Thursday, December 3, 2015

Outsourcing & Tax Inversion

Job Outsourcing Statistics	Data
Total number of U.S. jobs outsourced in 2015	2,382,000
Number of jobs outsourced to China since 2001	3,200,000
Number of California jobs lost to outsourcing since 2001	560,000
Percent of CFO’s surveyed who said their firm was currently offshore outsourcing	38 %
Percent of CFO’s who favored India for outsourcing	26 %
Percent of CFO’s who favored China for outsourcing	18 %

Top Careers at Risk for Outsourcing	Jobs Lost in 2015	Wages Lost
Computer programmers / software engineers	211,700	$14,400,000,000
Accountants / auditors	160,000	$8,500,000,000
Lawyers	40,400	$4,300,000,000
Insurance sales agents	11,000	$591,000,000
Real estate brokers / agents	6,700	$332,000,000
Chemists / physicists	3,700	$230,000,000

U.S. Metro Areas with the Highest Risk of Jobs Being Outsourced	Percent of Jobs at Risk
San Jose	18 %
San Francisco	16.5 %
Boston	14 %
Atlanta	13 %
New York	12.5 %
Chicago	12 %
Houston	11 %
Los Angeles	10.5 %
Detroit	10 %
Percent of Companies that Outsource by Sector	Percent of Companies
Manufacturing	53 %
IT Services	43 %
R&D	38 %
Distribution	26 %
Call or Help Centers	12 %
Reasons Why Companies Outsource (Multiple Answers Allowed)	Percent
Reduce or control costs	44 %
Gain access to IT resources unavailable internally	34 %
Free up internal resources	31 %
Improve business or customer focus	28 %
Accelerate company reorganization / transformation	22 %
Accelerate project	15 %
Gain access to management expertise unavailable internally	15 %
Reduce time to market	9 %
What Leading Economists Believe About Job Outsourcing	Percent
Hurts the Economy	89 %
Helps the Economy	17 %
Has no effect	10 %
Not sure	4 %

Top Rated Outsourcing Countries

Country	Overall Rating	Cost Index	Resources / Skills	Workforce
India	7.1	8.3	6	1,430,000,000
Indonesia	6.9	8.6	4.3	1,033,000,000
China	6.4	7	5.6	780,000,000
Bulgaria	6.4	8.8	2.9	3,000,000
Philippines	6.3	9	2.8	39,000,000
Jordan	6.2	7.6	2.7	2,000,000
Singapore	6.5	6.4	5.7	3,000,000
Thailand	6	8.2	2.3	39,000,000
Lithuania	5.9	7	3.9	2,000,000
Egypt	5.8	9	0.9	26,000,000
Malaysia	5.8	7.9	2.2	12,000,000
Estonia	5.8	7.5	5.2	1,000,000
Chile	5.7	7.2	3	8,000,000
Hungary	5.6	6.9	3.4	4,000,000
Poland	5.6	6.1	3.6	17,000,000
Czech Republic	5.6	6.9	3.2	5,000,000
Ukraine	5.5	6.3	3.2	22,000,000
Romania	5.5	6.8	2.7	9,000,000
Latvia	5.4	7	2.7	1,000,000
Vietnam	5.4	7.4	2.5	46,000,000
Ghana	4.9	7.5	0.9	11,000,000
South Africa	4.6	6.9	0.6	17,000,000
Kenya	4.5	6.7	1.3	18,000,000
Senegal	4.3	7.1	0.2	6,000,000

The Atlantic claims we can stop worrying, ok.

Labor markets have for the past quarter century been at the center of the globalization disputes under the "off-shoring and out-sourcing" rubric. How many jobs were lost at home to cheap labor abroad? What were conditions for those overseas workers? But the rapidly changing nature of the global economy has changed much, though not all, of that "off-shoring/out-sourcing" debate. Today, cheap labor is only one of many factors leading global companies to choose where to do business in diverse nations across the world. Major economic changes like the internal growth of emerging markets have scrambled debates about the global economy, posed challenges for international business, stimulated contradictory public policies and confused the general public.
It was often cheap labor in emerging markets that, more than two decades ago, led companies in developed markets to move company jobs away from the home country either to company owned facilities (off-shoring) or to third parties (out-sourcing) in developing markets. The broad idea was that less expensive manufacturing or inexpensive white collar workers would create goods and services in developing nations that would serve world markets. China, especially, would be the global product-manufacturing center; India, via the web, would be the global service provider.
Read more > http://tinyurl.com/j8wp3lp

How about I tell the owner of "The Atlantic" to kiss my ass?

