Bookmark & Share
2008/12/03
2008/10/18
Global Financial Meltdown
Global Financial Meltdown
Global Financial Meltdown By Michel Chossudovsky | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Global Research, September 18, 2008 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bloody Monday September 15, 2008 Bloody Monday, September 15, 2008. The Dow Jones industrial average (DJIA) declined by 504 points (4.4%), its largest drop since Sept. 17, 2001, when trading resumed after the 9/11 attacks. The financial slide proceeded unabated, leading to an 800 point decline of the Dow Jones in less than a week. The World's stock markets are interconnected "around the clock" through instant computer link-up. Volatile trading on Wall Street immediately "spills over" into the European and Asian stock markets thereby rapidly permeating the entire financial system.
When viewed in a global context, taking into account the instability generated by speculative trade, the implications of this crisis are far-reaching. The crisis, however, has by no means reached its climax. It could potentially disrupt the very foundations of the international monetary system. The repercussions on people's lives in America and around the world are dramatic. The crisis is not limited to the meltdown of financial markets, the real economy at the national and international levels, its institutions, its productive structures are also in jeopardy. As stock values collapse, lifelong household savings are eroded, not to mention pension funds. The financial meltdown inevitably backlashes on consumer markets, the housing market, and more broadly on the process of investment in the production of goods and services. War and the Economic Crisis What is of utmost significance is that this plunge in stock market values occurs at the crossroads of a major military adventure. The global financial crisis is intimately related to the war. A spiraling defense budget backlashes on the civilian sectors of economic activity. The war economy has a direct bearing on fiscal and monetary policy. Defense expenditure is in excess of $500 billion. A separate $70 billion is earmarked "to cover war costs into the early months of a new administration. Those amounts combined would represent the highest level of military spending since the end of World War II (adjusted for inflation)." (Csmonitor.com February 06, 2008). "War is Good for Business": The powerful financial groups which routinely manipulate stock markets, currency and commodity markets, are also promoting the continuation and escalation of the Middle East war. The financial crisis is related to the structure of US public investment in the war economy versus the funding, through tax dollars, of civilian social programs. "More broadly, this also raises the issue of the role of the US Treasury and the US monetary system, in relentlessly financing the military industrial complex and the Middle East war at the expense of most sectors of civilian economic activity." (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Democrats endorse the "Global War on Terrorism": Obama "goes after" Osama, Global Research, August 29, 2008) The war is profit driven, financed through the massive Worldwide expansion of dollar denominated debt. War and Globalization go hand in hand. Wall Street, the oil companies and the defense contractors have concurrent and overlapping interests. The oil companies are behind the speculative surge in crude oil prices on the London energy market. In turn, resulting from the military agenda, the US civilian economy is in crisis as the nation's resources including tax dollars are diverted into funding a multibillion Middle East war. The Speculative Onslaught The Worldwide scramble to appropriate wealth through "financial manipulation" is the driving force behind this crisis. It is the source of economic turmoil and social devastation. What are the underlying causes? What prevails is a totally deregulated financial environment characterized by extensive speculative trade. The history of deregulation goes back to the beginnings of the Reagan administration. In the wake of the 1987 stock market meltdown, the US Treasury was advised by Wall Street not to meddle in financial markets. Free of government encroachment, the New York and Chicago exchanges were invited to establish their own regulatory procedures. The authority to regulate the market no longer rests with the State but with stock market officials who directly serve the interests of the institutional speculators. The crisis on Wall Street is part of a process of financial warfare. Since the 1987 crisis, a new era of intense financial rivalry has unfolded. Financial deregulation in the US has created an environment which favors an unprecedented concentration of global financial power. The financial meltdown is intimately related to the unregulated growth of highly leveraged speculative operations. The Hedge Funds The hedge funds are private investment funds, which manage the pooled funds of wealthy investors. While they are often linked to major financial institutions, they are totally unregulated. They operate with a large pool of money capital, which is used to undertake highly leveraged speculative transactions. The latter have the characteristic that profits can be reaped when the market goes up, but also when the market goes down. Short