#AceFinanceNews – AUSTRALIA (Brisbane) – Nov.16 – In a vain hope of jump-starting a lethargic economy, and bringing it back from the dead.
It was agreed by G-20 nations on Sunday to finalize a plan to boost global GDP by more than $2 trillion over five years AP reported.
The fanfare, however, was overshadowed by tensions between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western leaders.
The communique from the Brisbane summit of Group of 20 wealthy and emerging nations revealed that the plan for jumps-starting growth includes investing in infrastructure, increasing trade and the creation of a global infrastructure hub that would help match potential investors with projects.
#AceFinanceNews – WASHINGTON – October 12 – World financial leaders are pledging to act boldly and ambitiously to give a weak and uneven global recovery some momentum, but they have often fallen short in the past when trying to follow through on their promises.
The pledge from the International Monetary Fund’s policy-setting committee comes after a week of volatile swings in the financial markets – powered by concerns that parts of Europe may be sliding into another recession.
Source: Extract Courtesy of AP
#AceFinanceNews – October 10 – The fear of Ebola is already starting to affect economies, the president of the World Bank said on Thursday.
In some countries, for example, people are already refusing to clean planes for fear of contracting the virus.
The World Bank has estimated the cost to Africa alone at some $32.6 billion.
“What we’ve seen, the so-called aversion behaviour … the $32.6 billion is not because of the virus itself, 80 to 90 percent of that is the aversion behaviour, the stop in productivity, people don’t go to work, kids don’t go to school, there’s no flights coming in, trade slows down,” Kim said in a CNBC interview.
Government sells 6 per cent of shares in Lloyds Banking Group, at 75p per share.
The government has today begun the process of selling part of its shares in Lloyd’s Banking Group. It has sold 6 per cent of the shares in the bank, at a price of 75p per share. A profit has been made from the sale, which will be used to pay down the national debt.
The Chancellor received advice from UK Financial Investments yesterday that it would be appropriate to begin the process to sell part of the government’s shareholding in Lloyd’s. The Chancellor agreed with that advice and authorised the process to begin.
Today marks an important step in the government’s plan for the recovery of Britain’s banking system.
The Chancellor, George Osborne, said:
I can confirm this morning that we have sold 6% of Lloyd’s Bank at 75p a share. That is a profit for taxpayers, and rightly so. The money will be used to reduce the national debt by over half a billion pounds.
This is another step in the long journey in putting right what went so badly wrong in the British economy; it’s another step in repairing the banks; it’s another step in getting the money back for the taxpayer; and it’s another step in reducing our national debt.
All of those things together are good news.
If you look at what has happened over the last 12 hours with Lloyd’s, you have investors from around the world investing in a British bank. That is a sign the British economy is turning a corner.
On the face of it this looks good for the tax payer and couched in the correct way such as the return and the overall benefits, we could start to believe this government really cares about the use of tax payers money! The fact is look much deeper at the way it has been worded by our Chancellor and look at who will benefit and a very different story emerges! The actual shares are to be sold off or should l say offered to:
Institutional investors are organizations which pool large sums of money and invest those sums in securities, real property and other investment assets. They can also include operating companies which decide to invest their profits to some degree in these types of assets.
Typical investors include banks, insurance companies, retirement or pension funds, hedge funds, investment advisors and mutual funds. Their role in the economy is to act as highly specialized investors on behalf of others. For instance, an ordinary person will have a pension from his employer. The employer gives that person’s pension contributions to a fund. The fund will buy shares in a company, or some other financial product. Funds are useful because they will hold a broad portfolio of investments in many companies. This spreads risk, so if one company fails, it will be only a small part of the whole fund’s investment.
Institutional investors will have a lot of influence in the management of corporations because they will be entitled to exercise the voting rights in a company. They can actively engage in corporate governance. Furthermore, because institutional investors have the freedom to buy and sell shares, they can play a large part in which companies stay solvent, and which go under. Influencing the conduct of listed companies, and providing them with capital are all part of the job of investment management.
