We were warned when Sec Poulsen proclaimed our only export was financial services here in America!
We don't make anything anymore.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103218.html
"Manufacturing has become too global to permit the United States to revert to the level of manufacturing it had in the good old days of Keynes and Ike, but it would be a positive development if we had a capitalism that once again focused on making things rather than deals. In Germany, manufacturing still dominates finance, which is why Germany has been the world's leader in exports. German capitalism didn't succumb to the financialization that swept the United States and Britain in the 1980s, in part because its companies raise their capital, as ours used to, from retained earnings and banks rather than the markets. Company managers set long-term policies while market pressures for short-term profits are held in check. The focus on long-term performance over short-term gain is reinforced by Germany's stakeholder, rather than shareholder, model of capitalism: Worker representatives sit on boards of directors, unionization remains high, income distribution is more equitable, social benefits are generous. Nonetheless, German companies are among the world's most competitive in their financial viability and the quality of their products. Yes, Germany's export-fueled economy is imperiled by the global collapse in consumption, but its form of capitalism has proved more sustainable than Wall Street's.
So does Germany offer a model for the United States? Yes -- up to a point. Certainly, U.S. ratios of production to consumption and wealth creation to debt creation have gotten dangerously out of whack. Certainly, the one driver and beneficiary of this epochal change -- our financial sector -- has to be scaled back and regulated (if not taken out and shot). Similarly, to create a business culture attuned more to investment than speculation, and with a preferential option for the United States, corporations should be made legally answerable not just to shareholders but also to stakeholders -- their employees and community. That would require, among other things, changing the laws governing the composition of corporate boards."
Showing posts with label Free Trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Trade. Show all posts
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Panama Is Removed From Russian Financial Black List
Panama Is Removed From Russian Financial Black List
February 10th, 2009 • Related • Filed Under
Filed Under: DGC Announce
Tags: e-gold • GoldMoney • Panama • russian banking
From My Panama Lawyer
Until recently the government of Russia had imposed a series of restrictions on financial transactions involving Panama, because mobsters and tax evaders in the former country were known to hide their assets here. But as part of Russia joining the World Trade Organization, a bilateral accord between Russia and Panama that deals with many of these concerns has been signed and Russia has removed this country from its financial transactions blacklist. The agreement also contains a merchant marine clause that eliminates special surcharges and coast guard inspections for Panamanian-flag ship calling at Russian ports, which were imposed because of concerns about unseaworthy vessels registered in this country posing hazards in Russia’s waters.
Source: Panama News Volume 12, Number 7 April 9 - 22, 2006
http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_12/issue_07/business_briefs.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panama has been removed from the blacklist of the Russian Central Bank. The list, first published in the second half of the 90s, contained those jurisdictions whose financial transactions were deemed by the Central Bank to be worthy of special attention from the Russian banking sector.
The removal from the list comes as a result, at least in part, of the bilateral arrangements and agreements concluded between Panama and Russia. Samuel Lewis Navarro, Panama’s foreign minister, achieved similar results in his meetings in France, with Panama also being removed from the blacklist drawn up by the French tax authorities. This gesture by the French was aimed at helping French enterprises operating in Panama, particularly in regard to the expansion of the Panama Canal.
But what exactly are these blacklists really? As the name suggests, certain state organisations or national bodies draw up lists of offshore jurisdictions whose legislation and legal practices they consider harmful to their own country or region. The main objection raised against the offshore jurisdictions is that they siphon off capital, or rather taxation income, from countries which typically have very high rates of taxation. To defend against this, the aim of the lists is to create a kind of discrimination, or “deterrent”. Public opinion can generally be swayed by the notoriety of the lists, leading clients to think seriously about whether it is worth establishing a company in a blacklisted jurisdiction, or rather avoiding such complications.
The most serious sanction, however, is when the country using the list introduces concrete financial steps. For example, they may not allow, or may impose conditions on, certain bank transfers. The other important area of sanctions is where local companies who, say, pay invoices from blacklisted jurisdictions, may be subjected to more stringent inspections. If, for example, a German company includes in its accounts an invoice for consultancy services from a company in Liechtenstein, this may be enough for the authorities to instigate a full tax inspection of the German company for the last 5 years.
