Here are the typical stages of society as history teaches:
From bondage to spiritual faith
From spiritual faith to great courage
From great courage to liberty
From liberty to abundance
From abundance to selfishness
From selfishness to complacency
From complacency to apathy
From apathy to moral decay
From moral decay to dependence
From dependence to bondage
Where do you see our nation?
These few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA mirror the few decades before the economic crash in 1929 bringing the GREAT DEPRESSION. The roaring 20s was the same financial frauds and government corruption ---the same INNOVATION theme to risk-taking and innovative financial schemes. Think of moving money to the top these few decades and we have the Roaring 20s followed by the great big economic crash.
Today we have a 1% just as in 1929----JP Morgan Banking....Carnegie railroads...Kennedy .....Roosevelt back then drove that crash ----JP MORGAN with Goldman Sachs were the banking kings this time. In both cases it was the Federal Reserve that drove the systemic frauds and corruption.
'Some experts reject the believe that the Federal Reserve is the us economies friend, and claim instead that is is a small powerful group of international fallers who use the Federal Reserve for their own purposes, not America's'.
Just as will occur with this coming US TREASURY and MUNICIPAL BOND market fraud and crash----all of those 5% to the 1% back then made NEW RICH from being PLAYERS-----lost everything. It was the ROBBER BARONS in 1929 keeping that wealth---JP MORGAN was old-Europe banking money.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The spirit of the Roaring Twenties was marked by a general feeling of novelty associated with modernity and a break with traditions. Everything seemed to be feasible through modern technology. New technologies, especially automobiles, moving pictures, and radio, proliferated "modernity" to a large part of the population. Formal decorative frills were shed in favor of practicality in both daily life and architecture. At the same time, jazz and dancing rose in popularity, in opposition to the mood of World War I. As such, the period is also often referred to as the Jazz Age.
The Wall Street Crash of 1929 ended the era, as the Great Depression brought years of worldwide gloom and hardship.
As we see below----JP MORGAN used these unstable economic times to force what was a Congress NOT WANTING A FEDERAL RESERVE to step in and vote to install the FED. Several times people pushing the FED were sidelined and it was during this economic crash---staged then as it is NOW----it was all this financial fraud and corruption sold globally with losses as we see today---that spurred WW1 and WW2---starting the war machine economy for these next several decades.
'Panic of 1907, JP Morgan created Panic in order to secretly let American into accepting his plan of Federal Reserve'.
So this 2016/2017 economic crash is being staged by these same Wall Street bankers this time they are going to use economic crisis to force World Bank and IMF to take our US government and force a ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE.
Zhou / 116
The Wall Street Crash of 1929
United States History Joey Zhou
5 May 2015
Key Points of Wall Street Crash of 1929
Connection between London and New York City over a long period of time.
At April 8, 1890, JP Morgan began his great financial banking empire.
Panic of 1907, JP Morgan created Panic in order to secretly let American into accepting his plan of Federal Reserve.
In 1910, JP Morgan, Sen. Nelson Aldrich [the only US governor in the meeting], Paul Warford, Benjamin Strong, Frank Vanderlip and Rockefeller all secretly met on Jekyll Island [MorganÕs own property] to plan the how to make American and Congress accept the Federal Reserve.
Since President Taft reused to accept the Federal Reserve, they put him out. Using millions of dollar in 1912 election to make sure Theodore Roosevelt who agreed with them won.
In 1923, the bull market begin its six year run.
At March 15, 1929, Secretary of Treasury, Mellon encourage people to buy more stocks.
In same month, leader of Federal Reserve and Bank of England called a emergency meeting; however, while many of those men began dumping their stock, and still tell people keep buying [Some stocks like R.C.A., actually boomed which encouraging even more people to buy stocks].
Bankers issued Margin Buying [a stock loan, but had 24 hour payment in full demand agreement].
Zhou / 1416
At March 25, 1929, first Crash hits, investors started to dump stock.
In Spring of 1929, US economy began to suffer with declining, sluggish, low car sales and tremendous still growing. However, stock market continues crazy boom and out of control, because people need more money.
In Summer of 1929, Paton continues, economy is falling, but stock market keeps raising. Some of bankers and economist still tell people to buy more and more.
At September 3, 1929, stock market reached peak.
October 24, 1929, Black Thursday, but even US governor Hoover and financial leaders still encourage to buy more.
October 28, 1929, Black Monday, 22.6% highest one day drop. It caused world wised crash, because New York is world banking capital.
October 29, 1929, Black Tuesday, Sixteen million share of stock are sold.
November 23, 1929, Crash bit bottom.
