Masters of Money — Keynes — Hayek — Marx — Videos

Posted on April 24, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

maynard_keynes

Masters Of Money: 1/3 – John Maynard Keynes (BBC Documentary Series)

friedrich-von-hayek

Masters Of Money: 2/3 – Friedrich Hayek (BBC Documentary Series)

karl_marx

Masters Of Money: 3/3 – Karl Marx (BBC Documentary Series)

Keynes the Man: Hero or Villain? | Murray N. Rothbard

Modern Myths of Keynesian Economics | Jeffrey M. Herbener

Deck the Halls with Macro Follies

Keynesianism Part I – It’s All About Spending

What GDP Leaves Out: An Austrian Look

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Conservative savior of UK’s economy, Margaret Thatcher dead at 87 — Videos

Posted on April 10, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Immigration, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, People, Philosophy, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Television, Transportation, Unions, Video, War, Water, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Conservative savior of UK’s economy, Margaret Thatcher dead at 87

By Raymond Thomas Pronk

Margaret_Thatcher

“Some Socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a State computer. We believe they should be individuals. We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the Socialists may pretend otherwise. We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal but to us every human being is equally important.”

~Margaret Thatcher, Speech to Conservative Party Conference, October 10, 1975

Ceremonial funeral services with military honors for Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of the United Kingdom, known as Maggie to her friends and “the Iron Lady” to her opponents, will be held this Wednesday at St Paul’s Cathedral, according to Prime Minister David Cameron’s office.

Her legacy was to change her country’s dominant ideology from collectivist state socialism implemented in decades of Labour Party policies to an individualist market capitalism implemented in Conservative Party policies. In the process she returned the U.K. to eight years of economic growth and prosperity in the 1980s.

Thatcher supported President Ronald Reagan and the United States in defeating communism in the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War.

Thatcher had been in declining health for a number of years and died peacefully in her sleep the morning of April 8 following a stroke.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said of Thatcher, “As our first woman prime minister, Margaret Thatcher succeeded against all the odds and the real thing about Margaret Thatcher is that she didn’t just lead our country, she saved our country, and I believe she’ll go down as the greatest British peacetime prime minister.”

President Barack Obama said, “The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty and America has lost a true friend.” Obama said she had taught “our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered.”

John Boehner, speaker of the house, said, “The greatest peacetime prime minister in British history is dead. Margaret Thatcher, a grocer’s daughter, stared down elites, union bosses and communists to win three consecutive elections, establish conservative principles in Western Europe and bring down the Iron Curtain. There was no secret to her values – hard work and personal responsibility – and no nonsense in her leadership.”

Nancy Reagan, widow of former President Ronald Reagan said: “Ronnie and Margaret were political soul mates, committed to freedom and resolved to end Communism. As Prime Minister, Margaret had the clear vision and strong determination to stand up for her beliefs at a time when so many were afraid to ‘rock the boat.’ As a result, she helped to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberation of millions of people.”

In 1975 Thatcher was elected leader of the Conservative Party. She was subsequently elected prime minister of the United Kingdom on May 4, 1979. Thatcher served three terms from 1979 to 1990 becoming Britain’s longest-serving prime minister in over a century as well as the most dynamic, inspirational and controversial.

When Thatcher took office, the British economy was in shambles and in recession, inflation was rising and the government faced possible bankruptcy. This was a direct result of many years of Labour Party socialistic policies of out-of-control government spending, confiscatory taxation and the nationalization or state control of many industries including coal, steel, railways, gas, electricity, water, trucking, airlines and telecommunications.

The writings of Austrian economist and political philosopher, Friedrick A. Hayek, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Economics, in particular his book, “The Road to Serfdom”, inspired and guided Thatcher’s economic policies.

Thatcher turned the economy around and made Britain governable again by taking on and taming the trade unions with labor reform legislation. No longer were the unions able to dictate the nation’s economic policies. Under Thatcher the British government pursued a policy of selling state assets with privatization of industry, thus reversing the Labour Party’s nationalization of industry.

When the Argentina government under the fascist junta invaded the British protectorate of the Falkland Islands in April 1982, she led the U.K. to victory. The Argentinians soon toppled the military junta.

