First Blood for Elizabeth Warren -- Unregulated Derivatives Being Sold To Your Grandmother
The bell has rung. Round 1 begins.
---
Guest post from Wil Martindale, who blogs at:
---
First Blood for Elizabeth Warren
There’s been quite a stir regarding Elizabeth Warren, her background, her appointment and her role in the consumer protection agency she now oversees.
- Will she put an end to this practice? -- Complex derivatives being sold to retirees and other retail investors (Bloomberg)
Monetary illusionists have argued for years that ”institutional investors should be fully aware of the risks involved in derivative instruments” to obscure the criminality of their scams with ”sophisticated” slight of hand. And as Tavakoli has pointed out, time and again, this favorite “get out of jail pass” frequently played by Goldman and JPM, fails the sniff test of any regulator not on the Wall Street Casino’s current or future payroll.
Perhaps the best sysnopsis of how I feel about these criminals and their bailout apologists like Charlie “Fear” Munger is found here.
Now we have even more undisputable evidence of the widespread wealth confiscation of the derivative swindle, as it applies to 84 year-old retired beauticians -- a group well known for its mastery of structured bond notes, second only perhaps to their mastery of the ”ballerina bun” for prom-bound teenies of the Kennedy era.
Simply put:
- Individual investors are incapable of valuing structured notes and their underlying derivatives, said Kevin Kelly, manager of Tontine Capital.
So what has the Dodd-Frank bill done to arrest such predatory practices, or at least address them? What will Warren do?
This national disgrace is pretty obvious to all by now. We have a private corporation, the Federal Reserve, dictating 0% interest policy, virtually ELIMINATING risk aversion by making the activity of traditional savings FUTILE, thereby not only ENCOURAGING riskier forms of investment, but providing liquidity to investment firms preying upon retirees with derivative schemes to rob their pensions.
They fund them because there is no capital in traditional savings accounts to serve as fractional reserves.
And all we can talk about are the capital requirements of Basel III? If Americans could earn even 5% in risk-free savings accounts, the banks might have some capital, but currencies have one and only one utility for the global banking oligarchy: betting chips in their rigged game.
And the house always wins, because the dealers (TBTFs) literally own the house (FED) and the house (FED) is showing them your cards (FUTURE RATE MOVEMENTS). Or does anybody actually think they’d bet 25 times the gross domestic product of the U.S. against the house?
When the other 49 States finally wise up and begin restructuring their sovereign economies along the lines of North Dakota, then you’ll start seeing the fruits of success in ethical banking and sound fiscal management, and you'll see reasonable rates which encourage both saving and lending.
What you won’t see is dirty-dealing derivatives, siphoning off the retirement wealth of taxpayers to fund similar international scams. Until then, we have what we have.
So now we’ll see whether Elizabeth Warren will serve as Geithner’s water boy, or a Brooksley Born with teeth, or just the next frustrated appointee to jump ship when the water gets rough.
The bell has rung – round one begins.
---
Previous stories from Wil:
Related stories:
Sep 24, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Reader Comments (58)
My prediction: she'll probably resign out of frustration, IF she's not pushed out of the picture in some other fashion. Remember: you heard it first from RLR.
http://dailybail.com/home/an-alternative-to-treasury-bailouts-one-that-aggressively-hu.html
http://firedoglake.com/2010/09/22/nothing-changes-ges-ceo-jeffrey-immelt-possible-replacement-for-larry-summers/
Another view on Jeff Immelt replacing Summers...
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68K4HG20100923
---
z...we've been explaining that forever...she tells the truth about gov't officials (geithner)...she tells the truth about goldman and aig...she tells the truth about predatory cc companies..these are the reasons they all oppose her...they don't want someone who is so telegenic and sweet going on tv every week telling the american people how much they're getting screwed...it's fear...and though i have minded other czar appointments, this one doesn't bother me...
I DID indeed see the RP video DB, good stuff! I unfortunately agreed with Dr Paul's assessment even BEFORE knowing he shared my fears; namely, that housing the CFPB under the FED will rapidly result in its becoming a captive (and hence inoperative) agency. After Eli Warren leaves (which by MY estimates will be shortly), the useless carcass of that NEW federal agency will continue to siphon-off otherwise useful resources from our economy FOREVER.
