EMINENT DOMAIN

Supporting Individual Rights, Opposing Eminent Domain Abuse

 

 

 

 

By Ilya Shapiro

 

 

Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center criticized Cato’s involvement in Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action as cowardly, and inconsistent with our ideals. While Cato has great respect for any organization that, like the CAC, works “to preserve the rights and freedoms of all Americans,” their criticism of our brief is baseless, and grossly mischaracterizes Cato’s position in the case and track record generally. 

It can be boiled down to the following: 

1. Mount Holly is a case about eminent domain;
2. Pro-property rights groups (including Cato) have a history of “howling” against eminent domain;
3. Those groups’ failure to argue against eminent domain in this case (and their support of the Township of Mount Holly), is inconsistent with their previous stance on property rights, and evinces a lack of moral courage;
4. That failure can be explained because this case is also about civil rights and equality, and conservative groups hate equality, and live to help the state further oppress the downtrodden masses. 

 CAC’s criticism stems from an incorrect framing of the case at hand:

an important case out of Mount Holly, New Jersey, that involves Fair Housing Act (FHA) claims in the context of an effort by Mount Holly Township to use eminent domain to redevelop its only predominately minority community—and in the process, displace and raze the homes of its residents.

While that description is accurate in that the case is important, originates in Mount Holly, and concerns the applicability of the Fair Housing Act to a redevelopment plan, the case before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with eminent domain. The question to be argued before high court couldn’t be plainer: “Whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.”
It’s surprising that CAC would make such a basic mistake about the case, given that they filed a brief in the case, supporting the Mount Holly residents (a brief which makes no mention of eminent domain – at all).

“Eminent domain” refers to a specific way that the government can acquire private property against the will of the owner. So far, Mount Holly Township hasn’t resorted to eminent domain. Of the 329 properties that the township wants to include in the redevelopment plan, it has been able to acquire all but 70 of them through voluntary sales. If those remaining 70 owners – some of whom are parties to the case – were to challenge any attempts to expropriate their homes, Cato would be first in line to file a brief in their support, probably joined by those “howling”  pro-property groups like the Institute for Justice and Pacific Legal Foundation. (Sadly, it’s unlikely that we would garner CAC’s support, because the group has “long supported the reasonable use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes.”)

No, this case isn’t about eminent domain because the residents aren’t challenging the township’s acquisition of property, but what it intends to do with that property. In a nutshell, the plaintiffs argue that the Fair Housing Act – which forbids governments and private individuals from refusing “to sell or rent … or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin” – bars not just intentional discrimination like restrictive covenants, but also any action that, even if entirely neutral and colorblind,  has a “disproportionate impact” on the ability of members of a protected class to buy or rent a home. They argue not that Mount Holly is intentionally discriminating against minority residents, but that the increase in property values as a result of redevelopment would effectively price the poor out of the neighborhood – and that counts as discrimination because the poorer residents are disproportionately drawn from minority groups.

Cato opposes that theory of law generally, for the same reason that we oppose governmental abuse of eminent domain: we stand firmly against attempts by the government to control how people may dispose of their property. A homeowner should be able to sell his house for whatever price he thinks fair – without worrying that if his asking price is too high, he’ll be accused of racism and forced to defend himself in court. Our position in Mount Holly is the product of the reasoned and consistent application of well-articulated liberal principles, not “cowardice.”

As a closing note, we take issue with the implication that Cato “detests civil rights statutes.” Cato supports laws that protect individual freedom and opposes those that don’t. We may disagree with CAC on whether a law falls in the first or second category, regardless of whether it’s a “civil rights” statute or otherwise, but make no mistake that we support individual civil (and other) rights.
Indeed, believe that the first and foremost duty of civil rights legislation (and constitutions) is to protect citizens from undue state interference with their daily lives and liberties. A reading of the FHA that embraces disparate impact claims doesn’t protect individuals from the state but instead represents an expansion of state interference. Behavior that was once lawful – selling your home for whatever price you wish – would become sanctionable. Disparate impact theory holds private individuals responsible not for personal bigotry, or the direct consequences of their actions, but for economic realities beyond their control – and that makes no one freer, nor more equal.

Venitis Law of Property: Governments should not own or regulate any property, including electromagnetic waves. The first individual who improves or cultivates any unclaimed property is entitled to that property.  Governments cannot own, allocate, regulate, or manipulate frequency fields and media. Eminent domain is null and void.

Basil Venitis, venitis@gmail.com, http://themostsearched.blogspot.com, @Venitis
 

Government is the #1 enemy of the people and the source of all major problems of humanity. Anarchy is the best political system.

