Comments are now closed due to spamming and personal attacks.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/huffpoclub

Breaking News

What Do Stock Markets and the WWF Have in Common? Both Are Rigged.

Posted on Friday, 19th August 2011 @ 03:19 PM by Text Size A | A | A

What
just happened in the stock market?

Last week, the Dow Jones
Industrial Average rose or fell by at least 400 points for four straight
days, a stock market first.

The
worst drop was on Monday, 8-8-11, when the Dow plunged 624 points.
Monday was the first day of trading after US Treasury bonds were
downgraded from AAA to AA+ by Standard and Poor’s.

But
the roller coaster actually began on Tuesday, 8-2-11, the day after the
last-minute deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling — a deal that was
supposed to avoid the downgrade that happened anyway five days later.  The Dow changed directions for eight consecutive
trading sessions after that, another first.  

The
volatility was unprecedented, leaving analysts at a loss to explain it. High frequency program
trading no doubt added to the wild swings, but why the daily reversals?  Why didn’t the market head down and just keep going,
as it did in September 2008?

The
plunge on 8-8-11 was the worst since 2008 and the sixth largest stock
market crash ever. According to Der Spiegel, one of the most
widely read periodicals in Europe:

Many economists have been
pointing out that last week’s panic resembled the fear that swept
financial markets after the collapse of US investment bank Lehman
Brothers in September 2008.

Then as now, banks stopped lending
each other money. Then as now, banks’ cash deposits at the central bank
doubled within days.

But on
Tuesday, August 9, the market gained more points from its low than it
lost on Monday. Why? A tug of war seemed to be going on between two
titanic forces, one bent on crashing the market, the other on propping
it up.


The Dubious S&P Downgrade

Many
commentators questioned the validity of the downgrade that threatened to
be another Lehman Brothers. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for
Economic and Policy Research, said in a statement:

“The
Treasury Department revealed that S&P’s decision was initially based
on a $2 trillion error in accounting. However,
even after this enormous error was corrected, S&P went ahead with
the downgrade. This suggests that S&P had made the decision to
downgrade independent of the evidence
.  [Emphasis added.]

Paul
Krugman, writing in the New York Times, was also
skeptical, stating:

[E]verything
I’ve heard about S&P’s demands suggests that it’s talking nonsense
about the US fiscal situation. The agency has suggested that the
downgrade depended on the size of agreed deficit reduction over the next
decade, with $4 trillion apparently the magic number. Yet US solvency
depends hardly at all on what happens in the near or even medium term:
an extra trillion in debt adds only a fraction of a percent of GDP to
future interest costs . . . .

In
short, S&P is just making stuff up — and after the mortgage
debacle, they really don’t have that right.

In an
illuminating expose posted on Firedoglake on August 5,
Jane Hamsher concluded:

It’s
becoming more and more obvious that Standard and Poor’s has a political
agenda riding on the notion that the US is at risk of default on its
debt based on some arbitrary limit to the debt-to-GDP ratio. There is no
sound basis for that limit, or for S&P’s insistence on at least a
$4 trillion down payment on debt reduction, any more than there is for
the crackpot notion that a non-crazy US can be forced to default on its
debt. . . .

It’s time
the media and Congress started asking Standard and Poors what their
political agenda is and whom it serves.


Who Drove the S&P Agenda?

Jason Schwarz shed light on
this question in an article on Seeking Alpha titled “The Rise of Financial
Terrorism”
. He wrote:

[A]fter the market close on
Friday August 5th, we received word that S&P CEO Deven Sharma had taken control of the ratings agency and personally led the
push for a U.S. downgrade. There is a lot of evidence that he has
deliberately tried to trash the U.S. economy. Even after
discovering that the S&P debt calculations were off by $2 trillion,
Sharma made the decision to go ahead with the unethical downgrade. This
is a guy who was a key contributor at the 2009
Bilderberg Summit that organized 120 of the world’s richest men and
women to push for an end to the dollar as the global reserve currency.

[T]hrough his writings on “competitive strategy”
S&P CEO Sharma considers the United States the PROBLEM in today’s
world, operating with what he implies is an unfair and reckless
advantage. The brutal reality is that for “globalization” to succeed the
United States must be torn asunder . . .