In October 1984 there was an assassination attempt on her life when a hotel in Brighton where she and her husband and other members of her cabinet were staying was bombed by Irish Republican Army (IRA) terrorists.

Thatcher supported Reagan in opposing communism and confronting the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union. She was instrumental in the introduction of cruise missiles in Britain to counter the Soviet military threat. She allied the United Kingdom with the United States against the communist expansion and subversion in the West and the winning of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

A concise biography of her life can be found at the Margaret Thatcher Foundation web site http://www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp.  An excellent critical biography is Claire Berlinsky’s “There is No Alternative: Why Thatcher Matters” and related interview on YouTube video titled, “Thatcher & More with Claire Berlinski.”

An excellent multi-part documentary about Thatcher produced in 2008 by the conservative paper, The Daily Telegraph, can be viewed on YouTube as well as an entertaining movie about her early political career titled, “Margaret Thatcher – The Long Walk to Finchley.”

Her husband of more than 50 years, Denis Thatcher, died in June 2003. She is survived by her twin son, Mark, and daughter, Carol, born in 1953.

Thatcher remains a controversial figure in Britain. She was loved and revered by many as well as loathed and reviled by some. She will be remembered by all who value economic freedom and individual liberty.

“Freedom to choose is something we take for granted—until it is in danger of being taken away. Socialist governments set out perpetually to restrict the area of choice, Conservative governments to increase it. We believe that you become a responsible citizen by making decisions yourself, not by having them made for you.”

~Margaret Thatcher, Speech to Conservative Party Conference, October 10, 1975

David Cameron’s Commons tribute to Margaret Thatcher in full

Margaret Thatcher – Falklands War – YouTube

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 1 The Making of Margaret (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 2 The Falklands (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 3 World Stage (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 4 The Age of Dissent (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 5 Taking on the Unions (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 6 Public Image, Private Life. (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 7 The Fall (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 8 The Legacy (Telegraph Documentary)

Margaret Thatcher – The Long Walk To Finchley Full Movie

Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (1/4 BBC)

Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (2/4 BBC)

Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (3/4 BBC)

Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (4/4 BBC)

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Margaret Thatcher — Rest In Peace — Videos

Claire Berlinski–Why Margaret Thatcher Matters: “There Is No Alternative”–Videos

Friedrich August von Hayek: Fighting the Planners — The Road To Serfdom — A Profile in Liberty — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Sovereign Wealth Fund Threat: Are Chinese Communists Behind Rush In Passing Bailout Bill?

Posted on October 3, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Economics, Investments, Links, Music, People, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Technology, Uncategorized, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

What is going on?

The Elite Looting Americans


 

Rep. McCotter discusses Sovereign Wealth Funds

Ron Paul talks @ Sovereign Wealth Funds Hearing 9/10/8

Sovereign wealth funds explained – Newsnight video

Lee Kuan Yew on Singapore sovereign wealth fund

Sovereign Wealth Funds On The Rise

Sovereign wealth funds – what China will do next?

Sovereign Wealth Funds — Navarro’s China Effect

17th Annual Conference:Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment 7/10

17th AnnualConference:Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment 10/10

Paul Volcker on Sovereign Wealth Funds and the Economy


 

China’s threat to American economic stability: CNN

America’s Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony

“…a parliament or government which becomes a charitable institution thereby becomes exposed to irresistable blackmail. And it soon ceases to be the ‘deserts’ but becomes exclusively the ‘political necessity’ which determines which groups are to be favoured at general expense.”

~Friedrick A. Hayek, The Political Order of a Free People, page 150.

“…once wide coercive powers are given to governmental agencies for particular purposes, such powers cannot be effectively controlled by democratic assemblies.”

~Friedrick A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, page 116.

“It would scarcely be an exaggeration to say that the greatest danger to liberty today comes from the men who are most needed and most powerful in modern government, namely, the efficient expert administrators exclusively concerned with what they regard as the public good.”

~Friedrick A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, page 262.

 

Why all the rush in passing the bailout bill?

Why were alternative courses of action ruled out?

Why does the Federal government need to purchase the assets of financial institutions instead providing liquidity in the form of loans or investment to these financial institutions?

Is this an October surprise to influence the US elections?

Why are President Bush, Senators McCain and Obama resorting to dire fear mongering and very similar phrases and stories to try to convince and scare the American people to supporting the quick passage of the United States Government bailout of financial institutions, the so-called Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008?