This will of course look to bolster the economy for the institutions and at the same time make the pension funds look more healthy for the beleaguered OAPS investments, which of course were decimated back in 2008, at the time of the financial crisis, brought on mainly by the banks and their risky lending policy, something that our previous Bank of England Manager would not sanction, but enter Osborne’s new replacement and all of a sudden, risky lending is back on the cards! Anyone uncertain of Mr Carney’s track record for taking risks read his policy in the Canadian Banking Industry and see what l mean!
So now we have what l can only term as a sell-out of the tax payer, having bolstered up the banks with the hard-earned tax payers funds, using infrastructure funds ,that should light our streets or renew our roads, and now the 4 year plan is completed! Oh yes also a split between the savings and retail arms of what was Lloyd’s TSB Bank Plc and now we have to distinct banks Lloyd’s Bank PLC and TSB Bank PLC, has also taken place, allowing any toxic assets to disappear, into the restructuring process!
UK Financial Investments:
Take a look at their site and view their pdf containing details of the sell-off you even have to agree not to use the information in the US, but visit here is a link to their site: http://www.ukfi.co.uk/
- The Rise of the Funds (ssteinsmith.com)
- How This Guy Convinced People To Give Him Millions Of Dollars To Bet On Risky Startups (businessinsider.com)
- VIDEO: Osborne: Lloyds shares open to all (bbc.co.uk)
- Chancellor kicks off Lloyds sale (standard.co.uk)
- UK to sell part of Lloyds bank stake (bigpondnews.com)
According to the EU Observer the other day, on the ticker news the co chiefs executives of Goldman Sachs have said that every European firm ,would be gone! The fact that this would leave the marketplace free of these controllers
Michael Sherwood and Richard Gnodde, the co-chief executives of Goldman Sachs International, have said. “Every European firm would be gone in very short order,” Sherwood told the Evening Standard newspaper.
- Kwasi Kwarteng: London no longer needs to be tied to a stagnating EU (standard.co.uk)
- Goldman Sachs: Signs of ‘a slow recovery’ in the eurozone (telegraph.co.uk)
- Poll finds 44% of City workers think Britain should leave the EU (standard.co.uk)
- Goldman Sachs to stay in London if UK quits European Union (thisismoney.co.uk)
- City of London: UK exit from EU would risk bank exodus (dnaindia.com)
- Saxo Bank CEO Slams Merkel: “The Verdict Is Out, Need To Re-Evaluate The EU” (silveristhenew.com)
- Barack Obama’s new Ambassador to London has no place lecturing Britain on staying in the EU (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
The 1830`s were a tumultuous decade for America. The attempt by the Second Bank of the United States for an early re-charter was passed by Congress in July 1832, but the bill was vetoed shortly thereafter by President Andrew Jackson. The hopes of the bank’s supporters to turn the veto in a winning campaign issue in that fall’s presidential campaign failed dismally. In 1833, Jackson retaliated against the bank by removing federal government deposits and placing them in “pet” state banks. As federal revenue from land sales soared, Jackson saw the opportunity to fulfil his dream of paying off the national debt – which he did in early 1835. But as the economy overheated and so did state dreams of infrastructure projects. Congress passed a law in 1836 that required the federal surplus to be distributed to the states in four payments. Shortly afterwards, the Jackson Administration declared in its “Specie Circular” that payments for federal land purchases be made in specie. When combined with loose state banking practices and a credit contraction, a major economic crisis was brewing when Martin Van Buren took office as president in March 1837. Two months later, New York City banks suspended specie payments. A major economic recession was soon under-way. Van Buren – under pressure from his mentor Jackson – decided not to suspend the Specie Circular. Instead, he proposed a set of economic proposals that September – the most of important of which – an independent Sub-Treasury – Congress refused to pass. As a result, the recession double dipped in 1839 and the national economy did not recover until 1843.