January 7, 1931, Four million America lost their jobs.
July 8, 1932 Dow Jones hit the lowest point at history.
Led world into Great Depression
Just as today all the systemic corporate and Wall Street fraud and corruption was sold as GOOD FOR THE NATION.....it was fueling entrepreneurship. Just as today all the 5% Wall Street players were drawn in to being that next big winner. Today we are being told there is all kinds of benefit to ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE with all its SMART CITY technology as we see all the tens of trillions from these few decades of the same corporate/Wall Street frauds and government corruption used to build these global technology structures.
'So there are still a lot of questions and few answers. At what level does corruption become intolerable and undermine the legitimacy of democracy? How
large are the entrepreneurial benefits from the finance-industrial development nexus through which the truly astonishing fortunes are developed? To what extent are the Jay Goulds and Leland Stanfords embarrassing but tolerable side-effects
of successful and broad economic development'?
If we look at university video education on Robber Barons especially across the south----they will tell us these men were BRUTAL, NO MORALS AND ETHICS, PREDATORY AND RELENTLESS IN PURSUIT OF ECONOMIC EXPANSION. Citizens attending these southern universities----have heard for several decades that these are GOOD TRAITS IN BUSINESS. Left-leaning social Democrats do not deny successful inventive business and wealth. We think the steel and railroads---as today the computer technology is great and these industrialists should be honored. Progressive is not bad until it reaches a point of not stopping no matter the harm to society.
And this was what happened under FDR social Democracy----a century of free market and sharing the wealth and here come the Robber Barons to end that. So, if a university is teaching that Robber Barons are to be admired---that they are VISIONARIES----DON'T GO TO THAT UNIVERSITY!
This period from Industrial 1800s to today driven by MANIFEST DESTINY called economic PROGRESSIVE----had what was Republican---- turn to Democrat----starting two major political parties driven by economic progressivism. FDR turned to social Democratic policies because of the GREAT DEPRESSION and movement of all American wealth to the top----Robber Barons are now simply taking all that social wealth as if it was never supposed to have been gained by WE THE PEOPLE.
We have talked about Clinton and Bush coming from an old-Europe rich families being installed as these Robber Baron Presidents. It was the Clinton family who led the royal navy battles against the colonists in the American Revolution.
This is why social Democrats in the 1990s KNEW BILL CLINTON was not the jazz-playing hipster----it pays to know history and public policy!
Saturday, October 20, 2012 13:53
(Before It's News)
The entry below this one reminded me of this
old post featuring Brad DeLong on the Robber Barons (he wrote this in 1998, the actual
essay is much, much longer):
Robber Barons, by J. Bradford DeLong, 1998:
“Robber Barons”: that was what U.S. political and economic commentator Matthew
Josephson (1934) called the economic princes of his own day. Today we call them
Our capitalist economy–any capitalist economy–throws up such
enormous concentrations of wealth: those lucky enough to be in the right place
at the right time, driven and smart enough to see particular economic
opportunities and seize them, foresighted enough to have gathered a large share
of the equity of a highly-profitable enterprise into their hands, and
well-connected enough to fend off political attempts to curb their wealth (or
well-connected enough to make political favors the foundation of their wealth).
Matthew Josephson called them “Robber Barons”. He wanted readers to think
back to their European history classes, back to thugs with spears on horses who
did nothing save fight each other and loot merchant caravans that passed under
the walls of their castles. He judged that their wealth was in no sense of their
own creation, but was like a tax levied upon the productive workers and
craftsmen of the American economy.
Many others agreed: President Theodore Roosevelt–the Republican Roosevelt, president in the first decade of this
century–spoke of the “malefactors of great wealth” and embraced a public,
political role for the government in “anti-trust”: controlling, curbing, and
breaking up large private concentrations of economic power.
Their defenders–many bought and paid for, a few not–painted a different
picture: the billionaires were examples of how America was a society of
untrammeled opportunity, where people could rise to great heights of wealth and
achievement on their industry and skill alone; they were public benefactors who
built up their profitable enterprises out of a sense of obligation to the
consumer; they were well-loved philanthropists; they were “industrial
Over the past century and a half the American economy has been at times
relatively open to, and at times closed to the ascension of “billionaires.”
