, through contribution of free articles for the public. Topics include the politics of war and weapons systems, unexpected applications of cybernetics, the growing international surveillance state, global warming 'deindustrialization' economics, broad systemic international corruption , in-depth policy analysis of studies from bank and military funded research groups, genetic analysis and surveillance of pandemic influenza, corruption in the international gold market, the power structure and history of the global elite, and analysis of their political objectives expressed through monopolistic international finance capital (read: powerful banks) between now and 2050.

Sign up for free news updates and future subscription information--

From Bloomberg, Citigroup Stock Sale Discount Prompts Treasury to Delay Disposal of Stake :

Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Citigroup Inc., the last of the four largest U.S. banks to seek funds to exit a taxpayer bailout, raised $17 billion by selling stock for a price so low that the U.S. delayed plans to shrink its one-third stake in the lender.

Citigroup sold 5.4 billion shares at $3.15 apiece, less than the $3.25 the government paid when it acquired its stake in September. The New York-based bank said the Treasury won’t sell any of its shares for at least 90 days.

Investors demanded a bigger discount from Citigroup than Bank of America Corp. or Wells Fargo & Co., which together raised more than $31 billion this month to exit the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Wells Fargo, which trumped Citigroup’s bid to buy Wachovia Corp. last year, leapfrogged its rival by completing a $12.25 billion share sale Dec. 15. JPMorgan Chase & Co. repaid $25 billion in June.

“The market cast its vote and they’re low down on the ballot,” said Douglas Ciocca, a managing director at Renaissance Financial Corp. in Leawood, Kansas. “Citigroup needs to show steps to reinstall the quality of the brand.”

With the sale, Citigroup’s common shares outstanding increased to 28.3 billion. That’s up from 22.9 billion as of Sept. 30 and 5 billion at the end of 2007.

“More shares outstanding means less value per share,” said Edward Najarian, an analyst at International Strategy and Investment Group in New York, who has a “hold” rating on the shares. “The whole structure of their deal to pay back TARP wasn’t very good for common shareholders and that is being reflected in the pricing.”

I think one of the most important points are being missed. Most of these banks swore that they didn't need TARP. Despite this, in order to return it, they must go back out to the capital markets. Why do you have to hit the market to return a loan that you said you didn't need, unless you needed it? This obvious lie has went unchallenged.

It gets worse. Citi is diluting the hell out of it shareholders, as well as all of the other TARP banks that are selling shares. Some may even be taking on debt. They are doing this primarily to gain the freedom to declare bonuses at higher rates despite uncertain credit condition surrounding the toxic assets that caused the problem in the first place. Why in the world would any lender or shareholder agree to dilution and/or higher debt service "primarily" to pay higher bonuses to employees in the highest compensated (as a percent of net revenue) industry in the world???

Imagine if you ran this business, you have rocky times during a recession with revenues in nearly all aspects of your business down save the blatant risk taking of trading, and you go to your bank and say I need a big loan so I can pay myself a $20 million bonus increase.
Do you think Citibank would give you this loan? They expect it from their shareholders. The same goes for Goldman, JPM, BAC, etc.

Also from Bloomberg: Weak Banks Should Face Curbs on Bonuses, Dividends, Basel Regulator Says

Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Global regulators urged national authorities to limit bonus and dividend payments by banks with weakened capital safety nets as part of proposals to reduce risks to the financial system.

Banks should increase the quality of the capital they hold to cope with losses, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision said in a report on bank capital and liquidity published today. Banks with depleted capital buffers shouldn’t use predictions of recovery to justify generous dividends to investors and employees, the committee said.

Global regulators have been wrestling with plans to increase supervision of banks following the worst economic crisis since World War II. The Group of 20 Nations agreed in April that banks should be required to hold more and better quality capital to reduce risks to the financial system.

“It’s not acceptable for banks which have depleted their capital buffers to try and use the distribution of capital as a way to signal their financial strength,” the committee’s statement said. “The proposed framework will reduce the discretion of banks which have depleted their capital buffers to further reduce them through generous distributions of earnings.”

It's amazing that this even needs to be said.

Tomorrow at 10 am the House Oversight Committee will hold a hearing with SEC's Robert Khuzami (oddly Mary Schapiro, together with Chris Cox, had been scheduled to appear initially, however "in a series of last minute negotiations, members settled on Khuzami") to discuss what the SEC has already found to be a criminal transaction (and attempted to promptly bury under the rug if only if it weren't for one Judge Jef Rakoff). Details of the hearing below:

Washington, DC – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Edolphus “Ed” Towns (D-NY) and Domestic Policy Subcommittee Chairman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will convene a joint hearing entitled: “Bank of America and Merrill Lynch: How Did a Private Deal Turn Into a Federal Bailout?  Part V?”  The hearing will examine the events surrounding Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch and its receipt of Federal financial assistance. 

