Greece Defaults On Debt — Barring Last Minutes Rescue Attempts and Results of Sunday Referendum — No Vote Would Result in Greece Exiting Eurozone And Declaring Debt Odious! — Whose Next? — Videos

Posted on July 2, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Babies, Blogroll, College, Communications, Corruption, Crime, Economics, Education, European History, Faith, Family, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Radio, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 497  July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496  June 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 495  June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494 June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493 June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492 June 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 491 June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490 June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489 June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488 June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487 June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486 June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485 June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484 June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483 June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482 June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481 June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480 June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479 June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478 June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477 June 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 476 June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475 June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474 May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473 May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472 May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471 May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470 May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469 May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468 May 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 467 May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466 May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465 May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464 May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463 May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462 May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461 May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460 May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459 May 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 458 May 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 457 April 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

Story 1: Greece Defaults On Debt — Barring Last Minutes Rescue Attempts and Results of Sunday Referendum — No Vote Would Result in Greece Exiting Eurozone And Declaring Debt Odious! — Whose Next? — Videos

flagsgreece owesgreec debtGreece-debt
eurozone_chart624x325

Debt-to-GDP-Ratio-chart
Greek-Debt-vs-TARP-BailoutGreek-Debts-Payback-Scheduele

debt gdp

kick the can

Greek PM offers new concessions to creditors

JIM ROGERS – Greece Will Collapse & People Will Be Terrified

Greece faces financial meltdown after IMF loan default

Grexit: The Greek Debt Crisis Explained

Not Much Difference Between U.S. and Greece – Peter Schiff

Why Does Greece Have So Much Debt?

Greece: What Is the Worst-Case Scenario?

Keiser Report: Greece! Start Fresh (E777)

Greece to default on IMF loan on Tuesday as banks close and panic buying begins

Greece formally defaults on its 1.6bn-euro IMF loan

Greece defaults on $1.7 billion payment

GREECE DEBT CRISIS – Obama Claims Greece Crisis Unlikely To Have Major Impact on U.S.

‘Greece should Grexit which is fantastic, they could restart their economy’ – Max Keiser

U.S. Headed Toward Greek Style Debt Default

MM115 Markets Crash on Greece

Keiser Report: We Are All Greeks Now (E764)

Greece Defaults on IMF Loan Despite New Push for Bailout Aid

European finance chiefs shut down Athens’s last-minute request for emergency financial aid

Greece became the first developed country to default on the International Monetary Fund, as the rescue program that has sustained it for five years expired and its creditors rejected a last-ditch effort to buy more time.

The Washington-based fund said the Greek government failed to transfer €1.55 billion ($1.73 billion) by close-of-business on Tuesday—the largest, single missed repayment in the IMF’s history.

The failure to pay the IMF was a dramatic, if anticipated, conclusion to a day full of unexpected twists and turns. On Tuesday morning—with the clock ticking toward the midnight expiration on the European portion of Greece’s €245 billion bailout—officials in Athens said they were working on a new solution to the four-month old impasse with creditors.

By the afternoon, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras had asked for a new rescue program—the country’s third in five years—to help pay for some €29.15 billion ($32.52 billion) in debt coming due between 2015 and 2017.

Late Tuesday, Greek officials were also raising doubts over their plans for a referendum planned for Sunday, in which the government had asked its citizens to vote against pension cuts and sales-tax increases demanded by its creditors.

ENLARGE

Some officials suggested that Mr. Tsipras and his ministers could campaign for a “yes” if a better offer from the rest of the eurozone and the IMF was on the table, while others indicated that the vote might even be called off altogether.

Whether any of these developments would keep Greece from financial meltdown andsecure its spot in Europe’s currency union was still unclear. But the prospect of more rescue loans—however dim—might help buffer some of the effects of the nonpayment to the IMF.

But in Berlin, Chancellor Angela Merkel and other senior officials sought to lower expectations for a quick resolution to Greece’s financial crisis.

Before Greeks have voted on the measures demanded by creditors, “we will not negotiate about anything new at all,” Ms. Merkel said. Her deputy and coalition partner, Sigmar Gabriel of the Social Democrats, urged Greece to cancel the referendum altogether. “Then one could very quickly gather for talks, initial talks. If that’s not the case, then we should certainly do this after the referendum,” Mr. Gabriel said.

European stocks and bonds fell amid the uncertainty and the euro declined against the U.S. dollar.

But most of the moves were smaller than the declines a day earlier in reaction to Athens’s weekend announcement that the government would call a referendum on whether to accept the terms that creditors are offering and the government’s shutdown of its banking system to prevent a financial collapse.

In Washington, President Barack Obama played down the potential impact of Greece’s worsening crisis on the U.S. and broader global economy. “That is not something that we believe will have a major shock to the system,” he said.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has been urging his European counterparts to press ahead with bailout talks to find a “pragmatic compromise” that includes both tough economic overhauls and debt relief, to prevent Europe’s economic problems from dragging on U.S. growth.

Related Video

Greek banks have been heavily dependent on support from the European Central Bank. WSJ’s Charles Forelle explains why the country’s banking sector could turn out to be its Achilles heel.

Eurozone finance ministers are scheduled to discuss Greece’s bailout request, along with new proposals for budget cuts and policy overhauls, in a teleconference Wednesday morning.

Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis told his counterparts Tuesday that these plans would be close to the creditors’ latest demands, Austrian Finance Minister Hans Jörg Schelling said in a television interview.

Mr. Varoufakis also suggested that his government might campaign for a “yes” in the referendum if its new proposals were accepted, Mr. Schelling said.

Other officials were more skeptical that, after four months of at times acrimonious negotiations, Mr. Tsipras’s left-wing government was finally giving in to creditors’ demands.

“The political stance of the Greek government doesn’t appear to have changed,” said Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch finance minister who presides over the talks with his eurozone counterparts. Mr. Dijsselbloem already said over the weekend that the government would have a hard time convincing creditors and investors that it would implement measures it has to far opposed.

The expiration of the existing bailout and a default on the IMF aren’t expected to have immediate consequences for Greece’s economy. Its banks have already been ordered closed until Monday, after the European Central Bank capped emergency loans to Greek lenders over the weekend. Cash withdrawals by Greeks have been limited to €60 a day for each account-holder since Monday.

On Wednesday, the focus will again be on the ECB, whose governing council is due to meet in Frankfurt.

The council, which includes central bankers from the eurozone’s 19 member states, is reluctant to take any additional steps for now that would inflict more pain on Greek banks—for instance, by forcing them to pay back the outstanding loans just days ahead of the referendum, people familiar with the matter said, despite a growing level of impatience over the central bank’s exposure to Greece.

One largely symbolic option would be for the ECB to raise the amount of collateral that banks have to post in return for the emergency loans, but calibrate the reductions on the face value of assets used for collateral so that Greek lenders would still have enough to cover the existing €89 billion loan pile.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/some-greek-banks-to-open-for-pensioners-1435653433

Greek crisis deepens as loan repayment deadline passes

Kim Hjelmgaard and Marco della Cava,

reece’s midnight deadline passed Tuesday for repaying $1.8 billion to the International Monetary Fund and other international creditors, deepening a financial crisis that threatens the Mediterranean nation’s membership in the European Union.

Despite an eleventh-hour effort by Greek lawmakers Tuesday to secure a new two-year debt deal before the deadline, European finance ministers reviewing Greece’s proposal concluded their conference call without offering a bailout extension.

The ministers agreed to convene again Wednesday to further discuss the details of a new series of loans from the eurozone’s European Stability Mechanism, its $560 billion rescue fund.

After the deadline passed (at 6 pm ET), Greece joined Zimbabwe, Sudan and Somaliain being in arrears to the IMF. Fitch Ratings has downgraded Greece’s government debt further into junk territory.

Standing in the way of any new deal from the IMF and other creditors is Sunday’s Greek referendum on whether to accept the terms that would come with a new aid package, which includes tax increases and spending cutbacks after years of recession. There is some dispute over whether such a referendum could be canceled, with some Greek lawmakers arguing that the vote is now set in stone.

Late Tuesday, thousands of Greeks took to the streets of Athens, many of them in support of accepting new bailout terms. A “no” vote would lead to Greece leaving the European Union and abandoning the euro currency.

The $1.8 billion Greece owes is part of a $270 billion aid plan it received from the IMF, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Commission — 19 eurozone governments — during its financial crisis.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel made her position clear Tuesday, telling reporters in Berlin, “We’ll negotiate about absolutely nothing before the planned referendum is held.”

Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has said that his government would step down if “yes” votes prevailed, telling a Greek public broadcasting outlet Monday, “We’ll choose in a sovereign way what our future will be like, we will insist on negotiating.”

President Obama cautioned that a failed Greek economy could have significant ripple effects on markets around the world, adding Tuesday that “what you have here is a country that has gone through some very difficult economic times, and needs to find a path toward growth and a path toward staying in the eurozone.”

But should there be a so-called Grexit — or Greek exit from the European financial community — Obama added that “it is important for us that we plan for any contingency, that we work with the ECB and other international institutions to ensure that some of the bumps that occur in the financial markets are smoothed out.”

Greece had previously indicated it would not be able to make the payment. The IMF said it would not give Greece its customary 30-day grace period before issuing a notice of technical default.

But Athens is not expected to immediately go bankrupt. That would only happen if its non-payment triggers further defaults in its financial system, which is not expected.

Next month, on July 20, Greece is also due to pay the ECB $3.9 billion.

Talks between Greece and its creditors have broken down as Athens has tried to negotiate less onerous repayment terms, mainly centered around austerity measures. Global markets on Monday tumbled over fears that the country’s attempts to strike a better deal could see it forced out of the eurozone. Its membership in the European Union is also at stake.

But markets bounced back Tuesday in Asia, and European indexes moved away from earlier losses after steep sell-offs in those regions helped push the Dow down 350 points in the prior session — its biggest one-day point loss since June 20, 2013.

On Tuesday, U.S. markets edged higher, buoyed by Greece’s new proposal that came against the dominant crisis narrative of the last 48 hours.

Earlier, citing unnamed government sources, Greece’s Ekathimerini newspaper reported Athens was reconsidering a previous proposal by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. No details were provided.

A Greek eurozone exit, it is feared, would reignite the financial contagion experienced during the sovereign debt crisis of 2009 and beyond when billions of dollars were wiped off the value of European government debt and other assets.

Still, while many analysts and officials have warned that Greece leaving the eurozone could have far-reaching consequences for economies and markets across the world, the specific impact of that possible development remains mostly unclear.

“If Greece leaves the eurozone, there is unlikely to be a big bang moment when the country adopts the drachma (the currency it used prior to adopting the euro in 2001),” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, a unit of the ratings firm.

“It will happen over time, as the Greek government issues IOUs that effectively become the new currency,” he said.

Greek Prime Minister Tsipras hinted Monday that he may resign if his nation votes “yes” in the referendum Sunday. Tsipras’ leftist Syriza party insists the vote is being called to strengthen its negotiating mandate with its creditors.

“If the Greek people want to proceed with austerity plans in perpetuity, which will leave us unable to lift our head, we will respect it, but we will not be the ones to carry it out,” he said on Greek television late Monday.

European leaders including Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and French PresidentFrancois Hollande dispute that. They say that Sunday’s vote will effectively be a referendum on whether Greece wants to remain part of the eurozone.

The government has limited cash withdrawals from banks to about $68 per day in a bid to stave off bank runs and keep its financial system from collapsing, triggering protests from groups on both sides of Sunday’s yes or no vote.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/06/30/greek-crisis-deepens-as-loan-repayment-deadline-nears/29518847/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-497

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Congress Using Fast Track Authority To Open The Back Door To Millions of H-1 B Visas For Foreign Workers Replacing American Workers (Trade In Services Agreement) — The Selling Out of The American People By Political Elitist Establishment (PEE) For Corporate Campaign Contributions — Vote The Bastards Out of Office — Videos

Posted on June 13, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Banking, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Politics, Press, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 484 June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483 June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482 June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481 June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480 June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479 June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478 June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477 June 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 476 June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475 June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474 May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473 May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472 May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471 May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470 May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469 May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468 May 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 467 May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466 May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465 May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464 May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463 May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462 May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461 May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460 May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459 May 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 458 May 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 457 April 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 438: March 31, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 437: March 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 436: March 27, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 435: March 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 434: March 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 433: March 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 432: March 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 431: March 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Story 1: Congress Using Fast Track Authority To Open The Back Door To Millions of H-1 B Visas For Foreign Workers Replacing American Workers (Trade In Services Agreement) — The Selling Out of The American People By Political Elitist Establishment (PEE) For Corporate Campaign Contributions — Vote The Bastards Out of Office — Videos

158-fast-track-trade

Obama-Fast-TrackObam-Train

George Carlin on

the American Dream

‘Fast-track’ Trade Bill Derailed in House in Blow to Obama

Democrats Derail Obama’s Trade Deal for Now

The Fall of Cover Garbage

SR in 60: House lawmakers vote to derail Obama’s trade agenda

McConnell Says Pres Obama Has Done An Excellent Job Pushing Trade Deal Jeff Sessions Lou Dobbs

Investor Jim Rogers on why TPP is so secret

No one knows what the TPP is

Wikileaks Releases Part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Text…

WikiLeaks Launches Campaign to Offer $100,000 “Bounty” for Leaked Drafts of Secret TPP Chapters

Belgium: Assange slams EU/US plans revealed in leaked TiSA documents

Mark Levin: Fast Track trade bill massively expands Obama’s executive authority over immigration!

Breaking! TPA Passes House While TAA Fails

Disney Fires Hundreds Of American Tech Workers, Forced To Train Foreign Replacements

Disney Setting Up High Tech Sweatshops In US (TPP Foreshadow)

TPP: The Dirtiest Trade Deal You’ve Never Heard Of

Infowars Blows The Lid Off TPP Agreement

The Truth About Free Trade Agreements | Trans-Pacific Partnership TPP

Free Trade and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Revolt over TPP: Senate Dems Rebuke Obama by Blocking Debate on Secretive Trade Deal

Cruz Supports Giving Fast Track Authority on Trade to Obama

Sen Ted Cruz Wants to DOUBLE Immigration

Sen. Cruz Amendment to Immigration Legislation to Increase H-1B Visas

REVEALED: THE SECRET IMMIGRATION CHAPTER IN OBAMA’S TRADE AGREEMENT

PEDRO SANTANA/AFP/Getty Images

Discovered inside the huge tranche of secretive Obamatrade documents released by Wikileaks are key details on how technically any Republican voting for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that would fast-track trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal would technically also be voting to massively expand President Obama’s executive authority when it comes to immigration matters.

The mainstream media covered the Wikileaks document dump extensively, but did not mention the immigration chapter contained within it, so Breitbart News took the documents to immigration experts to get their take on it. Nobody has figured how big a deal the documents uncovered by Wikileaks are until now. (See below)

The president’s Trade in Services Act (TiSA) documents, which is one of the three different close-to-completely-negotiated deals that would be fast-tracked making up the president’s trade agreement, show Obamatrade in fact unilaterally alters current U.S. immigration law. TiSA, like TPP or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) deals, are international trade agreements that President Obama is trying to force through to final approval. The way he can do so is by getting Congress to give him fast-track authority through TPA.

TiSA is even more secretive than TPP. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill can review the text of TPP in a secret, secured room inside the Capitol—and in some cases can bring staffers who have high enough security clearances—but with TiSA, no such draft text is available.

Voting for TPA, of course, would essentially ensure the final passage of each TPP, T-TIP, and TiSA by Congress, since in the history of fast-track any deal that’s ever started on fast-track has been approved.

Roughly 10 pages of this TiSA agreement document leak are specifically about immigration.

“The existence of these ten pages on immigration in the Trade and Services Agreement make it absolutely clear in my mind that the administration is negotiating immigration – and for them to say they are not – they have a lot of explaining to do based on the actual text in this agreement,” Rosemary Jenks, the Director of Government Relations at Numbers USA, told Breitbart News following her review of these documents.

Obama will be able to finalize all three of the Obamatrade deals, without any Congressional input, if Congress grants him fast-track authority by passing TPA. Fast-track lowers the vote thresholds in the Senate and blocks Congress from amending any trade deals—and also, since each of these three deals are pretty much entirely negotiated already, it wouldn’t lead to any more congressional involvement or transparency with each.

The Senate passed the TPA last month, so it is up to the House to put the brakes on Obama’s unilateral power. The House could vote as early as Friday on fast-track, but may head into next week. By all counts, it’s going to be a very tight vote—and may not pass. It remains to be seen what will happen in light of leaks about things like the immigration provisions of TiSA—which deals with 24 separate parties, mostly different nations but also the European Union. It is focused on increasing the free flow of services worldwide—and with that, comes labor. Labor means immigration and guestworkers.

“This Trade and Services Agreement is specifically mentioned in TPA as being covered by fast-track authority, so why would Congress be passing a Trade Promotion Authority Act that covers this agreement, if the U.S. weren’t intended to be a party to this agreement – so at the very least, there should be specific places where the U.S. exempts itself from these provisions and there are not,” explained Jenks.

She emphasized that this is a draft, but at this point “certainly the implication is that the U.S. intends to be a party to all or some of the provisions of this agreement. There is nothing in there that says otherwise, and there is no question in my mind that some of the provisions in this Trade and Services Agreement would require the United States to change its immigration laws.”

In 2003, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution that said no immigration provision should be in trade agreements – and in fact, former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) voted for this resolution.

The existence of these 10 pages is in clear violation of that earlier unanimous decision, and also in violation of the statements made by the U.S. Trade Representative.

“He has told members of Congress very specifically the U.S. is not negotiating immigration – or at least is not negotiating any immigration provisions that would require us to change our laws. So, unless major changes are made to the Trade and Services Agreement – that is not true,” said Jenks.

There are three examples within the 10 pages of areas where the U.S. would have to alter current immigration law.

First, on page 4 and 5 of the agreement, roughly 40 industries are listed where potentially the U.S. visa processes would have to change to accommodate the requirements within the agreement.

Jenks explained that under the agreement, the terms don’t have an economic needs based test, which currently U.S. law requires for some types of visa applications in order to show there aren’t American workers available to fill positions.

Secondly, on page 7 of the agreement, it suggests, “The period of processing applications may not exceed 30 days.”

Jenks said this is a massive problem for the U.S. because so many visa applications take longer than 30 days.

“We will not be able to meet those requirements without essentially our government becoming a rubber stamp because it very often takes more than 30 days to process a temporary worker visa,” she said.

Jenks also spotted another issue with the application process.

“The fact that there’s a footnote in this agreement that says that face to face interviews are too burdensome … we’re supposed to be doing face to face interviews with applicants for temporary visas,” she added.

“According to the State Department Consular Officer, it’s the in person interviews that really gives the Consular Officer an opportunity to determine – is this person is a criminal, is this person a terrorist … all of those things are more easily determined when you’re sitting face to face with someone and asking those questions.”

The third issue is present on page 4 of the agreement. It only provides an “[X]” where the number of years would be filled in for the entry or temporary stay.

Jenks explained that for example, with L visas under current U.S. immigration law, the time limit is seven years – so if the agreement were to go beyond seven years, it would change current U.S. law.

This wouldn’t be unconstitutional if Obama has fast-track authority under TPA, as Congress would essentially have given him the power to finalize all aspects of the negotiations, including altering immigration law.

“I think this whole thing makes it very clear that this administration is negotiating immigration – intends to make immigration changes if they can get away with it, and I think it’s that much more critical that Congress ensure that the administration does not have the authority to negotiate immigration,” Jenks said.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/10/revealed-the-secret-immigration-chapter-in-obamas-trade-agreement/

TiSA: A Secret Trade Agreement That Will Usurp America’s Authority to Make Immigration Policy

By  Daniel Costa and Ron Hira

Proponents of Trade Promotion Authority (aka fast-track trade negotiating authority), which the House of Representatives will likely vote on soon, have made an unequivocal promise that future trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will explicitly exclude any provisions that would require a change to U.S. immigration law, regulations, policy, or practices. Many members of Congress in both parties have expressed concern that trade agreements might limit America’s ability to set immigration policy. Republican congressmen Paul Ryan and Robert Goodlatte have responded by explicitly assuring members of their party that there will be no immigration provisions in any trade bill.

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has stated in an interrogatory with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and via letter that nothing is being negotiated in the TPP that “would require any modification to U.S. immigration law or policy or any changes to the U.S. visa system.”

Furthermore, just a few weeks ago, the Senate Finance Committee released a statement titled “TPA Drives High-Quality Trade Agreements, Not Immigration Law: The Administration Has No Authority Under TPA or Any Pending Trade Agreement to Unilaterally Change U.S. Immigration Laws,” and the committee’s May 12 report on the Fast Track bill that was eventually passed by the full Senate contained this relevant language:

For many years, Congress has made it abundantly clear that international trade agreements should not change, nor require any change, to U.S. immigration law and practice…

The Committee continues to believe that it is not appropriate to negotiate in a trade agreement any provision that would (1) require changes to U.S. immigration law, regulations, policy, or practice; (2) accord immigration-related benefits to parties to trade agreements; (3) commit the United States to keep unchanged, with respect to nationals of parties to trade agreements, one or more existing provisions of U.S. immigration law, policy, or practice; or (4) expand to additional countries immigration-related commitments already made by the United States in earlier trade agreements.

Congress’ intent could not be any clearer, but there’s strong evidence to doubt that these assurances will be upheld. If you read these statements closely, you’ll see that most of them concern only the TPP and its lack of impact on immigration policy. But the Trade in Services Agreement, or “TiSA”—another trade deal being negotiated in secret by the Obama administration—is another story; there is little doubt that it will constrain the future ability of the United States Congress to regulate U.S. immigration policy. In fact, deregulating the U.S. work visa system, and therefore opening it up to foreign corporations that provide services (as opposed to goods) is the explicit purpose of an entire annex (section) in TiSA, entitled “Movement of Natural Persons.” The text was heretofore secret until Wikileaks published it on its website last week.

It should be noted that much of the text is a proposed draft for negotiation, and within the text, numerous parts of specific provisions are bracketed to denote which countries support or oppose particular sections or language within sections. But the thrust of the text in the annex is clear. For example, Article 4 is about the schedules (i.e., lists) of commitments that countries will have to put together regarding the “Entry and Temporary Stay of Natural Persons,” and a proposed version of Article 4, Section 2 would prohibit member states from “maintain[ing] or adopt[ing] Economic Needs Tests, including labor market tests, as a requirement for a visa or work permit” in the sectors where commitments are made. (In other words, U.S. laws or regulations limiting guestworkers only to jobs where no U.S. workers were available would violate the terms of the treaty.)

Proposed draft Article 5, Section 1 then requires that “Each Party shall take market access and national treatment commitments for intra-corporate transferees, business visitors and categories delinked from commercial presence: contractual service suppliers and independent professionals.” Section 3 gets more specific about the sectors of the economy where member states will have to allow access to intra-corporate transferees, business visitors, contractual service suppliers, and independent professionals:

3. Subject to any terms, limitations, conditions and qualifications that the Party sets out in its Schedule, Parties shall allow entry and temporary stay of [contractual service suppliers and independent professionals3] for a minimum of [X%] of the following sectors/sub-sectors:

Professional services:

  1. Accounting, auditing and bookkeeping services (CPC 862)
  2. Architectural services (CPC 8671)
  3. Engineering services (CPC 8672)
  4. Integrated engineering services (CPC 8673)
  5. Urban planning and landscape architectural services (CPC 8674)
  6. Medical & dental services (CPC 9312)
  7. Veterinary services (CPC 932)
  8. Services provided by midwives, nurses, physiotherapists and paramedical personnel (CPC 93191)

Computer and related services:

  1. Consultancy services related to the installation of computer hardware (CPC 841)
  2. Software implementation services (CPC 842)
  3. Data processing services (CPC 843)
  4. Data base services (CPC 844)
  5. Other (CPC 845+849)

Research and Development services:

  1. R&D services on natural sciences (CPC 851)
  2. R&D services on social sciences and humanities (CPC 852)
  3. Interdisciplinary R&D services (CPC 853)

Other business services

  1. Advertising services (CPC 871)
  2. Market research and public opinion polling services (CPC 864)
  3. Management consulting services (CPC 865)
  4. Services related to management consulting (CPC 866)
  5. Technical testing & analysis services (CPC 8676)
  6. [CH propose: Services incidental to manufacturing]
  7. Related scientific and technical consulting services (CPC 8675)
  8. Maintenance and repair of equipment (not including maritime vessels, aircraft or other transport equipment) (CPC 633 + 8861-8866)
  9. Specialty design services (CPC 87907)

Construction and related engineering services:

  1. General construction work for buildings (CPC 512)
  2. General construction work for civil engineering (CPC 513)
  3. Installation and assembly work (CPC514+516)
  4. Building completion and finishing work (CPC 517)
  5. Other (CPC 511+515+518)

Environmental services:

  1. Sewage services (CPC 9401)
  2. Refuse disposal services (CPC 9402)
  3. Sanitation and similar services (CPC 9403)
  4. Other

[CH propose: Financial Services]

[CH propose: Financial advisors]

Tourism and travel related services:

  1. Hotels and Restaurants (CPC Ex. 641)
  2. Travel Agencies and Tour Operators services (CPC 7471)
  3. Tourist Guides services (CPC 7472)

[CH propose: Transport services

[CH propose: Other services auxiliary to all modes of transport CPC]

Recreational, cultural and sporting services:

38. Sporting and other recreational services (CPC 964)

In the United States, this means the L-1 intra-company transferee, B-1 business visitor visa programs, and any other applicable visa programs could be used to permit temporary employees from abroad to work in the United States, and no economic needs tests (i.e., testing the labor market) could ever be imposed by Congress. To translate, that means that foreign firms would not be required to advertise jobs to U.S. workers, or to hire U.S. workers if they were equally or better qualified for job openings in their own country. (It should be noted that the L-1 is already restricted in this way, as a result of the United States’ commitments under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATS).) These visa programs are already under-regulated and abused by employers, but since neither the L-1 nor the B-1 visa program is numerically limited by law, this means that potentially hundreds of thousands of workers could enter the United States every year to work in these 38 sectors.

This is worrying and problematic, not because there shouldn’t be any foreign competition from service-providing companies in the United States, but because the competitive advantage foreign companies will get from TiSA is the ability to provide cheaper services by importing much cheaper labor to supplant American workers. They’ll do this by paying their workers the much lower salaries they would earn in their home countries (as they often already do in the L-1 and B-1 visa programs), and the United States might even be prohibited in future from imposing minimum or prevailing wage standards (at present, neither the L-1 or B-1 visa program has a minimum or prevailing wage rule).

There is clear precedent for this. The multilateral GATS agreement, to which the United States is a party, includes limits on the U.S. government’s ability to change the rules on H-1B and L-1 guestworker visas. That’s why when Congress wants to raise visa fees, as they did in 2010, the Indian government cries foul and threatens to formally complain to the World Trade Organization. The U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore trade deals also included new guestworker programs similar to the H-1B and constraints on the U.S. government’s ability to set rules on L-1 intracompany transfers.

The TiSA draft annex on Movement of Natural Persons would also likely restrict the ability of the current and future administrations to continue some of the basic immigration procedures it currently follows, such as requiring an in-person interview with L-1 applicants. The draft treaty might even prohibit common sense legislative proposals that Congress has considered over the past few years, including minimum wage rules for companies seeking to hire guestworkers in the L-1 visa program. This is particularly disturbing since the L-1 visa program has been a primary vehicle to facilitate the offshoring of high wage jobs and for replacing American workers with cheaper guestworkers.

TiSA has been written in secret by and for major corporations that will benefit greatly if it becomes law. If the House of Representatives grants the Obama administration the fast-track trade promotion authority it seeks, the authority will be valid for six years, which means TiSA (like TPP) would also get an up-or-down vote in Congress without any amendments—making it very likely to pass and become law without the necessary democratic deliberations on immigration that such major changes should have. The leaked TiSA text makes it clear that contrary to the claims by proponents of fast-track trade promotion authority, the reality is that those voting for fast track are ceding key powers to make immigration law and policy to an unelected group of corporations and foreign governments.

REVEALED: THE SECRET IMMIGRATION CHAPTER IN OBAMA’S TRADE AGREEMENT

Roughly 10 pages of this TiSA agreement document leak are specifically about immigration

Revealed: The Secret Immigration Chapter in Obama’s Trade Agreement
Image Credits: Backbone Campaign / Flickr.

by ALEX SWOYER | BREITBART | JUNE 10, 2015
Share on Facebook89Tweet about this on Twitter65Share on Google+0Email this to someonePrint this page
Discovered inside the huge tranche of secretive Obamatrade documents released by Wikileaks are key details on how technically any Republican voting for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that would fast-track trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal would technically also be voting to massively expand President Obama’s executive authority when it comes to immigration matters.

The mainstream media covered the Wikileaks document dump extensively, but did not mention the immigration chapter contained within it, so Breitbart News took the documents to immigration experts to get their take on it. Nobody has figured how big a deal the documents uncovered by Wikileaks are until now. (See below)

The president’s Trade in Services Act (TiSA) documents, which is one of the three different close-to-completely-negotiated deals that would be fast-tracked making up the president’s trade agreement, show Obamatrade in fact unilaterally alters current U.S. immigration law. TiSA, like TPP or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) deals, are international trade agreements that President Obama is trying to force through to final approval. The way he can do so is by getting Congress to give him fast-track authority through TPA.
TiSA is even more secretive than TPP. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill can review the text of TPP in a secret, secured room inside the Capitol—and in some cases can bring staffers who have high enough security clearances—but with TiSA, no such draft text is available.

Voting for TPA, of course, would essentially ensure the final passage of each TPP, T-TIP, and TiSA by Congress, since in the history of fast-track any deal that’s ever started on fast-track has been approved.

Roughly 10 pages of this TiSA agreement document leak are specifically about immigration.

http://www.infowars.com/revealed-the-secret-immigration-chapter-in-obamas-trade-agreement/

The congressional trade debate, explained in 6 factions

By Amber Phillips

Few issues shuffle Washington around into weird alliances like trade policy. President Obama’s two ambitious, legacy-defining trade deals with Pacific Rim countries and Europe are no different.

Obama is trying to get Congress to let him negotiate the deals without lawmakers’ input until the very end, when Congress would get a yes-or-no vote on each deal. It’s known as “fast-track authority.” The Senate approved the president’s power to do that in last month, but the bigger challenge is in the House of Representatives.

It’s a tough sell, but not for the reasons you might think. Broadly speaking, House Republicans are on board; Democrats, not so much.

A major reason for the division is labor unions, which fear trade deals can take manufacturing jobs away from American workers and ship them overseas. Labor unions are also huge supporters of Democrats. So Obama and Republicans are in the odd situation of trying to convince Democrats to reluctantly give the president what he wants.

As they scramble to find the votes ahead of a potential vote on Friday, here are the six factions Congress falls into on trade.

1. The Labor Democrats

Sen.Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is not a fan of Obama’s trade deals. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts)
Who they are: Pretty much all House and Senate Democrats who don’t want labor unions spending big money against them in their next campaigns. In the House, that’s about two-thirds of the party’s 180 Democrats. Labor unions have become the most vocal group on either side of the trade debate, and they appear to be putting their money where their mouth is. Politico reports labor activists say they’ll run $84,000 in TV ads against a California Democrat who supports the fast-track bill.

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts lead the charge for this group. On the campaign trail, Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley also oppose the trade deals.

What they believe: That opening up U.S. markets to foreign countries will also open up American workers to lower wages and job losses, particularly while U.S. manufacturing companies take advantage of open borders to move plants overseas for cheaper labor.

There’s some truth to that, economists say. By allowing goods and services to flow more freely across borders, trade deals helps countries specialize in just a few goods and services they’re really good at. That makes economies more efficient but means some workers will inevitably lose out.

But the size of which industries like manufacturing will lose out in these trade deals is debatable, as many such low-wage jobs have already moved overseas.

Key talking point: Warren: The deals are “going to help the rich get richer and leave everyone else behind.”

2. Silicon Valley Democrats

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is among those who support Obama’s trade deals. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)
Who they are: A relatively small group of about 40 pro-business, moderate Democrats who are allied with Silicon Valley executives. The Washington Post’s David Nakamura notes those executives include the influential Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents 390 companies, including Facebook, Google and Microsoft, and is aligned with tech CEOs from Cisco Systems, Oracle and AT&T in lobbying for fast track.

What they believe: That the trade deals — and particularly Obama’s massive 12-nation deal with Pacific Rim countries — protects one of America’s top money-makers: intellectual property. The deals as drafted strengthen patents and extend copyright protections for the things Americans are good at inventing, like pharmaceuticals, movies and technology start-ups.

This argument offers Democrats an alternative to labor unions’ message: Perhaps some manufacturing jobs will indeed ship overseas, but low-wage manufacturing isn’t where America’s economy is headed anyways.

Key talking point: Obama made the best argument for this group recently: “If we are going to capture the future, then we’ve got to open up markets to the kinds of things that we’re really good at, that can’t be duplicated overseas.”

3. On-the-fence Democrats

U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) speaks to the press about the potential for a U.S. government shutdown, alongside House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), are torn on trade. (REUTERS/Jason Reed )
Who’s in this camp: A handful of Democrats who are torn between supporting their president and the labor unions’ strong pull. These Democrats include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland. This group is small but significant; Obama and Republicans need about 25 Democrats to support the fast-track legislation when it comes to a vote, so the president is lobbying these people hard.

What they think: Two competing thoughts here: Let’s give our president what he wants … but I don’t know if that’s worth risking a primary challenge supported by labor unions.

With the vote count coming down to the wire, the AP’s Josh Lederman reports Obama has promised to help campaign in 2016 for anyone in this group who crosses the line and votes yes for fast-track legislation.

Key talking point: “There’s a difference between growing the economy and helping American companies grow the bottom line and creating jobs.” Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) told The Hill.
4. Gung-ho trade supporters

House Speaker John A. Boehner, left, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are Obama’s biggest advocates on trade. (AP Photo/PennLive.com, Mark Pynes )
Who’s in this camp: Establishment Republicans, including leaders like House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), have Obama’s back on fast-track legislation and the two trade bills. In the House, they have the support of about 110 Republicans, according to The Hill’s whip count.

What they believe: Trade deals are job creators, because they allow the United States to require other countries to the same labor and environmental standards that our businesses must follow. That makes a more even global playing field for Americans. And fast-tracking the deals is the only way to get them negotiated; imagine if every country involved allowed its legislative bodies to chime in. Nothing would get done!

Key talking point: “We have a chance here to write the rules on our terms,” said Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who is central to crafting the fast-track legislation. “We have a chance here to write the rules on our terms, to raise other countries to our standards, to create more opportunity for our people.”

