STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Thursday, 26 March 2015

[Tansy_Gold]

[font size=3]STOCK MARKET WATCH, Thursday, 26 March 2015[font color=black][/font]

SMW for 25 March 2015

AT THE CLOSING BELL ON 25 March 2015
[center][font color=red]
Dow Jones 17,718.54 -292.60 (-1.62%)
S&P 500 2,061.05 -30.45 (-1.46%)
Nasdaq 4,876.52 -118.21 (-2.37%)


[font color=red]10 Year 1.92% +0.06 (3.23%)
30 Year 2.51% +0.05 (2.03%) [font color=black]


[center][/font]

[HR width=85%]

[font size=2]Market Conditions During Trading Hours[/font]
[center]
(click on link for latest updates)
Market Updates
[/center]

[font size=2]Euro, Yen, Loonie, Silver and Gold[center]

[/center]

[center]

[/center]

[HR width=95%]

[font color=black][font size=2]Handy Links - Market Data and News:[/font][/font]
[center]
Economic Calendar
Marketwatch Data
Bloomberg Economic News
Yahoo Finance
Google Finance
Bank Tracker
Credit Union Tracker
Daily Job Cuts
[/center]

[font color=black][font size=2]Handy Links - Economic Blogs:[/font][/font]
[center]
The Big Picture
Financial Sense
Calculated Risk
Naked Capitalism
Credit Writedowns
Brad DeLong
Bonddad
Atrios
goldmansachs666
The Stand-Up Economist
The Automatic Earth
Wall Street on Parade
[/center]

[font color=black][font size=2]Handy Links - Essential Reading:[/font][/font]
[center]
Matt Taibi: Secret and Lies of the Bailout


[/center]

[font color=black][font size=2]Handy Links - Government Issues:[/font][/font]
[center]
LegitGov
Open Government
Earmark Database
USA spending.gov
[/center]

[font color=black][font size=2]Handy Links - Videos:[/font][/font]
[center]
Charlie Rose talks with Roubini
Charlie Rose talks with Krugman
William Black: This Economic Disaster
Bill Moyers with Kevin Drum and David Corn
[/center]

[div]
[font color=red]Partial List of Financial Sector Officials Convicted since 1/20/09 [/font][font color=red]
2/2/12 David Higgs and Salmaan Siddiqui, Credit Suisse, plead guilty to conspiracy involving valuation of MBS
3/6/12 Allen Stanford, former Caribbean billionaire and general schmuck, convicted on 13 of 14 counts in $2.2B Ponzi scheme, faces 20+ years in prison
6/4/12 Matthew Kluger, lawyer, sentenced to 12 years in prison, along with co-conspirator stock trader Garrett Bauer (9 years) and co-conspirator Kenneth Robinson (not yet sentenced) for 17 year insider trading scheme.
6/14/12 Allen Stanford sentenced to 110 years without parole.
6/15/12 Rajat Gupta, former Goldman Sachs director, found guilty of insider trading. Could face a decade in prison when sentenced later this year.
6/22/12 Timothy S. Durham, 49, former CEO of Fair Financial Company, convicted of one count conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud, 10 counts of wire fraud, and one count of securities fraud.
6/22/12 James F. Cochran, 56, former chairman of the board of Fair, convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud, one count of securities fraud, and six counts of wire fraud.
6/22/12 Rick D. Snow, 48, former CFO of Fair, convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud, one count of securities fraud, and three counts of wire fraud.
7/13/12 Russell Wassendorf Sr., CEO of collapsed brokerage firm Peregrine Financial Group Inc. arrested and charged with lying to regulators after admitting to authorities he embezzled "millions of dollars" and forged bank statements for "nearly twenty years."
8/22/12 Doug Whitman, Whitman Capital LLC hedge fund founder, convicted of insider trading following a trial in which he spent more than two days on the stand telling jurors he was innocent
10/26/12 UPDATE: Former Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta sentenced to two years in federal prison. He will, of course, appeal. . .
11/20/12 Hedge fund manager Matthew Martoma charged with insider trading at SAC Capital Advisors, and prosecutors are looking at Martoma's boss, Steven Cohen, for possible involvement.
02/14/13 Gilbert Lopez, former chief accounting officer of Stanford Financial Group, and former controller Mark Kuhrt sentenced to 20 yrs in prison for their roles in Allen Sanford's $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.
03/29/13 Michael Sternberg, portfolio mgr at SAC Capital, arrested in NYC, charged with conspiracy and securities fraud. Pled not guilty and freed on $3m bail.
04/04/13 Matthew Marshall Taylor,fmr Goldman Sachs trader arrested, charged by CFTC w/defrauding his employer on $8BN futures bet "by intentionally concealing the true huge size, as well as the risk and potential profits or losses associated."
04/04/13 Matthew Taylor admits guilt, makes plea bargain. Sentencing set for 26 June; faces up to 20 years in prison but will likely only see 3-4 years. Says, "I am truly sorry."
04/11/13 Ex-KPMG LLP partner Scott London charged by federal prosecutors w/passing inside tips to a friend in exchange for cash, jewelry, and concert tickets; expected to plead guilty in May.
08/01/13 Fabrice Tourré convicted on six counts of security fraud, including "aiding and abetting" his former employer, Goldman Sachs
08/14/13 Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout charged with wire fraud, falsifying records, and conspiracy in connection with JP Morgan's "London Whale" trade.
08/19/13 Phillip A. Falcone, manager of hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners, agrees to admit to "wrongdoing" in market manipulation. Will banned from securities industry for 5 years and pay $18MM in disgorgement and fines.
09/16/13 Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout officially indicted on charges associated with "London Whale" trade.
02/06/14 Matthew Martoma convicted of insider trading while at hedge fund SAC (Stephen A. Cohen) Capital Advisors. Expected sentence 7-10 years.
03/24/14 Annette Bongiorno, Bernard Madoff's secretary; Daniel Bonventre, director of operations for investments; JoAnn Crupi, an account manager; and Jerome O'Hara and George Perez, both computer programmers convicted of conspiracy to defraud clients, securities fraud, and falsifying the books and records.
05/19/14 Credit Suisse, which has an investment bank branch in NYC, agrees to plead guilty and pay appx. $2.6 billion penalties for helping wealthy Americans hide wealth and avoid taxes.
09/08/14 Matthew Martoma, convicted SAC trader, sentenced to 9 years in prison plus forfeiture of $9.3 million, including home and bank accounts







[HR width=95%]


[center]

[font size=3][font color=red]This thread contains opinions and observations. Individuals may post their experiences, inferences and opinions on this thread. However, it should not be construed as advice. It is unethical (and probably illegal) for financial recommendations to be given here.[/font][/font][/font color=red][font color=black]

[Tansy_Gold]

1. Ah, if only there were. . .

. . . a Democrat with that kind of fire. Real fire, not just hot air. (Yeah, I'm lookin' at you, O.)

[Demeter]

2. After a really good meal (I cooked for myself, for once) and a serendipitous Phone call

I am in the mood to post! Stand back!

It rained all morning, but didn't freeze, and while it got up to 50F, the windchill was more like 30...so I guess we have had our first April shower, just a week early. So things are looking up.

[Demeter]

3. Solidarity Economy as Political Economy Creating New Possibilities for Independence and Autonomy

http://www.geo.coop/story/solidarity-economy-political-economy

Unlike many alternative economic projects that have come before, solidarity economics does not seek to build a singular model of how the economy should be structured, but rather pursues a dynamic process of economic organizing in which organizations, communities, and social movements work to identify, strengthen, connect, and create democratic and liberatory means of meeting their needs. ~Ethan Miller, from Other Economies are Possible

Nowadays the term solidarity economy is being used to indicate non-capitalist alternative realities that function inside the cracks within the existing capitalist system. The idea and practice emerged in Latin America in the mid-1980s [1] and has subsequently gained more and more popularity. It is a logic that aims to create “economic” structures that oppose the capitalistic structures and strives to generate and sustain autonomy in our economic lives [2]. These realities consist of a post-capitalist horizon of autonomous communities, in which the economy is returned to its place, i.e. to serve human life rather than being its ultimate goal [3].

