FedUpUSA

Archive for the ‘Henry Paulson’ Category

By Karl Denninger

The same problem is why we have a spewing oil well in the Gulf.  MMS rubber-stamped well changes without engineering justification, which proved to be the proximate cause of the well control failure.  MMS’ job is to regulate, and instead they were polishing the knobs of BP executives who wanted a “faster and cheaper” solution to an engineering problem – irrespective of the fact that it was both less safe and, if the testimony yesterday is to be believed, in violation of good engineering standards for what was being done.

MMS approved the permit changes anyway.

This is no different than Greenspan retroactively lobbying to make legal a merger he approved knowing it was against the law, with that retroactive approval coming in the form of Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the destruction of the Glass-Steagall act.

It is no different than Hank Paulson going to the SEC and “asking” for the leverage limits to be removed from investment banks.

It is no different than the SEC and FBI refusing to investigate and prosecute massive securities and bank fraud in securitization markets.  Specifically, hundreds of billions of dollars in paper was sold claiming that every mortgage was taken with a good recordable deed held in trust, in when in fact many of them were endorsed in blank which is unlawful to hold in a trust in most states, including the states where most of those securitizations are filed!

It is no different from OTS conspiring actively with IndyMac bank executives to backdate deposits, thereby making the bank’s balance sheet look healthier than it really was.

And it is no different than Tim Geithner, Congress and others threatening FASB to force them to allow banks to literally lie about  current values of assets – that is, to claim “value” that does not, at present, exist.

The economic mess we are in now is not an accident, just as the BP blowout was not an accident.

Both occurred due to the willful and intentional misconduct of public officials who are immunized from prosecution and civil suit as a consequence of being government employees and despite now having the consequences of such failure in our faces we the people continue to refuse to demand that both sanction and a private right of recovery against said agencies and individuals be written into these regulatory statutes right now.

Until this changes there will be no effective “reform.”

Period.

The Valukas Report on Lehman: My Questions

Posted by Karl Denninger

Giving that House Financial Services is having a hearing today on the Valukas report on the Lehman collapse, I thought I’d put forward the questions I would ask if I was a member of the committee.

In no particular order:

• From Mr. Valukas written testimony:
  (But) we found that Lehman was significantly and persistently in excess of its own risk limits. Lehman management decided to disregard the guidance provided by Lehman’s risk management systems. Rather than adjust business decisions to adapt to risk limit excesses, management decided to adjust the risk limits to adapt to business goals.

  We found that the SEC was aware of these excesses and simply acquiesced.

  In 2004, prior to becoming Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, then the head of Goldman Sachs, came to The SEC and asked for the leverage limits that formerly constrained investment banks – including Lehman – to be dropped.  SEC rules formerly limited leverage to 14:1.  It is important to note that this was Mr. Paulson’s second request – the first, made in 2000, was turned down.  This second request was granted.

  In point of fact, all of the firms that failed – AIG, Lehman, Bear, Fannie and Freddie – had leverage at the point of failure dramatically higher than the former limit.  At 14:1, Lehman would not have failed at all (neither would have Bear Stearns.)
  
  To Mary Shapiro, Ben Bernanke, and Tim Geithner:  How can we sit here today, more than three years into this crisis and coming up on two years since Lehman failed, and not have rescinded the leverage limit change that was asked for by Henry Paulson – and without which the failures would not have taken place?
  
  

• Again, from Mr. Valukas:
  The SEC

  knew that Lehman was reporting sums in its reported liquidity pool that the SEC did not believe were in fact liquid; the SEC knew that Lehman was exceeding its risk control limits; and the SEC should have known that Lehman was manipulating its balance sheet to make its leverage appear better than it was. Yet even in the face of actual knowledge of critical shortcomings, and after Bear Stearns’ near collapse in March 2008 following a liquidity crisis, the SEC did not take decisive action.

  Me:
  This is not a unique failure.  The OTS has been fingered by its own Inspector General for having an employee who was an OTS inspector during the S&L crisis and during that crisis allowed an S&L to fraudulently backdate deposits perform the exact same outrageous action with IndyMac bank.  The bank subsequently failed and a significant part of the FDIC loss was taken as a consequence of its delayed action.

