These Are The Banks Where The Fed’s $1.4 Trillion In Reserves Are Parked

these-are-the-banks-where-the-fed’s-$1.4-trillion-in-reserves-are-parked

22-09-19 09:22:00,

Over the past few days there has been much confusion over the repocalpyse that shook the overnight funding market, and just as much confusion over the definition of reserves which some banks were unwilling to part with, other banks were desperate for, and in the end both Powell and the former head of the NY Fed’s markets desk admitted that Quantitative Tightening had been taken too far, and the total amount of reserves in the system was too low and will be increased (welcome back QE).

Yet while the book has yet to be written on the causes for last week’s shocking move higher in repo rates, which sent general collateral as high as 10%, a record print in a time of $1.4 trillion in excess reserves, we can shed some clarity on the definition of “reserves.” While there is a universe of semantic gymnastics when it comes to explaining what reserves are, the  most basic definition is quite simply “cash”, however not cash in circulation but rather cash (and deposits) held in the bank’s account with the Federal Reserve (which the US central bank’s name comes from).

This means that there should be a de facto identity between the total amount of cash in the US banking system and the amount of total (minimum required plus excess) reserves. Sure enough, if only looks at the Fed’s weekly H.8 statement, which lists the “Assets and Liabilities of Commercial Banks in the United States“, and adds across the various banking cash aggregates in the US, what one gets is precisely the total amount of reserves.

This is seen in the chart below, which adds across the weekly cash for both small and large domestic commercial banks operating in the US (blue and red shaded areas) as well as foreign commercial banks (yellow shaded) operating in the US. The black line, meanwhile, shows the total amount of reserve balances with Federal Reserve Banks. By definition these two numbers have to be virtually identical, and sure enough, they are.

Why is the above important?

Because as the FT reported on Friday as part of its interview with the NY Fed’s new,

 » Lees verder

It’s not just Amazon: These profitable US corporations paid ZERO taxes

its-not-just-amazon-these-profitable-us-corporations-paid-zero-taxes

21-04-19 11:22:00,

Sixty of America’s biggest companies from the Fortune 500 list, including IBM, Netflix, General Motors and Chevron, managed to avoid paying a dime in income taxes on their whopping profits last year.

After the explosive report on how Jeff Bezos’ Amazon used tax loopholes and paid nothing in taxes for two years in a row, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) revealed that many more US companies did the same thing absolutely legally in 2018.

They include 60 major firms from different sectors of the US economy from retail to oil and gas. For example, Delta Air Lines paid nothing to Uncle Sam despite recording over $5 billion in profits. Energy major Chevron and automotive giant General Motors also paid zero tax, with each having earned more than $4 billion last year.

In total, the listed companies zeroed out federal income taxes on $79 billion in US pretax income, according to ITEP findings. And instead of paying $16.4 billion in taxes, these corporations enjoyed a net corporate tax rebate of $4.3 billion.

Also on rt.com
Walmart trolls Amazon over not paying taxes after Bezos challenges rivals to hike minimum wage

This all happened thanks to various legal loopholes created by the “technically flawed” 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The law left most tax breaks intact while it also set a 21 percent statutory corporate tax rate (reduced from 35 percent).

“The result, unsurprisingly, has been a continued decline in our already low corporate tax revenues: in fiscal 2018, US corporate tax revenues fell by 31 percent, according to US Treasury data,” the authors of the report said. “This was a more precipitous decline than in any year of normal economic growth in US history.”

The diverse array of legal tax breaks includes accelerated depreciation (used, for example, by Chevron and Delta Airlines among others) as well a tax break for stock options, from which Amazon and Netflix benefited. The latter – with $856 million in profit – reduced its income taxes by $191 million by taking advantage of this tax break and paying nothing.

Also on rt.com
Africa’s Amazon ready to make market debut on New York Stock Exchange

However,

 » Lees verder

Why Are These Bankrupt, Found Out, Discredited Professional War Peddlers Still Around?

why-are-these-bankrupt-found-out-discredited-professional-war-peddlers-still-around

18-02-19 07:42:00,

How many times must pro-war pundits like Max Boot and Bill Kristol jump the shark to be taken off of American TV screens?