February 10th, 2009 • Related • Filed Under
Filed Under: DGC Announce
Tags: e-gold • GoldMoney • Panama • russian banking
From My Panama Lawyer
Until recently the government of Russia had imposed a series of restrictions on financial transactions involving Panama, because mobsters and tax evaders in the former country were known to hide their assets here. But as part of Russia joining the World Trade Organization, a bilateral accord between Russia and Panama that deals with many of these concerns has been signed and Russia has removed this country from its financial transactions blacklist. The agreement also contains a merchant marine clause that eliminates special surcharges and coast guard inspections for Panamanian-flag ship calling at Russian ports, which were imposed because of concerns about unseaworthy vessels registered in this country posing hazards in Russia’s waters.
Source: Panama News Volume 12, Number 7 April 9 - 22, 2006
http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_12/issue_07/business_briefs.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panama has been removed from the blacklist of the Russian Central Bank. The list, first published in the second half of the 90s, contained those jurisdictions whose financial transactions were deemed by the Central Bank to be worthy of special attention from the Russian banking sector.
The removal from the list comes as a result, at least in part, of the bilateral arrangements and agreements concluded between Panama and Russia. Samuel Lewis Navarro, Panama’s foreign minister, achieved similar results in his meetings in France, with Panama also being removed from the blacklist drawn up by the French tax authorities. This gesture by the French was aimed at helping French enterprises operating in Panama, particularly in regard to the expansion of the Panama Canal.
But what exactly are these blacklists really? As the name suggests, certain state organisations or national bodies draw up lists of offshore jurisdictions whose legislation and legal practices they consider harmful to their own country or region. The main objection raised against the offshore jurisdictions is that they siphon off capital, or rather taxation income, from countries which typically have very high rates of taxation. To defend against this, the aim of the lists is to create a kind of discrimination, or “deterrent”. Public opinion can generally be swayed by the notoriety of the lists, leading clients to think seriously about whether it is worth establishing a company in a blacklisted jurisdiction, or rather avoiding such complications.
The most serious sanction, however, is when the country using the list introduces concrete financial steps. For example, they may not allow, or may impose conditions on, certain bank transfers. The other important area of sanctions is where local companies who, say, pay invoices from blacklisted jurisdictions, may be subjected to more stringent inspections. If, for example, a German company includes in its accounts an invoice for consultancy services from a company in Liechtenstein, this may be enough for the authorities to instigate a full tax inspection of the German company for the last 5 years.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Financial World Crisis! This is a great beginning to understanding this SCAM!
The Iceland Syndrome
By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, October 21, 2008; Page A17
Imagine this scenario: In a medium-size European country -- call it Country X -- the bank regulators hold an ordinary meeting. These being extraordinary times, the regulators discuss the health of various banks, including the country's largest -- call it Bank Y -- which is owned by an even larger Italian financial group. Last spring, Bank Y, which is perfectly healthy, transferred a large sum to its now somewhat-less-healthy Italian parent; since this is nothing unusual, the regulators drop the subject and move on.
The following day, the matter is reported in a marginal, far-right newspaper in somewhat different terms: "A billion dollars transferred to Italy! Country X's hard-earned money going abroad!" Within hours, as if on cue, everyone starts selling shares in Bank Y, whose stock price plunges. So does the rest of Country X's smallish stock market. So does Country X's currency. Within a few more hours, Country X is calling for an international bailout, the IMF is on the phone and the government is wobbling.
Except for that final sentence -- there was no international bailout or call to the International Monetary Fund, and the government is fine -- that is a brief description of something that happened last week to one of Poland's largest banks. A real meeting, followed by an unsubstantiated rumor in a dodgy newspaper, and a bunch of nervous investors started selling. Shares in the bank collapsed by the largest margin in its history; for one ugly day, they dragged down the rest of the Polish stock market and currency as well.
As I say, the story ended there. But it could have gone further, and, indeed, in several other countries it has. A month ago, in the first round of this crisis, panicky rumors brought down banks. Now, with trillions of nervous dollars sloshing around the international markets, panicky rumors are bringing down countries.