  OTS was also fingered in the WaMu collapse for treating the bank as not a regulated entity but rather as a constituent, a term actually used by the OTS in hearings last week.

  The SEC clearly has historically taken the same sort of approach to so-called “regulation” leading up to this crisis with Lehman Brothers.   Indeed, we know from the report that:

  Valukis:
  But months earlier, it had learned critical information that put it on notice that Lehman’s liquidity was not as was portrayed to the investing public.  But the SEC did not act on its knowledge, it simply acquiesced.
  
  This is, for all intents and purposes, the same misrepresentation made by IndyMac bank and was both countenanced and intentionally ignored by The SEC.Both The Federal Reserve Board and FRBNY in addition have effectively ducked their responsibility as the primary safety and soundness regulator of the banking system as a whole.

  To Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke and Mary Shapiro: As of the present day we have financial institutions throughout the land that we know for a fact are holding “assets” at dramatically above fair market value.  We know this through the weekly FDIC bank seizures where the discrepancy is, every week, outlined.  How can your agencies defend your actions both leading to Lehman’s bankruptcy and in the nearly two years hence when these practices are continuing even today and, since OTS is in fact  under Treasury, why are the person(s) responsible for the aforementioned egregious and documented conduct still employed?  Further, when are you going to force firms to actually account for their assets at market value instead of intentionally-inflated numbers that make financial institutions appear dramatically healthier than they really are?

I would additionally ask all present:

• Why has nobody bothered to finger the seminal change that led to the inflation of the terminal phase of the bubble and it’s collapse: the removal of former hard-cap leverage limits that was requested by Henry Paulson of Goldman Sachs in 2004, and why should we not legislatively re-impose this hard cap immediately – on all financial institutions?

• Why, after the collapse of Enron and MCI, two firms that used off-balance sheet structures to hide risk and distort their financial health, were such structures not entirely banned (as was often-claimed would be the case in the wake of both firms’ failure), and why to this day are these structures still outstanding in the aggregate of trillions of dollars among US Financial firms?  How do you and your agencies justify computing Tier Capital ratios without including these so-called “off balance sheet” exposures?
• Why, after the S&L Crisis and now IndyMac, as well as Lehman, have not each and every one of the alleged “regulators” that willfully looked the other way or even worse, were knowingly involved in manipulation of balance sheets and valuations, been at minimum been removed form their posts?  It is clear from the record that multiple Federal Agencies have in fact been willfully blind to either dramatic increases in risk among institutions or, in some cases, been willfully complicit in acts that give rise to a colorable claim of corruption.  Yet in exactly none of these cases has enforcement action been taken within the regulatory agencies.  Why not?

Dodd’s Chief Counsel Bought Financial Stocks During 2008 Crisis

By Robert Schmidt

March 18 (Bloomberg) — Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd’s chief counsel in 2008 traded stock in Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo & Co., American International Group Inc. and other rescued companies as the panel considered legislation to address the credit crisis, according to her financial disclosure form filed with the Senate.

Amy Friend, 51, who is now leading the panel’s effort to write a bill overhauling Wall Street regulations, bought $1,000- to-$15,000 stakes in four banks, weeks after Dodd hired her in January 2008, the form shows. She also owned shares of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and other insurance firms, according to the disclosure document, which she signed on June 5, 2009.

The transactions, permissible under Senate rules, included buying $1,000 to $15,000 of Federal Home Loan Bank bonds and Fannie Mae debt in June and July, 2008. On July 30 of that year, then-President George W. Bush signed into law a Dodd-sponsored bill setting out new regulations for the housing finance agencies and allowing the Treasury Department to give them cash injections.

“This looks very bad,” said Melanie Sloan, the executive director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and a former Democratic congressional aide. “At the very least it’s inappropriate and it gives the appearance of wrongdoing, even if there is none.”

Ethics Committee

Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, defended his chief counsel. “Amy Friend is one of the fiercest public advocates on Capitol Hill today,” Dodd said in an e-mailed statement. “Her integrity is second to none.”