5. The anti-Obama Republicans

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has warned about the dangers of giving Obama fast track trade authority. (AP Photo/CBS News, Chris Usher)
Who’s in this camp: Republicans who might support fast-track legislation and the trade deals but who are wary of giving the president so much authority to negotiate them without Congress’s input. This camp encompasses about 50 of Republicans’ Southern and tea party-leaning lawmakers.

What they believe: By voting for fast-track legislation, they’re essentially blocking themselves from the discussion about what should be put in the trade deals.

Key talking point: Here’s one from Alabama Rep. Bradley Byrne’s (R) office: “Congressman Byrne is a strong supporter of free trade, which supports almost 3,000 jobs in the 1st district alone. That said, he believes Congress must have a seat at the table as the trade negotiations continue.”

6. The swing-state Republicans

Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) is among a small group of swing state House Republicans who are worried about a vote on trade. (AP Photo/Mark Duncan)
Who’s in this camp: About 12-20 recently elected House Republicans who came into power during midterm Republican waves and now represent swing districts with decisive moderate constituents who might not like Obama’s trade deals. They include Midwestern lawmakers like Ohio’s David Joyce and Long Island’s Rep. Lee Zeldin.

The environmentalist group Sierra Club recently held a rally in Zeldin’s district to convince him to oppose the fast-track legislation.
What they believe: This group usually aligns with the Republican establishment on most issues. But on trade, these lawmakers carry the same concerns as Labor Democrats: A vote for fast track could mean a vote for them out of office.

Key talking point: “I support trade,” Zeldin told Facebook supporters in March. But on the trade deals and fast-track authority, “I will read it and decide at that time whether to vote for it or against it.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/10/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-trade-debate-explained-by-6-house-factions/

Obama makes last-ditch plea to Dems ahead of showdown vote on trade

President Obama went to Capitol Hill Friday morning to make a final plea to congressional Democrats for his trade agenda, ahead of a showdown vote in the House.

The president met with House Democratic leaders ahead of a caucus meeting. While it is extremely rare for a president to make a visit like this before a big vote, the last-minute lobbying comes after the president also made a surprise appearance at the annual congressional baseball game between Democrats and Republicans the night before. His personal involvement underscores how fragile the effort is — Fox News is told the effort is still short on the votes — and how important he sees it to his second-term legacy.

The night before, a bizarre scene unfolded as the crowd crammed inside Nationals Park lurched into a chant about the legislation.

“TPA! TPA! TPA!” chanted Republican congressional aides seated near the first base dugout when Obama stepped onto the field at the top of the fourth inning.

This wasn’t quite the drunken, Bronx throng at Yankee Stadium cantillating “Reg-GIE! Reg-GIE! Reg-GIE!” after Reggie Jackson swatted three consecutive home runs in Game Six of the 1977 World Series. This was gamesmanship, Washington-style. A game in which most congressional Republicans find themselves backing the Democratic president’s efforts to pass Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), a framework for a big trade deal the administration hopes to advance later this year.

TPA, which would give the president the ability to “fast-track” future trade deals, is one of two bills due up in the House on Friday. And it’s anybody’s guess if the bills will pass. Members of Congress may have been mixing it up on the diamond. But there is just as much gamesmanship underway on Capitol Hill as lawmakers try to leverage passage or defeat of the trade legislation.

More on this…

  • Stage set for vote to give Obama fast-track trade authority

First, the basics.

Most House Republicans want to approve TPA. But they don’t quite have the votes to do it on their own. They need Democratic support. Yet the irony is that even though Obama is pushing the deal, only about 20-plus House Democrats support their own chief executive on this issue.

So various political gambits kick in.

Republicans find it absurd that Obama can’t persuade more than two-dozen Democratic members to support the trade plan. Conversely, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is stunned that House Republicans, boasting a 246-188 majority, can’t excavate at least 200 GOPers to approve the package.

So Pelosi and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, cut a deal. Neither side promised a certain number of votes to the other. But both House leaders forged a plan which could conceivably reward both sides with a political victory and concurrently test their respective abilities to gin up votes.

Pelosi and Boehner engineered a deal to advance the trade framework to the floor – so long as Democrats scored a vote on something called Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).

TAA is a program near and dear to the hearts of many Democrats. It’s a method to cushion the blow for various workers and industries damaged by business reallocations in trade agreements. So House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., teed up  two votes for Friday: One for TAA and one on TPA. But a TPA vote was contingent on the House first adopting TAA. The procedural maneuver would require Republicans to carry most of the freight to adopt TPA. But to get there, Democrats would be expected to provide the lion’s share of votes for TAA. If the House doesn’t approve TAA, everything comes to a screeching halt and there’s no vote on TPA.

Further complicating matters, Pelosi has spoken openly against the trade accord but has yet to definitively say how she’ll vote.

Capitol Hill is weird. Weird enough to have Republicans serving as Obama’s TPA cheerleaders – both at the ballpark and in the House chamber. It’s even weirder to have House Democrats working against Obama on this. And then there’s Pelosi – stuck in the middle.

On trade, Pelosi is a switch-pitcher. She’s trying to keep the Democratic caucus from embarrassing Obama with a paltry vote total for TPA. Yet she’s working to make sure most of her caucus gets what it wants: a defeat of TPA. At the same time, Pelosi secured a deal for the TAA vote – which could help pass TPA … or blow it up.

Major League Baseball has a rule for ambidextrous pitchers, few as there may be. Such cross-hurlers must first declare whether they intend to pitch left-handed or right-handed to each batter. There’s no such rule on Capitol Hill. That’s why when it comes to trade, Pelosi is chucking political curveballs from both sides of the mound.

But Democrats are working against Pelosi. A senior House GOP leadership source says Republicans can only provide 50 to 70 votes for TAA. Democrats must make up the difference. However, many Democrats now see a means to an end. Some intend to vote no on TAA simply to detonate the entire process and never get the TPA bill to the floor — which they so despise.

The House nearly voted to truncate the entire process before the first pitch, coming close to voting down a procedural vote just to get the measures to the floor.

Some observers interpreted the uneven procedural vote as a harbinger of things to come Friday on the trade bills. Some lawmakers wondered if Obama – fresh off his dugout diplomatic mission — might ring up lawmakers and implore them to vote aye.

One longtime Democratic member doubted that would happen, noting that Obama had already done all of the calling he could do.

There are games here, too. The same lawmaker signaled that some colleagues might not even take the call if the president phones. In fact, they might even keep their phones switched off.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/12/house-obama-trade-agenda/

Obama-backed trade bill fails in the House

By David Nakamura and Paul Kane

President Obama suffered a major defeat to his Pacific Rim free trade initiative Friday as House Democrats helped derail a key presidential priority despite his last-minute, personal plea on Capitol Hill.

The House voted 302 to 126 to sink a measure to grant financial aid to displaced workers, fracturing hopes at the White House that Congress would grant Obama fast-track trade authority to complete an accord with 11 other Pacific Rim nations.

“I will be voting to slow down fast-track,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on the floor moments before the vote, after keeping her intentions private for months. “Today we have an opportunity to slow down. Whatever the deal is with other countries, we want a better deal for American workers.”

The dramatic defeat could sink the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a sweeping free trade and regulatory pact that Obama has called central to his economic agenda at home and his foreign policy strategy in Asia. Obama’s loss came after a months-long lobbying blitz in which the president invested significant personal credibility and political capital.

Republican leaders, who had backed the president’s trade initiative, pleaded with their colleagues to support the deal or risk watching the United States lose economic ground in Asia.

“The world is watching us right now,” Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said before the vote.

Obama had rushed to Capitol Hill on Friday morning to make a last-ditch plea to an emergency meeting of the Democratic caucus. The president urged members to vote with their conscience and “play it straight,” urging them to support the financial package for displaced workers, which Democrats have long supported.

“I don’t think you ever nail anything down around here,” Obama told reporters on his way out of the Capitol. “It’s always moving.”

But anti-trade Democrats pushed hard to block the financial aid plan, knowing that its defeat would also torpedo a companion measure to grant Obama fast-track authority to complete the TPP. That bill was later approved with overwhelming Republican support in what amounted to a symbolic vote because it could not move forward into law without the related worker assistance package.

The legislation is now paralyzed in the House — “stuck in the station,” as Pelosi described in her speech. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has decided to give Obama the weekend to try to coax enough Democrats into supporting the worker assistance package by bringing it up for reconsideration next Tuesday.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest insisted that the president’s trade agenda was still alive and vowed that Obama would continue to urge passage of the package in the coming days. He noted that the Senate approved the fast track legislation last month after initially voting to block it.

“To the surprise of very few, another procedural snafu has emerged,” Earnest said in an attempt to play down the outcome.

In a message on Twitter, AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka, one of the most vehement opponents of the trade deal, hailed Pelosi as “a champion for workers.”

[The trade deal, explained for people who fall asleep hearing about trade deals]

Obama made an impassioned plea during his visit to Capitol Hill. But he appeared not to have changed many minds among fellow Democrats. After the president departed, two anti-trade Democrats, Louise Slaughter of New York and Gene Green of Texas, came out of the meeting determined to oppose Obama.

“I don’t want this trade bill to go through,” Slaughter, who represents the economically depressed area of Rochester, said of the fast-track bill.

Several members said Obama took no questions and received applause on several occasions when discussing his previous efforts to deliver on Democratic priorities.

Lawmakers said the White House had pushed harder on trade than any legislative issue since the health-care reform effort during his first year. After keeping trade on the back burner, Obama joined forces with business-friendly Republicans after the midterm elections in pursuit of a rare bipartisan deal and launched a fierce effort to win support from his usual Democratic allies over the intense opposition of labor unions.

“The president and his counselors understand that this is a legacy vote for his second term,” Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), who supported the fast-track bill, said Thursday. “It’s a philosophical battle, a political battle and an economic battle. The president finds himself in the crossfire with the base.”

The debate among Democrats has at times been raw and personal, and it has exposed old divisions on trade as the party attempts to coalesce around a common agenda ahead of the 2016 campaign to select Obama’s successor. Other Democratic leaders, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have questioned Obama’s commitment to workers and the middle class, while union officials accused the president of marginalizing them.

“I would ask that you not mischaracterize our positions and views — even in the heat of a legislative battle,” Trumka wrote this week in a letter to the president. “You have repeatedly isolated and marginalized labor and unions.”

White House officials had cast the dispute with labor as a difference of opinion that does not reflect a deeper divide within a party focused on stemming the nation’s growing wealth divide. Obama has framed the 12-nation TPP as a way to lock in rules to ensure U.S. economic primacy in the fast-growing Asian-Pacific region against increasing competition from China. In the president’s view, that would benefit American workers as the world’s economy shifts toward high-tech industries in which the United States maintains an advantage.

A failure on fast-track could lend weight to Chinese claims that the United States does not have staying power in Asia.

The president’s pitch was met with widespread skepticism among Democrats who blame past trade deals for killing jobs and depressing wages for Americans in traditional manufacturing work.

[What Chicago Democrats tell us about Obama’s problems on trade]

On Thursday night, Obama made a surprise visit to the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity at Nationals Park to woo Pelosi and other Democrats.

“The president is personally engaged on this,” Wyden said Thursday. “He’s all in.”

Despite the intensive campaign, however, Obama struggled to convince more than a sliver of House Democrats to back his push for the fast-track authority. The legislation would have allowed him to submit the trade pact to Congress for a vote in a specified timetable without lawmakers being able to amend it.

The White House has called such powers crucial to persuading the other 11 nations involved in the TPP negotiations to put their best offers on the table in the final round of talks this summer.

But opponents said they feared that approving the fast-track measure would be akin to ratifying a pact that is still being negotiated and whose terms have been kept largely hidden from public view. (Lawmakers are permitted to read draft sections of the agreement in a classified setting and are prevented from talking about specifics in public.)

On Thursday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other Obama aides huddled with House Democrats in a bid to alleviate objections.

But at each turn, the administration was met by a determined coalition of opponents, made up of labor unions, environmental groups and progressive Democrats. Led by Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.), the coalition has been meeting for two years with individual Democrats, and with small groups, to pressure them to oppose a fast-track bill.

Trumka met with the same House Democrats on Thursday soon after the White House officials had departed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-is-all-in-on-trade-sees-it-as-a-cornerstone-of-his-legacy/2015/06/12/32b6dce8-1073-11e5-a0dc-2b6f404ff5cf_story.html

Fast track (trade)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this article to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (June 2015)
The fast track negotiating authority for trade agreements is the authority of the President of the United States to negotiate international agreements that Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster. Also called trade promotion authority (TPA) since 2002, fast track negotiating authority is a temporary and controversial power granted to the President by Congress. The authority was in effect from 1975 to 1994, pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974, and from 2002 to 2007 by the Trade Act of 2002. Although it expired for new agreements on July 1, 2007, it continued to apply to agreements already under negotiation until they were eventually passed into law in 2011. In 2012, the Obama administration began seeking renewal of the authority.

Enactment and history
Congress started the fast track authority in the Trade Act of 1974, § 151–154 (19 U.S.C. § 2191–2194). This authority was set to expire in 1980, but was extended for eight years in 1979.[1] It was renewed in 1988 for five years to accommodate negotiation of the Uruguay Round, conducted within the framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).[2] It was then extended to 16 April 1994,[3][4][5] which is one day after the Uruguay Round concluded in the Marrakech Agreement, transforming the GATT into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Pursuant to that grant of authority, Congress then enacted implementing legislation for the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Area, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

In the second half of the 1990s, fast track authority languished due to opposition from House Republicans.[6]

Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush made fast track part of his campaign platform in 2000.[7] In May 2001, as president he made a speech about the importance of free trade at the annual Council of the Americas in New York, founded by David Rockefeller and other senior U.S. businessmen in 1965. Subsequently, the Council played a role in the implementation and securing of TPA through Congress.[8]

At 3:30 a.m. on July 27, 2002, the House passed the Trade Act of 2002 narrowly by a 215 to 212 vote with 190 Republicans and 27 Democrats making up the majority. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 64 to 34 on August 1, 2002. The Trade Act of 2002, § 2103–2105 (19 U.S.C. § 3803–3805), extended and conditioned the application of the original procedures.

Under the second period of fast track authority, Congress enacted implementing legislation for the U.S.–Chile Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–Singapore Free Trade Agreement, the Australia–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–Morocco Free Trade Agreement, the Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–Bahrain Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–Oman Free Trade Agreement, and the Peru–U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement. The authority expired on July 1, 2007.[9]

In October 2011, the Congress and President Obama enacted into law the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, the South Korea–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and the Panama–U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement using fast track rules, all of which the George W. Bush administration signed before the deadline.[10]

In early 2012, the Obama administration indicated that renewal of the authority is a requirement for the conclusion of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, which have been undertaken as if the authority were still in effect.[11] In July 2013, Michael Froman, the newly confirmed U.S. Trade Representative, renewed efforts to obtain Congressional reinstatement of “fast track” authority. At nearly the same time, Senator Elizabeth Warren questioned Froman about the prospect of a secretly negotiated, binding international agreement such as TPP that might turn out to supersede U.S. wage, safety, and environmental laws.[12] Other legislators expressed concerns about foreign currency manipulation, food safety laws, state-owned businesses, market access for small businesses, access to pharmaceutical products, and online commerce.[10]

In early 2014, Senator Max Baucus and Congressman Dave Camp introduced the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014,[13] which sought to reauthorize trade promotion authority and establish a number of priorities and requirements for trade agreements.[14] Its sponsors called it a “vital tool” in connection with negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and trade negotiations with the EU.[13] Critics said the bill could detract from “transparency and accountability”. Sander Levin, who is the ranking Democratic member on the House Ways and Means committee, said he would make an alternative proposal.[15]

Procedure[edit]
If the President transmits a fast track trade agreement to Congress, then the majority leaders of the House and Senate or their designees must introduce the implementing bill submitted by the President on the first day on which their House is in session. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(c)(1).) Senators and Representatives may not amend the President’s bill, either in committee or in the Senate or House. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(d).) The committees to which the bill has been referred have 45 days after its introduction to report the bill, or be automatically discharged, and each House must vote within 15 days after the bill is reported or discharged. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(1).)

In the likely case that the bill is a revenue bill (as tariffs are revenues), the bill must originate in the House (see U.S. Const., art I, sec. 7), and after the Senate received the House-passed bill, the Finance Committee would have another 15 days to report the bill or be discharged, and then the Senate would have another 15 days to pass the bill. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(2).) On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(f)-(g).) Thus the entire Congressional consideration could take no longer than 90 days.

Negotiating objectives[edit]
According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress categorizes trade negotiating objectives in three ways: overall objectives, principal objectives, and other priorities. The broader goals encapsulate the overall direction trade negotiations take, such as enhancing the United States’ and other countries’ economies. Principal objectives are detailed goals that Congress expects to be integrated into trade agreements, such as “reducing barriers and distortions to trade (e.g., goods, services, agriculture); protecting foreign investment and intellectual property rights; encouraging transparency; establishing fair regulatory practices; combating corruption; ensuring that countries enforce their environmental and labor laws; providing for an effective dispute settlement process; and protecting the U.S. right to enforce its trade remedy laws”. Consulting Congress is also an important objective.[16]

Principal objectives include:

Market access: These negotiating objectives seek to reduce or eliminate barriers that limit market access for U.S. products. “It also calls for the use of sectoral tariff and non-tariff barrier elimination agreements to achieve greater market access.”
Services: Services objectives “require that U.S. negotiator strive to reduce or eliminate barriers to trade in services, including regulations that deny nondiscriminatory treatment to U.S. services and inhibit the right of establishment (through foreign investment) to U.S. service providers.”
Agriculture: There are three negotiating objectives regarding agriculture. One lays out in greater detail what U.S. negotiators should achieve in negotiating robust trade rules on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. The second calls for trade negotiators to ensure transparency in how tariff-rate quotas are administered that may impede market access opportunities. The third seeks to eliminate and prevent the improper use of a country’s system to protect or recognize geographical indications (GI). These are trademark-like terms used to protect the quality and reputation of distinctive agricultural products, wines and spirits produced in a particular region of a country. This new objective is intended to counter in large part the European Union’s efforts to include GI protection in its bilateral trade agreements for the names of its products that U.S. and other country exporters argue are generic in nature or commonly used across borders, such as parma ham or Parmesan cheese.”

Investment/Investor rights: “The overall negotiating objectives on foreign investment are designed “to reduce or eliminate artificial or trade distorting barriers to foreign investment, while ensuring that foreign investors in the United States are not accorded greater substantive rights with respect to investment protections than domestic investors in the United States, and to secure for investors important rights comparable to those that would be available under the United States legal principles and practices.”[17]

Scope
Fast track agreements were enacted as “congressional-executive agreements” (CEAs), which must be approved by a simple majority in both chambers of Congress.

Although Congress cannot explicitly transfer its powers to the executive branch, the 1974 trade promotion authority had the effect of delegating power to the executive, minimizing consideration of the public interest, and limiting the legislature’s influence over the bill to an up or down vote:[18]

It allowed the executive branch to select countries for, set the substance of, negotiate and then sign trade agreements without prior congressional approval.

It allowed the executive branch to negotiate trade agreements covering more than just tariffs and quotas.
It established a committee system, comprising 700 industry representatives appointed by the president, to serve as advisors to the negotiations. Throughout trade talks, these individuals had access to confidential negotiating documents. Most members of Congress and the public had no such access, and there were no committees for consumer, health, environmental or other public interests.
It empowered the executive branch to author an agreement’s implementing legislation without Congressional input.

It required the executive branch to notify Congress 90 days before signing and entering into an agreement, but allowed unlimited time for the implementing legislation to be submitted.
It forced a floor vote on the agreement and its implementing legislation in both chambers of Congress; the matters could not “die in committee.”

It eliminated several floor procedures, including Senate unanimous consent, normal debate and cloture rules, and the ability to amend the legislation.

It prevented filibuster by limiting debate to 20 hours in each chamber.
It elevated the Special Trade Representative (STR) to the cabinet level, and required the Executive Office to house the agency.

The 1979 version of the authority changed the name of the STR to the U.S. Trade Representative.[18]

The 2002 version of the authority created an additional requirement for 90-day notice to Congress before negotiations could begin.[18]

Arguments in favor[edit]
Helps pass trade agreements: According to AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall L. Stephenson, Trade Promotion Authority is “critical to completing new trade agreements that have the potential to unleash U.S. economic growth and investment”. Jason Furman, chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, also said “the United States might become less competitive globally if it disengaged from seeking further trade openings: ‘If you’re not in an agreement—that trade will be diverted from us to someone else—we will lose out to another country'”.[19]

Congress is allowed more say and members are shielded: According to I.M. Destler of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, fast track “has effectively bridged the division of power between the two branches. It gives executive branch (USTR) negotiators needed credibility to conclude trade agreements by assuring other nations’ representatives that Congress won’t rework them; it guarantees a major Congressional role in trade policy while reducing members’ vulnerability to special interests”.[20]
Assurance for foreign governments: According to President Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese III, “it is extremely difficult for any U.S. President to negotiate significant trade deals if he cannot assure other nations that Congress will refrain from adding numerous amendments and conditions that must then be taken back to the negotiating table”. The very nature of Trade Promotion Authority requires Congress to vote on the agreements before they can take effect, meaning that without TPA, “those agreements might never even be negotiated”.[21]

Arguments against
Unconstitutional: Groups opposed to Trade Promotion Authority claim that it places too much power in the executive branch, “allowing the president to unilaterally select partner countries for ‘trade’ pacts, decide the agreements’ contents, and then negotiate and sign the agreements—all before Congress has a vote on the matter. Normal congressional committee processes are forbidden, meaning that the executive branch is empowered to write lengthy legislation on its own with no review or amendments.”[22]

Lack of transparency: Democratic members of Congress and general right-to-know internet groups are among those opposed to trade fast track on grounds of a lack of transparency. Such Congressmen have complained that fast track forces “members to jump over hurdles to see negotiation texts and blocks staffer involvement. In 2012, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) complained that corporate lobbyists were given easy access while his office was being stymied, and even introduced protest legislation requiring more congressional input.”[23]

Renewed Interest
As recently as May 21, 2015, the United States Senate has utilized the fast-track process to move a trade bill between the U.S. as well as Japan and 10 other countries. Although the bill has yet to move to the House, the renewed interest in this tract is intriguing given the 2016 election cycle beginning to pick up. [24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)

Trade Adjustment Assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) is a federal program of the United States government to act as a way to reduce the damaging impact of imports felt by certain sectors of the U.S. economy. The current structure features four components of Trade Adjustment Assistance: for Workers, Firms, Farmers, and Communities. Each Cabinet level Department was tasked with a different sector of the overall Trade Adjustment Assistance program. The program for workers is the largest, and administered by the U.S. Department of Labor. The program for Farmers is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Firms and Communities programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

History

Trade Adjustment Assistance consists of four programs authorized under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and defined further under the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq) (Trade Act). The original idea for a trade compensation program goes back to 1939.[1] Later, it was proposed by President John F. Kennedyas part of the total package to open up free trade. President Kennedy said: “When considerations of national policy make it desirable to avoid higher tariffs, those injured by that competition should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact. Rather, the burden of economic adjustment should be borne in part by the Federal Government.”[2]

Justification

TAA for workers

Supporters argue that free trade offers widespread benefits among consumers, workers and firms in the U.S. in terms of lower prices, higher efficiency and quality, and more jobs. They claim that gains from negotiated trade deals are large and widely distributed across sectors. For example, in 2011 there were 9.7 million jobs supported by exports, nearly 15% more than in 2010.[3] Benefits from free trade agreements (FTA) with Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, and South Korea for the U.S. economy are estimated in $4 billion, $17 billion, $19 billion, $6 billion and $30 billion, respectively.[4]

In order to achieve trade benefits, however, the U.S. economy must reallocate production factors between sectors. Thus, free trade also leads to costs associated with workers displaced by import competition and offshore outsourcing. According to the Department of Labor (DOL), displaced workers are defined as “persons 20 years of age and older who lost or left jobs because their plant or company closed or moved, there was insufficient work for them to do, or their position or shift was abolished”.[5] The International Labour Organization (ILO) states that workers bore high adjustment costs such as unemployment, lower wage during transition, obsolescence of skills, training costs, and personal costs (e.g. mental suffering). These trade costs, albeit relatively smaller than the benefits, are highly concentrated by region, industry and worker demographics. For instance, some occupations, like teacher, have not experienced import competition while for shoe manufacturing occupations import competition has increased by 40 percentage points.[6]

In general, manufacturing workers are most affected by import competition compare to workers in other sectors. Furthermore, while gains from trade require a long time to take full effect, costs are felt rapidly, particularly in less competitive sectors.[7]

There is a strong correlation between import penetration and unemployment. Ebenstein et al. (2009) find that a 1 percentage point increase in import penetration leads to a 0.6 percentage point decrease in manufacturing employment in the U.S. resulting in a reduction of manufacturing jobs of almost 5%.[8] According to a report by the Progressive Policy Institute, between 2007 and 2011, 1.3 million direct and indirect jobs were lost to increasing imports of goods and services.[9]Similarly, Kletzer (2005) estimations suggest that industries facing high import competition account for 40% of manufacturing job losses.[10] The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimates that by 2015 the overall U.S. trade deficit will correspond to the loss of additional 214,000 jobs.[11]

Although trade-dislocated workers are not significantly different from workers displaced by other reasons, they present some slight differences. They tend to be older, less educated, more tenured and production-oriented, have higher earnings on the lost job and fewer transferable skills, and the prevalence on women is higher than for other displaced workers. These characteristics are associated with limited labor mobility and reemployment difficulties, especially for workers with obsolete skills who do not receive additional training, no matter the reason of displacement.[12] Furthermore, asymmetric information in absence of good job-search skills and geographic mismatch lead to prolong unemployment.[13] Hence, trade-displaced workers face longer periods to find a new job and have low reemployment rates (63% during the last two decades according to Kletzer, 2005). Reemployment is particularly challenging for older workers. The DOL (2012) reports that in 2012 reemployment rates for workers ages 55 to 64 and 65 years and over were 47 and 24% respectively while the rate for those ages 20 to 54 was about 62%.[5]

Once dislocated workers obtain a new job, they suffer significant wage reductions.[14] About two thirds of dislocated workers have lower wages in the new job and one quarter of displaced workers from manufacturing who find a new full-time job suffer earning losses of 30% or more.[15] The reason is that many workers find jobs in services sector where salaries are lower. Ebenstein et al. (2009) find that displaced workers from manufacturing who find a job in the services sector suffer a wage decline of between 6 and 22%. They conclude that a 1 percentage point increase in occupation-specific import competition is associated with a 0.25 percentage point decline in real wages.[8]

Import competition impacts negatively not only dislocated workers but also their families and communities. Displaced workers fall behind in their mortgage payments and in providing health care to their families. Families must spend down assets to smooth consumption.[16] There is evidence that displaced workers are in worse health after losing a job.[17] According to a Report by the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED), more than 46% of the jobless lack health insurance and 31% of workers without insurance do not see a doctor although sick. If the worker is able to be relocated in other job in other region the whole family is displaced and children are uprooted from their schools, increasing domestic tensions. The phenomenon of displaced workers has a broader impact because it also affects aggregate demand for goods and services and tax collections.[18]

In brief, trade leads to an unequal redistribution of costs and benefits. The adjustment process impacts not only displaced workers but also the whole society and economy. Furthermore, labor reallocation from inefficient to competitive sectors aimed at realizing the benefits of trade can be impeded by several obstacles described above, prolonging the transition period and increasing the adjustment costs. In this framework, several scholars and policy-makers have argued that trade-related adjustment costs merit a policy response.[13] The TAA has persisted for more than five decades showing ample political support.[19] Having an assistance program targeted exclusively at trade-displaced workers enjoyed wide political support among Congressional representatives in the past because the program served to decrease political resistance to and workers’ lobbying efforts against FTAs.[20] As a 2012 Report by the Joint Economic Committee states: “TAA needs to remain an integral part of trade policy because it compensates those harmed by import competition without sacrificing the larger demonstrable benefits of trade.”[21]

Specific Programs

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers

The Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration program, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers, provides a variety of reemployment services including training and job-searching assistance and benefits to displaced workers who have lost their jobs or suffered a reduction of hours and wages as a result of increased imports or shifts in production outside the United States. The TAA program aims to help program participants obtain new jobs faster, ensuring they retain employment and earn wages comparable to their prior employment. Among the main benefits are: trade readjustment allowances (TRA) in addition to regular unemployment insurance (UI) up to 117 weeks of cash payments for all workers concurrently enrolled only in full-time training (workers must be enrolled in training 8 weeks after certification or 16 weeks after layoff, whichever is later, to receive TRA), and Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance (RTAA) or supplementary wages for workers age 50 and over, and earning less than $50,000 per year in reemployment. It provides a wage supplement equal to 50% of the difference between a worker’s reemployment wage and wage at the worker’s certified job with a maximum benefit of $10,000 over a period of up to two years (workers must be reemployed within 26 weeks). The TAA used to include a Health Coverage Tax Credit Program which will definitively expire at the end of 2013 and other tax credits related to health coverage will become available (e.g. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). The program promotes retraining since workers receive the TRAs only if they participate in a full-time TAA training (or are under a waiver).[22] The program is administered by the Department of Labor (DOL) in cooperation with the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

The Secretary of Labor was authorized to implement Trade Readjustment Assistance (TRA) and relocation allowances through cooperating state agencies. TRA are income support payments that were, at that time, paid in addition to an individual’s regular unemployment compensation. The original program had no training or reemployment component. The program was rarely used until 1974, when it was expanded as part of the Trade Act of 1974. The Trade Act of 1974 established the training component of the program. In 1981, the program was sharply curtailed by the Congress at the request of the Reagan Administration.[23] In 2002, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act (TAARA) expanded the program and it was combined with the trade adjustment program provided under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).[24]

The TAA has recently suffered several amendments. In 2009, the TAA program was expanded by the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act (TGAAA) of 2009, which was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These benefits were extended through February 2011 by the Omnibus Trade Act of 2010. After that, the program reverted to the pre-expansion provisions under the TAARA of 2002. In October 2011, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act (TAAEA) of 2011 was signed into law, reinstating most of the benefits included in the TGAAA of 2009. The TAA is authorized through December 31, 2014 but with some modifications. The TAA will operate under its current provisions through December 31, 2013. For the additional year until its expiration on December 31, 2014, the TAA is set to operate under the eligibility and benefit levels established by the TAARA of 2002.[22]

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms

The Department of Commerce program, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms,[25] provides financial assistance to manufacturers and service firms affected by import competition. Sponsored by the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA), this cost-sharing federal assistance program helps pay for projects that improve firms’ competitiveness. EDA, through a national network of 11 Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers (TAACs), provides technical assistance on a cost-shared basis to U.S. manufacturing, production, and service firms in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms provides import impacted companies with professional guidance, business recovery plan development, and cost-sharing for outside consulting services. Eligibility is established along similar lines, with companies showing that there has been a recent decrease in sales and employment, in part due to customers shifting purchases away from the applicant and to imported goods. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 expanded eligibility to service firms as well as the traditional manufacturing companies that had been the sole focus of the program. This expansion for service firms and workers was scheduled to expire on December 31, 2010, and the program would revert to the pre-ARRA structure without a vote to extend the authorization.

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, created in 2002 by wide-ranging trade legislation (P.L. 107-210, Sec. 141), authorizes the expenditure of up to $90 million per year through FY2007. Under the program, certain agricultural producers can each receive payments of up to $10,000 per year if price declines for their commodity were at least partly caused by imports. To be eligible for such assistance, such producers must be members of certified groups and meet a number of criteria specified by the law. The program is administered by the Department of Agriculture.

Program Eligibility

TAA for workers

Workers must be directly impacted by imports or by a shift in production of their firm to any country with a free trade agreement with the United States or to beneficiary countries under the Andean Trade Preference, the African Growth and Opportunity, or by certain other shifts in production. Employees of upstream suppliers are eligible if the product supplied to the primary firm consists 20% of the production or sales of the secondary workers’ firm, or their employer’s loss of business with the primary firm contributed significantly to the secondary workers’ separation from work.

Employees of downstream producers are eligible if they perform additional, value-added production processes for articles produced by primary firms, and the primary certification was based on an increase in imports or a shift in production to Canada or Mexico.

In order to receive the benefits displaced workers must fill a petition as a group to initiate the investigation to address the reasons of their layoff. Once the DOL finds that trade has contributed notably to the layoff, the group is certified but the individual worker must still apply for benefits at a local One-Stop Career Center.[22]

Under the current law, as modified in 2009, workers in most service jobs (call center operators, for example) are eligible for trade adjustment assistance. In 2004, a group of computer experts displaced by overseas labor tried to apply for trade adjustment assistance but were rejected because computer software was not considered an “article” by the DOL. After a series of scathing decisions by the United States Court of International Trade criticizing the DOL’s approach, the DOL revised its policies in April 2006 to extend trade adjustment assistance to more workers producing digital products such as software code.[26] Nevertheless, the program under the TAARA of 2002 starting on January 1, 2014 does not include trade-displaced workers in services sectors.[22]

TAA for farmers

Farmers and ranchers adversely impacted by trade will be eligible to participate in a new program operated by the Department of Agriculture and are potentially eligible to receive training under TAA. They are not eligible for the Trade Readjustment Allowance.

Program Cost

TAA for workers

There are several components of the overall cost of the program. The principal spending of the program is in reemployment services which are set to the annual funding levels of the Trade Act of 2002: $220 million for state grants (plus administrative allotments equal to 15% of each state’s grant). The TRA income support and RTAA wage insurance program are uncapped entitlements. In FY 2011, the cost of TRA was $234,126,500 and the cost of RTAA was $43,227,212, based on the number of participants of each program in this year (25,689 and 1,133 participants respectively).[27]

Program Effectiveness

TAA for workers

The TAA for workers have demonstrated overall low effectiveness so far which is reflected in the controversy to reauthorize the program before the 112th Congress and the fact that the TAA will be discontinued in 2015.

First, the program is not very effective providing support during the transition because a significant portion of workers does not receive TRA. In FY2011 there were over 196,000 TAA participants and only around 46,000 received TRA.[27] One reason is that the training enrollment deadline of 8/16 weeks seriously limits the ability of workers to enroll in training programs and receive the benefit. Moreover, even for those workers receiving TRA and UI, only a portion of the lost income is replaced.[28] The program provides health insurance coverage but in the past it has not been very effective since participation in TAA was associated with decreased coverage in the period following job loss like a joint report by Mathematica Policy Research and Social Policy Research (SPR) prepared for the DOL evaluating the TAA program under the Trade Act of 2002 shows.[29]

The effectiveness of the program in terms of fostering reemployment is very low too. Data on post-TAA outcomes for program exiters based on DOL estimations shows that the entered employment rate was 66% in 2011.[22] The Mathematica Policy Research and SPR report finds that the TAA is not effective in terms of increasing employability. There is positive effect on the reemployment rate for participants but it is not statistically different from that for non-participants.[29]

The effectiveness of the program in terms of mitigating earning losses in the new job is very low too as several studies report. Reynolds and Palatucci (2008) estimate that “participating in the TAA program causes a wage loss approximately 10 percentage points greater than if the displaced worker had chosen not to participate in the program.”[20] The report by Mathematica Policy Research and SPR states that TAA was estimated to have no effect on earnings and compared to a sample of UI claimants, TAA participants worked about the same number of weeks but had lower earnings.[29]

Moreover, a 2007 GAO report shows that in FY 2006 only 5% or less of TAA participants received wage insurance. The program is ineffective closing the earning gap because in order to be eligible for wage insurance workers must find a job within 26 weeks after being laid off, which proved to be a very short period.[30]Additionally, the program only replaces half of the losses.