Selling Some market participants say abusive short sellers have contributed to the fall of companies such as Lehman Brothers by forcing down share prices The Market for Crude Oil This economic crisis is the outcome of a process of macroeconomic and financial restructuring initiated in the early 1980s. It is the result of a policy framework: trade and financial sector reforms under WTO auspices not to mention the imposition of the IMF deadly macroeconomic reforms, commonly referred to as the structural adjustment program. It is accompanied by the concurrent impoverishment of large sectors of the world population. The debt crisis of the early 1980s unleashed a wave of corporate mergers, buy-outs and bankruptcies. These changes in turn paved the way for the consolidation of a new generation of financiers clustered around the large merchant banks, the institutional investors, stock brokerage firms, large insurance companies, etc. In this process, commercial banking functions have coalesced with those of the investment banks and stock brokers leading to the consolidation of a handful of global financial conglomerates. The unregulated use of complex speculative instruments has provided Wall Street with the means to extend its global financial empire. The main thrust of this process does not consist in overseeing the stock market per se. Rather it resides in controlling the lucrative markets for speculative instruments --derivatives, options, futures, hedges, etc.-- where the scope for manipulation and insider trade is far greater. Wall Street's financial dominance was to be achieved through its institutional control over the channels of speculative trade. This control also provided, as in the case of the Asian crisis, the basis for weakening the role of central banks, taking control over the reigns of monetary policy, stock markets and currency markets. In the 1997 Asian crisis alone, more than 100 billion dollars were confiscated in a matter of months from the vaults of Asia's central banks; similar speculative assaults were carried out in Russia in 1998 and in Brazil in 1999. These events were followed by the dramatic bubble and bust of the dot.com stocks, when the NASDAQ Composite index peaked at more than 5,000 in March 2000 and subsequently collapsed, triggering a chain of panic selling. (see below)
NASDAQ (1994-2008). Dot.com peak in March 2000 The 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act. [1] In 1999, The Financial Services Modernization Act (Gramm-Leach Bliley Act), was adopted by the US Congress. In the wake of lengthy negotiations, all regulatory restraints on Wall Street's powerful banking conglomerates were revoked "with a stroke of the pen". Under the new rules ratified by the US Senate and approved by President Clinton, commercial banks, brokerage firms, institutional investors and insurance companies could freely invest in each others businesses as well as fully integrate their financial operations. The legislation repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, a pillar of President Roosevelt's "New Deal" which was put in place in response to the climate of corruption, financial manipulation and "insider trading" which resulted in more than 5,000 bank failures in the years following the 1929 Wall Street crash. (See Martin McLaughlin, Clinton Republicans agree to deregulation of US banking system, World Socialist Website, 1 November 1999). The Merger Frenzy Several mammoth bank mergers (including NationalBank Corp with Bank America and Citibank with Travelers Group) were carried out and approved by the Federal Reserve Board (in blatant violation of the existing legislation) prior to the passage of the 1999 Financial Modernization Act.. In the years prior to the inauguration of the Bush administration, a process of intense financial rivalry had unfolded. The New World Order largely under the dominion of American finance capital was intent on dwarfing rival banking conglomerates in Western Europe and Japan as well as sealing strategic alliances with a "select club" of German and British banking giants. The Shape of Things to Come The bank mergers (carried out prior to the 1999 legislation in violation of the Glass Steagall Act) were but "the tip of the iceberg", the shape of things to come. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act had created an environment which favored an unprecedented concentration of global financial power. Effective control over the entire US financial services industry had been transferred to a handful of financial conglomerates. What prevails today is a de facto system of private regulation. The evolving "global financial supermarket" is to be overseen by the Wall Street giants. State level banks across America were displaced or swallowed up by the financial giants, leading to a deadly string of bank failures. In turn, the supervisory powers of the Federal Reserve Board, increasingly under the direct dominion of Wall Street, were significantly weakened. The financial giants have the ability to strangle local level businesses in the US and overshadow the real economy. In fact, due to the lack of competition, the 1999 legislation, which was an initiative of Senator Phil Gramm, also entitled the financial services giants (bypassing the Federal Reserve Board and acting in tacit collusion with one another) to set the structure of interest rates as they please:
Global Financial Architecture The Financial Services Modernization Act should not be viewed in isolation as a domestic procedure, limited to the US financial landscape. The impacts of the legislation extended well beyond the borders of the US financial system. The institutional changes which it brought about, including the concentration and centralization of power in the hands of a small number of financial giants, largely contributed to Wall Street's unswerving quest for global financial domination. The Worldwide scramble to appropriate wealth through "financial manipulation" was the driving force behind this restructuring of the global financial architecture of which the 1999 US legislation was an integral part, setting the pattern of financial reform in different parts of the World. While the 1999 Legislation does not in itself break down the barriers to capital movements, in practice it empowers Wall Street's key players to enter the financial services markets of developing countries and consolidate a hegemonic position in global banking, overshadowing and ultimately destabilizing financial systems in Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe... The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and The World Trade Organization (WTO). Financial deregulation in the US exerted a decisive influence in "setting the pace" of global financial reform under the auspices of the IMF and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The 1999 Legislation was part of a global financial agenda, consisting in deregulating capital movements, liberalizing domestic banking and capital markets Worldwide under WTO auspices and opening up national financial services markets to the global financial conglomerates The legislation was implemented alongside the concurrent reshaping of the global trade and financial architecture under the WTO agenda. Under the GATS, developing countries have committed themselves to full liberalization of financial services. In other words, national governments, which are already controlled by their external creditors, would be unable to deflect the Wall Street giants from entering and swallowing up national banks and financial institutions. . In conjunction with the provisions of the Financial Services Agreement and the GATS, the 1999 banking legislation adopted in the US empowered a handful of banking conglomerates with the ability of destabilizing the domestic financial landscape of developing countries. The sweeping deregulation of US banking imparted unprecedented powers to Wall Street's financial conglomerates to acquire and take over banking institutions all over the World. The tendency was towards a Worldwide financial supermarket controlled by a handful of global financial institutions which penetrate and permeate the fabric of national economies. Two major agreements (negotiated under the WTO) contributed to "entrenching the rights" of the global banks" in international law, tantamount (according to critics) to granting "fundamental rights" to the banks which override those contained in national constitutions. The provisions of both the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the Financial Services Agreement (FTA) formally break down remaining impediments to the movement of capital meaning that Bank of America or Citigroup can go wherever they please, triggering the bankruptcy of national banks and financial institutions. Moreover, with the support of the IMF, the Wall Street conglomerates and their European and Japanese partners reinforced and consolidated their role as the World's major creditor institutions, routinely underwriting the public debt, overseeing the conduct of State budgetary policy, issuing syndicated loans to troubled industrial corporations, overseeing the privatization of State corporations which have been put on the auction block in the context of an IMF bailout agreement, etc. Financial Warfare: The Powers of Deception The weapons used on Wall Street are prior knowledge and inside information, the ability to manipulate with the capacity to predict results, the spreading of misleading or false information on economic occurrences and market trends. These various procedures are best described as the "powers of deception", which financial institutions routinely use to mislead investors. The art of deception is also directed against their banking competitors, who are betting in the derivatives and futures markets, in stocks, currencies and commodities. Those who have access to privileged information (political, intelligence, military, scientific, etc.) will invariably have the upper hand in the conduct of these highly leveraged speculative transactions, which are the source of tremendous financial gains. The CIA has its own financial institutions on Wall Street. In turn the corridors of private banking and offshore banking, enable financial institutions to transfer their profits at ease, from one location to another. This procedure is also used as a safety net which protects the interests of key financial actors including CEOs, major shareholders, etc of troubled financial institutions. Large amounts of money can be moved out at an opportune moment, prior to the company's demise on the stock market. (e.g. Lehman, Merrill Lynch and AIG). The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and