We ALREADY HAVE regulatory agencies that don't do SHIT. This is like the stupid argument of those that say we need to raise people's taxes to shrink the deficit. NO WE DON'T. All we need to do is STOP giving out TRILLIONS to wasteful Wrong Country Invasions, Bailouts, Socialist Health Care and 57,000 other crap.
Here's the BIG picture that results from reading your comment above. And BTW, I absolutely SHARE what you say. But I don't think even YOU realize the admission it contains; namely, that the U.S. is so intrinsically corrupt and captured that an honest individual must RUN THE GAUNTLET in an attempt to serve honestly in public office. That means the FUNDAMENTALS of the country are completely and irreparably CLUSTERFUCKED.
Also, to be honest, i'm a sucker for anyone who promises to punish wall street, cc companies and big banks...this is why i got behind her nomination...and teh agency...you don't see any other regulator regulary busting banking heads all over cable news...but you do see liz warren...like i said...i have hope...
Nonetheless, she managed to do exactly what they DID NOT want her to do. How? Simply by speaking the truth (and being cute and telegenic).
There's no reason to believe that she can't do the same thing with the new agency. And even better, we might get to see her ream out both Geithner AND Bernanke. Maybe at the same time. Should be fun.
http://snardfarker.ning.com/forum/topics/did-the-rothschilds-buy-the
"Now we have even more undisputable evidence of the widespread wealth confiscation of the derivative swindle, as it applies to 84 year-old retired beauticians -- a group well known for its mastery of structured bond notes, second only perhaps to their mastery of the ”ballerina bun” for prom-bound teenies of the Kennedy era."
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=11943
You can't say that it isn't just a little bit interesting that BYU is talking about the Rothschilds...
Like the Rothschild children, you have been given a figurative loan, if you will, in the form of a financial subsidy of your tuition by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You represent the human and intellectual capital of your own families and, in a broader sense, of the Church.
Psst Gobie, that is how the Goobermint works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME7K6P7hlko
Seek out your Strawman...
http://theghostfighters.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/meet-your-straw-man/
You will not find the answers in Nietchze, Alinsky, or Shit Tzu.
"The government began to benefit from the straw man in 1933. In the Article on the U.S. Bankruptcy, we’ve already seen evidence that the United States went bankrupt in 1933. When this happened, the governors of all the states met to discuss what should be done. The state governors made a “pledge” to the federal government, to fund the bankruptcy. They pledged the assets and the energy of the people belonging to the state governments. They would back the “government” and secure the national debt. But there was one problem: The states could only speak for the people in their public capacity. They could not pledge private, living human beings or property. So it was necessary to create a “bridge” between the living people and the creditors for the bankruptcy. The answer was to create straw men to stand in the place of the people. Now the only problem was devising a scheme whereby the people would agree to contract with the straw man as its surety."
-Wil
When you butt into a conversation, try to stay on point. I have no idea what you are talking about and I don’t care what you are talking about. I was trying to point out to DB that it is strange that the LDS would use the Rothschild family in a commencement speech in light of what DB and I were previously talking about. If you know anything about the LDS, which I assume you do not, you would understand my point.
You may now return to taking turns with Z sucking each other off.
Here's what you do, if you're Barack Obama. You appoint her to a much lower-level position, an advisory one that doesn't require Senate confirmation. But then you instruct the Secretary of the Treasury not to interfere with any of her decisions and make sure they're carried out.
Technically, she doesn't have the position that requires Senate confirmation (i.e., she doesn't have the title or the salary). But she has all the power of that position, and the cabinet officer who was confirmed by the Senate has been told that this appointee has the ear of the President, which is code for "stay out of her way."
The extremist who has been unconstitutionally given authority she has no right to hold is Elizabeth Warren, who is effectively running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without any checks and balances whatsoever (unless we count Obama's "firm hand").
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2010-09-19-1.html
From the article… But Obama? He's shown that he'll simply ignore the Constitution. The question is, how far can he go? At what point do loyal, oath-keeping government officials say, "I will not follow that instruction because it's unconstitutional"?
Well, why not, he thinks it is a flawed document. If you are Obama and you have already committed high crimes against the U.S. and treason, why stop there. If he were to be tried and found guilty, the little improprieties should hardly matter.