Finally, the implementation of this program overlaps extensively with others such as Workforce Investment Act generating extra costs and duplicating administrative efforts.[13] The process to allocate training funds is also problematic. States receive funds at the beginning of the fiscal year but it does not properly reflect the state´s demand for training services. In addition, states do not receive funds for case management and lack flexibility to use the funds for training. Thus, states face challenges in providing services to workers properly.[30]

Policy Alternatives

TAA for workers

Over last years, the TAA program has been subject to diverse critics due to its flawed performance and extremely high cost. The TAA was only extended to the end of 2014 and the last reauthorization process before the 112th Congress exposed a lack of consensus about the program.[19] Several scholars from different institutions have proposed policy alternatives.

Integrated Adjustment Assistance Program

The Financial Services Forum, through its 2008 white paper “Succeeding in the Global Economy: An Adjustment Assistance Program for American Workers,” proposes to combine the UI and TAA programs into a single integrated program for all displaced workers who qualify for UI no matter the reason of displacement[31]The program includes: wage insurance, portability of health insurance (under the current program COBRA), and reemployment services such as assistance with geographic relocation and retraining. The wage insurance would cushion the cost of lower wages in the new job for workers age 45 and older. The program replaces 50% of workers’ lost wages for up to two years, for up to $10,000 per year, for workers that hold the previous job for at least two years. Regarding retraining, workers would be able to deduct from their gross income, for tax purposes, the full cost of education and training expenses, and there will be no limitations in terms of area of training.

The estimated annual cost of the program is $22 billion. The Financial Services Forum proposes to replace the current tax system with a flat 1.2% tax on all earning at the state level, and a flat rate of 0.12% on all earnings at the federal level to pay for the program.

Wage Insurance and Subsidies for Medical Insurance Program

Scholars at the Brookings Institution and the Institute for International Economics proposed a twofold program including a wage insurance and subsidy for medical insurance in addition to the UI program for eligible workers.[32] On the one hand, the program covers workers displaced by any reason, not just trade, who suffer an earning loss after reemployment. Displaced workers defined as “workers displaced due to plant closing or relocation, elimination of position or shift, and insufficient work”.[33]

It would replace a portion between 30% and 70% of the difference between earnings on the old and new job. In order to be eligible, workers must have been employed full-time at their previous job for at least two years, and suffered a wage decrease that can be documented. The insurance would be paid only after workers found a new job and they will receive it for up to two years from the original date of job loss. Annual payments would be capped at $10,000 or $20,000 per year. The payments would be administered through state UI.[32]

In addition, the program would also offer a health insurance subsidy for all full-time displaced workers, for up to 6 months, or until they found a new job (whichever is earlier). Workers would be limited to receiving the subsidy no more frequently than once during a certain period, probably 3 or 4 years, in order to prevent job churning.[32]

Kletzer and Litan (2001) estimate that about 20% of displaced workers reemployed full-time would have had at least 2 years’ tenure on their previous job and suffered a wage loss in the new one. The program would cost from $2 to $5 billion per year. This cost is estimated with a national unemployment rate between 4.2% and 4.9%.[32] In 2012, the average national unemployment rate was 8.9%.[33] Consequently, the projected cost would be higher if the program would be implemented today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Adjustment_Assistance

Trans-Pacific Partnership: Summary of U.S. Objectives
The United States is participating in negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement with 11 other Asia-Pacific countries (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam) – a trade agreement that will open markets, set high-standard trade rules, and address 21st-century issues in the global economy.  By doing so, TPP will promote jobs and growth in the United States and across the Asia-Pacific region.

The Obama Administration is pursuing TPP to unlock opportunities for American manufacturers, workers, service providers, farmers, and ranchers – to support job creation and wage growth.  We are working hard to ensure that TPP will be a comprehensive deal, providing new and meaningful market access for goods and services; strong and enforceable labor standards and environmental commitments; groundbreaking new rules designed to ensure fair competition between state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private companies; commitments that will improve the transparency and consistency of the regulatory environment to make it easier for small- and medium-sized businesses to operate across the region; a robust intellectual property (IP) rights framework to promote innovation, while supporting access to innovative and generic medicines and an open Internet; and obligations that will promote a thriving digital economy, including new rules to ensure the free flow of data.

This document describes the Administration’s goals and objectives for TPP, and presents the main elements of each chapter from the United States’ perspective.  Negotiations toward a TPP Agreement are ongoing, and many of the elements detailed below are not settled.  These are our objectives; there is still work to be done to achieve them.  This document lays out the Administration’s vision, which the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is advancing, of harnessing trade as a tool for economic growth and supporting jobs, and building opportunity for Americans in the context of an agreement that will benefit all TPP countries.

We are committed to providing the public information on what we are working to achieve through trade negotiations, and we will continue to share this information through the press, social media, and at www.ustr.gov as we move forward in the TPP negotiations.

TRADE IN GOODS

The United States ships more than $1.9 billion in goods to TPP countries every day.  In today’s highly competitive global marketplace, even small increases in a product’s cost due to tariffs or non-tariff barriers can mean the difference between success and failure for a business.  That is why the United States is working to negotiate in TPP comprehensive and preferential access across an expansive duty-free trading region for the industrial goods, food and agriculture products, and textiles, which will allow our exporters to develop and expand their participation in the value chains of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

The United States exported more than $622.5 billion of manufactured products to TPP countries in 2013.  With the elimination of TPP countries’ tariffs on manufactured products, including innovative and high technology products, such as industrial and electrical machinery, precision and scientific instruments, and chemicals and plastics, U.S. products will compete on a more level playing field with goods from TPP countries’ other free trade agreement (FTA) partners – including China, India, and the EU.  As just one example, certain U.S. auto parts currently face a 27-percent tariff entering Vietnam.  Other countries that have an FTA with Vietnam, such as China, Thailand, and Indonesia, export their auto parts to Vietnam duty free.  By eliminating duties U.S. auto parts companies face, TPP would help boost their competitiveness in the Vietnamese market.

Twenty percent of U.S. farm income comes from agricultural exports and those exports support rural communities.  In fact, U.S. food and agricultural exports to the world reached an all-time high in 2013 of over $148 billion.  Of that total, we exported more than $58 billion to TPP countries – a figure that would increase as a result of tariff elimination under TPP.  As just one example:  U.S. poultry currently faces a 40-percent tariff in Malaysia.  U.S. poultry would become more affordable in Malaysia under a TPP agreement that reduces these duties to zero.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Elimination of tariffs and commercially-meaningful market access for U.S. products exported to TPP countries; and
  • Provisions that address longstanding non-tariff barriers, including import licensing requirements and other restrictions.

TEXTILES

U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers sold more than $10 billion worth of products to TPP countries in 2013, an increase of 5.4 percent from the previous year.  Many U.S. yarns, fabrics, and apparel currently face tariffs as high as 20 percent upon entering some TPP countries.  Our goal in the TPP negotiations is to remove tariff and non-tariff barriers to textile and apparel exports to enhance the competitiveness of our producers in the Asia-Pacific region.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Elimination of tariffs on textile and apparel exports to TPP countries;
  • A “yarn forward” rule of origin, which requires that textile and apparel products be made using U.S. or other TPP country yarns and fabrics to qualify for the benefits of the agreement, so as to ensure that non-qualifying textiles and apparel from non-TPP countries do not enjoy the benefits reserved for TPP countries;
  • A carefully crafted “short supply” list, which would allow fabrics, yarns, and fibers that are not commercially available in the United States or other TPP countries to be sourced from non-TPP countries and used in the production of apparel in the TPP region without losing duty preference;
  • Strict enforcement provisions and customs cooperation commitments that will provide for verification of claims of origin or preferential treatment, and denial of preferential treatment or entry for suspect goods if claims cannot be verified; and
  • A textile specific safeguard mechanism that will allow the United States and other TPP countries to re-impose tariffs on certain goods if a surge in imports causes or threatens to cause serious damage to domestic producers.

SERVICES

Services industries account for four out of five U.S. jobs and also represent a significant and growing share of jobs in other TPP countries.  Securing liberalized and fair access to foreign services markets will help U.S. service suppliers, both small and large, seeking to do business in TPP markets, thereby, supporting jobs at home.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Liberalizing access for services companies so they receive better or equal treatment to service suppliers from TPP countries’ other FTA partners and face a more level playing field in TPP markets;
  • Provisions that would enable service suppliers to supply services without establishing an office in every TPP country;
  • New or enhanced obligations in specific sectors important to promoting trade (e.g., enhanced disciplines for express delivery services will promote regional supply chains and aid  small businesses, which often are highly dependent on express delivery services for integration into supply chains and distribution networks); and
  • Commitments to liberalize foreign financial services and insurance markets while protecting a government’s broad flexibility to regulate, including in the financial sector, and to take the actions necessary to ensure the stability and integrity of a financial system.

INVESTMENT

With trade following investment, we are working to ensure that U.S. investors abroad are provided the same kind of opportunities in other markets that we provide in the United States to foreign investors doing business within our borders.  That is why we are seeking to include in TPP many of the investment obligations that have historically proven to support jobs and economic growth, as well as new provisions to take on emerging investment issues.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Liberalized access for investment in TPP markets, non-discrimination and the reduction or elimination of other barriers to the establishment and operation of investments in TPP countries, including prohibitions against unlawful expropriation and specified performance requirements;
  • Provisions that will address measures that require TPP investors to favor another country’s domestic technology in order to benefit SOEs, national champions, or other competitors in that country; and
  • Procedures for arbitration that will provide basic rule of law protections for U.S. investors operating in foreign markets similar to those the U.S. already provides to foreign investors operating in the U.S.  These procedures would provide strong protections to ensure that all TPP governments can appropriately regulate in the public interest, including on health, safety, and environmental protection.  This includes an array of safeguards designed to raise the standards around investor-state dispute settlement, such as by discouraging and dismissing frivolous suits, allowing governments to direct the outcome of arbitral tribunals in certain areas, making proceedings more open and transparent, and providing for the participation of civil society organizations and other non-parties.

LABOR

Ensuring respect for worker rights is a core value.  That is why in TPP the United States is seeking to build on the strong labor provisions in the most recent U.S. trade agreements by seeking enforceable rules that protect the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining; discourage trade in goods produced by forced labor, including forced child labor; and establish mechanisms to monitor and address labor concerns.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Requirements to adhere to fundamental labor rights as recognized by the International Labor Organization, as well as acceptable conditions of work, subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism as other obligations in TPP;
  • Rules that will ensure that TPP countries do not waive or derogate from labor laws in a manner that affects trade or investment, including in free trade zones, and that they take initiatives to discourage trade in goods produced by forced labor;
  • Formation of a consultative mechanism to develop specific steps to address labor concerns when they arise; and
  • Establishment of a means for the public to raise concerns directly with TPP governments if they believe a TPP country is not meeting its labor commitments, and requirements that governments consider and respond to those concerns.

ENVIRONMENT

Environmental stewardship is a core value and advancing environmental protection and conservation efforts across the Asia-Pacific region is a key priority for the United States in TPP.  In addition to core environment obligations, we are seeking trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals to address some of the region’s most urgent environmental challenges.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Strong and enforceable environment obligations, subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism as other obligations in TPP;
  • Commitments to effectively enforce domestic environmental laws, including laws that implement multilateral environmental agreements, and commitments not to waive or derogate from the protections afforded in environmental laws for the purpose of encouraging trade or investment;
  • New provisions that will address wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, and illegal fishing practices; and
  • Establishment of a means for the public to raise concerns directly with TPP governments if they believe a TPP member is not meeting its environment commitments, and requirements that governments consider and respond to those concerns.

E-COMMERCE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

In the past five years, the number of Internet users worldwide has ballooned from 2 to 3 billion and will continue to grow.  The increase in Internet use creates significant economic potential, particularly for small businesses. The Obama Administration is working through TPP to unlock the promise of e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open, promote competitive access for telecommunications suppliers, and set digital trade rules-of-the-road.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Commitments not to impose customs duties on digital products (e.g., software, music, video, e-books);
  • Non-discriminatory treatment of digital products transmitted electronically and guarantees that these products will not face government-sanctioned discrimination based on the nationality or territory in which the product is produced;
  • Requirements that support a single, global Internet, including ensuring cross-border data flows, consistent with governments’ legitimate interest in regulating for purposes of privacy protection;
  • Rules against localization requirements that force businesses to place computer infrastructure in each market in which they seek to operate, rather than allowing them to offer services from network centers that make business sense;
  • Commitments to provide reasonable network access for telecommunications suppliers through interconnection and access to physical facilities; and
  • Provisions promoting choice of technology and competitive alternatives to address the high cost of international mobile roaming.

COMPETITION POLICY AND STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES

U.S. goals on competition policy and SOEs are grounded in long-standing principles of fair competition, consumer protection, and transparency.  The United States is seeking rules to prohibit anticompetitive business conduct, as well as fraudulent and deceptive commercial activities that harm consumers.  We are also pursuing pioneering rules to ensure that private sector businesses and workers are able to compete on fair terms with SOEs, especially when such SOEs receive significant government backing to engage in commercial activity.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Basic rules for procedural fairness on competition law enforcement;
  • Commitments ensuring SOEs act in accordance with commercial considerations and compete fairly, without undue advantages from the governments that own them, while allowing governments to provide support to SOEs that provide public services domestically; and
  • Rules that will provide transparency with respect to the nature of government control over and support for SOEs.

SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES

Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the backbone of the U.S. economy and are key contributors to economic growth in other TPP economies as well.  The United States’ 28 million SMEs account for nearly two-thirds of net new private sector jobs in recent decades.  SMEs that export tend to grow even faster, create more jobs, and pay higher wages than similar businesses that do not trade internationally.  We are seeking through this agreement to provide SMEs the tools they need to compete across TPP markets.  TPP will benefit SMEs by eliminating tariff and non-tariff barriers, streamlining customs procedures, strengthening intellectual property protection, promoting e-commerce, and developing more efficient and transparent regulatory regimes.  In addition, TPP will include a first-ever chapter focusing on issues that create particular challenges for SMEs.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Commitments to provide access to information on utilizing FTAs – a problem that SMEs have identified as a disproportionate challenge for them; and
  • Establishment of a regular review of how TPP is working for SMEs.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

As the world’s most innovative economy, strong and effective protection and enforcement of IP rights is critical to U.S. economic growth and American jobs.  Nearly 40 million American jobs are directly or indirectly attributable to “IP-intensive” industries.  These jobs pay higher wages to their workers, and these industries drive approximately 60 percent of U.S. merchandise exports and a large share of services exports.  In TPP, we are working to advance strong, state-of-the-art, and balanced rules that will protect and promote U.S. exports of IP-intensive products and services throughout the Asia-Pacific region for the benefit of producers and consumers of those goods and services in all TPP countries.  The provisions that the United States is seeking – guided by the careful balance achieved in existing U.S. law – will promote an open, innovative, and technologically-advanced Asia-Pacific region, accelerating invention and creation of new products and industries across TPP countries, while at the same time ensuring outcomes that enable all TPP countries to draw on the full benefits of scientific, technological, and medical innovation, and take part in development and enjoyment of new media, and the arts.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Strong protections for patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, including safeguards against cyber theft of trade secrets;
  • Commitments that obligate countries to seek to achieve balance in their copyright systems by means of, among other approaches, limitations or exceptions that allow for the use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research;
  • Pharmaceutical IP provisions that promote innovation and the development of new, lifesaving medicines, create opportunities for robust generic drug competition, and ensure affordable access to medicines, taking into account levels of development among the TPP countries and their existing laws and international commitments;
  • New rules that promote transparency and due process with respect to trademarks and  geographical indications;
  • Strong and fair enforcement rules to protect against trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy, including rules allowing increased penalties in cases where counterfeit or pirated goods threaten consumer health or safety; and
  • Internet service provider “safe harbor” provisions, as well as strong and balanced provisions regarding technological protection measures to foster new business models and legitimate commerce in the digital environment.

TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE AND SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES

Non-tariff trade barriers, such as duplicative testing and unscientific regulations imposed on food and agricultural goods, are among the biggest challenges facing exporters across the Asia-Pacific region.  An effective regulatory program should protect the public interest – for example in health, safety, and environmental protection – and do so in a manner that is no more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the policy goal.  The United States is therefore seeking in TPP to strengthen rules intended to eliminate unwarranted technical barriers to trade (TBT) and build upon WTO commitments in this area, and to ensure that sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) are developed and implemented in a transparent, science-based manner.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Commitments to enhance transparency, reduce unnecessary testing and certification costs, and  promote greater openness in standards development;
  • Commitments aimed at adopting common approaches to regulatory matters related to trade in products in key sectors such as wine and distilled spirits, medical devices, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, information and communication technology, and food formulas
  • New and enforceable rules to ensure that science-based SPS measures are developed and implemented in a transparent, predictable, and non-discriminatory manner, while at the same time preserving the ability of U.S. and other TPP regulatory agencies to do what they deem necessary to protect food safety, and plant and animal health; an
  • Establishment of an on-going mechanism for improved dialogue and cooperation on addressing SPS and TBT issues.

TRANSPARENCY, ANTICORRUPTION AND REGULATORY COHERENCE

Through TPP, we are seeking to make trade across the TPP region more seamless, including by improving the coherence of TPP regulatory systems, enhancing transparency in policy-making processes, and combatting corruption.  These “good government” reforms also play an important role in ensuring fairness for American firms and workers

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Commitments to promote greater transparency, participation, and accountability in the development of regulations and other government decisions, including by promptly publishing laws, regulations, administrative rulings of general application, and other procedures that affect trade and investment, and providing opportunities for stakeholder comment on measures before they are adopted and finalized;
  • For the first time in a U.S. trade agreement, a chapter on regulatory coherence, including commitments on good regulatory practices; and
  • Commitments discouraging corruption and establishing codes of conduct to promote high ethical standards among public officials.

CUSTOMS, TRADE FACILITATION AND RULES OF ORIGIN

Cutting the red-tape of trade, including by reducing costs and increasing customs efficiencies, will make it cheaper, easier, and faster for businesses to get their products to market.  In TPP, we are looking to facilitate trade across the TPP region; support the deep integration of U.S. logistics, manufacturing, and other industries in regional supply chains; and reduce costs for U.S. business by removing onerous and opaque customs barriers.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Commitments that will ensure the quick release of goods through customs, expedited procedures for express shipments, advance rulings, and transparent and predictable customs regulations;
  • Strong customs cooperation commitments in order to ensure that TPP countries work together to prevent smuggling, illegal transshipment, and duty evasion, and to guarantee compliance with trade laws and regulations; and
  • Strong and common rules of origin to ensure that the benefits of TPP go to the United States and other TPP countries, and also that TPP promotes the development of supply chains in the region that include companies based in the United States.

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

Increasing access to government procurement markets in TPP countries, which represent an estimated 5-10 percent of a country’s economy, will unlock significant opportunities for U.S. and other TPP businesses and workers.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Creation of fair, transparent, predictable, and non-discriminatory rules to govern government procurement in TPP countries; and
  • Commitments to liberalize TPP countries’ government procurement markets, with comparable levels of coverage by all TPP countries, taking into account the particular sensitivities of specific countries.

DEVELOPMENT AND TRADE CAPACITY-BUILDING

The United States views development as a way to further strengthen the region and lay the groundwork for future economic opportunities by improving access to economic opportunity for women and low income individuals; incentivizing private-public partnerships in development activities; and designing sustainable models for economic growth.  In addition, the United States sees trade capacity-building as critical to assist TPP developing countries in implementing the agreement and ensuring they can benefit from it.  In TPP, we plan to include a chapter on cooperation and capacity building and, for the first time in any U.S. trade agreement, a chapter dedicated specifically to development.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Agreement on cooperative development activities TPP countries could conduct to promote broad-based economic growth and sustainable development, including public-private partnerships, science and technology cooperation, and other joint development activities; and
  • Mechanisms for collaboration and facilitation of capacity-building activities by both TPP government and non-government representatives, as well as the private sector, in order to help TPP workers and businesses, including SMEs and micro- enterprises participate in global trade and take advantage of the agreement.

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

When the United States negotiates a trade agreement, we expect our trading partners to abide by the rules and obligations to which they agree.  Under the TPP, countries will first seek to address an issue cooperatively.  If they are unable to do so, the Parties have recourse to an independent tribunal to determine whether a Party has failed to meet its obligations, and ultimately to allow suspension of benefits if a Party fails to come into compliance.  Through the TPP dispute settlement mechanism, we are seeking to give the American public the confidence that the United States has the means to enforce the strong, high-standard obligations we are negotiating in this agreement.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Establishment of a fair and transparent dispute settlement mechanism that applies across the agreement; and
  • Procedures to allow us to settle disputes on matters arising under TPP in a timely and effective manner.

U.S.-JAPAN BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS ON MOTOR VEHICLE TRADE AND NON-TARIFF MEASURES

With the participation of Japan, TPP countries account for nearly 40 percent of global GDP and about one-third of all world trade.  Japan is currently the fourth-largest goods trading partners of the United States.  The United States exported $65 billion in goods and an estimated $48 billion in services to Japan in 2013.

Nevertheless, U.S. exporters have faced a broad range of formidable non-tariff measures in Japan’s automotive and other markets.  As a result, prior to Japan joining the TPP negotiations, the United States reached a series of agreements with Japan to address a range of issues in conjunction with Japan’s participation in TPP.  This includes an agreement that U.S. tariffs on motor vehicles will be phased out in accordance with the longest staging period in the TPP negotiations and will be back-loaded to the maximum extent.

The United States and Japan also agreed to address non-tariff measures through parallel negotiations to TPP, which were launched in August 2013.

Specifically, in these negotiations with Japan we are seeking:

  • Enforceable commitments related to the automotive sector that will address a broad range of non-tariff measures – including those related to regulatory transparency, standards, certification, financial incentives, and distribution;
  • Establishment of an accelerated dispute settlement procedure that would apply to the automotive sector that includes a mechanism to “snap back” tariffs as a remedy, as well as a special motor vehicle safeguard; and
  • Meaningful outcomes that address cross-cutting and sectoral non-tariff measures, including in the areas of insurance, transparency, investment, IP rights, standards, government procurement, competition policy, express delivery, and SPS.

https://ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-objectives

H-1B visa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The H-1B is a non-immigrant visa in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 101(a)(15)(H). It allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. If a foreign worker in H-1B status quits or is dismissed from the sponsoring employer, the worker must either apply for and be granted a change of status to another non-immigrant status, find another employer (subject to application for adjustment of status and/or change of visa), or leave the U.S.

The regulations define a “specialty occupation” as requiring theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a field of human endeavor[1] including but not limited to biotechnology, chemistry, architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, law, accounting, business specialties, theology, and the arts, and requiring the attainment of a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent as a minimum[2] (with the exception of fashion models, who must be “of distinguished merit and ability”).[3] Likewise, the foreign worker must possess at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent and state licensure, if required to practice in that field. H-1B work-authorization is strictly limited to employment by the sponsoring employer.

Structure of the program

Duration of stay

The duration of stay is three years, extendable to six years. An exception to maximum length of stay applies in certain circumstances

  • If a visa holder has submitted an I-140 immigrant petition or a labor certification prior to their fifth year anniversary of having the H-1B visa, they are entitled to renew their H-1B visa in one-year or three-year increments until a decision has been rendered on their application for permanent residence.
  • If the visa holder has an approved I-140 immigrant petition, but is unable to initiate the final step of the green card process due to their priority date not being current, they may be entitled to a three-year extension of their H-1B visa. This exception originated with the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000.[4]
  • The maximum duration of the H-1B visa is ten years for exceptional United States Department of Defense project related work.

H-1B holders who want to continue to work in the U.S. after six years, but who have not obtained permanent residency status, must remain outside of the U.S. for one year before reapplying for another H-1B visa. Despite a limit on length of stay, no requirement exists that the individual remain for any period in the job the visa was originally issued for. This is known as H-1B portability or transfer, provided the new employer sponsors another H-1B visa, which may or may not be subjected to the quota. Under current law, H-1B visa has no stipulated grace period in the event the employer-employee relationship ceases to exist.

Congressional yearly numerical cap and exemptions

The current law limits to 65,000 the number of foreign nationals who may be issued a visa or otherwise provided H-1B status each fiscal year (FY). Laws exempt up to 20,000 foreign nationals holding a master’s or higher degree from U.S. universities from the cap on H-1B visas. In addition, excluded from the ceiling are all H-1B non-immigrants who work at (but not necessarily for) universities, non-profit research facilities associated with universities, and government research facilities.[5]Universities can employ an unlimited number of foreign workers as cap-exempt. This also means that contractors working at but not directly employed by the institutions may be exempt from the cap as well. Free Trade Agreements carve out 1,400 H-1B1 visas for Chilean nationals and 5,400 H-1B1 visas for Singapore nationals. However, if these reserved visas are not used, then they are made available in the next fiscal year to applicants from other countries. Due to these unlimited exemptions and roll-overs, the number of H-1B visas issued each year is significantly more than the 65,000 cap, with 117,828 having been issued in FY2010, 129,552 in FY2011, and 135,991 in FY2012.[6][7]

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services starts accepting applications on the first business day of April for visas that count against the fiscal year starting in October. For instance, H-1B visa applications that count against the FY 2013 cap could be submitted starting from Monday, 2012 April 2. USCIS accepts H-1B visa applications no more than 6 months in advance of the requested start date.[8] Beneficiaries not subject to the annual cap are those who currently holdcap-subject H-1B status or have held cap-subject H-1B status at some point in the past six years.

Tax status of H-1B workers

The taxation of income for H-1B employees depends on whether they are categorized as either non-resident aliens or resident aliens for tax purposes. A non-resident alien for tax purposes is only taxed on income from the United States, while a resident alien for tax purposes is taxed on all income, including income from outside the US.

The classification is determined based on the “substantial presence test“: If the substantial presence test indicates that the H-1B visa holder is a resident, then income taxation is like any other U.S. person and may be filed using Form 1040 and the necessary schedules; otherwise, the visa-holder must file as a non-resident alien using tax form 1040NR or 1040NR-EZ; he or she may claim benefit from tax treaties if they exist between the United States and the visa holder’s country of citizenship.

Persons in their first year in the U.S. may choose to be considered a resident for taxation purposes for the entire year, and must pay taxes on their worldwide income for that year. This “First Year Choice” is described in IRS Publication 519 and can only be made once in a person’s lifetime. A spouse, regardless of visa status, must include a valid Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) or Social Security number (SSN) on a joint tax return with the H-1B holder.

Tax filing rules for H-1B holders may be complex, depending on the individual situation. Besides consulting a professional tax preparer knowledgeable about the rules for foreigners, the IRS Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens, may be consulted. Apart from state and federal taxes, H-1B visa holders pay Medicareand Social Security taxes, and are eligible for Social Security benefits.

H-1B and legal immigration

Even though the H-1B visa is a non-immigrant visa, it is one of the few visa categories recognized as dual intent, meaning an H-1B holder can have legal immigration intent (apply for and obtain the green card) while still a holder of the visa. In the past the employment-based green card process used to take only a few years, less than the duration of the H-1B visa itself. However, in recent times the legal employment-based immigration process has backlogged and retrogressed to the extent that it now takes many years for guest-work visa holders from certain countries to obtain green cards. Since the duration of the H-1B visa hasn’t changed, this has meant that many more H-1B visa holders must renew their visas in one or three-year increments for continued legal status while their green card application is in process.

Dependents of H-1B visa holders

H-1B visa holders can bring immediate family members (spouse and children under 21) to the U.S. under the H4 Visa category as dependents. An H4 Visa holder may remain in the U.S. as long as the H-1B visa holder retains legal status. An H4 visa holder is not eligible to work or get a Social Security number (SSN).[9]However, a DHS ruling made on Feb 24, 2015 provides certain H4 visa holders with eligibility to work, starting May 26, 2015.[10] An H4 Visa holder may attend school, get a driver’s license, and open a bank account in the U.S. To claim a dependent on a tax return or file a joint tax return, the dependent must obtain an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN), which is only used for tax filing purposes.

Administrative processing

When an H-1B worker goes outside of U.S. for vacation, he or she has to get the visa stamped on his passport unless he has already done so for re-entry in the United States. The interview is taken in U.S. Embassy by a visa officer. In some cases, H-1B workers can be required to undergo “administrative processing“, involving extra, lengthy background checks. Under current rules, these checks are supposed to take ten days or less, but in some cases, have lasted years.[11]

Application process

The process of getting a H-1B visa has three stages:

  • The employer files with the United States Department of Labor a Labor Condition Application (LCA) for the employee, making relevant attestations, including attestations about wages (showing that the wage is at least equal to the prevailing wage and wages paid to others in the company in similar positions) and working conditions.
  • With an approved LCA, the employer files a Form I-129 (Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker) requesting H-1B classification for the worker. This must be accompanied by necessary supporting documents and fees.
  • Once the Form I-129 is approved, the worker may begin working with the H-1B classification on or after the indicated start date of the job, if already physically present in the United States in valid status at the time. If the employee is outside the United States, he/she may use the approved Form I-129 and supporting documents to apply for the H-1B visa. With a H-1B visa, the worker may present himself or herself at a United States port of entry seeking admission to the United States, and get an Form I-94 to enter the United States. Employees who started a job on H-1B status without a H-1B visa because they were already in the United States still need to get a H-1B visa if they ever leave and wish to reenter the United States while on H-1B status.

OPT cap-gap extension for STEM students

On April 2, 2008, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff announced a 17-month extension to the OPT for students in qualifying STEM fields. Also known as the cap-gap, the rule change allows foreign STEM students opportunities unavailable to foreign students of other disciplines. The 17 month work-authorization extension allows the foreign STEM student to work up to 29 months under the student visa, allowing the STEM student multiple years to obtain an H-1B visa.[12][13] To be eligible for the 12-month permit, any degree in any field of studies is valid. For the 17-month OPT extension, a student must have received a Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics degree in one of the following approved majors listed on the USCIS website.[14]

In 2014, a Federal Court denied the government’s motion to dismiss the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (Washtech) and three other plaintiff’s case against the OPT extension. Judge Huvelle noted that the plaintiffs had standing due to increased competition in their field, that the OPT participation had ballooned from 28,500 in 2008, to 123,000 and that while the students are working under OPT on student visas, employers are not required to pay Social Security and Medicare contributions, nor prevailing wage.[15]

Evolution of the program

Changes to legal and administrative rules

Congress Effect on fees Effect on cap Effect on LCA attestations and
DOL investigative authority
Immigration Act of 1990, November 29, 1990, George H. W. Bush
101st Only a base filing fee Set an annual cap of 65,000 on new 3-year H-1Bs, including transfer applications and extensions of stay. Set up the basic rules for the Labor Condition Application
American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA), October 21, 1998, Bill Clinton
105th Added a $500 fee that would be used to retrain U.S. workers and close the skill gap, in the hope of reducing subsequent need for H-1B visas. Temporary increase in caps to 115,000 for 1999 and 2000[16] Introduced the concept of “H-1B-dependent employer” and required additional attestations about non-displacement of U.S. workers from employers who were H-1B-dependent or had committed a willful misrepresentation in an application in the recent past. Also gave investigative authority to the United States Department of Labor.
American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, (AC21), October 17, 2000, Bill Clinton
106th Increased $500 fee for retraining US workers to $1000. Increase in caps to 195,000 for Fiscal Years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
Creation of an uncapped category for non-profit research institutions.
Exemption from the cap for people who had already been cap-subject. This included people on cap-subject H-1Bs who were switching jobs, as well as people applying for a 3-year extension of their current 3-year H-1B.
H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004, part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, December 6, 2004, George W. Bush
108th Increased fee for retraining US workers to $1500 for companies with 26 or more employees, reduced to $750 for small companies.
Added anti-fraud fee of $500
Bachelor’s degree cap returns to 65,000 with added 20,000 visas for applicants with U.S. postgraduate degrees. Additional exemptions for Non-profit research and governmental entities. Expanded the Department of Labor’s investigative authority, but also provided two standard lines of defense to employers (the Good Faith Compliance Defense and the Recognized Industry Standards Defense).
Employ American Workers Act, February 17, 2009, Barack Obama
Part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (sunset on February 17, 2011)
111th No change. No change. All recipients of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or Federal Reserve Act Section 13 were required to file the additional attestations required of H-1B-dependent employers, for any employee who had not yet started on a H-1B visa.

Changes in the cap, number of applications received, and numbers of applications approved vs. visas issued

During the early 1990s, the cap was rarely reached. By the mid-1990s, however, the allocation tended fill each year on a first come, first served basis, resulting in frequent denials or delays of H-1Bs because the annual cap had been reached. In 1998, the cap increased to 115,000.

For FY2007, with applications accepted from 2006 April 1, the entire quota of visas for the year was exhausted within a span of 2 months on May 26,[17] well before the beginning of the financial year concerned. The additional 20,000 Advanced Degree H-1B visas were exhausted on July 26.

For FY2008, the entire quota was exhausted before the end of the first day that applications were accepted, April 2.[18] Under USCIS rules, the 123,480 petitions received on April 2 and April 3 that were subject to the cap were pooled, and then 65,000 of these were selected at random for further processing.[19] The additional 20,000 Advanced Degree H-1B visas for FY2008 was exhausted on April 30.

For FY2009, USCIS announced on 2008 April 8, that the entire quota for visas for the year had been reached, for both 20,000 Advanced and the 65,000 quota. USCIS would complete initial data entry for all filing received during 2008 April 1 to April 7, before running the lottery, while 86,300 new visas were approved.[20]

For FY2010, USCIS announced on 2009 December 21, that enough petitions were received to reach that year’s cap.[21]

For FY2011, USCIS announced on 2011 January 27, that enough petitions were received to reach that year’s cap on January 26.

For FY2015, USCIS announced on 2014 April 10 that received about 172,500 H-1B petitions during the filing period which began April 1, including petitions filed for the advanced degree exemption.[22]

For FY2016, USCIS announced on 2015 April 7 that enough petitions were received to reach that year’s cap.[23] On 2015 April 13, USCIS announced completion of the H1B cap lottery selection processes. The USCIS reported receipt of almost 233,000 H1B petitions, well in excess of the limits of 65,000 for the regular cap and 20,000 advanced-degree exemptions (or, “master’s cap”).

