Tag Archives: Wall Street

Time To Eliminate YOUR Wall Street Tax?

(IVN) As we get older, and hopefully wiser, we generally start to become more discerning on how we view the world and the problems we face. Many of us who seek to make the world a better place try to look at the problems, analyze them, and do what we can to correct them.

However, because there are so many different problems facing us, this approach often overwhelms us and can instill a sense of hopelessness in our ability to create positive change.

Looking deeper into this situation, we discover that many of these difficulties are symptoms of much deeper problems, and that attempts to address these symptoms are not an effective or efficient way to bring about the changes we desire.

One can compare this to having abdominal pains and visiting a doctor who offers you pain killers without investigating the underlying cause of the pains being experienced. If the pain is the result of a cancer or an ulcer, then the pain is only a symptom, not a root cause.

Treating the symptoms in this case is not an effective or efficient way to address the problem. It may bring about temporary relief, but ignores the root cause.

Looking more deeply into this situation, we discover that many of these difficulties are symptoms of much deeper problems, and that attempts to address these symptoms are not an effective or efficient way to bring about the changes we desire.
Rudy Avizius, IVN Independent Author

A similar situation exists when we look at the wide range of issues we face as a society. Some of the issues include homelessness, lack of medical care, unemployment, high debt loads, widening wealth gap, declining schools, infrastructure neglect, fraying safety net, increasing government fees and tolls, etc.

Trying to address each one of these issues individually becomes an overwhelming task. These issues are not root causes, but symptoms.

If we take time to ponder and analyze each of these issues looking for a common thread, one can determine that they are all the result of money, more specifically the lack of money. This process starts getting us closer to the root causes.

So how is it that as a society we can work so hard and still experience this lack of money?

Consider this…. If you have a given amount of money in your possession or control, all of that money is available to you to spend. Once you give some of that money to someone else, it is no longer available to you and is now available to others.

While this concept may seem to be quite elementary, this is the basis of where much of the problem lies. If one applies the same principle to a larger group such as a family, a community, a county, state and even nation, the result is still the same. Once money leaves the group, it is no longer available to that group.

Understanding this brings us another step closer to the root causes.

Most homeowners can relate to this.

Let’s suppose that you have taken out a mortgage for $100,000. By the time you have completed paying off your mortgage, it will probably have cost you well over $200,000. The cost of the interest payments exceeds the original cost of the home. These interest payments are money that you and your family no longer have to spend on your needs.

The same principle applies when a school district, municipality, county or other entity wishes to do a repair, a capital improvement or infrastructure project. The costs of these projects can easily double or even triple due to the interest charges.

It almost seems insane, but we pay more to the financiers of these projects than to those who provided the materials and labor for the project. This does not even include the fees imposed by the bank on the borrowers. Now we are approaching the root causes.

In California, the long awaited new Bay Bridge span was recently completed at a cost of $6.4 billion, which was 4 times over the initial projected costs. What most Californians don’t realize is that the total cost of the bridge will eclipse $13 billion when interest payments are considered over the life of the loans or bonds. So when we talk of projects costs doubling or tripling, it is not hyperbole.

So exactly where does all this interest and fee money go when it leaves the community?

It flows to the big Wall Street banks, enriching them, while impoverishing the community. This is the “Wall Street Tax” that effectively doubles or triples the cost of every project across every community in the nation.

It is YOU, the taxpayer who pays this tax. Once the money leaves the community, it can no longer circulate locally and is no longer available to the community, exactly as described in an earlier paragraph.

This is a root cause of why so many communities are struggling.

To add insult to injury, these big Wall Street financiers are not even using their own money. They use other people’s money so they can skim the interest payments to line their own pockets.

Once the money leaves the community, it can no longer circulate locally and is no longer available to the community.
Rudy Avizius, IVN Independent Author

We have all seen how Wall Street has prospered since the 2008 crisis, while Main Street has been left to languish.

So why do school districts, municipalities, counties and states (we’ll just refer to them as “communities” from this point on) use these big Wall Street financiers to fund their projects? It is because the costs of these projects usually exceed the ability of small local community banks to finance them.

Additionally, because of capital requirements, the deposits of these communities can not be handled by the smaller local banks, leaving only the big banks capable of handling such large deposits and transactions.