Becoming a “billionaire” has never been “easy.” But it was next to impossible
before 1870, or between 1929 and 1980. And at other times–between 1870 and
1929, or since 1980–there has been something about the American economy that
opened roads to the accumulation of great wealth that were at other times
Does it matter whether an economy is open to the accumulation of
extraordinary amounts of private wealth? When the economy is more friendly to
the creation of billionaires, is economic growth faster? Or slower? And what
role does politics play? Are political forces generally hostile to great
fortunes, or are they generally in partnership? And when the political system
turns out to be corrupt–to serve as a committee for extracting wealth from the
people and putting it into the pockets of the politically well-connected
super-rich–what is to be done about it? What can be done to curb explicit and
implicit corruption without also reducing the pressure in the engine of capital
accumulation and economic growth?
And this is the third thing … about the turn of the century robber barons:
even though the base of their fortunes was the railroad industry, they were for
the most part more manipulators of finance than builders of new track.
came from the ability to acquire ownership of a profitable railroad and then to
capitalize those profits by selling securities to the public. Fortune came from
profiting from a shift–either upward or downward–in investors’ perceptions of
the railroad’s future profits. It was the tight integration of industry with
finance that made the turn of the twentieth century fortunes possible. …
The jump in wealth of the founders of these lines of business was intimately
tied up with the creation of a thick, well-functioning market for industrial
securities. And that would turn out to be a source of weakness when Wall Street
came under fire during the Great Depression. …
Progressives did not believe that the billionaires were just the helpless
puppets of market forces. In 1896 Democratic presidential candidate William
Jennings Bryan called for the end to the crucifixion of the farmer by a gold
standard working in the interests of Morgan and his fellow plutocrats. Fifteen
years later Louis Brandeis warned Morgan partner Thomas Lamont–after whom
Harvard University’s main undergraduate library is named-that it was in fact in
Morgan’s interest to support the Progressive reform program. If Morgan’s
partners did not do so, Brandeis warned, the Progressives would recede. Their
successors on the left wing of American politics would be real anarchists and
real socialists (DeLong, 1991).
Louis Brandeis and company did not much care whether the billionaires of what
they called the “money trust” were in any sense economically efficient. In
Brandeis’s mind, they’re evil because their interests were large…, size alone
made a billionaire’s fortune “dangerous, highly dangerous.” …
Populists from the American midwest found this set of issues a reliable one,
and their senators took turns calling for political and economic changes to
reduce the power exercised by the super-rich. …
The political debate was resolved only by the Great Depression. The presumed
link between the stock market crash and the Depression left the securities
industry without political defenders. The old guard of Progressives won during
the 1930s what they had not been able to win in the three earlier decades.
Ironically, it was Republican president Herbert Hoover who triggered the
process. Hoover thought that Wall Street speculators were prolonging the
Depression and refusing to take steps to restore prosperity. He threatened
investigations to persuade New York financiers to turn the corner around which
he was sure prosperity waited. Thus, as Franklin D. Roosevelt put it, “the money
changers were cast down from their high place in the temple of our
The Depression’s financial market reforms act broke the links
between board membership, investment banking, and commercial banking-based
management of asset portfolios that had marked American finance before 1930.
Investment bankers could no longer be commercial bankers. Depositors’ money
could not be directly used to support the prices of newly-issued securities.
Directorates could not be interlocked: that bankers could not be on the boards
of directors of firms that were their clients.
D. The Drying-Up of the Flow of Billionaires
Whatever else Depression-era financial reforms did (and there are those who
think it crippled the ability of Wall Street to channel finance to new
corporations) and whatever else the New Deal did (and it did a lot to bring
social democracy to the United States and to level the income distribution), one
important–and intended–consequence was that thereafter it was next to
impossible to become a billionaire.
Not that it was ever easy to become a billionaire, mind you, but the channels
through which lucky, skilled, dedicated, and ruthless entrepreneurs had ascended
were largely closed off. …
The hostility of Roosevelt’s New Deal to massive private concentrations
of economic power was effective: the flow of new billionaires dried up, as the
links between finance and industry that they had used to climb to the heights of
fortune were cut.
This is the important question:
Did the hostility of America’s political and economic environment to
billionaires between 1930 and 1980 harm the American economy? Did it slow the
rate of economic growth by discouraging entrepreneurship? As an
economist–someone who believes that there are always tradeoffs–I would think
“yes.” I would think that there must have been a price paid by the closing off
of the channels of financing for entrepreneurship through which E.H. Harriman,
James J. Hill, George F. Baker, Louis Swift, George Eastman, and others had made
But if so, there are no signs of it in aggregate growth data. …
V. Tentative Conclusions
So what can Americans expect from their current crop of billionaires? Or
rather what can they expect from the processes that have allowed their creation?
They should be extremely dubious about billionaires’ social utility. Their
relative absence from the 1930s to the 1970s did not seem to harm economic
growth in the United States. Their predecessors’ claim to much of their wealth
is, to see the least, dubious. And their large-scale presence was associated
with the serious corruption of American politics.