The Second Bank of the United States
The first Bank of the United States died when its twenty-year charter expired in 1811. Re-charter of BUS was strongly backed by Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, weakly backed by President James Madison, opposed by Vice President George Clinton, opposed by the House of Representatives, and strongly opposed by former President Thomas Jefferson. House Speaker Henry Clay’s later support of a national bank in the 1820s and 1830s linked him to the American originator of the bank idea, Alexander Hamilton, but Clay had begun his political life as an opponent of the national bank. Only later, Clay and other Jeffersonians came to recognize the important functions played by the BUS. Historian Sean Wilentz wrote: “Republican reconciliation with Hamilton’s bank idea had taken place by fits and starts, and was never monolithic. In 1811,…the Madison administration, goaded by Secretary of the Treasury Gallatin, supported it….In Congress, a coalition of Republican southerners and westerners, seeing the bank as an instrument for economic development in their respective regions led the re-charter effort.” 1 However, the effort fell short in the House. Historian Gordon S. Wood noted that “the more important enemies of the BUS were the state banks. By regularly redeeming the outstanding notes of the state banks, the BUS had checked their ability to issue notes too far in excess of what they could cover with specie, that is, their reserves, and this had become a deep source of anger….When the twenty-year charter of Hamilton’s BUS was about to expire in 1811, it was not surprising that these state banks were determined that it would not be renewed.” 2” Henry Clay, Wilentz wrote, thought “the national bank unfairly constrained the operations of state banks.”
The death of the first Bank of the United States was almost prevented. “On January 24th, 1811, the House, by a single vote, rejected a preliminary motion on the bank charter, and the fight moved to the Senate,” noted Historian John Steele Gordon. “There, on February 20th, the Senate tied 17-17 on another preliminary matter, and Vice President George Clinton, in perhaps the only significant independent act by a vice president in American history, voted against the bank. The Bank of the United States was dead.” It was an economically and politically short-sighted act. Gordon noted that “many of the men who voted to kill the bank were the very same men who advocated war – the most expensive of all public policies – with one of the strongest military powers on earth. Given the bank was the government’s principal mechanism for collecting internal revenue and its only one for raising loans, the defeat of the charter was perhaps the most feckless act in the history of the United States Congress, although, to be sure, that is a title for which there has been no little competition over the years.”
The War of 1812 would soon prove the clear need for a government bank to help fund growing government expenses not covered by the nation’s limited tariff revenue. Such revenue was further limited by a transatlantic war. The conflict of national economic policy, begun in the 1790s between followers of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, continued. Leading up to the 1812 war, noted financial historian Susan Hoffman, one “group of agrarian, `unreformed’ or `unreconstructed’ Jeffersonian’s, opposed re-charter of the Bank of the United States because they continued to oppose all banking on philosophical grounds. They resurrected the old arguments against the bank’s constitutionality. Joining them in opposition to re-charter was the third contingent of congressional Republicans, the free enterprise’s. Here was the voice of the `interests’ of the day. Led by Henry Clay, they opposed the Bank of the United States because its regulatory hand got in the way of state banks and because its dominance of U.S. government deposits kept those deposits out-of-state bank vaults.”
The War of 1812 upended the long political split in the country about the bank. Now in power for 16 years, many Jeffersonian’s began to see the necessity of the bank that Federalists had long championed. Preparations were made for a successor institution. With support of Speaker Clay, President Madison, future President James Monroe, and future Vice President John Calhoun, the Second Bank of the United States was chartered in 1816 for 20 years. By 1816, noted financial historian Susan Hoffman, “Reformed Jeffersonians…had concluded that banking was with us and must be regulated to make sure its consistency with the Jeffersonian concept of the public interest, which emphasized protection of the freedom and equality of people. The key factional shift that allowed the second national bank’s charter to pass was on the part of the state banking supporters. Whether they had opposed the central bank because they did not like any regulator or because they thought state regulation would be sufficient, this group concluded, in light of the economic chaos in the absence of the first national bank, that federal regulation was consistent with state banking.”6” Historian Sean Wilentz observed that the new bank was designed to curb inflation and speculative frenzies: “Acting as a financial balance-wheel, the national bank would, in principle, keep currency values and capital markets stable, and prevent national economic expansion from turning into an orgy of over speculation and runaway inflation.
