Odds are they are lying. Benefits of lying are tremendous. As John Maynard Keynes – famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.
The non Anglo-Saxon block owned gold companies are pulling out of WGC. 2 WAYS of looking at this development;Gold Fields’ decision was “purely a cost issue,” spokesman Willie Jacobsz said today by phone. “Members pay per ounce of metal produced and with all the cost-cutting we’ve seen, especially here at Gold Fields, we’ve had a look very carefully at our membership of all sorts of organizations around the world.” AngloGold spokesman Stewart Bailey couldn’t be reached for comment.
The WGC is the gold industry’s market-development organization and its members include Barrick Gold Corp. and Newmont Mining Corp., the largest producers. The council “regrets” the departures, it said today in an e-mailed statement. “We thank them for all their support and hope that there will be an opportunity in the future to welcome them back.”
AngloGold and Gold Fields have been slashing costs in the past year as they seek to adjust to a gold price that has fallen 21 percent since the beginning of last year.
South Korea and China have agreed to create a market for direct trading of the yuan and won, which is hoped, will help reduce the pressure of the US dollar, as well as cut foreign exchange costs and boost bilateral investment.
The memorandum of understanding (MOU) between China's central bank and the Bank of Korea to create a yuan clearing system was signed during Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to South Korea on Thursday. The leaders of both countries pledged to sign an agreement by the end of the year.
“Through these measures, exchange between companies and citizens in the two countries will become faster and more free,” the Financial Times quotes South Korean President Park Geun-hye.
The main idea of the agreement is to provide an agent through which financial instruments such as shares, bonds and currencies will be traded. Clearing banks will be capable of making payments in the renminbi within South Korea.
Since 2004 China has been South Korea’s biggest trading partner accounting for a quarter of total exports. The establishment of a won-yuan market may make bilateral trade easier, and reduce the pressure of the US dollar on the Korean currency.
China also provided South Korea with a $12.8 billion quota to invest in national capital markets, the same amount the UK and France have been granted.
A few days earlier the French Central bank also signed and MOU with China to establish a yuan payment system in Paris.
"This MoU is the first step towards the creation of a renminbi clearing and settlement infrastructure in Paris," Banque de France said in a statement.
Earlier this year, China's central bank signed two similar MOUs with Germany and the UK.
In June the British pound became the fifth major currency to be exchangeable directly to renminbi in Shanghai. It is now in line with the Australian and New Zealand dollars, the Japanese yen and the US dollar.
The Chinese currency is now the world’s seventh most used currency for payment.
Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert discuss the central banking model of passing off down-market potato wedges of cheap money for high-end, luxury housing bubbles. No value has been added, no wealth created and yet the fraud continues. They talk about the reverse process of taking the National Health Service in the UK and turning it into a down-market privatized entity. In the second half, Max interviews Jeffrey Sommers, professor at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee about a new book he’s edited with Charles Woolfson called, ‘The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Neoliberal Baltic Model’. In particular, they discuss the economic miracle that is NOT Latvia and how Swedish bankers are acting as conquistadors in Latvia.
Michel Sapin, the French finance minister, called for a “rebalancing” of the currencies used for global payments, saying the BNP Paribas case should “make us realize the necessity of using a variety of currencies” the Financial Times reports.
“We [Europeans] are selling to ourselves in dollars, for instance when we sell planes. Is that necessary? I don’t think so. I think a rebalancing is possible and necessary, not just regarding the euro, but also for the big currencies of the emerging countries, which account for more and more of global trade,” the finance minister told the FT at a conference over the weekend.
France wants to bring the euro to greater prominence in international trade. Sapin said he would raise the idea on Monday when he meets in Brussels with eurozone finance ministers.
The French government has called the fine and 1-year ban unreasonable and unfair, as it blocks the country’s largest bank from handling dollars, which is the dominant currency in global trade. Nearly 90 percent of all deals in the $5 trillion a day foreign exchange market includes the US dollar.
Heavy-handed sanctions from the US and Europe have forced countries to also look towards other currency options. Russia, for example, is actively working to de-dollarize, and is starting to use the Chinese yuan and other Asian currencies in trading.
Christophe de Margerie, the CEO of Total, France’s largest company, says other currencies can be used in oil purchases, even if the benchmark is left in dollars.“The price of a barrel of oil is quoted in dollars,” de Margerie said. “A refinery can take that price and using the euro-dollar exchange rate on any given day, agree to make the payment in euro.”