George W. B ush statement on failure of wall street bail out 

McCain statement of failure of bailout bill

Obama Still Begging Taxpayers To Support Wall Street Bailout Bill

The fear campaign is not working.

Credit is not frozen.

The American people are calling their banks, credit unions, and car dealers–loans are being made.

Business as usual.

Just like it was business as usual in Congress.

The American elites are lying to the American people and the American people know it.

Some suspect that the Chinese Communists may have made it known to the US that China will not continued to hold US Treasury securities unless the US Federal government purchases from Chinese financial institutions those US mortgage-backed and related securities that are currently depressed in prices-so-called troubled assets.

In other words the US Treasury needs to bail out Chinese financial institutions that have purchased securities from US financial institutions, such as investment banks.

Why?

How much mortgage backed securities do Chinese financial institutions hold in their investment portfolios?

How much have these Chinese financial institutions  lost on holding this type of securities?

A lot of questions, but not many answers from the American elites.

Just hurry up and pass the bailout bill or else the US economy goes into a severe recession if not depression?

The American elites are not leveling with the American people. 

Charlie Rose – Economist Milton Friedman

What is going on?

First read the following from the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 that the Senate passed:

Sec. 112. Coordination with foreign authorities and central banks.  

The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 101. 

The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 101. 

The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 101. 

Note that the definition of what is a “troubled asset” under section 101 is quite broad:

TROUBLED ASSETS

—The term ‘‘troubled assets’’ means—

(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and

(B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress. 

 http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/latestversionAYO08C32_xml.pdf  

Looks like the United States will be buying billions of dollars of troubled assets from foreign banks, including China.

The failure of Congress and specifically the Democratic Party to allow appropriate regulation and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will result in the bailout of China who bought upwards of $400 billion of mortgaged backed securities or agencies.

Now what is the source of all those campaign contributions to certain Presidential candidates coming from abroad in 2008? 

Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman 

“…And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about.

The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.

More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.

But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.

Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.

With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners. …”

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html?s=al&promo_code=6BD9-1  

Also consider that in the 1996 Presidential election significant campaign contributions were given to President Clinton from Chinese sources:

1996 United States campaign finance controversy

“The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People’s Republic of China to influence domestic American politics during the 1996 federal elections.

The issue first received public attention in early 1997, with news that a Justice Department investigation had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in violation of U.S. laws regarding foreign political contributions.[1] While the Chinese government denied all accusations, twenty-two people were eventually convicted for fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the United States elections. …”

“…According to the United States Senate report Investigation of Illegal or Improper Activities in Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns, prior to 1995 China’s approach to promoting its interests in the United States was focused almost exclusively on diplomacy, including summits and meetings with high-level White House officials. In these meetings, Chinese officials often negotiated with the United States government by using the appeal of their huge commercial market.[2]

Around 1995, according to the Senate report, Chinese officials developed a new approach to promote their interests with the United States government and to improve China’s image with the American people. The proposals, dubbed the “China Plan”, were prompted by the United States Congress’s successful lobbying of the president to grant a visa to Taiwan President Lee Teng-Hui. United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher had previously assured his Chinese counterpart Qian Qichen that granting a visa would be “inconsistent with [the United States’] unofficial relationship [with Taiwan]”[3] and the Clinton Administration’s acquiescence to the Congressional resolutions led China to conclude that the influence of Congress over foreign policy was more significant than it had previously determined. When formulating the so-called plan, Chinese officials acknowledged that, compared to other countries, it had little knowledge of, or influence over, policy decisions made in Congress, which had a sizeable pro-Taiwan faction under the influence of a more established “China Lobby” run by the Kuomintang.[2]

The plan, according the Senate report, instructed Chinese officials in the U.S. to improve their knowledge about members of Congress and increase contacts with its members, the public, and the media. The plan also suggested ways to lobby United States officials.[2]

Over the years, China has repeatedly denied these lobbying efforts involved financial contributions of any kind:

[S]ome people and media in the United States speculated… about so-called participation by Chinese individuals in political donations during the U.S. elections. It is sheer fabrication and is intended to slander China. [China] has never, nor will we ever, use money to influence American politics — China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, May 1998.[4] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy

Why all the rush now to bail out foreign countries whose financial institutions bought “troubled assets”?