How The New York Times Got Libertarianism Wrong, Yet Again

by David Gordon


Why write an article on a subject you know nothing about? This is a question that Amia Srinivasan might usefully have asked herself. You would never guess that she is a serious philosopher, though, from her article “Questions for Free-Market Moralists” in The New York Times, October 2013. The “free-market moralist” she has principally in mind is Robert Nozick, the author of Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974). If Srinivasan has read this book at all, the experience appears to have passed her by.

Srinivasan is disturbed by the growth of what she calls a “dramatic increase in inequality in the United States over the past five decades.” In part, this increase stems from the rising influence of Nozickian ideas. Much better, she thinks, is the theory that John Rawls advanced to great acclaim in A Theory of Justice (1971). The persons in Rawls’s original position “would also make their society a redistributive one, ensuring a decent standard of life for everyone.” By contrast, Nozickians look with indifference on the plight of the poor. Do poor people sometimes face options, all of which are bad? Never mind, says the Nozickian. So long as force is not used or threatened, everything in such cases is morally unproblematic. If you are poor, you deserve to be poor, and likewise if you are rich. You deserve whatever is the outcome of your free choices. “Van Gogh, William Blake, Edgar Allan Poe, Vermeer, Melville and Schubert all died broke. If you’re a good Nozickian, you think that’s what they deserved.”

Against the view that people on the free market get what they deserve, she raises some standard objections. How people fare on the market depends in large part on luck. If you have abilities that command a high price on the market, this happy state of affairs mainly comes about because of luck. People, e.g., inherit certain desirable qualities from their parents, or acquire them from the environment. In addition, it is a matter of luck whether people are willing to pay money for the talents you happen to have. The influence of luck is all the more obvious if you, like Mitt Romney, have inherited a large sum of money from your parents. All these matters, in Rawls’s phrase, are “arbitrary from the moral point of view.”

How then can Nozickians claim with a straight face that people “deserve all they are able, and only what they are able, to get through free exchange”? She acknowledges that “even Nozick” found it difficult to say this; but it is nevertheless the position that Nozickians are stuck with, according to her. It is precisely for this account of the Nozickian view that I directed against her the harsh comments in my initial paragraph.

She has overlooked one of the key themes of Nozick’s book. It isn’t just that he finds it “difficult to say” that you deserve what you get in the market. He doesn’t say it at all. A theory of justice in which people were rewarded in accord with morally non-arbitrary characteristics would be a “patterned” theory. Nozick takes great pains, evidently lost on Srinivasan, to distinguish such patterned theories from his own historical theory. In his account, you get what you are entitled to, a very different matter.

An example will clarify the distinction. Suppose that someone badly needs a kidney transplant, and one of your kidneys would be an ideal match for him. You can’t be forced to donate one of your kidneys: Nozick, all libertarians, and, I hope, Srinivasan would agree. Why not? Not because your possession of two healthy kidneys results from your meritorious activities. It is “arbitrary from the moral point of view” that you have two good kidneys and that the person who needs the transplant does not. Nevertheless, the kidneys belong to you: you are entitled to them. Libertarians view income in the same way. If your services are in high demand, you are entitled to the money you get.

Srinivasan may be repelled by all of this; but if she wishes to criticize Nozick, and other libertarians who agree with him, this is the theory she needs to address. Instead, she assails a different account that Nozick explicitly rejects.

She fares no better with the other challenges she issues to the “premises or implications” of Nozick’s argument. He does not hold that “any exchange between two people in the absence of direct physical compulsion by one party against the other (or the threat thereof) [is] necessarily free.” He does say that if you face severely limited options, and your predicament comes about because others have acted within their rights, your choice is still voluntary. This is a rather more nuanced claim, a matter that escapes Srinivasan’s attention.

Srinivasan’s remaining problems for Nozick rest on an elementary confusion. Nowhere does Nozick say that the structure of libertarian rights exhausts morality. Rather, rights tell us when force or its threat may be permissibly used. It is not at all the case that anything you are free to do, according to this structure of rights, is morally permissible. Neither is it the case that moral obligation is confined to freely chosen commitments; again, Srinivasan wrongly conflates moral obligations and enforceable obligations. It would, I suppose, be too much to ask Srinivasan to have a look at Invariances, Nozick’s last book; but if she could steel herself to do so, she would find there a detailed discussion of the place of coercion within morality.

Srinivasan cannot seem to get Nozick right. She says of his minimal state “The seemingly redistributive policy of making people pay for such a ‘night watchman’ state, Nozick argued, was in fact non-redistributive, since such a state would arise naturally through free bargaining.” This is triply in error. People are not forced to pay for the minimal state, though they would find it in their in their interest to do so; and the monopoly prices charged by the dominant agency really are redistributive, not just seemingly so. Further, the minimal state does not arise entirely through free bargaining. The Dominant Protective Association prohibits other agencies and independents from imposing risky decision procedures on its clients. Oh, well ...