The Second Bank of the United States got off to a rocky start. Susan Hoffmann wrote that it “opened for business in January 1817 under William Jones (1816-19) in the midst of the economic boom that followed the end of the War of 1812.” 8 Indeed, the revived national bank was not fortunate in its choice of directors who first inflated the currency and then contracted it. Historian Harlow Giles Unger wrote: “Inflated by speculation in western lands, an economic `bubble’ suddenly popped, with hundreds of banks shutting down, and thousands of depositors and investors wiped. The land rush had seen the number of banks grow to more than 1,000, with each issuing its own colourful bank notes – normally in two and five-dollar denominations, backed by no one knew what.” 9 This period has been dubbed the “Era of Good Feelings,” but it was not the era of good economic leadership or economic prosperity. Economic historian Charles Sellers wrote that the “brutal deflation saved the national Bank by sacrificing not only its debtors but the state banks and their hordes of debtors as well, which is to say, most of the market economy. Suddenly in the spring of 1819, as the Bank’s pressure was intensified by a similar financial crisis in Britain, world commodity prices collapsed.” Sellers wrote that “the collapse of agricultural prices made it impossible for state banks to collect from borrowers or meet obligations to the national Bank. When most state banks suspended the pretence of specie redemption, a flood of business failures and personal liquidation plunged Americans into their first experience of general and devastating economic prostration.”
Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impeded over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the cost of the many, and in favour of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy.
The national government lacked even the most rudimentary financial tools in the secession winter of 1860-61. It lacked both a stable currency and supply of credit along with revenue and banking systems. By the time the sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln, took the oath of office on March 4, 1861, the country was not only on the verge of Civil War but also a financial disaster. The nation’s coffers were empty, left in disarray from three decades of Jacksonian fiscal policies, and the government faced a continuing liquidity crisis in light of the demands generated by Civil War expenditures.
Early in his administration, Lincoln recognized that the war’s outcome would be largely determined by resources. Thus, he understood the imperative of raising funds to carry out the war effort. It was against this backdrop that Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase to the Treasury, authorizing Chase alone to act on all matters of the country’s finances. Chase, like most everyone else when, underestimated the severity of the War—both its duration and its cost. Just as dangerous, perhaps, Chase overestimated the usefulness of Jackson era financial policies to deal with the crisis.
Upon taking office, Chase “found on hand less than $2,000,000, all of which was appropriated ten times over. He calculated that he needed $320,000,000, as he reported to the Congress that met in July 1861,” wrote financial historian Bray Hammond. Chase needed credit, revenue, and an increase in the supply of money.
After the fall of Fort Sumter, Lincoln unilaterally began to finance the war effort. Over the month`s that followed, Chase—with Lincoln’s occasional assistance—would court Congress, encouraging bond sales, higher tariffs, a single national currency, and bank reforms.
Chase biographer Albert Bushnell Hart wrote: “The most important financial measures during the first year were arrangements for new loans, and the real borrowing of money—both matter`s in which the brief legislation of Congress was very significant, for there was laid the foundation for large issues of bonds, of interest-bearing notes, and of circulating notes.”
Chase had asked Congress, meeting in special session during in July 1861, to authorize $240 million in loan`s. Chase was convinced that the government should not sell its securities below par, but there was no market for government securities at par. American financier Jay Cooke became a close advisor to Chase in 1861, suggesting that the Treasury sell bonds directly to the American public, appealing to their patriotism and emotion. Chase, therefore, asked Congress for low-denomination Treasury notes which people could pay for in instalments. As described by historian Phillip S. Paludan, the Treasury secretary sought “to encourage their enthusiasm Chase wanted to have these notes earn interest at a penny a day on a $50 note—a higher rate than usually paid by the government. Average Northern citizens would thus link their fortunes to the success of Union arms.”
Future Intentions: According to
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard who has covered world politics and economics for 30 years, based in Europe, the US, and Latin America. Who joined the Telegraph in 1991, serving as Washington correspondent and later Europe correspondent in Brussels. Who is now International Business Editor in London.
