Tag Archives: banksters

Abbott’s Super Hypocrisy Raises Darker Questions

26 Mar

Ask yourself this, dear reader.

If the leader of a political party that proclaims supporting small business is “part of our DNA” truly believed that a new government law was bad for small business, then why would he refuse to repeal that bad law on becoming Prime Minister?

TONY Abbott has scoffed at Labor assurances that employers will not have to pay for Julia Gillard’s increase in the superannuation guarantee, but has reaffirmed the Coalition will not repeal it in office.

Passage of the legislation has sparked concern from employers that they will bear the extra cost, estimated to be worth $20bn a year by the end of the phase-in period, but Mr Shorten said the money would come from deferred wage increases negotiated as part of enterprise bargaining.

Yesterday, after businesses and unions rejected Mr Shorten’s explanation, the Opposition Leader said: “It’s very obvious who is going to pay for the superannuation increases.

“It’s not the mining tax; it’s not federal government. The superannuation increases are going to be paid for by business, in particular by small business.

“This is a $20bn impost once it’s fully implemented on small business and I understand why, on top of every thing else — the carbon tax, mining tax, the private health insurance tax — why small businesses are not very happy about it.”

Mr Abbott said Labor had attempted to deceive Australians over the issue.

But he said that while the opposition voted against the [MRRT] legislation and did not support an increase in superannuation, it would not repeal the move when it next took office.

Why not, Mr Abbott?

Could it have anything to do with your sneaky plan to steal our super, quietly released as formal Liberal Party policy on June 3, 2011?

A policy that has now been stolen, and implemented, by the ALP?

After all, Barnaby Joyce has repeatedly warned that public servants’ super in the Future Fund would be used to help pay down Labor’s monster debt.

But the Future Fund is tiny, compared to Australia’s ever-mounting pile of government debt. And it is positively microscopic, compared to the massive debt exposures of our house-of-cards, government-guaranteed banking system, that is teetering on the precipice.

No doubt Mr Abbott, you and your Big Banking friends would love to have an extra 3% of the nation’s combined payroll being siphoned off struggling employers directly to the ATO – as per your sneaky new policy of last June – and from the ATO straight into short-term money market interest-bearing investments, “managed” for fees plus monster salaries by parasite bankers, before (hopefully, someday, maybe) actually getting to each Aussie citizens’ personal super fund.

And no doubt whatsoever to this humble blogger, that is the real reason why you are bleating hypocritical platitudes about how the ALP’s superannuation policy is bad for small business, and making all the right noises claiming that you do not support it … while refusing to repeal it yourself.

As has been so well-evidenced by the CO2 derivatives scam, our so-called “democracy” really is “an unholy alliance of politicians and bankers versus ordinary people”:

Carbon Price To Knock $30bn Off Economy

13 Mar

A new study commissioned by the Minerals Council doubtless has about as much credibility as Treasury modelling (ie, none).

Nevertheless, it is only logical that with EU carbon permits trading at under 10 Euro per tonne with little hope of price improvement, Australia’s “carbon price” starting at a fixed $23 per tonne and rising over 3 years, before changing to a full emissions trading scheme with a fixed floor price of $15 per tonne, is going to hurt.

From the Australian:

AUSTRALIA faces a $30 billion hit to growth by 2018 if domestic carbon prices remain higher than the European price, according to new economic modelling that will add to business pressure to bring the $23 starting price closer to Europe’s $10.

The modelling, by the Centre for International Economics consultancy, warns that keeping the $23 fixed price regime and the floor price of $15 a tonne – key elements of the current package – will have almost twice the impact on economic growth by 2018 as allowing the Australian price to track international prices.

A higher price in Australia than in comparable international markets could also cost the mining industry a cumulative $4bn and durable manufacturers $1.5bn over six years, the CIE modelling predicts. In a blow to the Coalition’s direct action policy alternative, leading CSIRO researcher Michael Battaglia has warned that the abatement figures in Tony Abbott’s alternative policy are “ambitious”. The centrepiece of the policy – sequestering 85 million tonnes of carbon in soil by 2020 – might only achieve abatement of between 5 million and 20 million tonnes, he said yesterday.

The CIE research, commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia, comes amid projections that slow growth in Europe will mean international carbon prices will not rise significantly above the $10 around which they are currently sitting.

When Australia’s carbon package was announced, Treasury assumed an international carbon price of between $29 and $61. But the European credit crisis caused prices to slump. The research will amplify calls by key business backers of carbon pricing, including the Australian Industry Group’s Heather Ridout and the Business Council of Australia’s Jennifer Westacott for the policy to be rewritten.

Last week, Ms Ridout said the difference between the Australian and European prices was effectively “a tax on industry”, while Ms Westacott described the disparity as a concern for the competitiveness of Australia’s industries.

Obviously.

As regular readers know, here at barnabyisright.com we have clearly demonstrated – from the government’s own documents – that the Orwellian-named Clean Energy Future legislation is little more than 1,000 pages of babbling legalese designed by bankers, for bankers, to disguise two (2) tiny little clauses that are the key to the entire scam.

A CO2 derivatives scam:

How can I be so sure?

Because not one of [the] claimed “Objects of the mechanism” requires laws that specifically permit bankers to create unlimited quantities of wholly unregulated “financial weapons of mass destruction” called derivatives (or “securities”).

They are completely unnecessary. Moreover, the ongoing GFC turmoil proves that unregulated derivatives markets represent a clear and present danger to our government-propped banking system, and thus are a sovereign risk.

And yet, this is just what our Green-Labor government is doing right now in the Senate.

Carefully buried in their Clean Energy Bill 2011 we find the ticking time bomb (underline added):

109A Registration of equitable interests in relation to a carbon unit

(1) The regulations may make provision for or in relation to the registration in the Registry of equitable interests in relation to carbon units.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an equitable interest that is a security interest within the meaning of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009, and to which that Act applies.

In other words, while the regulations may make provision for registration of equitable interests in a carbon unit, they specifically (subsection 2) do not make provision for registering a “security interest” in a carbon unit.

[A “security interest in” a carbon unit is, quite simply, a derivative or “security” that is based on the underlying “value” of the carbon “unit”]

It is clear then, that the government does not want to record carbon derivatives creation and trading.

They want to permit it. Just not record or regulate it.

Indeed, they wish to ensure “avoidance of doubt” that banks are legally allowed to immediately pull the pin on creating and trading these (wholly unregulated) financial weapons of mass destruction (underline added):

110 Equitable interests in relation to a carbon unit

(1) This Act does not affect:

(a) the creation of; or

(b) any dealings with; or

(c) the enforcement of;

equitable interests in relation to a carbon unit.

(2) Subsection (1) is enacted for the avoidance of doubt.

And just in case you missed the point – and your missing the real point is, in fact, the whole point of their using such opaque language – then the truth is spelled out more clearly elsewhere.

Where?

Way down in the fine print, of course. In the Explanatory Memorandum tacked on to the end of the Bill (underline added):

3.36 The bill does not affect the creation or enforcement of, or any dealings with (including transfers of), equitable interests in carbon units. [Part 4, clause 110] This provision has been included for the avoidance of doubt. In addition, the bill does not prevent the taking of security over carbon units.

Now I ask you, dear reader.

How does the scheme’s granting permission for banks to create a secondary carbon securities trading market (ie, “security over” carbon units) help to reduce CO2 emissions?

Indeed, how does a wholly unmonitored and unregulated shadow banking market in carbon derivatives help to create a single cent in extra government revenue, for the Senator Milne-championed Clean Energy Finance Corporation to pour down the toilet of otherwise commercially unviable “green” energy projects?

Answer: It doesn’t.

The government will never see any of the profits generated by banks from their multi trillion dollar trading in wholly unregulated carbon derivatives.

But you can be certain that they (and we) will hear all about it when the banks’ multi trillion dollar derivatives betting on movements in the market price of thin air blows up too. Because that’s when – just as with the global mortgage derivatives trade that triggered GFC1 – the bankers will (again) come running to government for a bail out.

Rest assured, dear reader.

Even if this latest round of calls for changes to the legislation are acted upon by government, of one thing you can be certain.

Just as the current legislation specifically allows for unlimited, unregulated creation of CO2 derivatives by banksters for trading and profit in international ‘shadow banking’ markets – and from Day 1, not just when an ETS begins – so too any new or revised legislation will still specifically allow this ticking time bomb hidden in the carbon tax to be created.

Because that is the ONLY reason why the legislation exists.

To allow the creation of wholly unmonitored, unregulated derivatives-on-thin-air by Big Finance, in unlimited quantities.

