Schlagwort-Archive: #wallstreet

M. CHOSSUDOVSKY: Hillary Clinton: Wall Street’s Losing Horse? Constitutional Crisis? What’s the End Game ?, 01.11.2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS

Martin Zeis, 02.11.2016

In past days we’ve seen scenic occurrences and disclosures by Wikileaks (possibly from inside the US governmetal machinery) in regards to the presidential election process – in particular illicit, criminal practices by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Prof. Chossudovsky considers the questions:

Who is behind Wikileaks which released the E-Mails?

Who is behind FBI Director James Comey?

Has there been a shift in the Corporate Elite’s unbending support for Hillary Clinton? Or are the Elites divided?

What happens, if both candidates (Clinton, Trump) are “dysfunctional”. Is there a Plan B?

Below excerpts of Chossudovsky’s examination … full text is aattached.


01.11.2016 —

Hillary Clinton: Wall Street’s Losing Horse? Constitutional Crisis? What’s the End Game?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Since the release of FBI Director Comey’s Second letter to the US Congress, the presidential elections process has gone haywire, out of control. The bipartisan political apparatus is in crisis.

“I FBI director [James Comey] am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

Two important questions:



In both cases, we are dealing with powerful interest groups. CUI-BONO?

Has there been a shift in the Corporate Elite’s unbending support for Hillary Clinton? Or are the Elites divided? This is something to be carefully investigated.

FBI Director Comey (image right) did not take this decision on his own. While he was described as responding to pressures from within the FBI, the crucial question is: Who are the power brokers behind James Comey? What mechanism incited him to take that decision?

Does he have a relationship with Trump? Several media have even intimated that Moscow could have been behind Comey’s second letter. An absurd proposition.

The Trigger Mechanism (…)

The corporate elites are not monolithic. Quite the opposite. There are major divisions and conflicts within the ruling corporate establishment. What seems to be unfolding is a division between competing media conglomerates, with Murdoch’s News Corp Group (which includes the WSJ and Fox News) supporting Trump and the Time Warner – CNN Group supporting Clinton. In turn, these media conglomerates are aligned with powerful and competing factions within the corporate establishment.

Those who triggered the release of the WSJ report were fully aware that this would lead to a response by FBI Director James Comey, which in turn would contribute to weakening and undermining Hillary Clinton. (…)

Opposition to Hillary Clinton from within the Armed Forces

There is also evidence of resentment to Clinton from within the Armed Forces. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have expressed their opposition to the adoption of a “No Fly Zone” in Syria, which could lead to a war with Russia. Both the “No Fly Zone” as well as Hillary’s nuclear option “on the table” are the object of debate by America’s top brass. Referring to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, Hillary said “we will obliterate them”.

What Happens if She is Elected? If elected president, Hillary’s criminal record would haunt her throughout her term in office, leading to the possibility of an impeachment. The presidency would become totally dysfunctional from the very outset, which her corporate sponsors including the defense contractors and Wall Street would prefer to avoid. … If Trump is elected president, there will also be attempts to unseat him, calling for his impeachment.

If both candidates are “dysfunctional”. Is there a Plan B?

National Emergency Measures, Martial Law? Continuity in Government (C.O.G.)

Unquestionably the entire US bipartisan political apparatus is in crisis including US foreign policy, marked by the breakdown of diplomacy, America’s military agenda and the unfolding confrontation with Russia.

While it is difficult to predict what might occur in the wake of the November 8 elections, the unfolding political impasse –coupled with rising geopolitical tensions in Syria, Iraq as well as Eastern Europe on Russia’s border– could potentially lead at some future date to the suspension of Constitutional government under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) HR 1540, signed into law by president Obama on December 31, 2011. Most media have failed to analyze the far-reaching implications of this legislation.

The present impasse in the electoral process is a crisis of legitimacy characterized by the criminalization of the US State, its judicial and law enforcement apparatus. In turn, Washington is committed to a hegemonic US-NATO “war without borders” coupled with the formation of giant trading blocks under the TPP and TTIP proposals. This neoliberal macro-economic agenda has since the early 1980s been conducive to the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

These developments coupled with a potential constitutional deadlock point in the direction of rising political and social tensions as well as mass protests throughout the US which could lead America at some future date into outright suppression of constitutional government and the imposition of “martial law”.

There are multiple US “martial law” legislative procedures. The adoption of the “National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), HR 1540) would be tantamount to a repeal of civil liberties, the surveillance state, the militarization of law enforcement, the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act. (…)



globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 10.03.2016


—  The complete document with 170 signers is attached. —


Klicke, um auf Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf zuzugreifen




In our view, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another “too-big-to-fail” financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.


Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’ potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.


Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact the titanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.