Who is pulling the trigger on the financial crisis?

Why was the trigger pulled now?

Defeat the cram down bailout bill.

Only you can prevent socialism in America. 

“We are only beginning to understand on how subtle a communication system the functioning of an advanced industrial society is based–a communications system which we call the market and which turns out to be a more efficient mechanism for digesting dispersed information than any that man has deliberately designed.”

~Friedrick A. Hayek, ‘The Pretense of Knowledge’, New Studies, page 34.

 

“The effective limitation of power is the most important problem of social order.”

~Friedrick A. Hayek, The Political Order of a Free People, page 128.

What is going on? 

 

~Marvin Gaye “What’s Going On / What’s Happening Brother

 
 
 

 

 

 

Background Articles and Videos 

  

 

Sovereign wealth funds explained – Newsnight video

 

Corporate Advisory Insight: Sovereign Wealth Funds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFIyqhUejqc&feature=related

  
 
 

 

 
 

 

Lee Kuan Yew on Singapore sovereign wealth fund

 

Davos Annual Meeting 2008 – Sovereign Wealth Funds

  
 
 

 

 
 

 

LOL

Bird & Fortune: George Parr, Conservative MP

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 

Sovereign wealth fund

“A sovereign wealth fund (SWF) is a state-owned investment fund composed of financial assets such as stocks, bonds, property, precious metals or other financial instruments. Sovereign wealth funds have gained world-wide exposure by investing in several Wall Street financial firms including Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch. These firms needed a cash infusion due to losses resulting from the subprime mortgage crisis. 

Some sovereign wealth funds are held solely by central banks, who accumulate the funds in the course of their fiscal management of a nation’s banking system; this type of fund is usually of major economic and fiscal importance. Other sovereign wealth funds are simply the state savings which are invested by various entities for the purposes of investment return, and which may not have significant role in fiscal management.

The accumulated funds may have their origin in, or may represent foreign currency deposits, gold, SDRs and IMF reserve positions held by central banks and monetary authorities, along with other national assets such as pension investments, oil funds, or other industrial and financial holdings. These are assets of the sovereign nations which are typically held in domestic and different reserve currencies such as the dollar, euro and yen. Such investment management entities may be set up as official investment companies, state pension funds, or sovereign oil funds, among others.

There have been attempts to distinguish funds held by sovereign entities from foreign exchange reserves held by central banks. The former can be characterized as maximizing long term return, with the latter serving short term currency stabilization and liquidity management. Many central banks in recent years possess reserves massively in excess of needs for liquidity or foreign exchange management. Moreover it is widely believed most have diversified hugely into assets other than short term, highly liquid monetary ones, though almost no data is available to back up this assertion. Some central banks have even begun buying equities, or derivatives of differing ilk (even if fairly safe ones, like Overnight Interest rate swaps).[citation needed] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_wealth_fund 

  
 
 

 

 
 

 

 

Sovereign Wealth Funds Threat to United States Economy 

“…However, there is mounting concern–fed by the lack of transparency–that these government-owned investment funds could be used to advance a political as well as economic agenda. If sovereign investors manage assets to promote more than a healthy return on investment, asset prices in countries receiving sov­ereign capital may not reflect market fundamentals, and resources will not be allocated efficiently– exacting a real cost on the economies involved.[4]

Moreover, some fear that rather than use these funds as a means to hold a diversified asset portfolio and earn a solid return on investment, countries might instead use these funds to destabilize finan­cial markets, protect industries and companies, or even expropriate technology.

With little public information available on most sovereign investors’ financial objectives, countries– including the U.S.–are increasingly uncertain about the real benefits of receiving investment from these funds and worry that they instead represent a grow­ing threat to their economic and national security. France and Germany have already declared their intention to block state-owned funds from investing in their economies.[5]

However, it is important to remember that such funds have been in operation for some time and that there is little evidence indicating that nations use their sovereign wealth funds to intentionally cause harm to the countries and firms in which they invest. Furthermore, open and competitive markets are quick to punish any investor, sovereign or otherwise, that would mismanage their holdings. Few governments–even those with highly question­able free-market credentials–intentionally allocate scarce resources to gain control of an asset for the sole purpose of destroying the value of that asset and reducing their own wealth. …” 

http://www.heritage.org/RESEARCH/TRADEANDFOREIGNAID/hl1063.cfm

 