Numbers of applications approved

The applications received are evaluated by USCIS, and some subset are approved each year. It is possible for an individual to file multiple applications, for multiple job opportunities with a single employer/sponsor or with multiple employer/sponsors. It is possible for an individual applicant to have multiple applications approved and to be able to choose which one to take.

In its annual report on H-1B visas, released in 2006 November, USCIS stated that it approved 130,497 H-1B visa applications in FY2004 (while 138,965 new visas were issued through consular offices) and 116,927 in FY2005 (while 124,099 new visas were issued via consular offices).[24][25][26][27][28][28][29][30]

In FY2008, a total of 276,252 visa applications (109,335 initial, 166,917 renewals and extensions) were approved, and 130,183 new initial visas were issued through consular offices.

In FY2009, 214,271 visas were approved, with 86,300 being for initial employment, and 127,971 being for continued employment)[31] and 110,988 initial H-1B visas were issued from consular offices.[32]

In FY2010, 192,990 new visas were approved, with 76,627 being for initial employment and 116,363 being for continuing employment. 117,828 new visas were issued through consular offices[33]

In FY2011, 269,653 new visas were approved, with 106,445 being for initial employment and 163,208 being for continued employment. 129,552 new visas were issued through consular offices.[33]

In FY2012, 262,569 new visas were approved with 136,890 being for initial employment and 125,679 being for continued employment.[26][27][28][29][30][33][33][33][34][35]

American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000[edit]

The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) and the U.S. Department of Labor’s PERM system for labor certification erased most of the earlier claimed arguments for H-1Bs as indentured servants during the green card process. With PERM, labor certification processing time is now approximately 9 months (as of Mar 2010).[36]

Because of AC21, the H-1B employee is free to change jobs if they have an I-485 application pending for six months and an approved I-140, and if the position they move to is substantially comparable to their current position. In some cases, if those labor certifications are withdrawn and replaced with PERM applications, processing times improve, but the person also loses their favorable priority date. In those cases, employers’ incentive to attempt to lock in H-1B employees to a job by offering a green card is reduced, because the employer bears the high legal costs and fees associated with labor certification and I-140 processing, but the H-1B employee is still free to change jobs.

However, many people are ineligible to file I-485 at the current time due to the widespread retrogression in priority dates. Thus, they may well still be stuck with their sponsoring employer for many years. There are also many old labor certification cases pending under pre-PERM rules.

Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008

The Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, which, among other issues, federalizes immigration in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, stipulates that during a transition period, numerical limitations do not apply to otherwise qualified workers in the H visa category in the CNMI and Guam.[37]

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Further information: Employ American Workers Act

On Feb. 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“stimulus bill”), Public Law 111-5.[38] Section 1661 of the ARRA incorporates the Employ American Workers Act (EAWA) by Senators Sanders (I-Vt.) and Grassley (R-Iowa) to limit certain banks and other financial institutions from hiring H-1B workers unless they had offered positions to equally or better-qualified U.S. workers, and to prevent banks from hiring H-1B workers in occupations they had laid off U.S. workers from. These restrictions include:

  1. The employer must, prior to filing the H-1B petition, take good-faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the position for which the H-1B worker is sought, offering a wage at least as high as what the law requires for the H-1B worker. The employer must also attest that, in connection with this recruitment, it has offered the job to any U.S. worker who applies who is equally or better qualified for the position.
  2. The employer must not have laid off, and will not lay off, any U.S. worker in a job essentially equivalent to the H-1B position in the area of intended employment of the H-1B worker within the period beginning 90 days prior to the filing of the H-1B petition and ending 90 days after its filing.[39]

Changes in USCIS policy

After completing a policy review, the USCIS clarified that individuals who spent more than one year outside of U.S. and did not exhaust their entire six-year term can choose to be re-admitted for the “remainder” of initial six-year period without being subject to the H-1B cap.[40]

After completing a policy review, the USCIS clarified that, “Any time spent in H-4 status will not count against the six-year maximum period of admission applicable to H-1B aliens.”[40]

USCIS recently issued a memorandum dated 8 Jan 2010. The memorandum effectively states that there must be a clear “employee employer relationship” between the petitioner (employer) and the beneficiary (prospective visa holder). It simply outlines what the employer must do to be considered in compliance as well as putting forth the documentation requirements to back up the employer’s assertion that a valid relationship exists.

The memorandum gives three clear examples of what is considered a valid “employee employer relationship”:

  • a fashion model
  • a computer software engineer working off-site/on-site
  • a company or a contractor which is working on a co-production product in collaboration with DOD

In the case of the software engineer, the petitioner (employer) must agree to do (some of) the following among others:

  • Supervise the beneficiary on and off-site
  • Maintain such supervision through calls, reports, or visits
  • Have a “right” to control the work on a day-to-day basis if such control is required
  • Provide tools for the job
  • Hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary
  • Evaluate work products and perform progress/performance reviews
  • Claim them for tax purposes
  • Provide (some type of) employee benefits
  • Use “proprietary information” to perform work
  • Produce an end product related to the business
  • Have an “ability to” control the manner and means in which the worker accomplishes tasks

It further states that “common law is flexible” in how to weigh these factors. Though this memorandum cites legal cases and provides examples, such a memorandum in itself is not law and future memoranda could change this.

Protections for U.S. workers

Labor Condition Application

Further information: Labor Condition Application

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is responsible for ensuring that foreign workers do not displace or adversely affect wages or working conditions of U.S. workers. For every H-1B petition filed with the USCIS, there must be included a Labor Condition Application (LCA) (not to be confused with the labor certification), certified by the U.S. Department of Labor. The LCA is designed to ensure that the wage offered to the non-immigrant worker meets or exceeds the “prevailing wage” in the area of employment. (“Immigration law has a number of highly technical terms that may not mean the same thing to the average reader.”[41] last updated 2011 March 31, visited 2012 November 5) The LCA also contains an attestation section designed to prevent the program from being used to import foreign workers to break a strike or replace U.S. citizen workers.

While an employer is not required to advertise the position before hiring an H-1B non-immigrant pursuant to the H-1B visa approval, the employer must notify the employee representative about the Labor Condition Application (LCA)—or if there is no such representation, the employer must publish the LCA at the workplace and the employer’s office.[42][43] Under the regulations, LCAs are a matter of public record. Corporations hiring H-1B workers are required to make these records available to any member of the public who requests to look at them. Copies of the relevant records are also available from various web sites, including the Department of Labor.

History of the Labor Condition Application form

The LCA must be filed electronically using Form ETA 9035E.[44] Over the years, the complexity of the form increased from one page in 1997[45] to three pages in 2008,[46] to five pages as of August 2012.[47]

Employer attestations

By signing the LCA, the employer attests that:[48]

  • The employer pays H-1B non-immigrants the same wage level paid to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications for that specific employment, or the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of employment, whichever is higher.
  • The employment of H-1B non-immigrants does not adversely affect working conditions of workers similarly employed.
  • On the date the application is signed and submitted, there is not a strike, lockout, or work stoppage in the course of a labor dispute in the occupation in which H-1B non-immigrants will be employed at the place of employment. If such a strike or lockout occurs after this application is submitted, the employer must notify ETA within three days, and the application is not used to support petition filings with INS for H-1B non-immigrants to work in the same occupation at the place of employment until ETA determines the strike or lockout is over.
  • A copy of this application has been, or will be, provided to each H-1B non-immigrant employed pursuant to this application, and, as of the application date, notice of this application has been provided to workers employed in the occupation in which H-1B non-immigrants will be employed:
    • Notice of this filing has been provided to bargaining representative of workers in the occupation in which H-1B non-immigrants will be employed; or
    • There is no such bargaining representative; therefore, a notice of this filing has been posted and was, or will remain, posted for 10 days in at least two conspicuous locations where H-1B non-immigrants will be employed.

The law requires H-1B workers to be paid the higher of the prevailing wage for the same occupation and geographic location, or the same as the employer pays to similarly situated employees. Other factors, such as age and skill were not permitted to be taken into account for the prevailing wage. Congress changed the program in 2004 to require the Department of Labor to provide four skill-based prevailing wage levels for employers to use. This is the only prevailing wage mechanism the law permits that incorporates factors other than occupation and location.

The approval process for these applications are based on employer attestations and documentary evidence submitted. The employer is advised of their liability if they are replacing a U.S. worker.

Limits on employment

According to the USCIS, “H-1B nonimmigrants may only work for the petitioning U.S. employer and only in the H-1B activities described in the petition. The petitioning U.S. employer may place the H-1B worker on the worksite of another employer if all applicable rules (e.g., Department of Labor rules) are followed. Generally, a nonimmigrant employee may work for more than one employer at the same time. However, each employer must follow the process for initially applying for a nonimmigrant employee.”[49]

H-1B fees earmarked for U.S. worker education and training

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), reported on two programs, the High Growth Training Initiative and Workforce Innovation Regional Economic Development (WIRED), which have received or will receive $284 million and $260 million, respectively, from H-1B training fees to educate and train U.S. workers.[citation needed] According to the Seattle Times $1 billion from H1-B fees have been distributed by the Labor Department to further train the U.S. workforce since 2001.[50]

Criticisms of the program

The H-1B program has been criticized on many grounds. It was the subject of a hearing, “Immigration Reforms Needed to Protect Skilled American Workers,” by theUnited States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on March 17, 2015.[51][52] According to Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the committee:

The program was intended to serve employers who could not find the skilled workers they needed in the United States. Most people believe that employers are supposed to recruit Americans before they petition for an H-1B worker. Yet, under the law, most employers are not required to prove to the Department of Labor that they tried to find an American to fill the job first. And, if there is an equally or even better qualified U.S. worker available, the company does not have to offer him or her the job. Over the years the program has become a government-assisted way for employers to bring in cheaper foreign labor, and now it appears these foreign workers take over – rather than complement – the U.S. workforce.[53]

Use for outsourcing

In large part, rather than being used to hire talented workers not available in the American labor market, the program is being used for outsourcing.[54] SenatorsDick Durbin and Charles Grassley of Iowa began introducing “The H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud & Prevention Act” in 2007. According to Durbin, speaking in 2009, “The H-1B visa program should complement the U.S. workforce, not replace it;” “The…program is plagued with fraud and abuse and is now a vehicle for outsourcing that deprives qualified American workers of their jobs.” The proposed legislation has been opposed by Compete America, a tech industry lobbying group,[55] Outsourcing firms, many based in India, are major users of H-1B visas. The out-sourcing firm contracts with an employer, such as Disney, to perform technical services. Disney then closes down its in-house department and lays off its employees. The outsourcing firm then performs the work.[56]

In June 2015 congressional leaders announced that the Department of Labor had opened an investigation of outsourcing of technical tasks by Southern California Edison to Tata Consultancy Services and Infosys then laying off 500 technology workers.[57]

No labor shortages

Paul Donnelly, in a 2002 article in Computerworld, cited Milton Friedman as stating that the H-1B program acts as a subsidy for corporations.[58] Others holding this view include Dr. Norman Matloff, who testified to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration on the H-1B subject.[59] Matloff’s paper for theUniversity of Michigan Journal of Law Reform claims that there has been no shortage of qualified American citizens to fill American computer-related jobs, and that the data offered as evidence of American corporations needing H-1B visas to address labor shortages was erroneous.[60] The United States General Accounting Office found in a report in 2000 that controls on the H-1B program lacked effectiveness.[61] The GAO report’s recommendations were subsequently implemented.

High-tech companies often cite a tech-worker shortage when asking Congress to raise the annual cap on H-1B visas, and have succeeded in getting various exemptions passed. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), described the situation as a crisis, and the situation was reported on by the Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek and Washington Post. Employers applied pressure on Congress.[62] Microsoft chairman Bill Gates testified in 2007 on behalf of the expanded visa program on Capitol Hill, “warning of dangers to the U.S. economy if employers can’t import skilled workers to fill job gaps”.[62] Congress considered a bill to address the claims of shortfall[63] but in the end did not revise the program.[64]

According to a study conducted by John Miano and the Center for Immigration Studies, there is no empirical data to support a claim of employee worker shortage.[65] Citing studies from Duke, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Georgetown University and others, critics have also argued that in some years, the number of foreign programmers and engineers imported outnumbered the number of jobs created by the industry.[66] Organizations have also posted hundreds of first hand accounts of H-1B Visa Harm reports directly from individuals negatively impacted by the program, many of whom are willing to speak with the media.[67]

Studies carried out from the 1990s through 2011 by researchers from Columbia U, Computing Research Association (CRA), Duke U, Georgetown U, Harvard U, National Research Council of the NAS, RAND Corporation, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers U, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Stanford U, SUNY Buffalo, UC Davis, UPenn Wharton School, Urban Institute, and U.S. Dept. of Education Office of Education Research & Improvement have reported that the U.S. has been producing sufficient numbers of able and willing STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) workers, while several studies from Hal Salzman, B. Lindsay Lowell, Daniel Kuehn, Michael Teitelbaum and others have concluded that the U.S. has been employing only 30% to 50% of its newly degreed able and willing STEM workers to work in STEM fields. A 2012 IEEE announcement of a conference on STEM education funding and job markets stated “only about half of those with under-graduate STEM degrees actually work in the STEM-related fields after college, and after 10 years, only some 8% still do”.[68]

Ron Hira, a professor of public policy at Howard University and a longtime critic of the H-1B visa program, recently called the IT talent shortage “imaginary,”[69] a front for companies that want to hire relatively inexpensive foreign guest workers.

Wage depression

Wage depression is a chronic complaint critics have about the H-1B program: some studies have found that H-1B workers are paid significantly less than U.S. workers.[70][71] It is claimed[72][73][74][75][76][76] that the H-1B program is primarily used as a source of cheap labor. A paper by George J. Borjas for the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “a 10 percent immigration-induced increase in the supply of doctorates lowers the wage of competing workers by about 3 to 4 percent.”[77]

The Labor Condition Application (LCA) included in the H-1B petition is supposed to ensure that H-1B workers are paid the prevailing wage in the labor market, or the employer’s actual average wage (whichever is higher), but evidence exists that some employers do not abide by these provisions and avoid paying the actual prevailing wage despite stiff penalties for abusers.[78]

Theoretically, the LCA process appears to offer protection to both U.S. and H-1B workers. However, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office, enforcement limitations and procedural problems render these protections ineffective.[79] Ultimately, the employer, not the Department of Labor, determines what sources determine the prevailing wage for an offered position, and it may choose among a variety of competing surveys, including its own wage surveys, provided that such surveys follow certain defined rules and regulations.

The law specifically restricts the Department of Labor’s approval process of LCAs to checking for “completeness and obvious inaccuracies”.[80] In FY 2005, only about 800 LCAs were rejected out of over 300,000 submitted. Hire Americans First has posted several hundred first hand accounts of individuals negatively impacted by the program, many of whom are willing to speak with the media.[67]

DOL has split the prevailing wage into four levels, with Level One representing about the 17th percentile of wage average Americans earn. About 80 percent of LCAs are filed at this 17th percentile level[citation needed]. This four-level prevailing wage can be obtained from the DOL website,[81] and is generally far lower than average wages[citation needed].

The “prevailing wage” stipulation is allegedly vague and thus easy to manipulate[citation needed], resulting in employers underpaying visa workers. According to Ron Hira, assistant professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, the median wage in 2005 for new H-1B information technology (IT) was just $50,000, which is even lower than starting wages for IT graduates with a B.S. degree. The U.S. government OES office’s data indicates that 90 percent of H-1B IT wages were below the median U.S. wage for the same occupation.[82]

In 2002, the U.S. government began an investigation into Sun Microsystems’ hiring practices after an ex-employee, Guy Santiglia, filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Labor alleging that the Santa Clara firm discriminates against American citizens in favor of foreign workers on H-1B visas. Santiglia accused the company of bias against U.S. citizens when it laid off 3,900 workers in late 2001 and at the same time applied for thousands of visas. In 2002, about 5 percent of Sun’s 39,000 employees had temporary work visas, he said.[83] In 2005, it was decided that Sun violated only minor requirements and that neither of these violations was substantial or willful. Thus, the judge only ordered Sun to change its posting practices.[84]

Risks for employees

Historically, H-1B holders have sometimes been described as indentured servants,[85] and while the comparison is no longer as compelling, it had more validity prior to the passage of American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000. Although immigration generally requires short- and long-term visitors to disavow any ambition to seek the green card (permanent residency), H-1B visa holders are an important exception, in that the H-1B is legally acknowledged as a possible step towards a green card under what is called the doctrine of dual intent.

H-1B visa holders may be sponsored for their green cards by their employers through an Application for Alien Labor Certification, filed with the U.S. Department of Labor.[citation needed] In the past, the sponsorship process has taken several years, and for much of that time the H-1B visa holder was unable to change jobs without losing their place in line for the green card. This created an element of enforced loyalty to an employer by an H-1B visa holder. Critics[who?] alleged that employers benefit from this enforced loyalty because it reduced the risk that the H-1B employee might leave the job and go work for a competitor, and that it put citizen workers at a disadvantage in the job market, since the employer has less assurance that the citizen will stay at the job for an extended period of time, especially if the work conditions are tough, wages are lower or the work is difficult or complex. It has been argued that this makes the H-1B program extremely attractive to employers, and that labor legislation in this regard has been influenced by corporations seeking and benefiting from such advantages.[citation needed]

Some recent news reports suggest that the recession that started in 2008 will exacerbate the H-1B visa situation, both for supporters of the program and for those who oppose it.[86] The process to obtain the green card has become so long that during these recession years it has not been unusual that sponsoring companies fail and disappear, thus forcing the H-1B employee to find another sponsor, and lose their place in line for the green card. An H-1B employee could be just one month from obtaining their green card, but if the employee is laid off, he or she may have to leave the country, or go to the end of the line and start over the process to get the green card, and wait as much as 10 more years, depending on the nationality and visa category.[87]

The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 provides some relief for people waiting for a long time for a green card, by allowing H-1B extensions past the normal 6 years, as well as by making it easier to change the sponsoring employer.

The Out-Sourcing/Off-Shoring Visa

Further information: Body shopping

In his floor statement on H-1B Visa Reform, Senator Dick Durbin stated “The H-1B job visa lasts for 3 years and can be renewed for 3 years. What happens to those workers after that? Well, they could stay. It is possible. But these new companies have a much better idea for making money. They send the engineers to America to fill spots–and get money to do it—and then after the 3 to 6 years, they bring them back to work for the companies that are competing with American companies. They call it their outsourcing visa. They are sending their talented engineers to learn how Americans do business and then bring them back and compete with those American companies.”[88] Critics of H-1B use for outsourcing have also noted that more H-1B visas are granted to companies headquartered in India than companies headquartered in the United States.[89]

Of all Computer Systems Analysts and programmers on H-1B visas in the U.S., 74 percent were from Asia. This large scale migration of Asian IT professionals to the United States has been cited as a central cause for the quick emergence of the offshore outsourcing industry.[90]

In FY 2009, due to the worldwide recession, applications for H-1B visas by off-shore out-sourcing firms were significantly lower than in previous years,[91] yet 110,367 H-1B visas were issued, and 117,409 were issued in FY2010.

Social Security and Medicare taxes

H-1B employees have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes as part of their payroll. Like U.S. citizens, they are eligible to receive Social Security benefits even if they leave the United States, provided they have paid Social Security payroll taxes for at least 10 years. Further, the U.S. has bilateral agreements with several countries to ensure that the time paid into the U.S. Social Security system, even if it is less than 10 years, is taken into account in the foreign country’s comparable system and vice versa.[92]

Departure Requirement on Job Loss

If an employer lays off an H-1B worker, the employer is required to pay for the laid-off worker’s transportation outside the United States.

If an H-1B worker is laid off for any reason, the H-1B program technically does not specify a time allowance or grace period to round up one’s affairs irrespective of how long the H-1B worker might have lived in the United States. To round up one’s affairs, filing an application to change to another non-immigrant status may therefore become a necessity.

If an H-1B worker is laid off and attempts to find a new H-1B employer to file a petition for him, the individual is considered out of status if there is even a one-day gap between the last day of employment and the date that the new H-1B petition is filed. While some attorneys claim that there is a grace period of 30 days, 60 days, or sometimes 10 days, that is not true according to the law. In practice, USCIS has accepted H-1B transfer applications even with a gap in employment up to 60 days, but that is by no means guaranteed.

Some of the confusion regarding the alleged grace period arose because there is a 10-day grace period for an H-1B worker to depart the United States at the end of his authorized period of stay (does not apply for laid-off workers). This grace period only applies if the worker works until the H-1B expiration date listed on his I-797 approval notice, or I-94 card. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(13)(i)(A).

American workers are ordered to train their foreign replacements[edit]

There have been cases where employers used the program to replace their American employees with H-1B employees, and in some of those cases, the American employees were even ordered to train their replacements.[93][54][56]

Age discrimination

Age discrimination in the program results in older workers being replaced by H-1B applicants. In FY 2014, 72% of H-1B holders were between the ages of 25 and 34, according to the USCIS “Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2014”[94] report for that year, the most recent it has published on its public website. In Table 5 of the same report, only 3,592 of the 315,857 H-1B visas were approved for workers over the age of 50.[94]

Fraud

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services “H-1B Benefit Fraud & Compliance Assessment” of September 2008 concluded 21% of H-1B visas granted originate from fraudulent applications or applications with technical violations.[95] Fraud was defined as a willful misrepresentation, falsification, or omission of a material fact. Technical violations, errors, omissions, and failures to comply that are not within the fraud definition were included in the 21% rate. Subsequently, USCIS has made procedural changes to reduce the number of fraud and technical violations on H-1B applications.

In 2009, federal authorities busted a nationwide H-1B Visa Scam.[96]

Fraud has included acquisition of a fake university degree for the prospective H-B1 worker, coaching the worker on lying to consul officials, hiring a worker for which there is no U.S. job, charging the worker money to be hired, benching the worker with no pay, and taking a cut of the worker’s U.S. salary. The workers, although they have little choice in the matter, are also engaged in fraud, and may be charged, fined, and deported.[97]

Similar programs

In addition to H-1B visas, there are a variety of other visa categories that allow foreign workers to come into the U.S. to work for some period of time.

L-1 visas are issued to foreign employees of a corporation. Under recent rules, the foreign worker must have worked for the corporation for at least one year in the preceding three years prior to getting the visa. An L-1B visa is appropriate for non-immigrant workers who are being temporarily transferred to the United States based on their specialized knowledge of the company’s techniques and methodologies. An L-1A visa is for managers or executives who either manage people or an essential function of the company. There is no requirement to pay prevailing wages for the L-1 visa holders. For Canadian residents, a special L visa category is available.

TN-1 visas are part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and are issued to Canadian and Mexican citizens.[98] TN visas are only available to workers who fall into one of a pre-set list of occupations determined by the NAFTA treaty. There are specific eligibility requirements for the TN Visa.

E-3 visas are issued to citizens of Australia under the Australia free-trade treaty.

H-1B1 visas are a sub-set of H-1B issued to residents of Chile and Singapore under the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement of 2003; PL108-77 § 402(a)(2)(B), 117 Stat. 909, 940; S1416, HR2738; passed in House 2003-07-24 and the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement of 2003; PL108-78 § 402(2), 117 Stat. 948, 970-971; S1417, HR2739; passed in House 2003-07-24, passed in senate 2003-07-31, signed by executive (GWBush) 2003-05-06. According to USCIS, unused H-1B1 visas are added into the next year’s H-1B base quota of 58,200.

One recent trend in work visas is that various countries attempt to get special preference for their nationals as part of treaty negotiations. Another trend is for changes in immigration law to be embedded in large Authorization or Omnibus bills to avoid the controversy that might accompany a separate vote.

H-2B visa: The H-2B non-immigrant program permits employers to hire foreign workers to come to the U.S. and perform temporary nonagricultural work, which may be one-time, seasonal, peak load or intermittent. There is a 66,000 per year limit on the number of foreign workers who may receive H-2B status.

H-1B demographics

H-1B Applications Approved

H-1B Applications Approved by USCIS[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][33][35][99][100]
Year Initial employment approvals Continuing employment approvals Total
1999 134,411 na na
2000 136,787 120,853 257,640
2001 201,079 130,127 331,206
2002 103,584 93,953 197,537
2003 105,314 112,026 217,340
2004 130,497 156,921 287,418
2005 116,927 150,204 267,131
2006 109,614 161,367 270,981
2007 120,031 161,413 281,444
2008 109,335 166,917 276,252
2009 86,300 127,971 214,271
2010 76,627 116,363 192,990
2011 106,445 163,208 269,653
2012 136,890 125,679 262,569
2013 128,291 158,482 286,773
2014 124,326 191,531 315,857
H-1B Applications Approved by USCIS for those with less than the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor’s degree[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][33][35][99][100]
Year No HS Diploma Only HS Diploma Less Than 1 year of College 1+ years of College Equivalent of Associate’s Total Less Than Equivalent of U.S. Bachelor’s
2000 554 288 158 1,290 696 2,986
2001 247 895 284 1,376 1,181 3,983
2002 169 806 189 849 642 2,655
2003 148 822 122 623 534 2,249
2004 123 690 137 421 432 1,803
2005 107 440 77 358 363 1,345
2006 96 392 54 195 177 914
2007 72 374 42 210 215 913
2008 80 174 19 175 195 643
2009 108 190 33 236 262 829
2010 140 201 24 213 161 739
2011 373 500 44 255 170 1,342
2012 108 220 35 259 174 796
2013 68 148 15 162 121 514
2014 32 133 18 133 88 404

H-1B visas issued per year[edit]

new/initial H-1B visas issued by State Department through consular offices<[101]
Year H-1B H-1B1 Total
1990 794 na 794
1991 51,882 na 51,882
1992 44,290 na 44,290
1993 35,818 na 35,818
1994 42,843 na 42,843
1995 51,832 na 51,832
1996 58,327 na 58,327
1997 80,547 na 80,547
1998 91,360 na 91,360
1999 116,513 na 116,513
2000 133,290 na 133,290
2001 161,643 na 161,643
2002 118,352 na 118,352
2003 107,196 na 107,196
2004 138,965 72 139,037
2005 124,099 275 124,374
2006 135,421 440 135,861
2007 154,053 639 154,692
2008 129,464 719 130,183
2009 110,367 621 110,988
2010 117,409 419 117,828
2011 129,134 418 129,552
2012 135,530 461 135,991
2013 153,223 571 153,794

Employers ranked by H-1B visas approved

Companies receiving H-1Bs[102][103][104]
2013 Rank Company Primary Emp. Base 2006 [105] 2007 [106] 2008 [107] 2009 [108] 2010 [109] 2011 [110] 2012 [111] 2013 [112]
1 Infosys
Bangalore, Karnataka, India
India 4,908 4,559 4,559 440 3,792 3,962 5,600 6,298
2 Tata Consultancy Services
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
India 3,046 797 1,539 1,740 7,469 6,258
3 Cognizant
Teaneck, New Jersey
U.S. 2,226 962 467 233 3,388 4,222 9,281 5,186
4 Accenture Inc
Dublin, Ireland
U.S. 637 331 731 287 506 1,347 4,037 3,346
5 Wipro
Bangalore, Karnataka, India
India 4,002 2,567 2,678 1,964 1,521 2,736 4,304 2,644
6 HCL Technologies Ltd
Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
India 910 102 1,033 2,070 1,766
7 IBM
Armonk, New York
U.S. 1,324 199 381 865 882 853 1,846 1,624
8 Mahindra Satyam
Hyderabad, Telangana, India
India 2,880 1,396 1,917 219 224 1,963 1,589
9 Larsen & Toubro Infotech
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
India 947 292 403 602 333 1,204 1,832 1,580
10 Deloitte
New York City, New York
U.S. 1,555 525 413 563 196 1,668 1,491
11 IGATE (merged w Patni)
Bridgewater, NJ & Bengaluru, India
India 1,391 477 296 609 164 1,260 1,157
12 Microsoft
Redmond, Washington
U.S. 3,117 959 1,037 1,318 1,618 947 1,497 1,048
13 Syntel
Troy, Michigan
India 416 130 129 1,161 1,041
14 Qualcomm
San Diego, California
U.S. 533 158 255 320 909
15 Amazon
Seattle, Washington
U.S. 262 81 182 881
16 Intel Corporation
Santa Clara, California
U.S. 828 369 351 723 772
17 Google
Mountain View, California
U.S. 328 248 207 211 172 383 753
18 Mphasis
Bangalore, Karnataka, India
India 751 248 251 229 197 556
19 Capgemini
Paris, France
E.U. 309 99 500
20 Oracle Corporation
Redwood Shores, California
U.S. 1,022 113 168 272 475
21 UST Global
Aliso Viejo, California
U.S. 339 416 344 475
22 PricewaterhouseCoopers
London, United Kingdom
E.U. 591 192 449
23 Cisco Systems
San Jose, California
U.S. 828 324 422 308 379
24 Ernst & Young LLP
London, United Kingdom
UK 774 302 321 481 373
Top 10 universities and schools receiving H-1Bs[102][103][105]
School H-1Bs Received 2006
New York City Public Schools 642
University of Michigan 437
University of Illinois at Chicago 434
University of Pennsylvania 432
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine 432
University of Maryland 404
Columbia University 355
Yale University 316
Harvard University 308
Stanford University 279
Washington University in St. Louis 278
University of Pittsburgh 275

See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-484

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Asset Price Bubble Bursts Coming In October With 69 Months of Near Zero Federal Funds Interest Rates! — Interest Rate Suppression or Price Control and Manipulation Will Blow Up Economy — Suppressing Savings and Investment With Low Interest Rates Is A Formula For Diaster and Depression — Panic Time — Start A War Over Oil — Meltdown America –Videos

Posted on September 21, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Crisis, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Documentary, Economics, Education, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Films, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, Government Land Ownership, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Obamacare, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Programming, Public Sector, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Securities and Exchange Commission, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Water, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 332: September 18 2014

Pronk Pops Show 331: September 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 330: September 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 329: September 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 328: September 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 327: September 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 326: September 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 325: September 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 324: September 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 323: September 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 322: September 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 321: September 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 320: August 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 319: August 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 318: August 27, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 317: August 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 316: August 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 315: August 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 314: August 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 313: August 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 312: August 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 311: August 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 310: August 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 309: August 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 308: August 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 307: August 1, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 306: July 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 305: July 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 304: July 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 303: July 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 302: July 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 301: July 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 300: July 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 299: July 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 298: July 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 297: July 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 296: July 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 295: July 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 294: July 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 293: July 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 292: July 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 291: July 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 290: July 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 289: July 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 288: June 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 287: June 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 286: June 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 285 June 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 284: June 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 283: June 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 282: June 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 281: June 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 280: June 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 279: June 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 278: June 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 277: June 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 276: June 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 275: June 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 274: June 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 273: June 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 272: June 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 271: June 2, 2014

Story 1: Asset Price Bubble Bursts Coming In October With 69 Months of Near Zero Federal Funds Interest Rates! — Interest Rate Suppression or Price Control and Manipulation Will Blow Up Economy — Suppressing Savings and Investment With Low Interest Rates Is A Formula For Diaster and Depression — Panic Time — Start A War Over Oil — Meltdown America –Videos

U.S. Debt Clock

Current Debt Held by the Public Intragovernmental Holdings Total Public Debt Outstanding
09/17/2014 12,767,522,798,389.80 4,997,219,915,398.95 17,764,742,713,788.75

 

TABLE I -- SUMMARY OF TREASURY SECURITIES OUTSTANDING, AUGUST 31, 2014
(Millions of dollars)
                                              Amount Outstanding
Title                                         Debt Held             Intragovernmental         Totals
                                              By the Public         Holdings
Marketable:
  Bills.......................................        1,450,293                     1,704                1,451,998
  Notes.......................................        8,109,269                     7,365                8,116,634
  Bonds.......................................        1,521,088                        57                1,521,144
  Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities.....        1,031,836                        52                1,031,888
  Floating Rate Notes  21  ...................          109,996                         0                  109,996
  Federal Financing Bank  1  .................                0                    13,612                   13,612
Total Marketable  a...........................       12,222,481                    22,790 2             12,245,271
Nonmarketable:
  Domestic Series.............................           29,995                         0                   29,995
  Foreign Series..............................            2,986                         0                    2,986
  State and Local Government Series...........          105,440                         0                  105,440
  United States Savings Securities............          177,030                         0                  177,030
  Government Account Series...................          193,237                 4,993,277                5,186,514
  Hope Bonds 19...............................                0                       494                      494
  Other.......................................            1,443                         0                    1,443
Total Nonmarketable  b........................          510,130                 4,993,771                5,503,901
Total Public Debt Outstanding ................       12,732,612                 5,016,561               17,749,172
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, AUGUST 31, 2014
(Millions of dollars)
                                              Amount Outstanding
Title                                         Debt Held             Intragovernmental         Totals
                                                 By the Public 17, 2Holdings
Debt Subject to Limit: 17, 20
  Total Public Debt Outstanding...............       12,732,612                 5,016,561               17,749,172
  Less Debt Not Subject to Limit:
    Other Debt ...............................              485                         0                      485
    Unamortized Discount  3...................           15,742                    12,421                   28,163
    Federal Financing Bank  1     ............                0                    13,612                   13,612
    Hope Bonds 19.............................                0                       494                      494
  Plus Other Debt Subject to Limit:
    Guaranteed Debt of Government Agencies  4                 *                         0                        *
  Total Public Debt Subject to Limit .........       12,716,386                 4,990,033               17,706,419
  Statutory Debt Limit  5.....................................................................                   0
COMPILED AND PUBLISHED BY
THE BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE
www.TreasuryDirect.gov

Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

The Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding includes the monthly interest for:

Amortized discount or premium on bills, notes and bonds is also included in the monthly interest expense.

The fiscal year represents the total interest expense on the Debt Outstanding for a given fiscal year. This includes the months of October through September. View current month details (XLS Format, File size 199KB, uploaded 09/05/2014).

Note: To read or print a PDF document, you need the Adobe Acrobat Reader (v5.0 or higher) software installed on your computer. You can download the Adobe Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Website.