Perhaps those who are going to be industrial statesmen have as reasonable a
chance of truly being industrial statesmen in an environment hostile to
billionaires, as in an environment friendly to their creation: at that level of
operations, after all, money is just how people keep the score in their
competitions against nature and against each other. …
On the other hand, their personal consumption is only an infinitesimal
proportion of their total wealth. Much less of Andrew Carnegie’s fortune from
his steel mills went to his own personal consumption than has gone to his
attempts to promote international peace, or to build libraries to increase
The child who in mid-nineteenth century Scotland painfully learned to read
from the handful of books he had access to in his family’s two-room cottage as
they fell closer and closer to the edge of starvation–that child is visible in
the Carnegie libraries that still stand in several hundred cities and towns in
the United States, and is visible around us now. …
So if there is a lesson, it is roughly as follows: Politics can put curbs on
the accumulation of extraordinary amounts of wealth. And there is a very strong
sense in which an unequal society is an ugly society. I like the distribution of
wealth in the United States as it stood in 1975 much more than I like the
relative contribution of wealth today. But would breaking up Microsoft five
years ago have increased the pace of technological development in software?
Probably not. And diminishing subsidies for railroad construction would not have
given the United States a nation-spanning railroad network more quickly.
So there are still a lot of questions and few answers. At what level does
corruption become intolerable and undermine the legitimacy of democracy? How
large are the entrepreneurial benefits from the finance-industrial development
nexus through which the truly astonishing fortunes are developed?
To what extent
are the Jay Goulds and Leland Stanfords embarrassing but tolerable side-effects
of successful and broad economic development?
I know what the issues are. But I do not yet–not even for the late
nineteenth- and early twentieth-century United States–feel like I have even a
firm belief on what the answers will turn out to be.
He’s a bit reluctant to take a strong position against the robber barons, they are, perhaps, “tolerable side-effects
of successful and broad economic development.” I see more costs and fewer benefits than Brad, so I wouldn’t give as much ground here as he does. But this was written before the Great Recession, and I’d be curious to hear if his view of “the entrepreneurial benefits from the finance-industrial development,” and the necessity of tolerating these “side-effects” has changed in light of recent events.
We have been having these few decades the EXACT SAME DISCUSSIONS OVER EXTREME WEALTH AND EXTREME POWER as we had back in the 1920s. We know FDR went with social capitalism because the US was still young and growing. Very few global corporations existed back then. The Robber Barons and their pols wanted back in the 1920s to take the US to a Stalinist Marxism----keeping US citizens in that Great Depression impoverished state but WE THE PEOPLE got a break because the majority in power felt that there was far more wealth to be gained by growing US corporations. It was only because there was need for more financial strength in US corporations that Congress did not take the US to being a Stalinist Marxist society.
THESE 1% and their 2% decides these few decades ago that they were ready to expand overseas and build that global strength and power.
'Louis Brandeis and company did not much care whether the billionaires of what
they called the “money trust” were in any sense economically efficient. In
Brandeis’s mind, they’re evil because their interests were large…, size alone
made a billionaire’s fortune “dangerous, highly dangerous.”
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA has been that goal of expanding globally so we can easily assume as they built this coming economic crash from bond market fraud and collapse that they are now going to MOVE FORWARD with that 1920s vision of taking the US to a Stalinist Marxism-----MAO would be the same.
THIS IS HOW SOCIAL DEMOCRATS KNEW DURING CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA THAT THE GOAL WOULD SEE A MAJOR RESTRUCTURING OF OUR SOCIETY!
These several years of Obama and FED Bernanke saw all wealth to the top as in the 1920s---it saw as well the largest merger and acquisition between US corporations and other nations---creating those multi-national statuses having no connection to being American. This is how we know US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones will not be MADE IN AMERICA----it will bring MADE IN SINGAPORE to America.
2016 Set to Break Records for IoT Mergers and Acquisitions
May 4, 2016 | Editorial Team
| John Lund
In the first four months of 2016, there were nearly two dozen major mergers and acquisitions in the Internet of Things (IoT) and related market segments including Big Data Analytics, connectivity and wireless markets, according to Strategy Analytics’ new report “IoT 2016 Merger and Acquisition (M&A) Activity Accelerates.”
Strategy Analytics’ research indicates the 2016 M&A activity may eclipse the pace set in 2015, which was a record-breaking year both in terms of the number and value of acquisitions.