 China Investment Corporation  

“The China Investment Corporation (CIC) is responsible for managing part of the People’s Republic of China’s foreign exchange reserves with $200 billion United States dollars of assets under management, which makes it the fourth largest Sovereign Wealth Fund.[1][2] This sovereign wealth fund officially began operations on Saturday, September 29, 2007. It bought a US $3 billion stake of Blackstone Group in June[3] and a 9.9% stake of Morgan Stanley worth US$ 5 billion on December 19, 2007.[4][5][6] 

The People’s Republic of China has US $1.7 trillion in currency reserves. The China Investment Corporation was established with the intent of utilizing these reserves for the benefit of the state, modeled according to Singapore’s Temasek Holdings. The state-owned Central Huijin Investment Corporation was merged into the new company as a wholly-owned subsidiary company.[5]

“…The Corporation aims to invest in around fifty large-sized enterprises across the world. Special treasury bonds were issued to create the capital that the CIC needed. 1,550.35 billion yuan ($207.91 billion) was issued in this bond sale. The bond process was completed in December 2007.[7] According to Lou Jiwei, the CIC needs to make a profit of 300 million Yuan every day just to pay the interest on the bonds and operation costs. The CIC paid its first interest on the bonds in February 2008 where it paid 12.9 billion yuan.[8] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Investment_Corporation  

 

Sovereign Wealth Funds and U.S. National Security

by Daniella Markheim  

“…In the 1990 decade, and early 2000 decade, hedge funds flexed their muscles, demonstrated their power, and earned both respect and animosity. Hedge funds have been blamed for several effects, like pushing up crude oil prices via speculation, even aiding and abetting the mortgage finance bubble. They grew in size to 9000 funds controlling $1.6 trillion in total. They stand first in line for carnage, having taken huge losses in the mortgage bond and Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) bond debacle. Most have suffered losses, while the great minority of smarter ones have profited on the opposite side of trades. In the process, hedge funds generally have lost a great deal of collective power, in a tarnished image. Meanwhile, the SWF funds have taken over as the prominent funds in the news, making their presence felt. In their arena, being entities connected and funded by major governments, they are huge in size. The SWF funds are the sharks operating in the ocean of liquidity, much fewer in number than the thousands of hedge fund minnows. Many hedge funds are over $1 billion in size though.

ONE COULD CONCLUDE THAT FOREIGN INSTITUTIONS HAVE BEGUN TO SHUN US$-BASED BONDS. CENTRAL BANKS ARE INCREASINGLY TURNING TO SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS AS PROFITABLE INVESTMENT VEHICLES. SWF FUNDS ENABLE A CHANGE IN COURSE, ONE WHICH THREATENS US BANKERS TO THE EXTREME. UK BONDS ARE IN THE SAME SEWER PIPE AS THE US BONDS. AFTER SWF FUNDS BUY UP BIG SLICES OF US BANKS, THEY CAN PURCHASE GOLD FREELY AND PULL THE DOG CHOKER ON US BANKERS IF NEED BE, RESTRAINING THEM. …”

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article3388.html 

What to do about big, foreign funds that are buying up the West? 

“…The biggest sovereign wealth funds “are owned by West Asian oil-producing countries, other oil producers such as Norway, and big Asian exporters such as China and Singapore….[O]il-rich West Asian nations and Russia as also large exporters such as China have been deploying part of their huge foreign-exchange reserves in sovereign [wealth] funds as investment vehicles that have grown significantly in size.” However, with all that cash moving around the global marketplace, some “rich nations, including Germany and the U.S., have…expressed uneasiness [since their governments believe that] these funds may be investing in their economies for political purposes.” Such governments are shocked – shocked! – by the notion that money might ever be used to influence the tone or direction of their policies. …” 