Expect more Pfizer-type deals in which large American companies buy foreign rivals and move their head quarters outside the United States.

Randall Stephenson, the chief executive of AT&T T, -1.26% , said a burdensome tax code is driving companies to abandon the U.S. and more are likely to leave absent major reform.

“The Pfizer situation is just a continued reinforcement of how uncompetitive our tax system is in the United States,” Stephenson said in a conference call with reporters. Stephenson is also chairman of the Business Roundtable, a group that represents the largest U.S. companies. “It tells you that something is fundamentally wrong.”

Businesses have been pushing for tax reform for years, arguing that U.S. corporate tax rates are too high compared to foreign countries. In Pfizer’s PFE, -0.93% case, the large drug company plans to buy Ireland-based Allergan and move its corporate headquarters to Dublin. Pfizer said it would have a much lower tax rate if the combined company was based outside the U.S., giving it more money to invest.

The Obama administration has mostly responded by passing new rules designed to make it harder for companies to move their headquarters overseas after a merger, a process known as an inversion. President Obama has even referred to inversions as “unpatriotic.”

“The administration puts band-aid fixes in place to try to discourage companies from doing this,” said Stephenson, adding that such an approach probably won’t work.

Are you done kissing? Now buy me a box of chocolates.

Inversions largely occur on paper. Corporations typically do not move their executives or operations overseas.
Corporations that invert continue to enjoy the benefits of operating here — they just dodge a lot of taxes.
A dozen U.S. firms are currently considering doing a corporate inversion.
Walgreens could dodge up to $4 billion in U.S. taxes over five years if it inverts. One-quarter of its sales are from Medicare and Medicaid.
Medtronic plans to move its corporate address to Ireland, a tax haven, to avoid paying U.S. taxes on $20.5 billion in offshore profits.
U.S. corporations already dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens.
U.S. corporations hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here. An inversion can let firms dodge paying taxes on those profits.

Talking points

Corporations that renounce their U.S. “citizenship” and shift their address offshore are deserters. They are traitors to America. They want all the benefits of being an American company without paying their fair share of taxes. That makes the rest of us pick up the tab.
It is unpatriotic for a corporation to abandon America by shifting its address to a tax haven in order to dodge paying its taxes.
Congress must close tax loopholes that make it easy for corporations to shift profits and jobs offshore. Congress needs to level the playing field so that big corporations have to play by the same rules as Main Street businesses that are doing their part.
Big corporations say that the 35% U.S. corporate income tax rate is too high. But many companies pay much less because of loopholes in our tax code — many pay at a rate of less than 20%.
26 corporations paid no U.S. income taxes from 2008 to 2012, including General Electric, Boeing and Verizon. 111 companies paid no income taxes in at least one of those five years.
We cannot win a race to the bottom. There will always be countries with tax rates that are much lower than ours — sometimes 0%.

—————————-

Overview

In recent months, several major U.S. corporations — among them Walgreens, Medtronicand AbbVie — have announced possible plans to renounce their U.S. corporate “citizenship” and move their corporate address offshore by merging with a foreign company. The merged corporation then pays most of its taxes to a foreign government — usually a tax haven — with a low tax rate. This allows it to dodge paying its fair share of U.S. taxes. The process, known as an “inversion,” takes place primarily on paper as most corporate operations remain here.

Why is the issue important?

If corporations use inversions to dodge their tax obligations, American taxpayers have to pick up the tab even though the firms will continue to enjoy the enormous benefits of being headquartered here. Inversions are likely to become a central issue in the debate over corporate tax reform. Conservatives claim that corporations are forced to leave America because the corporate income tax rate is too high. Progressives argue that corporations are already avoiding paying their fair share of taxes due to many loopholes, including inversions.

How does an inversion work?