The world is moving step by step towards a de facto Gold Standard, without any meetings of G20 leaders to announce the idea or bless the project.
Some readers will already have seen the GFMS Gold Survey for 2012 which reported that central banks around the world bought more bullion last year in terms of tonnage than at any time in almost half a century.
They added a net 536 tonnes in 2012 as they diversified fresh reserves away from the four fiat suspects: dollar, euro, sterling, and yen.
The Washington Accord, where Britain, Spain, Holland, Switzerland, and others sold a chunk of their gold each year, already seems another era – the Gordon Brown era, you might call it.
That was the illusionary period when investors thought the Euro would take its place as the twin pillar of a new G2 condominium alongside the dollar. That hope has faded. Central bank holdings of Euro bonds have fallen back to 26pc, where they were almost a decade ago. Please download the PDF below of the draft.
- Everyone Knows that the Federal Reserve Banks Are PRIVATE … Except the American People (thedailysheeple.com)
- Re: What History is currently taught to young americans ? (forum.prisonplanet.com)
- Andrew Jackson and THE BANK WAR via American Minute (loopyloo305.com)
- [UK-911-Truth] Reminder: All wars are banker wars – Alex J. (inquiringminds.cc)
- Rothschilds Want Iran’s Banks (xrepublic.tv)
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the spending cuts announced in the Autumn Statement are “close to inconceivable” and added that it believes further welfare cuts and tax rises are likely if the Government’s figures are to add up. Its director Paul Johnson said that pensioners’ benefits could be targeted for further cuts, commenting: “Working age individuals receiving benefits and tax credits have been hit. The richest few per cent have been hit very hard. Pensioners, and those in work on more modest incomes have borne less of the burden.” The IFS said that Britain is on course for £7bn of tax rises and another £20bn in welfare cuts and spending reductions after the next election, adding that it expects 5m workers to be paying higher-rate tax by 2015 – half a million more than the Treasury’s estimate.
The consultation sets out the OFT’s proposed objectives and priorities over the next financial year, its fortieth and final year before the transfer of functions to the Consumer and Markets Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority. The OFT intends to continue to focus on work to make markets work well for consumers and the wider economy, alongside ensuring a rich portfolio of cases is handed over to the new institutions.
The proposed areas of focus are informed by the OFT’s first published Strategic Assessment, which identifies key developments and trends in the macro-economic, regulatory, political and social environment – such as economic challenges, demographic change and technological advances. It considers risks to consumers and markets in this context, taking into account the probability of problems arising and impact, should they occur.
During 2013-14, the OFT plans to prioritise work that reflects the following themes:
- vulnerable consumers and consumers challenged by the adverse economic climate
- pricing used as a barrier to fair choice
- novel and developing markets and business practices
- public services markets
- closer working with the economic regulators.
These priorities have been developed in the context of a challenging economic climate and are designed to maximise impact against the backdrop of a reduced OFT budget.
‘In the coming financial year, we will remain focused on delivering outcomes that matter for the consumer and the economy, while also preparing the ground for the transfer of the OFT’s functions and the establishment of the new institutions. Publishing our Strategic Assessment of Risks alongside the Annual Plan consultation makes clear the thinking behind our choice of themes and priorities.’
A joint report from the Department of Health, Department for Work and Pensions and Department for Communities and Local Government will warn this week that a rising number of elderly people face losing “almost all of their wealth” to pay for social care. The report warns that the country may not be able to afford to fund a £35,000 cap on care costs amid a rapidly expanding population. The submission notes that by 2030, the number of pensioners is forecast to rise by 51%, while the number of disabled older people is expected to increase by 61% to 4m. The Government predicts that these rises will lead to unprecedented pressure on the NHS, councils and the state pension system. As a result, the report estimates that number of older people forced to rely on families and friends for help with care costs will double by 2030.
- Elderly face losing ‘almost all of their wealth’ (itv.com)
- National News: Savings ‘risk’ in social care plans (coventrytelegraph.net)