By: Madison Ruppert
Website: http://endthelie.com
The London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, scandal is growing by the minute and is shaping up to be one of the largest, if not the single largest, financial scandals of all time. This has the potential to make the massive conflicts of interest at the Federal Reserve and the $16 trillion in “emergency loans” given out by the Federal Reserve look reasonable.
For the uninitiated, as it were, the scandal centers on British financial institution Barclays, the former CEO of which testified yesterday before the British Parliament.
Bob Diamond’s testimony on July 4, 2012 was almost painful. Diamond fell back on the incredibly tired excuses used by the criminals in the financial sector which were accurately summed up as “a long version of ‘It was awful, but don’t blame me.’”
LIBOR is, to put it in a crudely simple fashion, is the fluctuating rate at which banks can borrow from each other. However, this isn’t just a rate which affects UK banks.
Indeed, the LIBOR is used as an indicator for many of the world’s various fluctuating rates spanning a wide range of so-called “financial products.”
This is because the LIBOR is used as a rough indication of the level of confidence between one bank and another, with high rates indicating a low level of confidence and uncertain financial stability.
One of the most important, although hardly surprising, aspects of the scandal surrounds an email from October 29, 2008 written by Diamond to then-CEO John Varley
The email allegedly details a conversation between Diamond and deputy governor of the Bank of England, Paul Tucker, held just earlier that day in which Tucker actually encouraged Diamond to artificially lower LIBOR rates.
A Barclays’ memo to the Treasury Select Committee released by the Telegraph on July 3 also reveals, “Subsequent to the call, Bob Diamond relayed the contents of the conversation to Jerry del Missier [then head of markets at BarCap].”
However, the memo also claims, “Bob Diamond did not believe he received an instruction from Paul Tucker or that he gave an instruction to Jerry del Missier. However, Jerry del Missier concluded that an instruction had been passed down from the Bank of England not to keep Libors so high and he therefore passed down a direction to that effect to the submitters.”
This is just the beginning. As Matt Taibbi (watch the below video for more great comments from Taibbi on this scandal) correctly points out in his blog for Rolling Stone, “What’s even worse is that Diamond’s email suggests that Tucker was only following orders, i.e. that Tucker had received phone calls from ‘a number of senior figures within Whitehall’ – that is, the British government – expressing concern about Barclays’ high Libor rates.”
If true, this would mean that Tucker was essentially playing the messenger for the British government in instructing Diamond to create a false sense of financial stability by the manipulation of borrowing rates.
In the email, Diamond actually says that the problem with Barclays was that they were actually reporting the real lending numbers, not ones artificially deflated before release.
“I asked [Tucker] if he could relay the reality, that not all banks were providing quotes at the levels that represented real transaction,” wrote Diamond in the email.
Tucker then slyly instructed Diamond to fudge the numbers in what Taibbi characterizes as “the painfully oblique manner of an English gentleman trying to engage a prostitute without using any dirty words.”
Tucker first said to Diamond that “while he was certain [Barclays] did not need advice,” Barclays need not report the high (read: true) rates that they had been reporting.
Diamond then relates that Tucker said, “It did not always need to be the case that [Barclays] appeared as high as [it has] recently.”
The attempts by Barclays to downplay the email and push blame away from Diamond and del Messier in the passage of the memo quoted above are just plain laughable.
Barlcays admits, “Certain traders sought to manipulate Barclays Libor submissions by sending requests to submitters,” and that, “The majority of these were sent during 2005 to Sept 2007 and sporadically in 2008/2009. There were no further requests to submitters after May 2009.”
However, they claim, “There was no knowledge by anyone in the bank above desk supervisor level of this conduct at the time. Senior management were not aware.”
This, I believe, is a laughable assertion when one actually looks at the facts. One would have to play quite fast and loose with the interpreting the quite clear wordage of the Diamond email in order to support such a position.
Taibbi, for one, suspects that the Diamond email’s mention of figures from Whitehall could be, if nothing else, “an awesome piece of political jungle defense by Diamond, tossing a hand-grenade into the seat of Her Majesty’s government minutes before he’s supposed to be grilled by parliament.”