A corporate inversion occurs when a U.S. company merges with a foreign one, dissolves its U.S. corporate status and reincorporates in the foreign country. The U.S. company becomes a subsidiary of the foreign one, but the foreign firm is controlled by the original U.S. firm.

A U.S. corporation can invert if after a merger the owners of the U.S. corporation retain less than 80% of outstanding stock of the new merged company, or if after the merger the new merged company has “substantial business activities” in the foreign country equaling at least 25% of operations. So, with just a 20% change in ownership, a company can become “foreign” even if it largely operates in and is controlled from America.

What is the tax advantage of an inversion?

Corporations undergo inversions to take advantage of much lower tax rates, usually in tax-haven countries. Once inverted, a company no longer pays U.S. taxes on its global income.Instead, it is only responsible for paying taxes on income generated in the U.S. For example, Walgreens, which had $72 billion in U.S. sales last year, would likely avoid $4 billion in U.S income taxes over five years if it inverts with a Swiss firm. Pfizer, which tried to do an inversion with AstraZeneca in the U.K., would dodge $1 billion a year in taxes here.

Also, U.S. companies with billions of untaxed profits offshore can escape paying taxes on those profits in America if a company inverts. Medtronic reportedly could use $20.5 billion in its untaxed profits now offshore to invest back here and avoid paying taxes on those funds.

Why inversions are unfair

Companies that invert will continue to take advantage of the things that make the U.S. the best place in the world to do business — our educated workforce, legal and transportation systems, and federally-funded research. And they will continue to be able to get government contracts and to sell products to millions of American consumers.

But they will pay far less than their fair share for these services, passing on the cost to American taxpayers and to other companies.

What is President Obama’s position?

Obama’s budget proposed to make inversions very difficult for companies that have the majority of their operations and ownership in the U.S. He would prevent them from reincorporating abroad if they are owned by at least 50% of the former U.S. parent’s stockholders (the current threshold is 80%). He would also require that the new foreign corporation be primarily managed and controlled from abroad.

What is happening in Congress?

Key members of Congress have introduced legislation based on Obama’s plan. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of a subcommittee that has investigated tax avoidance by Apple and other corporations, has introduced the Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2014 (S. 2360). Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) has introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives (H.R. 4679) that would raise $19.5 billion over 10 years.

—————————-

News Coverage

At Walgreen, Renouncing Corporate Citizenship, The New York Times
Obama Seeks to Close Loophole That Firms Use to Shield Profits Abroad, The New York Times
Tax Inversion — How U.S. Companies Buy Tax Breaks, Bloomberg News
Tax avoidance: The Irish inversion, The Financial Times
The Levin Brothers Want to End Tax Inversion, but the GOP Refuses, The New Republic
Move to Switzerland to dodge IRS may give Walgreen blues, The New York Post

Opinion

Positively Un-American Tax Dodges, Fortune
Corporate Artful Dodgers, The New York Times
Pfizer’s Ploy and the Porous Tax Laws, The New York Times
An Open Letter to Medtronic on What It Means to Be an American Company, The Washington Post
Companies Take U.S. Benefits, but Flee US Taxes, The Raleigh News and Observer

Resources

Editorial Board Memo, Americans for Tax Fairness
Offshoring America’s Drugstore, Americans for Tax Fairness and Change to Win Retail Initiatives
Much of What You’ve Heard about Corporate “Inversions” Is Wrong, Citizens for Tax Justice
Corporate Expatriation, Inversions and Mergers: Tax Issues, Congressional Research Service
47 Corporate Inversions in Last Decade, Congressional Research Service
Why Does Pfizer Want to Renounce Its Citizenship?, Citizens for Tax Justice
Pfizer’s Tax-Dodging Bid for AstraZeneca Shows Need to Tighten U.S. Tax Rules,Center for American Progress

Download this document in PDF format.

Drawn from Americans for Tax Fairness’ 2014 Tax Fairness Briefing Booklet.

The Amero. Fact or fiction?

Good Morning Jeb, explain what your brother did.

The Plan To Replace The
Dollar With The 'Amero'By Jerome R. Corsi
5-22-6

The idea to form the North American Union as a super-NAFTA knitting together Canada, the United States and Mexico into a super-regional political and economic entity was a key agreement resulting from the March 2005 meeting held at Baylor University in Waco, Tex., between President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin.