It is unfortunate that The New York Times, the most famous of all American newspapers, did not select someone with a better knowledge of libertarianism to write about it. But the article, replete with errors as it is, may do some good. It may bring libertarian ideas to the attention of readers who otherwise might not have encountered them. As Quine once said after Nozick had complained to him of a negative review, I think by Carlin Romano, of Philosophical Explanations, “Every knock a boost.”

Government is the #1 enemy of the people and the source of all major problems of humanity.  Anarchy is the best political system.  Basil Venitis, venitis@gmail.com, http://themostsearched.blogspot.com, @Venitis

AFRICANOKLEPTOCRATS GALORE!

 

By Alexander MEZYAEV The beginning of autumn was marked by a new flare-up of military operations in the central part of Africa. In early September troops from the rebel group M23 attacked the encampment of the UN mission to DR Congo in Kibati. The government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) sent a letter to the UN Security Council to request immediate intervention. The government of DR Congo demanded that the UN Security Council force Rwanda to finally withdraw its troops from the eastern part of the DRC and ask the International Criminal Court to declare the actions of M23 crimes against humanity… As a result of the military conflict in the DRC, there are now 2.6 million displaced persons (in 2012 there were 1.8 million), over half a million refugees and 6.4 million in need of food assistance and emergency agricultural aid. As for the victims over the entire period of the conflict, according to various estimates they number from 3.5 to 5 million dead.    The situation in DR Congo is one of the most complex in Africa; dozens of militant groups supported by several states at once are involved in the armed conflict. Among the main militant groups are M23, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), the Allied Democratic Forces and the National Army for the Liberation of Uganda (ADF-NALU), and Mai Mai Kata Katanga.    DR Congo's main problem is the March 23 Movement (M23). With foreign support, it started plundering the natural resources of the DRC on a grand scale. At the same time, 2013 brought substantial changes to M23's situation. In March the group's leader, General Bosco Ntaganda, was overthrown and immediately transferred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.  Up until then Ntaganda and his M23 had enjoyed the support of Rwanda. However, as it turned out, the overthrow of Ntaganda was also organized by the Rwandan government, which had previously supplied Ntaganda with ammunition, but then supported the rebel general Makenga with weapons and soldiers. As a result Rwanda maintained its control of M23, and the majority of the missile strikes in the new flare-up of the war were made from Rwandan territory. This was accompanied by a provocation: M23 fighters, who had control of the territory of eastern DR Congo, shelled the territory of Rwanda, thus ensuring a missile «counterstrike» from the Rwandan army against DR Congo's territory. A similar provocation was organized before Rwanda's invasion of Goma in November 2012.   Kibati, where the attack took place, is the location not only of the UN mission to DR Congo, but of a unique UN division, the special Force Intervention Brigade (FIB). No other UN mission has such a division with such powers. The brigade was created March 28, 2013 by UN Security Council resolution No. 2098 (2013) as part of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO). The resolution extended the mandate of MONUSCO until March 31, 2014. The brigade is to include three infantry battalions, one artillery battery and one Special Forces Company. The declared objective of the FIB is «contributing to reducing the threat posed by armed groups to state authority and civilian security in eastern DRC and to make space for stabilization activities». The task of the FIB is defined as «neutralizing» armed groups. The term «neutralizing», unusual for a UN Security Council resolution, means «carry[ing] out targeted offensive (emphasis ours. - A.M.) operations». Such operations are to be conducted independently or jointly with the armed forces of the DRC.   Russia supported the deployment of the FIB,  stating that it ought to help «achieve a qualitative breakthrough in combating anti-governmental groups». On the whole, Russia's position on the Congolese crisis consists in demanding the immediate and total cessation of violence in the region. Russia decisively condemned the unlawful armed groups which have renewed military operations in eastern DRC, as well as foreign support of them. The Russian representative emphasized that the fundamental responsibility for establishing peace in the DRC belongs to the countries of the region themselves, with the assistance of the African Union and subregional organizations.    The war in the DRC has been raging for several decades, and the question arises: who is encouraging it? A recently published report from a group of UN experts on the DRC asserts that the activities of M23 are financed «through a network of individual supporters and business dealings».  It is claimed that the main source of income for the movement is taxation of commercial trucks crossing at checkpoints in areas controlled by M23.  However, it is doubtful that «taxation of trucks» could provide financing for years of military operations by tens of thousands of well-armed fighters. In fact, the Congolese war is financed through the plundering of the country's natural resources, first and foremost gold. The plundering is carried out in the eastern part of the DRC via Uganda and Burundi. Tin, tantalum, wolfram and other metals are also objects of plunder.    At one of the meetings of the UN Security Council at which the situation in the DRC was being considered, the president of the World Bank announced the allocation of 1 billion dollars for a program for the development of the DRC.  However, the profits from plundering the DRC are much greater than this amount, and if the plunder is not stopped, no «humanitarian» programs will help.   