The fuel-air mixture for the biggest shadow banking financial bomb ever devised:

Think You’ve Got Cash In The Bank? Think Again

5 Feb

From the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) website:

Click to enlarge

That’s $53.2 billion in Australian notes on issue.

Sounds like a lot, right?

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), in December 2011 there were 11.441 million employed people in Australia.

So $53.2 billion in notes equals just $4,655 per employed person.

Doesn’t sound like so much now, does it?

But wait. There’s more.

According to the RBA’s spreadsheet titled “Assets – Selected Assets and Liabilities of the Private Non-financial Sectors”, it seems that “Households and unincorporated enterprises” have $668 billion in “Financial Assets – Deposits.”

And “Private non-financial corporations” supposedly have another $318 billion in “Financial Assets – Bank Deposits.”

So that’s $986 billion in “Deposits” for households and private (non-bank) businesses … combined.

Versus a grand total of only $53.2 billion in actual Australian notes issued by the RBA.

Confused?

If so, then it is probably because you have not yet seen through the biggest, longest-running con in the history of the human race.

It used to be called “money-lending”.

Now it’s called “banking”.

In a nutshell, the “money” that most people think is in the bank … isn’t.

That’s why, during the peak of the GFC in October 2008, the RBA was printing up billions in extra cash, trying to keep up with a silent bank run:

The private banks keep reserves of cash distributed in 60 storerooms across the country with an average of about $35 million in each. They get topped up by the Reserve Bank before Christmas, when demand for cash typically rises by about 6 per cent, and at Easter, when there is a smaller increase.

[TBI note: That’s only $2.1 billion in stored ‘reserve’ cash at Aussie banks at any time … or a mere $183.50 for every employed person in the country!]

But in early October, the Reserve Bank started getting calls from the cash centres for more, especially in denominations of $50 and $100.

The Reserve Bank has its own cash stash. It is coy about exactly how much it holds, but it is understood to be in the region of $4 billion to $5bn.

As the Armaguard vans worked overtime ferrying bundles of $10,000 out to the cash centres, the Reserve Bank’s strategic reserve holdings of $50 and $100 notes started to run low and the call went out to the printer for more. The Reserve Bank ordered another $4.6bn in $100s and another $6bn in $50s…

Households pulled about $5.5bn out of their banks in the 10 weeks between US financial house Lehman Brothers going broke – the onset of the global financial crisis – and the beginning of December. That is roughly 80 tonnes of cash salted away in people’s homes. Mattress Bank is doing well, was the view at the Reserve. A year later, only $1.5bn had been put back.

(see Our Banking System Operates With Zero Reserves)

You see, dear reader, the global banking system is a colossal con-fidence trick.

Banksters have a government-issued exclusive licence to operate the most insidious “business” in the history of the human race.

They make a killing by lending us vast quantities of … digits. At interest.

Electronic code, in their computers.

Not actual cash money.

When you sign a form to borrow from a bank, the bank is ‘licenced’ to legally create new “money” to lend you. Right out of thin air.

The “money” loaned to you, does not exist.

It is just a new number, on their books.

Your new “loan”, is their new “Asset”.

What you have signed your working life away for, is nothing more than a new electronic bookkeeping entry.

You are working and slaving away, to pay back borrowed binary code … plus “interest”.

Tragically, most folks worldwide have fallen for this centuries-old con game.

Indeed, we have all been born into it. So, we consider it “normal”. We have known nothing different:

Most folks think that when they borrow from a bank, they are borrowing real money that someone else deposited.

Most folks think that banks pay interest to attract depositors, and then, lend that money out at a higher interest rate to people wanting a loan.

It just ain’t so.

As you can see from the RBA’s own statistics, even the “money” that we think we have deposited in the bank … just isn’t there.

There’s only $53 billion in actual cash notes issued by the RBA.

In total. For the whole country.

Versus $986 billion in “Deposits” that businesses and private citizens – you and I – think we have in the banks.

That’s about one (1) actual dollar in “face value”, for every eighteen dollars fifty (18.50) that we falsely imagine is deposited in the bank under our name.

If the “money” lent to you by banksters was only the money they had on deposit from other customers, then how would you explain the fact that (according to the RBA’s “Bank Lending by Sector”) Australian households owed $1.18 Trillion to the banks at December 2011 (including $721 billion for Owner-Occupier housing) … and Australian businesses owed a further $773 billion?

$53 billion in legal tender cash notes issued by the RBA.

$1.95 Trillion in bank loans to households and businesses … at interest.

That’s $36.80 in bank loans … at interest … for every $1 in actual cash printed by the RBA*.

It’s all bull$h!t folks.

By our lazy, ignorant complicity, in agreeing to allow our governments to grant banksters the exclusive power to create “money” and lend … electronic digits … at interest, we have all agreed to a system of human slavery.

Our own slavery.

We have enslaved ourselves, by agreeing to go along with this “system”.

It’s long past time that we all woke up.

And stopped playing along with the con game of “money”-lending.

And especially, of money-lending at “interest”.

There is a very good reason why so many great wise men – Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Moses, Philo, Buddha, and many many more – all denounced the evil of money-lending at interest. Indeed, it is the same reason why the only Biblically-recorded instance of Jesus Christ resorting to violence, was when he chased the money-lenders out of the Temple with a whip.

The wisdom of the ancients is even more relevant today.

In our modern technology-driven world – where “money” is now not even real gold and silver laboriously dug out of the ground, but mere electronic digits created at the tap of a keyboard and click of a mouse button – there is simply no intellectual or moral justification for the vast majority of mankind to continue allowing a tiny minority to profit from the life and labour of everyone else, by lending “money” at “interest” under government licence.

It is time to demand that our governments enact a single, simple, real reform that would change the whole world for the better.

For everyone.

(Except banksters)

It is time to ban usury … in the original meaning of the word.

And if our elected representatives refuse to act against the banksters’ interest, in our best interest?

Then the following essay outlines my suggestion for one way to beat the bastards at their own game –

The People’s NWO: Every Man His Own Central Banker

* Some may correctly point out that Australian banks do not only take “deposits” from Australians; they also borrow “money” from abroad, in order to lend in Australia. Indeed, this gives rise to the ever-controversial topic of the banks claiming that increases in the cost (ie, interest rate) they are paying for “wholesale” money they have borrowed from abroad supposedly justifies their refusal to pass on the full value of “official” interest rate cuts by the RBA. Nevertheless, the central point of this article remains unchallenged. According to the RBA at December 2011, AFI’s (All Financial Intermediaries) held $308.6 billion in “Offshore Borrowings” – a very far cry from the $1.95 Trillion in loans-at-interest to Aussie households and businesses. More important to note is that these “Offshore Borrowings” too, are mere electronic digits … not actual cash.

Carbon Derivatives 101

19 Nov

Do not fear, dear reader. You are not about to be subjected to a boring, #JAFA-style lecture.

101 is just my shorthand for “1-on-1”.

Today we are going to compare notes. On the topic of carbon derivatives.

Whose notes?

The SMC University in Switzerland’s recent Working Paper titled, “Carbon Derivatives and their Application within an Australian context”.

And, excerpts from my numerous articles predicting and forewarning that the Green-Labor government’s Clean Energy Future legislation is nothing more, and nothing less, than a banker-designed carbon derivatives scam.

Let’s begin, shall we?

SMC Working Paper (page 8):

Risks involved with carbon markets and carbon-based derivatives are those that are typical to standard derivatives, including price, counterparty, credit, operational, spread, currency and liquidity. Again like any derivative, the value of a carbon derivative is based upon the value of the underlying commodity.

Compare Ticking Time Bomb Hidden In The Carbon Tax (Nov 2011):

[A “security interest in” a carbon unit is, quite simply, a derivative or “security” that is based on the underlying “value” of the carbon “unit”]

And compare Our Bankers’ Casino Royale – “Carbon Permits” Really Means “A Licence To Print” (July 2011):

The “creation of equitable interests”, and “taking security over them”, simply means this.  The carbon permits can be used as the basis for bankers to create other, new financial “securities”.

Carbon derivatives, in other words.

Derivatives (or “securities”) are the toxic, wholly-artificial financial “products” that were at the heart of the GFC.  The same bankster-designed “widgets” that the world’s most famous investor, Warren Buffet, spoke of as “a mega-catastrophic risk”, “financial weapons of mass destruction”, and a “time bomb”.

SMC University Working Paper (page 9):

Questions therefore arise as to how an odourless and colourless emission can be considered a commodity. For example, “…the commodity traded as ‘carbon’ does not actually exist outside of the numbers flashed up on trading screens or the registries held by administrators (Gilbertson & Reyes, 2009, pg. 12).”

Compare Our Bankers’ Casino Royale – “Carbon Permits” Really Means “A Licence To Print” (July 2011):

They are an artificial construct – “an electronic entry” – that is deemed by government decree to be a new “financial product”.