Hmmmm, ask Lt. Col. Lakin…
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-06/justice/terrence.lakin.birther.bio_1_birther-movement-president-obama-birth-certificate?_s=PM:CRIME
Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin is a poster soldier for the so-called birther movement, but for 17 years prior to his court-martial proceedings, the flight surgeon served around the globe, racking up a chest full of medals.
Military prosecutors allege that the Colorado native intentionally missed a plane in April after disobeying four lawful orders from superiors. Lakin has said he refused to deploy to Afghanistan until he sees proof that President Obama was born in the U.S.
In a YouTube explanation posted before he was charged, Lakin said he had no choice but the "distasteful one of inviting my own court-martial."
Again, great link!
Any individual in the U.S. Military who refuses a direct order from a superior is guilty of dereliction of duty, disobeying a lawful order and possibly other offenses. That this idiot thinks he has the right to pull this crap is absolutely insane. Being a white Lt. Col. in military prison for bad rapping a black president is not where I'd want to be. I hope he's tougher than he looks. If not he's got some rather ugly social experiences in his future.
discovery Law Definition n
In litigation, the compulsory release by a party of documents and other evidence sought by the other party, under rules set by the court. Means of discovery include depositions, written interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests to produce documents or to inspect property. See also disclosure.
TRIAL STAGES: Pretrial: Discovery…
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/IVA3.htm
I gather you were never in the service!
In the Army nether a light bird nor a Four Star General have the right to question the eligibility of Their Commander and Chief to sit in the White House. Actually he might end up better off if he comes up with some samples showing he was doing wacky weed or something like that.
I would bet a million bucks if he uses Obamas birth certificate as justification for his actions he's screwed.
The Governor of Hawaii certified the birth certificate it's legal in eyes of the law.
You need to do a little more reading in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm
After failing to deploy with his unit in April, Lakin was charged with missing a movement, disobeying a lawful order and dereliction of duty.
What pray tell would his best defense be for the charges as specified, keep in mind Obama did not issue the order, and that is why Col. Denise Lind pulled any birther stuff off the docket.
Of course you don’t Gobie, you have trouble understanding anything, that is why you are a herd animal requiring a party to fill your head with thoughts and tell you they are your own.
Do you believe there is separation of church and state?
Can any church marry you without a license?
Do you believe there is not a payback for tax exempt status for churches, i.e. government training of clergy to handle civilians and keep them docile after a declaration of martial law as one example.
Do you not believe Rothschild has his hand in government as well?
What do you think about faith based inititives?
I know more than your pea sized brain can fathom about LDS Gobie, I have even been to the Tabernacle on Temple Square. People are considered assets in more than one entity.
U.S. Army and proud of it.
This might help you to get over your dysfunctional Birth certificate obsession.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Do you believe there is separation of church and state? No.
The reason I do not believe in the separation of church and state is for two reasons. For starters, separating church and state is not possible due to the very nature of religion and politics. Secondly, we are currently fighting a war over ideology, specifically whether the United States has room for and can tolerate a religion such as Islam that at its core does not separate religion from its way of life and politics and will not assimilate into our American culture. Quite the contrary, they wish to infect us with the religion and convert us or kill us. The Islamic faith does not cherish a free society and their beliefs are not only unenlightened and repressive. I understand that you will try to make similar comparisons to the Christian faith because you are a simpleton but those are my main reasons whether you can understand them or not.
As for you other questions, do some research and then we can talk.
As for DB’s comment of not understanding the money involved, I have not read a reliable source that has discussed the money transactions involved. Also, you may not see the value in the purchase because you may not be fully aware of the intrinsic nature of showering money on people. It buys you influence, it makes people greedy, and it makes them dream of what they can do it they get their hands on large sums of money. Money corrupts, right DB, maybe that is what the Rothschilds got in return. You also point out that people who have money love to wet the beaks of those who do not have money so that they will start borrowing money and become debtors.