The war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a war for resources. The new flare-up of military operations is linked with the attempt of numerous armed groups to secure the most advantageous positions in connection with the start of the formation of the UN Force Intervention Brigade with its new military powers, not only for defensive operations, but for offensive ones as well.   Government is the #1 enemy of the people and the source of all major problems of humanity.  Anarchy is the best political system.  Basil Venitis, venitis@gmail.com, http://themostsearched.blogspot.com, @Venitis   Fifteen South African soldiers were killed in a rebellion in the Central African Republic (CAR), defending the business interests of Zuma, ANC, and its kleptocrats.  The soldiers were killed in the capital, Bangui, as rebels seized power.  The South African National Defense Union (SANDF), representing the soldiers, and the main opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) party called for the withdrawal of troops. Rebels have been seen driving around in captured South African military vehicles. The vehicles include Toyota Landcruisers marked with the insignia of Operation Vimbezela, the South African military mission in CAR. Machine guns were mounted on the roofs of the vehicles. Zuma hoodwinks: We salute them and honor them for the supreme sacrifice they have paid for the achievement of peace in Africa. South Africa's foreign policy was premised on the vision of building a better Africa, a better world.  South Africa's 200 soldiers in Bangui were outnumbered in a nine-hour high tempo battle after bandits attacked them at their base on the weekend of 23-24 March. No country discusses its military strategy in public in the manner in which South Africa is expected to do. Those who are engaging in this game should be careful not to endanger both the national interest and the security of the Republic while pursuing party political goals. DA presented a motion to parliament demanding the withdrawal of South African troops from CAR. Helen Zille, leader of DA, points out South Africans were in CAR to defend the regime of ousted President Francois Bozize and personal business interests of South African kleptocrats. The mission was undertaken against expert military advice and was to protect the business interests of kleptocrats, both in South Africa and the Central African Republic.  Everybody knows the South African troops were deployed to defend the mining interests of ANC in CAR, which has gold and uranium.   All South Africans know their politicians are very corrupt.  Huge military bribes were paid to Jacob Zuma, Thabo Mbeki, Schabir Shaik, Chippy Shaik and Joe Modise. Patricia de Lille has evidence of payments by warship supplier Thyssen-Krupp to ANC.  Italian submarine bidders Fincantiere were told they had won the contract, but were informed later that they had been dropped in favor of the Germans. They were offered the chance to better the Germans via an extra bribe of fifteen million euros!   Zuma was charged with fraud and bribery, but the charges were subsequently withdrawn by the National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa. ANC has also been criticized for its subsequent abolition of the Scorpions, the multidisciplinary agency that investigated and prosecuted organized crime and corruption, and was heavily involved in the investigation into Zuma and Shaik. Other corruption issues include rape and robberies, and the Oilgate scandal, in which huge funds from a state-owned company were funneled into ANC coffers. ANC has also used government and civil society funds and facilities to fight its political battles against opposition parties such as the Democratic Alliance. ANC wastes the taxpayers' hard-earned money on luxury vehicles, expensive hotels, junkets, banquets, sinecures for kith and kin, and support of harems. Jacob Zuma has eight wives and twenty-five children!  He gets an extra aid of three million euros each year from the government for spousal support!  Harems for leaders and starvation for hoi polloi; that’s what socialism is all about!   Zuma declares that having pet dogs is part of white culture, and blacks should get rid of their dogs!  Zuma asserts that people who spend money on buying a dog, taking it to the vet and for walks belong to white culture. Zuma laments there is a new generation of young Africans who are trying to adopt the lifestyles of other race groups. Zuma muses that even if blacks apply any kind of lotion and straighten their hair they will never be white!   Pet-lovers accuse Zuma of indifference to animals, while others accuse him of racism. Zuma notes there are some South Africans who sit with their dogs in front in a van or truck with a worker at the back in pouring rain or extremely cold weather. Some people also do not hesitate to rush their dogs to veterinary surgeons for medical care when they are sick while they ignore workers or relatives who are also sick in the same households.   Zuma draws controversy in order to increase his popularity with blacks. Some of his consistent remarks have anger feminists, gay people, and black intellectuals, but his support within the governing African National Congress (ANC) remains solid.  He has been re-elected ANC leader, beating off a challenge by his rival, Kgalema Motlanthe. Zuma is now leading the ANC into the 2014 national election based on stupidities, huge political corruption, racial hate, and controversies.   South Africa is already the world’s second fastest growing economy and a member of BRICS.  If certain bottlenecks were taken out, I can easily see that doubling, says Graham Mackay, Chairman, SABMiller, United Kingdom. The global brewer was established in South Africa more than a century ago and has extensive investments across the continent. Mackay singles out infrastructure development as probably the key driver to Africa’s continued economic progress.   Zuma stresses that the countries that comprise Africa are determined to consolidate their gains: We realize that intra-trade is not enough and are working hard on that. Africa is not consumed with conflict. We are also dealing with the economic issues. We’ve just agreed to integrate three of the five economic regions, creating a free trade area of more than half a billion people.  On recent labor unrest in South Africa, solutions are being discussed by all sectors, including the government, labor unions, businesses, and civil society.