And compare Carbon Permits Do Not Even Exist (Aug 2011):

As I have said all along, the carbon permits will not even be printed on physical paper.

They will be electronic bookkeeping entries.

Electronic digits.  In a computer.

It is yet another similarity with the completely farcical EU system, where over 3 million of these “permits” – which only exist as numbers in a “Registry” computer – were stolen between November 2010 and January 2011

From our government’s exposure draft Clean Energy Bill 2011, Part 4, Division 2 (emphasis added):

98 How carbon units are to be issued

(1) The Regulator is to issue a carbon unit to a person by making an entry for the unit in a Registry account kept by the person.

(2) An entry for a carbon unit in a Registry account is to consist of the identification number of the unit.

SMC Working Paper (page 9):

With stark disparities in existence, how can countries come to accept as true fact the admissions made by another? Further, if countries have such different approaches, how can companies across nations be asked to trade an underlying commodity that has different measuring techniques!!! As highlighted by one paper, “…this makes putting a price on carbon largely an arbitrary exercise and uncertain as predicting a price of even the most mundane commodity is at best guesswork… (Gilbertson & Reyes, 2009, pg. 13).

Therefore, due to a lack of transparency and lack of a generally accepted approach on quantification and pricing, the primary concern with carbon trading is the ability of carbon derivatives markets to be manipulated.”

Compare Government’s RIS Admits Carbon Emissions “Audits” A Propaganda Exercise (Aug 2011):

… the question still remains – how are they going to measure the “emissions”?

Answer: They are not going to measure them.

They are not even going to audit any but a very few of the very largest “emitters” either.

It is all a hoax.

Just as under the present National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) department “system” – one that only came up with 299 companies reporting emissions in their latest Report – the companies “caught” in the system will be asked to “estimate” their own emissions…

Let us take a look at the Government’s Clean Energy Future Regulatory Impact Statement.

It is yet another telling indictment of the total fraud that this carbon pricing scheme scam actually is (emphasis added):

“Under the proposed reporting requirements liable entities will report on their own emissions. As they will also have to acquire (buy) permits to cover these emissions, they will have an incentive to underreport their emissions… It is to be expected that most (intentional) misreporting would result in an underestimation of emissions and less permits being surrendered to Government. This would have implications for the accuracy of national emissions estimates…”

SMC Working Paper (page 9-10):

…one might argue that due to carbon-based derivatives being founded upon carbon emissions and ownership is via computerised notations, it would be difficult to manipulate such a market. In other words, like more typical commodity markets, influence the price of the deliverable up the supply curve.

Whilst that is a feasible argument, it needs to be also remembered that financial-based derivatives, such as treasury notes and bonds, are also based upon computerised systems where such price manipulation still occurs. This was recently noted in 2006, where the U.S. Treasury “…observed instances in which firms appeared to gain a significant degree of control over highly sought after Treasury issues and seemed to use that market power to their advantage (Forbes, 2006).” Hence, if markets can come undone so traumatically after pricing investments which contain apparently measurable levels of risk, difficulties will easily arise in how markets can price a commodity that can hardly be seen!!!

Compare Flash Crash “Had Something To Do With Some Derivatives”, Says Goldman Trader (Aug 2011):

… it is all about preparing the way for international banking’s latest casino – carbon dioxide futures and derivatives trading. A mega-casino with trading via the bankers favourite new toy, HFT (High-Frequency Trading) – advanced computerised platforms directly linked into the stock exchanges and able to execute fully-automated trades in under 10 milliseconds

The government’s scheme is all about putting in place the necessary laws to allow banksters the legal right to create trillions of new carbon “securities” – that is, new carbon derivatives, and futures “products”.

The kind of “products” that lead to “flash crashes” which can wipe out 98% of the sharemarket value of one of the world’s biggest mining companies in less than 4 minutes.

SMC Working Paper (page 10-11):

 It has been claimed that derivatives were a major contributing factor in the most recent Global Financial Crisis in 2008-2009, whilst also a causative in distorting energy and food market prices during 2007-2008…

Of course there has been much debate about the introduction of the Waxman-Markey Bill, much to the enormous potential it has in creating the next global financial crisis. For instance, according to Friends of the Earth, an independent organisation that aims for the establishment of environmentally sustainable solutions, “…the development of secondary markets involving financial speculators and complex financial products based on the financial derivatives model brings with it a risk that carbon trading will develop into a speculative commodity bubble. This in turn would risk another global financial failure similar to that brought on by the subprime crisis (Clifton, 2009, pg. 32).”

Compare Our “Squeeze Pop” Carbon Bank (May 2011):

And derivatives, well, they’re safe-as-houses too.

After all, the mortgage-backed derivatives market that blew up America is only a tiddling little market.

So there’s clearly no cause for concern about yet another bankster-driven scheme, to blow up a global, air-backed derivatives bubble…

And compare Doing God’s Work – Turnbull An Angel of Death Derivatives (May 2011):

To banksters, insurance companies, and superannuation fund managers, the possibility of your living “longer than expected” is considered a “risk“.

Nice.

And now, thanks to the sick, evil genius of global banksters like Goldman Sachs, this “risk” factor of you and your loved ones living longer than expected can be packaged up into a tradeable commodity.

A ‘death derivative’.

A new artificial “commodity” – exactly like “carbon permits” – that can be used to attract “investors” who want to place bets with despicable scumbag banksters like Goldman Sachs, on how long each securitised “pool” of human beings will live for…

Can you imagine just how many elderly (and not so elderly) people will suffer physically in the future, when current record-high electricity prices double?

From The Age, May 22 2011:

One of Australia’s largest home and business electricity suppliers, TRUenergy, has warned that household power bills will double in six years after a carbon price is introduced and uncertainty over its implementation might lead to power shortages.

That would be bad enough for older Australians.  People just like your mum and dad. Your nanna and grandpa.

Imagine the impact on elderly folk in the much-colder Northern Hemisphere, where far more of the world’s total population lives. And where, right now, 44 million (about 1 in 7) Americans already depend on food stamps for survivalAll thanks to the banksters’ GFC.

The effect of our allowing CO2 taxes / emissions trading to be enacted, is now very clear…

Thanks to carbon dioxide derivatives trading, more and more human beings will die earlier and earlier than “investors” in death derivatives have estimated.

Superannuation fund managers, insurance companies, “investors” and speculators will find that they have made the wrong bet on average life expectancies.

Meaning – the banksters will first make a killing on the trade in carbon dioxide derivatives.

And then make another killing on the trade in their new ‘death derivatives’ too.

Compare also, Bankers’ Chief – Carbon Price Is “Essentially Creating A New Market” (July 2011):

The carbon permits can be used as the basis for bankers to create other, new financial “securities”.

Carbon derivatives, in other words. Derivatives (or “securities”) are the toxic financial “products” that were at the heart of the GFC.

And compare most recently, Ticking Time Bomb Hidden In The Carbon Tax (Nov 2011):

Derivatives are a toxic, wholly artificial and unregulated financial product, created and traded en masse by the banks; they are held Off Balance Sheet so that noone really knows anything about their real activities. It was toxic derivatives over mortgages that nearly blew up the world in 2008.

SMC Working Paper (page 11-12):

Today, via the European Climate Exchange (ECX) and cleared through the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), futures and options contracts are based upon three types of carbon-related units being European Union Allowances (EUAs), Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) and Emission Reduction Units (ERUs).6 Another derivative referred to as the European Carbon Futures (ECFs) contract, again based upon the EUA is traded via the European Energy Exchange (EEX)…

All contracts are standardised in respect to contract terms. Across either exchange, the futures contracts allow the holder the right and obligation to buy or sell 1,000 EUAs at a certain date in the future at a pre-determined price.

Compare what I said in Our Bankers’ Casino Royale -“Carbon Permits” Really Means ” A Licence To Print”, the day after the release of the draft legislation (July 2011):

Now, why have I bold underlined “borrowing“?

And why have I bold underlined “advance auctions of flexible price permits…”?

Because these are the key words from the “banking and borrowing” section. The words that tell you all you need to know.

That this SCAM is nothing whatsoever to do with the global climate.

And that it is 100% about creating a new, global, CO2 derivatives-trading market for the banksters.

The world’s biggest-ever financial cesspool.

Of toxic, intrinsically-worthless, humanity-raping financial “instruments” called derivatives.

Non-existent, digital “widgets”.

That can be borrowed from the future – ie, before these artificial carbon “widgets” are even issued – and leveraged by scum-of-the-earth banksters.

And then, traded by these parasites at multiples of hundreds and thousands of times more than the underlying, artificially-created “value” of the carbon permit.