The case of Iceland, which in recent weeks has nationalized its three major banks, shut its stock exchange and halted trading in its currency, is by now well known. Less well known is the speed with which the Icelandic disease is spreading. Consider Hungary, once the destination of choice for investors who wanted an Eastern European head office with a 19th-century facade and a pastry shop next door: The currency is in free fall and so is the stock market, flummoxing those previously well-fed investors. (One of them told a Hungarian financial Web site: "I haven't got a clue as to when and how this would end, I'm just staring into empty space.") Or Ukraine, whose central bank governor declared his banking system "normal and reliable" on Monday of last week. By Tuesday of last week, Ukraine had desperately requested " systemic support" from the IMF.
So far, most of these crises have been explained away: The banks of Iceland had debts larger than Iceland's gross domestic product, Hungary's finances were long mismanaged, and Ukraine, whose president just called for the third election in as many years, is badly governed. But the speed with which some of these defaults are happening, coupled with the paranoia inherent in the political culture of small countries, has led many to suspect political manipulation as well.
To put it another way: If you wanted to destabilize a country, wouldn't this be an excellent time to do it? If Country X's stock market can crash after the publication of a single article in an obscure newspaper, think what might happen if someone conducted a systematic campaign against Country X. And if you can imagine this, so can others.
All governments have enemies, internal and external, or at least are faced with elements that do not wish them well: the political opposition, the country next door, the former imperial power. For someone, there will always be the temptation to bring down the government, destabilize the country and thus create political chaos.
Even when there hasn't been political meddling, someone else will suspect that it has occurred, anyway. Here, then, is a prediction: Political instability will follow economic instability like night follows day. Iceland is not alone. Serbia, the Baltic states, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, South Korea and Argentina are all in financial trouble; so, too, are Russia and Brazil.
And here's a final, unpleasant thought: Pakistan. This is a country with 25 percent inflation and a currency in free fall; a country with a jihadist insurgency on its border with Afghanistan, permanent hostility on its border with India, nuclear weapons and a tradition of street demonstrations in response to suspect newspaper articles. Dozens of people, with all kinds of agendas, have an interest in using financial markets to destabilize Pakistan, and Afghanistan along with it. Eventually, one of them will.
applebaumletters@washpost.com
By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, October 21, 2008; Page A17
Imagine this scenario: In a medium-size European country -- call it Country X -- the bank regulators hold an ordinary meeting. These being extraordinary times, the regulators discuss the health of various banks, including the country's largest -- call it Bank Y -- which is owned by an even larger Italian financial group. Last spring, Bank Y, which is perfectly healthy, transferred a large sum to its now somewhat-less-healthy Italian parent; since this is nothing unusual, the regulators drop the subject and move on.
The following day, the matter is reported in a marginal, far-right newspaper in somewhat different terms: "A billion dollars transferred to Italy! Country X's hard-earned money going abroad!" Within hours, as if on cue, everyone starts selling shares in Bank Y, whose stock price plunges. So does the rest of Country X's smallish stock market. So does Country X's currency. Within a few more hours, Country X is calling for an international bailout, the IMF is on the phone and the government is wobbling.
Except for that final sentence -- there was no international bailout or call to the International Monetary Fund, and the government is fine -- that is a brief description of something that happened last week to one of Poland's largest banks. A real meeting, followed by an unsubstantiated rumor in a dodgy newspaper, and a bunch of nervous investors started selling. Shares in the bank collapsed by the largest margin in its history; for one ugly day, they dragged down the rest of the Polish stock market and currency as well.
As I say, the story ended there. But it could have gone further, and, indeed, in several other countries it has. A month ago, in the first round of this crisis, panicky rumors brought down banks. Now, with trillions of nervous dollars sloshing around the international markets, panicky rumors are bringing down countries.
The case of Iceland, which in recent weeks has nationalized its three major banks, shut its stock exchange and halted trading in its currency, is by now well known. Less well known is the speed with which the Icelandic disease is spreading. Consider Hungary, once the destination of choice for investors who wanted an Eastern European head office with a 19th-century facade and a pastry shop next door: The currency is in free fall and so is the stock market, flummoxing those previously well-fed investors. (One of them told a Hungarian financial Web site: "I haven't got a clue as to when and how this would end, I'm just staring into empty space.") Or Ukraine, whose central bank governor declared his banking system "normal and reliable" on Monday of last week. By Tuesday of last week, Ukraine had desperately requested " systemic support" from the IMF.
