Global Economic Criminals - 2

Global Economic Criminals - 2

At any rate, Geithner became Summers’ "special assistant" ― pretty good for someone who had been trained out of the country and had been working confidentially and with a low profile for Kissinger before landing this job. Then Geithner became Assistant Secretary of the Department of Treasury, where he figured in the response and aftermath of the emerging-markets implosion of the 1990's, negotiating, among other things, "bailout" assistance packages for Brazil, South Korea, and Thailand, as well as the financial services agreement with Japan after that country’s financial collapse. This was when China's American-financed "industrialization" really took off.  

In 1997, Geithner served as a negotiator for the United States in the 1997 World Trade Organization’s financial services agreement. Note that it was the Clinton Administration that gave him this job ― Clinton being the President who spent an entire month of 1998 in China,  for mysterious reasons, planning what, we might ask? Note that Paulson has spent a lot of time in China just prior to the unfolding of events; he was there during the early Congressional inquiries, preventing him from testifying, even though none of those questioned were put under oath.  Back in 1999, Geithner became Undersecretary for International Affairs when Summers went on to run Harvard University. Over all of this period, Geithner was doing work involving China at a time when America's economy was being mercilessly sabotaged ― for so it is obvious to me ― through commercial real estate markets, WorldCom, Enron, and the collapse of American "dot-com" and other high-tech industries. These failures could be written off as coincidences, until it is discovered and confirmed that the entire Kleptastrophe was an act of war involving the teamwork of international financiers and the China princelings whose influence Henry Kissinger and only a few others serve as gatekeepers.

 The Zionist International Bankers and the leadership of Red China share core values and objectives.

I should add that the great people of China are being enslaved by the same international crime syndicate that is enslaving the U.S. In China, as the unorganized decent majority against the organized criminal minority, the Chinese workers, peasants, and others also share with the American people some common perspectives

Americans cannot simply "vote out corruption"; only massive
demonstrations of whole populations around the world can bring down the Money Power and its hold over the corrupt dictatorships, in which bankers dictate to "elected" political figureheads what your laws and your debts and your food ration will be.

In 2001 Geithner was employed by the International Monetary Fund. In 2003, Paul Volcker was one of those who recommended Geithner for the position of New York Federal Reserve Bank Chairman, the position from which he now conducts the execution of the Kelptastrophe, now in full swing. Paul Volcker, you may recall, was the Fed Chairman who played out the last act of the S & L scandal, by tightening the money supply after Fed Chairman Miller had overseen the hyperinflation which forced the S & L’s to invest in junk bonds and forced the banking deregulation that made that possible. Volcker then tightened the money supply to make debt more valuable, now that the Money Power held all of the IOU’s, and to collapse the commercial real estate market at the same time. The maneuvers ended in a sweet deal for Wall Street. Engineered by William Seidman, it was a deal no one was in a position to refuse, just like today.

Alan Greenspan, who, as mentioned above, was also being investigated for illegal gold trading by the Fed when he was saved by 9-11, He also backed Geithner for his new position as New York Fed Chairman. Former Treasury Secretary and Goldman Sachs alumni Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan, and Lawrence Summers also supported Geithner for the job. When you work for the Money Power, you are above Democrat-Republican partisan politics – similar to the relationship between Lieberman and McCain, one imagines.

Three of Geithners continuing confidants.

Almost immediately after Geithner took control of the New York Fed the team for the Kleptastrophe came together: no time is wasted in the world of the Money Power; when the safe crackers arrive, the crime must be executed as quickly as possible. In covert asymmetrical warfare, surprise is everything. The main coaches behind the plays are:

The plan had been in effect for a long time, and grand work had been done to set things up for maximum effect. The American people had been assaulted every night, in previous years, with phone calls offering instant cash and refinancing of existing debt if only they would increase the mortgage on their homes. How many people in India were employed in making these offers for the banks making these investments? Why did these lenders think that they could make these loans without fear of the consequences? Were they irrational and taking place of a group mania for mortgage lending, heedless of the risk? Definitely not. Economic agents ― especially the most experienced, the best informed, the ones hiring the best minds ― are not reckless, and they do not get irrational manias. They knew that, for them, the risk of the loans they were making would in some way "be taken care of," so that they need not screen their risks. The people making the offers and transacting the loans didn't know the plan, but those behind it all did. Those securitizing all of the mortgages and selling them internationally to the foreign holders of all of that cash accumulated from the year-after-year-after-year U.S. imbalance of trade knew that those international investments would somehow be made good; they knew that the titles to all of that real property gained in foreclosure after the calculated restriction of American purchasing power would be eventually bought back by the "bailout measures" stemming from the Kleptastrophe. While it is true that sub-prime mortgage lending increased from 9 percent in 2001 to over 20 percent in 2006, it must be remembered that the credit worthiness of the typical American household was declining and high-pressure sales were increasing the number of 2nd mortgage households in people who otherwise would not take the initiative to seek second mortgages.