“At the end of 2010, there were a scant one dozen acquisitions in the then fledgling IoT market. By the end of 2015, SA estimates there were 81 mergers and acquisitions; that is a nearly seven-fold increase in five years,” noted Laura DiDio, SA’s Director of IoT Research and author of the report.
The biggest M&A deal of 2016 to date is the February announcement that Cisco was buying Jasper Technologies IoT services’ platform for $1.4 billion. But the year is still young and more high level acquisitions will undoubtedly follow.
“Also notable is the increase in the worth of the companies being acquired,” said Andrew Brown, Executive Director of the IoT Strategies Service. While vendors are still acquiring companies for $50, $100 and $200 million, billion dollar acquisitions, such as Cisco’s purchase of Jasper Technologies’ IoT services platform and even multi-billion dollar deals – are no longer rarities.
The most desirable acquisition targets are companies whose core competencies are concentrated around analytics, security, connectivity platform capabilities and services. And within those product categories, IoT vendors are especially eager to acquire companies in hot vertical segments including:
- Consumer Wearables
- Industrial IoT
- Smart Home
Starting Off Strong – Top IoT M&As of 2016
- Brocade’s bid for Ruckus Wireless for $1.5 billion
- Cisco’s four acquisitions of Jasper for $1.4 billion, Leaba Semiconductor for $320 million, CliQR and Synata
- Harman’s purchase of TowerSec
- IBM’s binge purchases of Optevia, Ustream, consulting firm Bluewolf Group, fraud detection firm Iris Analytics, cyber security firm Resilient Systems and cloud-based healthcare data company Truven Health Analytics (for $2.6 billion).
- Intel subsidiary Wind River’s acquisition of over-the-air platform vendor Arynga
- Intel’s acquisition of Italian chipmaker Yogitech
- Amazon’s purchase of startup 2lementry and Dash Button
- NXP’s acquisition of Freescale Semiconductor for $16.7 billion
- Qualcomm’s purchase of Cambridge Silicon Radio for $2.4 billion
- Intel’s purchase of Altera for $16.7 billion
- Intel’s acquisition of cognitive computing vendor Saffro
- Sierra Wireless’ acquisition of Accel
- Bosch’s acquisition of IoT middleware platform ProSyst
- PTC’s acquisition of machine data and predictive analytics company ColdLight for $105 Million
- Cisco’s acquisition of ParStream
- IBM’s purchase of the Weather Company
That said, the success of individual mergers and acquisitions is not guaranteed.
IoT vendors must still perform due diligence to ensure that they purchase companies whose IoT technologies fill a specific product need and deliver end-to-end solutions.
Robber Barons wanted a FED back in 1920s to leverage and expand financial markets across the US and globally. The FED is a CENTRAL BANK-----our founding fathers did not want a FED because they knew it was power and wealth that would kill our new Democratic Republic----each time someone tried to install a FED -----we had LEADERS back then fighting for WE THE PEOPLE. This is why we know CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have been about creating a global FED-----a global central bank that will handle all the expansion of now multi-national corporations so the concept of ONE WORLD ONE CURRENCY has been around for several decades. We know if having a US FED created these problems of today -----we know having a global central bank would be worse.
Before the 1% and their 2% can create that global central bank---they need an IMF and World Bank to seize American wealth. Moving tens of trillions to leverage more expansion and shore up a GLOBAL CENTRAL BANK. That is from where all these global investment firms coming to US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones are getting their money and transacting. Right now ONE CURRENCY cannot be done with a US dollar loaded with debt ---they had to load the dollar with Treasury debt to bring down the nation----once that was done the dollar is of no value for a GLOBAL CENTRAL BANK partnered with IMF and World Bank.
REMEMBER, ALL THESE STRUCTURES USED TO BE OUR COMMUNITY BANKS----MERGED TO REGIONAL BANKS---MERGED TO NATIONAL BANKS---MERGED TO GLOBAL BANKS. Now only global banking corporations will be in Foreign Economic Zones including North America.
We hear talk of BITCOIN------BNOTES------all having to do with the loss of our US dollar ----this video shares what ONE WORLD ONE CURRENCY MIGHT LOOK LIKE!
'The New York Fed claims that the private BIS shareholders don't have voting rights:
All shareholders receive the Bank’s dividends. However, private shareholders do not have voting rights or representation at the BIS annual meetings. Only a country's central bank or its nominee may exercise the rights of representation and voting'.
This is to where much of those tens of trillions of dollars in corporate and Wall Street fraud was sent these few decades and it will be from where all the US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE development funding---via investment firms et al will come. Private investors as shareholders just as will be true of global multi-national corporations.