Taibbi notes that unfortunately (at least for now) the only evidence we have regarding the mention of Whitehall is Diamond, “and under normal circumstances his word should mean less than nothing.”
This is especially true coming from a man who actually claimed in 2011 that it was time for banks to stop apologizing for what they had done.
Yet, we do, in fact, know that the conversation between Diamond in Tucker did occur and we know that they did discuss LIBOR. The only problem is that we don’t know how far this chain of damnation really goes.
Did I forget anything or miss any errors? Would you like to make me aware of a story or subject to cover? Or perhaps you want to bring your writing to a wider audience? Feel free to contact me at admin@EndtheLie.com with your concerns, tips, questions, original writings, insults or just about anything that may strike your fancy.
More at EndtheLie.com - http://EndtheLie.com/2012/07/05/libor-the-mega-scandal-of-all-mega-scandals-is-upon-us/#ixzz1zp3XvDiK
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
July 7, 2012 False Flag?
UPDATE: Alright we have one more day to see if the illuminati are going to pull this off. If I was them, I wouldn't do it because it would be so obvious that there is a massive conspiracy at this point.
Madrid, Spain bombings ---> Blamed on Al-Qaeda --> Occurred 11th day, in March, 2004
7 year difference
London, England bombings --> Blamed on Al-Qaeda --> Occurred 7th day, in July, 2005
7 year difference
Future City, Future Country --> Undefined Event --> Occurring 7th day, in July 2012
Madrid, Spain bombings ---> Blamed on Al-Qaeda --> Occurred 11th day, in March, 2004
Fukushima, Japan meltdown --> Radiation Release --> Occurred 11th day, in March, 2011
7 year difference
London, England bombings --> Blamed on Al-Qaeda --> Occurred 7th day, in July, 2005
7 year difference
Future City, Future Country --> Undefined Event --> Occurring 7th day, in July 2012
Occult simply means hidden.
2012 - Sony Pictures
C# Method Calls & Variable Scope
Above my C# "public class" code line I wrote "Using System";
I received DOS Compiler Error CS0116, so I went to the Microsoft website to receive help at the MSDN, developer library.
Compiler Error CS0116 = "A namespace does not directly contain members such as fields or methods." Inside a namespace, the compiler only accepts classes, structs, unions, enums, interfaces, and delegates.
MSDN answer, highlighted in red, does not help, and is confusing and useless.
Compiler Error CS0116 = Don't capitalize "Using."
This answer, highlighted blue, was what they should have said.
I received DOS Compiler Error CS0116, so I went to the Microsoft website to receive help at the MSDN, developer library.
Compiler Error CS0116 = "A namespace does not directly contain members such as fields or methods." Inside a namespace, the compiler only accepts classes, structs, unions, enums, interfaces, and delegates.
MSDN answer, highlighted in red, does not help, and is confusing and useless.
Compiler Error CS0116 = Don't capitalize "Using."
This answer, highlighted blue, was what they should have said.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Psychotronic Weapons
Psychotronic Weapons
I have just started a petition on the White House web site in order to investigate misuse of Psychotronic (mind control) weapons and ask for your support. You will have to open your accounts on White House web site to sign the Petition, but do not write any comments or bad words. Recruit other people older than 14 to sign it as well. You can view and sign the petition here
http://wh.gov/lF0B
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/investigate-misuse-psychotronic-mind-control-weapons/nCWzx3hD
Thank you ,
Sincerely,
Galina Kurdina
I have just started a petition on the White House web site in order to investigate misuse of Psychotronic (mind control) weapons and ask for your support. You will have to open your accounts on White House web site to sign the Petition, but do not write any comments or bad words. Recruit other people older than 14 to sign it as well. You can view and sign the petition here
http://wh.gov/lF0B
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/investigate-misuse-psychotronic-mind-control-weapons/nCWzx3hD
Thank you ,
Sincerely,
Galina Kurdina
Sunday, July 1, 2012
JP Morgan (Chase) Mauled by Derivatives
By: Jack Blood
There are news reports that now suggest that JP Morgan’s derivatives losses are not $2 billion, they are likely to be $8 billion or perhaps as high as $9 billion dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/jpmorgan-trading-loss-may-reach-9-billion/.