Of course the tightening of the M1 money supply by the Fed resulted in increasing debt for households, and, with no means of earning more money to meet those obligations, there was greater pressure on Americans to refinance in order to cover that debt. (I did this, and I don't feel it was a character weakness of mine to have done so. It was the only way to keep the house and maintain my current standard of living, while hoping for a better income later to catch up to where I was, etc. I don't think I was alone in this.) The point is not that the rules were relaxed, but rather that more people at the low end were pushed through the mill under the old regulations. The blame must go to the few people controlling monetary policy and the macro-economic conditions, not all of the country’s big and little lending institutions’ all suddenly getting crazy at the same time. Only those bankers who were in on the Kleptastrophe from the beginning were those giving the orders to make irresponsible loans, and this group was definitely a minority of the national banking community. The predatory loans were the loans made to credit risks, heedless of the risk because the lender was counting on the Kleptastrophe to absorb all of the loss regardless of risk. Middle-class families did not fail to "think ahead" and accumulate too much debt to meet their obligations, rather they made the most rational decisions given their incomes and prevailing prices, only to have their budgets broken by price manipulations (oil, food etc.) by the international Money Power that was working toward the Kleptastrophe.

Normally there is no problem with high-risk loans. People are assigned credit ratings. The law of large numbers guarantees that a certain number of these will fail to make their payments and a certain number will come through; also, a "risk premium" is added to the interest rate to compensate, and everyone is happy. Nothing went wrong with that system. What happened was that the system was sabotaged from the outside by the Fed and the policy and practices of the investment banks that buy and sell on the loanable funds market, which Geithner and the New York Federal Reserve Bank Open Market Committee were influencing. Monetary policy and manipulation forced the mortgage crisis at the macro-economic level. The people who had their home foreclosed were not more lazy than at other times, and the loans were not extended heedless of the risk. Generally, building and loan companies and banks made sound loans, but they were not ready for the tightening of purchasing power by the Fed’s continuing to resist lowering the discount rate so that banks could inject the purchasing power that would enable people on the paycheck, grocery, rent, mortgage, and food loop to make ends meet. At the same time, to further increase the foreclosures, there was the monopoly restriction of gasoline supplies, monopoly pricing of gasoline to destroy the household budgets of mortgage holders, ensuring that foreclosures would come thick and fast to force the Kleptastrophe crisis to maximum effect.

If it weren't as I have explained, then all that would have collapsed would have been the sub-prime sector of the economy, rather than a catastrophe that reached to grab wealth and dry up credit in all financial markets, destroying the credit ratings of states, municipalities, and government agencies. Mortgaging our houses became the only non-shrinking source of purchasing power left in the economy. People understood, or should have understood, that the increased mortgage loans were keeping the economy out of a coma. But even as this new purchasing power from mortgage loans came in, the Federal Reserve was maintaining money supply tightening so that paying those loans and the interest on them would be impossible. The centralized financial system, overseen by a few corrupt men, is behind the Kleptastrophe. The participants did not suddenly get lax and give loans to obvious deadbeats, rather they beat the American householder with price increases and reduced purchasing power in the domestic economy until we are now almost dead.

Why was Goldman Sachs able to "dodge the bullet" in the securitized mortgage collapse? Why was it able to show a 79 percent increase in profits? What did Goldman know that others did not know, and how? How is it that Goldman Sachs has been spared of any merger trauma? Even though, now a publicly-traded firm, it is run like a partnership and, although it weeds its staff ruthlessly, it has never had hostile defections from its top ranks. They encourage their top people to leave early after great success.

When Geithner got to the New York Fed Bank, he immediately began close working association with the world’s leading expert in what we might as well call “applied financial kleptastrophe science,” Dr. Gerald Corrigan.