Friend, who declined to comment, informed her supervisor of her holdings, and consulted the Senate Ethics Committee when she was hired, Kirstin Brost, the Senate Banking Committee spokeswoman, said.

Friend lists the investments as jointly owned with her husband. She continues to hold financial securities, Brost said. Friend’s disclosure form for 2009 is due in May.

Sloan and other ethics specialists say Friend’s stock ownership and trading reflect the leeway lawmakers and congressional staff have with their investments. Unlike Treasury Department employees or bank examiners at independent regulatory agencies who aren’t allowed to hold shares of companies they oversee, U.S. lawmakers and their staff are free to invest with few restrictions.

Still, Friend’s counterparts on the banking panel’s Republican side and on the House Financial Services Committee didn’t own financial instruments, according to their 2008 disclosures.

‘Squishy’ Rules

The rules “are kind of squishy intentionally,” said Kenneth Gross, a partner at the Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP law firm in Washington who counsels people on ethics regulations. “Congress has permitted the holding and trading of securities virtually unfettered.”

Senate rule 37 states that no lawmaker or employee “shall knowingly use his official position to introduce or aid the progress or passage of legislation, a principal purpose of which is to further only his pecuniary interest.”

In additional guidance, the Senate Ethics Manual notes that the restriction is “narrow” and says that if the legislation has broad impact, a prohibition wouldn’t apply.

The rules require staff that have “substantial holdings” that could be directly affected by a committee’s work to divest, unless they are given a waiver by the Senate Ethics Committee.

The ethics panel has told congressional staff that a fair definition of “substantial” would be any single holding equal to 3 percent to 5 percent of total liquid assets. Friend’s combined financial investments constituted less than 2 percent of her liquid assets, below the ethics guidance, Brost said.

‘Not Unethical’

John Hasnas, who teaches ethics as an associate professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business in Washington, said that while her actions may not look good politically, “the fact that it may appear unethical to others doesn’t mean what you did was wrong.”

“If the rules say that she is allowed to do it and the only problem is that it gives the appearance of impropriety, in my opinion she has not behaved unethically,” Hasnas said in a telephone interview.

It is impossible to tell the exact amount of Friend’s purchases and sales from the ethics records, which require her to value investments only in broad ranges.

She listed each of her financial stocks as being worth $1,000 to $15,000. They included: AIG, Bank of America Corp., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Discover Financial Services, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Federated Investors Inc., M&T Bank Corp., Wells Fargo, MetLife Inc. and MGIC Investment Corp., a mortgage insurer.

Company Stocks

Friend’s portfolio included stocks of more than 100 companies, many non-financial, ranging from Coca-Cola Co. to Target Corp. to Xerox Corp. She also owned mutual funds, municipal bonds and Treasury bills.

Friend was an attorney at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency before joining the banking committee. She also teaches a spinning class at a Northern Virginia gym in her spare time, earning $1,200 in 2008.

Friend’s first year working for the panel included the near-collapse of Bear Stearns Cos., the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the government bailouts of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and passage of the $700 billion financial rescue law.

The committee also considered the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which provided foreclosure assistance to struggling homeowners, created a more powerful regulator for the home loan banks and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and gave the Treasury emergency authority to bail out the housing-finance giants.

Fannie Mae Shares

On July 23, as lawmakers neared agreement on the bill, shares of Fannie Mae rose 12 percent to close at $15 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Friend’s own Fannie Mae stock holdings would have increased in value as well, though not enough to cover steady declines since she acquired the shares on January 23, when they closed at $34.78

Friend also made five purchases of Federal Home Loan Bank Board bonds in 2008, each valued at $1,000 to $15,000, according to the form. Two were in January, one in February, one in March and one in June of that year. Friend valued her total holdings of the bonds at $50,000 to $100,000, according to the form.

She also purchased Fannie Mae debt on July 1, two weeks before the bill, sponsored by Dodd and Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the banking committee, passed the Senate.