AMERICAN DEBT

Who is the USA in Debt to?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Valentin KATASONOV It is not just the types of debt that arise and accrue in the American economy, but also a core group of well-known debtors. This includes the federal government, state and local governments, the financial and non-financial sectors of the economy, and the household sector. And this raises an interesting question: who is this core group of debtors in debt to? Government debt: «market» and «non-market» components     Despite the fact that US economic and financial statistics are believed to be some of the most complete and most detailed, they conceal a number of secrets concerning American debt holders… One has to be guided predominantly by expert analysis. The required statistics on debt holders are only available for one category of debt – the debt of the US federal government. Sources of information are the US Federal Reserve’s quarterly statistical review, called the Flow of Funds Accounts, and the Treasury’s monthly statistical bulletin, Treasury Bulletin.    To begin with, the US government’s debt can be divided into two categories:   1. Debts held by those who have purchased US Treasury debt securities on the financial market. First and foremost, these are Treasury securities and Treasury bills and are referred to as «market debts».    2. Debts held by various extrabudgetary social funds and government-funded organisations (US government accounts). This is sort of like the government borrowing from itself. It simply moves money from one stash called «funds» to another stash called «the federal budget». Or it increases its outstanding obligations to government-funded organisations. These debts are characterised by a particular method of execution and accounting; unlike Treasury securities, they are not traded on the market. It is also debts arising from loans within the state sector, so-called «non-marketable debts».    It should be noted that the US Treasury’s largest non-market lender is the The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund. In fact, it could be regarded as a subdivision of the Treasury with a standalone balance sheet. The bundle of securities on the fund’s balance sheet totals nearly USD 2.5 trillion.    Government debts issued by means of Treasury securities have grown quickly in recent years, both in absolute and relative terms. Their amounts are (in trillions of dollars, at year-end): 2008 – 6.14; 2009 – 7.59; 2010 – 9.17; 2011 – 10.24; and 2012 – 11.39. As of the middle of 2013, they made up USD 11.71 trillion. In other words, over the period from 2008 to now, debt issued by means of Treasury securities has almost doubled. In 2008, debt issued by means of Treasury securities made up 65.2 percent of the total government debt. By the middle of 2013, however, the share of Treasury securities in the government’s debt had risen to 75 percent. Figures are sometimes muddled up in the media and even in financial literature due do the fact that in some publications, government debt is understood to mean both categories of US federal government obligations, whilst in others it is only the obligations issued in the form of Treasury securities.        The main categories of holders of US Treasury securities     Let us now look at the structure of government debt issued in the form of Treasury securities based on the main types of debt holders. Debt holders like these can be divided into foreign (non-resident) and American (resident). American debt holders, in turn, can be further subdivided into debt holders in the financial sector of the economy and debt holders in the non-financial sector. In the financial sector, the US Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Banks) is distinguished separately from all other organisations.    The share of foreign holders of Treasury securities (percent, at year-end): 2008 – 52.9; 2009 – 48.4; 2010 – 48.6; 2011 – 48.8; 2012 – 48.9; and 2013 (mid-year) – 47.9.    The share of the US financial sector among holders of Treasury securities (percent, at year-end): 2008 – 36.0; 2009 – 33.9; 2010 – 32.6; 2011 – 38.7; 2012 – 37.3; and 2013 (mid-year) – 38.2.   The share of other US holders (non-financial sector) (percent, at year-end): 2008 – 11.1; 2009 – 17.7; 2010 – 18.8; 2011 – 12.5; 2012 – 13.8; and 2013 (mid-year) – 13.9.    The share of the FRS among holders of Treasury securities (percent, at year-end): 2008 – 7.8; 2009 – 10.3; 2010 – 11.1; 2011 – 16.2; 2012 – 14.7; and 2013 (mid-year) – 16.6.   The share of US financial organisations excluding the FRS (percent, at year-end): 2008 – 28.2; 2009 – 23.6; 2010 – 21.5; 2011 – 22.5; 2012 – 22.6; and 2013 (mid-year) – 21.6. Other financial organisations include various investment funds (first and foremost mutual funds), non-governmental pension and social funds, borrowing and lending organisations (banks), insurance companies and so on.        Domestic holders of US Treasury securities     Both popular literature and journalism usually provide several simplified diagrams of US government borrowing. They mention that the US Federal Reserve System is said to be the main holder of Treasury securities. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks (of which the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the biggest) are allegedly buying up all issues of these securities «at the source». We can see that back at the start of the financial crisis, this share was rather modest. At the end of 2008, Treasury securities to the tune of USD 484.5 billion, or nearly 8 percent of the total volume of these securities, were to be found on the FRS’ balance sheet. By the middle of 2013, FRS securities already totalled USD 2,159.5 billion, or 16.6 percent. For reference, it should be noted that there have been moments in US history when the FRS’ share in the ownership of Treasury securities has exceeded the current level. In the middle of the 1970s, for example, the FRS’ share reached 23 percent (equivalent to USD 75 billion in absolute terms). Experts believe that if current trends continue, the FRS’ share in the ownership of Treasury securities could rise to 20 percent by the end of 2014.    In no small way, the growth of the FRS’ share has been helped along by so-called «quantitative easing» programmes. However, one ought to remember that these programmes were not primarily aimed at the purchase of Treasury securities, which are classified as high-quality financial instruments, but at the purchase of «junk» bonds on the US financial market.    