The JP Morgan losses resulted from derivatives called Credit Default Swaps.
But the danger to the global economy isn’t Credit Default Swaps, it is a world mired in a vast interconnected Ponzi scheme of more than a $1.1 Quadrillion dollars of derivatives, more than half of which are bets on the direction of interest rates. These are called interest rate swaps.
In fact, an estimated six hundred trillion dollars of these derivatives are interest rate swaps – a casino that is so vast, even the people who built it have lost control.
Interest rate swaps are bets on whether interest will rise or fall. An investment bank thinks rates will go up. Another bank thinks they will go down.
And they bet.
Here’s an example: the City of Houston raises $100,000,000 by selling municipal bonds to build a new sports stadium. The bonds are sold with a floating interest rate, which is tied to a rate controlled by the Fed called the federal funds rate (FFR) – say, FFR + 2% – and is at the closing of the bond issue, let’s say, 4%.
But the city’s budget is extraordinarily upside down and if rates go up, they’ll never be able to handle the interest payments. What to do? In the distance we hear a bugle signaling a cavalry charge. This is followed by the sound of screeching tires as a Humvee stretch-limo the size of the Hindenburg squeals around the corner, roars up the street and pulls to a stop in front of the mayor’s office.
The chauffeur exits the driver’s side and walks briskly around the car and opens the rear door. The first person out is a Julia Roberts look-alike in a Valentino pantsuit. She is wearing designer shades and is carrying a Prada briefcase. She is followed by an unusually tall man wearing a midnight blue Armani suit with teal pinstripes. He is ostrich egg bald, is wearing granny glasses and has a Tumi laptop bag slung over his shoulder. He is furiously working the keys of a Blackberry while talking on a Bluetooth headset.
Goldman Sachs has arrived.
The City of Houston and Goldman strike a deal.
The City will pay Goldman a fixed rate of 4% so their interest expense is guaranteed not to rise. Goldman, in turn will pay the city the floating rate – the fed funds rate +2%, so they can pay their bondholders per the terms of the bond purchases.
That is an interest rate swap: the city “swaps” its floating rate for a fixed rate. If the Fed Funds Rate goes up, Goldman loses; if it goes down, they win.
But that transaction doesn’t end there. There are bets on this swap and bets on those bets and then bets on the bets of the bets and… stay with me …a $600,000,000,000 – six hundred TRILLION house of cards.
This is a colossal global casino, built on hot air and greed.
Which brings us back to what is truly driving the actions of the Fed, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements.
Goldman Sachs Tower at 30 Hudson Street, in Jersey City
Perhaps you have noticed that the Federal Reserve (which we remind you, is owned by Goldman Sachs and other major New York banks, not the U.S. government) has kept interest rates at zero for the last three and a half years.
What happened to the banks that bet on low interest rates using interest rate swaps? They made billions in profit. Why? Because they arranged to receive fixed rates from borrowers (cities, states, universities) in exchange for floating rates. The floating rates were tied to the Federal Reserve’s Fed Funds rate, which was lowered to zero during to the “financial crisis” by Helicopter Ben and have remained there.
Consider the fact that the financial crisis seems to have missed JPMorgan, who made about $5 billion in profit on interest rate swaps during the first 9 months of 2008, the very heart of the crisis.
Goldman Sachs made similar profits on these swaps, as did Wells Fargo, to name a few. Of course, the cities, counties and states that took the other side of these bets on the advice of investment bankers to protect their bonds, got slaughtered. But let’s not be too harsh on them. According to Goldman Sachs’ CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, following his testimony before Congress, he’s just a banker “doing God’s work.”We love you, Lloyd. But here’s the problem.
The majority of the more than a half quadrillion dollars in interest rate swaps are held mainly by banks. As we documented above, the 9 biggest U.S. banks hold a quarter of a quadrillion in derivatives. An estimated $136 trillion are interest rate swaps (the U.S. Gross Domestic Product, basically the value of our annual production of goods and services is $15 trillion).
Stay with me here.
With rates at zero, what’s the only way they can go? That’s right, up.