Wrong link mate.Austin wrote:Boom Bust: Eswar Prasad on USD as reserve currency & Alex Daley on growth in mobile
Eswar Prasad, author of the Dollar Trap, gives his take on the future of the US dollar as the international reserve currency.
http://youtu.be/UOMjKWrfI0U
Thanks , Correctedpanduranghari wrote:Wrong link mate.Austin wrote:Boom Bust: Eswar Prasad on USD as reserve currency & Alex Daley on growth in mobile
Eswar Prasad, author of the Dollar Trap, gives his take on the future of the US dollar as the international reserve currency.
No one has a crystal ball to look into future , but Eswar Prasad is more an academic and spent his career there while Jim Rickards is an investement banker worked in Wall Street for 30 years so he knows the ins and out and the dirty game involved.panduranghari wrote:^ Whom do you agree with? Eswar Prasad or Jim Rickards?
Regardless of what you name it the "Federal Reserve Nightmare" or the "Yellen conundrum", the box Ben Bernanke made when he painted both himself and the Federal Reserve in a corner remains. Bernanke has by passing the chairmanship to Yellen escaped from the QE trap but left the rest of us fully in its grasp. With a policy of loose and cheap money and an inflation target of just 2% the Federal Reserve continues to please those gambling that not fighting the Fed guarantees profits. As many Americans are forced to pay higher food, gasoline, and health insurance premiums, I wish someone would let the Fed know we are already there. Any thought that inflation is not higher has come from the false illusion brought from lower payments on things like auto loans and mortgages, this is a one off and will not continue.
America imports around five hundred billion dollars more from other countries every year than they export. This means we have a giant trade deficit, when we add this to our enormous government deficit it is easy to see that we are living far beyond our means. The Fed has been superbly entrepreneurial when it comes to Ponzi schemes or pseudo-economics hocus-pocus that has allowed the current situation to develop. The Fed must at some point begin to ponder a real exit strategy and end the massive and corrosive stimulus that the economy has come to expect. To make matters worse little has been done to address our structural problems and make America more competitive, this will massively thwart growth going forward.
The Federal Reserve has failed to take serious efforts in pushing the government to take the necessary reforms needed to move the economy forward. Policy makers aided by the media thrive at presenting simplistic answers that solve both economic and society’s problems with little or no effort required from the masses. What started as a program to support and prop up the economy has morphed into the main driver of economic data. Between the low interest rates that has propelled investors into high risk assets in search of a positive return on their money, and money being pumped into the system, the markets have become distorted and disconnected from the economy. The idea that investors will continue to pour money into the sky high equity market is flawed.
Even as many people have grown comfortable with the status quo this does not change the fact the Fed is in a difficult corner. A serious exit strategy from QE that normalizes interest rates remains elusive. With higher interest rates the cost of mortgages will rise. The low interest rates that have discouraged savings and encouraged people to take high risks comes at a cost and does not lead to a healthy economy, but rather a story that will end in tears and regrets. When interest rates rise, as they will at some point, the value of these risky investments will decline, and these investors will be hurt. Also, as a double whammy, interest payments on the public debt will rise, increasing the budget deficit, which has averaged well over a trillion dollars a year for the past six years.
If all the money dumped into the economy would suddenly change direction and rush into hard assets, the shift would be devastating to our struggling economy. This thought also raises other questions, what can we define as a hard asset, what is really available, and in what quantities? This may be where inflation raises its ugly head. A unknown and surprising fact about inflation is how fast it can take root. With such a shift, interest rates would move higher and investors would flee government bonds. The crash of the bond market and what many have called a Bond Bubble will become a reality. Janet Yellen has shown no interest in coming up with a plausible exit strategy and even after developing a scheme making it work will be easier said than done.
Russia and the EU would both suffer if sanctions escalate, energy markets the most, according to a World Bank report. The loss of the European market would cut Russian government revenue by 10 percent of GDP, and European gas prices would jump 50 percent.'
Most dependent EU countries could see higher gas prices. Countries from Central and South East Europe like Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Poland are up to 80 percent dependent on Russian gas imports, says the World Bank.
Increased tension between Russia and the EU is a key downside risk to regional forecasts.
“Should tensions further escalate, more intrusive sanctions, possibly interrupting trade and banking flows, cannot be ruled out,” the World Bank report said. “Given the close economic interdependence between the EU and Russia, the escalation of sanctions would likely impose large economic costs, damaging recoveries in both.” In Russia, oil revenues represent 9 percent of GDP and a quarter of government revenues, and “a loss of EU export markets could reduce government revenues by 10 or more percent of GDP,” according to World Bank analytics.