If you need help downloading…

Interest Expense Fiscal Year 2014
August $27,093,517,258.24
July $29,260,530,745.98
June $97,565,768,696.69
May $32,081,384,628.40
April $31,099,852,014.96
March $26,269,559,883.36
February $21,293,863,450.50
January $19,498,592,676.78
December $88,275,817,263.03
November $22,327,099,682.97
October $16,451,313,332.09
Fiscal Year Total $411,217,855,816.94
Available Historical Data Fiscal Year End
2013 $415,688,781,248.40
2012 $359,796,008,919.49
2011 $454,393,280,417.03
2010 $413,954,825,362.17
2009 $383,071,060,815.42
2008 $451,154,049,950.63
2007 $429,977,998,108.20
2006 $405,872,109,315.83
2005 $352,350,252,507.90
2004 $321,566,323,971.29
2003 $318,148,529,151.51
2002 $332,536,958,599.42
2001 $359,507,635,242.41
2000 $361,997,734,302.36
1999 $353,511,471,722.87
1998 $363,823,722,920.26
1997 $355,795,834,214.66
1996 $343,955,076,695.15
1995 $332,413,555,030.62
1994 $296,277,764,246.26
1993 $292,502,219,484.25
1992 $292,361,073,070.74
1991 $286,021,921,181.04
1990 $264,852,544,615.90
1989 $240,863,231,535.71
1988 $214,145,028,847.73

chart

fredgraph

fredgraph

BND-10-Year-Treasury-Yield-09122014

 JIM ROGERS Financial disaster coming – Dollar collapse – Countries Move Away From USD

US Fed signals move to normalize monetary policy

Dollar Meltdown, Massive Financial Bubble, Economic Collapse Marc Faber

Peter Schiff Iraq Crisis Threatens Global Economy

Peter Schiff – Fantasy About US Recovery Is Not Going To Materialize

Most important video Americans will see today – Doug Casey Interview

James Grant: Two Alternative Outcomes From Fed Policy – Much Higher Inflation or More Money Printing

Investor Jim Grant on Bubbles And Bargains

Jim Rogers Discusses Concern Over The Market

Jim Rogers On Economic Collapse And The US Debt‬

US Economy 2014 Collapse – *Peter Schiff* – FED will cause Huge Economic Crisis!

US ECONOMY COLLAPSE WILL LEAVE MILLIONS IN POVERTY

There Will Be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly

US Massive Financial Crisis Coming

Dan Mitchell Discussing Harvard Survey, Arguing for Growth over Class Warfare

The Coming Stock Market Crash and The Death of Money with Jim Rickards

Market Crash, Economic collapse 2014, The coming of World War 3 – Stock Market

Forbes: Obama’s Economic Reforms Are the Definition of Insanity

Why America Should Default and You Should Live Abroad: Q&A with Doug Casey

Doug Casey-No Way Out-Stock, Bond and Real Estate Markets Will Collapse

Russia conspired to destroy US dollar with China – clip from Meltdown America documentary

http://www.caseyresearch.com/lg/meltdown-video

 

 

Here a bubble, there a bubble: Ol’ Marc Faber

Even after the Dow and the S&P 500 closed at new all-time highs, closely followed contrarian Marc Faber keeps sounding the alarm.

“We have a bubble in everything, everywhere,” the publisher of The Gloom, Boom & Doom Report told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Friday. Faber has long argued that the Federal Reserve’s massive asset purchasing programs and near-zero interest rates have inflated stock prices.

The catalyst for a market decline, as he sees it, could be a “raise in interest rates, not engineered by the Fed,” referring an increase in bond yields.

 

Faber also expressed concern about American consumers. “Their cost of living have gone up more than the salary increases, so they’re getting squeezed. So that’s why retailing is not doing particularly well.”

A real black swan event, he argued, would be a global recession. “The big surprise will be that the global economy slows down and goes into recession. And that will shock markets.”

If economies around the world can’t recovery with the Fed and other central banks pumping easy money into the system, that would send a dire message, Faber added. He believes the best way for world economies to recover is to cut the size of government.

Read MoreBond market hears Fed hawks; stocks see doves

There’s a dual-economy in the U.S. and around the world with the rich doing really well and others struggling, he said. “[But] the rich will get creamed one day, especially in Europe, on wealth taxes.”

On the other end of the market spectrum, longtime stock market bull Jeremy Siegel told CNBC on Tuesday (ahead of Wednesday’s Fed policy statement leaving interest rate guidance unchanged) that he stands by his Dow 18,000 prediction.

The Wharton School professor sees second half economic growth of 3 to 4 percent, S&P 500 earnings near $120, and the start of Fed rate hikes in the spring or summer of 2015

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102016166

 

Fed and TWTR Overvaluation, Evidence of Looming Market Crash: Stockman

The Federal Reserve Wednesday reassured investors that it will hold interest rates near zero for a “considerable time” after it ends the bond-buying program known as quantitative easing in October. In response, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI) closed at a new record high.

Former Director of the Office of Management and Budget and author of the book, The Great Deformation, David Stockman, has significant concerns about that very policy.

“I’m worried… that we’ve got the greatest bubble created by a central bank in human history,” he told Yahoo Finance.

In a recent blog post, Stockman offered a handful of high-flying stocks as evidence of what he sees as “madness.”

                                               “…Twitter, is all that is required to remind us that once

                                               again markets are trading in the nosebleed section

                                               of history, rivaling even the madness of March 2000.”

Behind the madness

In an interview with Yahoo Finance, Stockman blamed Fed policy for creating that madness.

“We have been shoving zero-cost money into the financial markets for 6-years running,” he said. “That’s the kerosene that drives speculative trading – the carry trades. That’s what the gamblers use to fund their position as they move from one momentum play and trade to another.”

And that, he says, is not sustainable. While Stockman believes tech stocks are especially overvalued, he warns that it’s not just tech valuations that are inflated. “Everything’s massively overvalued, and it’s predicated on zero-cost overnight money that continues these carry trades; It can’t continue.”

And he still believes, as he has for some time – so far, incorrectly – that there will be a day of reckoning.

“When the trades begin to unwind because the carry cost has to normalize, you’re going to have a dramatic re-pricing dislocation in these financial markets.”

As Yahoo Finance’s Lauren Lyster points out in the associated video, investors who heeded Stockman’s advice last year would have missed out on a 28% run-up in stocks. But Stockman remains steadfast in his belief that the current Fed policy and the resultant market behavior can not continue. “I think what the Fed is doing is so unprecedented, what is happening in the markets is so unnatural,” he said. “This is dangerous, combustible stuff, and I don’t know when the explosion occurs – when the collapse suddenly is upon us – but when it happens, people will be happy that they got out of the way if they did.”

 

 

Federal Reserve Statistical Release, H.4.1, Factors Affecting Reserve Balances; title with eagle logo links to Statistical Release home page
Release Date: Thursday, September 11, 2014
Release dates | Data Download Program (DDP) | About | Announcements | Technical Q&As
Current release  Other formats: Screen reader | ASCII | PDF (21 KB)


Try data download now image link

FEDERAL RESERVE statistical release

H.4.1

Factors Affecting Reserve Balances of Depository Institutions and Condition Statement of Federal Reserve Banks September 11, 2014

1. Factors Affecting Reserve Balances of Depository Institutions

Millions of dollars

Reserve Bank credit, related items, and
reserve balances of depository institutions at
Federal Reserve Banks
Averages of daily figures Wednesday
Sep 10, 2014
Week ended
Sep 10, 2014
Change from week ended
Sep 3, 2014 Sep 11, 2013
Reserve Bank credit 4,377,690 +    4,183 +  761,693 4,379,719
Securities held outright1 4,159,537 +    2,675 +  765,361 4,160,521
U.S. Treasury securities 2,439,657 +    2,671 +  401,376 2,440,637
Bills2          0          0          0          0
Notes and bonds, nominal2 2,325,368 +    2,678 +  386,333 2,326,351
Notes and bonds, inflation-indexed2     97,755          0 +   11,737     97,755
Inflation compensation3     16,534 –        7 +    3,306     16,531
Federal agency debt securities2     41,562          0 –   22,868     41,562
Mortgage-backed securities4 1,678,317 +        4 +  386,851 1,678,322
Unamortized premiums on securities held outright5    208,963 –      219 +    5,815    208,907
Unamortized discounts on securities held outright5    -18,664 +       21 –   12,958    -18,654
Repurchase agreements6          0          0          0          0
Loans        291 –        8 +       18        352
Primary credit         10 –       18 –        8         53
Secondary credit          0          0          0          0
Seasonal credit        247 +        9 +       94        266
Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility7         34          0 –       68         34
Other credit extensions          0          0          0          0
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane LLC8      1,664 –        1 +      171      1,665
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane II LLC9         63          0 –        1         63
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane III LLC10         22          0          0         22
Net portfolio holdings of TALF LLC11         44          0 –       80         44
Float       -675 –       69 +       94       -627
Central bank liquidity swaps12         77 +        1 –      243         77
Other Federal Reserve assets13     26,369 +    1,784 +    3,517     27,349
Foreign currency denominated assets14     22,933 –      353 –      737     22,801
Gold stock     11,041          0          0     11,041
Special drawing rights certificate account      5,200          0          0      5,200
Treasury currency outstanding15     46,103 +       14 +      820     46,103
Total factors supplying reserve funds 4,462,967 +    3,844 +  761,776 4,464,863

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. Footnotes appear at the end of the table.

1. Factors Affecting Reserve Balances of Depository Institutions (continued)

Millions of dollars

Reserve Bank credit, related items, and
reserve balances of depository institutions at
Federal Reserve Banks
Averages of daily figures Wednesday
Sep 10, 2014
Week ended
Sep 10, 2014
Change from week ended
Sep 3, 2014 Sep 11, 2013
Currency in circulation15 1,292,467 –      442 +   84,956 1,291,993
Reverse repurchase agreements16    266,584 +      818 +  173,996    267,602
Foreign official and international accounts    102,228 –      296 +    9,640    107,303
Others    164,356 +    1,115 +  164,356    160,299
Treasury cash holdings        165 +        4 +       23        164
Deposits with F.R. Banks, other than reserve balances     52,715 –    6,170 –   19,233     53,117
Term deposits held by depository institutions          0          0          0          0
U.S. Treasury, General Account     39,081 –    3,787 +      530     31,872
Foreign official      5,432 –    1,134 –    3,562      5,241
Other17      8,202 –    1,248 –   16,201     16,004
Other liabilities and capital18     63,991 –        1 +      818     63,033
Total factors, other than reserve balances,
absorbing reserve funds
1,675,922 –    5,792 +  240,561 1,675,910
Reserve balances with Federal Reserve Banks 2,787,045 +    9,636 +  521,214 2,788,954

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

1. Includes securities lent to dealers under the overnight securities lending facility; refer to table 1A.
2. Face value of the securities.
3. Compensation that adjusts for the effect of inflation on the original face value of inflation-indexed securities.
4. Guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae. The current face value shown is the remaining principal balance of
the securities.
5. Reflects the premium or discount, which is the difference between the purchase price and the face value of the securities that has not been amortized.  For U.S. Treasury and Federal agency debt securities, amortization is on a straight-line basis.  For mortgage-backed securities, amortization is on an effective-interest basis.
6. Cash value of agreements.
7. Includes credit extended by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to eligible borrowers through the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility.
8. Refer to table 4 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 9.
9. Refer to table 5 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 9.
10. Refer to table 6 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 9.
11. Refer to table 7 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 9.
12. Dollar value of foreign currency held under these agreements valued at the exchange rate to be used when the foreign currency is returned
to the foreign central bank. This exchange rate equals the market exchange rate used when the foreign currency was acquired from the
foreign central bank.
13. Includes accrued interest, which represents the daily accumulation of interest earned, and other accounts receivable.  Also, includes Reserve Bank premises and equipment net of allowances for depreciation.
14. Revalued daily at current foreign currency exchange rates.
15. Estimated.
16. Cash value of agreements, which are collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities, federal agency debt securities, and mortgage-backed securities.
17. Includes deposits held at the Reserve Banks by international and multilateral organizations, government-sponsored enterprises, and designated financial market utilities.
18. Includes the liabilities of Maiden Lane LLC, Maiden Lane II LLC, Maiden Lane III LLC, and TALF LLC to entities other than the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, including liabilities that have recourse only to the portfolio holdings of these LLCs. Refer to table 4 through table 7 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 9. Also includes the liability for interest on Federal Reserve notes due to U.S. Treasury. Refer to table 8 and table 9.

Sources: Federal Reserve Banks and the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

1A. Memorandum Items

Millions of dollars

Memorandum item Averages of daily figures Wednesday
Sep 10, 2014
Week ended
Sep 10, 2014
Change from week ended
Sep 3, 2014 Sep 11, 2013
Securities held in custody for foreign official and international accounts 3,338,309 –      417 +   61,832 3,343,937
Marketable U.S. Treasury securities1 3,010,563 –      456 +   86,414 3,016,027
Federal agency debt and mortgage-backed securities2    285,805 +       28 –   29,008    285,934
Other securities3     41,942 +       12 +    4,427     41,976
Securities lent to dealers     10,669 +    1,648 –    1,429     11,123
Overnight facility4     10,669 +    1,648 –    1,429     11,123
U.S. Treasury securities      9,860 +    1,721 –    1,405     10,373
Federal agency debt securities        810 –       72 –       23        750

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

1. Includes securities and U.S. Treasury STRIPS at face value, and inflation compensation on TIPS. Does not include securities pledged as collateral to foreign official and international account holders against reverse repurchase agreements with the Federal Reserve presented in tables 1, 8, and 9.
2. Face value of federal agency securities and current face value of mortgage-backed securities, which is the remaining principal balance of the securities.
3. Includes non-marketable U.S. Treasury securities, supranationals, corporate bonds, asset-backed securities, and commercial paper at face value.
4. Face value. Fully collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities.
2. Maturity Distribution of Securities, Loans, and Selected Other Assets and Liabilities, September 10, 2014

Millions of dollars

Remaining Maturity Within 15
days
16 days to
90 days
91 days to
1 year
Over 1 year
to 5 years
Over 5 year
to 10 years
Over 10
years
All
Loans1        118        234          0          0          0        352
U.S. Treasury securities2
Holdings          0         90      3,194 1,037,162    742,261    657,930 2,440,637
Weekly changes          0          0          0 +    1,615 –        1 +    2,037 +    3,651
Federal agency debt securities3
Holdings      1,556      1,329      3,584     32,746          0      2,347     41,562
Weekly changes          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
Mortgage-backed securities4
Holdings          0          0          0         10      4,698 1,673,614 1,678,322
Weekly changes          0          0          0          0 +      863 –      857 +        6
Asset-backed securities held by
TALF LLC5
         0          0          0          0          0          0          0
Repurchase agreements6          0          0          0
Central bank liquidity swaps7         77          0          0          0          0          0         77
Reverse repurchase agreements6    267,602          0    267,602
Term deposits          0          0          0          0

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
…Not applicable.

1. Excludes the loans from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) to Maiden Lane LLC, Maiden Lane II LLC, Maiden
Lane III LLC, and TALF LLC. The loans were eliminated when preparing the FRBNY’s statement of condition consistent with consolidation
under generally accepted accounting principles.
2. Face value. For inflation-indexed securities, includes the original face value and compensation that adjusts for the effect of inflation on the
original face value of such securities.
3. Face value.
4. Guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae. The current face value shown is the remaining principal balance of the securities.
5. Face value of asset-backed securities held by TALF LLC, which is the remaining principal balance of the underlying assets.
6. Cash value of agreements.
7. Dollar value of foreign currency held under these agreements valued at the exchange rate to be used when the foreign currency is returned to
the foreign central bank. This exchange rate equals the market exchange rate used when the foreign currency was acquired from the foreign
central bank.

3. Supplemental Information on Mortgage-Backed Securities

Millions of dollars

Account name Wednesday
Sep 10, 2014
Mortgage-backed securities held outright1 1,678,322
Commitments to buy mortgage-backed securities2     80,643
Commitments to sell mortgage-backed securities2          0
Cash and cash equivalents3          4
1. Guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae. The current face value shown is the remaining principal balance of the securities.
2. Current face value. Generally settle within 180 days and include commitments associated with outright transactions, dollar rolls, and coupon swaps.
3. This amount is included in other Federal Reserve assets in table 1 and in other assets in table 8 and table 9.

4. Information on Principal Accounts of Maiden Lane LLC

Millions of dollars

Account name Wednesday
Sep 10, 2014
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane LLC1      1,665
Outstanding principal amount of loan extended by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York2          0
Accrued interest payable to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York2          0
Outstanding principal amount and accrued interest on loan payable to JPMorgan Chase & Co.3          0
1. Fair value. Fair value reflects an estimate of the price that would be received upon selling an asset if the transaction were to be conducted in an orderly market on the measurement date. Revalued quarterly. This table reflects valuations as of June 30, 2014. Any assets purchased after
this valuation date are initially recorded at cost until their estimated fair value as of the purchase date becomes available.
2. Book value. This amount was eliminated when preparing the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s statement of condition consistent with consolidation under generally accepted accounting principles. Refer to the note on consolidation accompanying table 9.
3. Book value. The fair value of these obligations is included in other liabilities and capital in table 1 and in other liabilities and accrued dividends in table 8 and table 9.

Note: On June 26, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) extended credit to Maiden Lane LLC under the authority of section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. This limited liability company was formed to acquire certain assets of Bear Stearns and to manage those assets through time to maximize repayment of the credit extended and to minimize disruption to financial markets. Payments by Maiden Lane LLC from the proceeds of the net portfolio holdings will be made in the following order: operating expenses of the LLC, principal due to the FRBNY, interest due to the FRBNY, principal due to JPMorgan Chase & Co., and interest due to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Any remaining funds will be paid to the FRBNY.

5. Information on Principal Accounts of Maiden Lane II LLC

Millions of dollars

Account name Wednesday
Sep 10, 2014
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane II LLC1         63
Outstanding principal amount of loan extended by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York2          0
Accrued interest payable to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York2          0
Deferred payment and accrued interest payable to subsidiaries of American International Group, Inc.3          0
1. Fair value. Fair value reflects an estimate of the price that would be received upon selling an asset if the transaction were to be conducted in an orderly market on the measurement date. Revalued quarterly. This table reflects valuations as of June 30, 2014. Any assets purchased after
this valuation date are initially recorded at cost until their estimated fair value as of the purchase date becomes available.
2. Book value. This amount was eliminated when preparing the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s statement of condition consistent with consolidation under generally accepted accounting principles. Refer to the note on consolidation accompanying table 9.
3. Book value. The deferred payment represents the portion of the proceeds of the net portfolio holdings due to subsidiaries of American
International Group, Inc. in accordance with the asset purchase agreement. The fair value of this payment and accrued interest payable are
included in other liabilities and capital in table 1 and in other liabilities and accrued dividends in table 8 and table 9.

Note: On December 12, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) began extending credit to Maiden Lane II LLC under the authority of section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. This limited liability company was formed to purchase residential mortgage-backed securities from the U.S. securities lending reinvestment portfolio of subsidiaries of American International Group, Inc. (AIG subsidiaries). Payments by Maiden Lane II LLC from the proceeds of the net portfolio holdings will be made in the following order: operating expenses of Maiden Lane II LLC, principal due to the FRBNY, interest due to the FRBNY, and deferred payment and interest due to AIG subsidiaries. Any remaining funds will be shared by the FRBNY and AIG subsidiaries.

6. Information on Principal Accounts of Maiden Lane III LLC

Millions of dollars

Account name Wednesday
Sep 10, 2014
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane III LLC1         22
Outstanding principal amount of loan extended by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York2          0
Accrued interest payable to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York2          0
Outstanding principal amount and accrued interest on loan payable to American International Group, Inc.3          0
1. Fair value. Fair value reflects an estimate of the price that would be received upon selling an asset if the transaction were to be conducted in an orderly market on the measurement date. Revalued quarterly. This table reflects valuations as of June 30, 2014. Any assets purchased after
this valuation date are initially recorded at cost until their estimated fair value as of the purchase date becomes available.
2. Book value. This amount was eliminated when preparing the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s statement of condition consistent with consolidation under generally accepted accounting principles. Refer to the note on consolidation accompanying table 9.
3. Book value. The fair value of these obligations is included in other liabilities and capital in table 1 and in other liabilities and accrued dividends in table 8 and table 9.

Note: On November 25, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) began extending credit to Maiden Lane III LLC under the authority of section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. This limited liability company was formed to purchase multi-sector collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) on which the Financial Products group of American International Group, Inc. (AIG) has written credit default swap (CDS) contracts. In connection with the purchase of CDOs, the CDS counterparties will concurrently unwind the related CDS transactions. Payments by Maiden Lane III LLC from the proceeds of the net portfolio holdings will be made in the following order: operating expenses of Maiden Lane III LLC, principal due to the FRBNY, interest due to the FRBNY, principal due to AIG, and interest due to AIG. Any remaining funds will be shared by the FRBNY and AIG.

7. Information on Principal Accounts of TALF LLC

Millions of dollars

Account name Wednesday
Sep 10, 2014
Asset-backed securities holdings1          0
Other investments, net         44
Net portfolio holdings of TALF LLC         44
Outstanding principal amount of loan extended by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York2          0
Accrued interest payable to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York2          0
Funding provided by U.S. Treasury to TALF LLC, including accrued interest payable3          0
1. Fair value. Fair value reflects an estimate of the price that would be received upon selling an asset if the transaction were to be conducted in an orderly market on the measurement date.
2. Book value. This amount was eliminated when preparing the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s statement of condition consistent with consolidation under generally accepted accounting principles. Refer to the note on consolidation accompanying table 9.
3. Book value. The fair value of these obligations is included in other liabilities and capital in table 1 and in other liabilities and accrued dividends in table 8 and table 9.

Note: On November 25, 2008, the Federal Reserve announced the creation of the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) under theauthority of section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. The TALF is a facility under which the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) extended loans with a term of up to five years to holders of eligible asset-backed securities. The Federal Reserve closed the TALF for new loan extensions in 2010. The loans provided through the TALF to eligible borrowers are non-recourse, meaning that the obligation of the borrower can be discharged by surrendering the collateral to the FRBNY.

TALF LLC is a limited liability company formed to purchase and manage any asset-backed securities received by the FRBNY in connection with the decision of a borrower not to repay a TALF loan. TALF LLC has committed, for a fee, to purchase all asset-backed securities received by the FRBNY in conjunction with a TALF loan at a price equal to the TALF loan plus accrued but unpaid interest. Prior to January 15, 2013, the U.S. Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) committed backup funding to TALF LLC, providing credit protection to the FRBNY. However, the accumulated fees and income collected through the TALF and held by TALF LLC now exceed the remaining amount of TALF loans outstanding. Accordingly, the TARP credit protection commitment has been terminated, and TALF LLC has begun to distribute excess proceeds to the Treasury and the FRBNY. Any remaining funds will be shared by the FRBNY and the U.S. Treasury.

8. Consolidated Statement of Condition of All Federal Reserve Banks

Millions of dollars

Assets, liabilities, and capital Eliminations from consolidation Wednesday
Sep 10, 2014
Change since
Wednesday Wednesday
Sep 3, 2014 Sep 11, 2013
Assets
Gold certificate account     11,037          0          0
Special drawing rights certificate account      5,200          0          0
Coin      1,930 +        8 –       62
Securities, unamortized premiums and discounts, repurchase agreements, and loans 4,351,126 +    3,534 +  756,847
Securities held outright1 4,160,521 +    3,657 +  763,739
U.S. Treasury securities 2,440,637 +    3,651 +  399,549
Bills2          0          0          0
Notes and bonds, nominal2 2,326,351 +    3,661 +  385,784
Notes and bonds, inflation-indexed2     97,755          0 +   10,546
Inflation compensation3     16,531 –       10 +    3,219
Federal agency debt securities2     41,562          0 –   22,654
Mortgage-backed securities4 1,678,322 +        6 +  386,844
Unamortized premiums on securities held outright5    208,907 –      132 +    5,820
Unamortized discounts on securities held outright5    -18,654 +       19 –   12,787
Repurchase agreements6          0          0          0
Loans        352 –       10 +       75
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane LLC7      1,665 +        1 +      167
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane II LLC8         63          0 –        1
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane III LLC9         22          0          0
Net portfolio holdings of TALF LLC10         44          0 –       68
Items in process of collection (0)         94 –       22 –       31
Bank premises      2,255          0 –       29
Central bank liquidity swaps11         77 +        1 –      243
Foreign currency denominated assets12     22,801 –      404 –      925
Other assets13     25,095 +    2,704 +    3,719
Total assets (0) 4,421,408 +    5,821 +  759,373

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. Footnotes appear at the end of the table.

8. Consolidated Statement of Condition of All Federal Reserve Banks (continued)

Millions of dollars

Assets, liabilities, and capital Eliminations from consolidation Wednesday
Sep 10, 2014
Change since
Wednesday Wednesday
Sep 3, 2014 Sep 11, 2013
Liabilities
Federal Reserve notes, net of F.R. Bank holdings 1,247,980 –    2,086 +   84,510
Reverse repurchase agreements14    267,602 +   17,296 +  175,438
Deposits (0) 2,842,072 –    8,612 +  499,663
Term deposits held by depository institutions          0          0          0
Other deposits held by depository institutions 2,788,954 –   24,799 +  513,312
U.S. Treasury, General Account     31,872 +   10,836 +    1,852
Foreign official      5,241 –    1,326 –    3,524
Other15 (0)     16,004 +    6,676 –   11,978
Deferred availability cash items (0)        721 –      482 –      163
Other liabilities and accrued dividends16      6,693 –      299 –    1,529
Total liabilities (0) 4,365,067 +    5,817 +  757,919
Capital accounts
Capital paid in     28,170 +        2 +      726
Surplus     28,170 +        2 +      726
Other capital accounts          0          0          0
Total capital     56,341 +        4 +    1,454

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

1. Includes securities lent to dealers under the overnight securities lending facility; refer to table 1A.
2. Face value of the securities.
3. Compensation that adjusts for the effect of inflation on the original face value of inflation-indexed securities.
4. Guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae. The current face value shown is the remaining principal balance of the securities.
5. Reflects the premium or discount, which is the difference between the purchase price and the face value of the securities that has not been amortized.  For U.S. Treasury and Federal agency debt securities, amortization is on a straight-line basis.  For mortgage-backed securities, amortization is on an effective-interest basis.
6. Cash value of agreements, which are collateralized by U.S. Treasury and federal agency securities.
7. Refer to table 4 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 9.
8. Refer to table 5 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 9.
9. Refer to table 6 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 9.
10. Refer to table 7 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 9.
11. Dollar value of foreign currency held under these agreements valued at the exchange rate to be used when the foreign currency is returned to
the foreign central bank. This exchange rate equals the market exchange rate used when the foreign currency was acquired from the foreign
central bank.
12. Revalued daily at current foreign currency exchange rates.
13. Includes accrued interest, which represents the daily accumulation of interest earned, and other accounts receivable.
14. Cash value of agreements, which are collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities, federal agency debt securities, and mortgage-backed securities.
15. Includes deposits held at the Reserve Banks by international and multilateral organizations, government-sponsored enterprises, and designated financial market utilities.
16. Includes the liabilities of Maiden Lane LLC, Maiden Lane II LLC, Maiden Lane III LLC, and TALF LLC to entities other than the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, including liabilities that have recourse only to the portfolio holdings of these LLCs. Refer to table 4 through table 7 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 9. Also includes the liability for interest on Federal Reserve notes due to U.S. Treasury.

9. Statement of Condition of Each Federal Reserve Bank, September 10, 2014

Millions of dollars

Assets, liabilities, and capital Total Boston New York Philadelphia Cleveland Richmond Atlanta Chicago St. Louis Minneapolis Kansas Dallas San
City Francisco
Assets
Gold certificate account     11,037        352      4,125        338        464        824      1,349        706        278        173        291        880      1,257
Special drawing rights certificate acct.      5,200        196      1,818        210        237        412        654        424        150         90        153        282        574
Coin      1,930         32         94        124        123        320        222        276         25         46        153        182        332
Securities, unamortized premiums and discounts, repurchase agreements,
and loans
4,351,126     88,009 2,670,390    104,231     94,993    243,168    240,542    177,833     53,725     26,795     57,330    132,586    461,524
Securities held outright1 4,160,521     84,160 2,553,576     99,673     90,839    232,534    229,991    170,046     51,317     25,497     54,804    126,772    441,311
U.S. Treasury securities 2,440,637     49,370 1,497,974     58,470     53,288    136,409    134,917     99,752     30,104     14,957     32,149     74,367    258,881
Bills2          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
Notes and bonds3 2,440,637     49,370 1,497,974     58,470     53,288    136,409    134,917     99,752     30,104     14,957     32,149     74,367    258,881
Federal agency debt securities2     41,562        841     25,509        996        907      2,323      2,298      1,699        513        255        547      1,266      4,409
Mortgage-backed securities4 1,678,322     33,949 1,030,093     40,207     36,644     93,803     92,777     68,595     20,701     10,285     22,107     51,139    178,021
Unamortized premiums on securities held outright5    208,907      4,226    128,220      5,005      4,561     11,676     11,548      8,538      2,577      1,280      2,752      6,365     22,159
Unamortized discounts on securities held outright5    -18,654       -377    -11,449       -447       -407     -1,043     -1,031       -762       -230       -114       -246       -568     -1,979
Repurchase agreements6          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
Loans        352          1         44          0          0          0         34         11         61        132         20         17         33
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden
Lane LLC7      1,665          0      1,665          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden
Lane II LLC8         63          0         63          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden
Lane III LLC9         22          0         22          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
Net portfolio holdings of TALF LLC10         44          0         44          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
Items in process of collection         94          0          0          0          0          0         93          0          0          1          0          0          0
Bank premises      2,255        121        434         74        110        222        209        198        124         97        243        224        200
Central bank liquidity swaps11         77          4         25          6          6         16          4          2          1          0          1          1         11
Foreign currency denominated assets12     22,801      1,037      7,335      1,714      1,813      4,754      1,311        629        192         96        240        381      3,299
Other assets13     25,095        535     15,039        739        546      1,547      1,374      1,014        356        219        347        798      2,580
Interdistrict settlement account          0 +   10,547 –   58,585 +    2,678 +    9,252 +      197 +    8,040 –   10,297 –   10,950 –    2,083 –      134 +    2,635 +   48,701
Total assets 4,421,408    100,833 2,642,468    110,114    107,543    251,460    253,799    170,787     43,900     25,434     58,623    137,969    518,478

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. Footnotes appear at the end of the table.

9. Statement of Condition of Each Federal Reserve Bank, September 10, 2014 (continued)

Millions of dollars

Assets, liabilities, and capital Total Boston New York Philadelphia Cleveland Richmond Atlanta Chicago St. Louis Minneapolis Kansas Dallas San
City Francisco
Liabilities
Federal Reserve notes outstanding 1,443,974     44,572    489,349     42,766     65,118    103,568    212,875     94,569     37,360     21,242     36,783    115,911    179,862
Less: Notes held by F.R. Banks    195,994      5,311     63,063      6,357      8,870     11,177     20,690     11,915      4,937      4,278      5,302     25,736     28,359
Federal Reserve notes, net 1,247,980     39,261    426,285     36,409     56,248     92,391    192,186     82,654     32,423     16,964     31,481     90,175    151,503
Reverse repurchase agreements14    267,602      5,413    164,244      6,411      5,843     14,956     14,793     10,937      3,301      1,640      3,525      8,154     28,385
Deposits 2,842,072     53,409 2,030,175     62,876     40,791    131,999     42,547     75,315      7,510      6,356     22,882     38,429    329,783
Term deposits held by depository institutions          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
Other deposits held by depository institutions 2,788,954     53,397 1,977,410     62,837     40,788    131,731     42,538     75,306      7,510      6,355     22,881     38,428    329,774
U.S. Treasury, General Account     31,872          0     31,872          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
Foreign official      5,241          2      5,214          3          3          8          2          1          0          0          0          1          6
Other15     16,004         11     15,679         36          0        260          7          7          0          0          1          0          3
Deferred availability cash items        721          0          0          0          0          0        611          0          0        110          0          0          0
Interest on Federal Reserve notes due
to U.S. Treasury16
     1,693         19      1,199         20         10         23         86         73         20         12         20         54        155
Other liabilities and accrued
dividends17
     5,000        167      2,179        211        208        544        361        282        142        118        126        208        454
Total liabilities 4,365,067     98,270 2,624,083    105,927    103,101    239,913    250,583    169,261     43,395     25,200     58,034    137,021    510,279
Capital
Capital paid in     28,170      1,282      9,193      2,093      2,221      5,773      1,608        763        252        117        295        474      4,099
Surplus     28,170      1,282      9,193      2,093      2,221      5,773      1,608        763        252        117        295        474      4,099
Other capital          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
Total liabilities and capital 4,421,408    100,833 2,642,468    110,114    107,543    251,460    253,799    170,787     43,900     25,434     58,623    137,969    518,478

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. Footnotes appear at the end of the table.

9. Statement of Condition of Each Federal Reserve Bank, September 10, 2014 (continued)

1. Includes securities lent to dealers under the overnight securities lending facility; refer to table 1A.
2. Face value of the securities.
3. Includes the original face value of inflation-indexed securities and compensation that adjusts for the effect of inflation on the original face value of such securities.
4. Guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae. The current face value shown is the remaining principal balance of the securities.
5. Reflects the premium or discount, which is the difference between the purchase price and the face value of the securities that has not been amortized.  For U.S. Treasury and Federal agency debt securities, amortization is on a straight-line basis.  For mortgage-backed securities, amortization is on an effective-interest basis.
6. Cash value of agreements, which are collateralized by U.S. Treasury and federal agency securities.
7. Refer to table 4 and the note on consolidation below.
8. Refer to table 5 and the note on consolidation below.
9. Refer to table 6 and the note on consolidation below.
10. Refer to table 7 and the note on consolidation below.
11. Dollar value of foreign currency held under these agreements valued at the exchange rate to be used when the foreign currency is returned to the foreign central bank. This exchange rate
equals the market exchange rate used when the foreign currency was acquired from the foreign central bank.
12. Revalued daily at current foreign currency exchange rates.
13. Includes accrued interest, which represents the daily accumulation of interest earned, and other accounts receivable.
14. Cash value of agreements, which are collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities, federal agency debt securities, and mortgage-backed securities.
15. Includes deposits held at the Reserve Banks by international and multilateral organizations, government-sponsored enterprises, and designated financial market utilities.
16. Represents the estimated weekly remittances to U.S. Treasury as interest on Federal Reserve notes or, in those cases where the Reserve Bank’s net earnings are not sufficient to equate surplus to capital paid-in, the deferred asset for interest on Federal Reserve notes. The amount of any deferred asset, which is presented as a negative amount in this line, represents the amount of the Federal Reserve Bank’s earnings that must be retained before remittances to the U.S. Treasury resume. The amounts on this line are calculated in accordance with Board of Governors policy, which requires the Federal Reserve Banks to remit residual earnings to the U.S. Treasury as interest on Federal Reserve notes after providing for the costs of operations, payment of dividends, and the amount necessary to equate surplus with capital paid-in.
17. Includes the liabilities of Maiden Lane LLC, Maiden Lane II LLC, Maiden Lane III LLC, and TALF LLC to entities other than the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, including liabilities that have recourse only to the portfolio holdings of these LLCs. Refer to table 4 through table 7 and the note on consolidation below.