This means that even the deposits of these communities that can include tax revenues, payrolls, and pension funds, are deposited with the large banks and therefore also shipped out the community.

These funds are then “invested” by Wall Street anywhere in the world where they can obtain the highest return. These funds are not being used to invest in local needs. This is another root cause for why Main Street has been struggling, while Wall Street has been thriving.

With the current banking system we have witnessed the largest concentration of wealth in human history, while the vast majority of people have experienced stagnant wages, declining wealth, and recurring recessions.

Maybe it is time to engage in some “out of the box” creative thinking? Wouldn’t it be wiser for communities to be able to obtain local funding at reduced interest rates where any interest payments would remain in the community and get recycled?

Any good businessman would tell you that it is sound business to eliminate any middleman in a business transaction. Wall Street is nothing more than a middleman between funding and community needs, and if the Wall Street middleman was eliminated, more money would remain in our communities. How could this be done?

There is another way to finance public projects and it is already happening across the world and in the state of North Dakota.

North Dakota has its own public bank, the Bank of North Dakota. This bank has been in existence for a century and provides communities and businesses with low cost loans.

Some examples of this: A new business in North Dakota can get a 1% loan for 5 years, student loans are available at below market rates with no bank fees, no town or county in ND has or needs a “rainy day” fund, they instead have the Bank of ND where they can obtain low interest loans should an emergency arise.

The Bank of ND does not compete with community banks, but rather partners with them. There is a correlation between this partnering and the fact that North Dakota has the largest number of community banks per capita of all states in the nation.

Additionally, the Bank of ND has only one office and no branches, no tellers, and no ATMs that compete with community banks.

This partnering with local community banks means the Bank of ND does not lend directly to small local businesses, but relies instead on the local community banks to originate those loans.

The public state bank can provide funding beyond the deposit base of a small community bank, allowing the community bank to finance projects it could not have financed without the partnership.

If a local bank had a $5 million limit, and a business wanted $10 million for a new showroom, the bank would have to say no to the loan, forcing the business to go to a Wells Fargo, Citi, JP Morgan Chase or other large Wall Street bank. This results in the loss of business for the community bank.

With the public state bank, the community bank could partner on the loan, raising its loan ceiling, retain the money in the community, and provide the services needed.

One very important issue that needs to be raised is that of the safety of the loans being made. It is important to be sure that bank loans are made to people and entities that are truly credit worthy.

In North Dakota, there is a double check on this process. Any loan that a community bank requests a partnership with would require approval by both the community bank and the state bank officers, since both would be providing the funds.

This results in a lower default rate as two sets of eyes are examining and approving the loan.

There are those who may say that a state public bank could be at risk of failure and may need to be bailed out by the taxpayers. This was an issue that created much anger during the 2008 crisis.

However, the Bank of ND was properly managed and did not need a bailout, and in fact returned a profit of millions that year and every year since then to the state treasury. Politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle in the North Dakota Legislature love and support their state bank! How common is that?

The proper management of the Bank of ND can be attributed to the fact that the officers of the bank receive appropriate salaries (far less than their Wall Street counterparts) and have no bonuses and therefore no incentives to take on excessive risk.

The private Wall Street bankers are pressured by their shareholders to return high profits, which often leads to excessive risk taking rather focusing on the economic growth of the state and nation. Some of these investments could possibly be for things the community would not support or would even work against the best interests of their community.

The public bank is required by its owners, which would be the people, to invest wisely to promote the economic vitality of the community.

Politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle in the North Dakota Legislature love and support their state bank!
Rudy Avizius, IVN Independent Author

The prosperity created by keeping deposits locally and recycling the fee and interest money locally, would create new jobs, new businesses, fund “wish list” projects, and as a result would raise tax revenue. As more businesses thrive, the tax base and ratables would became larger, which could possibly contribute to tax cuts.

A public bank is not limited to only states. Municipalities and counties could also form their own. There are public banks being considered in New Jersey, Philadelphia, Santa Fe, Vermont, California, Seattle, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco and other places.

These public banks have the ability to transform how communities obtain funding. It will keep deposit and interest money circulating locally and out of the hands of Wall Street, thus enabling our local communities to thrive.