The World's Biggest Central Bank Has Private Shareholders
by George Washington
Jul 28, 2011 11:46 PM
By Washington’s Blog
As I've pointed out for years, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is owned by the world's central banks, which are in turn owned by the big banks. See this and this.
It turns out there may be a very interesting wrinkle to private ownership issue.
By way of background, BIS is often called the "central banks' central bank", as it coordinates transactions between central banks, and which is the entity determining the level of reserves banks are required to keep worldwide.
As Spiegel reported in 2009:
The BIS is a closed organization owned by the 55 central banks. The heads of these central banks travel to the Basel headquarters once every two months, and the General Meeting, the BIS's supreme executive body, takes place once a year.
But the New York Federal Reserve Bank currently states on its website:
As of March 2006, the BIS had 55 shareholding central banks from around the world. As of March 2006, the Bank’s assets were approximately $221 billion, including $5.8 billion of its own funds.
When the BIS initially raised capital, participating banks were given the option to buy BIS shares or arrange for those shares to be bought by the public. Currently, 86 percent of the shares of the BIS are registered in the names of central banks, and 14 percent are held by private shareholders. The shares owned by private shareholders consist of part of the French and Belgian issues and all of the shares that were in the original U.S. issue in 1930.
So the private banks own the Fed (and most other central banks), and the central banks - and private shareholders - in turn own BIS, the global bank regulator.
It would obviously be very interesting to find out who these private shareholders are.
And to find out if the shareholders enjoy any special benefits. As Spiegel notes:
Formally registered as a stock corporation, it is recognized as an international organization and, therefore, is not subject to any jurisdiction other than international law.
It does not need to pay tax, and its members and employees enjoy extensive immunity. No other institution regulates the BIS, despite the fact that it manages about 4 percent of the world's total currency reserves, or €217 trillion ($304 trillion), as well as 120 tons of gold...
Central bankers are not elected by the people but are appointed by their governments. Nevertheless, they wield power that exceeds that of many political leaders. Their decisions affect entire economies, and a single word from their lips is capable of moving financial markets. They set interest rates, thereby determining the cost of borrowing and the speed of global financial currents.
Could that mean that the private shareholders owning 14% of the world's central bank have somehow been "grandfathered in", and are immune from taxes and other national rules? Wouldn't it be interesting to find out?
The New York Fed claims that the private BIS shareholders don't have voting rights:
All shareholders receive the Bank’s dividends. However, private shareholders do not have voting rights or representation at the BIS annual meetings. Only a country's central bank or its nominee may exercise the rights of representation and voting.
This may or may not be true. It is common for powerful and wealthy people informally influence agency decisions. Just look at every captured financial regulator in the United States.
But whether or not the shareholders get special treatment or influence the decisions of the world's most powerful banking institution, it is still newsworthy that there are private parties with not insignificant ownership interests.
When looking for where in the world US Treasury and municipal bond debt has been sold one could look at several foreign nations----several Cayman Island offshore holding hiding ownership of bonds---then we have the US FED's $4 trillion in mortgage loan debt. In the 2008 economic crash the FED was said to funnel from our US Treasury a few tens of trillions of dollars and we can think it likely these trillions are being funneled to that GLOBAL CENTRAL BANK. Literally all government revenue that would rebuild all our US city communities and create small business economies across the nation have been offshored to that GLOBAL CENTRAL BANK that is now using WE THE PEOPLE revenue to fund global corporate projects around the world AND sending it back to US Foreign Economic Zones to build global corporate campus infrastructure. ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ONE GLOBAL CENTRAL BANK will see a US FED disappear with branches of the global central bank appearing in our US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones---- they being tied to the World Bank and IMF. Each US Foreign Economic Zone operating independently not tied to a Wall Street or a US FED---but to a World Bank and Global Central Bank. Of course they will only be lending to global corporations and global banks.
$20 trillion in national debt half of which is US Treasury debt will cause default---as will Maryland and Baltimore's municipal bond debt. As we said---this is sovereign debt it stops paying US Treasury bond holders the first to stop would be all our public trusts----Social Security, public pensions, government activities tied to US Treasuries----
'When a country does this, it's known as a sovereign default. This is when the country cannot repay its debt, which typically takes the form of bonds.
So if the US were to default, it would essentially stop paying the money it owed US Treasury bond holders'.
'This is because if the US government could not repay the money it owed bondholders, the value of the bonds would decrease. And the yield - the return the government pays to an investor - would rise. This is because it would be perceived as a less safe investment'.