Note on consolidation:

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) has extended loans to several limited liability companies under the authority of section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. On June 26, 2008, a loan was extended to Maiden Lane LLC, which was formed to acquire certain assets of Bear Stearns. On November 25, 2008, a loan was extended to Maiden Lane III LLC, which was formed to purchase multi-sector collateralized debt obligations on which the Financial Products group of the American International Group, Inc. has written credit default swap contracts. On December 12, 2008, a loan was extended to Maiden Lane II LLC, which was formed to purchase residential mortgage-backed securities from the U.S. securities lending reinvestment portfolio of subsidiaries of American International Group, Inc. On November 25, 2008, the Federal Reserve Board authorized the FRBNY to extend credit to TALF LLC, which was formed to purchase and manage any asset-backed securities received by the FRBNY in connection with the decision of a borrower not to repay a loan extended under the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility.

The FRBNY is the primary beneficiary of TALF LLC, because of the two beneficiaries of the LLC, the FRBNY and the U.S. Treasury, the FRBNY is primarily responsible for directing the financial activities of TALF LLC. The FRBNY is the primary beneficiary of the other LLCs cited above because it will receive a majority of any residual returns of the LLCs and absorb a majority of any residual losses of the LLCs. Consistent with generally accepted accounting principles, the assets and liabilities of these LLCs have been consolidated with the assets and liabilities of the FRBNY in the preparation of the statements of condition shown on this release. As a consequence of the consolidation, the extensions of credit from the FRBNY to the LLCs are eliminated, the net assets of the LLCs appear as assets on the previous page (and in table 1 and table 8), and the liabilities of the LLCs to entities other than the FRBNY, including those with recourse only to the portfolio holdings of the LLCs, are included in other liabilities in this table (and table 1 and table 8).

10. Collateral Held against Federal Reserve Notes: Federal Reserve Agents’ Accounts

Millions of dollars

Federal Reserve notes and collateral Wednesday
Sep 10, 2014
Federal Reserve notes outstanding 1,443,974
Less: Notes held by F.R. Banks not subject to collateralization    195,994
Federal Reserve notes to be collateralized 1,247,980
Collateral held against Federal Reserve notes 1,247,980
Gold certificate account     11,037
Special drawing rights certificate account      5,200
U.S. Treasury, agency debt, and mortgage-backed securities pledged1,2 1,231,743
Other assets pledged          0
Memo:
Total U.S. Treasury, agency debt, and mortgage-backed securities1,2 4,160,521
Less: Face value of securities under reverse repurchase agreements    257,508
U.S. Treasury, agency debt, and mortgage-backed securities eligible to be pledged 3,903,013

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

1. Includes face value of U.S. Treasury, agency debt, and mortgage-backed securities held outright, compensation to adjust for the effect of inflation on the original face value of inflation-indexed securities, and cash value of repurchase agreements.
2. Includes securities lent to dealers under the overnight securities lending facility; refer to table 1A.

Release dates | Data Download Program (DDP) | About | Announcements | Technical Q&As
Current release   Other formats: Screen reader | ASCII | PDF (21 KB)

Statistical releases


The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-332

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

No Tapering! — Spending Addiction Disorder (SAD) — Fed Must Continue Massive Financing of Deficits and Debt of Federal Government — Digital Electronic Money (DEM) Creation Continues At $85 Billion Per Month or $1,020 Billion Per Year Pace — U.S. Economy Stagnating Below 3 Percent GDP Growth Trend Line — U.S. Dollar Devalued — Currency War Continues — Abolish The Fed Videos

Posted on September 19, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Programming, Psychology, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

5-reasons-the-fed-taper-will-kick-off-in-september

Tracking-the-Fed-September

U.S. National Debt Clock

BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE
                                                  STAR - TREASURY FINANCIAL DATABASE
             TABLE 1.  SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (IN MILLIONS)

                                                        ACCOUNTING DATE:  08/13

   PERIOD                                                                     RECEIPTS                OUTLAYS    DEFICIT/SURPLUS (-)
+  ____________________________________________________________  _____________________  _____________________  _____________________
   PRIOR YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   163,072                261,539                 98,466
     NOVEMBER                                                                  152,402                289,704                137,302
     DECEMBER                                                                  239,963                325,930                 85,967
     JANUARY                                                                   234,319                261,726                 27,407
     FEBRUARY                                                                  103,413                335,090                231,677
     MARCH                                                                     171,215                369,372                198,157
     APRIL                                                                     318,807                259,690                -59,117
     MAY                                                                       180,713                305,348                124,636
     JUNE                                                                      260,177                319,919                 59,741
     JULY                                                                      184,585                254,190                 69,604
     AUGUST                                                                    178,860                369,393                190,533
     SEPTEMBER                                                                 261,566                186,386                -75,180

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                                          2,449,093              3,538,286              1,089,193

   CURRENT YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   184,316                304,311                119,995
     NOVEMBER                                                                  161,730                333,841                172,112
     DECEMBER                                                                  269,508                270,699                  1,191
     JANUARY                                                                   272,225                269,342                 -2,883
     FEBRUARY                                                                  122,815                326,354                203,539
     MARCH                                                                     186,018                292,548                106,530
     APRIL                                                                     406,723                293,834               -112,889
     MAY                                                                       197,182                335,914                138,732
     JUNE                                                                      286,627                170,126               -116,501
     JULY                                                                      200,030                297,627                 97,597
     AUGUST                                                                    185,370                333,293                147,923

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                                          2,472,542              3,227,888                755,345

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0813.txt

civilian_labor_participation_rate

InflationAug2013

US-Fed-Funds-Target-Rate

savings

fed_taper_bets

When-To-Taper

fed_taper

wrong_way

US Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke listens to questions as he testifies before a House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington

2013-09-17-bernanke-hands-over-control

janet_yellen

Tracking-the-Fed-September

Federal Reserve Vice Chair Janet Yellen addresses a conference in Washington

No Fed Taper: What Does It Mean for Your Money? (9/18/13)

Federal Reserve: No Taper (9/18/13)

Ron Paul: Fed Decision To Not Taper Is A Really Bad Sign

Ron Paul: Taper Fakeout Means Fed Is Worried

Breaking News: Federal Reserve Will Not Taper

Rick Santelli Reacts to Federal Reserve No Taper

Why The Fed. Will INCREASE, NOT DECREASE, It’s QE/Money Printing. By Gregory Mannarino

In Business – Fed Taper Pause Fuels Commodities Rally

To Taper, or Not to Taper

FED Says No Taper — We Need A War, Gun Confiscation And Control Of Internet First — Episode 166

JIM RICKARDS: Fed Will TAPER in September or Never, and the Looming MONETARY System COLLAPSE [50]

James Rickards on “Why The Fed Will NOT Taper Quantitative Easing”

Peter Schiff: “The party is coming to an end”.

JIM ROGERS – When the FED stops PRINTING FIAT CURRENCY the COLLAPSE will be here. PREPARE NOW

Fed decision Just idea of tapering caused huge ruckus

Background Articles and Videos

Milton Friedman – Abolish The Fed

Milton Friedman On John Maynard Keynes

Free to Choose Part 3: Anatomy of a Crisis (Featuring Milton Friedman)

Murray Rothbard – To Expand And Inflate

The Founding of the Federal Reserve | Murray N. Rothbard

The Origin of the Fed – Murray N. Rothbard

Murray Rothbard on Hyperinflation and Ending the Fed

Murray N. Rothbard on Milton Friedman (audio – removed noise) part 1/5

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

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve has decided against reducing its stimulus for the U.S. economy, saying it will continue to buy $85 billion a month in bonds because it thinks the economy still needs the support.

The Fed said in a statement Wednesday that it held off on tapering because it wants to see more conclusive evidence that the recovery will be sustained.

Stocks spiked after the Fed released the statement at the end of its two-day policy meeting.

In the statement, the Fed says that the economy is growing moderately and that some indicators of labor market conditions have shown improvement. But it noted that rising mortgage rates and government spending cuts are restraining growth.

The bond purchases are intended to keep long-term loan rates low to spur borrowing and spending.

The Fed also repeated that it plans to keep its key short-term interest rate near zero at least until unemployment falls to 6.5 percent, down from 7.3 percent last month. In the Fed’s most recent forecast, unemployment could reach that level as soon as late 2014.

Many thought the Fed would scale back its purchases. But interest rates have jumped since May, when Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke first said the Fed might slow its bond buys later this year. But Bernanke cautioned that the reduction would hinge on the economy showing continued improvement.

In its statement, the Fed says that the rise in interest rates “could slow the pace of improvement in the economy and labor market” if they are sustained.

The Fed also lowered its economic growth forecasts for this year and next year slightly, likely reflecting its concerns about interest rates.

The statement was approved on a 9-1 vote. Esther George, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, dissented for the sixth time this year. She repeated her concerns that the bond purchases could fuel the risk of inflation and financial instability.

The decision to maintain its stimulus follows reports of sluggish economic growth. Employers slowed hiring this summer, and consumers spent more cautiously.

Super-low rates are credited with helping fuel a housing comeback, support economic growth, drive stocks to record highs and restore the wealth of many Americans. But the average rate on the 30-year mortgage has jumped more than a full percentage point since May and was 4.57 percent last week — just below the two-year high.

The unemployment rate is now 7.3 percent, the lowest since 2008. Yet the rate has dropped in large part because many people have stopped looking for work and are no longer counted as unemployed — not because hiring has accelerated. Inflation is running below the Fed’s 2 percent target.

The Fed meeting took place at a time of uncertainty about who will succeed Bernanke when his term ends in January. On Sunday, Lawrence Summers, who was considered the leading candidate, withdrew from consideration.

Summers’ withdrawal followed growing resistance from critics. His exit has opened the door for his chief rival, Janet Yellen, the Fed’s vice chair. If chosen by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate, Yellen would become the first woman to lead the Fed.

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

The U.S. Economy Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Grew Only 1.8% (Third Estimate) Not 2.4% (Second Estimate) in First Quarter of 2013 — Videos

Posted on June 28, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Resources, Security, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

gdp_large

GDP

saupload_Real-GDP-per-capita-since-1960_thumb1

saupload_Real-GDP-per-capita-since-1960-log

saupload_Real-GDP-per-capita-percent-off-high

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1379861-real-gdp-per-capita-another-perspective-on-the-economy

Line 2011 2012 2013
I II III IV I II III IV I
1 Gross domestic product 0.1 2.5 1.3 4.1 2.0 1.3 3.1 0.4 1.8
2 Personal consumption expenditures 3.1 1.0 1.7 2.0 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.6
3 Goods 5.4 -1.0 1.4 5.4 4.7 0.3 3.6 4.3 4.4
4 Durable goods 7.3 -2.3 5.4 13.9 11.5 -0.2 8.9 13.6 7.6
5 Nondurable goods 4.6 -0.3 -0.4 1.8 1.6 0.6 1.2 0.1 2.8
6 Services 2.0 1.9 1.8 0.3 1.3 2.1 0.6 0.6 1.7
7 Gross private domestic investment -5.3 12.5 5.9 33.9 6.1 0.7 6.6 1.3 7.4
8 Fixed investment -1.3 12.4 15.5 10.0 9.8 4.5 0.9 14.0 3.0
9 Nonresidential -1.3 14.5 19.0 9.5 7.5 3.6 -1.8 13.2 0.4
10 Structures -28.2 35.2 20.7 11.5 12.9 0.6 0.0 16.7 -8.3
11 Equipment and software 11.1 7.8 18.3 8.8 5.4 4.8 -2.6 11.8 4.1
12 Residential -1.4 4.1 1.4 12.1 20.5 8.5 13.5 17.6 14.0
13 Change in private inventories
14 Net exports of goods and services
15 Exports 5.7 4.1 6.1 1.4 4.4 5.3 1.9 -2.8 -1.1
16 Goods 5.7 3.7 6.2 6.0 4.0 7.0 1.1 -5.0 -2.5
17 Services 5.8 5.1 6.1 -8.8 5.2 1.1 4.0 2.5 2.4
18 Imports 4.3 0.1 4.7 4.9 3.1 2.8 -0.6 -4.2 -0.4
19 Goods 5.2 -0.7 2.9 6.3 2.0 2.9 -1.2 -3.9 -1.3
20 Services -0.6 4.2 13.8 -1.7 9.0 2.3 2.6 -5.6 4.5
21 Government consumption expenditures and gross investment -7.0 -0.8 -2.9 -2.2 -3.0 -0.7 3.9 -7.0 -4.8
22 Federal -10.3 2.8 -4.3 -4.4 -4.2 -0.2 9.5 -14.8 -8.7
23 National defense -14.3 8.3 2.6 -10.6 -7.1 -0.2 12.9 -22.1 -12.0
24 Nondefense -1.7 -7.5 -17.4 10.2 1.8 -0.4 3.0 1.7 -2.1
25 State and local -4.7 -3.2 -2.0 -0.7 -2.2 -1.0 0.3 -1.5 -2.1
Addendum:
26 Gross domestic product, current dollars 2.2 5.2 4.3 4.2 4.2 2.8 5.9 1.3 3.1

US first-quarter growth was 1.8%, not 2.4% – economy

Marc Faber – Economic Predictions, Debt, Crisis, Depression

Financial Crisis, Jim Rogers Interview

Peter Schiff: Don’t get Burned by a Volatile Market

Peter Schiff ~ Where Is The Bottom In Gold?

Jim Rogers Economy Predictions 2013

USA Will Lose Economic War Jim Rogers

Background Articles and Videos

GDP Propaganda Exposed

EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EDT, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2013
BEA 13-30

* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables,
contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.

Lisa Mataloni: (202) 606-5304 (GDP) gdpniwd@bea.gov
Kate Shoemaker: (202) 606-5564 (Profits) cpniwd@bea.gov
Recorded message: (202) 606-5306
Jeannine Aversa: (202) 606-2649 (News Media)
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, 1st quarter 2013 (third estimate);
Corporate Profits, 1st quarter 2013 (revised estimate)
      Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.8 percent in the first quarter of 2013 (that
is, from the fourth quarter to the first quarter), according to the "third" estimate released by the Bureau
of Economic Analysis.  In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 0.4 percent.

      The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for
the "second" estimate issued last month.  In the second estimate, real GDP increased 2.4 percent.  With
the third estimate for the first quarter, the increase in personal consumption expenditures (PCE) was less
than previously estimated, and exports and imports are now estimated to have declined (for more
information, see "Revisions" on page 3).

      The increase in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from PCE,
private inventory investment, and residential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative
contributions from federal government spending, state and local government spending, and exports.
Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.

BOX._____________

     Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts

     BEA will release the results of the 14th comprehensive (or benchmark) revision of the national
income and product accounts (NIPAs) in conjunction with the second quarter 2013 "advance" estimate
on July 31, 2013.  More information on the revision is available on BEA’s Web site at
www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.  An article in the March 2013 issue of the Survey of Current Business
discusses the upcoming changes in definitions and presentations, and an article in the May Survey
describes the changes in statistical methods.  Revised NIPA table stubs and news release stubs are also
available on the Web site.  An article in the September Survey will describe the estimates in detail.
________________

FOOTNOTE._______
Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise specified.
Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates.  Percent changes are
calculated from unrounded data and are annualized.  "Real" estimates are in chained (2005) dollars.
Price indexes are chain-type measures.

      This news release is available on BEA’s Web site along with the Technical Note
 and Highlights related to this release.  For information on revisions, see "Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their Major Components".
_________________

      The acceleration in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected an upturn in private
inventory investment, an acceleration in PCE, and smaller decreases in federal government spending and
in exports that were partly offset by a deceleration in nonresidential fixed investment and a smaller
decrease in imports.

      Motor vehicle output added 0.33 percentage point to the first-quarter change in real GDP after
adding 0.18 percentage point to the fourth-quarter change.  Final sales of computers added 0.09
percentage point to the first-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.10 percentage point to the fourth-
quarter change.

      The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.2 percent in the first quarter, unrevised from the second estimate; this index increased 1.6
percent in the fourth quarter.  Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic
purchases increased 1.5 percent in the first quarter, compared with an increase of 1.2 percent in the
fourth.

      Real personal consumption expenditures increased 2.6 percent in the first quarter, compared with
an increase of 1.8 percent in the fourth.  Durable goods increased 7.6 percent, compared with an increase
of 13.6 percent.  Nondurable goods increased 2.8 percent, compared with an increase of 0.1 percent.
Services increased 1.7 percent, compared with an increase of 0.6 percent.

      Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 0.4 percent in the first quarter, compared with an
increase of 13.2 percent in the fourth.  Nonresidential structures decreased 8.3 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 16.7 percent.  Equipment and software increased 4.1 percent, compared with an increase of
11.8 percent.  Real residential fixed investment increased 14.0 percent, compared with an increase of
17.6 percent.

      Real exports of goods and services decreased 1.1 percent in the first quarter, compared with a
decrease of 2.8 percent in the fourth.  Real imports of goods and services decreased 0.4 percent,
compared with a decrease of 4.2 percent.

      Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 8.7 percent
in the first quarter, compared with a decrease of 14.8 percent in the fourth.  National defense decreased
12.0 percent, compared with a decrease of 22.1 percent.  Nondefense decreased 2.1 percent, in contrast
to an increase of 1.7 percent.  Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment decreased 2.1 percent, compared with a decrease of 1.5 percent.

      The change in real private inventories added 0.57 percentage point to the first-quarter change in
real GDP, after subtracting 1.52 percentage points from the fourth-quarter change.  Private businesses
increased inventories $36.7 billion in the first quarter, following increases of $13.3 billion in the fourth
quarter and $60.3 billion in the third.

      Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.2
percent in the first quarter, compared with an increase of 1.9 percent in the fourth.

Gross domestic purchases

      Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 1.8 percent in the first quarter; it was unchanged in the fourth.

Gross national product

      Real gross national product -- the goods and services produced by the labor and property
supplied by U.S. residents -- increased 1.2 percent in the first quarter, compared with an increase of 0.9
percent in the fourth.  GNP includes, and GDP excludes, net receipts of income from the rest of the
world, which decreased $17.7 billion in the first quarter after increasing $19.2 billion in the fourth; in
the first quarter, receipts decreased $16.3 billion, and payments increased $1.4 billion.

Current-dollar GDP

      Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
3.1 percent, or $120.0 billion, in the first quarter to a level of $15,984.1 billion.  In the fourth quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 1.3 percent, or $53.1 billion.

Gross domestic income

      Real gross domestic income (GDI), which measures the output of the economy as the costs
incurred and the incomes earned in the production of GDP, increased 2.5 percent in the first quarter,
compared with an increase of 5.5 percent in the fourth.  For a given quarter, the estimates of GDP and
GDI may differ for a variety of reasons, including the incorporation of largely independent source data.
However, over longer time spans, the estimates of GDP and GDI tend to follow similar patterns of
change.

Revisions

      The downward revision to the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected downward
revisions to personal consumption expenditures, to exports, and to nonresidential fixed investment that
were partly offset by a downward revision to imports.

                                             Advance Estimate         Second Estimate         Third Estimate
				        		(Percent change from preceding quarter)

Real GDP......................................     2.5                     2.4                     1.8
Current-dollar GDP............................     3.7                     3.6                     3.1
Gross domestic purchases price index..........     1.1                     1.2                     1.2

                                              Corporate Profits

      Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital
consumption adjustments) decreased $28.0 billion in the first quarter, in contrast to an increase of $45.4
billion in the fourth quarter.  Current-production cash flow (net cash flow with inventory valuation
adjustment) -- the internal funds available to corporations for investment -- increased $125.6 billion in
the first quarter, in contrast to a decrease of $89.8 billion in the fourth.

      Taxes on corporate income decreased $10.5 billion in the first quarter, compared with a decrease
of $4.4 billion in the fourth.  Profits after tax with inventory valuation and capital consumption
adjustments decreased $17.5 billion in the first quarter, in contrast to an increase of $49.8 billion in the
fourth.  Dividends decreased $103.5 billion, in contrast to an increase of $124.3 billion.  The large
fourth-quarter increase reflected accelerated and special dividends paid by corporations at the end of
2012 in anticipation of changes to individual income tax rates.   Current-production undistributed profits
increased $85.8 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $74.3 billion.

      Domestic profits of financial corporations decreased $3.4 billion in the first quarter, compared
with a decrease of $3.5 billion in the fourth.  Domestic profits of nonfinancial corporations decreased
$5.0 billion in the first quarter, in contrast to an increase of $24.8 billion in the fourth.  In the first
quarter, real gross value added of nonfinancial corporations increased, and profits per unit of real value
added decreased.  The decrease in unit profits reflected an increase in the unit nonlabor costs incurred by
corporations that was partly offset by a decrease in unit labor costs; unit prices were unchanged.

      The rest-of-the-world component of profits decreased $19.6 billion in the first quarter, in contrast
to an increase of $24.1 billion in the fourth.  This measure is calculated as (1) receipts by U.S. residents
of earnings from their foreign affiliates plus dividends received by U.S. residents from unaffiliated
foreign corporations minus (2) payments by U.S. affiliates of earnings to their foreign parents plus
dividends paid by U.S. corporations to unaffiliated foreign residents.  The first-quarter decrease was
accounted for by a larger decrease in receipts than in payments.

      Profits before tax with inventory valuation adjustment is the best available measure of industry
profits because estimates of the capital consumption adjustment by industry do not exist.  This measure
reflects depreciation-accounting practices used for federal income tax returns.  According to this
measure, domestic profits of both financial and nonfinancial corporations decreased.  The decrease in
nonfinancial corporations primarily reflected decreases in "other" nonfinancial and in manufacturing that
were partly offset by increases in information and in wholesale trade.  Within manufacturing, the largest
decreases were in petroleum and coal products and in machinery.

      Profits before tax decreased $34.7 billion in the first quarter, in contrast to an increase of $27.3
billion in the fourth.  The before-tax measure of profits does not reflect, as does profits from current
production, the capital consumption and inventory valuation adjustments.  These adjustments convert
depreciation of fixed assets and inventory withdrawals reported on a tax-return, historical-cost basis to
the current-cost measures used in the national income and product accounts.  The capital consumption
adjustment increased $12.5 billion in the first quarter (from -$199.5 billion to -$187.0 billion), compared
with an increase of $0.5 billion in the fourth.  The inventory valuation adjustment decreased $5.8 billion
(from -$9.2 billion to -$15.0 billion), in contrast to an increase of $17.6 billion.

      The first-quarter changes in taxes on corporate income and in the capital consumption
adjustment mainly reflect the expiration of bonus depreciation claimed under the American Taxpayer
Relief Act of 2012.  For detailed data, see the table "Net Effects of the Tax Acts of 2002, 2003, 2008,
2009, 2010, and 2012 on Selected Measures of Corporate Profits" at
www.bea.gov/national/xls/technote_tax_acts.xls.  Profits from current production are not affected
because they do not depend on the depreciation-accounting practices used for federal income tax returns;
rather, they are based on depreciation of fixed assets valued at current cost using consistent depreciation
profiles based on used-asset prices. For more details on the effect of tax act provisions on the capital
consumption adjustment, see FAQ #999 on the BEA Web site, "Why does the capital consumption
adjustment for domestic business decline so much in the first quarter of 2012?"

                                        *          *          *

      BEA’s national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA’s Web site at www.bea.gov.  By visiting
the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.

                                        *          *          *

                         Next release -- July 31, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
                    Gross Domestic Product:  Second Quarter 2013 (Advance Estimate)
                  Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts
                                  (1929 through First Quarter 2013)

Real GDP Per Capita: Another Perspective On The Economy

Earlier Friday we learned that the Advance Estimate for Q1 2013 real GDP came in at 2.5 percent, up from 0.4 percent in Q4 2012. Let’s now review the numbers on a per-capita basis.

For an alternate historical view of the economy, here is a chart of real GDP per-capita growth since 1960. For this analysis I’ve chained in today’s dollar for the inflation adjustment. The per-capita calculation is based on quarterly aggregates of mid-month population estimates by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which date from 1959 (hence my 1960 starting date for this chart, even though quarterly GDP has is available since 1947). The population data is available in the FRED series POPTHM. The logarithmic vertical axis ensures that the highlighted contractions have the same relative scale.

I’ve drawn an exponential regression through the data using the Excel GROWTH() function to give us a sense of the historical trend. The regression illustrates the fact that the trend since the Great Recession has a visibly lower slope than long-term trend. In fact, the current GDP per-capita is 11.6% below the regression trend.

(click to enlarge)

The real per-capita series gives us a better understanding of the depth and duration of GDP contractions. As we can see, since our 1960 starting point, the recession that began in December 2007 is associated with a deeper trough than previous contractions, which perhaps justifies its nickname as the Great Recession. In fact, at this point, 20 quarters beyond the 2007 GDP peak, real GDP per capita is still 1.04% off the all-time high following the deepest trough in the series.

Here is a more revealing snapshot of real GDP per capita, specifically illustrating the percent off the most recent peak across time, with recessions highlighted. The underlying calculation is to show peaks at 0% on the right axis. The callouts shows the percent off real GDP per-capita at significant troughs as well as the current reading for this metric.

(click to enlarge)
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Ben Bernanke Boom Bubble Blower Busted By The Bubble Film — Videos

Posted on May 1, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Homes, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Math, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

bubble_poster_large

bernanke_blowing_bubbles

house_senate_twins_impressed

Federal_funds_rate

QE-Fed-BalanceSheet-SP500-020413

federal_reserve_balance_sheet

Fed-Reserve-Balance-Sheet

fed-balance-sheet-2016

fed-dollars-2003-2012

cpi_changes

alt-cpi-home2

sgs-cpi

burstbubble

Ben Bernanke Is The Most Dangerous Man In US History

BREAKING 2013 Economic Collapse Peter Schiff

The Bubble film official trailer

Raw footage of Jim Rogers interview – The Bubble film

Raw Footage of Doug Casey Interview from The Bubble

Raw footage of Jim Grant interview from The Bubble film

Raw footage of Peter Schiff Interview from The Bubble

The Bubble – Raw footage of Marc Faber interview

Raw Footage of Peter Wallison Interview from The Bubble

Raw Footage of Joseph Salerno Interview from The Bubble

Raw Footage of Robert Murphy interview from The Bubble

Raw footage of Roger Garrison Interview from The Bubble

Raw footage of Ron Paul interview from The Bubble film

The Bubble film panel at Freedom Fest 2012

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Background Articles and Videos

The American Dream By The Provocateur Network

Slow “growth”,GDP makeover, Keynesians demand more debt and inflation

The Fed, Ben Bernanke & the Economy (4/30/13)

Coming Economic Collapse Peter Schiff RT America

Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle | Roger W. Garrison

Tom Woods Discusses his New Documentary, The Bubble

Director of “The Bubble” Jimmy Morrison interview with ManifestLiberty.com Part 1/2

Director of “The Bubble” Jimmy Morrison interview with ManifestLiberty.com Part 2/2

Fed Keeps Interest Rates Low, Continues Bond Buying Program

The Federal Reserve held fast to its ultra-accommodative monetary policy Wednesday, solidified by what board members described as an economy weakened by fiscal policy.

Interest rates will remain at historically low levels while the U.S. central bank will not alter its $85 billion a month asset purchasing program, the Fed’s Open Markets Committee decided at this week’s meeting.

While recent meetings have been remarkable for signs of dissent over the long-standing Fed policy, the sentiment this month turned towards concerns about “downside risks” to growth, though the FOMC made no mention of the recent set of weak economic data.

The Federal Reserve held fast to its ultra-accommodative monetary policy Wednesday, solidified by what board members described as an economy weakened by fiscal policy.

Interest rates will remain at historically low levels while the U.S. central bank will not alter its $85 billion a month asset purchasing program, the Fed’s Open Markets Committee decided at this week’s meeting.

While recent meetings have been remarkable for signs of dissent over the long-standing Fed policy, the sentiment this month turned towards concerns about “downside risks” to growth, though the FOMC made no mention of the recent set of weak economic data.

While stocks have soared to new highs, the economy remains in slow-growth mode as it has throughout Chairman Ben Bernanke’s term, which began just before the onset of the financial crisis.

The stock market reacted little to the 2 pm news, maintaining an earlier selloff spurred over jobs fears.

Fed officials have long bemoaned Washington fiscal policy, with Congress and the White House in a continued stalemate that has resulted in a raft of mandated tax increases and spending cuts known as the sequester.

The May FOMC statement kept up the heat.

“Household spending and business fixed investment advanced, and the housing sector has strengthened further, but fiscal policy is restraining economic growth,” the statement said.

The Fed’s decision came the same day as a report on private payrolls fell well below expectations, indicating just 119,000 new jobs created, a seven-month low.

While critics worry about inflation, the Fed continued to conclude that “expectations have remained stable.”

The Fed has vowed to keep interest rates exceptionally low until unemployment falls to 6.5 percent from its current 7.6 percent and until inflation reaches 2.5 percent from its current 1.5 percent.

-By CNBC.com Senior Writer Jeff Cox.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100695681

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

The Coming U.S. Stock and Bond Market Crash of 2013-2014 — The Stock and Bond Big Bubble Burst — Central Banks Buying Gold! — Videos

Posted on April 27, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Crime, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Television, Transportation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

burstbubble

Great_recessionGreat_Depression

Fed-Reserve-Balance-Sheet

fed-dollars-2003-2012fed-balance-sheet-2016

federal_reserve_balance_sheet

Federal_funds_rate

QE-Fed-BalanceSheet-SP500-020413

BREAKING 2013 Economic Collapse Peter Schiff

Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis

David Stockman: We’re in a Monetary Fantasy Land

Ben Bernanke Is The Most Dangerous Man In US History

US BOND BUBBLE’S READY TO BURST!

Max Keiser: Propped Up Bond Market Set To Burst In April

U.S. Government Bond Bubble to Burst, Faber Says 

James Grant and James Turk discuss gold, the Fed and the fiscal situation of the USA

USA Will Die – Economic Collapse 2013 – Jim Rogers

JIM ROGERS – 2013 to Be Bad, ‘God Knows What Will Happen in 2014’

Jim Rogers Predicts Global Depression In 2013-2014

Peter Schiff on Max Keiser – Stopping the Global Financial Crisis

Keiser Report: Psyops & Debt Diets

Max Keiser: Will the next crash be on Bonds?

MAX KEISER: Colossal Collapse Coming! Keiser Report

MAX KEISER: Colossal Collapse Coming! Keiser Report

ALEX JONES & Max Keiser 2013, Year of The GREAT CRASH!

Peter Schiff – Dollar Could Collapse This Fall 2013

Peter Schiff – Economic Collapse 2013

Fed Will Keep Printing Until The Dollar Collapses~ Jim Rickards

Jim Rickards  Gold is Money ($7,000 Gold Price)

James Rickards Predicts US Inflation in 2013 due to the Devaluation of the US dollar

Currency Wars: Jim Rickards

Financial Pearl Harbor’ is a Real Threat Warns a Pentagon Adviser

CNBC Global Recession Is Coming – Marc Faber

Dr. Marc Faber – US is in 50-100 trillion worth of debt!

Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game’ Part 1

Marc Faber  ‘We Are in the End Game Part 2

Marc Faber – We Could See a 1987-Like Market Crash – Be Prepared and Get OUT!

Marc Faber-No Government Complies With Anything

Total Economic Collapse, Death of the Dollar, Impovershment, WWIII, Marc Faber Interview

Gerald Celente Deal Or No Debt Deal, The Debt Still Exists

Bill Gross: Economy Faces Structural Headwinds, “I Think We Are Facing Bubbles Almost Everywhere”

ECONOMIC CRASH WORLDWIDE STARTING

Harry Dent predicts global economic crash in 2013

Planned Economic Collapse 2013-2014

Background Articles and Videos

Meltdown (pt 1-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010

Meltdown (pt 2-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010

Meltdown (pt 3-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse.2010 

Meltdown – pt 4-4 The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse (2010) 

The Fall of Lehman Brothers

Goldman Sachs: Power and Peril – Documentary

The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of The World by Niall Ferguson Epsd. 1-5 (Full Documentary)

The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 1

The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 2

The First 12 Hours of a US Dollar Collapse

LIFE HIDDEN TRUTH 2013 GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

 

Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why

 

Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.

Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.

In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.

With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.

Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.

Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.

Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.

So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?

After all, the stock market is still in the midst of its historic rally. Real estate prices have finally leveled off, and for the first time in five years are actually rising in many locations. And the unemployment rate seems to have stabilized.

It’s very likely that these professional investors are aware of specific research that points toward a massive market correction, as much as 90%.

One such person publishing this research is Robert Wiedemer, an esteemed economist and author of the New York Times best-selling book Aftershock.

Editor’s Note: Wiedemer Gives Proof for His Dire Predictions in This Shocking Interview.

Before you dismiss the possibility of a 90% drop in the stock market as unrealistic, consider Wiedemer’s credentials.

In 2006, Wiedemer and a team of economists accurately predicted the collapse of the U.S. housing market, equity markets, and consumer spending that almost sank the United States. They published their research in the book America’s Bubble Economy.

The book quickly grabbed headlines for its accuracy in predicting what many thought would never happen, and quickly established Wiedemer as a trusted voice.

A columnist at Dow Jones said the book was “one of those rare finds that not only predicted the subprime credit meltdown well in advance, it offered Main Street investors a winning strategy that helped avoid the forty percent losses that followed . . .”

The chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor’s said that Wiedemer’s track record “demands our attention.”

And finally, the former CFO of Goldman Sachs said Wiedemer’s “prescience in (his) first book lends credence to the new warnings. This book deserves our attention.”

In the interview for his latest blockbuster Aftershock, Wiedemer says the 90% drop in the stock market is “a worst-case scenario,” and the host quickly challenged this claim.

Wiedemer calmly laid out a clear explanation of why a large drop of some sort is a virtual certainty.

It starts with the reckless strategy of the Federal Reserve to print a massive amount of money out of thin air in an attempt to stimulate the economy.

“These funds haven’t made it into the markets and the economy yet. But it is a mathematical certainty that once the dam breaks, and this money passes through the reserves and hits the markets, inflation will surge,” said Wiedemer.