I would encourage readers to do their own research and discover how a public bank can tip the balance towards Main Street, rather than Wall Street, and help their small community banks at the same time. A good place to start is with the Public Banking Institute. Perhaps this is a good time to eliminate the Wall Street Tax that you are paying.

On Thursday, April 6, 2017, two world-renowned economic thinkers, Michael Hudson and Ellen Brown, came to Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, PA to discuss how a public banking option can affect governmental effectiveness.

The discussion was moderated by Walt McRee, the chair of the Public Banking Institute.

The discussion, which was open to the public, focused on the key differences between government’s unquestioned reliance on private capital markets and how an entirely new, more productive arrangement could be devised.

Kudos to Franklin & Marshall College for providing their students and community with such a high caliber seminar. The following video is that discussion:

 

 

Written by .

 

This article was republished with permission from IVN.

Hillary Clinton Responds to Critics Questioning High-Paying ‘Big Bank’ Speeches

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton defended the millions of dollars she has received in speaking fees and campaign contributions from Wall Street banks on Sunday, and asserted that they have not led to a conflict of interest.

During NBC’s “Meet the Press,” moderator Chuck Todd noted that the money Clinton has received has been used by her opponent Bernie Sanders to criticize her ties to Wall Street, and he asked, Why do you think one of these big banks paid you over $200,000 for a speech?”

Clinton insisted that she “gave speeches to a wide array of groups,” including healthcare groups and auto dealers. She said Americans wanted to hear about her expertise on the world, and that there was “a lot of interest in the bin Laden raid.”

[pull_quote_center]Coming off of four years as secretary of State, in a complicated world, people were interested in what I saw, what I thought, they asked questions about the matters that were on their mind, a lot of interest in the bin Laden raid, how such a tough decision was made and what I advised the president. You know, I think Americans who are doing business in every aspect of the economy want to know more about the world. I actually think it’s a good conversation to be having.[/pull_quote_center]

Todd asked Clinton if she thinks the banks “expect anything in return?”

“Absolutely not,” Clinton replied. “You know, first of all, I was a senator from New York. I took them on when I was senator. I took on the carried-interest loophole. I took on what was happening in the mortgage markets. I was talking about that in 2006. They know exactly where I stand.”

On the campaign trail in Iowa, Sanders criticized Clinton for taking in over $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, saying “You got to be really, really, really good to get $250,000 for a speech.”

According to The Intercept, Clinton earned over $2.9 million off of twelve speeches to various banks between 2013 and 2015. The Intercept noted that “Clinton’s most lucrative year was 2013, right after stepping down as secretary of state. That year, she made $2.3 million for three speeches to Goldman Sachs and individual speeches to Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Fidelity Investments, Apollo Management Holdings, UBS, Bank of America, and Golden Tree Asset Managers.”

When Sanders said that the banks “expect to get something, everybody knows that” during a Democratic presidential debate in November 2015, Clinton responded that she has “hundreds of thousands of donors— most of them small,” and she went on to talk about her involvement in New York on 9/11. 

[pull_quote_center]I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.[/pull_quote_center]

For more election coverage, click here.

GOP Candidates Blame China, Obama For Stock Market Plunge

As U.S. stocks hit an 18-month low on Monday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average down by nearly 600 points, several GOP hopefuls seeking the Presidential nomination in 2016 weighed in on possible reasons for the plunge.

The Dow dropped over 1,000 points within the first few minutes of trading, reminding many of the 1987 U.S. stock market crash referred to as “Black Monday.” In response, 13.9 billion shares changed hands on Monday, marking the largest volume since 2011.

[RELATED: Dow Plunges 1,000 Points]

The Wall Street Journal noted that some traders blamed the major drop on “big investors scrambling for ways to protect themselves against losses outside the U.S.,” and that the decline “triggered so-called stop-loss orders, which are designed to protect investors by instigating a sale once a stock falls to a certain level.”

Some GOP candidates including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker blamed the plunge on China. Walker released a statement blaming China’s “slowing economy,” and saying that he thinks President Obama should cancel his upcoming state visit, because Americans “need see some backbone from President Obama on U.S.-China relations.”