At base, the essence of the solidarity economy is political economy, because in its core is enshrined the question of who makes the decisions on economic matters, in contrast to various other economic models, which emphasize the redistribution of wealth regardless of who makes the decisions. One of its main characteristics is direct democracy, which allows everybody participating in it to directly control the ongoing economic processes. Also the process of experimenting in real time, which the solidarity economy encourages, allows us to develop a clearer vision for the institutions and their functions in a participatory society and, thus, to formulate the conditions to transition from active opposition towards questioning the hegemony of the dominant political model.

For a long time now, however, the solidarity economy has been largely neglected by political movements. Maybe because they were too busy with their own affairs or maybe because the activist imagination is trapped in a static or dogmatic notion of utopia that, instead of fomenting action, provokes and encourages radical critique of everything that does not correspond with it.

One of the main reasons many activists decline to participate or support the solidarity economy is the fear that the status quo will co-opt these alternative realities. And while such co-optation attempts do exist and sometimes succeed [4], the danger that this will be realized on a larger scale is not so great. Or, at least it is not greater than the danger of participating in political lifestyle/subcultural movements [5]. Most important is that the participants in the solidarity economy alone discover and, through their participation, correct its limitations.

Creative resistance acts as a water drop that, with perseverance, breaks the rock.

But the solidarity economy should not be viewed as just an alternative economic practice, but as part of the broader frame of the creative resistance. The logic of creative resistance is to serve as a basis for alternative structures inside the cracks of the contemporary system and not to allow them to become isolated islands of freedom. Instead of aiming only to destroy the contemporary system, creative resistance encourages the creation of the cells and building blocks of a future society founded on solidarity and autonomy, showing that it is possible in practice. And the solidarity economy in particular, by allowing people to lead their lives independently (as much as possible) from the state and capitalist markets, sets the conditions for the creation of a new anthropological type — something that is necessary to create a new world that is more just and democratic.

However we shouldn’t be too eager for quick results, because there is a difference between desire and action. We should always consider our local context and its limitations and try to act in accordance. Creative resistance acts as a water drop that, with perseverance, breaks the rock.

The creative elements that consist in this type of resistance are not limited to the various forms of protest or even to the solidarity economy. They refer to a specific sociopolitical act that is directed, on the one hand, toward a more holistic understanding of today's power structures and the current situation as a whole and, on the other, towards creating possibilities for people to lead more independent and autonomous lives. Creative resistance is not an immediate demand or a program; rather it’s a practical example that aims to build a bridge between the critique of the status quo and the creation of autonomous structures.

Creative resistance can take many forms — such as worker cooperatives, social centers, really free markets, art collectives, etc. — but no one and nothing can guarantee their smooth functioning. It depends upon those participating in it (because of the self-organized character of creative resistance and the solidarity economy in particular) and their social environment – what goals they set and what risks they are willing to take to make sure the transformative character of their project is not limited. If the transformative potential is lost, then we simply cannot talk of creative resistance. However, there are many things that can serve and support the longevity of such projects, such as online media platforms, network coordination and exchange of experience, critical thinking, going over the details, moving beyond the borders of ideological dogmas, cooperation with social movements, etc.

It is important not to give up on the solidarity economy even if projects sometimes fail.

It is important not to give up on the solidarity economy even if projects sometimes fail. Each time we fail in one initiative, we can extract a lot of useful conclusions that help in the future. In a way this is the logic of creative resistance and the solidarity economy in particular — to experiment today with institutions that we would like to have tomorrow, in order to examine their flaws and correct them.

It is important to view the solidarity economy as part of something even broader than creative resistance — it should be seen as part of a general project of direct democracy. Here I speak not for representative democracy (i.e. liberal oligarchy) but for direct democracy (i.e. a democracy simultaneously directed against political domination and economic exploitation), i.e. horizontality - inseparably political (who decides) and functionally economic.

The principle of direct democracy is what makes the above mentioned projects and realities so flexible. During the last years, interest in direct democracy has risen together with the increased critique of authoritarianism (the state) and every form of bureaucracy (syndicates,parties, corporations etc.) [6] operating outside the social base.

Direct democracy, as presented here, is impossible without changes in both the political and economic spheres, more concretely, direct democracy requires establishing collective ownership of the means of production, reclaiming the commons etc. Democracy cannot be direct if people participate in only one public sphere (in the political or in the economic). Therefore a direct-democratic society is not established by seizing the state apparatus but by creating citizen consciousness and federations of self-managed communities in which there is no separation between the political and the economic spheres.

But here we are not speaking of a concrete systemic model. The solidarity economy, creative resistance, and direct democracy are something else. They are realities, practices, and principles that we need to recreate through the prism of our local context. There is no perfect model. Everyone has to create his or her own system suitable for his or her reality, neighborhood, city, region.

Today’s social movements have at their disposal a wide range of ideas and experiences, from which they can extract useful conclusions and tools for their struggles.

But despite the fact that no model can be transferred directly from one place to another, the experience gained by those who resist collectively, such as the Zapatistas, offers knowledge for us all. We can learn from them, and the first thing we learn is that things can be organized in a different way.

Today’s social movements have at their disposal a wide range of ideas and experiences, from which they can extract useful conclusions and tools for their struggles. The critique on authority no longer means chaos, but rather a grassroots struggle for direct democracy, which functions only when the oppressed participate in it. Contemporary forms of resistance aim to cultivate suitable conditions for the fullest expression of both human individuality and the collective satisfaction of the social needs through networks of self-sustaining local communities that coexist in harmony with nature. It is up to us to take advantage of the new horizons that are appearing.

Notes:
[1] www.readingfromtheleft.cohttpm/PDF/SRPP/PostCapAlternatives.pdf

[2] A good example of such structures are the Zapatista’s Coffee Cooperatives

[3] http://www.notbored.org/RTI.pdf

[4] http://www.geo.coop/node/403

[5] http://www.alternet.org/visions/why-we-cant-depend-activists-create-change

[6] http://roarmag.org/2013/06/autonomy-revolution-movements-democracy-capitalism/





Yavor Tarinski is an activist and community organizer from Bulgaria. He is a compiler of two books in Bulgarian on direct democracy.

Citations:
When citing this article, please use the following format: Yavor Tarinski (2015). Solidarity Economy as Political Economy. Grassroots Economic Organizing (GEO), http://www.geo.coop/story/solidarity-economy-political-economy


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License.

[Demeter]

4. The Secret to Knowing if Your Current Goals Are Ambitious Enough

Last edited Wed Mar 25, 2015, 08:20 PM - Edit history (1)

The Secret to Knowing if Your Current Goals Are Ambitious Enough: Truly ambitious people never, ever realize their ambitions.



This question originally appeared on Quora: How do I know if my current goals are ambitious enough or if I am settling for a visible local maximum?

Answer by Auren Hoffman, LiveRamp CEO. Started & sold 5 companies (and many more that failed), on Quora

If you are unsure if your goals are not ambitious enough, then they are almost certainly not ambitious enough.

Truly ambitious people never, ever realize their ambitions. Of course, that drives them to do greater and greater things. And it sometimes leads to a life that is disappointing to them while often inspiring to everyone else.

The goal posts move as you succeed

For people that are truly ambitious, the goal posts move as they succeed. If your goal is to cure breast cancer, as you approach accomplishing that, your new goal will be to cure brain cancer. As you accomplish that, your goal will be cure all cancer. After that, it will be to cure heart attacks. Soon, you will have the goal of curing death. That is what great ambition does.

Truly ambitious people are never, ever satisfied

The world can always be a better place--people can be smarter, have fewer diseases, less war, less poor, etc. Truly ambitious people never, ever stop trying to innovate, trying to change lives, trying to make positive change. Of course, truly ambitious people are incredibly rare and when they are successful in even reaching a small fraction of their goals, they are usually greatly admired. But even when they are admired, they are never satisfied with what they have achieved because they always could have done more.

http://www.inc.com/quora/the-secret-to-knowing-if-your-current-goals-are-ambitious-enough.html

[Demeter]

5. 'A Beautiful Mind' Mathematician, John Nash, Wins Prestigious Prize | By David Freeman HUFFPO

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/25/john-nash-abel-prize_n_6939654.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business

John F. Nash Jr., the brilliant but troubled mathematician portrayed by Russell Crowe in the 2001 motion picture "A Beautiful Mind," has been awarded the prestigious Abel Prize in mathematics, along with another American mathematician, Louis Nirenberg.