“…We are starting to get wind of who the winners and losers are in the government seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  It is not a pretty picture.  Holders of mortgage-backed debt of the two companies, so called agency debt, and holder of subordinated debt are the big winners.  Why? Government cash investments will be paid behind the payments to the mortgage-backed and even subordinated debt.  Any threat of a default and the government will make the payments on the debt.  Who holds this stuff.  The largest holders of agency debt are 1) foreign countries through state owned banks and through sovereign wealth funds and 2) a worldwide network of private banks and 3) United States pension funds.  The largest foreign holdings of agency debt are China ($400 billion) and Japan (($230 billion).   We are bailing out China and Japan, the world’s investment banks, and our pension funds.  Who is hurt??  Shareholders.  The government gets paid back before any preferred shareholders and common shareholders get any dividends.  Some shareholders are also holders of agency debt and do not mind; their gains on the debt side will swamp their loses on the stock side.  Some American investment banks and many pension funds are in this category.  But there are some banks that hold predominately preferred stock, most of them are regional banks or commercial banks, and they are big losers.  Shares are held in the public markets and usually in diversified portfolios.

Shareholders should lose (they are the residual claimants and they elect the board) but so should the debt-holders, particularly the subordinated debt holders (they took a risk of buying an instrument very similar to preferred stock).  Many debt holders have written down the value of their debt and now, suddenly, it is worth 100 cents on the dollar.  Why bailout foreign governments and why now — both companies had reserves — thin ones — and could have run on their own for another year or so?

The answer is political, regrettably.  Treasury did not want a blowup with China and Japan before the election and it wanted to create another method of subsidizing the economy (through Frannie and Freddie) that would take effect before the election. China threatened to sell not only agency debt but Treasuries and it would roil our debt markets; tight debt markets hurt GDP.  This threat is one we need to stand up to (emergency tariffs on Chinese goods are WTO legal). …” 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=30088  

 

Chinese Government is Top Foreign Holder of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Bonds

$376 Billion in Chinese Agency Bond Holdings Subject to Taxpayer Bailout Proposals According to FreedomWorks Analysts

“…The top five foreign holders of Freddie and Fannie long-term debt are China, Japan, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, and Belgium. In total foreign investors hold over $1.3 trillion in these agency bonds, according to the U.S. Treasury’s most recent “Report on Foreign Portfolio Holdings of U.S. Securities.”

FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe commented, “The prospectus for every GSE bond clearly states that it is not backed by the United States government. That’s why investors holding agency bonds already receive a significant risk premium over Treasuries.”

“A bailout at this stage would be the worst possible outcome for American taxpayers and mortgage holders, who have been paying a risk premium to these foreign investors. It would change the rules of the game retroactively and would directly subsidize the risks taken by sophisticated foreign investors.”

“A bailout of GSE bondholders would be perhaps the greatest taxpayer rip-off in American history. It is bad economics and you can be sure it is terrible politics.”

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/chinese-government-top-foreign-holder/story.aspx?guid=%7B347DF7BF-F0B7-48C9-A418-5A0B903D9F72%7D&dist=hppr 

 

Mike Pence Opposes Bailout 9/29/08

 

 
We Are Under Martial Law! As Declared By The Speaker Last Night! Rep Burgess

  
 
 

 

 
 

 

Michael Savage Argues About Financial Bail Outs Crooks on Wall Street – (9/29/08)

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

The Senate votes: Crap Sandwich 2.0 with sugar on top passes 74-25 

By Michelle Malkin  

“…There were 25 bailout busters (15 Republicans, 10 Democrats). …”

 http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/01/the-senate-votes-crap-sandwich-20/

Who’s afraid of sovereign wealth funds?

By Tim Weber 

“…Sovereign wealth funds – government-controlled investment funds – are one of the hottest topics at the World Economic Forum in Davos. But are they really dangerous?

 
 
 

 

Richard Fuld, Lehman Brothers chief executive

Richard Fuld says the funds could soon control up to $20 trillion

 

 

Picture this: You are finance minister and several very large banks in your country are in trouble. An investment fund steps into the breach and provides the much-needed cash – say $10bn (£5bn) or thereabouts. It helps to avoid a financial meltdown.

So far so good. But what if this fund is controlled by a foreign government with unclear intentions? What if such a fund also wants to buy your nation’s most important ports?

And what if the fund takes a large stake in a business that is a rival to its country’s national champion?