A joint statement published by the three presidents following their Baylor University summit announced the formation of an initial entity called, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP). The joint statement termed the SPP a "trilateral partnership" that was aimed at producing a North American security plan as well as providing free market movement of people, capital, and trade across the borders between the three NAFTA partners:

We will establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our borders.

A working agenda was established:

We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has produced a SPP website, which documents how the U.S. has implemented the SPP directive into an extensive working agenda.

Following the March 2005 meeting in Waco, Tex., the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published in May 2005 a task force report titled "Building a North American Community." We have already documented that this CFR task force report calls for a plan to create by 2010 a redefinition of boundaries such that the primary immigration control will be around the three countries of the North American Union, not between the three countries. We have argued that a likely reason President Bush has not secured our border with Mexico is that the administration is pushing for the establishment of the North American Union.

The North American Union is envisioned to create a super-regional political authority that could override the sovereignty of the United States on immigration policy and trade issues. In his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Pastor, the Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, stated clearly the view that the North American Union would need a super-regional governance board to make sure the United States does not dominate the proposed North American Union once it is formed:

NAFTA has failed to create a partnership because North American governments have not changed the way they deal with one another. Dual bilateralism, driven by U.S. power, continue to govern and irritate. Adding a third party to bilateral disputes vastly increases the chance that rules, not power, will resolve problems.

This trilateral approach should be institutionalized in a new North American Advisory Council. Unlike the sprawling and intrusive European Commission, the Commission or Council should be lean, independent, and advisory, composed of 15 distinguished individuals, 5 from each nation. Its principal purpose should be to prepare a North American agenda for leaders to consider at biannual summits and to monitor the implementation of the resulting agreements.

Pastor was a vice chairman of the CFR task force that produced the report "Building a North American Union."

Pastor also proposed the creation of a Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment with the view that "a permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law." The intent is for this North American Union Tribunal would have supremacy over the U.S. Supreme Court on issues affecting the North American Union, to prevent U.S. power from "irritating" and retarding the progress of uniting Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. into a new 21st century super-regional governing body.

Robert Pastor also advises the creation of a North American Parliamentary Group to make sure the U.S. Congress does not impede progress in the envisioned North American Union. He has also called for the creation of a North American Customs and Immigration Service which would have authority over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security.

Pastor's 2001 book "Toward a North American Community" called for the creation of a North American Union that would perfect the defects Pastor believes limit the progress of the European Union. Much of Pastor's thinking appears aimed at limiting the power and sovereignty of the United States as we enter this new super-regional entity. Pastor has also called for the creation of a new currency which he has coined the "Amero," a currency that is proposed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Mexican peso.

If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the "Amero," we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half of the Red State majority he needed to win re-election. Pursuing any plan that would legalize the conservatively estimated 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States could well spell election disaster for the Republican Party in 2006, especially for the House of Representative where every seat is up for grabs

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15017


Disclaimer Email This Article


Summary of eRumor:

Various warnings about the USA, Canada and Mexico losing their sovereignty, merging into a North American Union and switching to a single currency known as the Amero. A video by Hal Turner claims that these are already in use in trade agreements with China.

The Truth:

This eRumor is based on a collector’s coin and on fears that the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement could be the first step toward loss of sovereignty for the United States.

First, the Amero coin does exist, but is not American currency. It is a collector coin designed by a man named Daniel Carr and available for sale on a web site called the Amero Currency Site. This product is marketed for coin collectors and coin enthusiasts but it is not legal tender.
The Amero Currency site says that visitors can “Buy Ameros for educational purposes, as novelties and conversation starters at the first tee !!!” The site says that the coin is being sold to raise awareness of the NAFTA trade agreements between Canada, United States and Mexico but the marketing of this coin has spun into a conspiracy theory.

The North American Free Trade Agreement was signed into law in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. It is a trade pact between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico and removed most trade restrictions and tariffs among the three nations. It has been a controversial agreement but has also fueled fears among those who believe it was the first step toward a North American Economic Union similar to the European Economic Union.