Furthermore, the “advance auctions of flexible price permits in the fixed price period” proves beyond all shadow of doubt, that I was right.

That this “carbon pricing mechanism” is the bankers’ CPRS by another name. From Day 1.

Why does it prove it?

The advance auctions of flexible price permits “in the fixed price period” means this.

From Day 1, the government is effectively allowing the setting up of a futures trading market, for Australian CO2 permits.

Futures trading of nothing. Before the nothing is even created.

The banksters’ wet dream.

And compare Bankers’ Chief – Carbon Price Is “Essentially Creating A New Market” (July 2011):

The news gets even better for the bankers.

Because the Government’s scheme scam will also set up an “advance auction” system, during the so-called “fixed price period”, where carbon permits valid for the later “flexible price” system can be purchased in advance.

Which is essentially nothing less than a Futures trading system for the bankers and speculators to exploit…

It’s easy to see why the banksters’ are pleased right now.

The Government’s scheme allows them to:

1. Begin creating and trading in carbon “securities” (ie, derivatives of carbon permits) from Day 1.

2. Earn fees and commissions from trade in “freely allocated” permits during the “fixed price” period.

3. Earn fees and commissions from Futures trading in the “advance auctions” of “flexible price” permits during the “fixed price” period.

4. Create other derivatives products on top of the Futures trade in advance auctions of permits.

SMC Working Paper (page 14):

A number of submissions were made to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), requesting that the permits within the current scheme be included as financial products. Yet counter submissions took a different route, with requests made by the Australian Bankers Association and Australian Financial Markets Association recommending that permits be regarded as commodities. Such arguments were made on the basis “…that traders are relatively uninterested in permits…”

Compare Ticking Time Bomb Hidden In The Carbon Tax (Nov 2011):

The fees and commissions on the straight trading in carbon permits … is peanuts.

The real monster action is in the unlimited, unregulated derivatives market, that sits on top of the basic carbon trading market. Just imagine an inverted pyramid, with the trade in carbon permits at the bottom, pointy end.

What the banks really want – and what this blogger predicted and forewarned of time and again leading up to the release of the draft legislation – is a mechanism that allows them to create and trade carbon derivatives.

In unlimited, unregulated quantities.

And compare I Was Right – Banks Begin Preparing Carbon Derivatives Market (July 2011):

ANZ’s head of energy trading said the value of the derivatives carbon market would dwarf the $10 billion initially raised by the government, according to the AFR.

SMC Working Paper (page 15):

It is therefore interesting to note that the scheme eventually allows freely allocated permits to be traded within the compliance year of issue. Such a statement seems to indicate a profit making opportunity not to dissimilar to the situation within the EU ETS, where power companies generated large profits. In a submission to the House of Commons by Ofgem, the energy and gas regulator in Great Britain stated that between 2008 – 2012, UK power companies could receive windfall profits approximately amounting to £9bn (House of Commons, 2008). Concerns are still being voiced about such astonishing revenues, with the European Commission further indicating that via the accumulation of excess free credits (i.e. freely allocated permits), “…the surplus is estimated to amount to 500 – 800 million allowances with an economic value of around €7bn – €12bn (European Commission, 2011, pg. 2).”

Compare A Disturbance In The Farce (July 2011):

… even the Green-Left Weekly is aware of the disturbance in the farce:

Europe’s biggest polluters have made billions out of the European Emissions Trading System (ETS). But a new briefing by Carbon Trade Watch (CTW) says the scheme will ensure industry will not have to cut its emissions until at least 2017.

The first phase of the ETS ran from 2005 to 2007. It made no dent in emissions. But power companies made about 19 billion euros by charging customers for the “cost” of permits they were given for free.

Manufacturers made about 14 billion euros in windfall profits with the same trick.

The European Commission said the scheme’s problems would be ironed out in the second phase, from 2008 to 2012. It claimed the ETS was working when emissions from the 11,000 polluters covered by the scheme fell by 5% in 2008 and 11.6% in 2009.

But CTW points out the emissions fall was due to the impact of the global recession, which caused a fall of 13.85% in industrial and electricity production in 2009.

In 2010, as the economic crisis eased, emissions shot up again by 3.5%.

The polluters stand to make more money for doing nothing in the ETS’s second phase. By 2012, power companies will make between 23 billion and 71 billion euros from passing on the cost of their free permits.

The third phase of the ETS, which will run from 2013 to 2020, won’t solve the problems. Companies will still be able to use the excess permits given out in the second phase. The World Bank has estimated about 970 million permits will be available.

This means polluters won’t have to cut their own emissions until 2017 — they can just cash in their free permits instead.

SMC Working Paper (page 15-16):

The Way Forward

Within the Australian context, what does this treatment of permits mean for carbon-based derivatives? With permits freely allocated to emitters and with the ability of permits to be price squeezed because they are allocated rather than auctioned, the possibility of carbon-based derivatives to be manipulated increases substantially. Such instances have been witnessed within the EU ETS and are one of the major criticisms levelled against derivatives as a whole (Clifton, 2009; Pirrong, 2009; Wood & Jotzo, 2010; Holly, 2011).

The maturity of the carbon market within Australia is still in its infancy and debate will continue about how the country should undertake its approach to CO2 emissions. At this early stage, it would seem that carbon-based derivatives will mainly be used once the fixed-price period begins

[Compare what I have said countless times – that “our” system enables banksters to begin creating and trading carbon derivatives from Day 1.  Our government has successfully conned the Australian public (and all mainstream commentators) into believing that their scheme is a fixed price “tax” for the first 3 years, and only after three years will trading commence. That is pure deception. While “purchased” permits cannot be traded, “freely allocated” permits can; and far more importantly, banksters are enabled to begin creating derivatives based on the underlying “value” of permits, from Day 1. The SMC Working Paper confirms my warning/prediction, as does the Clean Energy Future legislation itself.]

Globally, even though a mixture of regional policies are currently in existence or are looking to come online, inconsistent methodologies across countries make it difficult for a truly global acceptance of carbon derivatives to take off.

As such, the acceptance and establishment of any true global exchange or global central bank of carbon is some time away. Simply, this retains the odour of trouble, with increased opportunities for manipulation and failure. Whilst volatility and manipulation is in no means isolated to only carbon-based derivatives, “…due to the lack of policy towards the development of an efficient carbon derivatives market and the absence of a standard pricing tool (Leconte & Pagano, 2010, pg. 3),” greater opportunities for manipulation and fraud are present.

Exactly.

Which, as I have long said and demonstrated, is precisely what the true architects of both the Great Global Warming Hoax, and its popularly advocated “solution” (carbon trading), have always wanted.

A new, bigger, rigged, derivatives casino. One that they control. With no regulation, or government oversight.

A galactically-huge speculative financial bubble.

Based on thin air.

Hot, thin air.

Guaranteed to end like this –

Next week, we will take a look at a webinar by the President of the Institute For Agriculture and Trade Policy on Carbon Derivatives: The Next Toxic Asset, where we will see how derivatives have been used by banksters to manipulate markets and drive up the price of other commodities. Especially food … wheat, corn, sugar, soybeans, and more.

And we will again consider the implications of allowing our politicians to allow greed-obsessed banksters to create wholly unregulated derivatives, thus enabling them to manipulate the prices of food (and now, power/energy) worldwide … and ultimately, as a direct result, to make yet another killing on those new ‘Death Derivatives’ they are selling, that we mentioned earlier.

Here’s a teaser –

Click to enlarge | Source: IATP

Click to enlarge | Source: IATP

Click to enlarge | Source: IATP

Click to enlarge |Source: IATP

Aussie Banks Put Taxpayers On The Hook For Another $130+ Billion

7 Nov

Back in July we saw that Australia is a kleptocracy (“rule by thieves”).

Courtesy of esteemed business commentator Robert Gottliebsen, we discovered that the very design of our political system means that our political parties are beholden to the banks who loan them the money to run their election campaigns:

To understand the pivotal role of Australian banks in the funding of political parties requires a deep knowledge of how the system works.

For the most part, in the vicinity of three quarters of a major party’s funding in most elections comes from the public purse. The ‘public purse’ amounts are allocated to parties after the election in accordance with the proportion of the votes that are achieved.

But there is no forward allocation of money. The distribution of ‘public purse’ money is strictly governed by the proportion of the votes actually achieved.

ALP organisers are not looking forward to meeting with their bankers as the election nears. They are deeply apprehensive that as a result of current opinion polls, their bankers will slash the amount of election funding available to the ALP and lock it into a low vote.

Some criticised my article as only assuming that banks actually use this power over our politicians to ensure favourable policies.