All the foreign national bond debt would be paid by US Foreign Economic Zones handing our real estate to a China, Japan, Brazil----under the guise of global corporate campuses. We are using our Federal tax revenue to pay these foreign nations to bring global corporations to our cities. Trillions of dollars more are tied to global hedge funds----
ALL OUR US PUBLIC WEALTH MOVED OUT OF US SITTING OFFSHORE WAITING FOR THIS ECONOMIC CRASH.
This will bring the collapse of our US dollar.
What happens in a US debt default?
By Kim Gittleson BBC business reporter, New York
- 17 October 2013
- From the section Business
What is a US debt default?
At its most basic level, a default is when a person or an entity cannot repay a debt on time. For instance, when a person can't make a payment on a mortgage or a car loan.
When a country does this, it's known as a sovereign default. This is when the country cannot repay its debt, which typically takes the form of bonds.
So if the US were to default, it would essentially stop paying the money it owed US Treasury bond holders.
A quick refresher: the US government spends more money than it collects in taxes. So to make up the shortfall, it raises funds by asking investors to buy US Treasury bonds. Investors, such as the Chinese government and pension funds, do this because these bonds are seen as a safe place to invest money.
What are the consequences of a US default?
No one really knows exactly what would happen, but the likelihood is that markets around the world would plunge and global interest rates would rise.
This is because if the US government could not repay the money it owed bondholders, the value of the bonds would decrease. And the yield - the return the government pays to an investor - would rise. This is because it would be perceived as a less safe investment.
This would prompt interest rates around the world, which are often tied to those of US Treasuries, to spike.
Furthermore, the impact on the US's creditors could be dire. Japan, for instance, owns about $1.14 trillion of US debt - which is equivalent to 20% of its annual economic output.
In the US, Goldman Sachs estimates that $175bn would immediately be withdrawn from the US economy and it could lead to a very deep recession.
How does the US government pay its bills anyway?
Strangely, no one really knows exactly how it works.
Each day, the US Treasury receives a little over two million bills from various federal agencies.
According to analysts at Credit Suisse, there are three main offices that pay those bills: the Department of Defense Disbursing Offices, the Bureau of the Fiscal Service and the Financial Management Service.
Technically, the payment systems can be turned on - to make payments - or off - but not much else.
If prioritisation were possible, the US Treasury would probably turn off the tap at the Department of Defense Disbursing Offices and the Financial Management Service. That would leave the Bureau of Fiscal Service, which pays money to bondholders.
What bills does the US Treasury have coming up?
There are quite a few coming up in the next month; the biggest ones are due on 1 November.
After 17 October, the US government will only have about 68% of the funds it needs to pay its bills for the next month, according to a report by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
This means that technically, the government could continue to pay some bills.
However, daily revenue intake can fluctuate wildly, making it difficult to plan.
Furthermore, it's not just upcoming bills that could be a source of worry.
Every few days, the US Treasury must "roll over" its current debt holdings - about $300bn in the next month. Rolling over debt is like refinancing a mortgage - it's borrowing money to pay off a loan.
This typically doesn't "cost" anything, as the new debt should directly replace the old debt. But if you can't borrow at the same interest rate, your debt then gets more expensive.
So if investors decide that they no longer want to be involved with US bonds, they could refuse to buy those bonds. And those that are left could demand higher interest rates - which could cost the US government a significant amount in the long run.
Has the US defaulted before?
There are three examples in US history that come close to default, with the most recent occurring in 1979.
Then, the US Treasury inadvertently defaulted on $122m, because of what it said was a word processing error.
Although the error was quickly fixed, and even though $122m was a tiny fraction of the $800bn in debt that the Treasury had at the time, a study found that the mini-default raised the cost of borrowing by 0.6%, or $6bn a year.
The other two instances, in 1933 and in 1790, both involve defaults akin to the current situation in Greece, when creditors were forced to take less money than what they were owed. Some economists have defined this as a default, but it's murky territory.
This is what we mean when we shouted the 5% to the 1% who were winning will now be losers. Between lost 401K/Pensions----all investments stocks and bonds---bank accounts will be confiscated to bailout Wall Street---there will be bankrupted credit unions and community banks with no loans going out. All this will cause higher unemployment than in 2008 with no recovery-----and the only growth will be the funding for building global corporate campuses and global factories with that global labor pool.
'How the Stock Market Crash of 1929 Happened
In 1929, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates several times in an attempt to cool the overheated economy and stock market. By October, a powerful bear market had commenced. On Thursday, October 24th 1929, a spate of panic selling occurred as Stock Market Crash of 1929 Newspaperinvestors began to realize that the stock boom was actually an over-inflated speculative bubble. Margin investors were being decimated as large numbers of stock investors tried to liquidate their shares to no avail. Millionaire margin investors went bankrupt almost instantly when the stock market crashed on October 28th and 29th. During November of 1929, the Dow sank from 400 to 145. In just three days, over $5 billion worth of market capitalization had been erased from stocks that were trading on the New York Stock Exchange. By the end of the 1929 stock market crash, a staggering $16 billion worth of market capitalization had been lost from NYSE stocks'.