War Criminals Among Us: Bush, Cheney, and the Eyes of the World

Last week, Richard Clarke, the man to whom nobody in the administration of C-Plus Augustus listened because what did he know, anyway?, had a chat with Amy Goodman in which he minced no words regarding his former employers.

"I think things that they authorized probably fall within the area of war crimes. Whether that would be productive or not, I think, is a discussion we could all have. But we have established procedures now with the International Criminal Court in The Hague, where people who take actions as serving presidents or prime ministers of countries have been indicted and have been tried. So the precedent is there to do that sort of thing. And I think we need to ask ourselves whether or not it would be useful to do that in the case of members of the Bush administration. It's clear that things that the Bush administration did — in my mind, at least, it's clear that some of the things they did were war crimes."

And, something that most of us missed, there was a court on the other side of the world that agreed.

In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were... found guilty of war crimes. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia...At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Full transcripts of the charges, witness statements and other relevant material will now be sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council.

At the very least, this court parceled out the blame for the torture program in a fair manner and all the way up the chain of command. The testimony of the victims was as horrible as you might expect:

The court heard how Abbas Abid, a 48-year-old engineer from Fallujah in Iraq had his fingernails removed by pliers; Ali Shalal was attached with bare electrical wires and electrocuted and hung from a wall; Moazzam Begg was beaten, hooded and put in solitary confinement, Jameelah was stripped and humiliated, and was used as a human shield whilst being transported by helicopter. The witnesses also detailed how they have residual injuries till today.

In related news, Ed Kilgore notes that Cheney continues to glory in his status as the most inexcusable American who ever lived. It's like giving Pol Pot a late-night TV gig.

At times, Mr. Cheney seems to relish his villainous public persona. Outside the rodeo arena, he took a moment to show off the latest feature on his truck, a Darth Vader trailer-hitch cover, a nod to his alter-ego from the Bush days. "I'm rather proud of that," he said, flashing his signature uneven grin.

To paraphrase Rick Blaine, I don't object to a vampire, I object to a gutless one. I'll buy the stake if someone else buys the garlic.

More at >
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a35397/bush-cheney-war-crimes/

The systematic discarding of the US dollar.

Central bankers from Beijing to Brasilia have been acquiring a lot more dollars of late, but the overweight of the greenback has reached its limits. There is only one way left to go. It is time to sell the dollar once again.

Or so says Jerome Booth.

Booth has been in the currency and fixed income markets since 1999. That’s when he helped launch the Ashmore Group, one of the largest pure-play emerging market fund managers in the world with around $70 billion under management. Before he retired to write books and launch his new private equity firm New Sparta Limited,Booth was a regular source of mine here at FORBES. He’d talk about the wonders of emerging market debt; their relative strength compared to the Western world and how they’ve improved from their “Third World” days of yesteryear; and the day of reckoning that would come when the Chinese yuan becomes a reserve currency.

The International Monetary Fund will vote on that in December. That’s just one of the variables that has the dollar bull run unlikely to last the year.

In the short term, the dollar’s problem is not the yuan. It’s a 25% gain against the euro over the last 12 months, with investors wondering if its reached its peak. The guys who think it has not are winning. And those guys include the central banks of the developing world.

“The currency composition of reserves (in emerging market central banks) has shifted slightly from euros to dollars — from 62.4% in dollars to 62.9%. The dollar is looking toppy — a good level to take profits,” says Booth.

Dollar panic-selling is possible given the homogenous structure of the investor base in externally-held Treasuries. It’s not in Barclays' hands. It’s not in Goldman Sachs accounts. Treasurys are sitting in the People’s Bank of China . Trillions of them in fact. As they are in the Russian Central Bank, the Reserve Bank of India and every other major emerging market that requires a nice reserve cushion to save itself from the Western world’s short sellers who like to watch a nice currency bloodbath from time to time.

So far this year, there’s been a consensus view that the dollar can only go up.Interest rates are going to rise at some point later this year. Everyone and their mother will want higher yielding U.S. debt. Treasurys will have many buyers. That’s the gist of it.

But when the dollar falls, it will be because the surplus central banks have determined they have to shed some weight. Booth even goes so far as to say the central banks could dump all at once.