The announcement was made on Wednesday by the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, which called the men "two mathematical giants of the twentieth century" and said the prize recognized their "striking and seminal contributions to the theory of nonlinear partial differential equations and its applications to geometric analysis.”

Nash, 86, spent his career at Princeton University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, according to the academy. Nirenberg, 90, worked at New York University’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. Nash was awarded the 1994 Nobel Prize for economics for a paper about game theory. The pair never collaborated on a paper but worked together informally in the 1950s, New Scientist reported.

The annual 6 million kroner ($820,000) award will be presented in Oslo on May 19, the Associated Press reported.

[Demeter]

6. Why the Supreme Court Might Actually Rule Against the Corporate Interest

BE STILL, MY BEATING HEART!

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121356/bank-america-v-caulkett-oral-arguments-begin-mortgage-case

King v. Burwell isn't the only Supreme Court case this term that will determine the fate of millions of poor and vulnerable Americans. Bank of America v. Caulkett, to be heard Tuesday, is a technical case about the bankruptcy code, but if the bank succeeds, it would make it more difficult for people to start over when debt burdens become unmanageable. “It will affect many people’s pocketbooks,” said Bob Lawless, bankruptcy law professor at the University of Illinois. The Caulkett case has a link to the foreclosure crisis. Under current law, primary residence mortgages cannot be modified in bankruptcy, unlike vacation homes, yachts, car leases, and almost every other form of debt, with the notable exception of student loans. That’s because of a 1992 Supreme Court case called Dewsnup, which barred bankruptcy judges from stripping down an underwater first mortgage to its market value. Liberals wanted the bankruptcy “cram-down” option available to prevent a flood of foreclosures, but a bill to change the law failed in the Senate in 2009. As Dick Durbin famously said, the banks "frankly own the place.”

In Caulkett we’ll see if they own the Supreme Court too, and if they can extend that prohibition on modifying primary mortgages in bankruptcy to a prohibition on extinguishing second mortgages in one part of the bankruptcy code. Second mortgages, often home equity loans, use the home as collateral, but the secured claim is junior to the first mortgage. So if the house is worth $200,000, and the first mortgage is owed $250,000—a phenomenon known as an “underwater” home—that second mortgage will receive no money in a foreclosure sale.

Right now, in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, you can “strip off” a second mortgage on an underwater home, but you weren’t allowed to do it in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, using an old case in its circuit as precedent, said that stripping off the second mortgage was allowed under Chapter 7, and did so for Mr. David Caulkett of Melbourne, Florida.

In June 2006, Caulkett purchased a classic “80/20” loan from Countrywide Financial (now part of Bank of America), entirely financed with no money down, with 80 percent as a first mortgage and 20 percent as a second. In 2013, he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The home was valued at $98,000, but Caulkett owed $183,264 on just the first mortgage, and $47,855 on the second. The bankruptcy judge in the 11th Circuit stripped off the worthless second mortgage, but Bank of America appealed, arguing that Dewsnup also applies to this second mortgage, which they say cannot be extinguished under Chapter 7.

The reason it matters that you can strip off a second loan in Chapter 13 bankruptcy but not Chapter 7 is that Chapter 7 is a much more affordable part of the bankruptcy code. “Chapter 13 has a payment plan, you only get the strip-off if you complete the plan,” said bankruptcy expert Bob Lawless. Only about 40 percent of Chapter 13 cases complete the payment plan, which is three times as expensive as in Chapter 7. In cases where debtors have a second mortgage—and a large number were sold during the housing bubble—Chapter 7 would be effectively unavailable to them unless Caulkett prevails. That’s because of what happens after bankruptcy. Bank of America argues that the second mortgage should remain an “allowed secured claim,” holding onto its lien on the property regardless of the state of the first mortgage. Subsequently, the second mortgage holder would have “hostage value.” Even if the debtor wants to come to a loan modification or short sale on the first mortgage, the second mortgage holder could block it, and demand a settlement payment, basically a bribe, to make their claim go away. This creates a valuable asset out of something with no value.

Supporters of Caulkett argue that the secured claim of the second mortgage becomes unsecured when the house is so far underwater as to make it worthless. Under bankruptcy, the owner of the second mortgage can go in and try to show value, and receive some level of payment. But under Chapter 13, they don’t keep the lien, and under this argument, they shouldn’t in Chapter 7 either. “Back in the day there was this thinking that it’s property, we treat it differently,” said Bob Lawless, who wrote an amicus brief in the case. “In a context where the lien has no value, the code should properly allow the court to make that lien go away." Second mortgages have high interest rates precisely because of the junior nature of their collateral claim, and the risk of getting nothing back in a foreclosure. “Applying Dewsnup to cases involving wholly underwater second-lien mortgages would have the perverse effect of enabling (Bank of America) to do better in bankruptcy than it would at state law,” wrote Adam Levitin, law professor at Georgetown University, in his amicus brief.

Bank of America argues that lien-stripping in bankruptcy would make mortgages more expensive, but losses from foreclosure usually exceed those on a modified loan, particularly in the case of second mortgages. Anyway, as Levitin says, the second-mortgage market has shrunk since the housing bubble collapsed (although it’s been coming back a bit lately); a stronger claim in bankruptcy could strengthen the riskiest versions of the product. “Given the abuses that occurred in the second-lien mortgage market,” Levitin wrote, “this Court should not resuscitate it.” The outcome has implications for more than people in bankruptcy. “The rule merely sets the default,” Bob Lawless said, “but then what happens in the real world, debtors and creditors bargain against the rule.” Allowing strip-off would give borrowers more negotiating leverage prior to bankruptcy to reach an equitable solution, precisely the thinking behind cram-down.

Don't assume that John Roberts' Court will automatically rule for the corporate interest over the individual. In Dewsnup, the case Bank of America is trying to expand, Justice Scalia wrote the dissent. He said the victorious argument relied on a very strange reading of the bankruptcy code, and particularly the phrase “allowed secured claim.” This created to Scalia an absurdity, which he spells out by making the exact example at issue in Caulkett: “A secured creditor holding a lien on property that is completely worthless would not face lien avoidance… even if the claim secured by that lien were disallowed entirely.” Justice Clarence Thomas did not participate in Dewsnup, but criticized it later.

Bankruptcy law evolved over 150 years to protect only that which has value. Since 1992, the financial industry has chipped away at it to give protections to property regardless of the value of the claim. Now they want to chip away some more. There are real-world effects here for whether people in financial distress will be allowed to get a second chance, a core American value prescribed in the law.

[Demeter]

7. Too many rats, not enough cheese (UKRAINE)

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/03/too-many-rats-not-enough-cheese-ttg.html

Vicky Nuland better get her ass back to Ukraine to smooth over the latest kerfuffle. The oligarchs are about to come to blows over what’s left of Ukraine’s resources. It’s going to take more than a bag of cookies this time. This is a quick take on the situation by “The Saker.”

“Then there is the mini-war taking place between the “President” Poroshenko and the notorious Jewish oligarch Kolomoiskii over the control of Ukrtransnafta (read about it here and here). This is a clear sign of the deep process of “Somalization” taking place in which all the power in the country is divided between warlords. Kolomoiskii is probably a far more powerful figure than Poroshenko and he controls the “neo-Khazarian Ukraine” (southern Ukraine, Black Sea cost, Odessa region) and there are many who believe that he is the man who paid for the downing of MH17 (Kolomoiski admitted to this on a private video call by Skype). Still, he is ready to run should it be needed, and has therefore secured three citizenships: Ukrainian, Cypriot and Israeli.”