Across the Western world, politicians are grumbling, and economists and business leaders are pricking their ears. …”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7207715.stm 

 

Economists on the Bailout

 

US Economy: Even Hank Paulson’s bail-out plan cannot detox global banking

“…Around the world, investors were dumping assets they regarded as risky. World stocks were down sharply, while gold and U.S. Treasuries surged in the rush to safety.

The world’s central banks, led by the U.S. Federal Reserve, announced a $330 billion expansion of currency swap arrangements, which allows them to increase the amount of money they can provide in their home markets, effectively throwing more money at the crisis.

Earlier, the governments of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg moved to partly nationalize Belgian-Dutch group Fortis NV with an injection of more than $16 billion, and German lender Hypo Real Estate Holding AG secured a credit line from the German government and banks of up to 35 billion euros.

British mortgage lender Bradford & Bingley Plc was brought under the government’s wing, shares of French bank Dexia tumbled on a report that it might need emergency capital, and bank rescue deals also emerged in Iceland, Russia and Denmark.

“The contagion is spreading to mainland Europe and everyone’s asking, ‘Who’s next?'” said Mark Sartori, head of European sales trading at Fox-Pitt, Kelton in London.

The Wachovia deal is the latest in a series of events that has transformed the American financial landscape and wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars of shareholder wealth.

The changes include the government takeover of mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, the failure of giant savings and loan Washington Mutual, and Bank of America Corp’s purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co Inc. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3088685/US-Economy-Even-Hank-Paulsons-bail-out-plan-cannot-detox-global-banking.html

 
 
 

 

 

  

Largest sovereign wealth funds

 

Country  ↓ Abbreviation  ↓ Fund  ↓ Assets $Billion  ↓ Inception  ↓ Origin  ↓ Approx wealth per citizen ($)  ↓
Flag of Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi Emirate) ADIA Abu Dhabi Investment Authority 875 [9] 1976 Oil 1,000,000
 Norway GPF Government Pension Fund of Norway 391 [10] 1990 Oil 81,500
 Singapore GIC Government of Singapore Investment Corporation 330 [9] 1981 Non-commodity 100,000
 Kuwait KIA Kuwait Investment Authority 264.4 [11] 1953 Oil 80,000
 China CIC China Investment Corporation 200 [12] 2007.09.28 Non-commodity 151
 Singapore   Temasek Holdings1 159.2 [9] 1974 Non-commodity 35,400
 Australia FFMA Australian Government Future Fund 81.3 [13] 2004 Non-commodity 3,900
 Qatar QIA Qatar Investment Authority 60 [14] 2005 Oil 250,000
 United States (Alaska) APFC Alaska Permanent Fund 40.1 1976 Oil 61,000
 Libya   Libyan Investment Authority 50 2007 Oil 7,200
 Russia RNWF Russian National Wealth Fund 31.92 [15] 2008 Oil n/a
 Brunei BIA Brunei Investment Agency 30 1983 Oil 90,100
 South Korea KIC Korea Investment Corporation 30 2005 Non-commodity 417
 Malaysia KN Khazanah Nasional 18.3 1993 Non-commodity 658
 Kazakhstan KNF Kazakhstan National Fund 23.0 2000 Oil 1170
 China SAFE State Administration of Foreign Exchange n/a n/a Non-commodity n/a
 Taiwan NSF National Stabilisation Fund 15 2000 Non-commodity 652
 Canada (Alberta) AHF Alberta Heritage Fund 16.6 1976 Oil & Gas 5000
 Iran OSF Oil Stabilisation Fund 12.9 1999 Oil 174
Flag of Dubai United Arab Emirates (Dubai Emirate) DB Dubai World 100 2006 Oil n/a
 Saudi Arabia   Saudi Arabia Sovereign Wealth Fund 5.2 [16] 2008 Oil n/a

 

 

Defeat the Cram Down Bullshit Bailout Bill: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Bailout Bill vs. Rescue Economy American People (REAP) Law

The American People Want A Full Meal Buffett Deal–Not A Bailout!

Stop The Bailout: The American Elites’ Bum Rush of The American People–No Sale!

Obama Bombs Bailout Meeting–Whitehouse Still Standing–McCain Saved By House Republicans

Obama–ACORN–CRA–Congress–Democratic Party–Fannie Mae–Freddie Mac–Bailout–Socialism– Just Say No!

ACORN–Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now–Obama’s Red Shirts 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 80 so far )


Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...