To put it another way, the role of the FRS in securing government borrowing does not only and does not so much boil down to the direct purchase of Treasury securities, as the creation of conditions for such purchases by other segments of the US economy. The FRS ensures that «junk» bonds on the balance sheets of banks and other financial and non-financial organisations are replaced with Treasury bonds. The FRS carries out a dual-purpose rescue operation: firstly, banks and other private organisations that have not yet managed to pull themselves together following the financial crisis are saved and, secondly, it rescues the government. We do not know whether this rescue operation happens spontaneously or whether it is strictly regulated by the Federal Reserve. But I think there is every likelihood that it involves a strictly controlled process. To begin with, the purchase of «junk» bonds is carried out in exchange for a commitment by the bank to acquire Treasury securities with the proceeds.   Incidentally, other active operations by the FRS may also have a «binding» nature. For example, the Federal Reserve Bank extends credit to a private American bank in exchange for a commitment by the latter to purchase a certain number of Treasury securities. Without such an explanation, it is difficult to believe that banks, investment funds, insurance companies and other financial and non-financial US organisations are voluntarily purchasing securities – albeit reliable, but with a symbolic interest rate. All the more so if one takes into account the depreciation of the dollar – the rate is virtually negative. It is a case of all financial and non-financial companies having to pay the government a further tax by way of the «voluntary-compulsory» purchase of Treasury securities on top of the taxes they already pay. Experts admit that the FRS, either directly or indirectly, is backing the purchase of 35-40 percent of all US Treasury securities, and within the US (without foreign purchasers) – 70-80 percent.    Altogether, by the end of the first quarter of 2013, USD 11,047.4 billion of the US government’s marketable and non-marketable debt was in the hands of every category of American debt holders, according to official data from the US Treasury. The amount of marketable debt (Treasury securities) in the hands of American debt holders at that time amounted to USD 6,362.6 billion. These debt holders include (in billions of dollars): the FRS – 1,972.0; borrowing and lending organisations (banks) – 341.4; private pension funds – 457.7; the pension funds of states and local authorities – 229.0; mutual funds – 946.4; insurance companies – 263.3; state and local governments – 474.5; and other debt holders – 1,678.2. The last of these groups is extremely mixed and includes companies and organisations in the non-financial sector of the economy (corporations, small- and medium-sized businesses), individuals, other types of funds (including banks’ personal trust funds), as well as brokers and dealers and other types of investors.    Let us look more closely at the modest role banks play among US holders of marketable debt: they hold just a little more than 5 percent of all Treasury securities within the US. Even back in the middle of 2008, when the flywheel of the financial crisis was in full spin in America, there were even fewer Treasury securities on the balance sheets of American banks – nearly USD 100 billion. Today, this figure has increased more than threefold. Some experts consider such an increase to be kickbacks by banks for the enormous sums (nearly USD 2 trillion altogether) spent by the government to save the US banking system during the financial crisis.          CITIGROUP IS READY TO GO BELLY-UP! Citibank is playing a very dirty game against its customers in Greece.  The bank makes its customers sign that their CDs will be automatically be renewed without their approval.  Then the bank renews the CDs at the infinitesimal rate of 0.1%!  But getting just one thousandth interest rate on CDs is robbery, pure and simple.  Citibank officers at the Paleo Faliro branch declare they have a right to do this scheme, because their customers do not care about interest rates, but the prestige of dealing with the Citibank! Prestige of dealing with Citibank is a joke, as Citibank has lost its good will.  Citigroup suffered huge losses during the global financial crisis of 2008 and was rescued in a massive stimulus package by the U.S. government, but this time around the government cannot rescue it again.  Now Citibank is in big trouble again, playing dirty schemes, such as the infinitesimal 0.1% on CDs.  Citigroup is ready to go belly up.  A bank cannot survive by robbing its customers. A securities arbitration panel has ruled that Citigroup must pay $3.1 million to a customer steered to invest in a politician's real estate developments that went broke.   Nasirdin Madhany and his wife, Zeenat Madhany, of Orlando, Florida, filed the case, reporting negligence, fraud, and other Citibank misdeeds involving millions of dollars in stupid real estate investments just to generate commissions for Citibank.   We are thrilled for the Madhanys. They worked very hard for their retirement. It was a just result because a criminal bank must be held responsible when it robs its customers.  Citibank has a consistent track record of defrauding its customers, but its days of operation are very limited.  It will be a deja vu of Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, with Citibank officers carrying their belongings in cardboard cases! Sherry Hunt, a former Citi employee, took Citi to court for fraud—and won $31 million. Citibank was buying mortgages from outside lenders with doctored tax forms, phony appraisals and missing signatures, she says. It was Hunt’s job to identify these defects, and she did, in regular reports to her bosses. Executives buried Hunt’s findings before, during, and after the financial crisis, and even into 2012. The government requires lenders to certify that insured loans meet FHA standards. Citibank flouted those standards. Citibank passed along subpar loans to the FHA, making substantial profits through the sale and securitization of FHA-backed insured mortgages while it wrongfully endorsed mortgages that were not eligible. Citigroup was fined $75 million for misleading investors over subprime assets. Charges laid by the Securities and Exchange Commission accuse Citigroup of repeatedly making misleading statements and improper disclosures in its quarterly earnings releases during 2007. Citigroup claimed its exposure to high-risk sub-prime mortgages was no more than $13 billion when in fact it was more than $50 billion. Citigroup agreed to pay $590 million over claims that it deceived its customers by hiding the extent of its dealings in toxic subprime debt. Basil Venitis, venitis@gmail.com, http://themostsearched.blogspot.com, @Venitis