This showdown is still in its early stages. It began when Poroshenko and the Rada attempted to wrest control of Ukraine’s state run oil and gas administrations away from the de facto control of Kolomoiskyi. Poroshenko intends to privatize these industries and sell them to outside investors in exchange for much needed cash. Kolomoiskyi was having none of this nonsense. He already lost a chunk of his money when Crimea went to Russia and Novorossiya rebelled. He wasn't about to lose more. Poroshenko and his allies in Kiev declared Kolomoiskyi’s actions criminal and vowed to get him under control. Jeffery Pyatt even attempted to talk Kolomoiskyi down. That didn't work. It now appears that Kolomoiskyi is pulling some of his battalions out of the frontline in the Donbas and out of Odessa. They may be going to his stronghold in Dnepropetrovsk or maybe on to Kiev. We don’t know yet. There are also reports of two National Guard battalions loyal to Kiev are also headed to Dnipropetrovsk, although Kiev later denied this.

Along with his recent obscenity laden rants, Kolomoiskyi has made some astonishing statements. He declared that he recognized the legitimacy of the DNR and LNR authorities since the residents of those oblasts voted for and continue to support Zakarchenko and Plotnitsky. He wants other oblasts to have broad federalized authorities and to retain 90% of their revenues. That sounds more like Putin’s position on a federalized Ukraine. In addition to this, a lot of dirty laundry is being aired about criminal activities of many of the leaders of the Kiev junta. Nuland cannot be enjoying this.

This is not as uneven a fight as one may think… one oligarch against the Kiev regime. Kolomoiskyi finances and controls a large part of the Ukrainian military forces. He also controls the fueling capacity for the entire armed forces. His Privatbank is a major part of Ukraine’s financial system. If that bank goes down, Kiev goes down. It is possible that he may assert full control over Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa and other oblasts. He won’t be a popular leader, but he will be a powerful leader. Kiev could be faced with a Novoukrainia as well as a Novorossiya. Or Kolomoiskyi can flee to Israel with most of his money. He would be untouchable there. Or this can all fizzle out in a few days and it will be business as usual in Ukraine.

One thing is for sure. We will barely hear about this in the MSM, if at all.

TTG

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-20/ukraine-s-oligarchs-are-at-war-again-

http://cassad-eng.livejournal.com/147595.html

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150322/1019864329.html


NO MENTION OF HILLARY'S SUGAR DADDY PINCHUK, THOUGH....

[Demeter]

8. COMMENTS ARE TELLING, TOO!

COMMENT #1

Kolomoisky is backed by Joe Biden. He is the second most successful mafia warlord in the Ukraine; outstanding at what he does; and a real survivor. He also controls the most enthusiastic army in the region, and has the money to fund it. He could take the government down by holding another Maiden, or asking his anarchists to physically remove the elected officials. The fact that he's able to get away with raiding a building in Kiev, without repercussions, shows that he is a force to be reckoned with.

If the IMF flakes out on their promise to deliver loans to Kiev, the people could rise up to overthrow Poroshenko. One possibility has Joe Biden installing Kolomoisky as President then. But he's a Godfather figure, used to getting his way, not used to politics. So I don't think he would make a good President. Ukraine is a mess, too.

Seriously, though, I predict Ukraine will sooner or later try to nationalize Kolomoisky's holdings, as there is nothing much else left to eat. Joe and Hunter Biden will not like this. Kolomoisky could try to nationalize Kiev. Life looks to get a lot more interesting in Ukraine.

REPLY

Seems you forgot to mention that Hunter Biden is on the board of directors for one of Kolomoisky's energy firms (Burisma Holdings). Must be a real dilemma for Joe -- should he support the American puppet Porshenko or should he support his son's boss?

Last spring when it was announced that Hunter had been offered that position I was aghast. Of course American politicians enter into agreements with large corporations but to do it so transparently? That is not just how pay-offs are done in the US.

SECOND REPLY


It's not just Hunter Biden. Kerry's stepson, Chris Heinz, his close friend, Devon Archer, along with Hunter are partners in a secretive private equity firm called Rosemont Seneca Partners. They're all in business with Burisma. Former Polish President Kwaśniewski is also on Burisma's board. IMHO the whole thing stinks worse than a broken sewer.


AND MORE! SEE LINK

[Demeter]

9. The Political Perils of a Ukraine Default By Marc Champion

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-24/the-political-perils-of-a-ukraine-default

For the last 10 days, Ukrainian Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko has been visiting private creditors in Europe and the U.S. to explain why they should help her create a "new Ukraine," by agreeing to write off some of its debt. Back home, meanwhile, an oligarch with a private army was busy occupying two state energy companies in a style decidedly reminiscent of the old Ukraine.

The contrast is no criticism of Jaresko, an American-Ukrainian from Chicago who seems committed to the economic reform Ukraine needs. Indeed, the attempt by Igor Kolomoisky, a billionaire businessman and regional governor, to keep control of two state energy companies is grist for the pitch she’s been making to private holders of Ukraine’s sovereign debt. Jaresko says they'll never get a better price for their bonds than now, because there’s a calm amid the Ukrainian storm. There's something resembling a cease-fire in eastern Ukraine; the currency is stable(ish); there’s a government committed to reform under the International Monetary Fund’s $40 billion loan program; and that government has support for that in parliament. Her list of shocks that could end this lull is longer and all too plausible -- especially if the country's creditors don't help out before May, potentially forcing the IMF to withdraw its program and force a disorderly default. Jaresko says she assumes that Russian President Vladimir Putin's game plan in Ukraine is to turn it into a failed state -- so it's likely the war in the east will reignite. Next, the five-party coalition in parliament could easily fall apart. The banking system is weak and riddled with fraud and corruption, a recipe for financial meltdown. And although Ukrainians have so far quietly endured plunging living standards since last year, an eruption of social unrest is all too possible.

"If, God forbid, there is another revolution, it won't be of the same kind," says Jaresko.

The problem for Jaresko is that bondholders have an alternative: They can wait and see what happens in this unpredictable situation. Maybe Western governments will pressure the IMF to alter the loan terms. Maybe they'll come up with extra cash to keep Ukraine solvent. And even if Ukraine defaults, it might honor its debts in full at a later date. Jaresko is trying to persuade creditors to look at Ukraine's case as so extreme that the interests of the government and its creditors are in reality the same: for the state to just survive. And for that to happen, it needs debt relief.

"People outside Ukraine see what's happening very differently, as though it's something normal," said Vitaly Lisovenko, Ukraine's envoy for state debt, when presented with the wait and see argument by a representative from the creditors' side of the negotiation today. But it faces a combination of military and economic threats unique to previous IMF bailouts, he said. Without quick action, “you will end up with us, in a river full of crocodiles."

This is, of course, a negotiation. Each side will paint its case in stark colors for leverage. Markets seem to agree that some kind of default or debt forgiveness is probable, with Ukrainian bonds trading at just under 40 cents on the dollar. Still, the brinksmanship over a potential default feels like it's ignoring the real stakes. As with Greece, this debt standoff is about more than just the losses creditors might incur. If Ukraine becomes a country with no IMF program to force reform or shape policy, and without the funds to respond to Russia militarily or pay officials, there's a real risk that Putin will succeed in creating a failed state of 45 million people in Europe. Jaresko didn't put it that way, but perhaps she should.

AH....NO! IT WON'T BE PUTIN WHO CREATES A FAILED UKRAINE. IT WILL BE THE WEST THAT LENT IT MONEY IT COULDN'T REPAY, SIPHONED OFF THE PROFITS AND TOOK THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY, PUT THEIR SONS AND NEPHEWS ON BOARDS AND ARMED THE NAZIS....AND BACKED THEM UP WITH MERCENARIES AND SPOOKS AND VICTORIA NULAND....

[Demeter]

10. Kremlin heads for collision course with Ukraine over debt haircut

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11492680/Kremlin-heads-for-collision-course-with-Ukraine-over-debt-haircut.html


Kiev’s finance minister insists the country has no choice but to restructure $3bn owed to Moscow

Ukraine’s finance minister has insisted Russia will have to take part in a private sector debt write-off, putting the embattled country on a collision course with the Kremlin. Natalie Jaresko said there was no alternative but for her government to proceed with a $15.3bn debt restructuring programme as part of the conditions of a rescue plan from the International Monetary Fund. “We don’t see another path right now,” said the American-born Ms Jaresko, who is visiting London in a bid to drum up western financial support for her war-ravaged country.