So far, most of these crises have been explained away: The banks of Iceland had debts larger than Iceland's gross domestic product, Hungary's finances were long mismanaged, and Ukraine, whose president just called for the third election in as many years, is badly governed. But the speed with which some of these defaults are happening, coupled with the paranoia inherent in the political culture of small countries, has led many to suspect political manipulation as well.
To put it another way: If you wanted to destabilize a country, wouldn't this be an excellent time to do it? If Country X's stock market can crash after the publication of a single article in an obscure newspaper, think what might happen if someone conducted a systematic campaign against Country X. And if you can imagine this, so can others.
All governments have enemies, internal and external, or at least are faced with elements that do not wish them well: the political opposition, the country next door, the former imperial power. For someone, there will always be the temptation to bring down the government, destabilize the country and thus create political chaos.
Even when there hasn't been political meddling, someone else will suspect that it has occurred, anyway. Here, then, is a prediction: Political instability will follow economic instability like night follows day. Iceland is not alone. Serbia, the Baltic states, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, South Korea and Argentina are all in financial trouble; so, too, are Russia and Brazil.
And here's a final, unpleasant thought: Pakistan. This is a country with 25 percent inflation and a currency in free fall; a country with a jihadist insurgency on its border with Afghanistan, permanent hostility on its border with India, nuclear weapons and a tradition of street demonstrations in response to suspect newspaper articles. Dozens of people, with all kinds of agendas, have an interest in using financial markets to destabilize Pakistan, and Afghanistan along with it. Eventually, one of them will.
applebaumletters@washpost.com
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
...Paulson was right to put the Federal government's weight behind Freddie and Fannie, "for better or worse."
I thought the "FREE MARKET" is what this ADMINISTRATION PROMOTES? (BUSH)
Freddie Mac Chief: Don't Blame Me
Posted Aug 05, 2008 12:20pm EDT by Aaron Task
Related: fre, fnm, mer, XLF, ^DJI, ^GSPC
Richard F. Syron, chief executive of troubled mortgage giant Freddie Mac, ignored red flags about the financing of questionable loans, according to an article in today's New York Times. The quotes from Syron are incredible, and not in a good way.
"If I had better foresight, maybe I could have improved things a little bit," he told the Times. "But frankly, if I had perfect foresight, I would never have taken this job in the first place."
The warnings about pending financial peril came from David Andrukonis, Freddie's former risk officer. "Everybody understood that at some level the company was putting taxpayers at risk," he told the Times. Of course history has shown as housing prices began declining in 2006, choices that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae made have proved disastrous.
According to Lawrence White, professor of economics at the NYU Stern School of Business, both Freddie and Fannie Mae seem headed toward insolvency. White isn't a big fan of using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the GSE's shareholders, which is the effective result of Treasury Secretary Paulson's rescue plan for the firms. He believes Fannie and Freddie should be totally privatized.
But given the "fragile times" in the economy and credit markets, White says Paulson was right to put the Federal government's weight behind Freddie and Fannie, "for better or worse."
Freddie Mac Chief: Don't Blame Me
Posted Aug 05, 2008 12:20pm EDT by Aaron Task
Related: fre, fnm, mer, XLF, ^DJI, ^GSPC
Richard F. Syron, chief executive of troubled mortgage giant Freddie Mac, ignored red flags about the financing of questionable loans, according to an article in today's New York Times. The quotes from Syron are incredible, and not in a good way.
"If I had better foresight, maybe I could have improved things a little bit," he told the Times. "But frankly, if I had perfect foresight, I would never have taken this job in the first place."
The warnings about pending financial peril came from David Andrukonis, Freddie's former risk officer. "Everybody understood that at some level the company was putting taxpayers at risk," he told the Times. Of course history has shown as housing prices began declining in 2006, choices that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae made have proved disastrous.
According to Lawrence White, professor of economics at the NYU Stern School of Business, both Freddie and Fannie Mae seem headed toward insolvency. White isn't a big fan of using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the GSE's shareholders, which is the effective result of Treasury Secretary Paulson's rescue plan for the firms. He believes Fannie and Freddie should be totally privatized.
But given the "fragile times" in the economy and credit markets, White says Paulson was right to put the Federal government's weight behind Freddie and Fannie, "for better or worse."