However, while tacitly conceding that “yes”, it does look bad that our political parties must go begging bowl in hand to the banks to get loans to cover the cost of running their election campaigns, critics and doubters continue to wilfully ignore the multitudinous evidence in support of our basic contention.

Examples?

The Guarantee Scheme for Large Deposits and Wholesale Funding that was introduced in response to the GFC. It remains the only thing standing between our banks and their having their credit ratings slashed by the ratings agencies.

The ban on short-selling of bank shares.

And the daddy of them all, the Clean Energy Future legislation. Politicians and cheerleaders purport it to be all about using “market mechanisms” to reduce CO2 emissions. In reality, it is nothing more than a new bankster-designed derivatives scam, to replace the banksters’ mortgage-backed securities derivatives scam that caused the ongoing and worsening GFC (see Ticking Time Bomb Hidden In The Carbon Tax).

Now, we have yet more evidence that banksters rule this country. Just as they rule the USA, the UK, and Europe.

What is this latest evidence?

The Green-Labor government, enthusiastically prompted, aided and abetted by the Coalition, has just passed legislation that further helps give a leg up to the banks … while skewering we the taxpayers ever more firmly on the bankers’ hook (debt).

And putting your bank savings at risk too.

Michael West at the SMH takes up the story:

Here is a tale of two leg-ups: a tale to raise the hackles of the so-called 99 per cent and a tale which plays to the contrast between the US and Australia when it comes to corporate welfare.

Late last week, amid the parliamentary din surrounding the carbon tax, a little bill slipped through the Senate with minimal fuss.

This was the “covered bond” legislation – yet another friendly leg-up to the banks and one which effectively lumps another $130 billion of risk into the lap of taxpayers.

But first, late on Tuesday night this little story flashed up on Bloomberg: “Bank of America hit by a credit downgrade last month, has moved derivatives from its Merrill Lynch unit to a subsidiary flush with insured deposits, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

”The Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp disagree over the transfers, which are being requested by counterparties, said the people, who asked to remain anonymous because they weren’t authorised to speak publicly.”

Translating from “Bloomglish” into English: a cabal of powerful “counterparties” (read banks) had, with the connivance of the US Fed, shifted a load of derivatives (probably the gnarliest credit default swaps on their books) from that part of the bank not backed by taxpayers to that part of the bank which was backed by taxpayers

Yep. There’s that word “derivatives” again.

… on these fair shores, the banks now enjoy the fillip from “covered bonds”. Covered bonds will allow the banks to raise capital a bit more cheaply. They are issued to big institutional investors but, unlike other corporate bonds, rank ahead of depositors in the event of trouble. They are safer, therefore carry a lower yield.

Let’s not forget the banks have already been propped by guarantees on their wholesale funding and deposits, not to mention the short-selling ban and asset swap arrangements with the Reserve Bank.

Now, with covered bonds – which had previously not been allowed as they provide senior secured funding for bondholders at the expense of depositors – the taxpayer is on the hook for banks’ deposit liabilities.

Mind you the taxpayer is on the hook anyway as the financial crisis demonstrated banks are a cherished species too big to fail.

Observers estimate their cost of funds should be 30 basis points lower thanks to covered bonds, although few expect this little earner to be passed on to customers.

Covered bonds shift risk away from the wholesale bond investors to the taxpayers – and we are talking about $130 billion worth of risk, possibly increasing as time passes. There is no quid pro quo. At least with the sovereign guarantee for wholesale funding the banks were required to pay a fee.

This leg-up is perhaps best-described as a backdoor sovereign guarantee.

Bank shareholders can take comfort from the fact that their government lobbyists, as usual, have been working overtime to have their way with Canberra.

Regular readers will not be in the least surprised to learn that the Banking Amendment (Covered Bonds) Bill 2011 that enabled this latest leg-up for banks, enjoyed enthusiastic bipartisan support from our political class.

Indeed, Hansard reveals that the only real point of argument between our political parties, was over the fact that the Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey wanted credit for the idea. The Opposition were rather put out that Labor had simply stolen Joe’s idea and acted on it 12 months later … in just the same way that Labor recently stole the Liberal Party’s plan to steal your super.

Oh, by the way … did we forget to mention?

Until recently, Joe’s wife was head of foreign exchange and global finance at Deutsche Bank. A 14-year investment bankstering veteran, in fact.

And Joe himself is a banking and finance lawyer, who “kiboshed a ‘phenomenal job’ in New York as chief advisor to the CEO of one of the world’s biggest banks” to return home “for the ‘unfinished business’ of politics and to fulfil a lifelong destiny as ‘a warrior for the Australian people'”.

Lovable, cuddly, amiable Joe. Can there possibly be three lower forms of bloodsucking societal parasite – the lawyer, banker, and politician? Our Joe is all three.

Just like his close mate from uni, and Goldman Sachs’ man in Oz, carbon-trading pusher Malcolm Turnbull.

Interestingly, only one year ago when Joe was first floating his 9-point banking plan that included the covered bond idea, both the RBA and the banking regulator APRA were apparently not overly enthusiastic.

From Dow Jones Newswires via The Australian, 30 November 2010:

The introduction of covered bonds into Australia could threaten depositors and debt investors, both the RBA and APRA regulator said. Covered bonds are common in Europe but Australian financial institutions can’t issue them because domestic law requires banks to place depositors above all other creditors in their claims on assets.

The worry for regulators is the bonds would subordinate depositors as they typically give the bond-buyer recourse to both the issuer and the pool of mortgages, or other secured collateral that stay on the bank’s books and “cover” the bond.

“Covered bonds are common in Europe”. The epicentre of ongoing global financial turmoil and banking systemic risk.

Hmmmmm. Another brilliant idea then, that we must follow.

Between them, Australia’s big four banks have a fund-raising task of around $140 billion, much of which is sourced in foreign-currency borrowing, though domestic investor appetite is strong. The smaller banks have largely depended on the securitisation market and are further hurt by high deposit costs.

Smaller institutions in Australia fear they would be at a disadvantage if the major lenders could issue covered bonds, especially as the debt would probably initially be pitched to overseas investors who are mostly familiar with the biggest banks.

So not only does this enthusiastically bipartisan-supported legislation benefit the big banks, at the risk of savers and taxpayers.

Contrary to all the high-sounding rhetoric from both “sides” of Australian politics about “free markets” and increasing competition, the covered bond legislation will actually reduce competition in the domestic banking sector, in favour of the Big Four banks.

Shadow Assistant Treasurer Mathias Cormann tacitly conceded as much, in his speech in favour of the Bill in the Senate:

Covered bonds are likely to be used mainly by the big four banks, although the bill does provide for ADIs to enter into an aggregating entity to issue covered bonds as well. It is unlikely that the smallest authorised deposit-taking institutions will use this funding facility.

And sure enough, the Commonwealth and the NAB are the first out of the blocks to increase their share of the Big Four’s monopoly. And hence, increase their Too Big Too Fail protected species status:

Two of Australia’s biggest banks are planning to test support from global investors for covered bonds, with the push coming just days after Canberra approved new rules allowing banks to sell the new form of bonds.

The race is on between Commonwealth Bank and National Australia Bank to become the first Australian lender to issue a covered bond, with both planning a series of investor meetings in Europe and the US from later this month.

A covered bond gives money market investors a claim on the underlying assets such as mortgages if a bank runs into difficulty.

Previously depositors had the rights to all of the assets of a failing bank.

It’s very important to understand the significance of this new legislation.

A vital place to start, is in understanding what a bank considers to be an “Asset”, and what it considers to be a “Liability”.

Most Australians simply have no clue that the vast majority of our banks’ so-called “Assets”, are actually loans.  Your bank loan – whether it be a housing loan, car (personal) loan, or business loan, is considered the bank’s asset. Recall what we saw above:

The worry for regulators is the bonds would subordinate depositors as they typically give the bond-buyer recourse to both the issuer and the pool of mortgages, or other secured collateral that stay on the bank’s books and “cover” the bond.

Your mortgage or car loan or whatever is the bank’s “asset”, which they will now put into “pools” and use as collateral for their new ‘covered bonds’. In practical reality, these are just another form of Residential Mortgage-Backed Security (RMBS), or Collateralised Debt Obligation (CDO). A derivative. Or as Warren Buffet called them in 2003, “financial weapons of mass destruction”.

What about bank “Liabilities”?

Your “savings” with the bank, are their liability.  If you come to the bank and want your money, they have to give it to you (in popular urban myth, at least).

So how to understand the significance of these “covered bonds”, in context of bank Assets versus Liabilities?

Here’s how Senator Cormann described covered bonds in his Senate speech:

Covered bonds are bonds issued by a financial institution that is secured by a pool of assets.