One thing that every late-stage ruling class has in common is a high tolerance for mediocrity. Standards decline, the edges fray, but nobody in charge seems to notice. They’re happy in their sinecures and getting richer. In a culture like this, there’s no penalty for being wrong. The talentless prosper, rising inexorably toward positions of greater power, and breaking things along the way. It happened to the Ottomans. Max Boot is living proof that it’s happening in America.

Boot is a professional foreign policy expert, a job category that doesn’t exist outside of a select number of cities. Boot has degrees from Berkeley and Yale, and is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He has written a number of books and countless newspaper columns on foreign affairs and military history. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, an influential British think tank, describes Boot as one of the “world’s leading authorities on armed conflict.”

None of this, it turns out, means anything. The professional requirements for being one of the world’s Leading Authorities on Armed Conflict do not include relevant experience with armed conflict. Leading authorities on the subject don’t need a track record of wise assessments or accurate predictions. All that’s required are the circular recommendations of fellow credential holders. If other Leading Authorities on Armed Conflict induct you into their ranks, you’re in. That’s good news for Max Boot.

Boot first became famous in the weeks after 9/11 for outlining a response that the Bush administration seemed to read like a script, virtually word for word. While others were debating whether Kandahar or Kabul ought to get the first round of American bombs, Boot was thinking big. In October 2001, he published a piece in The Weekly Standard titled “The Case for American Empire.”

“The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition,” Boot wrote. “The solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation.” In order to prevent more terror attacks in American cities, Boot called for a series of U.S.-led revolutions around the world,

 » Lees verder

These 11 Companies Control Everything You Buy

these-11-companies-control-everything-you-buy

09-12-18 09:18:00,

Via WikiBuy.com,

Is freedom of choice an illusion?

The rapid rise of variation in everyday goods and services, from which cereal we eat in the morning to which toothpaste we brush our teeth with at night, gives the perception of unlimited choice. For example, if you’re deciding which bottled water to buy, the possibilities range from budget brands, like Deer Park or Ozarka, to higher-end options, like Perrier or S. Pellegrino. But this appearance of choice is actually manufactured. All of the aforementioned brands are owned by one company: Nestle.

Despite the amount of choices in the consumer market, several big companies own a large majority of major brands, effectively controlling everything you buy.

So, how much of “choice” is really controlled by big business, and how well do Americans understand which corporations have a stake in the goods and services they rely on every day? To find out, we took an in-depth look at the major companies that own a majority of America’s food and consumer goods. Then, we surveyed 3,000 Americans about their understanding of which big businesses own which major brands. Check out our full visual below, or skip ahead to see our survey findings.

These 11 Consumer Goods and Food Companies Control What You Buy

Ceiling-high grocery store shelves may give the perception of endless options, but a closer look at the brands and the companies that own them reveal a complex interconnection. Check out our full visual above to get a better sense of just how intertwined some brands are, and read on to learn more about how well Americans understand this relationship.

Major players

Kellogg’s

Founded: 1906 (as Battle Creek Toasted Corn Flake Company)

2017 revenue: $12.93 billion USD

Major brands: Cheez-It, Eggo, Famous Amos, Keebler, Town House

General Mills

Founded: 1928

2017 revenue: $15.62 billion USD

Major brands: Betty Crocker, Bisquick, Gold Medal, Cheerios, Chex

Kraft-Heinz Company

Founded: 2015 (merger between Kraft Foods Inc. and Heinz)

2017 revenue: $18.22 billion

Major brands: Heinz Ketchup,

 » Lees verder

WATCH: Who Are These Russians And Why Do We Hate Them?

watch-who-are-these-russians-and-why-do-we-hate-them

08-11-18 12:47:00,

In his film, Regis Tremblay examines the history of US-Russian relations, talks to ordinary Russian people, deconstructs propaganda and attempts to answer the question – Who are these Russians? And Why Do We Hate Them?

The escalating downturn of US relations with Russia has made the world a more dangerous place than at any time during the Cold War, including during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This film explores the many reasons why the US foreign policy establishment since the end of World War II hates all things Russian. With the exception of John Kennedy who sought to end nuclear weapons and to seek peace with Russia, every president since has used Russia as a threat to American interests, security and Democracy.