The hearing will take place at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, December 11, 2009 in room 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.  A webcast of the hearing will be available on the Committee’s website: http://oversight.house.gov.

As for the actual hearing, Dow Jones presents this advance look of how Dennis Kucinich will approach the interrogation:

[Kucinich] plans to present Khuzami with a financial forecast that had been prepared by Merrill Lynch a few weeks ahead of the December 2008 shareholder vote on the merger, according to subcommittee documents obtained by Dow Jones. The forecast omits projected losses from Merrill Lynch's illiquid assets for the month of December and underestimates by almost half the roughly $15 billion after-tax fourth quarter loss, the documents say. Based on the subcommittee's investigations, Kucinich says he believes Bank of America executives were aware of the red flags raised by Merrill Lynch's forecast. But that didn't stop them from presenting the document to their lawyers at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Kucinich says Bank of America's decision not to investigate the Merrill Lynch document and notify shareholders of any change in expectations amounts to "an egregious violation of securities laws."

Referring specifically to the Merrill Lynch forecast, [BofA spokesman Lawrence] Di Rita said, "The matter of Merrill's projected fourth-quarter 2008 losses was considered carefully and the decisions were made in good faith at a time of unprecedented economic and market upheaval."

And while committtee chairman Edolphus Towns is allegedly satisfied with BofA's behavior in the last year, "since it paid the last of its $45 billion debt to taxpayers" even though it does not have the ready sources for this outflow, and even though the deal was merely a front to allow BofA traders to scalp exorbitant bonuses one last time before everything collapses, Judge Rakoff may not share Towns' utter lack of interest with due process and punsihment of criminal behavior, especially where said criminal behavior has already been proven.

In what is the start of the biggest uphill battle in D.C., arguably even bigger than deposing the printing press leprechaun, five democrats are proposing an amendment to reinstate Glass-Steagal, whose repeal, through the Larry Summers orchestrated Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, in 1999 set the economy on the collision course that culminated with the implosion of every single Goldman Sachs FICC competitor in 2008. The five Democrats who have undertaken the sisyphean task of taking on both Wall Street and their direct boss, are Maurice Hinchey of New York, John Conyers of Michigan, Peter DeFazio of Oregon, Jay Inslee of Washington, and John Tierney of Massachusetts.

If adopted, the measure would give banks one year to choose between being commercial banks or investment banks. The nation's biggest -- those now commonly referred to as "too big to fail" -- would be broken up. The Obama administration opposes the measure.

Obama, presumably a Democrat, continues to persist in endorsing each and every Republican legacy when it comes to Wall Street's landed interests (and risk "management" practices). Of course, the last thing the administration needs is for the populace to comprehend the chameleonic nature of the administration's action.

More from HuffPo:

The act was repealed in 1999 at the urging of, among others, Larry Summers, now President Barack Obama's chief economic adviser.

The five congressman all voted against the repeal then -- and now they want it back.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker is one of a number of financial luminaries calling for at least a partial return to Glass-Steagall. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page also endorsed the concept in a recent editorial as a way to "reduce moral hazard" and "limit certain kinds of risk-taking by institutions that hold taxpayer-insured deposits."

The law's repeal ushered in an era marked by big banks getting even bigger. The country's four largest -- Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo - now control more than half of the nation's mortgages, two-thirds of credit cards and two-fifths of all bank deposits.

And because their deposits are taxpayer-insured, there's a growing concern that they will feel overly confident about making risky bets through their investment arms because they know that should they suffer huge losses, taxpayers will ultimately be there to bail them out.

The five Democrats face big obstacles, including their own leadership and the Obama administration.