And what will happen to those banks with trillions of dollars of interest rate swaps in their portfolios when rates start to climb? The planet is drowning in a multi-trillion dollar game of interest rate roulette, whose players will suffer massive losses when rates reverse. And at this point, this isn’t entirely up to Bennie and the Jets. The U.S. Government went $1.4 trillion in debt last year and recorded a $1.3 trillion deficit this year.
Which means?
Which means that, at some point for China, Japan or the tooth fairy to buy our Treasury Bills, rates will have to rise. China is not drinking Tim Geithner’s Kool Aid. And the U.S. government will have to raise rates at some point to entice others to buy our fiscal waste. If we don’t raise them, the market will force them up.
Not, says Helicopter Ben, on my watch. The Bald One bought $600 billion dollar’s worth of U.S. Treasury last year. Ben calls the Alice in Wonderland money injection, “Quantitative Easing.” That was the second round of quantitative easing – the first one was an unqualified disaster – this one has been the same. According to reports, QE 3 is being discussed.
Ben is nothing if not brilliant. If he takes to the presses and buys Timmy Geithner’s debt he doesn’t have to rely on his comrades in the People’s Republic of China to buy it. Rates will stay low. And the trillions of dollars of interest rate swaps – which are owned by the same people who own his bank – will be safe.
There are news reports that now suggest that JP Morgan’s derivatives losses are not $2 billion, they are likely to be $8 billion or perhaps as high as $9 billion dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/jpmorgan-trading-loss-may-reach-9-billion/.
The JP Morgan losses resulted from derivatives called Credit Default Swaps.
But the danger to the global economy isn’t Credit Default Swaps, it is a world mired in a vast interconnected Ponzi scheme of more than a $1.1 Quadrillion dollars of derivatives, more than half of which are bets on the direction of interest rates. These are called interest rate swaps.
In fact, an estimated six hundred trillion dollars of these derivatives are interest rate swaps – a casino that is so vast, even the people who built it have lost control.
Interest rate swaps are bets on whether interest will rise or fall. An investment bank thinks rates will go up. Another bank thinks they will go down.
And they bet.
Here’s an example: the City of Houston raises $100,000,000 by selling municipal bonds to build a new sports stadium. The bonds are sold with a floating interest rate, which is tied to a rate controlled by the Fed called the federal funds rate (FFR) – say, FFR + 2% – and is at the closing of the bond issue, let’s say, 4%.
But the city’s budget is extraordinarily upside down and if rates go up, they’ll never be able to handle the interest payments. What to do? In the distance we hear a bugle signaling a cavalry charge. This is followed by the sound of screeching tires as a Humvee stretch-limo the size of the Hindenburg squeals around the corner, roars up the street and pulls to a stop in front of the mayor’s office.
The chauffeur exits the driver’s side and walks briskly around the car and opens the rear door. The first person out is a Julia Roberts look-alike in a Valentino pantsuit. She is wearing designer shades and is carrying a Prada briefcase. She is followed by an unusually tall man wearing a midnight blue Armani suit with teal pinstripes. He is ostrich egg bald, is wearing granny glasses and has a Tumi laptop bag slung over his shoulder. He is furiously working the keys of a Blackberry while talking on a Bluetooth headset.
Goldman Sachs has arrived.
The City of Houston and Goldman strike a deal.
The City will pay Goldman a fixed rate of 4% so their interest expense is guaranteed not to rise. Goldman, in turn will pay the city the floating rate – the fed funds rate +2%, so they can pay their bondholders per the terms of the bond purchases.
That is an interest rate swap: the city “swaps” its floating rate for a fixed rate. If the Fed Funds Rate goes up, Goldman loses; if it goes down, they win.
But that transaction doesn’t end there. There are bets on this swap and bets on those bets and then bets on the bets of the bets and… stay with me …a $600,000,000,000 – six hundred TRILLION house of cards.
This is a colossal global casino, built on hot air and greed.
Which brings us back to what is truly driving the actions of the Fed, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements.