Is Putin a thug and an assassin? Or he is a great, patriotic leader of a country that was nearly destroyed by President George Herbert Walker Bush’s CIA good old boys, Bill Clinton and the CIA asset Boris Yeltsin? But, perhaps the greatest fear is that Russia has regained its superpower status and because of the sanctions, has established close economic, diplomatic, political and military relations with China and the BRICS nations. And this is the biggest threat to American hegemony and capitalist interests around the world.

Nearly thirty years have past since the fall of the Soviet Union and still America and the West refuse to believe that Communism is dead and that Russia now embraces a market economy and most of the political and social values of the West. Thanks to Putin, Russia is again a global superpower and a threat to American hegemony and interests.

As citizens of this country, we have a responsibility for its actions. It is my hope that as Americans, we can accept the truth of our past and acknowledge the errors of our present course so that we can take our rightful place as one among equals with the rest of the world.

PLEASE SHARE TO HELP COMBAT SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP

Like this:
Like Loading…  » Lees verder

These Four Predicted The Global Financial Crisis; Here’s What They Think Causes The Next One

These Four Predicted The Global Financial Crisis; Here’s What They Think Causes The Next One

16-09-18 08:20:00,

A different kind of hurricane slammed into the American East coast, the nation and ultimately the world ten years ago today. 

Amidst the multiple introspective columns and soul searching that naturally occurred this week, which looked back on the missed warning signs behind the 2008 financial collapse exactly a decade ago this weekend, there is a small group of people whose opinions are actually worth paying attention to.

Though arguably no single individual accurately called all aspects of the crisis in its entirety, precipitated by the implosion of Lehman Brothers, some did very publicly predict key facets with prophetic clarity. As Market Watch’s Howard Gold explains in his profile of four analysts the world should have been listening to: “People warned about subprime mortgage loans, derivatives, and too much leverage, but nobody, to my knowledge, said a bursting housing bubble would cause a global crisis that would lead to the demise of venerable financial firms, require trillion-dollar taxpayer bailouts, and cause a recession that rivaled only the Great Depression in its magnitude.”

Trouble is like many religious prophets of ancient history, they were rejected at the time, cast as dour harbingers of gloom and doom.

Clockwise from upper left: Gary Shilling, Jim Stack, Raghuram Rajan and John Mauldin. Via MarketWatch

Here are four names and their very public warnings that attempted to jolt the financial and banking sectors out of their sleepy stroll toward the abyss before 2008, as well as their predictions for the next big one, and what to look out for. 

Howard Gold interviewed each, and laid out the key quotes summarizing then and now…

Economist A. Gary Shilling

President of consultancy A. Gary Shilling & Co., he started writing about a housing bubble in the early 2000s which Greg Lippmann (of “The Big Short” fame), credits with giving him the idea to bet against subprime mortgages. Describes Gold, “he warned his newsletter subscribers about a housing bust and wholesale deleveraging of household debt that would hobble the economy for years.”

And this epic anecdote from the interview

John Paulson contacted Shilling in August 2006. “He talked about credit default swaps.

 » Lees verder

These 13 Corporations Are “Big Pharma”: Their Crimes, History and Products | Light On Conspiracies – Revealing the Agenda

These 13 Corporations Are “Big Pharma”: Their Crimes, History and Products | Light On Conspiracies – Revealing the Agenda

21-07-18 07:08:00,

This is a preview to the Era of Wisdom documentary Toddlers on Adderall: History of Big Pharma and the Major Players, to be released December 28, 2016.

The film is written and directed by Cassius Kamarampi, narrated by Josh Mur and it’s music is by Cassius Kamarampi.

Transcript of the video

In our society, we often correlate legality with safety. We use household products, spray pesticides, and religiously consume drugs such as ritalin, adderall, oxycontin, and prozac.

We consume all of this, but how many know who made the drugs, and where the corporations came from? Who produces the chemicals we trust on a daily basis?

13 corporations tend to be a blind spot in our understanding of history.

Tens of thousands of american toddlers are being prescribed amphetamine – a result of this blind spot. Neos Therapeutics is responsible for candy flavored children’s amphetamine, sold as adzenys. Shire created adderall.

An understanding of Big Pharma is conducive to a big picture understanding of the world and power itself: it is an essential puzzle piece in understanding disease, hegemony, and health.