As for Sage, I asked you for a link (see above), I am not interested in how you were brainwashed by the military to turn over your free will. I understand that in order to get a human of questionable intelligence to stand in the middle of Baghdad with a gun takes some corruption. This country spends a lot of money on high tech weaponry. We should be using it and not expecting our soldiers to fight ours wars like gladiators. The quickest way to end a war is to prove to the enemy that fighting back is not a viable option. Since our military is unwilling to do that, we have fought the current wars to a stalemate when we have the military power to make them acquiesce to our demands in mere moments. The United Nations was created to spoil our advantages and make wars a means of profit making and career political opportunities. It is a sign of sickness that the U.S. can’t destroy the enemy and recreate the situation to our liking. The early Romans knew how to conquer their enemies.
I assure you my free will is and always has been mine. That you feel you can insult the American Troops in Iraq ("I understand that in order to get a human of questionable intelligence to stand in the middle of Baghdad with a gun takes some corruption") is disgusting! Many of those humans you refer to lost their lives because your neo-con Republican idols started an illegal war. Those people actually had a legal reason to refuse Their orders, too bad they didn't have you to advise them of that fact.
The link I posted is the one you need help you with your denial of reality.
Sage’s original comment… “Any individual in the U.S. Military who refuses a direct order from a superior is guilty of dereliction of duty, disobeying a lawful order and possibly other offenses. That this idiot thinks he has the right to pull this crap is absolutely insane. Being a white Lt. Col. in military prison for bad rapping a black president is not where I'd want to be. I hope he's tougher than he looks. If not he's got some rather ugly social experiences in his future.”
I have a couple of questions, now that I have helped you understand the original point you so sorely missed. What happens to white person who “bad raps” (gives unjustified criticism, I assume you mean) a black President in military prison? Why do you bring race into this equation? If Lakin was black and the President was white, would you look upon this differently? Do you want him to be violated in some manner? Is that what you would do to him if you had the opportunity? What would you do?
You mentioned the Code of Military Conduct but you have not posted a link? Do you not know what you are talking about? Isn’t the Constitution more senior a document to follow?
Sage writes… “Many of those humans you refer to lost their lives because your neo-con Republican idols started an illegal war. Those people actually had a legal reason to refuse Their orders, too bad they didn't have you to advise them of that fact.”
Can you site an example? I assume that you are talking about President Bush? If the war that Bush started is an illegal war, then you would agree that Lakin has the right to refuse Obama’s orders because he is continuing that illegal “neo-con Republican idols” war. So, either way you are agreeing with me. Now we are getting somewhere.
I posted a link on UCMJ, but then we all know you do not look at links.
"Since our military is unwilling to do that, we have fought the current wars to a stalemate when we have the military power to make them acquiesce to our demands in mere moments."
Do not confuse our military with our politicians, BOTH PARTIES.
You said nothing of the sort. I already know the answer, do your own flight of fancy, exploring feelings and intuition type of research mister wizard.
After failing to deploy with his unit in April, Lakin was charged with missing a movement, disobeying a lawful order and dereliction of duty. Obama did not issue the order, his immediate superior did, only things regarding that order will be admissible.
Wrong again Z!
(Federal law requires everyone who enlists or re-enlists in the Armed Forces of the United States to take the enlistment oath. The oath of enlistment into the United States Armed Forces is administered by any commissioned officer to any person enlisting or re-enlisting for a term of service into any branch of the military. The officer asks the person, or persons, to raise their right hand and repeat the oath after him. The oath is traditionally performed in front of the United States Flag and other flags, such as the state flag, military branch flag, and unit guidon may be present.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. )
Once you take this oath you defend the constitution you don't interpret it. Obama is the President and the Commander and Chief. Your blithering nonsense (" You can also now fully appreciate the original point I made about Lakins refusal to follow the orders of someone who is a fraud and someone who is committing high crimes against the U.S. and treason.") is ridiculous. Your denial of the facts of the situation make your position untenable.
Black prisoners are the majority in Army prisons, or I should say they were when I was in the service. Some of them may object to Col. Lakins attitude, of course I could be wrong, maybe they'll make him boss of the cellblock.
As for what I would do with him. If I had a seat on the Court Marshal I would find him guilty of all charges and vote for a maximum sentence.
No weapons of mass destruction. No evidence tying Saddam Hussein to Al qaeda. Using flawed intelligence to occupy a sovereign nation.
The war was illegal. However if you believe you have been given an illegal order you can file an objection with you unit commander. If he says your objection is baseless you better follow that order. If not you will be before a court marshal. It's simple go through proper channels or go to prison.
Gomp…So you can’t, okay.