You Communicate Best When You Dont Talk!

by Stephen Boyd


Recently in a seminar I had a participant who gave me excellent nonverbal feedback. She had a perpetual genuine smile and asked a couple of excellent, thought-provoking questions which initiated good seminar discussion.

At a break I complimented her on this trait. Her response was intriguing. She said that she always wanted to raise the bar of interaction when listening to a speaker or a moderator at a meeting. She wanted to make sure there was a connection with the talker that made both the speaker and the listener work harder at exchanging ideas. She thought she could make the speaker even better with aggressive positive nonverbal reactions. She was very conscious of making that happen—thus the overt feedback.

I've thought about that comment. You the listener can make the speaker more effective by "raising the bar" during the communication act by the way you respond. When you make such a conscious effort to contribute even when you are not to speak, you pay better attention and encourage the speaker even more to give his or her best in that presentation.

Listening is not passive; you can be very actively involved in communicating, even when you don't speak. As Charles Dickens said, "Electric communication will never be a substitute for the face of someone who with their soul encourages another person to be brave and true."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT YOUR EVENT!

KEYNOTE SPEAKER

 

Basil Venitis speaks up for liberty and tax revolt at events around the world.  At the podium, Venitis criticizes the dysfunctional kleptocracy that exists in all countries today and highlights the need for anarchy, abolition of taxes, especially VAT, privatization of everything, and unlimited personal liberties.

Venitis captures the attention and hearts of conferees by relating the current issues such as debt, depression, privacy, and freedom to political corruption. His unwavering passion leaves conferees motivated to speak out, revolt, and let kleptocrats know what they want.

Smart words are more effective than smart bombs. For your conference, get a dynamic keynote speaker who can transform your people and your world.  Take advantage of a unique libertarian orator, Basil Venitis.  As many associations, colleges, industry groups, companies, political groups, lobbyists, professional congresses, and speakers bureaus have discovered, speeches by Basil Venitis add immeasurably to the enduring value of a conference. 

Venitis doesn't restate what you can learn from regular sources, but he stretches your imagination to new horizons. Venitis is extensively involved in policy issues and the tax revolt. He is often a part of the process, working to shape and direct critical components of libertarian issues. Venitis is a master of a colorful rhetoric enriched with alliterations, metaphors, heightened imagery, and emotional effect. 

Speeches by Venitis enable audiences to truly learn, and provide fascinating, provocative insights and analysis, getting to the heart of the matter. It's no wonder that Venitis is so often called upon to present libertarian ideas and to clarify issues for the public.  Your event deserves seven important comparative advantages, the magnificent seven:

* Value. A single speech of Basil Venitis will be cherished by your conferees forever, guiding them at the crossroads of their lives and your organization, increasing their efficiency, and improving the good will of your organization.

* Access. When scheduling Venitis for your event, you work directly with him to craft a keynote speech that fits your precise needs. Venitis works with organizations to ensure that his speeches provide maximum value, and he shares their dedication to making their event a huge success.