Russia has resisted taking any losses on a $3bn bond which is due mature in December. The debt was issued as part of a bail-out for the then pro-Moscow Yanukovych regime which was toppled last year. But Moscow has so far maintained that it will be repaid in full, claiming it is not a private creditor and thus would not take part in any debt talks.

“It is our hope that all of our sovereign bond holders will come to the table and try and find a sustainable solution to Ukraine’s debt problem,” said Ms Jaresko.

Referring to any Russian objections to a haircut, Ms Jaresko said: “We have no intentions to discriminate on the basis of nationality or location.”

“We hope for creditor negotiations to be very transparent, we don’t see any other opportunity or path right now.”

[mother earth]

27. It is the policy of shock doctrine and disaster capitalism, and it seems the SHTF around the

same time is upon us. One wonders why this is not seen as a wake up call, and a very necessary call to action to deal with corruption & enablement of these criminal practices.

[Demeter]

11. Failing elites threaten our future By Martin Wolf

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cfc1eb1c-76d8-11e3-807e-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3VPhrgitJ

Leaders richly rewarded for mediocrity cannot be relied upon when things go wrong


In 2014, Europeans commemorate the 100th anniversary of the start of the first world war. This calamity launched three decades of savagery and stupidity, destroying most of what was good in the European civilisation of the beginning of the 20th century. In the end, as Churchill foretold in June 1940, “the New World, with all its power and might”, had to step “forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old”.

The failures of Europe’s political, economic and intellectual elites created the disaster that befell their peoples between 1914 and 1945. It was their ignorance and prejudices that allowed catastrophe: false ideas and bad values were at work. These included the atavistic belief, not just that empires were magnificent and profitable, but that war was glorious and controllable. It was as if a will to collective suicide seized the leaders of great nations.


Complex societies rely on their elites to get things, if not right, at least not grotesquely wrong. When elites fail, the political order is likely to collapse, as happened to the defeated powers after first world war. The Russian, German and Austrian empires vanished, bequeathing weak successors succeeded by despotism. The first world war also destroyed the foundations of the 19th century economy: free trade and the gold standard. Attempts to restore it produced more elite failures, this time of Americans as much as Europeans. The Great Depression did much to create the political conditions for the second world war. The cold war, a conflict of democracies with a dictatorship sired by the first world war, followed.

The dire results of elite failures are not surprising. An implicit deal exists between elites and the people: the former obtain the privileges and perquisites of power and property; the latter, in return, obtain security and, in modern times, a measure of prosperity. If elites fail, they risk being replaced. The replacement of failed economic, bureaucratic and intellectual elites is always fraught. But, in a democracy, replacement of political elites at least is swift and clean. In a despotism, it will usually be slow and almost always bloody.

This is not just history. It remains true today....


ANYONE WAITING FOR THE ELITES TO PAVE THEIR WAY IS A FOOL, IMHO

[Demeter]

12. GREECE (HELLAS) THE OTHER FAILED STATE

Greece cash crisis takes turn for worse

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c0ded586-d2eb-11e4-b7a8-00144feab7de.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fhome_us%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct&siteedition=intl#axzz3VQ9MQXVH


Athens’s hope that it could bridge its mounting cash crisis with the return of €1.2bn for the Greek bank recapitalisation fund were dashed Wednesday morning when the government was informed it had no legal claim on the cash.

The Greek government believes the funds were sent back to eurozone authorities in error last month when, under pressure from Germany, finance ministers agreed all the remaining €10.9bn in the bank rescue facility should be returned to the eurozone’s bailout fund. But on a conference call between deputy ministers from all 19 eurozone finance ministries, the Greek delegation was told that the €1.2bn was properly returned and the cash would stay in the bailout fund, known as the European Financial Stability Facility.

“There was agreement that, legally, there was no overpayment from the Greek bank recapitalisation fund to the EFSF,” said an EFSF spokesman

The spokesman added that the issue would be revisited “in due course”.

However, officials involved in the discussion said that any return of the €1.2bn will now have to be approved by the EFSF’s directors — which are the eurozone finance ministers. Such approval would likely take weeks, since in some countries it would require parliamentary sign-off.

Greece is expected to run out of cash as soon as April 9, when a repayment on a bailout loan is due to the International Monetary Fund...

[Demeter]

13. David Vitter Is Sick Of Europeans And Their Stupid Coins

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/25/david-vitter-sick-of-dollar-coins_n_6942482.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business

WASHINGTON -- The European continent has gifted some of history's greatest cultural icons to the world. The Louvre. The Colosseum. The Cologne Cathedral. Plato, Dante, Gibbon. The Clash.

But Europe has also committed great crimes. In particular, Europeans go around paying for things with coins valued in whole units of currency. Fussy Europeans use 1-euro coins and 2-euro coins, as if a paper note would not suffice. This abomination shall never be replicated in the United States, if Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) has his way. Because Charlemagne was overrated, and you know what? Fuck Pericles.

This week, Vitter filed an amendment with the Senate Budget Committee that would "strike out a provision that makes it easier for Washington elites to force Americans to give up their dollar bills and use dollar coins, like Europeans." Go ahead, read the whole amendment. It's only a page long, and it actually says that.

GOD HELP US ALL

[Demeter]

14. People and jobs are growing farther apart By Steve Goldstein

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jobs-within-typical-workers-commuting-distance-in-decline-study-finds-2015-03-25?siteid=YAHOOB

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — There’s a growing distance between people and jobs.
That’s according to a new Brookings Institution study, which looked at the number of jobs within typical commuting distance for residents in 96 major metropolitan areas. The study used the median commute distance for each metro area — which varied between 4.7 miles in the Stockton-Lodi area of California and 12.8 miles in the sprawling Atlanta area — to determine job proximity. Looking at data between 2000 and 2012, the study found there are 7% fewer commutable jobs for residents in a major metro area.

The study found that employment has “suburbanized,” and yet employment for suburban residents within a commutable distance actually fell more, by 7%, than employment for a typical city resident, which fell by 3%.

High-poverty and majority-minority neighborhoods saw particularly pronounced declines, the study found.

[Demeter]

15. How Poor Are the Poor? Thomas B. Edsall

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/opinion/how-poor-are-the-poor.html

There is a consensus among poverty experts that over the past 50 years there has been some improvement in the condition of the poor.

“Anyone who studies the issue seriously understands that material poverty has continued to fall in the U.S. in recent decades, primarily due to the success of anti-poverty programs” and the declining cost of “food, air-conditioning, communications, transportation, and entertainment,” David Autor, a professor of economics at M.I.T., wrote in response to my query.

Despite the rising optimism, there are disagreements over how many poor people there are and the conditions they live under. There are also questions about the problem of relative poverty, what we are now calling inequality. Poverty cannot be viewed in isolation from the larger economy. We must take disparities in the way the benefits of growth and productivity are distributed into account.

I set out to ask a number of experts about this in response to a controversial essay published in the current issue of the New York Review of Books, “The War on Poverty: Was It Lost?” by Christopher Jencks, a sociologist at Harvard with unassailable liberal credentials. Jencks argues that the actual poverty rate has dropped over the past five decades – far below the official government level — if poverty estimates are adjusted for food and housing benefits, refundable tax credits and a better method of determining inflation rates. In Jencks’s view, the war on poverty worked. The Jencks article and the response among those I contacted reveals how politically explosive and ideologically charged the seemingly arcane debate over the determination of the poverty rate is. Democratic supporters of safety net programs can use Jencks’s finding that poverty has dropped below 5 percent as evidence that the war on poverty has been successful. At the same time liberals are wary of positive news because, as Jencks notes:

It is easier to rally support for such an agenda by saying that the problem in question is getting worse than by saying that although the problem is diminishing, more still needs to be done.

The plus side for conservatives of Jencks’s low estimate of the poverty rate is the implication that severe poverty has largely abated, which then provides justification for allowing enemies of government entitlement programs to further cut social spending. At the same time, however, Jencks’s data undermines Republican claims that the war on poverty has been a failure – a claim exemplified by Ronald Reagan’s famous 1987 quip: “In the sixties we waged a war on poverty, and poverty won.”