Also named by
Schwarz as a suspect in the market manipulations was Michel Barnier,
head of European Regulation.  Barnier triggered an
alarming 513-point drop in the Dow on August 4, when he blocked the
plan of Hans Hoogervorst, newly
appointed Chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board, to
save Europe by adopting a new rule called IFRS 9. The rule would have
eliminated mark-to-market accounting of sovereign debt from European
bank balance sheets. Schwarz writes:

We all should be experts on the dangers of
mark-to-market accounting after observing the U.S. banking crisis of
2008/2009 and the Great Depression in the 1930s. Mark-to-market was
repealed at 8:45 a.m on April 2, 2009, which finally put a stop to the
short term liquidity crisis and at the same time ushered in a stock
market recovery. Banks no longer had to raise capital as long term
stability was brought back to the system. The exact same scenario would
have happened in 2011 Europe under Hoogervorst’s plan. Without the
threat of failure by those banks who hold high amounts of euro sovereign
debt, investors would be free to move on from the European crisis and
the stock market could resume its fundamental course.

Schwarz
notes that Barnier, like Sharma, was a confirmed attendee at past
Bilderberger conferences. What, then, is the agenda of the
Bilderbergers?


The One
World Company

Daniel
Estulin, noted expert on the Bilderbergers, describes that secretive
globalist group as “a medium of bringing together financial
institutions which are the world’s most powerful and most predatory
financial interests.” Writing in June 2011, he said:

Bilderberg isn’t a secret
society. . . . It’s a meeting of people who represent a certain
ideology. . . . Not OWG [One World Government] or NWO [New World Order] as too many people mistakenly
believe. Rather, the ideology is of a ONE WORLD COMPANY LIMITED.

It seems the Bilderbergers are
less interested in governing the world than in owning the world. The
“world company” was a term first used at a Bilderberger meeting in
Canada in 1968 by George Ball, U.S. Undersecretary of State for
Economic Affairs and a managing director of banking giants Lehman
Brothers and Kuhn Loeb. The world company was to be a new form of
colonialism, in which global assets would be acquired by economic rather
than military coercion. The company would extend across national
boundaries, aggressively engaging in mergers and acquisitions until the
assets of the world were subsumed under one privately-owned corporation,
with nation-states subservient to a private international
central banking system.

Estulin
continues:

The idea behind each and every
Bilderberg meeting is to create what they themselves call THE
ARISTOCRACY OF PURPOSE between European and North American elites on the
best way to manage the planet. In other words, the creation of a global
network of giant cartels, more powerful than any nation on Earth,
destined to control the necessities of life of the rest of humanity.

.
. . This explains what George Ball . . . said back in 1968, at a
Bilderberg meeting in Canada: “Where does one find a legitimate base for
the power of corporate management to make decisions that can profoundly
affect the economic life of nations to whose governments they have only
limited responsibility?”

That base of power was found
in the private global banking system. Estulin goes on:

The problem with today’s
system is that the world is run by monetary systems, not by national
credit systems. . . . [Y]ou don’t want a monetary system to run the
world. You want sovereign nation-states to have their own credit
systems, which is the system of their currency. . . . [T]he possibility
of productive, non-inflationary credit creation by the state, which is
firmly stated in the US Constitution, was excluded by Maastricht [the
Treaty of the European Union] as a method of determining economic and
financial policy.

The world company acquires
assets by preventing governments from issuing their own currencies and
credit. Money is created instead by banks as loans at interest. The
debts inexorably grow, since more is always owed back than was created
in the original loans.  (For more on this, see here.) If
currencies are not allowed to expand to meet increased costs and growth,
the inevitable result is a wave of bankruptcies, foreclosures, and
sales of assets at firesale prices. Sales to whom?  To
the “world company.”


Battle
of the Titans

If that was the plan behind
the market assaults on August 4 and August 8, however, it evidently
failed. What turned
the market around, according to Der Spiegel, was the European Central
Bank, which saved the day by embarking on a program of buying Spanish and Italian
bonds
.
Sidestepping the Maastricht Treaty, the ECB said it would engage in the
equivalent of “quantitative easing,” purchasing bonds with money created
with accounting entries on its books.  It had
done this earlier with Greek and Irish sovereign debt but had resisted
doing it with Spanish and Italian bonds, which were much larger
obligations. On Tuesday, August 16, the ECB announced that it was
engaging in a record $32 billion bond-buying
spree
in an
attempt to appease the markets and save the Eurozone from collapse.