  Dr. Gerald Corrigan, the worlds leading expert
on "systematic financial shocks. 

Closely working with Geithner is a man with singular credentials. Corrigan is Goldman Sachs’ Managing Director and Co-chair of the Goldman's Risk, Global Compliance, and Controls Committee committees. He was President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1985 to 1993, and, from 1993 to 1995, he headed the Council on Foreign Relations. He is a member of the Trilateral Commission, Co-Chairman of the Aspen Institute Program on the World Economy, and a member of the Board of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. He is also a member of the Institute for Financial Stability, where he has been studying the conditions under which financial catastrophes obtain the conditions responsible for instability. From 1991 to 1993, he was Chairman of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, made up of other governors of the central banks of the "Group of Ten" countries. Corrigan joined the Fed in 1968 and spent 25 years there. When he left the Fed to join Goldman, he began there as Chairman of International Advisers and Senior Adviser to the Executive Committee. Not to be overlooked are Corrigan's membership in the "Group of 30," especially his role as Chairman of its Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group, whose  conclusions were summarized in a paper with a misleadingly reassuring name, "Toward Greater Financial Stability," also known as "the Corrigan Report"; and his role as Chairman of the Basel Committee and the Basel Accords, which mandated the restructuring of the U.S. financial system more to the liking of the international investment bankers and the central bankers they control.^**

The Group of 30 was created by the Rockefeller Foundation, and is today chaired by Paul Volcker. The "30" are the heads of the biggest international banks and central banks, other "leading financiers," and a small group of gifted mathematical economists who show them how things are done in the complicated realms of derivatives kleptastrophe. It was this Group which planned and promoted the total deregulation of derivatives markets that was very quietly passed by Congress while the public and the media were totally preoccupied by the "hanging-chad" controversy, which to the nation's shock and horror, was preventing the orderly election of a President in the month following the 2000 election. Of course the election "hang-up" was pre-planned as a distraction, a cover for this crime.

The Group of 30 examines, with presumptuous authority, the question of who benefits from any decision made in the public or private sector relating to foreign exchange, currency markets, international capital markets, international financial institutions, central banks, or the macroeconomics of any country. The Group’s commands and special study groups are created with experts on regulation to focus on modifications of national regulatory systems. They determine what regulatory system a country like the United States should have, and then they take measures to bring about that system. In 2007, the Group of 30 created the "Financial Regulatory Systems Working Group," aimed at institutional reorganization, in effect, picking the kind of regulatory environment international finance wants for itself and its competitors. Their assignment: to devise revisions of the financial regulatory systems of the U.S., Britain, China, Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore, Kuwait, and Qatar, among others. Of course, the question of how the international financiers would get the United States Congress to make these modifications on the basis of these special interests and not any of the interests within the domestic economy is not unlike Paul Wolfowitz's question of how to get a nation to invade Iraq after the Cold War is over and people are looking forward to peace and prosperity in a peaceful world.

Wolfowitz had his "direction for the next century," a plan of pre-emption and unilateralism, and as Professor of International Relations and Dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, Wolfowitz led the study called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), spelling out the necessity of the U.S. taking down the enemies of Israel, begining with Iraq. But Wolfowitz knew that a catastrophe, a "new Pearl Harbor" would be necessary to motivate Congress and the public to not resist a President taking up those policies. The Group of 30 also had their New Economic World Order in mind. Did I mention that Geithner and also Corriganare members of the Group of 30?

The Corrigan Report of July 2005, written when he chaired the Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group, described efforts to identify the variables producing "systematic financial shocks," the kind of shock "inflicting serious damage on the financial system and the real economy," and to find ways of "managing" the damage caused in such shocks ― the kind of shock, according to Corrigan, "that cannot be sorted out in the market place." It was a study of determining "our capacity" in an environment of "complexity and tight linkages" to “anticipate specific triggers" of systematic financial shocks, and of analyzing and calibrating whatever "shock absorbers" are available. The report called for leaders of major regulatory agencies to strengthen "institutional, behavioral, and risk management arrangements" affecting "private pools of capital and virtually all other classes of market participants … in a context in which speed and complexity of activities ... cannot be managed or supervised by reliance on detailed rule books" and where one must avoid "the counterproductive information overload problem associated with public disclosure."

Global Economic Criminals 1 - 2 - 3