Remember, the “assets” of banks are actually the loans they sign people up to. So the “pool of assets” that is the security (collateral) for the covered bonds that our banks will sell to raise cash from foreign investors, will include “assets” like your loan with the bank.

Can you say “My house/car/business loan is not owned by NAB; it is really owned by a Russian mafia-financed Wall Street-based hedge fund, or an “Old European monied class” generationally wealthy inbred globalist lunatic’s private investment fund, or a Chinese sovereign wealth fund”?

Back to Senator Cormann:

In the event of [bank] insolvency, the holder has recourse to the pool of assets underpinning the bonds, and the holders of covered bonds have first rights to the pool of assets covering them ahead of shareholders and ahead of other holders of debt.

If the bank goes belly up … say, because Australia’s housing market continues its downhill slide, and the banking Ponzi scheme of selling ever more loans implodes here in Australia, just as it has throughout the Western world … then holders of these new covered bonds have first rights to the banks’ “assets”. Meaning, they have first rights to you, your “assets” and your future earnings, my dear debt slave.

But not only that. If you are a saver, that means you are effectively a holder of bank debt. Remember – a bank’s debts (or “liabilities”) include what they owe you – the savings of depositors in that bank.

And the key thing to understand, is that buyers of these new covered bonds have first rights to any real (ie, not loan) “assets” the bank may have, before you get your savings.

Our politicians are keen to reassure otherwise, of course. Here’s Senator Cormann again:

The rights of other holders of debt are protected in two ways. First, the proportion of Australian assets [loans] that can be committed to covered bond pools is limited to eight per cent. Second, the financial claim scheme provides a government guarantee for small depositors, currently up to a limit of $1 million, which will be reduced to $250,000 from February 2012. These protections are crucial, because the introduction of covered bonds is a major departure from one of the core elements of the banking system in Australia, which has been the primacy of the claims of depositors.

Ok.

So even though the government’s new law gives (foreign) holders of covered bonds first rights to the banks “assets”, even before other holders of bank debt such as Aussie savers (ie, depositors), the government wants to reassure you that your savings will be protected anyway, by the government guarantee for small depositors.

Ummmm.

Can you see the circular reasoning, the gaping flaw in logic (ie, the Big Lie) here?

The government has no money with which to guarantee anything.

Firstly, a government guarantee is simply a promise to use taxpayers’ money for something.

So in this instance, the government is saying don’t worry, all is well with covered bonds, because even though holders of those bonds get first rights on the banks’ assets, if that means Aussie savers are left out when (not if) a bank collapses, we the government will guarantee to pay out the Aussie savers who have been shafted using their own future earnings (taxes).

Secondly, our government (ie, the taxpayer) is under a mountain of debt already.

$218 billion worth of debt, in fact.

And they are not making any headway at all on reducing that debt. Quite the reverse:

Click to enlarge | Source: Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM)

Their latest budget is already shot to hell. In just 5 months.

So when (not if) our banks go to the wall – as they will, since according to Fitch Ratings ours are amongst the most vulnerable to Europe’s debt crisis – then our government has no savings, no surplus with which to “guarantee” anything.

All they have, is the promise of the taxes you and your kids will pay in the future.

Oh yes, silly me.

There is another source of “money” with which the government can “guarantee” the safety of your savings.

They can borrow more.

But then … that’s no solution either.

Because you’ll just have to pay that back too.

You and your kids.

At its dark heart, Australia’s political system is no different to the USA. The UK. Or Europe.

We are all captive to banksters.

Our politicians of all sides are not only beholden to the banks (campaign funding loans).

They not only pass laws that only benefit banksters, at the expense of society (carbon derivatives scheme scam).

They are selling this country … they are selling you, the worker (and thus, the wealth generator) … into perpetual debt servitude.

With every single additional dollar of debt, with every financial guarantee, with every legislative leg-up for the banks, with every pledge of money that isn’t theirs to globalist parasite bodies like the UN and the IMF, what our politicians are really doing is this.

They are selling you, and your children, to foreigners (see Our Government *Officially* Does Not Know Who Owns More Than 60% Of Australia’s Debt).

Australia is not a democracy.

It is a kleptocracy.

Ruled by thieves:

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (13:11): As I have mentioned, this is an idea that was promoted by the shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, as far back as October last year. It was a very prominent part of the coalition’s nine-point banking plan and was copied in Treasurer Swan’s announcement of the government’s Competitive and Sustainable Banking System plan. While we are disappointed that it took the Treasurer so long to finally act on this, we are pleased that we are now finally dealing with this legislation and commend it to the Senate.

William Black, associate professor of Law and Economics, former financial regulator, and author of “The Best Way To Rob A Bank Is To Own One”, says it best.

To rob a country … own a bank:

The late George Carlin was right (must watch):

Starve The Beast

17 Oct

In observing the “Occupy” movement now growing around the Western World, your humble blogger recalls an old wisdom story, attributed to a Native American elder:

“Inside of me there are two dogs. One of the dogs is mean and evil. The other dog is good. The mean dog fights the good dog, all of the time.” When asked which dog wins, he reflected for a moment and replied, “The one I feed the most.”

On the weekend I was reminded of this wisdom, upon reading the following article in Australia’s Sunday Telegraph:

Banks are handing out bonuses to staff who upsize your debt

BANK staff are being offered Christmas party bonuses, free meals and other prizes to push more credit cards, loans, insurance policies and other products to customers.

Australia’s biggest lender – the CBA – has launched a “double up” campaign to push personal bankers and tellers into selling twice as many products, such as increasing credit limits, each week.

The other three major banks – the NAB, ANZ and Westpac – are also forcing branch staff to meet stringent weekly sales targets as the “big four” battle for market share.

An internal CBA document obtained by The Sunday Telegraph reveals the pre-Christmas push to supersize customers – increase their credit limits, convince them to take out home and contents policies and open up new accounts.

“We are under increasing pressure from competitors who are looking for a greater share of our retail banking business,” CBA retail banking boss Ross McEwan says in the document.

The briefing reads: “The campaign encourages sales teams to double their sales productivity during October and November to earn double the fun (and funds) at their end of year team celebrations.”

Staff at the four major banks, which are expected to record a combined profit of $24.2bn this financial year, have also revealed the tactics used to win over customers.

Sales targets differ depending on the branch size and location. Convincing a customer to roll their credit card debt into their mortgage is a target winner.

At Westpac, each personal banker has a revenue target of about $3750 a week.

Selling a credit card earns $150 towards that goal. At NAB, a city branch with four staff would have to sell 72 products a week, while a teller has to make 10 “quality” referrals to personal bankers that result in a sale.

Personal bankers have to sell 13-16 items. Debt products are worth the most because they are more lucrative for the bank.

All banks encourage staff to “cross sell” so when a customer opens a savings account, staff are likely to offer an increased credit card limit or income protection insurance.

“Staff get really desperate, to the point where they will convince customers they need something when they really don’t,” a Westpac staffer said.

Even more telling, the small inset story accompanying this article, in the paper’s print version:

Bank staff say their targets are so high and unrealistic they are selling customers products they don’t need or can’t afford.

Staff from Commonwealth, Westpac, ANZ and NAB describe work as a pressure cooker and say they are forced to meet stringent targets – a claim all four banks categorically deny.

Workers say white boards are used in branches to track sales.

“We don’t want to be pushing debt on to people but you have the pressure of your job security hinging on it,” a CBA staffer told The Sunday Telegraph.

“A home loan is a life long debt. We shouldn’t be selling it like a box of crackers.”

After three years as a CBA teller, the “cut-throat” environment became too much for 20-year-old Tyson Adams.

“The whole time your target is being pushed on you really hard and it is never negotiable … it doesn’t even matter if you are off sick, you have to make it up.”

An NAB worker said” “It is not about whether you are great with the customers; at the end of the day it is how much you have either referred or you have sold.”

A Westpac banker said: “They give us lists of customers who have almost paid out their home loans so we have to call them and get them to borrow more, go get an investment property or something.”

Your humble blogger has a word of advice for the growing thousands in the “Occupy” movement, who are (apparently) protesting against Greed.

Just DON’T Do It.

Borrow, that is.

They say that “money makes the world go ’round”.

They lie.

Our world runs not on “money”, but on debt.

Your agreement to borrow is The Beast’s daily bread.

In the old Native American wisdom tale, the winner in the fight of good versus evil was the one that he fed the most.

A simple, alternative view of the same tale, is that the loser is the one we feed the least.

Starve The Beast.

“After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illuminated with his glory. And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird! For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.”

And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.”

* Please see also “The People’s NWO: Every Man His Own Central Banker”

UPDATE:

Paying down (y)our debt, and refusing to take out more, is the fastest way to kill the Beast. Most people don’t even realise that the simple act of paying down debt (and not taking out more) reduces the banks’ “assets” on their balance sheet. Eventually, all they have is Liabilities (your actual savings, plus outgoing interest payments owed to you on your savings) … and no Assets.