its powerful stakeholders have "inside information" on the conduct of US monetary policy. They are thereby in a position to predict outcomes and hedge their bets in highly leveraged operations on the futures and derivatives markets. They are in an obvious conflict of interest because their prior knowledge of particular decisions by the Federal Reserve Board enables them as private banking institutions to make multibillion dollar profits. Links to US intelligence, to the CIA, Homeland Security, to the Pentagon are crucial in the conduct of speculative trade, since it allows the speculators to predict events, through prior knowledge of foreign policy and/or national security decisions which directly affect financial markets. An example: the put options on airline stocks in the days preceding the 9/11 attacks. An internal war within the financial system is unfolding. Lehman Bros goes bankrupt, Merrill Lynch is bought up... Mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are taken over by the government. Bear Stearns collapses, America's largest insurance company AIG's share collapse from $22.19 on September 9, to less than $4.00 at the close of trading on September 16, a decline of more than 80 percent of its value. Goldman Sachs together with JP Morgan Chase are negotiating with the Treasury to arrange for a $85 billion secured loan to AIG, which would be financed by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Who picks up the pieces? What lies ahead? The process of mergers and acquisitions is likely to proceed to new heights leading to an unprecedented centralization of financial power, with Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York playing a dominant role. The meltdown will be conducive to the demise of numerous banking and financial institutions, which will either be driven out of the financial landscape altogether or acquired by the financial giants. Bank of America is slated to purchase Merrill Lynch, leading to the formation of the world's largest financial institution, clashing with Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase. It should be noted that while Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase are competing institutions, they are nonetheless entwined through intermarriage between the Rockefeller and Stillman families. Bank of America in the last two decades has developed into a financial giant through a series of mergers and acquisitions. In 2004, Bank of America acquired FleetBoston Financial, in 2005 it purchases credit card giant MBNA and in 2007 it acquires LaSalle Bank Corporation and Corporate Finance from the Dutch bank ABN AMRO. And on September 14, 2008, Bank of America announced its intention to acquire Merrill Lynch for $50 billion. What we are dealing with is a clash between a handful of major financial institutions, which have developed through mergers and acquisitions into Worldwide financial giants. The financial meltdown on Wall Street largely benefits Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, which is part of the Rockefeller empire, at the expense of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Bloody Monday, September 15. Lehman's assets are of the order of $639 billion.
In 2000, J.P. Morgan merged with Chase Manhattan, leading to the integration of J.P. Morgan, Chase, Chemical and Manufacturers Hanover into a single financial entity. Bear Stearns was acquired in 2008 by JP Morgan Chase following its collapse. This banking empire controlled by the Rockefeller family has assets of more than 1.6 trillion dollars. With assets of $1.7 trillion, Citigroup's future remains undecided. It is facing serious financial difficulties which could lead it into bankruptcy. Citigroup share prices have in recent months collapsed alongside those of Fannie Mae. The Lehman debacle has precipitated a further decline of Citigroup stock prices. It is the trustee "for unsecured creditors who are owed some $155 billion by Lehman Brothers", but according to Citgroup statements they "have little or no exposure to the failed investment bank." What this means is that the collapse of Lehman will lead to massive loan default in relation to the portfolios of Citigroup and NY Mellon clients, namely client banking institutions as well as individual investors. Note. 1. This section relied on a series of unpublished notes, on the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, Legislation, which I wrote in November 1999. United States' Largest Banks (in millions of U.S. dollars)
NOTE: As of May 30, 2008. Source: Federal Reserve System, National Information Center. The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order by Michel Chossudovsky TO ORDER CLICK HERE This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically. In this new enlarged edition –which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction-- the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation. Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com © Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2008 The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=10268 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2008/09/22
FBI DNA wood-pile finds one too many hijacker
At least 7 of the government alleged ,19 hijackers were known to be alive shortly after 9/11/2001 and we know the 9/11 commission failed to consider this evidence.