Jencks’s methodology is simple. He starts with the official 2013 United States poverty rate of 14.5 percent. In 2013, the government determined that 45.3 million people in the United States were living in poverty, or 14.5 percent of the population. Jencks makes three subtractions from the official level to account for expanded food and housing benefits (3 percentage points); the refundable earned-income tax credit and child care credit (3 points); and the use of the Personal Consumption Expenditures index instead of the Consumer Price Index to measure inflation (3.7 percentage points).

Jencks’s conclusion: “The absolute poverty rate has declined dramatically since President Johnson launched his war on poverty in 1964.” At 4.8 percent, Jencks’s calculation is the lowest poverty estimate by a credible expert in the field.

No one casts doubts on Jencks’s expertise. Nevertheless, his conclusion — that instead of the official count of 45.3 million people living in poverty, the number of poor people in America is just under 15 million — understates the scope of hardship in this country. Other credible ways to define poverty paint a different picture. One is to count all those living with less than half the median income as poor. There are strong theoretical justifications for the use of a relative poverty measure. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development puts it this way:

In order to participate fully in the social life of a community, individuals may need a level of resources that is not too inferior to the norms of a community. For example, the clothing budget that allows a child not to feel ashamed of his school attire is much more related to national living standards than to strict requirements for physical survival.

Using one-half of the median income estimates the number of poor people at over 70.6 million, far above the 45.3 million official number, according to Shawn Fremstad, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

MORE MACERATION AT LINK

[Demeter]

16. How Wall Street Used Swaps to Get Rich at the Expense of Cities by Ed Walker

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/03/getting-rich-expense-cities.html


Yves here. This post by Ed Walker provides a detailed description of how badly municipalities have been fleeced when they bought interest rate swaps from Wall Street as part of financings. It isn’t simply that these borrowers were exploited, but that the degree of pilfering was so extreme that the financiers clearly knew they were dealing with rubes and took full advantage of the opportunity.

But what is even more troubling than the fact set here is the failure of the overwhelming majority of abused borrowers to seek to recover their losses. Walker describes that multiple legal approaches lead you to the same general conclusion: the swaps provider, as opposed to the hapless city, should bear the brunt of the losses. So why haven’t cities like Chicago, that have been hit hard by swaps losses, fought back? Walker does not speculate, but in the case of Rahm Emanuel, it’s not hard to imagine that his deep ties to Big Finance are the reason.

By Ed Walker, who writes as masaccio at Firedoglake. You can follow him at Twitter at @MasaccioFDL, and here’s his author page at Firedoglake.

A recent report by Saqib Bhatti of the Roosevelt Institute describes a number of financial deals between Wall Street and municipalities as predatory. Bhatti asserts that these dirty transactions have forced cities and states to cut essential services to pay off the financial sector. On Tuesday, Bhatti’s ReFund America project issued a new report specifically directed at the financial problems of Chicago and calling on the city to fight back in the courts and elsewhere against these deals.

One of the main problems arises from the use of interest rate swaps to create synthetic fixed rate municipal bonds. You’ll get great rates, cities were told, and these interest rate swaps will protect you against interest rate hikes. Risks were downplayed, if they were mentioned at all. The chief of these is the risk of downgrades in credit rating. In those cases, the swap could be cancelled, inflicting massive termination penalties on the city. Other risks include the inability to refinance into a lower interest rate, because the swap runs for a very long term, and payments would eat up any gains. Bhatti says the City of Oakland refinanced one of its bonds, and continues to pay for the swap; he says it’s “like paying for insurance on a car that was sold years ago”. Another trap was the pension obligation bond. The idea is to borrow the money needed to make up a shortfall in pension payments, with the idea that the pension plan would invest the funds at a higher rate of return than the bond after expenses. A third trap was Auction Rate Securities. These are short-term securities that have to roll over every month or two. If an investor in ARS wants out, but the city can’t roll the ARS over, the city is stuck with huge interest rate bills. This happened to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which saw interest rates jump from 4.3% to 20% in one week. The Capital Appreciation Bond works just like a negative amortization home loan. The city doesn’t pay interest or principal for a few years, then starts paying the debt off, with interest on interest. Chicago and the Chicago Public Schools have a bunch of these, with lifetime interest rates ranging from 141% to 459%.

Municipal borrowings have traditionally been paid in full. Even so, far too many cities and school districts have been forced to pay for “credit enhancements” which are just the same as higher interest for no reason related to actual market conditions. On top of that, the two big municipal bond insurers were downgraded because of their exposure to toxic real estate mortgage-backed securities, and in order to avoid getting hammered by accelerated payment provisions in their bonds, cities were forced to find alternatives that were much more expensive. Finally, the fees paid by municipalities are unusually high. There is no relationship between the services rendered and the fees, according to Bhatti. The impact of these transactions on cities is horrifying.

For example, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) paid $547 million in termination fees to banks on its interest rate swaps in FY 2012. It has been estimated that more than 40 percent of Detroiters’ water bills now go toward paying down these termination fees.

In fiscal year 2013, Los Angeles paid $290 million in publicly-disclosed financial fees, while it cut services, including road repairs, by 19%. Other cities have similar horror stories.

The Obama Administration has completely ignored the plight of the citizens of these towns. From the outset Obama decided to help banks and creditors, the people who caused the Great Crash, and to ignore the staggering problems facing debtors. This became certain when the administration refused to support bankruptcy cramdown, one of the few steps that would have actually helped debtors, while inflicting losses on the lenders who made bad loans...One crucial question is why more of these cities aren’t demanding better treatment. After all, they are run by politicians, who should be able to influence other politicians and other governmental agencies to help with the problems...MORE

[Demeter]

17. Dig that 300 pt drop in the Dow, and Oil Bubble Reinflating

Just water sloshing in the bathtub...

It occurs to me that the Weekend is coming....anybody got a theme, idea, artist? I don't...

[Demeter]

18. War Drums in Ukraine

The US House of Representatives Openly Calls for Regime Change in Moscow By Alex Christoforou

http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/25/4939


The US House Resolution to send lethal arms to Ukraine also calls for a long-term strategy for the overthrow of Vladimir Putin

Aside from the usually Congressional lust for war so as to secure their billions in military industrial complex campaign donations (slush funds), the key part of the House's bill, calling for lethal aid to Ukraine, has noting to do with Ukraine at all.

The resolution gets to the root of what America's elite really want...the dismantling, and subsequent resource plundering of the Russian Federation.

As taken from the US House Resolution:

Whereas the United States and its allies need a long-term strategy to expose and challenge Vladimir Putin’s corruption and repression at home and his aggression abroad;

Let that sink in for a second. The United States Congress has put, in writing, their goal to formulate a "long term strategy" to challenge the democratically elected President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. What would the US say if Russia's Duma or China's National Assembly voted through a resolution that stated a need to implement a...

long term strategy to expose and challenge President Barack Obama's corruption (trillions of lobbying dollars for political influence) and repression at home (police violence, NSA spying) and his aggression abroad (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Venezuela, Syria, Ukraine)."

MORE****

Russian Duma May Reauthorize Putin to Send the Russian Army Into Ukraine Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

http://fortruss.blogspot.mx/2015/03/russian-duma-may-reauthorize-putin-to.html

“The Russian Parliament ought to once again give the President of the Russian Federation to use armed force in Ukraine if the US decides to send sizable arms supplies to that country.” This announcement was made by the First Deputy Chairman of the “Just Russia” faction, Mikhail Emelyanov.

The US House of Representatives adopted a resolution on Tuesday recommending the US president to approve arms supplies to Ukraine. The resolution calls on the president to “use the authority provided by Congress to furnish Ukraine with lethal defensive weapons.” According to the authors of the resolution, this measure would “increase the Ukrainian nation’s ability to defend its sovereignty.” The authors of the resolution also exclusively blame Russia for the deaths suffered during the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. At the same time, they ignore the fact that a significant portion of the refugees is in Russia.