Support For Carbon Price Means Support Killing Black People: Oxfam Report

14 Oct

See all the happy little politicians, dear reader?

And see all the happy little carbon tax / trading supporters?

What all these people are really supporting … is genocide.

Of black people.

From the New York Times (via Oxfam):

New Forests Company, grows forests in African countries with the purpose of selling credits from the carbon dioxide its trees soak up to polluters abroad. | Credit: Sven Torfinn for The New York Times

In Scramble For Arable Land, Groups Says, Company Pushed Ugandans Out

KICUCULA, Uganda — According to the [New Forests Company’s] proposal to join a United Nations clean-air program, the settlers living in this area left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner.

People here remember it quite differently.

“I heard people being beaten, so I ran outside,” said Emmanuel Cyicyima, 33. “The houses were being burnt down.”

Other villagers described gun-toting soldiers and an 8-year-old child burning to death when his home was set ablaze by security officers.

“They said if we hesitated they would shoot us,” said William Bakeshisha, adding that he hid in his coffee plantation, watching his house burn down. “Smoke and fire.”

William Bakeshisha, farmer and local chief, lost his house and land and now rents a room in a neighboring village. In his briefcase, he keeps documents that provide proof that he inherited the farm from his father | Credit: Sven Torfinn for The New York Times

According to a report released by the aid group Oxfam on Wednesday, more than 20,000 people say they were evicted from their homes here in recent years to make way for a tree plantation run by a British forestry company, emblematic of a global scramble for arable land.

“Too many investments have resulted in dispossession, deception, violation of human rights and destruction of livelihoods,” Oxfam said in the report. “This interest in land is not something that will pass.” As population and urbanization soar, it added, “whatever land there is will surely be prized.”

Across Africa, some of the world’s poorest people have been thrown off land to make way for foreign investors, often uprooting local farmers so that food can be grown on a commercial scale and shipped to richer countries overseas.

But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming.

The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations.

The company involved, New Forests Company, grows forests in African countries with the purpose of selling credits from the carbon-dioxide its trees soak up to polluters abroad. Its investors include the World Bank, through its private investment arm, and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, HSBC.

In 2005, the Ugandan government granted New Forests a 50-year license to grow pine and eucalyptus forests in three districts, and the company has applied to the United Nations to trade under the mechanism. The company expects that it could earn up to $1.8 million a year.

But there was just one problem: people were living on the land where the company wanted to plant trees. Indeed, they had been there a while…

An evicted woman shows proof of land ownership | Credit: Sven Torfinn for The New York Times

Olivia Mukamperezida, 28, said her house was among the first in her community to be burned down. One day in late 2009, she said, her eldest son, Friday, was sick at home, so she went out to find medicine. Villagers suddenly told her to rush back. Everything was incinerated.

“I found my house when it was completely finished,” she said. “I just cried.”

Ms. Mukamperezida never found the culprits. She buried Friday’s bones in a grave, but says she does not know if it is still there.

“They are planting trees,” she said.

(Read the rest of the NYT story here.)

And then there’s this:

Armed troops acting on behalf of a British carbon trading company backed by the World Bank burned houses to the ground and killed children to evict Ugandans from their homes in the name of seizing land to protect against “global warming,” a shocking illustration of how the climate change con is a barbarian form of neo-colonialism.

The evictions were ordered by New Forests Company, an outfit that seizes land in Africa to grow trees then sells the “carbon credits” on to transnational corporations. The company is backed by the World Bank and HSBC. Its Board of Directors includes HSBC Managing Director Sajjad Sabur, as well as other former Goldman Sachs investment bankers.

The company claims residents of Kicucula left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner, and yet the people tell a story of terror and bloodshed.

Villagers told of how armed “security forces” stormed their village and torched houses, burning an eight-year-child to death as they threatened to murder anyone who resisted while beating others.

“We were in church,” recalled Jean-Marie Tushabe, 26, a father of two. “I heard bullets being shot into the air.”

“Cars were coming with police,” Mr. Tushabe said, sitting among the ruins of his old home. “They headed straight to the houses. They took our plates, cups, mattresses, bed, pillows. Then we saw them getting a matchbox out of their pockets.”

An Oxfam report documents how the British outfit has worked with the Ugandan government to forcibly expel over 20,000 people from their homes using terror and violence as part of a lucrative scramble for arable land that can be used to satisfy the multi-billion dollar carbon trading ponzi scheme, which is worth $1.8 million a year to the company.

(Read the full article here.)

This is just one example of the unintended (?) consequences of the universally-ignorant support by multitudes of morally self-righteous, urban rich white people, for “pricing carbon” in the name of “saving the planet”.

But that’s ok … those are just dirt poor BLACK people, aren’t they? And the urban white self-righteous hate everything black … think black balloons coming out of air conditioners … except perhaps for their oh-so-fashionable “wicked” little black dress for an indulgent night out.

As has been demonstrated countless times on this blog – including from the government’s legislation – the “carbon tax” has never had anything whatsoever to do with climate change.

It is, and always has been, all about money. Derivatives, to be precise.

“Putting a price on carbon” is all about legally enabling the predatory financial sector to rape the world all over again, with a new derivatives-based ponzi scheme, after their Western world real estate derivatives bubble exploded (GFC1).

It is a very simple scam.

Carbon “pricing” creates in law a new artificial ‘commodity’ called “carbon ‘units’, having an artificially-created (by proclamation) monetary value.

Who benefits?

On the lower level, governments. The basic carbon “price” for selling (on threat of gaol) their “permits” to “pollute”, represents a new cashcow for politicians. For handing out to their mates, favouring special interests, and bribing the ever-more welfare-dependent electorate to vote for them (ie, keep them in power).

On the higher (unseen) level, the international shadow banking sector. “Pricing carbon” means they can (a) cream off billions in fees and commissions on the trade in those permits, but far more importantly (b) instantly create unlimited quantities of wholly unregulated carbon derivatives, to gamble on unregulated international trading markets.

Exactly like the Western real estate bubble.

If you support “putting a price on carbon”, then what you are really supporting is two outcomes.

Impoverishing the West.

And genocide of black people.

All for the benefit of … not the environment … but bankers.

Barnaby Bags “Bob Brown’s ‘Big Bank Bonus'”

12 Oct

Senator Joyce gets nearer to the heart of the matter:

UPDATE (thanks to wakeuptothelies)

LYNDAL CURTIS: Barnaby Joyce welcome to ABC News 24.

BARNABY JOYCE: Thanks Lyndal. Thanks for having me on.

LYNDAL CURTIS: The carbon price legislation is in the Senate, do you accept there is no way you can stop it from becoming law?

BARNABY JOYCE: I accept that it is now obviously very difficult but that does not mean it is the end of the battle that just means it is the start. I am not going to relent and neither is any body else. When this comes in we will continue to fight on because this is a ridiculous proposition, with the economic climate the way it is, we are going forward with a new tax and the bottom line is this, it does nothing to change the temperature of the globe. It is completely and utterly climate irrelevant, it is merely a tax, it is a gesture. It will certainly make you poorer, it is not the wish of the Australian people, they were never told they were going to get it but here it comes.

And if we just think of a bus analogy. If at the last election you bought a bus ticket which said you were going from Brisbane to the Gold Coast, they ended up at Birdsville and the bus driver says sorry you have got the Birdsville carbon tax.

LYNDAL CURTIS: But Julia Gillard never promised not to introduce a carbon price, in fact she spoke of introducing a carbon price, and gave a speech about it with the ill fated citizens assembly proposal. This government has always been committed to introducing a carbon price, and at the end of the day, and isn’t this at the end of the fixed price period an emissions trading scheme like the CPRS?

BARNABY JOYCE: This is absolutely not what they said at the last election they were going to do. They said quite conclusively. We have seen it ad nauseum, the shot of her on the Brisbane River, saying “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.

LYNDAL CURTIS: But she did not say no carbon price?

BARNABY JOYCE: This is semantics, absolute semantics. We can’t play this sort of game with the Australian people that’s how they lose respect for you. That’s why they end up in the chamber booing and hissing because people lose respect for the office. When you are the Prime Minister you have got to be fair dinkum. If you are going to play this little game of semantics with the Australian people and then bang a carbon tax on them, delivered to them from the powerpoint of every corner of their room, making the price of everything they do dearer, that will have no effect on the climate and then try some weasel words to get out of it. You really will stir them up.

And she stirred them up today, to the point where she took the Labor party down to 26 per cent. I tell you they will stay there and live there if they carry on like this.