For instance, we have Purdue. Purdue Pharma was created in 1892 New York. They are arguably responsible for the epidemic of opioid addiction in the United States, producing hydrocodone, oxycontin, fentanyl, codeine, hydromorphone, and oxycodone.

Novartis is the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporation by revenue, headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, a 1996 merger between Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz.
Novartis is responsible for many drugs, from ritalin to LSD. Novartis has a long criminal record. They are known for animal cruelty, from drilling the heads of cats open, to experimenting on primates.

Sandoz polluted the Rhine River in the 1986 Sandoz Chemical Spill.
Novartis owned Syngenta, one of the world’s largest producers of pesticides and GMO seeds.

Recently Syngenta was sold to the Chinese government. State-owned Chem-China is now one of the world’s largest producers of pesticides and GM seeds.

Novartis coerces entire countries into banning cheaper, generic versions of their cancer drugs: namely Colombia. Leaked letters revealed Novartis’ control over the Senate Finance Committee, as Colombia was warned their 450$ million dollars in “Peace Colombia” money would be in jeopardy if they did not crack down on generic versions of the cancer drug gleevec.

 » Lees verder

These 1: Revolutionaire politiek betekent dat je het potentieel van de samenleving (er)kent

These 1: Revolutionaire politiek betekent dat je het potentieel van de samenleving (er)kent

25-06-18 10:51:00,

De eerste van “11 Thesen over organiseren en revolutionaire praktijk voor een fundamentele heroriëntatie van links-radicale politiek”. Zie hier een uitgebreide inleiding op de serie.

(Oorspronkelijk geschreven door kollektiv, Bremen in mei 2016 Vertaling door Tommy Ryan, de serie is te volgen via deze tag, informaties over steun aan globalinfo.nl vind je hier).

Het maakt niet uit waar we kijken, of het nu de actiegeoriënteerde en praktijkgerichte groepen zijn, of de meer theoretische en meningsvormende kringen – één ding hebben deze verschillende delen van de links-radicale beweging gemeen: ze bezitten een diepe afkeer tegen de samenleving en voelen zichzelf hierboven staan.

En het is in eerste opzicht ook niet zo moeilijk om redenen te vinden waar deze afkeer van de maatschappij vandaan komt; of het nu het voortschrijdend nationalisme is, de gezagsgetrouwheid of dat het de racistische, seksistische en homofobe tendensen zijn. Daarnaast heerst het zelfgenoegzame en hypocriete idee een gidsland voor de democratie te zijn en verdediger van mensenrechten, welke uiteindelijk de binnenlandse politieke verhoudingen witwassen. Deze ideeën dienen er vooral toe mensen te verblinden voor de verantwoordelijkheid van de [Europese] geopolitiek die oorzaak is van wereldwijde ellende, uitbuiting en onderdrukking. Dit gaat zelfs zo ver dat er onterecht een nationale mythe en onwankelbaar nationaal zelfbeeld wordt geconstrueerd zélf slachtoffer of benadeelde te zijn (*1)(*2).

Hierdoor voert een groot deel van onze beweging niet alleen strijd tegen economische machtsstructuren of de machtsstructuren van de staat, maar ook een strijd met deze eerdergenoemde tendensen in de samenleving. Hierin schuilt echter het gevaar dat je je tegen de samenleving als geheel keert.

De samenleving in zijn geheel afschrijven (en jezelf hier van afscheiden) betekent echter niets anders dan, bewust of onbewust, elke aanspraak op een radicale en emancipatorische maatschappijverandering op te geven.  De daadwerkelijke overwinning van staatsstructuren en kapitalistische, patriarchale verhoudingen kunnen namelijk niet voor de samenleving overwonnen worden, noch zonder of tegen diens wil in worden doorgevoerd. De revolutie is veel eerder een voortdurend proces, dat gezien moet worden als iets dat door brede delen van de bevolking gedragen en bevochten moet worden. Anders verwordt de revolutie tot een project van overheersing en dwang van een kleine minderheid die buiten of boven de samenleving staat. Daarmee vervalt links-radicale politiek óf tot elite-politiek óf de strijd voor de samenleving wordt uitbesteed in plaats van dat deze gezamenlijk gevoerd wordt.

 » Lees verder