Goldman Sachs Tower at 30 Hudson Street, in Jersey City
Perhaps you have noticed that the Federal Reserve (which we remind you, is owned by Goldman Sachs and other major New York banks, not the U.S. government) has kept interest rates at zero for the last three and a half years.
What happened to the banks that bet on low interest rates using interest rate swaps? They made billions in profit. Why? Because they arranged to receive fixed rates from borrowers (cities, states, universities) in exchange for floating rates. The floating rates were tied to the Federal Reserve’s Fed Funds rate, which was lowered to zero during to the “financial crisis” by Helicopter Ben and have remained there.
Consider the fact that the financial crisis seems to have missed JPMorgan, who made about $5 billion in profit on interest rate swaps during the first 9 months of 2008, the very heart of the crisis.
Goldman Sachs made similar profits on these swaps, as did Wells Fargo, to name a few. Of course, the cities, counties and states that took the other side of these bets on the advice of investment bankers to protect their bonds, got slaughtered. But let’s not be too harsh on them. According to Goldman Sachs’ CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, following his testimony before Congress, he’s just a banker “doing God’s work.”We love you, Lloyd. But here’s the problem.
The majority of the more than a half quadrillion dollars in interest rate swaps are held mainly by banks. As we documented above, the 9 biggest U.S. banks hold a quarter of a quadrillion in derivatives. An estimated $136 trillion are interest rate swaps (the U.S. Gross Domestic Product, basically the value of our annual production of goods and services is $15 trillion).
Stay with me here.
With rates at zero, what’s the only way they can go? That’s right, up.
And what will happen to those banks with trillions of dollars of interest rate swaps in their portfolios when rates start to climb? The planet is drowning in a multi-trillion dollar game of interest rate roulette, whose players will suffer massive losses when rates reverse. And at this point, this isn’t entirely up to Bennie and the Jets. The U.S. Government went $1.4 trillion in debt last year and recorded a $1.3 trillion deficit this year.
Which means?
Which means that, at some point for China, Japan or the tooth fairy to buy our Treasury Bills, rates will have to rise. China is not drinking Tim Geithner’s Kool Aid. And the U.S. government will have to raise rates at some point to entice others to buy our fiscal waste. If we don’t raise them, the market will force them up.
Not, says Helicopter Ben, on my watch. The Bald One bought $600 billion dollar’s worth of U.S. Treasury last year. Ben calls the Alice in Wonderland money injection, “Quantitative Easing.” That was the second round of quantitative easing – the first one was an unqualified disaster – this one has been the same. According to reports, QE 3 is being discussed.
Ben is nothing if not brilliant. If he takes to the presses and buys Timmy Geithner’s debt he doesn’t have to rely on his comrades in the People’s Republic of China to buy it. Rates will stay low. And the trillions of dollars of interest rate swaps – which are owned by the same people who own his bank – will be safe.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Westlake Financial Services - Horrible Customer Service
Published: http://www.trustlink.org/Reviews/Westlake-Financial-Services-205709025
West Lake Financial is horrible. Rude customer service!!! No one knows anything! Yet when one of their representatives promises you something, and they check their phone records (only to find out that you were telling the truth), their reply is "We're not responsible for what so and so told you that day. They lack professionalism big time. The owner must be as horrible. I always believe this type of service starts at the top and trickles it's way down. I'll never finance through West Lake Financial again. As far as my overall experience, all of the other bad reviews sum that up. I once called to ask a question about my account two weeks before my bill was due and the first thing the rep say's is, "so when do you plan on making a payment?". Unlike some others who have posted their reviews, I wasn't late or over due! Talk about harrassment!
West Lake Financial is horrible. Rude customer service!!! No one knows anything! Yet when one of their representatives promises you something, and they check their phone records (only to find out that you were telling the truth), their reply is "We're not responsible for what so and so told you that day. They lack professionalism big time. The owner must be as horrible. I always believe this type of service starts at the top and trickles it's way down. I'll never finance through West Lake Financial again. As far as my overall experience, all of the other bad reviews sum that up. I once called to ask a question about my account two weeks before my bill was due and the first thing the rep say's is, "so when do you plan on making a payment?". Unlike some others who have posted their reviews, I wasn't late or over due! Talk about harrassment!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)