Bank of America

Some of Friend’s trades listed in the disclosure statement were stock purchases — all in 2008 — and may not have been profitable. For example, when she bought Bank of America on Feb. 20, its closing share price was $42.97. She acquired additional shares on May 27, when the closing price was $34.17. It was $17.03 a share at yesterday’s close.

Friend purchased AIG on Aug. 12 when its closing share price was $457. About a month later, the firm received an $85 billion loan from the Federal Reserve, the first of several bailouts. AIG shares closed yesterday at $33.61 a share.

Very few of the trades in Friend’s portfolio were sales. She did unload $1,000 to $15,000 of Morgan Stanley shares on Sept. 22, several days after then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asked Congress to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program designed to remove toxic debt from banks’ books.

–Editors: Brendan Murray, Paula Dwyer

To contact the reporter on this story: Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Christopher Wellisz at cwellisz@bloomberg.net

Secret Banking Cabal Emerges From AIG Shadows

Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) — The idea of secret banking cabals that control the country and global economy are a given among conspiracy theorists who stockpile ammo, bottled water and peanut butter. After this week’s congressional hearing into the bailout of American International Group Inc., you have to wonder if those folks are crazy after all.

Wednesday’s hearing described a secretive group deploying billions of dollars to favored banks, operating with little oversight by the public or elected officials.

We’re talking about the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose role as the most influential part of the federal-reserve system — apart from the matter of AIG’s bailout — deserves further congressional scrutiny.

The New York Fed is in the hot seat for its decision in November 2008 to buy out, for about $30 billion, insurance contracts AIG sold on toxic debt securities to banks, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Societe Generale and Deutsche Bank AG, among others. That decision, critics say, amounted to a back-door bailout for the banks, which received 100 cents on the dollar for contracts that would have been worth far less had AIG been allowed to fail.

That move came a few weeks after the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department propped up AIG in the wake of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s own mid-September bankruptcy filing.

Saving the System

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was head of the New York Fed at the time of the AIG moves. He maintained during Wednesday’s hearing that the New York bank had to buy the insurance contracts, known as credit default swaps, to keep AIG from failing, which would have threatened the financial system.

The hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also focused on what many in Congress believe was the New York Fed’s subsequent attempt to cover up buyout details and who benefited.

By pursuing this line of inquiry, the hearing revealed some of the inner workings of the New York Fed and the outsized role it plays in banking. This insight is especially valuable given that the New York Fed is a quasi-governmental institution that isn’t subject to citizen intrusions such as freedom of information requests, unlike the Federal Reserve.

This impenetrability comes in handy since the bank is the preferred vehicle for many of the Fed’s bailout programs. It’s as though the New York Fed was a black-ops outfit for the nation’s central bank.

Geithner’s Bosses

The New York Fed is one of 12 Federal Reserve Banks that operate under the supervision of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, chaired by Ben Bernanke. Member-bank presidents are appointed by nine-member boards, who themselves are appointed largely by other bankers.

As Representative Marcy Kaptur told Geithner at the hearing: “A lot of people think that the president of the New York Fed works for the U.S. government. But in fact you work for the private banks that elected you.”

And yet the New York Fed played an integral role in the government’s bailout of banks, often receiving surprisingly free rein to act as it saw fit.

Consider AIG. Let’s take Geithner at his word that a failure to resolve the insurer’s default swaps would have led to financial Armageddon. Given the stakes, you might think Geithner would have coordinated actions with then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Yet Paulson testified that he wasn’t in the loop.

“I had no involvement at all, in the payment to the counterparties, no involvement whatsoever,” Paulson said.

Bernanke’s Denials

Fed Chairman Bernanke also wasn’t involved. In a written response to questions from Representative Darrell Issa, Bernanke said he “was not directly involved in the negotiations” with AIG’s counterparty banks.

You have to wonder then who really was in charge of our nation’s financial future if AIG posed as grave a threat as Geithner claimed.

Questions about the New York Fed’s accountability grew after Geithner on Nov. 24, 2008, was named by then-President- elect Barack Obama to be Treasury Secretary. Geither said he recused himself from the bank’s day-to-day activities, even though he never actually signed a formal letter of recusal.