“We believe that our parliament should not ignore this resolution. If the US begins genuine lethal weaponry supplies to Ukraine, we should not be shy about supporting the militia, including with weapons, and to give the president the right to send military units on to Ukrainian territory,” Emelyanov told journalists.

In his view, Russia cannot allow Ukraine to be transformed into an “international militant aimed at Russia.”

He called the US Congress resolution “provocative.”

“It shows that the US is not interested in de-escalating the conflict in Ukraine. The US is trying to arm Ukraine at all costs, because it views Ukraine as a country that is tying Russian down, something that the US needs in order to prevent Russia from developing into a superpower.”

J.Hawk’s Comment: The US resolution is non-binding—Obama did not need it to send arms to Ukraine and he likewise can ignore without any consequences. The point of it is political. It makes Obama looks weak on foreign policy, and in a way it is part of the preparation for the 2016 presidential campaign where Hillary Clinton will almost definitely be one of the front-runners. Since she was the Secretary of State in the first Obama administration, foreign policy is naturally her “strong suit”, and therefore the GOP is trying to deprive her of it.

That said, the Obama Administration foreign policy team is full of neocons who just might once again gain the upper hand and push through something insane like that. Poroshenko could be tempted to start another military campaign to get the US to arm him. Therefore a reminder that Russia is ready and willing to push back is not out of place here. In fact, it is highly likely that the Russian response would involve what Emelyanov outlined.

Ukraine’s Oligarchs Turn on Each Other By Robert Parry

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/24/ukraines-oligarchs-turn-on-each-other/

Ukraine’s post-coup regime is facing what looks like a falling-out among thieves as oligarch-warlord Igor Kolomoisky, who was given his own province to rule, brought his armed men to Kiev to fight for control of the state-owned energy company, further complicating the State Department’s propaganda efforts, reports Robert Parry.

In the never-never land of how the mainstream U.S. press covers the Ukraine crisis, the appointment last year of thuggish oligarch Igor Kolomoisky to govern one of the country’s eastern provinces was pitched as a democratic “reform” because he was supposedly too rich to bribe, without noting that his wealth had come from plundering the country’s economy.

In other words, the new U.S.-backed “democratic” regime, after overthrowing democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych because he was “corrupt,” was rewarding one of Ukraine’s top thieves by letting him lord over his own province, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, with the help of his personal army. Last year, Kolomoisky’s brutal militias, which include neo-Nazi brigades, were praised for their fierce fighting against ethnic Russians from the east who were resisting the removal of their president. But now Kolomoisky, whose financial empire is crumbling as Ukraine’s economy founders, has turned his hired guns against the Ukrainian government led by another oligarch, President Petro Poroshenko.

Last Thursday night, Kolomoisky and his armed men went to Kiev after the government tried to wrest control of the state-owned energy company UkrTransNafta from one of his associates. Kolomoisky and his men raided the company offices to seize and apparently destroy records. As he left the building, he cursed out journalists who had arrived to ask what was going on. He ranted about “Russian saboteurs.”

It was a revealing display of how the corrupt Ukrainian political-economic system works and the nature of the “reformers” whom the U.S. State Department has pushed into positions of power. According to BusinessInsider, the Kiev government tried to smooth Kolomoisky’s ruffled feathers by announcing “that the new company chairman at UkrTransNafta would not be carrying out any investigations of its finances.”

MORE

[Demeter]

20. Ukraine's Oligarchs Joust, Putin Laughs By Leonid Bershidsky

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-25/ukraine-s-oligarchs-joust-putin-laughs

As if its festering conflict with Russia and war-torn economy weren't enough, Ukraine is facing a growing self-inflicted problem: a showdown between the government in Kiev and an influential billionaire with his own private army.

Sadly, this is not a righteous fight on either side.

The standoff -- which started last week -- entered a new phase today when President Petro Poroshenko fired the billionaire, Igor Kolomoisky, as governor of the economically and politically important Dnipropetrovsk region. The dismissal, ostensibly requested by Kolomoisky, comes as the two have been vying for control of state-owned oil pipeline monopoly Ukrtransnafta and oil and gas producer Ukrnafta -- a battle in which Kolomoisky has reportedly threatened to send troops to Kiev and actually deployed camouflage-clad fighters at an Ukrtransnafta office.

Initially unsure how to react, given Kolomoisky's stature as a leading opponent of the pro-Russian insurgency who sponsored volunteer battalions, Poroshenko went on the offensive. "No governor will have his own armed forces!" he tweeted on Monday. The head of Ukraine's domestic intelligence service deemed Kolomoisky's fighters an illegal armed unit and accused two of his deputies of hampering an investigation into a major smuggling ring. One of the deputies, Gennady Korban, spoke out against the government in response: "Thieves are sitting in Kiev today, and it's time for these thieves to go."

Kolomoisky has backed off, at least for now. Both the deputies resigned, and a pro-Kolomoisky rally in Dnipropetrovsk, originally scheduled for today, has been postponed until next Saturday, with the newly-appointed governor invited to take part. Pro-Poroshenko observers presented the developments as a victory for the government, which sees regaining control of state-owned companies as a crucial goal. But it might have as much to do with both sides' desire to see Ukraine secure financial support from the West. Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, met with Kolomoisky during the stand-off and said in a radio interview afterward that the Dnipropetrovsk governor realized "the law of the jungle" no longer applied, and that state companies needed to be run as the law required.

Nothing in Ukraine is clear-cut, though...

THAT HAS TO BE THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF A LIFETIME

[Demeter]

19. The millions in EU funding the BBC tried to hide

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/culturehousedaily/2014/02/the-millions-in-eu-funding-the-bbc-tried-to-hide/

Over the last three years the BBC has secretly obtained millions of pounds in grants from the European Union. Licence fee payers might assume that the Corporation would have been compelled to disclose the source of this money in its annual reports, but they bear no trace of it specifically. In the latest set of accounts, for example, these funds are simply referred to as ‘other grant income’.

Instead of making an open declaration, the BBC’s successful lobbying for this money had to be prised out of it using a Freedom of Information (FoI) request lodged for The Spectator, proving that there was never any danger of the state broadcaster’s bosses volunteering it willingly.

The FoI response confirms that BBC staff applied for, and accepted, about £3 million of EU funds between April 2011 and November 2013, most of which has been spent on unspecified ‘research and development’ projects, with the remaining £1 million spent on programming.

Next to the £3.65 billion tax-free income that the BBC receives each year via the licence fee, £3 million is, admittedly, a mere speck of dust – just 0.8 per cent of its annual guaranteed revenue and, obviously, even less than that when spread over 36 months.

However, the size of these EU gifts is arguably irrelevant, even though they are indicative of the BBC’s seemingly unquenchable thirst for public money. What is undeniably true is that the BBC has acted with characteristic slyness by concealing that it ever requested, let alone received, this European cash, suggesting that it is uneasy about the public being aware of its financial arrangements....

MORE

[Demeter]

21. House Republican budget crosses finish line, barely By David Lawder

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/26/us-usa-budget-idUSKBN0MK28Q20150326

Overcoming internal divisions on defense spending, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday narrowly approved a non-binding federal budget plan calling for $5.5 trillion in domestic spending cuts over 10 years.

The vote meant that House Speaker John Boehner avoided what could have been another embarrassing rebuke from his party's right flank. Instead, a complex series of votes engineered by Boehner succeeded and moved the budget issue to the Senate.

Voting there on a similarly non-binding resolution was expected on Thursday. The two chambers' spending blueprints will not become law, but they will likely influence later bills in the budget process and political campaigns....MORE

[Demeter]

22. Passage of ‘doc fix’ bill edges closer

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/passage-of-doc-fix-bill-edges-closer-2015-03-26?siteid=YAHOOB


Long-sought move would end annual patches for Medicare payment system



Lawmakers on Wednesday closed in on passage of a measure to permanently replace an 18-year-old formula for reimbursing doctors for Medicare patients, as support in the House swelled ahead of a vote Thursday and resistance faded among Senate Democrats.

The speed with which the package advanced marks a doubly rare moment for this Congress, as it involves a bipartisan agreement and the most contentious of subjects: a change to an entitlement program. For years, Congress has been gridlocked over even the most basic functions of government and wasn’t expected to find consensus on the delicate subject of Medicare.