“A rush for the exit by them could cause a dollar crisis similar to that in 1971. They may lose a third of the value of their reserves in the process, but deployment in crisis is what reserves are for. And there comes a point in any trade when cutting ones losses is preferable to pouring more good money after bad,” he says.

Dollar: Bad?

Full story: http://tinyurl.com/j655cmw

Russian President Vladimir Putin has introduced legislation that would deal a tremendous blow to the U.S. dollar. If Putin gets his way, and he almost certainly will, the U.S. dollar will be eliminated from trade between nations that belong to the Commonwealth of Independent States. In addition to Russia, that list of countries includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Obviously this would not mean “the death of the dollar”, but it would be a very significant step toward the end of the era of the absolute dominance of the U.S. dollar. Most people don’t realize this, but more U.S. dollars are actually used outside of the United States than are used inside this country. If the rest of the planet decides to stop accumulating dollars, using them to trade with one another, and loaning them back to us at ultra-low interest rates, we are going to be in for a world of hurt. Unfortunately for us, it is only a matter of time until that happens.

It gets better > http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/tag/reserve-currency

The war on cash is escalating. Just a week ago, the infamous Willem Buiter, along with Ken Rogoff, voiced their support for a restriction (or ban altogether) on the use of cash (something that was already been implemented in Louisiana in 2011 for used goods). Today, as Mises' Jo Salerno reports, the war has acquired a powerful new ally in Chase, the largest bank in the U.S., which has enacted a policyrestricting the use of cash in selected markets; bans cash payments for credit cards, mortgages, and auto loans; and disallows the storage of "any cash or coins" in safe deposit boxes.

Buiter defended his "controversial" call for a ban on cash, as Bloomberg reports:

“The world’s central banks have a problem. When economic conditions worsen, they react by reducing interest rates in order to stimulate the economy. But, as has happened across the world in recent years, there comes a point where those central banks run out of room to cut — they can bring interest rates to zero, but reducing them further below that is fraught with problems, the biggest of which is cash in the economy.

In a new piece, Citi’s Willem Buiter looks at this problem, which is known as the effective lower bound (ELB) on nominal interest rates. Fundamentally, the ELB problem comes down to cash. According to Buiter, the ELB only exists at all due to the existence of cash, which is a bearer instrument that pays zero nominal rates. Why have your money on deposit at a negative rate that reduces your wealth when you can have it in cash and suffer no reduction? Cash therefore gives people an easy and effective way of avoiding negative nominal rates. Buiter’s note suggests three ways to address this problem:

Abolish currency.

Tax currency.

Remove the fixed exchange rate between currency and central bank reserves/deposits.

Yes, Buiter’s solution to cash’s ability to allow people to avoid negative deposit rates is to abolish cash altogether. (Note that he’s far from being the first to float this idea. Ken Rogoff has given his endorsement to the idea as well, as have others.)

Before looking at the practicalities of abolishing currency, we should first look at whether it could ever be necessary. Due to the costs of holding large amounts of cash, Buiter puts the actual nominal rate at which the move to cash makes sense as closer to -100bp. So, in order for a cash abolition to become necessary, central banks would need to be in a position where they wished to set nominal rates much lower than that.

Buiter does not have to go far to find an example of where a central bank may have wanted to set interest rates much lower to -100bp. He uses (a fairly aggressive) Taylor Rule to show that Federal Reserve rates should have been as low as -6 percent during the financial crisis.”

What is the debt ceiling?

What Is the Debt Ceiling?

Definition: The debt ceiling is a limit imposed by Congress on how much debt the Federal government can carry at any given time. The debt ceiling is currently $18.113 trillion. The U.S. Treasury estimates it will reach this new limit around November 3, 2015. (Source: "Meet the New Debt Ceiling," CNN Money, March 17, 2015)

The debt ceiling is similar to the limit on your credit card, with one major difference.

Do you care? http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/National-Debt-Ceiling.htm

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Isn't Martial Law the end game?

As we live, wait, survive from one economic bubble to the next, isn't martial law the end game? Why did Halliburton / KBR build all those FEMA Jails? Those are privatised jails with investors sitting brand new and empty yet no crying from the investors?

Do you really think the outrageous police brutality is just a passing fancy?