Europe depends on Russia for nearly 30 percent of its natural gas supplies. In case of supply disruption or sanctions, the economic costs could be high. Additional LNG imports to Europe from elsewhere in the world would boost global demand and prices.
However even assuming no boost to LNG prices, EU import costs would rise by 50 percent or about 0.15 percent of GDP says the report. The losses would be much higher for major importers.
Russian economic growth in 2014 is expected to be at 0.5 percent. The longer outlook forecast is a bit more optimistic with 1.5 percent in 2015 and 2.2 percent in 2016.
Global GDP growth is projected to gradually rise from 2.4 percent in 2013 to 2.8 percent in 2014, 3.4 percent in 2015 and 3.5 percent in 2016.
Fed Res is not same as Amirkhan. So, interests of both need not be same. Fed Res will do what will profit it regardless of the consequences for Amirkhan. If Amirkhan goes down, then the owners of the banks will move on to some other lucrative location. They are not tied to Amirkhan.TSJones wrote:This true but as usual you are not getting the full picture. Those are short term currency swaps that the Fed does. It always recovers its positions and usually makes money doing it. One of the reasons the dollar is a reserve currency is that the Fed is the lender of last resort globally. The US economy makes it so.
MOSCOW, July 10. /ITAR-TASS/. BRICS bank will be headquartered in Shanghai, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov told journalists on Thursday.
This was recorded in the documents, he added.
Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov earlier said the short-list of cities for the bank's headquarters included Shanghai and New Delhi.
According to Ushakov, the agreement on founding the New Development Bank of BRICS and on creation of an exchange reserves’ pool will be signed at the next summit of the organization to take place in Brazil’s Fortaleza July 15-16. “Thus, the basis for the macroeconomic coordination of the five states will be laid,” the presidential aide noted. “The new institutions will allow enforcing the global finance system, which is particularly important amid the IMF reform that reached a deadlock.”
The authorized stock of the bank amounts to $100 billion, the dedicated capital — $50 billion, the paid-in capital — $10 billion (paid upon request — $40 billion). The paid-in capital will be formed within 7 years.
“Russia’s stake is $2 billion, that means the capital is proportionally distributed among the bank’s participants,” Siluanov noted earlier. There is an agreement between the countries that the stake of BRICS members in the capital will not be lower than 55%. The bank will engage in infrastructure projects mainly in the BRICS countries.
The pool of nominal exchange reserves will be able to quickly react to capital outflow providing in swaps the liquidity in convertible currency. It will amount to $100 billion. The distribution among the member-states will be as follows: China - $41 billion, Brazil, India and Russia — $18 billion each, South Africa — $5 billion. The national banks of the BRICS states will be keeping their resources designated as stakes in the pool within their gold and forex reserves.
The plenary session of BRICS summit will be devoted to the search for new sources of economic growth. In addition, the leaders will meet with the leadership of the BRICS Business Council. According to Ushakov, Russia is represented by members of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Rostec state corporation, Russian Private Equity Fund, Russian Railways OJSC, and Vnesheconombank.
Unfortunately, you have no idea of what you are posting about. The Fed Reserve maybe comprised of banks and their assets but they serve at the obeyance to the US government and congressional oversight and law. Why is that? Because all of the national banks feed at the Federal Reserve discount window. This means a depositor at a national bank (or a state bank for that matter) has no right to privacy from the federal government and a dossier may be kept about any depositor and reported to the federal government. For any reason. End of story. Try to read through the previous posts on this thread and educate yourself before posting about things which you obviously know nothing about.johneeG wrote:Fed Res is not same as Amirkhan. So, interests of both need not be same. Fed Res will do what will profit it regardless of the consequences for Amirkhan. If Amirkhan goes down, then the owners of the banks will move on to some other lucrative location. They are not tied to Amirkhan.TSJones wrote:This true but as usual you are not getting the full picture. Those are short term currency swaps that the Fed does. It always recovers its positions and usually makes money doing it. One of the reasons the dollar is a reserve currency is that the Fed is the lender of last resort globally. The US economy makes it so.
Dollar is the reserve currency because of Oil. Oil is the reserve fuel because no other alternative source of fuel is viable. Either this is deliberately orchestrated or its a lucky coincident for those who control oil and dollar. If its lucky coincident, then its too much of a coincident.
If an alternate source of energy is found to be viable, then both dollar and oil will lose its value. Dollar has already lost its value and people are trying to find alternative.