“Americans are struggling to cope with the fall in today’s markets driven in part by China’s slowing economy and the fact that they actively manipulate their economy,” Walker said. “Rather than honoring Chinese President Xi Jinping with an official state visit next month, President Obama should focus on holding China accountable over its increasing attempts to undermine U.S. interests.”

Former business executive Carly Fiorina told Fox Business that she partially blames the plunge on U.S. relations with China, and she thinks now is the time for the U.S. to “put pressure on China.”

“It’s also true that the Chinese government cut this deal with the Chinese people which is, ‘We’re going to keep this economy growing fast enough to lift millions out of poverty and in return, you’re going to accept censorship, repression and terrible safety standards and pollution,” Fiorina said.

Fiorina also noted that “I don’t think there was any excuse frankly for QE2 or QE3. QE1 you can see. Obviously we’re in the middle of a crisis, but my own view is that we have politicized the Fed by giving it a duel mandate, full employment as well as inflation.”

Billionaire mogul Donald Trump told Bill O’Reilly that he blames the plunge in stocks on the U.S. tying itself “so closely to Asia and in particular to China that this is going to be trouble for our country.”

“Not only now have they taken our jobs, they’ve taken our base, they’ve taken our manufacturing, but now they are pulling us down with them and I said we can’t do this, we can’t allow this to happen,” Trump said. “We have to do a big uncoupling pretty soon before it’s too late.”

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said that he blames Obama for the drop, calling it a result of a “history of failed policies by this president.”

“What’s happened is, because this president has run up more debt than any president in American history, that debt has been given to us in large measure by the Chinese,” Christie said. “And so now, as the Chinese markets tend to have a correction, which they’re doing right now, it’s going to have an even greater effect because this president doesn’t know how to say no to spending, doesn’t know how to say no to a bigger and more intrusive government.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said that he also blames Obama for the drop, and said that it was a result off “Washington-Wall Street elites” being empowered “at the expense of American workers on Main Street.”

“Sadly, the chickens are now coming home to roost for the Obama administration and its failed economic policies,” Huckabee said. “It’s time to build America’s economy, not China’s or Mexico’s, and quit importing cheap labor & exporting jobs overseas.”

The New York Times reported that the international drop in stocks prices, which began in China, left many investors wondering “how much government officials can and will do to insulate the global economy from the turmoil.”

For more election coverage, click here.

VIDEO: Sen. Warren refuses to criticize Hillary Clinton

NEW YORK CITY, September 9, 2014 – In an interview with Yahoo Global News’ Anchor Katie Couric, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D- Mass.) lambasted former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s new position at Wall Street investment banking firm Moelis & Co., yet refused to criticize fellow Democrat, Hillary Clinton’s, own ties to big business as harshly.

The Senator claimed that former Washington politicians who head to these kinds of firms once leaving office are not being hired because they bring great expertise and insight, but because they’re “selling access back in to their former colleagues who are still writing policy”. “This ultimately infects whatever it is that they’re doing, and I just think this is wrong,” Warren went on to tell Couric.

However, when asked specifically if she thought Hillary Clinton was too cozy with Wall Street the Senator retreated to generalities and refused to chastise a member of her own party with the same severeness she leveled at Cantor.

Clinton’s ties to big business are well known. The financial sector was Clinton’s second largest donor in her 2008 campaign. Since leaving office the former Senator has been paid millions of dollars in speaking fees from firms such as J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs. You can watch Warren’s full interview here:

 

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook & Twitter.

Wall St. Wolves Receive Palmetto Push-Back from SC Treasurer Curtis Loftis

 

The South Carolina pension scandal continues to escalate. Despite receiving personal attacks by political elites, Treasurer Curtis Loftis, continues to expose the controversial details surrounding the state’s pension system. The yellow Lamborghini, frequent nightclub excursions, dinner with a centerfold model, and risky deals with Wall Street fund managers are among the “red flags” Loftis has exposed.

Loftis continues to voice his anger over the exorbitant fees, poor performance, and gross mismanagement of the state’s pension system.

Loftis wrote on Facebook: “The fees our State Pension pays are outrageous! We pay the highest fees in the country (1.59%), $427.5 million last year, yet we were in the bottom 20% in investment performance. In 2007, we paid ten times less than we do now, but we were still in the bottom 20% in performance! Higher fees do not mean better performance, and we have to make a change!”

 

SC pension

Speaking at a meeting of the First Monday Republican Lunch Group on Hilton Head Island, the South Carolina Treasurer Curtis Loftis continued his pointed words towards South Carolina Retirement System Investment Commission for risky investments and for paying exorbitant investment fees.

 

According to the Hilton Head Island-Packet, Loftis called the commission’s work “sinful” and lacking in moral core.

 

A Republican elected in 2010, Loftis, and the commission, which oversees the $27 billion retirement fund for state works have been at odds for the past two years.

In front of 85 people on Monday, Loftis called the commission corrupt and mismanaged, citing the $420 million in investment-management fees during its most recent fiscal year.

Those fees — more than 10 times what they were in 2007 — equal 1.57 percent of the commission’s managed assets, far more than the 0.57 percent on average paid by other comparable pension funds, he said.

Loftis told Institutional Investor that he is trying to simplify the fee structure. “We did not create the most expensive pension portfolio in America overnight, and these fees will not be removed overnight,” he said.

The fees, experts say, are because the commission uses alternative asset investments like hedge funds and real estate.

Despite this, the fund has reported lower than average return on investment.

“We pay too much; we earn too little, and our portfolio is overly expensive and complex,” Loftis told the crowd, “which puts retirees and taxpayers at risk.”

In addition to getting the fund back on track, Loftis, according to Institutional Investor, is advocating RSIC term limits and other institutional changes.

Last year, Loftis walked out of a meeting claiming he was falsely accused of verbally assaulting pension chief, Darry Oliver. See video below. Oliver resigned in protest and was replaced by former state Sen. Greg Ryberg.

Ryberg told Institutional Investor that the current fees are justified. Loftis disagrees.  South Carolina insiders expect sparks to fly as Loftis continues to call for reforms and transparency. The Investment Commission is planning to meet this week.

 

 

Fmr. Head of Fed Reserve QE Program Confesses The Program Is Nothing More Than Wall Street Welfare

Story by Sonya Sandage and Ben Swann

“I’ve come to recognize (Quantitative Easing) for what it really is: the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time”, writes Andrew Huszar, former head of Federal Reserve QE program in a stunning “confession” in the Wall Street Journal this week.

Consider the fact that up until 2008, virtually no American was aware of the economic term, Quantitative Easing. QE, as it is called by media is the Federal Reserve Bank’s policy of bond purchases in order to support bond prices. Bond buying via Fed Open Market Committee is a typical practice, but the $4 Trillion in QE we’ve seen over the last five years is anything but typical.

The Fed essentially is printing $85 Billion per month, out of thin air, using that digital money to buy bonds up, and trade them out with cash reserves or ultra-short term notes. Banks and hedge funds that owned the original bonds are then supposed to pump that money into the economy, creating a virtuous cycle.

What we now know, five years after the start of QE1, is that Quantitative Easing does virtually nothing to improve the U.S. economy. The reason for that is actually pretty simple, most of the loose money courtesy of Fed printing is being reinvested into even more bonds, as well as derivatives and stocks.

It’s not being invested in creating new businesses, or significantly increasing lending. The $85 Billion per month is not being reinvested into biomedical research, tech, space exploration, or really anything innovative that will create economic growth. This does not help the common man, aka Main Street. It does help investors, including 401(k) and IRA owners, and has made them richer than ever in their accounts. If there is a major market correction when a taper does start though, those gains could evaporate.

So what is the QE policy all about? According to Huszar, again the former head of Federal Reserve QE program, Quantitative Easing is really nothing more than Wall Street welfare.

“It has allowed QE to become Wall Street’s new ‘too big to fail’ policy.” writes Huszar.

Huszar goes on to write, “Unless you’re Wall Street. Having racked up hundreds of billions of dollars in opaque Fed subsidies, U.S. banks have seen their collective stock price triple since March 2009. The biggest ones have only become more of a cartel: 0.2% of them now control more than 70% of the U.S. bank assets.”

Long have critics alleged the policy is actually designed to prop up the balance sheets of the very same “Too Big to Fail” banks that caused the financial crisis by deregulation of Glass-Steagall, and irresponsible gambling in derivatives, as well as outright fraud.

To read the full confessional piece by Andrew Huszar, click here