Our media keeps us focused on some camel jockeys attacking Paris which by the way, "Parisians can't stand Americans especially Black ones" to the greater extent.

Mr. Carson, I'll give you credit for your statement and that's where that ends. Trying to gain young Black votes by "so called" stabbing the invisible man in the belt buckle. Team up with "Vanilla Ice" and cruise Beverly Hills in a drop top 64'.

In any event, this post is about you "Slick Willy", you can't play a playa......playa!

SAN ANTONIO, November 19, 2015 — Dr. Ben Carson, a black neurosurgeon and 2016 Republican presidential candidate, has repeatedly stated that he believes there is a chance that the 2016 elections may not be held at all.

Widespread anarchy gripping the country could be reason enough for the Obama administration to announce the implementation of martial law and the suspension of some, if not all, of Americans’ constitutionally protected rights — including the right to vote and hold national elections.

From JFK to Obama: 50 years of overrated Democrats

On the surface this seems unbelievable, but upon further analysis, Carson’s ominous suggestion is plausible; this is an extremely unnerving scenario that all Americans should be aware of and ready for.

The Obama administration has very quietly and subtly done many inexplicable things that could very well be precursors to the suspension of some, if not all, of Americans’ constitutionally protected civil rights.

Carson went on liberal radio host Alan Colmes’ radio show and the discussion eventually came to whether or not Dr. Carson plans to run for president in 2016. He said that there may not even be elections in 2016; when pressed to explain further, Carson said,

“If in fact we continue to have all these decrees being made the way they’re being made, if in fact we don’t fight the kind of war that needs to be fought in order to really put an end to the threat that is brought on by ISIS, if we continue along a pathway of financial irresponsibility, if we continue along a path of envy, greed, and hatred — what happened with Occupy Wall Street will be a cakewalk compared to what will begin to happen in this country.”

It’s only a matter of time for the U.S. to be another ISIS target

When Colmes pushed Carson further on the possibility of cancelled or postponed elections, Carson responded, “I don’t want to find out, I really don’t want to find out. I don’t want to continue down this pathway that we are going down. This pathway where everything is framed in a political sense and our representatives are not working for the people, they’re working for their party.”

Martial law is “a system of complete control by a country’s military over all activities, including civilian, in a theoretical or actual war zone, or during a period of emergency caused by a disaster such as an earthquake or flood, with the military commander having dictatorial powers … In many foreign countries martial law has become a method to establish and maintain dictatorships either by military leaders or politicians backed by the military.”

In America, martial law must be called for by the President, who would then suspend most, if not all, of our constitutional rights, and only the President would be able to reinstitute our constitutional structure and declare an end to martial law.

President Obama, martial law and not leaving the White House in 2016

If anyone believes this idea is far fetched, please consider the numerous emergencies that Obama has put America in position to experience in the next two years — possibly with more than one of these issues occurring simultaneously: the Ebola virus and its associated mandatory quarantine may continue to spread due to Obama’s pitiful prophylactic and responsive actions; our $18 trillion and counting government debt could finally cause the government spending bubble — the only thing propping up our economy — to pop, leading to all government spending halting overnight and the massive associated riots that would occur due to welfare, EBT and Medicaid/Medicare cards ceasing to work; and, the threat of Islamic terrorism and specifically ISIS, whose unmatched funding, training and brutality could fulfill their leaders’ promise to shed the blood of millions of Americans.

Additionally, Obama’s choice not to sufficiently secure the border must be taken into consideration with all of these possible emergencies, as open access to our country could only increase the liklihood of all three possible emergencies.

Never in the history of our country have we faced so many destructive threats at the same time. America has also never had leadership that has failed to competently handle every single threat facing our country. If Obama isn’t one of the most inept people to ever hold elected office, then his actions must be calculated to produce these results.

Obama knows he is unpopular with the military, therefore, he has had to find a different way to institute martial law — and that is through a “civilian national security force.” On July 2, 2008 at a campaign stop, Obama made the following unscripted statement: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

President Obama’s blackmail leverage over Republicans

In 2013 the United States spent $663.8 billion on the military, with personnel include 2.2 million people on active duty or in the reserves. America has local police forces, which could call in the National Guard, which could then call in the Department of Defense to protect the country in times of civil unrest. For what purpose, then, would a civilian security force funded with hundreds of billions of dollars and made up of millions of Americans be necessary?