Hillary was overseas hawking these subprimed US Treasury and municipal bonds as Secretary of State and Clinton neo-liberals joined Republicans with Obama cheerleading to pass laws and promote this coming economic crash from massive bond market fraud and collapse. Trump was only watching it all and he will hand all over to World Bank to handle.
The Stock Market Crash of 1929
By Jesse Colombo (This article was written on July 17th, 2012)
America’s Stock Market Crash of 1929 was a powerful market crash that started in October of 1929 after the Roaring Twenties economic “bubble boom” finally popped.
America experienced an era of great peace and prosperity during the 1920s. After World War I, the so-called “Roaring Twenties” economic and cultural boom was fueled by industrialization and the popularization of new technologies such as radio and the automobile. Air flight was becoming common as well.
The Dow stock average soared throughout the Roaring Twenties and many investors aggressively purchased shares, comforted by the fact that stocks were thought to be extremely safe by most economists due to the country’s powerful economic boom. Investors soon purchased stocks on margin, which is the borrowing of stock for the purpose of gaining financial leverage. For every dollar invested, a margin user would borrow nine dollars worth of stock. The use of leverage meant that if a stock went up 1%, the investor would make 10%. Unfortunately, leverage also works the other way around and amplifies even minor losses. If a stock drops too much, a margin holder could lose all of their investment and possibly owe money to their broker as well.
From 1921 to 1929, the Dow Jones rocketed from 60 to 400, creating many new millionaires. Very soon, stock trading became America’s favorite pastime as investors jockeyed to make a quick killing. Investors mortgaged their homes and foolishly invested their life savings into hot stocks such as Ford and RCA. To the average investor, stocks were practically a sure thing. Few people actually studied the finances and underlying businesses of the companies that they invested in. Thousands of fraudulent companies were formed to hoodwink unsavvy investors. Most investors never even thought a crash was possible – in their minds, the stock market “always went up.”
How the Stock Market Crash of 1929 Happened
In 1929, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates several times in an attempt to cool the overheated economy and stock market. By October, a powerful bear market had commenced. On Thursday, October 24th 1929, a spate of panic selling occurred as investors began to realize that the stock boom was actually an over-inflated speculative bubble. Margin investors were being decimated as large numbers of stock investors tried to liquidate their shares to no avail. Millionaire margin investors went bankrupt almost instantly when the stock market crashed on October 28th and 29th. During November of 1929, the Dow sank from 400 to 145. In just three days, over $5 billion worth of market capitalization had been erased from stocks that were trading on the New York Stock Exchange. By the end of the 1929 stock market crash, a staggering $16 billion worth of market capitalization had been lost from NYSE stocks.
To make matters worse, many banks had invested their deposits in the stock market, causing these banks to lose their depositors’ savings as stocks plunged. Bank runs soon occurred when bank patrons tried to withdraw their savings from banks all at the same time. Major banks and brokerage firms became insolvent, adding more fuel to the stock market crash. The financial system was in shambles. Many bankrupt speculators, some who were once very affluent, committed suicide by jumping out of buildings. Even bank patrons who had not invested in shares became broke as $140 billion of depositor money disappeared and 10,000 banks failed.
The 1929 stock market crash was beneficial for some speculators, however. Jesse Livermore correctly predicted the crash and shorted stocks to profit from the decline, earning him over 100 million dollars. Joseph Kennedy, President John F. Kennedy’s father, sold his stocks before the 1929 stock market crash and kept millions of dollars of profit. Kennedy decided to sell his stocks because he overheard shoeshine boys and other novices speculating on stocks, leading him to believe that the stock market had been experiencing a speculative bubble.
The stock market crash of 1929 led to a major economic crisis known as the Great Depression. The Depression lasted from approximately October 1929 until the late-1930’s. Mass poverty became common and many workers lost their jobs and were forced to live in shanty towns. Former millionaire businessmen were reduced to selling apples and pencils on street corners. One-third of Americans were living below the poverty line during the Great Depression. The Dow Jones finally surpassed its 1929 high, a full 26 years later in 1955.
The Roaring Twenties and the stock market crash of 1929 was similar to any other speculative bubble and subsequent crash. The classic pattern of extreme euphoria and irrational expectations will always lead to devastating financial crashes.