That left issues related to disclosures about the deal in the hands of the bank’s lawyers and staff, rather than a top executive. Those staffers didn’t want details of the swaps purchase to become public.

New York Fed staff and outside lawyers from Davis Polk & Wardell edited AIG communications to investors and intervened with the Securities and Exchange Commission to shield details about the buyout transactions, according to a report by Issa.

That the New York Fed, a quasi-governmental body, was able to push around the SEC, an executive-branch agency, deserves a congressional hearing all by itself.

Later, when it became clear information would be disclosed, New York Fed legal group staffer James Bergin e-mailed colleagues saying: “I have to think this train is probably going to leave the station soon and we need to focus our efforts on explaining the story as best we can. There were too many people involved in the deals — too many counterparties, too many lawyers and advisors, too many people from AIG — to keep a determined Congress from the information.”

Think of the enormity of that statement. A staffer at a body with little public accountability and that exists to serve bankers is lamenting the inability to keep Congress in the dark.

This belies the culture of secrecy obviously pervasive within the New York Fed. Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns noted during the hearing that the bank initially refused to disclose even the names of other banks that benefited from its actions, arguing this information would somehow harm AIG.

‘Penchant for Secrecy’

“In fact, when the information was finally released, under pressure from Congress, nothing happened,” Towns said. “It had absolutely no effect on AIG’s business or financial condition. But it did have an effect on the credibility of the Federal Reserve, and it called into question the Fed’s penchant for secrecy.”

Now, I’m not saying Congress should be meddling in interest-rate decisions, or micro-managing bank regulation. Nor do I think we should all don tin-foil hats and start ranting about the Trilateral Commission.

Yet when unelected and unaccountable agencies pick banking winners while trying to end-run Congress, even as taxpayers are forced to lend, spend and guarantee about $8 trillion to prop up the financial system, our collective blood should boil.

(David Reilly is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Click on “Send Comment” in the sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.

To contact the writer of this column: David Reilly at dreilly14@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: January 28, 2010 21:00 EST

AIG, Paulson and Geithner

Posted by Karl Denninger

These hearings are simply amazing.

First, Tim Geithner.  Timmy made a lot of noise about “total meltdown” risk (and indeed even referenced the possible loss of civil order!) but the question that was not asked is this: Who stoked that fear in Congress?  That would be Bernanke and Paulson, right?  They in fact told Congress “either hand over $700 billion for buying troubled assets or tanks will be in the streets.”

But then – on top of that – they didn’t do what they said they needed the money for and there were no tanks!

So we’re stuck with a handful of facts, none of which are in dispute:

1. Congress was told that either $700 billion be handed out immediately or civil order would be lost.  They were told this by Bernanke and Paulson and believed it.
2. Congress took the action Paulson and Bernanke demanded but then did not spend the money as they said they would, and yet the “or else” did not happen.
3. Yet neither Paulson or Geithner will take responsibility for the precise actions taken during what they, along with Bernanke, claimed was literally an “end of the world” event!

Paulson gets the cake though - he admitted (under oath!) that The Fed just blatantly printed the money to rescue AIG and the banks (!!!)

So let’s see - it wasn’t his decision, it wasn’t Timmy’s decision, and yet at the very same time the entire world was about to come to an end unless the Congress immediately handed over $700 billion of taxpayer money?

Oh, and let’s keep going.  Paulson got skewered with what I pointed out in August of last year – that is, that he knew full well he wasn’t going to buy any “toxic assets” prior to the final vote being taken in The House but notified nobody in Congress of this fact.

Then Mr. Baxter’s turn comes and he says that Geithner signed off on paying AIG counterparties at par.

Didn’t Timmy claim he had no part in the negotiations with AIG and the determination of what to pay?  I thought he did….. maybe I misheard, but I seem to remember that he has continually maintained that he had no part in the decision process and in fact recused himself……

Oh wait – here it is!

I had no role in making decisions regarding what to disclose about the specific financial terms of Maiden Lane II and Maiden Lane III, and payments to AIGs counterparties.

Uhhhhhhh Turbotax Timmy?  How do you explain that?

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”.