* Insight. Given Venitis's great experience in speaking across the globe, and with his unparalleled knowledge of politics, economics, finance, sciences, philosophy, and spirituality, he can help you determine the keynote for your event.

* Transformation. Your people will be transformed to a new level of knowledge, attitude, and organizational climate.

* Revamp. Your organization will be revamped with new soul, vision, and values.

* Affordability. The cost of having Venitis speak at your conference is 5,000 euros plus travel expenses from Athens. 

* Follow up.  Your executives may consult Venitis any time for any questions they might have. 

 

themostsearched

themostsearched is a new libertarian paradigm which integrates politics, economics, ethics, and spirituality:

Black Hole: Taxation is armed robbery that feeds the black hole of political corruption; it's the perfect index of corruption and tyranny. Only evil governments tax citizens and companies.

Constitution: The only purpose of a constitution is to protect citizens from government abuse. Reform treaties of a confederation, such as the Lisbon Treaty of EU, not voted by the citizens are null and void.

Corruption: Political corruption is proportional to the square of the size of the government.

Democracy: Every democracy is eventually hijacked by rabblerousers, pullpeddlers, clans of kleptocrats, bumptious bugaboos, busybodies, butterbabies, nabobs of nepotism, cranks of cronyism, pusillanimous pussyfooters, riffraffs of rascals, socialist sophists, and Machiavellian mafiosi. Democracy tends to kleptocracy. Anarchy should replace democracy.

Depression: Only governments can cause economic depressions and funny money. Lower tax rates, a reduction in the burden of government, and elimination of kleptocracy and VAT are the only way to boost growth.

Education: There is no direct relationship between education and schooling. You might be schooled but uneducated, and you might be educated but unschooled. Schools are concentration camps for the drones of society.  Unschooling is much better than schooling. Internet is the best source of knowledge and information, replacing schools, libraries, media, parliaments, and postoffice.

Environment: The best way to save the environment is vasectomy.  Deadly viruses are Gaia's antibiotics against the cancer of overpopulation.

Equality: Death is the only equalizer. Egalitarianism brings death to society, transforming citizens to zombies.

Evolution: The ultimate phase of human evolution is the complete domination of soul.

Faith: Faith is retarded thinking that keeps you away from God.  You have to become faithless, in order to start your journey to God!  You have to discover God your own way without intermediaries. God's truth should replace faith.  You might discover that God is the universe!

Government: The only purpose of government is to protect citizens from criminals. Public services, central banks, and fiat money should be abolished.

Heroism: Entrepreneurs, innovators, anarchists, and heretics are the real heroes.

Insurance: Citizens with proper individual retirement accounts and health savings accounts should be allowed to opt out of State Insurance.

Intervention: Any government intervention deteriorates an existing trend. Laissez-faire is the only progressive policy.

Laws:  All laws that citizens are required to know should not exceed 300 pages of type size 12.  When a new law is born, another law must die.

Legislature: Parliaments should be abolished, because they continuously create laws that enslave citizens, constrain economic activity, loot producers, reward drones, and encourage political corruption.

Misery: Throwing money to misery brings more misery.

Money: A deluge of fiat money brings financial plague and haemorrhage of economy. Real money is tied up to precious metals and strategic metals.

Patriotism: Patriotism is addiction to local hysteria.

Privacy:  Nobody, including your government, has the right to break into your home, your land, your accounts, your computer, your files, and your secrets.  You have the natural right to protect your privacy from intruders.  Molon Labe!

Property: Governments should not own or regulate any property, including electromagnetic waves. The first individual who improves or cultivates any unclaimed property is entitled to that property.  Governments cannot own, allocate, regulate, or manipulate frequency fields and media. Eminent domain is null and void.

Religion: Religion is spiritual slavery. Church is the business of religion. Religious monopoly turns bishops to ayatollahs, and churches to Sodom and Gomorrah.  Spirituality, pantheism, and metaphysics should replace religion. Most scientists are pantheists!

Selfownership: You own your body and your soul, and nobody should dictate what you take in and what you take out. Speech, education, heresy, habeas corpus, military service, mating, healthcare, food, abortion, cloning, drugs, guns, and euthanasia should be personal choices.

Style: Your soul needs to resonate with mighty words and unique acts that express your style and destiny. Your government cannot dictate your language, your words, and your culture. Resonate now and sing your song!

System: The most efficient political system is anarchy, where everything is private, there are no taxes at all, there is no government, and there is no parliament.

Taxes: Taxes destroy the economy. Raising tax rates is masochism. Smart stimulus is to cut tax rates. Stupidus stimulus is to increase spending, which stimulates the cancer of statism!

To have Venitis speak at your event, email venitis@gmail.com http://themostsearched.blogspot.com