Please do point to the relevant posts.TSJones wrote:Unfortunately, you have no idea of what you are posting about. The Fed Reserve maybe comprised of banks and their assets but they serve at the obeyance to the US government and congressional oversight and law. Why is that? Because all of the national banks feed at the Federal Reserve discount window. This means a depositor at a national bank (or a state bank for that matter) has no right to privacy from the federal government and a dossier may be kept about any depositor and reported to the federal government. For any reason. End of story. Try to read through the previous posts on this thread and educate yourself before posting about things which you obviously know nothing about.johneeG wrote: Fed Res is not same as Amirkhan. So, interests of both need not be same. Fed Res will do what will profit it regardless of the consequences for Amirkhan. If Amirkhan goes down, then the owners of the banks will move on to some other lucrative location. They are not tied to Amirkhan.
Dollar is the reserve currency because of Oil. Oil is the reserve fuel because no other alternative source of fuel is viable. Either this is deliberately orchestrated or its a lucky coincident for those who control oil and dollar. If its lucky coincident, then its too much of a coincident.
If an alternate source of energy is found to be viable, then both dollar and oil will lose its value. Dollar has already lost its value and people are trying to find alternative.
You don't have to bother about my education just as I don't care about yours. You should worry about supporting your claim. I asked you to substantiate your claim that 'Federal Reserve serve at the obeyance to the US government'.TSJones wrote:It's not up to me to cite source for your education. If you want to be in the know then dig it out before you spout.
The head of the federal reserve is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Here is the wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act
Enjoy your pursuit of knowledge.
The relevant portion of wiki link posted by you seems to be:The head of the federal reserve is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Wiki article on 'Chair of Federal Reserve':wiki wrote:On November 16, 1977, the Federal Reserve Act was amended to require the Board and the FOMC "to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." This same amendment stated that the member governor proposed by the President to be Chairman would have a four-year term as Chairman and would be subject to confirmation by the Senate (member governors per se each have 14 year terms, with a specific term ending every two years). The Chairman was also required to appear before Congress at semi-annual hearings to report on the conduct of monetary policy, on economic development, and on the prospects for the future. The Federal Reserve Act has been amended by some 200 subsequent laws of Congress. It continues to be one of the principal banking laws of the United States.
Wiki LinkWiki wrote:Appointment process
As stipulated by the Banking Act of 1935, the President appoints the seven members of the Board of Governors; they must then be confirmed by the Senate and serve for 14 years only .[6] Once appointed, Governors may not be removed from office for their policy opinions.[citation needed]
The chair and vice-chair are chosen by the President from among the sitting Governors for four-year terms; these appointments are also subject to Senate confirmation.[7] By law, the chair reports twice a year to Congress on the Federal Reserve's monetary policy objectives. He or she also testifies before Congress on numerous other issues and meets periodically with the Treasury Secretary.
Wiki Linkwiki wrote: As stipulated in the Banking Act of 1935, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board are two of seven members of the Board of Governors who are appointed by the President from among the sitting Governors.[1][2]
The Board of Governors does not receive funding from Congress, and the terms of the seven members of the Board span multiple presidential and congressional terms. Once a member of the Board of Governors is appointed by the president, he or she functions mostly independently. The Board is required to make an annual report of operations to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.[3] It also supervises and regulates the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks, and the U.S. banking system in general.
Membership is by statute limited in term, and a member that has served for a full 14 year term is not eligible for reappointment.[4] There are numerous occasions where an individual was appointed to serve the remainder of another member's uncompleted term, and has been reappointed to serve a full 14-year term.[4] Since "upon the expiration of their terms of office, members of the Board shall continue to serve until their successors are appointed and have qualified",[4] it is possible for a member to serve for significantly longer than a full term of 14 years. The law provides for the removal of a member of the Board by the President "for cause".[4]
while your at it, you might want to read this:johneeG wrote:You don't have to bother about my education just as I don't care about yours. You should worry about supporting your claim. I asked you to substantiate your claim that 'Federal Reserve serve at the obeyance to the US government'.TSJones wrote:It's not up to me to cite source for your education. If you want to be in the know then dig it out before you spout.
The head of the federal reserve is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Here is the wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act
Enjoy your pursuit of knowledge.
First and foremost, please stop with your condescending tone. I too could use rude tone to answer, but then it would quickly degenerate into trading abuses instead of discussing any topic.
Secondly, you point to wiki link? You don't think I could have gone to wiki myself? Atleast, post the relevant part of that link.