“Once you hit 10% inflation, 10-year Treasury bonds lose about half their value. And by 20%, any value is all but gone. Interest rates will increase dramatically at this point, and that will cause real estate values to collapse. And the stock market will collapse as a consequence of these other problems.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265?PROMO_CODE=110D8-1&utm_source=taboola#ixzz2RhO2R5ey
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265?PROMO_CODE=110D8-1&utm_source=taboola

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

Jim Rogers On Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke–Videos

Posted on February 27, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Economics, Education, Employment, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, government spending, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Politics, Raves, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Water, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , |

jim-rogers

Jim Rogers On Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke

Jim Rogers On What The US Economy Will Look Like In 5 Years

Jim Rogers Recommends Giving Up Wall Street For Agriculture Careers

Jim Rogers Discusses Incorrect Wall Street Stories And Predictions

Jim Rogers On Why The Shift Has Not Moved Away From Wall Street Sooner

Jim Rogers Discusses The Growth Rate, 4,200 Percent Of The Quantum Fund

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

Jim Rogers Asks Whether Obama Is ‘Delusional’ Or ‘Lying’–Videos

Posted on February 13, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Jim_Rogers_2365407k

Jim Rogers Asks Whether Obama Is ‘Delusional’ Or ‘Lying’

America is a FREAKING MESS…

Barack Obama is AMERICA’S DAD….

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

The Coming Collapse and Fall of the United States of America–Doug Casey, Gerald Celente, Marc Faber, Michael Maloney, Jim Rickards, Jim Rogers, and Peter Schiff — Videos

Posted on February 7, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Programming, Psychology, Public Sector, Raves, Regulations, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

financial_bubble

bubble-lifecycle.gif

financialcollapse

dollar-toilet-paper

kleptcrocy

The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation

The First 12 Hours of a US Dollar Collapse

Doug Casey on the Problem with Glenn Beck’s Galt’s Gulch (and much more)

BEST DOUG CASEY SPEECH EVER! An Anarchist, Economic Collapse & 7 billion Chi

Doug Casey talks to James Turk

Doug Casey interviews Peter Schiff

RAGING CURRENCY WARFARE!

Gerald Celente Economic Collapse IMMINENT Gerald Celente Today

Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game’ – Economic Collapse

How does the Global Financial Crisis End – Michael Maloney explains

Jim Rickards: the Fed is Racing to Create Inflation Before the US Economy Implodes

Jim Rogers Predicts Global Depression In 2013-2014

The Dollar Collapse Revisited and a Bull Market in US Treasuries w/Peter Schiff!

Press Conference with FOMC Chairman Ben S. Bernanke

Conversations with Casey

http://www.caseyresearch.com/cwc

U.S. Dollar Collapse: Where is Germany’s Gold?

By Peter Schiff

The financial world was shocked this month by a demand from Germany’s Bundesbank to repatriate a large portion of its gold reserves held abroad. By 2020, Germany wants 50% of its total gold reserves back in Frankfurt – including 300 tons from the Federal Reserve. The Bundesbank’s announcement comes just three months after the Fed refused to submit to an audit of its holdings on Germany’s behalf. One cannot help but wonder if the refusal triggered the demand.

Either way, Germany appears to be waking up to a reality for which central banks around the world have been preparing: the dollar is no longer the world’s safe-haven asset and the US government is no longer a trustworthy banker for foreign nations. It looks like their fears are well-grounded, given the Fed’s seeming inability to return what is legally Germany’s gold in a timely manner. Germany is a developed and powerful nation with the second largest gold reserves in the world. If they can’t rely on Washington to keep its promises, who can?

Where is Germany’s Gold?

The impact of Germany’s repatriation on the dollar revolves around an unanswered question: why will it take seven years to complete the transfer?

The popular explanation is that the Fed has already rehypothecated all of its gold holdings in the name of other countries. That is, the same mound of bullion is earmarked as collateral for a host of different lenders. Since the Fed depends on a fractional-reserve banking system for its very existence, it would not come as a surprise that it has become a fractional-reserve bank itself. If so, then perhaps Germany politely asked for a seven-year timeline in order to allow the Fed to save face, and to prevent other depositors from clamoring for their own gold back – a ‘run’ on the Fed.

Now, the Fed can always print more dollars and buy gold on the open market to make up for any shortfall, but such a move could substantially increase the price of gold. The last thing the Fed needs is another gold price spike reminding the world of the dollar’s decline.

Speculation Aside

None of these theories are substantiated, but no matter how you slice it, Germany’s request for its gold does not bode well for the future of the dollar. In fact, the Bundesbank’s official statements are all you need to confirm the Germans’ waning faith in the US.

Last October, after the Bundesbank had requested an audit of its Fed holdings, Executive Board Member Carl-Ludwig Thiele was asked in an interview why the bank kept so much of Germany’s gold overseas. His response emphasized the importance of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency:

Thiele’s statement can lead us to only one conclusion: by keeping fewer reserves in the US, Germany foresees less future need for “US dollar-denominated liquidity.””Gold stored in your home safe is not immediately available as collateral in case you need foreign currency. Take, for instance, the key role that the US dollar plays as a reserve currency in the global financial system. The gold held with the New York Fed can, in a crisis, be pledged with the Federal Reserve Bank as collateral against US dollar-denominated liquidity.”

History Repeats

The whole situation mirrors the late 1960s, during a period that led up to the “Nixon Shock.” Back then, the world was on the Bretton Woods System – an attempt on the part of Western central bankers to pin the dollar to gold at a fixed rate, while still allowing the metal to trade privately as a commodity. This led to a gap between the market price of gold as a commodity and the official price available from the Treasury.

As the true value of gold separated further and further from its official rate, the world began to realize the system was unsustainable, and many suspected the US was not serious about maintaining a strong dollar. West Germany moved first on these fears by redeeming its dollar reserves for gold, followed by France, Switzerland, and others. This eventually culminated in Nixon “closing the gold window” in 1971 by ending any link between the dollar and gold. This “Nixon Shock” spurred chronic inflation throughout the ’70s and a concurrent rally in gold.

Perhaps the entire international community is thinking back to the ’60s, because Germany isn’t the only country maneuvering away from the dollar today. The Netherlands and Azerbaijan are also discussing repatriating their foreign gold holdings. And every month, we hear about central banks increasing gold reserves. The latest are Russia and Kazakhstan, but in the last year, countries from Brazil to Turkey have been adding to their gold holdings in order to diversify away from fiat currency reserves.

And don’t forget China. Once the biggest purchaser of US bonds, it is now a net seller of Treasuries, while simultaneously gobbling up gold. Some sources even claim that China has unofficially surpassed Germany as the second largest holder of gold in the world.

Unlike the ’60s, today there is no official gold window to close. There will be no reported “shock” indicator of a dollar flight. This demand by Germany may be the closest indicator we’re going to get. Placing blame where it’s due, let’s call it the “Bernanke Shock.”

It Takes One to Know One

In last month’s Gold Letter, I wrote about the three pillars supporting the US Treasury’s persistently low interest rates: the Fed, domestic investors, and foreign central banks – led by Japan. I examined how Japan’s plans to radically devalue the yen may undermine that country’s ability to continue buying Treasuries, which could cause the other pillars to become unstable as well.

While private investors and even the Fed might be deluding themselves into believing US bonds are still a viable investment, Germany’s repatriation news makes it clear that foreign governments are no longer buying the propaganda. And why should they? If anyone should appreciate the real constraints the US government is facing, it is other governments.

Our sovereign creditors know that Ben Bernanke and Barack Obama are just regular men in fancy suits. They know the Fed isn’t harboring some ingenious plan for raising interest rates while successfully selling back its worthless mortgage and government securities. Instead, the Fed is like a drug addict making any excuse to get its next fix. [See Bernanke’s tell-all interview with Oprah where he confesses to economic doping!]

US investors should be as shocked as the Bundesbank about the Fed’s deception. While we cannot redeem our dollars for gold with the Fed, we can still buy gold with them in the open market. As more investors and governments choose to save in precious metals, the dollar’s value will go into steeper and steeper decline – thereby driving more investors into metals. That’s when the virtuous circle upon which the dollar has coasted for a generation will quickly turn vicious.

Peter Schiff is president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets and Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse. His latest book is The Real Crash: America’s Coming Bankruptcy, How to Save Yourself and Your Country.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-dollar-collapse-where-is-germanys-gold/5321894

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

Richard Duncan–The New Depression–Videos

Posted on December 9, 2012. 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, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Security, Strategy, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

9781118157794.pdf

richard_ducan

The U.S. does not have a capitalist economy 

A new depression: Out of credit

Interview With Richard Duncan, Author of The New Depression 

Richard Duncan on Riding out this Depression on a Deflationary Debt Raft! 

    “The New Depression” Book w/ Glenn Beck & Richard Duncan

The New Depression: Richard Duncan | McAlvany Commentary 

Pt 1/5: Can governments end the crisis cycle? 

Pt 2/5: Can governments end the crisis cycle? 

Pt 3/5: Can governments end the crisis cycle?

Pt 4/5: Can governments end the crisis cycle?

Pt 5/5: Can governments end the crisis cycle?

Jim Rogers  New Recession/Depression Coming

Peter Schiff interviews Marc Faber on Schiffradio Oct 2012 

Why the global recession is in danger of becoming another Great Depression, and how we can stop it

When the United States stopped backing dollars with gold in 1968, the nature of money changed. All previous constraints on money and credit creation were removed and a new economic paradigm took shape. Economic growth ceased to be driven by capital accumulation and investment as it had been since before the Industrial Revolution. Instead, credit creation and consumption began to drive the economic dynamic. In The New Depression: The Breakdown of the Paper Money Economy, Richard Duncan introduces an analytical framework, The Quantity Theory of Credit, that explains all aspects of the calamity now unfolding: its causes, the rationale for the government’s policy response to the crisis, what is likely to happen next, and how those developments will affect asset prices and investment portfolios.

In his previous book, The Dollar Crisis (2003), Duncan explained why a severe global economic crisis was inevitable given the flaws in the post-Bretton Woods international monetary system, and now he’s back to explain what’s next. The economic system that emerged following the abandonment of sound money requires credit growth to survive. Yet the private sector can bear no additional debt and the government’s creditworthiness is deteriorating rapidly. Should total credit begin to contract significantly, this New Depression will become a New Great Depression, with disastrous economic and geopolitical consequences. That outcome is not inevitable, and this book describes what must be done to prevent it.

  • Presents a fascinating look inside the financial crisis and how the New Depression is poised to become a New Great Depression
  • Introduces a new theoretical construct, The Quantity Theory of Credit, that is the key to understanding not only the developments that led to the crisis, but also to understanding how events will play out in the years ahead
  • Offers unique insights from the man who predicted the global economic breakdown

Alarming but essential reading, The New Depression explains why the global economy is teetering on the brink of falling into a deep and protracted depression, and how we can restore stability.

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118157796.html

The New Depression: Richard Duncan’s prognosis of our economic ills and the answer to them

“… In a nutshell, his case is half-Austrian. Or indeed half-Keynesian. That is because whilst Duncan’s diagnosis of the current economic ills is very much in the Austrian school of economics, with its emphasis on the role of credit, his prescription for fixing the economy is large-scale borrowing to fund infrastructure work, all of which sounds rather Keynesian.

It is a more fiscally responsible version of Keynesianism than some, for Duncan argues that, “The U.S. government can now borrow money for ten years at a cost of 2 percent interest a year. If it borrows at that rate and invests in projects that yield even 3 percent … on a grand scale in grand projects … [our economy] could be transformed”. In other words, borrow massively to boost economic growth, but spend those funds on projects that will generate future returns which make the borrowing affordable.

Duncan has a particular set of target for his investment plans for the American economy – developing new industries to reduce the trade deficit and generate new tax revenues. In particular, he talks about renewable energy, arguing that massive investment will cut energy bills whilst also providing the sort of financial return that makes the massive spending of money on it a prudent rather than profligate move.

All that means there are three main bones of contention in the book: is Richard Duncan right in blaming the crash on credit conditions; is he right that massive infrastructure investment on projects which pay returns the answer; and if money is to be invested in infrastructure that pays returns, does renewable energy fit the bill? Although a book principally about the US economy and the policy choices faced by Americans, those three questions are very applicable to other countries too, even if his evidence tends to be centred on the USA.

As he mulls over these three questions, most readers will find at least one eye-catching piece of evidence to savour, such as when he describes how heavily the financial system became dependent on credit not going sour:

In 1945 [American] commercial banks held reserves and vault cash of … the equivalent of 12 percent of their total assets … By 2007, the banks’ reserves and vault cash [was] 0.6 percent.

He goes on to argue that

Economic progress was no longer achieved the old-fashioned way through savings and investments, but, rather, by borrowing and consumption … The new reality is that credit has displaced money as the key economic variable.

Hence the book’s subtitle, “The Breakdown of the Paper Money Economy”.

Each of the three main questions in themselves could sustain not merely one whole book but a mini-book publishing flurry of titles. To condense credible arguments over all three into one relatively slim and easy to follow volume is tribute to the Duncan, even if some readers may choose to agree with less than all three of the main points of his case. …”

http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-new-depression-richard-duncans-prognosis-of-our-economic-ills-and-the-answer-to-them-28981.html

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

Glenn Beck On Communist China With Jim Rogers–Videos

Posted on January 14, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Resources, Science, Security, Strategy, Taxes, Technology, Uncategorized, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.

~Thomas Jefferson

Glenn Beck-01/14/11-A 

Glenn Beck-01/14/11-B

 

 

Glenn Beck-01/14/11-C 

Government intervention into the economy is the problem.

If both the United States and China would stop interferrring in markets both countries would significantly increase production with higher rates of economic growth.

Balance the budget, pass the FairTax , end the Fed, and bring all the troops home.

The ruling class in both the United States and Communist China fear the people–good–they have much to fear.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

~Thomas Jefferson

 

Background Articles and Videos

Conversations with History: Clyde Prestowitz

 

Book Discussion with Clyde Prestowitz: The Betrayal of American Prosperity

Currency Wars & China

 

Mar 24 10 Hearing on China’s Exchange Rate Policy, Clyde Prestowitz Opening Statement

 

Mar 24 10 Hearing on China’s Exchange Rate Policy, C. Fred Bergsten Opening Statement

 

Peter Schiff: Fed Waging War

 

Dalian 2007 – BBC World Debate China: Resolving Tensions of Growth

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Jim Rogers On China, Currencies, Commoditites, Trade War and Ron Paul–Videos

Jim Rogers Awarded The Schlarbaum Prize 2010–Videos

Jim Rogers–Videos

Jim Rogers: Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner and Federal Reserve System Chairman Ben Bernanke Are Incompetent–Tim and Ben Exit Strategy aka Thelma & Louise Ending The Fed!

 

 

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

Jim Rogers Awarded The Schlarbaum Prize 2010–Videos

Posted on October 21, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Taxes, Technology, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Jim Rogers: Schlarbaum Prize 2010

“…The Schlarbaum Prize for the lifetime defense of liberty in 2010 goes to James Beeland Rogers. Jim Rogers has been a constant media presence for many years, accurately predicted the current boom-bust. He uses every opportunity to explain his economic rationale by his investment outlook, which is solidly rooted Misesian theory, not only of business cycles but of the costs of the welfare-warfare state.

In his commentary and investment outlook, he illustrates the way in which sound economics can serve as a critical intellectual infrastructure for understanding and interpreting economic events.

He has been guest professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business and is author of several important books on finance and investing. He was raised in Demopolis, Alabama, graduated from Yale and Oxford, co-founded the Quantum Fund in 1970, holds three world records for motorcycle travel (as noted by Guinness), and founded Rogers International Commodity Index in 1998.

The Schlarbaum Prize will be awarded at the Mises Institute Supporters Summit in Auburn, Alabama, October 8-9, 2010. The prize carries with it a $10,000 cash award. The prize has been given since 1999. …”

http://blog.mises.org/11649/jim-rogers-schlarbaum-prize-2010/

How I See the World Today | Jim Rogers

 

How I See the World Today: Question and Answer Period | Jim Rogers

 

 

Congratulations Jim.

End The Fed!

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Jim Rogers–Videos

Jim Rogers: Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner and Federal Reserve System Chairman Ben Bernanke Are Incompetent–Tim and Ben Exit Strategy aka Thelma & Louise Ending The Fed!

Collectivism: Socialism, Communism, Progressivism and Fascism

Progressivism America’s Cancer–Videos

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Walter Block–Free Trade–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

G. William Domhoff: Who Runs America–Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism vs. Collectivism–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Complex Path of Ideological Change–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Jeffrey Miron–Obamaomics–Videos

Gary North–Keynes and His Influence–Take The North Challenge–Videos

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

The Racist Test for Judge Sonya Sotomayor and President Obama–Racism Unmasked!

Calling and Raising The Stakes for Race Card Players–Obama and Sotomayor

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence, Spending, Deficits, Debts, Taxes And Regulations!

President Barack Obama’s Role Model–President Franklin D. Roosevelt–The Worse President For The U.S. and World Economies and The American People–With The Same Results–High Unemployment Rates–Over 25 Million American Citizens Seeking Full Time Jobs Today–Worse Than The Over 13 Million Seeking Jobs During The Worse of The Great Depression!

Progressives

Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Plan Written In Prison By Convicted Felon Richard Creamer!

Obamanomics–New Deal Progressive Radical Socialist Interventionism

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

Progressive Radical Socialist Canned Criticism of American People: Danger, Profits, and Wrong Thinking

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

The Bloody History of Communism–Videos

Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism!

American Progressive Liberal Fascism–The Wave of The Future Or Back To Past Mistakes?

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

The Progressive Radical Socialist Family Tree–ACORN & AmeriCorps–Time To Chop It Down

It Is Official–America On The Obama Road To Fascism–Thomas Sowell!

President Obama and His Keynesian Spending Cult of The Fascist Democrat Radicals–FDRs

Economists

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Walter Block–Introduction To Libertarianism–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

Richard Ebeling–America’s New Road to Serfdom and the Continuing Relevance of Austrian Economics –Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman–Capitalism and Freedom–Videos

Milton Friedman On Business–Videos

Milton Friedman On Education–Videos

Milton Friedman On Monetary Policy–Videos

Milton Friedman–Debate In Iceland–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Milton Friedman–Economic Myths–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video

David Gordon–The Confused Literature of Globalization–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Henry Hazlitt–Economics In One Lesson–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Complex Path of Ideological Change–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Videos

Robert Higgs–Why Are Politicians Always Trying to Scare Us?–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Ethics of Money Production–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Life and Work of Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Israel Kirzner–On Entrepreneurship–Vidoes

Paul Krugman–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Dan Mitchell–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Government Stimulus: Repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression–Videos

Gary North–Keynes and His Influence–Take The North Challenge–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Paul Craig Roberts–How The Economy Was Lost–The War Of The Worlds–Videos

Paul Craig Roberts–Peak Jobs–Videos

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr–How Empires Bamboozle the Bourgeoisie–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Murray Rothbard–The American Economy and the End of Laissez-Faire: 1870 to World War II–Videos

Murray N. Rothbard–Introduction to Economics: A Private Seminar–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Libertarianism–Video

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

Larry Sechrest–The Anticapitalists: Barbarians at the Gate–Videos

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Julian Simon–The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Econ Talk With Thomas Sowell–Videos

Peter Thiel–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos

Tom Woods–Lectures On Liberty–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Market Economy–Videos

Tom Woods On Personal Rights and Property Ownership

Tom Woods–Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money–Videos

Tom Woods–Who Killed The Constitution

Tom Wright On The FairTax–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

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

No Bailouts For Greece Or California–Videos

Posted on March 24, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Homes, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Technology, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

3/19/10 Jim Rogers on Bloomberg

 

Greece Gives EU 1 Week Deadline for Aid

Greece Considers Asking IMF For Help

Kraemer Sees IMF Taking Assistant Role in Greece Aid: Video

Bill O’Reilly: California Is Bankrupt

Glenn Beck Discusses Barney Frank’s California Bailout Idea

Ron Paul USA is Bankrupt Our Credit Will Get Cut Off,We Will Be Done

Tim Geithner Agrees With Ron Paul- Austrian’s where right

Peter Schiff & Steven Keen on Dateline(Australia) – Part 1 of 2

Peter Schiff & Steven Keen on Dateline(Australia) – Part 2 of 2

Peter Schiff explains how bad government monetary policy could lead to the end of the dollar.

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Bailouts and Deficit Spending

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Job Creating Businesses and CIT–Videos

The 12 Trillion–$12,000,000,000,000 Crime of The Century: The Decline and Fall of United States of America By Radical Socialist Spending–Look Before You Leap!

The Financial Crime of The Century: William K. Black On Massive Mortgage Fraud –Videos

Bailed Out Bank Trillion Dollar Derivative Exposure

The Mother of All Bailouts–2 to 3 Trillion Dollars–$2,000,000,000–$3,000,000,000!–Rewarding Greed, Arrogance and Stupidity–Pay for Play!

Federal Government Extortion Of Sound Banks–You Decide?–Take This TARP and Shove It!

Boycott Bailedout Businesses and Banks

Ban Bailouts–Stop Inflation Now (SIN)–Stop Socialism of Losses!

The United States is Broke!–Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Time For GM and Ford Is Now!

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

Pelosi’s Porky Pigout Poison Package–Economy Wrecker and Job Destroyer–Have A Blue Christmas 2009!

 

 

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

Obama’s Christmas Eve Rape and Robbery of The American Taxpayer–Pouring Trillions of Taxpayer Money Down the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Toilet Bowl–Totally Corrupt and Criminal Politicians!

Posted on January 4, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Crime, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Homes, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

 

Obama Pledges Unlimited Funds to Fannie Mae, Freddie

Wallison Says Fannie, Freddie Seeing `Enormous’ Losses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHGJlcEsfOc

 

Fannie And Freddie – Unlimited Federal Money

Blank check for Fannie Freddie: Absolute Outrage

Capital Limits Removed for Fannie, Freddie

12/28/2009 Peter Schiff On The Glenn Beck Show: Will Gov’t Get Out Of The Way In 2010?

Glen Beck: 800 Billion More for Fannie and Freddie

Who is Responsible? (Meltdown): Fannie Mae – Freddie Mac – Wall Street – Bill Clinton – George Bush?

Democrats Covering up the Fannie Mae Freddie Mac

 

Thomas E Woods. Fannie Mae CRA and The Federal Reserve

Housing and Fannie Mae: FDR’s American Dream

 

Obama and Democrats are Responsible: Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac

Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING

The real reason for the financial mess!!!

OBAMA hires FANNIE MAE CEO as advisor – Dem connections

LET THEM FAIL ! NO BAILOUT ON MY BEHALF JIM ROGERS

Jim Rogers on Regulators’ Failings and Inflation’s Return

LOL
Solution to Our Economic Problems…

The American people are tapped out when it comes to bailing out failing businesses and financial institutions.

No more bailouts and no more blank checks to bailout both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Shut down these total irresponsible and failing financial institutions.

No more Federal Government supported enterprises that keep losing taxpayer money and causing the Obama Depression.

Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be closed down and sold to any private company that would like to buy them.

The Federal Government should get completely out of the mortgage investment market.

Throw the bums out in Congress, the Senate and the White House who support the repeated serial rape and robbery of the American people.

These people should be in prison not in government.

How dare they?

The arrogance of the progressive radical socialists led by Barack Obama knows no bounds.

This is a high crime against the property and prosperity of the American people and future generations.

These people are criminals and should be prosecuted for stealing from the American people.

No blank checks and no unlimited bailouts for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is too big to fail, it should fail.

Shut down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and fire everyone that works there.

Background Articles and Videos

 

U.S. Move to Cover Fannie, Freddie Losses Stirs Controversy

By JAMES R. HAGERTY and JESSICA HOLZER

“…The Obama administration’s decision to cover an unlimited amount of losses at the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the next three years stirred controversy over the holiday.

The Treasury announced Thursday it was removing the caps that limited the amount of available capital to the companies to $200 billion each.

Unlimited access to bailout funds through 2012 was “necessary for preserving the continued strength and stability of the mortgage market,” the Treasury said. Fannie and Freddie purchase or guarantee most U.S. home mortgages and have run up huge losses stemming from the worst wave of defaults since the 1930s.

“The timing of this executive order giving Fannie and Freddie a blank check is no coincidence,” said Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the House Financial Services Committee. He said the Christmas Eve announcement was designed “to prevent the general public from taking note.”

Treasury officials couldn’t be reached for comment Friday.

So far, Treasury has provided $60 billion of capital to Fannie and $51 billion to Freddie. Mahesh Swaminathan, a senior mortgage analyst at Credit Suisse in New York, said he didn’t believe Fannie and Freddie would need more than $200 billion apiece from the Treasury. But he and other analysts have said the market would find a larger commitment from the Treasury reassuring.

In exchange for the funding, the Treasury has received preferred stock in the companies paying 10% dividends. The Treasury also has warrants to acquire nearly 80% of the common shares in each firm.

The Treasury removed the cap on the size of available bailout funds by amending agreements it reached with the companies in September 2008, when the government seized control of the agencies under a legal process called conservatorship. The agreement allowed the Treasury to make amendments through the end of the year, without the consent of Congress. Changes made after Dec. 31 would likely involve a struggle with lawmakers over the terms.

Some Republicans are angry the administration is expanding the potential size of the bailout without having a plan for eventually ending the federal government’s role in the companies. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126168307200704747.html

December 24, 2009
2009-12-24-15-34-59-24543

TREASURY ISSUES UPDATE ON STATUS OF SUPPORT FOR HOUSING PROGRAMS

U.S. Treasury Department
Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  December 24, 2009
CONTACT: Treasury Public Affairs (202) 622-2960 

Treasury Issues Update on Status
of Support for Housing Programs
 

The Freddie Mac 509 Amendment is available here.  

The Fannie Mae 509 Amendment is available here.

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury provided an update on initiatives established under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008, which supports housing market stabilization and provides relief to struggling homeowners. As part of a commitment to wind down programs that were established during the crisis and are no longer critical to financial stability, Treasury will terminate several HERA programs at the end of the year. Treasury will also amend the terms of its agreements with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to support their ongoing stability. The steps outlined today are necessary for preserving the continued strength and stability of the mortgage market.

Program Wind Downs  

The program that Treasury established under HERA to support the mortgage market by purchasing Government-Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) -guaranteed mortgage-backed securities (MBS) will end on December 31, 2009.    By the conclusion of its MBS purchase program, Treasury anticipates that it will have purchased approximately $220 billion of securities across a range of maturities.

The short-term credit facility that Treasury established under HERA for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks will terminate on December 31, 2009.  This credit facility was designed to provide a backstop source of liquidity and has not been used. 

Amendments to Terms of Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements  

At the time the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship in September 2008, Treasury established Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPAs) to ensure that each firm maintained a positive net worth. Treasury is now amending the PSPAs to allow the cap on Treasury’s funding commitment under these agreements to increase as necessary to accommodate any cumulative reduction in net worth over the next three years. At the conclusion of the three year period, the remaining commitment will then be fully available to be drawn per the terms of the agreements.

Neither firm is near the $200 billion per institution limit established under the PSPAs. Total funding provided under these agreements through the third quarter has been $51 billion to Freddie Mac and $60 billion to Fannie Mae.  The amendments to these agreements announced today should leave no uncertainty about the Treasury’s commitment to support these firms as they continue to play a vital role in the housing market during this current crisis.

The PSPAs also cap the size of the retained mortgage portfolios and require that the portfolios are reduced over time. Treasury is also amending the PSPAs to provide Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with some additional flexibility to meet the requirement to reduce their portfolios. The portfolio reduction requirement for 2010 and after will be applied to the maximum allowable size of the portfolios – or $900 billion per institution – rather than the actual size of the portfolio at the end of 2009. 

Treasury remains committed to the principle of reducing the retained portfolios.  To meet this goal, Treasury does not expect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be active buyers to increase the size of their retained mortgage portfolios, but neither is it expected that active selling will be necessary to meet the required targets. FHFA will continue to monitor and oversee the retained portfolio activities in a manner consistent with the FHFA’s responsibility as conservator and the requirements of the PSPAs.

Treasury is making two additional changes to the PSPAs.  Treasury will delay setting the Periodic Commitment Fee by one year to December 31, 2010.  Treasury will also make technical changes to the definitions of mortgage assets and indebtedness to make compliance with the covenants of the PSPAs less burdensome and more transparent in light of impending accounting changes.

The Path to Longer Term Reform  

The Administration is in the process of reviewing issues around longer term reform of the federal government’s role in the housing market. We expect to provide a preliminary report around the time President Obama releases his fiscal 2011 budget in February 2010.  Recent announcements on the tightening of underwriting standards by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration, demonstrate a commitment to prudent housing finance policy that enables a transition to an environment where the private market is able to provide a larger source of mortgage finance.

###

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/2009122415345924543.htm

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Get “Unlimited” Bail out!

By Robert Oak

“…What a time to bury a press release,Christmas Eve, the headlines awash on health care bill Senate passage. Well, some of use are wired to God and despite cooking pomegranate glazed ducks and wrapping presents, we’re not asleep at the wheel!

To find the juice, one must even look between the lines of the U.S. Treasury Press release:

Treasury is now amending the PSPAs to allow the cap on Treasury’s funding commitment under these agreements to increase as necessary to accommodate any cumulative reduction in net worth over the next three years. At the conclusion of the three year period, the remaining commitment will then be fully available to be drawn per the terms of the agreements.

The cap was $400 billion dollars. Previously, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac requested $800 billion dollars in available bail out money. Now, it’s unlimited.

Treasury is also amending the PSPAs to provide Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with some additional flexibility to meet the requirement to reduce their portfolios. The portfolio reduction requirement for 2010 and after will be applied to the maximum allowable size of the portfolios – or $900 billion per institution – rather than the actual size of the portfolio at the end of 2009.

Note that the Treasury and Federal Reserve stopped buying mortgage backed securities. Current Fannie/Freddie holdings are each about $760 billion. Now is this yet another free money to Goldman Sachs and other large institutions to get them to buy toxic MBSes from Fannie and Freddie? They can now hold onto this toxic waste for 3 years instead of 2010.

Treasury will delay setting the Periodic Commitment Fee by one year to December 31, 2010. Treasury will also make technical changes to the definitions of mortgage assets and indebtedness to make compliance with the covenants of the PSPAs less burdensome and more transparent in light of impending accounting changes.

Get that? Fannie and Freddie now have unlimited funds resources and don’t have to reduce their mortgage holdings. …”

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-get-unlimited-bail-out

Call For An Audit – The Blank Check For Freddie And Fannie Must Be Tracked

“…Freddie and Fannie are de facto wards of the state, but their operations are housed off Uncle Sam’s balance sheet. As such, who will keep them accountable? Who will properly monitor their operations? Who will question their business practices?

I have no doubt that the blank check provided to Freddie and Fannie on Christmas Eve is nothing short of the continuation of Uncle Sam’s quantitative easing program currently managed by the Federal Reserve. Recall that the Fed’s quantitative easing program to purchase mortgage-backed securities is scheduled to end on March 31, 2010. At that point, if not prior, I fully expect the internal investment portfolios housed within Freddie and Fannie to reenter the marketplace and become the biggest buyer of mortgages.

Readers may wonder why I am so concerned about this activity. Look for economists, market analysts, and political pundits to promote this activity as both necessary and beneficial for the American housing market. This misinformed crowd believes Freddie and Fannie can issue debt at favorable rates, use the proceeds to purchase mortgages at prevailing rates, and make big, fat, juicy returns. Look for this overly simplistic analysis to be fed to the American public a lot over the next quarter and throughout 2010. …”

http://www.dailymarkets.com/stocks/2009/12/30/call-for-an-audit-the-blank-check-for-freddie-and-fannie-must-be-tracked/

Fannie and Freddie’s Blank Check Will Further Fuel America’s Rage

By  Larry Doyle

“…I remain incensed at the sheer arrogance and brazen demeanor of the Obama administration providing a blank check on Christmas Eve to cover future losses of the failed institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Given the fact that this check has been issued, America deserves to know what exactly it is covering. Over and above a full and total exposition of these government sponsored entities, America is in a position to demand certain retributions. Let’s bang the drum and demand some answers, including:

1. The current valuations of all of Freddie’s and Fannie’s holdings so America can fully evaluate those holdings relative to market prices.

2. The current fees being paid for all services rendered.

3. An independent audit.

4. Why aren’t these stocks delisted immediately? To allow stock in these entities to continue to trade is a total mockery of a legitimate market.

5. Clawback all bonus payments rendered to Franklin Raines, James Johnson, and Leland Brendsel, the executives at Fannie and Freddie who truly plundered these institutions.

6. Immediately extinguish Freddie’s and Fannie’s contingency liabilities to Wall Street firms.

7. How are we to know and appreciate that this blank check is not merely a conduit to deliver slush funds and hush money to every favored friend of the administration?

8. Any market analyst who favorably opines on the housing market in light of this blank check is hereby rendered a total jackass. …”

http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/12/fannie-and-freddies-blank-check-will-further-fuel-americas-rage/comment-page-1/

Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the “Family” and “Conscience” of Fannie Mae

EVIDENCE FOUND!!! Clinton administration’s “BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION” They forced banks to make BAD LOANS and ACORN and Obama’s tie to all of it!!!

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing, New Term Deposit Tool and Exit Strategy To Stop Inflation in 2011 and Beyond

Cloward Piven

Cloward Piven Strategy–The Crisis Strategy Of Barack Obama

President Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy of Controlled Crisis Creation Crippling Capitalism–Coup D-Etat On America 

Bailouts

Rose Colored Glasses:The Economy Is Recovering–Where Are The Jobs? When Will Inflation Hit? 2012–Election Year!

Job Creating Businesses and CIT–Videos

The 12 Trillion–$12,000,000,000,000 Crime of The Century: The Decline and Fall of United States of America By Radical Socialist Spending–Look Before You Leap!

The Financial Crime of The Century: William K. Black On Massive Mortgage Fraud –Videos

Bailed Out Bank Trillion Dollar Derivative Exposure

The Mother of All Bailouts–2 to 3 Trillion Dollars–$2,000,000,000–$3,000,000,000!–Rewarding Greed, Arrogance and Stupidity–Pay for Play!

Federal Government Extortion Of Sound Banks–You Decide?–Take This TARP and Shove It!

Boycott Bailedout Businesses and Banks

Ban Bailouts–Stop Inflation Now (SIN)–Stop Socialism of Losses!

The United States is Broke!–Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Time For GM and Ford Is Now!

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

Pelosi’s Porky Pigout Poison Package–Economy Wrecker and Job Destroyer–Have A Blue Christmas 2009!

 

Banking And The Federal Reserve System

The Coming Inflation and A New Money Supply Backed By Real Estate?–Free Enterprise To The Rescue?

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Banking–Videos

Creature from Jekyll Island: The Federal Reserve System–Videos

The Monopoly Men: The Federal Reserve Bank Cartel–Videos 

M3 Money Meteorite Moves–Deep Impact–The Coming Inflation Tidal Wave–Wage and Price Controls Will Signal Radical Socialist Obama’s Failure!

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

Jim Rogers: Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner and Federal Reserve System Chairman Ben Bernanke Are Incompetent–Tim and Ben Exit Strategy aka Thelma & Louise Ending The Fed!

Posted on December 11, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, Health Care, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Raves, Regulations, Security, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Video | Tags: , , , , , , |

One-on One With Jim Rogers- CNBC-12.10.09

Fed Chairman: Ben Bernanke blasted by Senators

 

Ron Paul on The House Floor “END THE FED!”