The House package also would provide two years of funding for a program that provides health insurance to children from low-income families.

In the Senate, lawmakers expected to take up the measure after Congress returns from a two-week recess that starts next week. President Barack Obama also weighed in Wednesday, saying “I’ve got my pen ready to sign a good, bipartisan bill—which would be really exciting.”

An expanded version of this article is available at WSJ.com.


DETAILS! WE NEED DETAILS!

[Demeter]

23. Cow Mad in India

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/cow-mad-in-india.html

...Having once deemed cow slaughter a capital crime, earlier this month the party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi (The Bharatiya Janata Party) passed a law in the northern state of Haryana that makes the act punishable by only up to 10 years in prison.That law, along with a similar one recently passed in Maharashtra, brings to 20, out of 29, the number of states in India that completely ban cow slaughter. This, however, is a not-so-simple majority: Although the population of India is 80 percent Hindu and so largely non-beef eating, the beef ban’s advances have sparked considerable debate and confusion. You see, India is the second-largest exporter of beef in the world after Brazil.

Like all nationalisms, the Indian variety has its icons, and the cow features prominently in this pantheon. And ancient religious symbols like Kamadhenu, a heavenly cow often portrayed with a woman’s face, are routinely put to political use. In the early 1970s, for example, a popular election slogan of the ruling Congress Party was “Vote for Calf and Cow, Forget All Others Now.” During last year’s national election campaign, Mr. Modi attacked the ruling Congress government for the “pink revolution” in India’s beef exports. Yet since he has come to power, beef exports have increased — by almost 17 percent in April-November 2014 compared with a year before — even as his party has cracked down on domestic beef consumption. Mr. Modi gestures at traditional bucolic virtues to mask an aggressive agenda of export-led development.

--------------------------------------------------

S.K. Swami, the vegetarian Hindu founder of the Love4Cow Trust, a network of so-called cow-protection activists, had no strong feelings about the burgeoning beef exports. “There’s a confusion about the categorization of cattle,” he explained. “We work to promote the economic and scientific virtues of Indian cows. We don’t work for buffaloes or anything else.” He meant that the 1.89 million metric tons of beef India exported in 2012-2013 were derived largely from herds of the native water buffalo Bubalus bubalis. This beast is beef, according to the United States Department of Agriculture and the global meat industry, but in India it is known as “buff” and doesn’t count as forbidden flesh. The new laws apply only to Indian cows and bulls, mostly of the Bos taurus indicus subspecies, and possibly imported meats of the Bos taurus species.

The law, as they say, is an ass (subgenus Asinus).

----------------------------------------------------------

...economics: One consequence of the general taboo is that bovine flesh is often one of the cheaper forms of protein around, and a staple for many underprivileged communities. Cattle are still valued as a source of manure and draught power, and are left to reproduce freely at pasture. Restrictions on slaughter mean that herds in India are not culled as in countries with regulated beef industries, contributing to a large surplus of animals, particularly older males. In shops in Delhi, adult buff costs 180 rupees per kilo, compared with 420 rupees for goat. Perversely, this market mechanism is just what has driven the boom in buffalo exports and substantial cattle smuggling (including of cows) to Bangladesh: Foreign prices are much higher than local prices. “Since this government came to power, 80 new slaughterhouses have been built in Uttar Pradesh alone,” Mr. Qureshi said of the Modi administration. “And it’s all for export.” Which is why — another surprise — this butcher wants the beef-export business banned: Only exporters can afford to snap up the better stock. He said he longed for the “tender pink beef of our childhood,” and the buffaloes of Punjab and Haryana. “We can’t afford those animals any more; they all go to the exporters,” he said. The old India of small traditional butchers, he complained, is getting squeezed out by industrial-scale beef producers.

WELL, THAT'S A FINE KETTLE OF FISH! TALK ABOUT A PARADIGM SHIFT...MY HEAD IS SPINNING!

[DemReadingDU]

24. Matt Taibbi article about Andrew Bowden

You might recall that Demeter posted an article by Bill Black about Andrew Bowden on 3/20/15
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1116&pid=65748


3/25/15 Matt Taibbi: Regulatory Capture, Captured on Video
SEC official slobbers over private equity titans, suggests his son might want a job in the field
This is courtesy of Yves Smith over at Naked Capitalism, who's been following the strange story of SEC Examination chief Andrew Bowden's evolving position on financial corruption for a while.
That story blew up recently in a remarkable public appearance by Bowden, in which the would-be enforcement official cravenly compliments the industry he supposedly polices and then — get this — jokingly puts forward his own son as a candidate for a job in private equity. On video. You won't see a more brazen example of regulatory capture anywhere.
Some brief backstory. Just a little under a year ago, Bowden, the SEC's Director of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, gave a speech that was remarkably, unusually critical of the Private Equity field. Bowden had conducted a study of the Private Equity business and found that over half of the companies they looked at were guilty of ripping off their clients:
By far, the most common observation our examiners have made when examining private equity firms has to do with the adviser's collection of fees and allocation of expenses. When we have examined how fees and expenses are handled by advisers to private equity funds, we have identified what we believe are violations of law or material weaknesses in controls over 50 percent of the time.
To fully explain what Bowden is talking about here would require a much longer article, but the basics go something like this.
Private Equity reptiles like Mitt Romney make their living borrowing huge sums of money, millions and billions, from investors called "limited partners." They then take that borrowed money and acquire companies with that cash, sometimes with the company's consent, sometimes without it.

lots more, and short video...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/regulatory-capture-captured-on-video-20150325


direct link to video
3/17/15 SEC's Andrew Bowden at Stanford – A Regulator for Sale?
Andrew Bowden, the SEC's Director of the agency's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, speaks a bit too candidly at a March 5, 2015 conference at Sanford Law School conference, Emerging Regulatory Issues in Private Equity, Venture Capital, & Capital Formation in Silicon Valley.

[DemReadingDU]

25. Yves Smith about Matt Taibbi's article

3/26/15 Matt Taibbi Takes Up SEC’s Andrew Bowden Regulatory Capture Scandal

Matt Taibbi has written a characteristically informative, incisive piece about the embarrassing spectacle of the SEC’s Director of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, Andrew Bowden, making sycophantic remarks about the private equity industry at a recent conference, a story we broke early last week. It’s bad enough to see a regulator so besotted by firms he oversees; it’s even worse in light of statements Bowden made less than a year ago the widespread fraud and misconduct he said his examiners were finding. As we wrote in our original post:

Bowden stated that the SEC had found “violations of law or material compliance failures” in more than half the firms examined. Let’s not put too fine a point on this: the SEC said that most firms were stealing from investors, either by accident or design. Bowden confirmed that view, later telling the New York Times’ Gretchen Morgenson that “investors’ pockets are being picked.”

So far, the International Business Times, Bloomberg, the Los Angeles Times, Bill Black, Bill Moyers, and Truthout have taken up this incident. As with the Los Angeles Times, Taibbi weighing in means this is no longer just a business story but a broader political one, of the severity of regulatory capture.

The naivete is stunning. Bowden actually has convinced himself that he can “rehabilitate” private equity? What odds would you lay that he can change the behavior of an industry that is chock full of polished sociopaths? Even after cornering the market on the best legal talent in America to create complex documents that gives them air cover for a lot of their dubious practices, private equity kingpins apparently felt that making themselves obscenely rich wasn’t good enough. They still had to take more if they could get away with it.

As important, notice that Insider tells us that Bowden is singularly responsible for spreading this barmy “no punishment” gospel within the SEC.

It’s time to demand Bowden’s removal for his antipathy for doing a regulator’s job and demand that the SEC get tough with financial crooks, including the ones at the high end of the food chain.

more...
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/03/matt-taibbi-takes-up-secs-andrew-bowden-regulatory-capture-scandal.html

[Fuddnik]

26. Why wasn't this guy fired before he got back to his office?

Regulatory capture?

What he did was brazenly solicit a bribe in public!

[mother earth]

28. Have always been a Taibbi fan, and am now too a Yves Smith fan. Well done! TY, DemReadingDU.