The FBI now reports they have the remains of 13 of the 19 hijackers. – a number that adds up to 20 when fact-checked against the 7 hijackers reported to be alive within 2 weeks of 9/11/2001.
Could one of the so-called “hijacker” DNA remains in FBI custody be that of a missing 9/11 victim?
Of course this would call for an investigation, wouldn’t it?
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0406/S00195.htm
============================================================
7 Years Later, 9/11 Hijackers’ Remains Are in Limbo
By SEAN D. HAMILL
Published: September 20, 2008
Seven years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the remains of 13 of the 19 men responsible have been identified and are in the custody of the F.B.I. and the New York City medical examiner’s office.
But no one has formally requested the remains in order to bury them.
“Politically, one can understand that this is a hot potato,” said Muneer Fareed, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America and a former professor of Islamic studies. “People don’t want to identify with the political equivalent of Jeffrey Dahmer.”
What would happen if someone asked for the hijackers’ remains is not clear.
Neither the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which holds the remains of the nine hijackers whose planes hit the Pentagon and crashed in a field in Somerset County, Pa., nor the New York City medical examiner’s office, which holds the remains of 4 of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center buildings, has policies to deal with such a request.
“If and when it comes up, we’ll address it then,” an F.B.I. spokesman, Richard Kolko, said.
The bureau could turn down such requests, Mr. Kolko said, because the Sept. 11 investigation is an open case.
The medical examiner’s office, which, like the F.B.I., refuses to say where exactly the remains are being kept, will eventually put together a committee to come up with a policy, said Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the office.
Groups representing the victims of Sept. 11 are not sure what should be done with the remains.
“It would be sadly ironic if they ended up being properly buried or sent to a Muslim country when many of the remains of the victims remain buried in a garbage dump,” said Kurt Horning, a founder with his wife, Diane, of the group WTC Families for Proper Burial. “I know we’d feel very distressed.”
The Hornings’ son, Matthew, 26, was working at the World Trade Center and died there on Sept. 11. Their group has been advocating for excavation of the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island where ash and other debris from the World Trade Center site was buried. The group believes the debris may contain identifiable remains.
The identified remains of the victims of Sept. 11 are regularly returned to their families upon request, after officials have made positive identifications.
At the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, investigators first identified the victims, and the remains that could not be linked to a victim’s DNA profile were assumed to belong to the terrorists.
For the World Trade Center site, with a much larger area to search and an initially undetermined number of victims, the F.B.I. identified the 10 terrorists’ DNA profiles from personal items, Mr. Kolko said, which included recovered luggage and cigarette butts left in a rental car. The unnamed DNA profiles of those terrorists were then supplied to the medical examiner’s office.
But, since the DNA profiles were unnamed by the bureau, the office could not say which hijackers have been identified, just that 4 of the 10 have been so far.
Three of them were identified as hijackers within two years of the 2001 attack. But the fourth set of remains was not found until September 2007, when the discovery of numerous bone fragments at a building near the World Trade Center site prompted a reinvestigation of the entire site.
The only semblance of a request from a hijacker’s family member to any of the agencies that handled the recovery of remains came in the summer of 2002 from an uncle of one of the men on Flight 93, which crashed in Somerset County.
“I got a call from Beirut at 4 a.m.,” said Wallace E. Miller, the Somerset County coroner. “He said he was an uncle of one of them and wanted to know what the situation was. I said if he sent a DNA sample, we’d make a cross-reference to confirm, but I never heard anything more from him.”
The uncle — Mr. Miller said he could not recall his name or who his nephew was — was apparently prompted by a British or South African journalist who had put the man on the phone after interviewing him about the events of Sept. 11.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/21hijackers.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
2008/09/13
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)