Anyway, now coming to the only point you made in your post:The relevant portion of wiki link posted by you seems to be:The head of the federal reserve is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.Wiki article on 'Chair of Federal Reserve':wiki wrote:On November 16, 1977, the Federal Reserve Act was amended to require the Board and the FOMC "to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." This same amendment stated that the member governor proposed by the President to be Chairman would have a four-year term as Chairman and would be subject to confirmation by the Senate (member governors per se each have 14 year terms, with a specific term ending every two years). The Chairman was also required to appear before Congress at semi-annual hearings to report on the conduct of monetary policy, on economic development, and on the prospects for the future. The Federal Reserve Act has been amended by some 200 subsequent laws of Congress. It continues to be one of the principal banking laws of the United States.Wiki LinkWiki wrote:Appointment process
As stipulated by the Banking Act of 1935, the President appoints the seven members of the Board of Governors; they must then be confirmed by the Senate and serve for 14 years only .[6] Once appointed, Governors may not be removed from office for their policy opinions.[citation needed]
The chair and vice-chair are chosen by the President from among the sitting Governors for four-year terms; these appointments are also subject to Senate confirmation.[7] By law, the chair reports twice a year to Congress on the Federal Reserve's monetary policy objectives. He or she also testifies before Congress on numerous other issues and meets periodically with the Treasury Secretary.
Wiki article on 'member governor' of Federal Reserve:Wiki Linkwiki wrote: As stipulated in the Banking Act of 1935, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board are two of seven members of the Board of Governors who are appointed by the President from among the sitting Governors.[1][2]
The Board of Governors does not receive funding from Congress, and the terms of the seven members of the Board span multiple presidential and congressional terms. Once a member of the Board of Governors is appointed by the president, he or she functions mostly independently. The Board is required to make an annual report of operations to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.[3] It also supervises and regulates the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks, and the U.S. banking system in general.
Membership is by statute limited in term, and a member that has served for a full 14 year term is not eligible for reappointment.[4] There are numerous occasions where an individual was appointed to serve the remainder of another member's uncompleted term, and has been reappointed to serve a full 14-year term.[4] Since "upon the expiration of their terms of office, members of the Board shall continue to serve until their successors are appointed and have qualified",[4] it is possible for a member to serve for significantly longer than a full term of 14 years. The law provides for the removal of a member of the Board by the President "for cause".[4]
So I gather from the above link that before 1977, US President appointed all the governors of Federal Reserve and then chose a chairman and vice-chairman from among them. This was based on a 1935 banking act. It seems that from 1977, US president only proposes the chairman and this chairman is chosen from the existing governors. So, it seems to me that the US President lost the power to appoint the individual member governors of federal reserve from 1977. Correct me if I am reading it wrong.
Anyway, each member seems to have a tenure of 14 years while a congress has a tenure of only 4 years while a president can only have a maximum tenure of 8 years.
Further, it seems that the Federal Reserve is completely independent body except the power to appoint and dismiss the chairman by the US President. So, it seems that there are not many instruments of control on Federal Reserve by the US govt. Infact, it seems like an independent body to me. It seems that US Govt has no powers to intervene in the workings of Federal Reserve. The US congress or govt does not seem to have any power to oppose the decisions of Federal Reserve.
On the other hand, Federal Reserve can wield the power because it controls the currency of the US. It can contract or expand the currency supply and thereby decide whether there will be depression or inflation.
For example, if the Federal Reserve decides to cut down the money supply, does US congress or US president have any powers to oppose this decision by the Federal Reserve?
So the fight to finish line is between Chinese Ponzi Scheme and US Bond Market Bubble.panduranghari wrote:China's "Giant Ponzi Scheme" Won't End Well: Jim Rickards
http://finance.yahoo.com/video/chinas-g ... 44992.html
BRICS bank will be headquartered in Shanghai, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov told journalists on Thursday.
This was recorded in the documents, he added.
Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov earlier said the short-list of cities for the bank's headquarters included Shanghai and New Delhi.
According to Ushakov, the agreement on founding the New Development Bank of BRICS and on creation of an exchange reserves’ pool will be signed at the next summit of the organization to take place in Brazil’s Fortaleza July 15-16. “Thus, the basis for the macroeconomic coordination of the five states will be laid,” the presidential aide noted. “The new institutions will allow enforcing the global finance system, which is particularly important amid the IMF reform that reached a deadlock.”
So the hold outs wanted full repayment, principal and interest. And they won, recently The US Supreme Court upheld this.{The bonds had a} clause that committed the government to treat all bondholders alike. The holdouts claimed that, if the new bonds were being serviced in full (as they were), equal treatment required that the holdouts should receive the full amount owed to them (including not only interest but also principal).