Another worrying issue is that Obama has militarized almost every federal agency. In September of 2013, 70 federal agents in full body armor, carrying M-16s raided one person’s gold mining operation in a tiny Alaska town. They were from the Environmental Protection Agency looking for violations of the Clean Air Act.

After this incident it was found that Obama had created law enforcement branches in over 70 federal agencies. It is estimated that there are over 120,000 law enforcement agents in the federal government who are not part of traditional law enforcement branches — CIA, FBI, DEA, ATF, DHS, DOJ, and Treasury Dept.

These law enforcement branches Obama has created are not comprised of just one or two security guards. Obama has armed these agencies to the teeth. Maj. General Jerry Curry, a 40 year, decorated, military veteran, wrote an op-ed for The Daily Caller pointing out how, in addition to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations’ purchase of 46,000 hollow point bullets, the Social Security Administration (SSA) bought 174,000 hollow point bullets.

ISIS in Paris: Obama’s JV team kill 160+

In reaction to these purchases, Maj. Gen. Curry said, “Hollow point bullets are so lethal that the Geneva Convention does not allow their use on the battlefield in time of war. Hollow point bullets don’t just stop or hurt people, they penetrate the body, spread out, fragment and cause maximum damage to the body’s organs. Death often follows. Potentially each hollow nose bullet represents a dead American. If so, why would the U.S. government want the SSA to kill 174,000 of our citizens, even during a time of civil unrest? Or is the purpose to kill 174,000 of the nation’s military and replace them with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) special security forces, forces loyal to the Administration, not to the Constitution?”

Curry goes on, “In the war in Iraq, our military forces expended approximately 70 million rounds per year. In March (of 2012) DHS ordered 750 million rounds of hollow point ammunition. It then turned around and ordered an additional 750 million rounds of miscellaneous bullets including some that are capable of penetrating walls. This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen.”

Curry’s final point is something that every American should consider: “Obama is a deadly serious, persistent man. Once he focuses on an object, he pursues it to the end. What is his focus here? … I hope I’m wrong, but something smells rotten. And If the Congress isn’t going to do its duty and investigate this matter fully, the military will have to protect the Constitution, the nation, and our citizens.”

Let’s pray that none of these matters fully materialize and Dr. Carson’s ominous suggestion becomes nothing but an afterthought. However, those who understand Obama know not to put anything beyond his desire to, in Obama’s own words, “fundamentally transform America.”

These next two years are his last chance.

By: Voice of Reason

FOR MORE NEWS BY VOICE OF REASON CLICK HERE!

www.thelastgreatstand.com

You’ve heard all the hype. We’ve heard all the stories and videos about Jade Helm, FEMA Camps, and Martial Law… and people said we were “Conspiracy Theorists.” Even the Mainstream Media Has Covered Obama’s Plans For Martial Law, but still people looked the other way.

I’ve covered, FEMA Concentration Camps Disguised As Shopping Malls Being Built Everywhere, and people looked the other way. Military and U.S. Agents Have Been Caught Patrolling Texas Streets Asking Mysterious Questions, and as shocking as it is, on more than one occasion, Texas’ Governor Mobilized State Militia’s To Protect Against the Feds, but still, people looked away. I’ve covered the sick and twisted relationship going on with Jade Helm, the Bilderberg’s, the CIA, and the sicking merging of Jade Helm With the Pentagon’s Biological Technology Office, but still, people looked away.

WHAT DO PEOPLE THINK ALL THIS IS?

In the video below you’ll get a rude awaking into what to expect from Martial Law… and Obama just signed it into law. A source also recently spotted thousands of Martial Law signs… more to come on that when the proof comes if the source can provide a picture for it. For now, check out the video, then learn what Obama has done right below.

Read & see more at > http://tinyurl.com/oq6rjut

Parting note:

I love liars, Bilderbergs, corrupt governments, acts of war, politicians, etc. because I create contingency plans.

Furthermore, I sit in the audience picking apart your performance. I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you.

Fact checkers: NH-1, ground floor, there's a comm closet to the left if you keep straight into the main hallway.