At this point the whole systemic regulation debate is getting glaringly amusing. At the core of every conflict are proposed reforms that are so obvious from a risk mitigation debate: audited Fed, split up banks which are now bigger than ever before, propping a bankrupt FDIC, which in turn is backing up bankrupt institutions, and a bankrupt country which is trying to fool the world into a game of M.A.D. knowing full well if the US taxpayer goes down directly or indirectly, the world, and the proverbial flood, follow after. And the only sensible reforms are those getting the biggest push back from Obama, and of course, Wall Street. How these two seemingly traditional opponents have ended up on the same side of the page is testament enough to the cataclysmic legacy of Bernanke and Summers. Of course, nothing will be done about anything, in tried and true American fashion, until it is too late, and Main Street is left sorting through the rubble of Goldman's new glass-plated headquarters, even as all inhabitants have long-ago departed the country and left the U.S. with a few quadrillion in I.O.U.'s. At this juncture the best option before politicians is to simply delay for one year until mid-term elections provoke some vestige of sensibility in the ruling class.

From The Daily Capitalist
December 3, 2009

Since the biggest financial collapse in world history was built on credit related to housing, it is pretty obvious that we should be paying very close attention to that market. The reasons are complex, but a recovery must be based on the liquidation of bad debt. The sooner that happens the quicker a recovery will happen.

When we mean "liquidation of debt" we are talking about a mountain of credit built on the housing bubble. This phony bubble wealth permeated the entire economy. When home owners saw the price of their home rising, they saw it as a source of capital to use for a variety of things, but let's face it, most people spent it.

New stores opened, malls were built, financial institutions grew, cars and boats, second homes, vacations, and restaurants all flourished. Credit card debt mushroomed. Home mortgages were increased to pull cash out for spending. Yes, some of it went to good things, like our children's education, helping our aged parents, and paying off bills. But the reality was that our debt kept growing.

The clever lads created even more phony wealth under the guise of insurance, but as we found out, companies like AIG really had no idea how large their obligations were for credit default swaps written against almost any financial risk. And these instruments were further leveraged without understanding the magnitude of these triple-counted obligations or their relationship to housing.

It all comes back to housing as the fuel for the 70% of our economy that was consumer spending. The thought was that housing has always gone up, and if it went down, it really never went down if you averaged growth since the post-WWII-period. A drop of 10%? Never has happened. 20%? Not even a 6th deviation possibility.

My thesis has been that this was all fueled by the Fed through monetary policies that created and supported the bubble. Aided and abetted by governmental policies and financing schemes that favored housing and risky loans. This was not a "free market" phenomenon. Far, far from it.

My thesis has also been that we can't recover until all this bad debt is liquidated, and capital generated by savings is created and ultimately invested in profitable enterprises. It would be a mistake to rekindle the bubble. But, as we know, that's what our government is trying to do. The government creates uncertainty as it flails around with programs, spending, and debt schemes to revive the economy. As a result mark-to-market accounting is thing of the past and banks are guarding their balance sheets, corporations are sitting on a lot of cash, cutting costs, and becoming leaner, and Mr. and Mrs. America still favor savings and debt instruments over equities and spending.

The big question: is the housing market bottoming out? Because once it does, debtors and debt holders will then have a handle on how great their losses are. When the bottom is falling out, it is difficult to get lenders to lend if they are afraid their remaining cash reserves will be needed to shore up the bank because of loan losses. The holders of subprime debt find it difficult to value their assets while housing values are still dropping.

Lenders have been shepherding their cash, reducing debt obligations, and cutting back lending and new investments because they do not know how deep their hole will be until housing bottoms out. Keynes called this a "liquidity trap." More reasonable people, especially the Austrian school economists, call this a reasonable and necessary response to uncertainty.

The Fed and the federal government have been flogging this liquidity trap issue without let up and basically credit is still drying up. A 0.25% Fed Funds rate is basically a negative rate and they still can't get banks to lend. The Fed's balance sheet is at a record high. They have bought $850 million of mortgage backed securities. They are injecting cash into lenders. They have basically suspended mark-to-market accounting.

In Q3, the FDIC reported that bank lending still contracted by 3%:

Loans and leases held by U.S. commercial banks have declined for 10 straight months, falling to $6.7 trillion as of Oct. 28 from $7.2 trillion at the end of 2008, according to a separate statistical release from the Fed.

 

Commercial and industrial loans have dropped to $1.37 trillion from $1.6 trillion, commercial real-estate loans have declined to $1.66 trillion from $1.72 trillion, and consumer loans have fallen to $847 billion from $857 billion at the end of last year.

What do banks do? They have decided they would rather hold Treasury paper instead of make loans. This chart shows what's been happening. No wonder T-rates have stayed so low despite massive deficit financing.

This is what makes Bernanke, Geithner, and Summers lose sleep at night. "It's supposed to work, dammit!" Maybe this is why Summers is always falling asleep. No matter what they've tried, they can't get banks to lend. I think they are very worried about this and while they say the economy is recovering nicely, they are crossing their fingers at the same time.