Jim Rogers the Economy is getting Worse Audit the Fed 1/2

Jim Rogers the Economy is getting Worse Audit the Fed 2/2

Jim Rogers Bloomberg December 2009 1/2

 

Jim Rogers Bloomberg December 2009 2/2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKQEkSCYir0

 

Geithner Defends Extension of US Bank Bailout

Does Bernanke Have an Exit Strategy?

Ron Paul to Bernanke: Continue Down Path of Socializing Our Entire Economy + Transparency

Bernanke: Why are we still listening to this guy?


 

One small but important correction to Jim Roger’s criticisms of Geithner and Bernanke, both are either intentionally incompetent or clueless tools of Obama’s crisis creating Cloward-Piven strategy, in wrecking the United States economy with massive government interventionism.

These people know exactly what they are doing and in my opinion both are intentionally incompetent.

Both should be fired today.

Will this happen?

As long as President Obama is leading this economy wrecking crew–no.

Only the American people can stop the progressive radical socialists massive fiscal and monetary government interventionism.

These economic policies will result in a long and deep depression–The Obama Depression.

Stop the bailouts, stimulus bills, huge tax increases, deficit spending, cap and trade energy and health care taxes, and the reckless money and credit expansion policies.

These government intervention actions will only prolong the duration of the Obama Depression.

Expect double digit unemployment rates throughout 2010.

Expect double digit inflation rates throughout 2012.

Vote the unresponsive political elites of both political parties out of office in 2010 and 2012–throw the bums out.

Only the American people by direct action can derail these policies that will destroy jobs, wreck the US economy, and kill the American Dream.

Tea Party Patriots–the time to organize and march is now!

The Tim and Ben exit strategy reminds me of the Thelma & Louise exit strategy, does anybody want to hitch a ride?

Thelma & Louise Ending – HD

Background Articles and Videos

http://www.nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html 

Credit and Liquidity Programs and the Balance Sheet

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_lendingother.htm

Fox News Hyperinflation M1 M2 M3 Money Supply Debt Soup Lines Glenn Beck Weimar Germany

Fox News Hyperinflation M1 M2 M3 Money Supply Debt Soup Lines Glenn Beck Weimar Germany Part 2 Update

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

What does one TRILLION dollars look like?

pallet_x_10000

US Debt Clock Real Time
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

Tim  Geithner

Secretary of the Treasury

Tim Geithner

“…Timothy Franz Geithner (pronounced /ˈɡaɪtnər/; born August 18, 1961) is the 75th and current United States Secretary of the Treasury, serving under President Barack Obama. He was previously the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Geithner’s position includes a large role in directing the Federal Government’s economic response to the financial crisis which began after December 2007. Specific tasks include directing the allocation of the $350 billion of Wall Street bailout funds. He is currently dealing with multiple high visibility issues, including the survival of the automobile industry, the restructuring of banks, financial institutions and insurance companies, recovery of the mortgage market, demands for protectionism, President Obama’s tax changes, and relations with foreign governments that are dealing with similar crises.[1]

Geithner was born in Brooklyn, New York City and spent most of his childhood outside the United States, including present-day Zimbabwe, Zambia, India and Thailand where he completed high school at the International School Bangkok.[2] He attended Dartmouth College, graduating with an A.B. in government and Asian studies in 1983.[3] In the process he studied Mandarin at Peking University in 1981 and at Beijing Normal University in 1982.[4] He earned an M.A. in international economics and East Asian studies from Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in 1985.[3][5] He has studied Chinese[3] and Japanese.[6]

Geithner’s paternal grandfather, Paul Herman Geithner (1902–1972), emigrated with his parents from the German town of Zeulenroda-Triebes to Philadelphia in 1908.[7] His father, Peter F. Geithner, was the director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation in New York in the 1990s. During the early 1980s, Peter Geithner oversaw the Ford Foundation’s microfinance programs in Indonesia being developed by Ann Dunham, President Barack Obama’s mother, and they met in person at least once.[8] Timothy Geithner’s mother, Deborah Moore Geithner, is a pianist and piano teacher in Larchmont, New York where his parents currently reside. Geithner’s maternal grandfather, Charles F. Moore, was an adviser to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and served as Vice President of Public Relations from 1952-1964 for Ford Motor Company.[9]

Geithner worked for Kissinger Associates in Washington for three years and then joined the International Affairs division of the U.S. Treasury Department in 1988. He went on to serve as an attaché at the Embassy of the United States in Tokyo. He was deputy assistant secretary for international monetary and financial policy (1995–1996), senior deputy assistant secretary for international affairs (1996-1997), assistant secretary for international affairs (1997–1998).[5]

He was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (1998–2001) under Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.[5] Summers was his mentor,[10][11] but other sources call him a Rubin protégé.[11][12][13]

In 2002 he left the Treasury to join the Council on Foreign Relations as a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department.[14] He was director of the Policy Development and Review Department (2001-2003) at the International Monetary Fund.[5]

In October 2003 at age 42,[15] he was named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.[16] His salary in 2007 was $398,200.[17] Once at the New York Fed, he became Vice Chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee component. In 2006, he also became a member of the Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty.[18] In May 2007 he worked to reduce the capital required to run a bank.[15] In November he rejected Sanford Weill’s offer to take over as Citigroup’s chief executive.[15]

In March 2008, he arranged the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns;[10][19] in the same year, he played a pivotal role in both the decision to bail out AIG as well as the government decision not to save Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy, though claims were made after Geithner’s nomination that distanced him from both AIG and Lehman Brothers.[20] As a Treasury official, he helped manage multiple international crises of the 1990s[12] in Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand.[13]

Geithner believes, along with Henry Paulson, that the United States Department of the Treasury needs new authority to experiment with responses to the financial crisis of 2007–2009.[10] Paulson has described Geithner as “[a] very unusually talented young man…[who] understands government and understands markets.”[19]

On 10/27/09 it was reported by Bloomberg news[21] that while acting as president of the New York Federal Reserve Tim Geithner arranged for Goldman Sachs, Société Générale, and Deutsche Bank to receive full payment on credit default swaps they had purchased rather than 40 cents on the dollar insurance giant AIG proposed. A Fed-run entity called Maiden Lane III was used to shunt these CDOs, which cost American tax payers at least $13 billion dollars at the time. It is currently estimated that due to a decline in value, the total costs for this bank favoritism case cost the American tax payers $35.6 billion total. To quote Bloomberg: “the deal contributed to the more than $14 billion that over 18 months was handed to Goldman Sachs, whose former chairman, Stephen Friedman, was chairman of the board of directors of the New York Fed when the decision was made. …”

“…Bank bailout

Geithner has the authority to decide what to do with the second tranche of $350 billion from the $700 billion banking bailout bill passed by Congress in October 2008. He does not need Congressional approval, but went to Congress on February 10-11 to explain his plans. He proposes to create one or more “bad banks” to buy and hold toxic assets, using a mix of taxpayer and private money. He also proposes to expand a lending program that would spend as much as $1 trillion to cover the decline in the issuance of securities backed by consumer loans. He further proposes to give banks new infusions of capital with which to lend. In exchange, banks would have to cut the salaries and perks of their executives and sharply limit dividends and corporate acquisitions.[40][41] The plan has been criticized by Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman[42] as well as fellow Nobel laureate and former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz.[43]

Timothy Geithner along with President Obama proposed a new bureaucratic committee to oversee operations by the FDIC, Federal reserve, and the SEC. The committee would serve to consolidate governmental control over financials. Geithner, states “with new laws in place government will be able to take control of troubled institutions before it’s too late.”[44]

AIG bonuses

Main article: AIG bonus payments controversy

Although President Obama expressed strong support for Geithner, the outrage over the AIG bonuses has undermined public support. AIG paid bonuses to executives in its Financial Services division after receiving more than $170 billion in federal bailout aid.[45] Even prior to the election, senior aides to Timothy Geithner have closely dealt with American International Group Inc. on compensation issues including bonuses, both from his time as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and as Treasury secretary. In early November, 2008, a committee concluded that the bonuses, which were in contracts signed before the government takeover, couldn’t be legally blocked. On March 3, 2009, appearing at a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee Rep. Joseph Crowley, a New York Democrat, asked him about the bonuses that AIG would be paying to financial-products employees “in the coming weeks.” On March 11, Geithner called Mr. Edward Liddy, AIG chief, to protest the bonus payouts. Mr. Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke attended a hearing by Congress on March 24, 2009.[46]…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Geithner

Ben Bernanke

Chairman of The Federal Reserve System

 

 

Ben Bernanke

“…Ben Shalom Bernanke[1] (pronounced /bərˈnænki/ bər-NAN-kee;[2] born December 13, 1953) is an American economist, and the current Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve. Bernanke succeeded Alan Greenspan on February 1, 2006. He was nominated for a second term by President Barack Obama in 2009 as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Born in Augusta, Georgia, Bernanke was raised in a ranch house on East Jefferson Street in Dillon, South Carolina.[3] His father Philip was a pharmacist and part-time theater manager, and his mother Edna was originally a schoolteacher. He is the eldest of three children, having a brother and sister. His younger brother, Seth, is a lawyer in Charlotte, North Carolina, and his younger sister, Sharon, is a longtime administrator at Berklee College of Music in Boston.

The Bernankes were one of the few Jewish families in the area, attending a local synagogue called Ohav Shalom;[4] as a child, Bernanke learned Hebrew from his maternal grandfather Harold Friedman, who was a professional hazzan and Hebrew teacher.[5] His father and uncle co-owned and managed a drugstore that they bought from his paternal grandfather, Jonas Bernanke.[3] Jonas was born in Boryslav, Austria-Hungary (today part of Ukraine), on January 23, 1891, and immigrated to the United States from Przemyśl, Poland (part of Austria-Hungary until 1919). He arrived at Ellis Island, age 30, Thursday, June 30, 1921, with his wife Pauline, age 25. On the ship’s manifest, Jonas’ occupation is listed as “clerk” and Pauline’s as “doctor med.”[6][7][8][9] They moved to Dillon, South Carolina, from New York in the 1940s.[10] Bernanke’s mother often worked there as well, having given up her job as a school teacher when he was born, and Bernanke also assisted from time to time.[11]

Bernanke was educated at East Elementary, J. V. Martin Junior High, and Dillon High School, where he was class valedictorian. Bernanke achieved a near-perfect SAT score of 1590 out of 1600.[13] He was also an All-State saxophonist, playing in the school’s marching band.[14] Bernanke spent his undergraduate years at Harvard University where he lived in Winthrop House and graduated with a B.A. in economics summa cum laude in 1975. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1979. His thesis was named “Long-term commitments, dynamic optimization, and the business cycle” and his thesis adviser was Stanley Fischer.[15]

A notable contemporary at Harvard University was Lloyd Blankfein (A.B. 1975, also Winthrop House), Chairman & CEO at Goldman Sachs. …”

“…Bernanke taught at the Stanford Graduate School of Business from 1979 until 1985, was a visiting professor at New York University and went on to become a tenured professor at Princeton University in the Department of Economics. He chaired that department from 1996 until September 2002, when he went on public service leave. He resigned his position at Princeton July 1, 2005. Dr. Bernanke served as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from 2002 to 2005, and was Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, from June 2005 to January 2006. On February 1, 2006, he was appointed as a member of the Board for a fourteen-year term and to a four-year term as Chairman.[18]

In one of his first speeches, entitled “Deflation: Making Sure It Doesn’t Happen Here,” he outlined what has been referred to as the Bernanke Doctrine.[19]

In view of his current position as Fed chair, Bernanke also sits on the newly established Financial Stability Oversight Board that oversees the Troubled Assets Relief Program.

Bernanke’s future as Federal Reserve chairman became uncertain on November 21, 2008, when it was announced that President-elect Barack Obama would name Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary over Larry Summers, leading to speculation that Obama was positioning Summers as Bernanke’s successor. Summers was picked to run the National Economic Council. Two Obama advisers said that Summers would be the leading candidate to become the next Federal Reserve chairman should President Obama choose not to reappoint Bernanke when his term ends January 31, 2010.[20][21] White House sources announced on August 24, 2009 that President Obama would nominate Bernanke for another term in 2010.[22] During Bernanke’s first term as Chairman, he oversaw the Federal Reserve’s largest increase of power since the bank’s creation in 1913.[23] …”

Merrill Lynch merger with Bank of America

In a letter to Congress from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo dated April 23, 2009, Bernanke was mentioned along with former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in allegations of fraud concerning the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America. The letter alleged that the extent of the losses at Merrill Lynch were not disclosed to Bank of America by Bernanke and Paulson. When Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis informed Paulson that Bank of America was exiting the merger by invoking the “Materially Adverse Change” clause Paulson immediately called Lewis to a meeting in Washington. At the meeting, which allegedly took place on December 21, 2008, Paulson told Lewis that he and the board would be replaced if they invoked the MAC clause and additionally not to reveal the extent of the losses to shareholders. Paulson stated to Cuomo’s office that he was directed by Bernanke to threaten Lewis in this manner.[24] Congressional hearings into these allegations were conducted on June 25, 2009, with Bernanke testifying that he did not bully Ken Lewis. Under intense questioning by members of Congress, Bernanke said, “I never said anything about firing the board and the management [of Bank of America].” In further testimony, Bernanke said the Fed did nothing illegal or unethical in its efforts to convince Bank of America not to end the merger. Lewis told the panel that authorities expressed “strong views” but said he would not characterize their stance as improper.[25]

Renominated for Fed Chief

On 25th Aug 2009, President Obama announced that he would nominate Ben Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. In a short statement in Martha’s Vineyard, with Bernanke standing at his side, Obama said Bernanke’s background, temperament, courage and creativity helped to prevent another Great Depression in 2008. “Ben approached a financial system on the verge of collapse with calm and wisdom, with bold action and out-of-the-box thinking that has helped put the brakes on our economic free fall”, the President said.[26]

Senate Banking Committee hearings on his nomination begin December 3, 2009. …”

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

Glenn Beck – You’re Gonna Need Duct Tape For This One

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 American People Want Stimulus Package Canceled And Oppose Bailouts To State Governments!

Irresponsible Government Intervention Results In Huge and Continuing Government Failures–Shut Down Government Interventions–No More Bailouts!

 

Cloward Piven

Cloward Piven Strategy–The Crisis Strategy Of Barack Obama

President Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy of Controlled Crisis Creation Crippling Capitalism–Coup D-Etat On America 

 

Bailouts

Rose Colored Glasses:The Economy Is Recovering–Where Are The Jobs? When Will Inflation Hit? 2012–Election Year!

Job Creating Businesses and CIT–Videos

The 12 Trillion–$12,000,000,000,000 Crime of The Century: The Decline and Fall of United States of America By Radical Socialist Spending–Look Before You Leap!

The Financial Crime of The Century: William K. Black On Massive Mortgage Fraud –Videos

Bailed Out Bank Trillion Dollar Derivative Exposure

The Mother of All Bailouts–2 to 3 Trillion Dollars–$2,000,000,000–$3,000,000,000!–Rewarding Greed, Arrogance and Stupidity–Pay for Play!

Federal Government Extortion Of Sound Banks–You Decide?–Take This TARP and Shove It!

Boycott Bailedout Businesses and Banks

Ban Bailouts–Stop Inflation Now (SIN)–Stop Socialism of Losses!

The United States is Broke!–Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Time For GM and Ford Is Now!

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

Pelosi’s Porky Pigout Poison Package–Economy Wrecker and Job Destroyer–Have A Blue Christmas 2009!

Ben Bernanke

The Coming Inflation and A New Money Supply Backed By Real Estate?–Free Enterprise To The Rescue?

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

  

Fiscal Policy

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

Rose Colored Glasses:The Economy Is Recovering–Where Are The Jobs? When Will Inflation Hit? 2012–Election Year!

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

The Big Economic Picture–Some Perspectives–Videos

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009!

A New Political Party In The United States? American Citizens Alliance Party–ACAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt, and Regulations!

Bad Government Intervention Requires Bad Government Bank-The Road Map Out Of The World Economic Crisis–Stabilize–Stimulate–Strengthen–Simultaneously!

Barlett Boo Boos–Boortz Blasts Back

President Doom and Panic Obama’s Big Lie: More Government Spending Works and Tax Cuts Do Not Work 

 

Monetary Economic Policy

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

Rose Colored Glasses:The Economy Is Recovering–Where Are The Jobs? When Will Inflation Hit? 2012–Election Year!

The Coming Inflation and A New Money Supply Backed By Real Estate?–Free Enterprise To The Rescue?

The Battle Between Keynes and Monetarism in the UK–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

The Big Economic Picture–Some Perspectives–Videos

M3 Money Meteorite Moves–Deep Impact–The Coming Inflation Tidal Wave–Wage and Price Controls Will Signal Radical Socialist Obama’s Failure!

The Monetarization of The Debt and Quantitative Easing: The Federal Reserve is printing $1,000,000,000,000!–Run-Away Inflation Coming Soon!

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Bailed Out Bank Trillion Dollar Derivative Exposure

Banking–Videos

Creature from Jekyll Island: The Federal Reserve System–Videos

The Monopoly Men: The Federal Reserve Bank Cartel–Videos

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos 

 

Federal Reserve System

The Coming Inflation and A New Money Supply Backed By Real Estate?–Free Enterprise To The Rescue?

Richard Fisher–Inflation and Debt: The Interaction of Fiscal and Monetary Policy –Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Banking–Videos

Creature from Jekyll Island: The Federal Reserve System–Videos

The Monopoly Men: The Federal Reserve Bank Cartel–Videos 

M3 Money Meteorite Moves–Deep Impact–The Coming Inflation Tidal Wave–Wage and Price Controls Will Signal Radical Socialist Obama’s Failure!

 

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Our Enemy, Inflation–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

 

Economists

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Yaron Brook–Videos

David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Henry Hazlitt–Economics In One Lesson–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman on Education–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

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

Official Unemployment Rate Hits 10.2%–15,700,000 Unemployed American Citizens–Real Unemployment Rate Hits 17.5%– 26,950,000 Americans Seeking Full Time Jobs–Obama Depression Worse Than Great Depression

Posted on November 6, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Climate, Communications, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Health Care, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

2_great_depression

Great Depression Billboard

Brother, Can You Spare A Dime?

“Courage is the greatest of all virtues, because if you haven’t courage, you may not have an opportunity to use any of the others. ”

~Samuel Johnson

“…Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (10.7 per-cent) and whites (9.5 percent) rose in October. The jobless rates for adult women (8.1 percent), teenagers (27.6 percent), blacks (15.7 percent), and Hispanics (13.1 percent) were little changed over the month. The unemployment rate for Asians was 7.5 percent, not seasonally adjusted. …”

 

~Bureau of Labor Statistics, News Release, November 6, 2009

“It is not capitalism which is responsible for the evils of permanent mass unemployment, but the policy which paralyses its working.”

~Ludwig von Mises

 

Double-digit unemployment

Glenn Beck Show – Nov 6, 2009 – Pt 2 of 6 – John Stossel & Peter Schiff

Harris Calls Jobs Data `Backward Step’ for U.S. Economy: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOufvDvfZeQ

 

Unemployment in U.S. Jumps to 10.2% as Payrolls Fall: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldSUfGLqfyU

 

Dollar Volatile as U.S. Payrolls Fall More Than Forecast: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQNOME4cQKY

 

Unemployment Rate ‘disappointments’ White House

November 6, 2009 FTV Morning Report

Economic Expectations – Unemployment Rate May Reach 15% – Bloomberg–July 2, 2009

Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920

Is Limited Government an Oxymoron?

The Obama Depression is real and worsening with the number of unemployed Americans over 15,700,000, while the number of Americans seeking a full time job is over 26,500,000 Americans.

During 1933, the worse year of the Great Depression, the number of unemployed Americans was about 13,000,000.

The Obama Depression has more than double the number of Americans seeking full time jobs than the Great Depression.

The Great Depression lasted at least another eight years until the start of World War II, but actually lasted until 1946.

The question is how long will the Obama Depression last?

As long as President Obama follows the failed Keynesian economic policies of more government stimulus spending at least another three years when he will be voted out of office.

The unemployment rate is expected to exceed 10% for at least another six months and peak at about 13% in July.

If a Health Care Reform, Cap and Trade Energy Tax, or Comprehensive Immgiration Reform bill is passed and signed into law, it will be worse.

The unemployment rate would remain in double digits until 2012.

When will the unemployment rate again achieve full-employment rates of 2% to 3% levels?

It will take another five years minimum to reach these levels provided pro-growth economic policies are implemented such as the FairTax and real cuts in Federal Government spending of at least 50%.

Not very likely with the Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic Party led by President Obama favoring massive government spending increases, huge tax increases and wealth redistribution instead of  wealth and job creation economic policies.

President Obama economic policies are pro-government, anti-growth and anti-small business.

The only sector that is growing is the Federal Government.

President Obama’s  economic policies of massive bailouts, stimulus-spending, deficits, wage and price controls and subsidies and funding for big corporations, unions  and community organizations are political payoffs for campaign contribution and support.

Obama’s policies are generating much uncertainty among both business owners and consumers.

Business and consumer confidence needs to be restore before an economic recovery with job creation begins.

Until confidence is restored higher unemployment rates combined with increasing inflation will result in stagflation or an inflationary depression–the Obama Depression.

Do not be surprised when President Obama announces wage and price controls once inflation start in earnest in 2011.

President Obama is destroying jobs, wrecking the economy and killing the American dream.

Expect massive Democratic defeats in the elections of 2010 with 50 House seats lost and with the Republicans gaining control of the House of Representatives and may be picking up two to four Senate seats. The Democrats will most likely continue to control the Senate.

Expect this massive Democratic defeat to continue into the 2012 as high rates of unemployment continue and inflation ramps up. The Democrats will lose another  25 House seats and eight Senate seats. The Republican Party will most likely gain control of the Senate in 2012 or 2014.

President Obama will be challenged in 2012 for the nomination and will lose to Hillary Clinton.

The Republicans will most likely win the Presidency in 2012 provided the Republican Party nominates a principled conservative/libertarian candidate with experience, integrity, and a record of fiscal responsibility. Possible leading candidates include Senator Coburn, Congressman Pence, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Governor Sarah Palin.

There is a distinct possibility of another third political party being formed consisting of conservatives, libertarians, independents, and Reagan Democrats and Republicans, who have given up on the fiscal irresponsibility of the Democratic and Republican parties. The core of this party will come from Americans attending the tea party rallies.

The top policitical issues will be all be the economy (high unemployment and inflation), Federal government spending and taxation, illegal immigration, energy independence, and national defense, the Iran and  terrorist nuclear threats. 

The party is definitely over for Obama and the progressive radical socialist Democratic Party.

The American people are wide awake and ready to throw these bums out.

Doris Day sings The Party’s Over

The American people will lead the way.

The Law Of Attraction

“What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.”

~Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

“Keynes did not add any new idea to the body of inflationist fallacies, a thousand times refuted by economists… He merely knew how to cloak the plea for inflation and credit expansion in the sophisticated terminology of mathematical economics.”

~Ludwig von Mises

 

Background Articles and Videos

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-09-1331
until 8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, November 6, 2009

Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * http://www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * http://www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — OCTOBER 2009

The unemployment rate rose from 9.8 to 10.2 percent in October, and nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline (-190,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The largest job losses over the month were in con-struction, manufacturing, and retail trade.

Household Survey Data

In October, the number of unemployed persons increased by 558,000 to 15.7 million. The unemployment rate rose by 0.4 percentage point to 10.2 percent, the highest rate since April 1983. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 8.2 million, and the unemployment rate has grown by 5.3 percentage points. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (10.7 per-cent) and whites (9.5 percent) rose in October. The jobless rates for adult women (8.1 percent), teenagers (27.6 percent), blacks (15.7 percent), and Hispanics (13.1 percent) were little changed over the month. The unemployment rate for Asians was 7.5 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1,
A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was
little changed over the month at 5.6 million. In October, 35.6 percent of
unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more. (See table A-9.)

The civilian labor force participation rate was little changed over the month
at 65.1 percent. The employment-population ratio continued to decline in
October, falling to 58.5 percent. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons working part time for economic reasons (sometimes refer-
red to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in October at 9.3
million. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been
cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-5.)

About 2.4 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in October,
reflecting an increase of 736,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not sea-
sonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and
were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months.
They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in
the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-13.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 808,000 discouraged workers in October,
up from 484,000 a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Dis-
couraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe
no jobs are available for them. The other 1.6 million persons marginally attached
to the labor force in October had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding
the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment declined by 190,000 in October. In the most re-
cent 3 months, job losses have averaged 188,000 per month, compared with losses
averaging 357,000 during the prior 3 months. In contrast, losses averaged 645,000
per month from November 2008 to April 2009. Since December 2007, payroll employment
has fallen by 7.3 million. (See table B-1.)

Construction employment decreased by 62,000 in October. Monthly job losses have
averaged 67,000 during the most recent 6 months, compared with an average decline
of 117,000 during the prior 6 months. October job losses were concentrated in
nonresidential specialty trade contractors (-30,000) and in heavy construction
(-14,000). Since December 2007, employment in construction has fallen by 1.6 mil-
lion.

Manufacturing continued to shed jobs (-61,000) in October, with losses in both
durable and nondurable goods production. Over the past 4 months, job losses in
manufacturing have averaged 51,000 per month, compared with an average monthly
loss of 161,000 from October 2008 through June 2009. Manufacturing employment has
fallen by 2.1 million since December 2007.

Retail trade lost 40,000 jobs in October. Employment declines were concentrated
in sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores (-16,000) and in department
stores (-11,000). Employment in transportation and warehousing decreased by 18,000
in October.

Health care employment continued to increase in October (29,000). Since the start
of the recession, health care has added 597,000 jobs.

Temporary help services has added 44,000 jobs since July, including 34,000 in
October. From January 2008 through July 2009, temporary help services had lost
an average of 44,000 jobs per month.

The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm
payrolls was unchanged at 33.0 hours in October. The manufacturing workweek rose
by 0.1 hour to 40.0 hours, and factory overtime increased by 0.2 hour over the
month. (See table B-2.)

In October, average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers on
private nonfarm payrolls rose by 5 cents, or 0.3 percent, to $18.72. Over the past
12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.4 percent, while average weekly
earnings have risen by only 0.9 percent due to declines in the average workweek.
(See table B-3.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for August was revised from -201,000
to -154,000, and the change for September was revised from -263,000 to -219,000.

_____________
The Employment Situation for November is scheduled to be released on Friday,
December 4, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

 

 

Series Id:           LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0  
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9  
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7  
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0  
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7  
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4  
2005 5.2 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8  
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4  
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.9  
2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.2  
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.2      
Series Id:           LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 5976 6111 5783 6004 5796 5951 6025 5838 5915 5778 5716 5653  
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634  
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258  
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640  
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317  
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934  
2005 7759 7972 7740 7683 7672 7551 7415 7360 7570 7457 7541 7219  
2006 7020 7176 7080 7142 7028 7039 7167 7118 6874 6738 6837 6688  
2007 7029 6887 6737 6874 6844 7028 7128 7123 7221 7295 7212 7541  
2008 7555 7423 7820 7675 8536 8662 8910 9550 9592 10221 10476 11108  
2009 11616 12467 13161 13724 14511 14729 14462 14928 15142 15700      
Series Id:           LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status:  Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Percent/rates:       Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.1 7.1  
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9  
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6  
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8  
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8  
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2  
2005 9.3 9.3 9.2 9.0 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.5  
2006 8.4 8.5 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.0 7.9  
2007 8.3 8.1 8.0 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.5 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.7  
2008 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.9 11.2 12.0 12.6 13.5  
2009 13.9 14.8 15.6 15.8 16.4 16.5 16.3 16.8 17.0 17.5      
Series Id:           LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 139003 138967 138730 138959 139107 139329 139439 139430 139622 139771 140025 140177  
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248  
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305  
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066  
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729  
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059  
2005 148005(1) 148349 148366 148926 149273 149262 149445 149794 149977 150007 150095 150002  
2006 150148(1) 150600 150793 150906 151120 151398 151414 151762 151680 152027 152425 152677  
2007 153012(1) 152879 153004 152522 152759 153085 153101 152855 153424 153162 153877 153836  
2008 153873(1) 153498 153843 153932 154510 154400 154506 154823 154621 154878 154620 154447  
2009 153716(1) 154214 154048 154731 155081 154926 154504 154577 154006 153975

 

Unemployment Rate Actually Near 14% in July is Now 17.5%

11/3/09 Part 1/4 Jim Rogers with Lindsay Whipp of the Financial Times: Brief Dollar Rally

11/3/09 Part 2/4 Jim Rogers with Lindsay Whipp of the Financial Times: Brief Dollar Rally

11/3/09 Part 3/4 Jim Rogers with Lindsay Whipp of the Financial Times: Brief Dollar Rally

11/3/09 Part 4/4 Jim Rogers with Lindsay Whipp of the Financial Times: Brief Dollar Rally

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Fiscal Policy

Rose Colored Glasses:The Economy Is Recovering–Where Are The Jobs? When Will Inflation Hit? 2012–Election Year!

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

The Big Economic Picture–Some Perspectives–Videos

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009!

A New Political Party In The United States? American Citizens Alliance Party–ACAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt, and Regulations!

Bad Government Intervention Requires Bad Government Bank-The Road Map Out Of The World Economic Crisis–Stabilize–Stimulate–Strengthen–Simultaneously!

Barlett Boo Boos–Boortz Blasts Back

President Doom and Panic Obama’s Big Lie: More Government Spending Works and Tax Cuts Do Not Work

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

The Obama Depression Continues–Official Unemployment Rate Hits 9.8% (15,142,000 Seek Full Time Job) and Real Unemployment Rate Hits 17.0% (26,181,000 Seek Full Time Job)!

Posted on October 2, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, liberty, Life, Links, Monetary Policy, People, Politics, Quotations, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

 

Unemployment Rate Hits 9.8 Percent

 

15.1 million Americans now out of work!

 

Economic Expectations – Unemployment Rate May Reach 15% – Bloomberg

 

 

Gerson Says Wall Street Executives Confident on Hiring

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyN4iif8CoE

 

1929 Great Depression, 1979 Economic Stagflation or 1989 Soviet-Style Collapse?

Ready For America’s Economic Crash ?

George Soros Predicts Stagflation


 

 

The Bush Recession ended and the Obama Depression continues due to progressive radical socialist Democratic Party failed economic policies of  massive bailouts, deficits, and stimulus spending.

With more than 26 million Americans seeking full time jobs, do not be fooled by statements that the recession is over.

During the very worse year of the Great Depression 13 million Americans were seeking full time jobs.

Today, more then twice that number or over 26 million Americans are seeking work.

In May of 2009 the US Labor force peaked at 155,051,000.

In September of 2009  the US labor force was 154,006,000.

Since May of this year over 1,000,000 Americans have left the labor force!

They are not employed nor unemployed, but usually are so discouraged that they have given up looking for work.

The Obama Depression continues and is not expected to get better for at least another six to twelve months.

The official unemployment rate is expected to exceed 10% in October and to continue to increase through May 2010.

The Obama economic policies and proposed health care and cap and trade energy taxes bills are destroying  jobs, wrecking the economy and killing the American Dream.

Obama must change course and make the Bush tax cuts permanent if he has any hope in creating new jobs.

He must also forget about a new mandatory health care tax and cap and trade energy tax–not likely.

Should either or both bills make it into law, expect the recession/depression to last through 2011.

Small business views these bills as massive tax increases that they cannot afford to pay and will reduce hiring, meaning fewer  jobs and a longer recession/depression.

President Obama and the progressive radical socialist Democratic Party are facing defeat at the election polls in 2010 and 2012 for not delivering  jobs!

The US dollar will continue to decline in value and inflation should rapidly increase in late 2011– the result– the return of a stagflation economy.

Stagflation

 

Background Articles and Videos

 Stagflation

“…Stagflation is an economic situation in which inflation and economic stagnation occur simultaneously and remain unchecked for a period of time.[1] The portmanteau stagflation is generally attributed to British politician Iain Macleod, who coined the term in a speech to Parliament in 1965.[2][3][4] The concept is notable partly because, in postwar macroeconomic theory, inflation and recession were regarded as mutually exclusive, and also because stagflation has generally proven to be difficult and costly to eradicate once it gets started.

Economists offer two principal explanations for why stagflation occurs. First, stagflation can result when an economy is slowed by an unfavorable supply shock, such as an increase in the price of oil in an oil importing country, which tends to raise prices at the same time that it slows the economy by making production less profitable.[5][6][7] This type of stagflation presents a policy dilemma because most actions to assist with fighting inflation worsen economic stagnation and vice versa. Second, both stagnation and inflation can result from inappropriate macroeconomic policies. For example, central banks can cause inflation by permitting excessive growth of the money supply,[8] and the government can cause stagnation by excessive regulation of goods markets and labor markets;[9] together, these factors can cause stagflation. Both types of explanations are offered in analyses of the global stagflation of the 1970s: it began with a huge rise in oil prices, but then continued as central banks used excessively stimulative monetary policy to counteract the resulting recession, causing a runaway wage-price spiral.[10]

…”

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

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

 

Series Id:           LNS12000000
Seasonal Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:  Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 133027 132856 132947 132955 133311 133378 133414 133591 133707 133993 134309 134523  
2000 136559(1) 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614  
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047  
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426  
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411  
2004 138472(1) 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125  
2005 140246(1) 140377 140626 141243 141600 141711 142029 142434 142407 142551 142555 142783  
2006 143129(1) 143424 143713 143763 144092 144358 144247 144644 144806 145289 145587 145989  
2007 145983(1) 145992 146267 145647 145915 146057 145972 145732 146203 145867 146665 146294  
2008 146317(1) 146075 146023 146257 145974 145738 145596 145273 145029 144657 144144 143338  
2009 142099(1) 141748 140887 141007 140570 140196 140041 139649 138864        
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

 


 

Series Id:           LNS11000000
Seasonal Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 139003 138967 138730 138959 139107 139329 139439 139430 139622 139771 140025 140177  
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248  
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305  
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066  
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729  
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059  
2005 148005(1) 148349 148366 148926 149273 149262 149445 149794 149977 150007 150095 150002  
2006 150148(1) 150600 150793 150906 151120 151398 151414 151762 151680 152027 152425 152677  
2007 153012(1) 152879 153004 152522 152759 153085 153101 152855 153424 153162 153877 153836  
2008 153873(1) 153498 153843 153932 154510 154400 154506 154823 154621 154878 154620 154447  
2009 153716(1) 154214 154048 154731 155081 154926 154504 154577 154006        
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

 


 

<
Series Id:           LNS13000000
Seasonal Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 5976 6111 5783 6004 5796 5951 6025 5838 5915 5778 5716 5653  
2000 5708 5858 5733