LYNDAL CURTIS: Just to go to the Senate debate. Will you be trying to talk this debate out, will you do everything you can to try and talk as long as you can delay a vote in the Senate?

BARNABY JOYCE: Will I work as hard as I can to protect the Australian people from a ridiculous tax? Yes I will. Right at the start, I never agreed with the ETS.

The other part of this of course is the huge boon to the banks. I hope the Australian people realise this. Big banks get their biggest bonus ever courtesy of Bob Brown, it’s Bob Brown’s “Big Bank Bonus”. They are going to get billions of dollars in commission to trade a permit around the marketplace, ultimately with your Emissions Trading Scheme, because of a colourless, odourless gas, which some housewife, man on the land has to pay. Money does not grow on trees, they are definitely going to pay.

Then we give, what, $56.9 billion a year, by 2050, to send overseas to buy permits, these bizarre markets where they go to Russia, or to south-east Asia or the west coast of Africa and buy these incredible permits from these incredible permit markets.

LYNDAL CURTIS: You’ve constantly derided carbon as a colourless, odourless gas …

BARNABY JOYCE: … it is ….

LYNDAL CURTIS: … why then is the Coalition committed to spending some billions of dollars to try and bring emissions down.

BARNABY JOYCE: It is $3.2 billion and it is budgeted, it fits in because increasing the productivity of soil is good, whether you believe in global warming, it is a real outcome. If you develop a more efficient engine, that is going to be a good outcome regardless.

LYNDAL CURTIS: Isn’t the government doing some of that through its carbon farming initiative?

BARNABY JOYCE: No, what they are doing is bringing in a tax. They are bringing in a tax and if taxes cooled the planet, the place would be an icebox. It is absurd. Using the same logic, every time you increase income tax the place would get colder, every time you reduce income tax it would warm up a little bit.

I mean it is just this absurd analysis. Where they always, and the way they go about it, where they create fear and loathing and moral outrage. You will instantaneously combust if you don’t drown, and people say oh that sounds bad. People will die all round the world, there will be droughts, droughts, fire, flood and famine.

And then people say I feel bad about this, I must do something about this. But then when people ask the logical question, hang on, how does a tax have anything to do with those things you just said then …

LYNDAL CURTIS: Don’t taxes change behaviour?

BARNABY JOYCE: Yes, they do. They make you poorer. They make it so you can’t afford things. That is precisely what this is. Yet they’re now saying, well it doesn’t have that much of an effect. Well, if it doesn’t have that much of an effect, why are you doing it?

But, of course, it does have an effect and you’re dead right. It does make you poorer, it is a pricing mechanism to make you poorer so you can not afford things, you can not buy them and the nasty little pill about this is that the thing that people can’t afford will be their power. And there are people right now Lyndal who can’t afford their power. They don’t need any more motivation to be poor, the government has got them to a poor position quite alright right now.

LYNDAL CURTIS: You say the tax will make people poorer but the government’s also going to be giving some compensation, some tax cuts and pension rises to people. Are you happy going to the next election saying to people we will take those tax cuts and pension rises away?

BARNABY JOYCE: This is an absurdity. They must think we are all fools. They’re saying they are going to take all this money of you and then I am going to give you a little bit of your own money back and you will say thank you to me.

How about we just leave all the money in their pocket, that’s a much better idea. But this idea we can take the money off you, spinning it around a department, for which I hear there are 1,000 people at the moment in the Climate Change Department, I don’t know how they’re going, it was a bit cold this morning, they should have warmed it up this morning. But then the 1,000 people get paid an average of $140,000 per year. Tell that to the lady on the checkout.

The heart of the carbon “tax” matter is this.

It is not, and has never, ever been, about the climate.

It is all … and only … about legalising a new artificial “commodity” (carbon ‘units’), upon which the banking industry can create a new, highly leveraged, entirely unregulated derivatives casino.

Remember the GFC?  With those “financial weapons of mass destruction” called “mortgage-backed securities” (ie, derivatives) at its heart?

Imagine a brave new world, in which banks are now empowered to create unlimited quantities of new derivatives, to trade using their HFT platforms, that have the power to “flash crash” and wipe out 98% of RIO Tinto’s share price in less than four minutes.

Think carbon pricing, think GFC1 … to the power of ten.

Most Important Video On The Internet

23 Jul

Please watch the following brilliant video, that some wise and alert Aussie soul has had professionally created.

Sums up perfectly the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, behind our government’s push for a carbon tax / ETS … aided and abetted since 2004 by The Goldman-churian Candidate, Malcolm Turnbull.

I apologise that I am unable to embed it here, so you will have to watch it after the jump – http://kzoo.co/VyQHed

Enjoy … and SHARE.

Green Left Weekly: “More Proof Of The Fakery Of Gillard’s Scheme”

16 Jul

Thank you, Green Left Weekly.

Again.

For confirming that I was right.

That the Green-Labor-Independent government’s carbon “X” scheme … IS … A … SCAM.

From Green Left Weekly yesterday (emphasis added):

There’s been so much political spin around the Gillard government’s carbon tax announcement. Of course, there’s the predictable hysterical hollering from the Tony Abbott, Barnaby Joyce and the climate change denier’s camp, but there is also tons of bullshit from the Gillard Labor government.

However, a couple of developments have provided a much-needed reality check.

On July 12, ABC News said: “Coal mining giant Peabody Energy has teamed with steelmaker ArcelorMittal to launch a $4.7 billion bid for Australian miner Macarthur Coal.”

This was the biggest-ever bid for a coal mining company in Australia and the bid was well above market expectations.

Peabody’s bid made nonsense of the opposition’s shrill warning’s that Gillard’s carbon tax, which will morph into a carbon pollution trading scheme by 2015, spelled the end of Australia’s massive and growing coal industry.

Gillard’s spin merchants were quick to crow about the Peabody bid. But all it really proved was that Gillard’s carbon tax is not a genuine or serious atttempt to address the climate change emergency.

The coal mining boom will continue. The government’s modelling for its “carbon tax” impact says coal production will rise by 109% to 150% by 2050. It expects gas-fired energy to rise by more than 200% by 2050.

There will be no serious investment — public or private — into the needed radical transition to a 100% renewable energy-based economy.

And if more proof of the fakery of Gillard Labor’s scheme, there was this other telling news report.

Peter Martin wrote in the July 14 Sydney Morning Herald: “If Australia’s economists had the vote, Julia Gillard’s carbon tax would win a landslide.

“A survey of 145 delegates attending the Australian Conference of Economists in Canberra finds 59 per cent think the tax is ‘good economic policy’.”

These economists were overwhelmingly economic rationaliststrue believers in the corporate profits-first orthodoxy that has dominated that profession since the 1970s.

What they see as “good economic policy” is good for big business profits and not for our common good or good for the environment.

Unfortunately, some very influential voices in the Australian environment movement have jumped on the Gillard Labor carbon tax bandwagon and regurgitated (or at least endorsed through lack of criticism) the deceitful spin Gillard’s salespeople have been generating.

Precisely.

As has been documented at great length on this blog for months.

Let it be clearly understood.

The Government’s scheme has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.  Or with “mitigating” so-called “man-made global warming”.

The facts are crystal clear.

From the government’s own website detailing the scheme scam.

From the banking sector’s gleeful announcements of their “new market” and “new products”, within days of the policy detail being released.

And now, even from the hard-core “believers” in MMGW.

The Green-Labor-Independent government’s scheme is nothing more than a global-scale, profit-making, wealth-redistributing, bankster-empowering scam.

Designed by … economists (yes, the very same #JAFA’s who could not even predict the GFC).

Loudly supported bythe economists’ of banks (and other stand-to-benefit Big Business).

For the sole benefit of banks (and other stand-to-benefit Big Business).

If you have any remaining doubts that I am right, then please … take the time to read my several detailed analyses of the Government’s “carbon pricing” scheme scam.

That prove – by simply noting the details buried in the “fine print” of the Government’s own documents – that the entire “mechanism” is designed purely for the benefit of the global financial industry.

The banksters –

Our Bankers’ Casino Royale – “Carbon Permits” Really Means “A Licence To Print”

Government Lies Again – Latest NGER Report Lists Only 299 “Polluters” In Total

I Was Right – Our Banks Begin Preparing Carbon Derivatives Market

Please  … go out now, and start belting your card-carrying green cargo cult member friends, relatives, colleagues, and associates about the side of the head with this news.

From one of their own.

And while you’re at it, ask them to stop and think for a change.

Ask them to stop and think about why Bob Brown and Christine Milne’s Greens Party are really so happy about their great scheme scam.

Which even Green Left Weekly has now denounced as “fakery”.

%d bloggers like this: