Just a reminder about FAKE INFLATION numbers from US FED these few decades of Robber Baron frauds. This article does a good job telling us how stats were changed for figuring inflation. We see a movement from costs tied to 99% of citizens----to those tied to corporations and Wall Street. Gas prices are lower because oil went global and fracking natural gas flooded markets. Mortgages went low because of continuous house flipping and subprime mortgage and foreclosure frauds flooding the housing market over and over with the same houses. This is why the US FED says inflation is zero while costs of food, health care, child care, goods and services are soaring. We have shouted REAL inflation these few decades has been 5% ----now climbing to 10% and the US FED will swear it is zero or 2%. All of this is done to pretend the US economy is good and that financial games can be played. The people losing with FAKE INFLATION AND FAKE INTEREST RATES---of course, the wealth of 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
Now we come to TRUMP MOVING FORWARD same global banking goals-----Trump of course cutting budgets to end social programs because deficits are too high---while intending to create HYPER-US TREASURY DEBT with more bond fraud. Why does he go to 100 year bonds? Because this century will be tied to building global corporate campuses global factories in US and building planetary mining colonies all paid for with OBAMA'S $20 TRILLION IN US TREASURY BOND DEBT.
We remind folks how much debt is out there ----how it is all tied to fraud---how it causes all our retirements and money assets to disappear-----so we know how to FIX THESE ECONOMIC PROBLEMS.
DON'T BE SCARED----STAND UP AND BE CITIZENS.
BERNANKE.....'Nominal interest rates are very low, and in a world of excess global saving, low inflation, and high demand for safe assets like government debt......In particular, Williams has joined Olivier Blanchard and other prominent economists in proposing that the Fed consider raising its target for inflation, currently 2 percent'
This article written in 2011 ---today that inflation number is higher. Above we see BERNANKE lying, cheating, and stealing our 99% wealth and assets-----pretending US Treasuries during his administration of $20 trillion in national debt is 'SAFE'. That inflation is 'very low'. That there is an access of global savings----meaning our 99% retirements, life and Medicare insurance, bonds, and annuities. BERNANKE seems to want to shake up those 99% SAVINGS.
Inflation Actually Near 10% Using Older Measure
John Melloy | @johnmelloy
Published 5:09 PM ET Tue, 12 April 2011 Updated 5:18 PM ET Tue, 12 April 2011
After former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker was appointed in 1979, the consumer price index surged into the double digits, causing the now revered Fed Chief to double the benchmark interest rate in order to break the back of inflation. Using the methodology in place at that time puts the CPI back near those levels.
Inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter.
Since 1980, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has changed the way it calculates the CPI in order to account for the substitution of products, improvements in quality (i.e. iPad 2 costing the same as original iPad) and other things. Backing out more methods implemented in 1990 by the BLS still puts inflation at a 5.5 percent rate and getting worse, according to the calculations by the newsletter’s web site, Shadowstats.com.
“Near-term circumstances generally have continued to deteriorate,” said John Williams, creator of the site, in a new note out Tuesday. “Though not yet commonly recognized, there is both an intensifying double-dip recession and a rapidly escalating inflation problem. Until such time as financial-market expectations catch up with underlying reality, reporting generally will continue to show higher-than-expected inflation and weaker-than-expected economic results in the month and months ahead.”
The pay-site and newsletter by Williams, an economic consultant for the last 30 years to companies, has gained a cult following among bloggers hungry to criticize Bernanke these days. The mission statement of the newsletter, according to the site, is to expose and analyze “flaws in current U.S. government economic data and reporting…net of financial-market and political hype.”
Investors are anxiously awaiting the release of March’s CPI reading on Friday. The consensus estimate from economists is for an annual inflation rate of 2.6 percent.
“Given ongoing inflation problems with food and the spreading impact of higher oil-related costs in the broad economy, reporting risk is to the upside of consensus expectation,” said Williams, citing a 10 percent jump in gasoline prices in March, in the note.
“While the federal government would have us believe the numbers are rather tame, our own personal gauge leads us to believe inflation is running between 5 percent to 6 percent annually,” wrote Alan Newman in his latest Crosscurrents newsletter that refers to Williams’ statistics.
Newman uses recent comments from Walmart CEO Bill Simon that inflation is going to be “serious” to back up the much higher CPI figures from him and Williams.
“Given Walmart’s sales of $422 billion, we think Mr. Simon has a good idea of what’s in the pipeline,” said Newman.
To be sure, the BLS argues that the changes it has made over the last three decades more accurately reflect a true change in the cost of living. For example, in response to its hedonic adjustments, the BLS web site states, “to measure price change accurately, the CPI must be able to distinguish the portion of price change due to this quality change.
Still, going by recent strong comments from Federal Reserve officials, even members of the central bank must believe inflation is being underreported. Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher said in a speech last week that the central bank was reaching a “tipping point” as far as changing its policy so it can react to inflation. Maybe Fisher stumbled across Shadowstats.com. The voting member did, after all, mention Volcker in the same speech.
“The need to break the back of that (budgetary debt) spiral is as dire now as was the need for Paul Volcker to break the back of inflation in the 1980s,” said Fisher on April 8th. “As a result of his steadfast determination to press on with exorcising inflation, Mr. Volcker is today among the most respected living Americans and widely considered an exemplar for public servants worldwide.”
'Oct 10, 2017 @ 10:43 AM 1,560
The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
Your Pension Is a Lie: There's $210 Trillion Of Liabilities Our Government Can't Fulfill
We started this week discussing LIFE INSURANCE because that is one of the last asset classes of the US 99% having not been looted officially and this GLOBAL MUNI-BOND FRAUD is about to do this. This article reminds us how broadly these bond frauds by BERNANKE, GEITHNER, LEW, CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and their 5% will be. The $210 trillion only addresses PUBLIC PENSIONS AND RETIREMENTS---it does not even address the CORPORATE retirement plans which will be taken as well as we discussed in detail ----by the same bond market frauds---this time CORPORATE BOND DEBT FRAUD. We call it corporate bond debt fraud because---a corporation cannot legally skirt contracted agreements as with labor unless it goes into bankruptcy and that is what HYPER-CORPORATE BOND DEBT has as a goal. US corporations will say sorry but this economic crash is sending us into bankruptcy and there goes any remaining 99% pensions and 401K. Corporations CANNOT LEGALLY DRIVE THEMSELVES INTO BANKRUPTCY-----ROMNEY AND VULTURE CAPITALISM WAS NEVER LEGAL.
WHEN OUR 5% PLAYERS AND NATIONAL MEDIA TELL 99% WE THE PEOPLE THE US AND CITIZENS ARE MIRED IN DEBT AND CANNOT GET OUT-----SHOUT LOUDLY AND STRONGLY THAT DEBT IS NOT OURS AND WE CAN REFUSE IT.
When US citizens think this is all overwhelming---cannot be fixed fast enough---think of our Jewish families from Holocaust who worked for generations to get back that wealth----it will not even take generations to FIX THIS ROBBER BARON MESS. Fight for our children and grandchildren our wealth is their wealth.
The US government has a $20.4 trillion retirement problem
- Apr. 6, 2016, 11:34 AM
The credit-rating agency Moody's says state, local, and federal governments are about $7 trillion short in funding coming pension payments.
"The unfunded liabilities of the various federal employee pensions systems, covering civilian and military employee benefits, amount to about $3.5 trillion, or 20% of US GDP," a release from Moody's said Wednesday.
"Additionally, Moody's estimates that unfunded state and local government pension plan liabilities are of the same magnitude, bringing the total shortfall to 40% of GDP."
Moody's also said the public pensions were only one piece of the growing retirement problem in the US.
"The bigger challenge to the US comes from the unfunded liabilities for the Social Security and Medicare programs," the report said. "The Social Security funding gap is estimated at $13.4 trillion, or 75% of GDP, while the shortfall from the Hospital Insurance component of the Medicare program amounts $3.2 trillion, or 18% of GDP."
That means between the pension shortfall and the benefits shortfall, the US government is $20.4 trillion short in funding for retirees.
The combination of all these factors has led some, including Blackstone president and COO Tony James, to call this sort of shortfall in retirement funding the "hidden crisis" facing America.
BLACKSTONE IS OF COURSE THAT GLOBAL HEDGE FUND LOADING OUR PENSIONS INTO FRAUDULENT PIMCO GLOBAL MUNI-BOND CORPORATIONS.
James' point was that with corporations moving away from large pension plans and the government facing massive shortfalls in retirement funding, young people will have to rely more heavily on 401(k) plans that are not earning much.
The combination of these factors could force people to work longer or not retire at all. In fact, estimates of current retirement savings show that millennials may have to work until they're 73 years old.
This is not only an issue for retirees; Moody's says it is a huge problem for the government.
"As the stand-alone sustainability of these two programs wanes with an aging population, Social Security and Medicare will be among the primary drivers behind a sharp widening of federal budget deficits that is expected to occur after the fiscal year 2018," Steven Hess, a senior vice president for Moody's, said in the release.
With this lack of funding, it seems public employees and the US government are staring down a huge retirement problem.
As we said, US FED policies like negative interest are designed first to grab more wealth from 99% assets but as well it is designed to push consumers to trade in Wall Street products we all know the expense of early cashing. Below we see CALPERS AND PMT---both labor unions led by 5% players who tied these labor union pensions to what EVERYONE KNEW was fraud and WHAT EVERYONE knew would end in workers losing pensions and benefits. Both public and private labor unions in US now tied to INTERNATIONAL LABOR UNIONS and ILO----are throwing their US members under the bus while invested in the PIMCOs they know drive this fraud.
Here we see the result of EUROPEAN NEGATIVE INTEREST pushing people out of the market------where do these savings plans go if not hedge funds?
'Similarly, Employees’ Retirement System of Texas is looking to add two new hedge funds focusing on macro and CTA'
So, International labor unions are now directing union pension funds out of what has known to be a criminal hedge fund global MUNI-FUND investment vehicle and is doing just what global banking and the global 1% want next----moving these investments to GLOBAL MACRO----THOSE CARLYLE GROUP/WORLD BANK vehicles.
The goal of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA was to move all US wealth to OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1%----NOT AMERICA----and this is MOVING FORWARD that goal. Obama set the stage with fraud in bond market----now Trump is going to force this transition with expansive US Treasury bond debt of 100 years.
IF THESE GOALS MOVE FORWARD, GLOBAL BANKING AND GLOBAL 1% WILL CONTROL ALL MONETARY ACTIONS INSIDE US MAKING 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE OFFICIALLY COLONIAL TRIBUTE STATE.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Global macro is an investment strategy based on the interpretation and prediction of large-scale events related to national economies, history, and international relations. The strategy typically employs forecasts and analysis of interest rate trends, international trade and payments, political changes, government policies, inter-government relations, and other broad systemic factors'.
So, Obama and Trump are creating extreme US Treasury bond debt while making global investment corporations the only way to invest----handing complete control of our US monetary activity to global 1% ONE WORLD ONE CENTRAL BANK.
Are US- and Europe-Based Pension Funds Losing Faith in Hedge Funds? –
29-Sep-2014 By Nat Auld
With the recent news that CalPERS and PMT, both significant investors in hedge funds, will be exiting the asset class, it seems pertinent to determine whether these moves are outliers among pension funds based in both the US and Europe, or indicative of a wider dissatisfaction with hedge funds.
BOTH CALPERS AND PMT WERE OUTED FOR MASSIVE FRAUDS AGAINST THESE PENSION FUNDS THESE FEW DECADES...NOW THEY SAY THEY HAVE THE SOLUTION.
According to Preqin’s Hedge Fund Investor Profiles, US- and Europe-based pension funds tend to be smaller than the average hedge fund investor based in these regions, with average assets under management of $7.2bn compared to an average of $9.7bn for all US- and Europe-based hedge fund investors. US-and Europe-based pension funds also allocate on average 9.6% of their total assets under management to hedge funds, less than investors in these regions on the whole which typically invest on average 14.8%. However, pension funds account for the largest proportion of the hedge fund investor universe, with 24% of all hedge fund investors based in Europe or the US. Additionally, our research shows that they represent 32% of all hedge fund searches issued since the start of Q2 2014 – higher than that of any other investor type (excluding funds of hedge funds).
It is evident therefore that pension funds based in both the US and Europe continue to have a significant appetite for the asset class, with a substantial proportion looking to allocate further capital to hedge funds in the near future – including several that announced new hedge fund commitments in recent weeks. Teachers' Retirement System of the State of Illinois, for example, is looking to add two or three new hedge funds to its portfolio over the next 12 months; it plans to allocate between $150mn and $200mn to non-directional hedge fund strategies. Similarly, Employees’ Retirement System of Texas is looking to add two new hedge funds focusing on macro and CTA strategies by the end of August 2015. Wiltshire Pension Fund, based in the UK, is also looking to increase its exposure to hedge funds in the coming year. It is seeking to invest in a fund of hedge funds focusing on long/short equity strategies.
Although some pension funds seem to have lost confidence in the ability of hedge funds to prove their worth and provide sufficient returns, particularly as a justification for their relatively high fees, it would appear that this group remains a small minority. Many investors still appreciate the ability of the asset class to produce risk-adjusted returns and to perform uncorrelated to the equity markets. These are both particularly important for pension funds which tend to require significant portfolio diversification to protect their clients’ capital. Despite a small number of high-profile pension funds having recently made the decision to exit hedge funds, Preqin’s data indicates that by examining their recent activity and plans for the future, the majority of pension funds still believe the asset class can meet their portfolio objectives in the longer term.
Here is the UK LABOUR PARTY----remember we outed CORBYN as that Bernie Sanders FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT global banking neo-liberal morphing to far-right extreme wealth extreme poverty Libertarian Marxism------taking the Western nations down to third world living and income status.
Labour Party in UK is working for UNITED NATIONS ILO as well as our US labor unions consolidated under just a few international unions. So, the far-right wing MARXISTS are telling 99% of WE THE PEOPLE the problem is not enough saving so we need to put MORE INTO PENSIONS. These 5% labor players are KILLING OUR 99% WEALTH.
The problem we are now told is not the FRAUDULENT INFLATION AND INTEREST RATES----it is not the BOOM AND BUST ROBBER BARON WALL STREET FRAUDS these few decades continually taking from our investment savings---it is that we do not put enough in. REAGAN tripled payroll taxes to make sure none of this was an issue now we are told by LABOR players we need to do the same with PENSIONS.
IF 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE ALLOW THESE MOVING FORWARD ROBBER BARON FRAUDULENT FINANCIAL POLICIES CONTINUE WE WILL BE PLANETARY MINING SLAVES.
CORBYN AND LABOUR PARTY ARE ALSO SELLING BASIC INCOME for global 1% just to create extreme poverty in Western nations. Watch as US FAKE labor 5% does the same.
Our labor union leaders are as RESPONSIBLE for the openly flagrant fraudulent malfeasance against our public and private pensions as the 5% pols and players moving forward these frauds.
GET RID OF ALL GLOBAL WALL STREET 5% PLAYERS.
Workers need to put 15% of income into pension, report says
Saving more than three times the present average is necessary to have enough cash in retirement, review for Labour party finds
The report warned of a possible return to working until you drop. Currently, the typical contribution to a pension is 4.7%.
Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA
Wednesday 2 March 2016 11.40 EST
Workers need to put 15% of their earnings into a pension pot, according to a review for the Labour party, which has warned about a return to working until you drop.
The report, following a two-year study, said a national retirement savings target of 15% of lifetime earnings, more than three times the current typical amount, should be adopted “to avoid future pensioner poverty”.
The warning came hours after the government launched an official review of the state pension age, which led some experts to predict that those joining the workforce today are likely to have to wait until they are about 75 to get a payout from the state system.
The 595-page report from the independent review of retirement income (IRRI), set up by Labour in 2014, said it was not many generations ago that “one worked until one dropped”.
There was “some evidence that this is returning to the UK: there are some people who simply cannot afford to retire”, the report said. The IRRI quoted official 2015 statistics showing that about 12% of the UK population over the statutory retirement age were still working.
The 15% figure said to be necessary to achieve an adequate retirement income is well above what many employees put into their pensions.
Last autumn, the Office for National Statistics revealed that the average amount being paid into private-sector defined contribution, also known as money purchase, workplace pension schemes plummeted to 4.7% of a worker’s salary in 2014, from 9.1% a year earlier.
The figure of 4.7% is made up of a typical employee contribution of 1.8% of pay, plus a further 2.9% paid in by their employer.
However, a reduction in the average contribution rate had been viewed by many as an inevitable side-effect of the government’s “automatic enrolment” programme, which is currently being introduced and requires all employers to put eligible workers into a pension scheme. In order to ease workers into the new system, the total minimum contribution into their workplace pension has started at 2% of earnings, before rising to 5% in 2018 and 8% in 2019.
New rules on cashing in retirement savings took effect last April, abolishing the requirement to convert a pension pot into an annuity – a product that provides an income for life – and leaving people free to do whatever they like with their retirement funds, subject to tax. It means that anyone aged 55 or above can now cash in their defined contribution pension and spend it on a sports car, invest in a buy-to-let property or put the sum in a bank.
The report warned that people could struggle to make their money last and said their cash could also become a honey pot for fraudsters. “For anyone who understands the risks involved in retirement income provision, it is clear that many of these people will find themselves in the same kind of control as a yachtsman in the middle of the Atlantic in a force nine gale,” the report said.
It could be that a future Labour government might rein in the current freedoms and increase the minimum age at which people can cash in their pension. The IRRI report recommended the setting up of a permanent, independent pensions, care and savings commission, whose remit would include reviewing the minimum age.
This will rise to 57 in 2028 when the state pension age increases to 67 – but the authors said that allowing people to access their money 10 years earlier than the state pension age “could create unrealistic expectations about the age at which they can afford to stop working”. The commission would consider whether this should be reduced to five years – a minimum age of 62 from 2028 – except for those in poor health.
In the House of Commons, Iain Duncan Smith refused to say whether there would be an upper limit on the state pension age in heated exchanges over the government’s review.
The work and pensions secretary said the government had launched the review to ensure pensions remained affordable for future generations, but he failed to answer the shadow work and pensions secretary, Owen Smith, when pushed over concerns that workers would have to wait until they were 80 to retire.
A separate report from Royal London found that people in some parts of the UK might need to work into their 80s if they wanted to achieve the same standard of living enjoyed by their parents. Someone on the national average wage who starts saving for a pension at 22 and pays in only the statutory minimum amount would need to work to 77 to get the sort of “gold standard” pension enjoyed by many of their parents’ generation, a figure that rises to 81 in parts of London such as Westminster.
Gold standard is defined as a total – including state pension – of two-thirds of pre-retirement income, with protection against inflation and something for a surviving spouse.
_____________________________________________'People’s QE'. OH, REALLY???
When UK global banking pols went BREXIT we shouted this was very, very, very bad for 99% of UK citizens and global labor pool. First, it is UK banking having committed much of the global banking frauds globally and in Europe. Exiting from Europe makes it harder for 99% of European citizens to claw back that fraud.
Second, by exiting, the UK government which these few decades has been the most hyper naked capitalist MOVING FORWARD extreme wealth and extreme poverty filling London with global 1% and their 2%----filling UK with global labor pool 99% ----that UK sovereign citizens remaining have NO POWER. If tied to EURO, UK 99% would have had the strength of all of Europe's 99% to STOP MOVING FORWARD.
The idea that someone sold as LABOUR would endorse QE---this is Bernanke's method of extending the subprime mortgage fraud and bring that toxicity into our US and UK sovereign bond market----shows that UK LABOUR PARTY is still captured by the likes of BLAIR--BEING CLINTON. We must FIX our major political parties--in US that is Republican and Democrat---in UK that is Conservative, Labour, Liberal----before allowing the next round of FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT pretend they are helping 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
THIS IS DISGUSTING. LABOUR SHOULD HAVE WALKED AWAY FROM CLINTON/BLAIR AND WALL STREET GOING GLOBAL.
mainly macro Comment on macroeconomic issues
Winner of the New Statesman SPERI Prize in Political Economy 2016Wednesday, 2 September 2015Corbyn, QE and financial interestsAlthough this uses UK events as a spur, the point about QE is universal
Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn has shown some flexibility on his idea of People’s QE. That is perhaps a good sign for the future (if he wins), in terms of responding to informed criticism. As I have written before, the original proposal took two perfectly good ideas (we can do better than current QE, and the need for a National Investment Bank) and combined them in an unfortunate way. I was annoyed that this proposal had been made public with so little consultation, and that as a result it might discredit both of the two good ideas. Perhaps more optimistically it will instead spark a debate on each individually.
Here I want to talk about Quantitative Easing (QE). The basic idea behind QE is that by buying long term assets at a time when their price is high (interest rates are low) to make their price even higher (interest rates even lower) in the short term, and selling them back later when asset prices are lower (and interest rates higher), you could stimulate additional demand. At first sight it seems not too dissimilar to a central bank’s normal activities in changing short rates. There are however two major differences. The first, which in principle does not matter too much, is that the amount of money you create to ensure short term interest rates fall is modest. The amount of money you have to create to have any significant impact on long rates is much greater.
The second more important point is predictability. The central bank can have a large and fairly predictable influence on short term rates in the market. The impact of any amount of QE on long rates is much more uncertain, both in theory and in practice. Worse still, because its impact depends on certain institutionally specific market segmentation, or some very time specific signalling, and may also be quite non-linear, there is no reason to believe that any knowledge gained this time round will still be relevant the next time the instrument is used. In short, it is a lousy instrument.
That should mean that everyone is looking around for a better way of doing things when short rates hit their lower bound. Fiscal stimulus is the obvious candidate, but we know the political problems there. If you want to be kind, you can say that they illustrate the difficulties of apparently delegating stabilisation policy to a central bank, and then telling politicians that just when stabilisation is most needed they have to do it themselves. For that reason helicopter money is not just fiscal stimulus by the back door (and if the central bank is always underwritten by the fiscal authority, that could be all it is), but a means of giving the central bank the tools to do its job effectively whatever the size and sign of shock.
In the absence of an appropriate government fiscal policy, I find the logic for helicopter money compelling and the arguments against it pretty weak. But just as with fiscal policy, just because something makes good macroeconomic sense does not mean it will happen. I have always been reluctant to pay too much attention to the distributional impact of monetary policy, because it seemed like one of those occasions when even well meaning attention to distribution can mess up good policy. Yet in terms of the political economy of replacing QE, perhaps we should.
It is more likely than not that QE will lead to central bank losses. By this I mean that the central bank will have less money than if they had not undertaken the policy: whether they actually have to be recapitalised by the government is not the key issue here.
FOR GOODNESS SAKE OF COURSE US FED DEBT OF TRILLIONS DUE TO QE IS COMING STRAIGHT FROM OUR TAXPAYER US TREASURY -----
After all, they are buying high, and selling low. That is integral to the policy. Who gains from these losses. Where does the money permanently created because of these losses go? To the financial sector, and the owners of financial assets (who are selling to the central bank high, and buying back low). In that sense, likely losses on QE will involve a transfer from the public to the financial sector.
If QE was the only means of stabilising the economy in a liquidity trap, because fiscal policy was out of bounds for political reasons, then so be it. The social benefits would far outweigh any distributional costs, even if the latter could not be undone elsewhere. But if QE is a highly ineffective instrument, and there are better instruments available, you have to ask in whose interest is it that we stick with QE?
THE ANSWER IS WHAT US RULE OF LAW REQUIRES---THAT THE GLOBAL WALL STREET BANKS BE NATIONALIZED, THEIR PROFITS AND ASSETS SEIZED, AND REDISTRIBUTED TO ALL GOVERNMENTS AND 99% OF CITIZENS FLEECED THESE FEW DECADES RETURNING TO FIRST WORLD DEVELOPED NATION BANKING AND REAL FREE MARKET LOCAL ECONOMIES