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Lou Dobbs, HAS FAILED his viewers
Lou Dobbs: If I recall, Gen Petreaus advised Congress and GW Bush that there would be a small window of opportunity! This profound success is exactly what? Have we stopped paying the Sunnis and Shias? Is the window closing or when did that window close? So we know this success is REAL, like you proclaim to be. Exactly what is the success here Lou Dobbs?
You are doing a great job keeping the AMERICANS as IGNORANT as your opinions. Just a tip: opinions are like buttocks, we all have one!
Lou, I thought your expertise was money ? Yet, your devotion to attack Obama throughout your show is quire blatant. But that is ok.
I am curious Mr. Dobbs, when and where was your last trip out of this country? You really need to inform your audience of your passport history. Just so we can verify your expertise when the knowledge we are seeking, from the MEDIA, (which includes you, RADIO and CNN) for information regarding foreign policy or international relations? Please educate us of all your WORLDLY experience. Please Mr. Dobbs, show us!
One last thing, for now, you, Lou Dobbs, HAS FAILED your viewers with incorrect, TRUE information regarding our country’s Financial Institutes in this country! You are an ECONOMIST, or at least PROCLAIM to be. Where have you been Mr. Dobbs? This has not happened over night. Just where have you been? You are a complete FRAUD. And have failed to expose this fraud that is now just sprouting. How long have you known about this fraudulent economy?
You have an agenda. But maybe you can try some real TRUTH and let us know what you REALLY WANT? By the way, I never hear you propose any real answers to all your WHINING!
You are doing a great job keeping the AMERICANS as IGNORANT as your opinions. Just a tip: opinions are like buttocks, we all have one!
Lou, I thought your expertise was money ? Yet, your devotion to attack Obama throughout your show is quire blatant. But that is ok.
I am curious Mr. Dobbs, when and where was your last trip out of this country? You really need to inform your audience of your passport history. Just so we can verify your expertise when the knowledge we are seeking, from the MEDIA, (which includes you, RADIO and CNN) for information regarding foreign policy or international relations? Please educate us of all your WORLDLY experience. Please Mr. Dobbs, show us!
One last thing, for now, you, Lou Dobbs, HAS FAILED your viewers with incorrect, TRUE information regarding our country’s Financial Institutes in this country! You are an ECONOMIST, or at least PROCLAIM to be. Where have you been Mr. Dobbs? This has not happened over night. Just where have you been? You are a complete FRAUD. And have failed to expose this fraud that is now just sprouting. How long have you known about this fraudulent economy?
You have an agenda. But maybe you can try some real TRUTH and let us know what you REALLY WANT? By the way, I never hear you propose any real answers to all your WHINING!
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Free Market! Isn't that the American Way?
BUSH PROMOTES DRILLING!!! JEBB IS OUT OF OFFICE!!!
NOW WHO IN THE WORLD WOULD LISTEN TO ANYTHING BUSH HAS TO SAY? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!! THE ROOSTERS ARE COMING HOME!!
NO REGULATION! KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT! NO OVERSIGHT!
Remember, 2000, BUSH GAVE TAX CUTS TO SUV PURCHASES AND VEHICLES OVER A SPECIFIC TONAGE! BUSH PROMOTES DRILLING!!!
For the last 20 years, we have heard how the FREE MARKET, is the way to prosperity with little or no oversight of government involvemnet.
This is also the approach to the Health Care system in America. The reason the Finanacial Industry is so CRITICAL, is becuase this has effected the GLOBAL MARKET, not isolating or subjecting to just the effect to AMERICANS as the Health Care System does.
NOW WHO IN THE WORLD WOULD LISTEN TO ANYTHING BUSH HAS TO SAY? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!! THE ROOSTERS ARE COMING HOME!!
NO REGULATION! KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT! NO OVERSIGHT!
Remember, 2000, BUSH GAVE TAX CUTS TO SUV PURCHASES AND VEHICLES OVER A SPECIFIC TONAGE! BUSH PROMOTES DRILLING!!!
For the last 20 years, we have heard how the FREE MARKET, is the way to prosperity with little or no oversight of government involvemnet.
This is also the approach to the Health Care system in America. The reason the Finanacial Industry is so CRITICAL, is becuase this has effected the GLOBAL MARKET, not isolating or subjecting to just the effect to AMERICANS as the Health Care System does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)