Federal
Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was also expected to come through with
another round of quantitative easing, but his speech on August 9 made no
mention of QE3. As blogger Jesse Livermore summarized the market’s response:

.
. . [T]he markets sold off
rather rapidly as no announcement was made about  QE3.
. . . It wasn’t until . . . the last 75 min of market activity [that]
the DJIA gained 639 pts to close at a day high of 11,242. That begs the
question, where did that injection of capital come from? The President’s
Working Group on Financial Markets? Or did the “policy tools” to
promote price stability by any chance include the next round
of Quantitative Easing unannounced?

Was that QE3 Incognito, Ben?

Titanic
Battle or Insider Trading?

That leaves the question, why the
suspicious downgrade on August 5, AFTER the government had made major
concessions just to avoid default, and despite the embarrassing
revelation that S&P’s figures were off by $2 trillion? Suspicious
bloggers have pointed out that Lehman Brothers was brought down by a
massive bear raid on 9-11-08, echoing the disaster
of 9-11-01; that the S&P downgrade hit the market on 8-8-11; and
that the S&P fell exactly 6.66% and the Dow fell exactly
5.55% on that date.  In Illuminati lore, these are
power numbers, of the sort chosen for power moves.

But we don’t need to turn to
numerology to find a motive for proceeding with the downgrade. On August
12, MSN.Money reported
that it “wasn’t much of a surprise”:

Wall Street had heard a rumor early on that the
downgrade was coming. News sites reported the rumor all day.

Unless it was all a huge coincidence, it’s likely
that someone in the know leaked the information. The questions are who
and whether the leak led to early insider trading.

The
Daily Mail had the story of someone placing an $850 million bet
in the futures market on the prospects of a US debt downgrade:

The
latest bet was made on July 21 on trades of 5,370 ten-year Treasury
futures and 3,100 Treasury bond futures, reported ETF Daily News.

Now
the investor’s gamble seems to have paid off after Standard and Poor’s
issued a credit rating downgrade from AAA to AA+ last Friday.

Whoever
it is stands to earn a 1,000 per cent return on their money, with the
expectation that interest rates will be going up after the downgrade.

The Securities Exchange
Commission announced on August 8 that it is investigating the downgrade. According
to the Financial Times, the move is part of a preliminary examination
into potential insider trading.

Whatever
can be said about the first two weeks of August, their market action was
unprecedented, unnatural, and bears close observation.

Ellen Brown is president of the
Public Banking Institute and the author of eleven books. She developed
her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los
Angeles.  In Web of Debt, she turns those skills
to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” Her
websites are
http://WebofDebt.com
 and http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.

Related News On HPUB:

  • Last Call to be the World Leader in Outer Space. by Daniel Bruno

    Last Call to be World Leader First posted: 03/18/2010 at Huffpo “Where is that moon, that leads to your soul?” – Aromabar     Legend has it that Kaguya descended from a race of moon…

  • Electoral Science: The Winner of the 2016 Election Will be a Republican

    Originally published at Washington’s Blog in April, 2016   by Daniel Bruno   Electoral Science: The Winner of the 2016 Election Will be a Republican I was the first person in the world to proclaim…

  • Report from Rio

    Report from Rio Daniel “No Passport” Bruno, reporting from Rio de Janeiro. Daniel is from Manhattan, is an author, inventor, specialist in 9/11 studies, and the interview host at www.hpub.org which publishes over 1000 censored…

  • Join the Radical Republican Party

    The Radical Republican Party RRP aims to retire the two party system. Congressional approval ratings hover around 8% yet most members are re-elected over and over again. The old definitions of liberal and conservative, left…

... post your own so far 2 comments

Comments

  • Jon Awbrey

    August 19, 2011 03:36 PM


    Describing a mugging as an “economic downturn” may save you the bother of going after the muggers, in this case the banksters and hedgers who make their money betting on how deep they can tank the economy. Well, we are finding out just how deep, but that doesn’t keep them from trying harder. They think the Country is their Casino and we’re just the suckers at the slots.

  • Race Capet

    August 19, 2011 06:18 PM


    One World Government… One World Company… Is there really a difference? At least the latter will keep up the pretense that we wanted their services when they take our money.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

Breaking News