Back to housing.

I have been saying that I think the housing market is finding a bottom. I thought that low prices and rising affordability was the main driver of the housing market. If this were so, then housing prices would reflect real market valuations and this would finally bring about the liquidation of assets and debt wastefully invested during the prior artificial credit cycle. Lenders would know where they stood financially and would liquidate bad assets and rebuild their balance sheets. No more waiting around wondering what the Fed or the government would do to save housing.

I was wrong.

The housing market I now believe is being sustained almost entirely by the Fed and the federal government. This rekindling of the housing bubble is counterproductive and will hinder a real recovery of the economy because an artificially backed market will delay the necessary liquidation of the prior cycle's malinvestment of capital.

Here is why I changed my mind:

First, 59% of new home buyers are relying on government-backed FHA, the Veterans Administration, and the Department of Agriculture loans. Most of these sales are driven by the first-time home buyers tax credit. The tax credit program has been extended through April, 2010.

Second, existing home sales are being driven by the tax credit and by foreclosure and short sales. Existing home sales are up 10.1%. Distressed sales -- mainly foreclosures and short sales -- accounted for 30% of transactions in the third quarter. And. according to the NAR, home sales are being driven by first time home buyers trying to make the previous November deadline.

This will have a negative impact on future sales. Like Cash for Clunkers, these government-driven sales may just be eating into sales that would have occurred in 2010. Many economists are referring to this phenomenon as "payback."

Third, mortgage rates are now at 30 year lows. Another Fed related gift to home buyers. The average 30-year mortgage rate was 4.95% in October, down from 5.06% in September, according to Freddie Mac. Today, Freddie said the rate was down to 4.7%.

But ... home prices are still falling. The S&P/Case-Shiller index of prices fell 8.9% for the July-through-September period from a year earlier. That was an improvement from the 14.7% drop in the second quarter and the 19% decline in the first three months of 2009. Median prices of existing homes fell in 123 of 153 metropolitan areas during the third quarter compared with a year earlier. The national median price was $177,900, down 11.2% from the third quarter of 2008. [Don't ask me to explain the disparity. Case-Shiller and NAR measure this differently.] Last month the median price for an existing home was $173,100, down 7.1% from $186,400 in October 2008.

Thus, despite record interference in the housing market by the government, home prices are still falling. There are several reasons why it is likely that home prices will continue to fall.

Almost 25% of home owners are upside down with their mortgages. Nearly 10.7 million households had negative equity in their homes in the third quarter, according to First American CoreLogic. This shadow market is huge:

Home prices have fallen so far that 5.3 million U.S. households are tied to mortgages that are at least 20% higher than their home's value, the First American report said. More than 520,000 of these borrowers have received a notice of default, according to First American. ...

 

But negative equity "is an outstanding risk hanging over the mortgage market," said Mark Fleming, chief economist of First American Core Logic. "It lowers homeowners' mobility because they can't sell, even if they want to move to get a new job." Borrowers who owe more than 120% of their home's value, he said, were more likely to default.

 

Mortgage troubles are not limited to the unemployed. About 588,000 borrowers defaulted on mortgages last year even though they could afford to pay -- more than double the number in 2007, according to a study by Experian and consulting firm Oliver Wyman. "The American consumer has had a long-held taboo against walking away from the home, and this crisis seems to be eroding that," the study said.

This overhang will continue to drive prices down. There is no way the Feds can force lenders to modify enough loans to make a serious dent in this overhang. It's imply too big. Eventually the losses from forced modifications will mount and the FHA or any other agency will not be able to pay off their guarantees to lender. Nor should they try.

Mark Zandi, who correctly predicted a crisis in the housing market, but not the Crash, said on Wednesday, "The housing crash is not over." He said the lull in foreclosure sales for the past few months, due to the government's pressure on lenders to modify loans, has resulting in higher prices. He expects Case-Shiller to bottom by Q3 2010 with an overall price decline of 38% (now at 32%).

"Foreclosure sales will increase, and home prices will resume their decline by early 2010 as mortgage servicers figure out who will not qualify for a modification," he said.

 

Zandi said 7.5 million foreclosure sales will have taken place between 2006 and 2011. The majority of these sales, however, have not emerged yet, with 4.8 million foreclosure sales expected between 2009 and 2011.

What this means is that the housing supply, now down to a 7+ months supply, will rise again, and prices will continue to decline. We haven't seen the bottom yet.