The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public they can’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggest banks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall.
Signers (Institutional listing for identification purposes only): 


  1. Robert Reich, University of California Berkeley
    2. Robert Hockett, Cornell University
    3. James K. Galbraith, University of Texas
    4. Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research
    5. Christine Desan, Harvard Law School
    6. Jeff Connaughton, Former Chief of Staff, Senator Ted Kaufman
    7. William Darity Jr., Duke University
    8. Eileen Appelbaum, Center for Economic and Policy Research
    9. Brad Miller, Former U.S. Congressman and Senior Fellow, Roosevelt Institute
    10. William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City
    11. Lawrence Rufrano, Research, Federal Reserve Board, 2005-2015
    12. Darrick Hamilton, New School for Social Research
  2. Joseph Persky, University of Illinois-Chicago
    162. Julie Matthaei, Wellesley College
    163. Peter Spiegler, University of Massachuetts-Amherst
    164. James Ronald Stanfield, Colorado State University
    165. William D. Pitney, CFP, Director of Advocacy, FPA of Silicon Valley
    166. Ora R. Citron, CFP, Oak Tree Wealth Management
    167. Susan Webber, Former Associate at Goldman, Sachs & Co.
    168. Richard D. Wolff, Democracy at Work and New School for Social Research
    169. Mu-JeongKho, University College London
    170. Kevin Furey, Chemeketa Community College







Must read: Chris Arnade, Former Citigroup Trader, Explains How Wall Street Came to Own the Clintons and the Democratic Party

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 30.01.2016

Dear all,

in his open-hearted commitment Chris ARNADE, former Citigroup FX*-Trader, illustrates how Wallstreet took over the Clintons, the Democratic Party, the US-legislation, attendant creating the Monster of Universe, which sucks dry and destroys the whole planet.

* The foreign exchange market (forex, FX, or currency market) is a global decentralized market for the trading of currencies.

— the libertyblitzkrieg-article is also attached (pdf-file)  —
Former Citigroup Trader Explains How Wall Street Came to Own the Clintons and the Democratic Party
By Michael Krieger | Posted Friday Jan 29, 2016 at 1:45 pm
Former FX trader at Citigroup, Chris Arnade, just penned a poignant and entertaining Op-ed at The Guardian detailing how Wall Street came to own the Democratic Party via the Clintons over the course of his career. While anyone reading this already knows how completely bought and paid for the Clintons are by the big financial interests, the article provides some interesting anecdotes as well as a classic quote about a young Larry Summers.
„… I owe almost my entire Wall Street career to the Clintons. I am not alone; most bankers owe their careers, and their wealth, to them. Over the last 25 years they – with the Clintons it is never just Bill or Hillary – implemented policies that placed Wall Street at the center of the Democratic economic agenda, turning it from a party against Wall Street to a party of Wall Street.
That is why when I recently went to see Hillary Clinton campaign for president and speak about reforming Wall Street I was skeptical. What I heard hasn’t changed that skepticism. The policies she offers are mid-course corrections. In the Clintons’ world, Wall Street stays at the center, economically and politically. Given Wall Street’s power and influence, that is a dangerous place to leave them.
The administration’s economic policy took shape as trickle down, Democratic style. They championed free trade, pushing Nafta. They reformed welfare, buying into the conservative view that poverty was about dependency, not about situation. They threw the old left a few bones, repealing prior tax cuts on the rich, but used the increased revenues mostly on Wall Street’s favorite issue: cutting the debt.
Most importantly, when faced with their first financial crisis, they bailed out Wall Street.
That crisis came in January 1995, halfway through the administration’s first term. Mexico, after having boomed from the optimism surrounding Nafta, went bust. It was a huge embarrassment for the administration, given the push they had made for Nafta against a cynical Democratic party.
Money was fleeing Mexico, and much of it was coming back through me and my firm. Selling investors’ Mexican bonds was my first job on Wall Street, and now they were trying to sell them back to us. But we hadn’t just sold Mexican bonds to clients, instead we did it using new derivatives product to get around regulatory issues and take advantages of tax rules, and lend the clients money. Given how aggressive we were, and how profitable it was for us, older traders kept expecting to be stopped by regulators from the new administration, but that didn’t happen.
When Mexico started to collapse, the shudders began. Initially our firm lost only tens of millions, a large loss but not catastrophic. The crisis however was worsening, and Mexico was headed towards a default, or closing its border to money flows. We stood to lose hundreds of millions, something we might not have survived. Other Wall Street firms were in worse shape, having done the trade in a much bigger size. The biggest was rumored to be Lehman, which stood to lose billions, a loss they couldn’t have survived.
As the crisis unfolded, senior management traveled to DC as part of a group of bankers to meet with Treasury officials. They had hoped to meet with Rubin, who was now Treasury secretary. Instead they met with the undersecretary for international affairs who my boss described as: “Some young egghead academic who likes himself a lot and is wide eyed with a taste of power.” That egghead was Larry Summers who would succeed Rubin as Treasury Secretary.
The bailout worked, with Mexico edging away from a crisis, allowing it to repay the loans, at profit. It also worked wonders on Wall Street, which let out a huge sigh of relief.
The success encouraged the administration, which used it as an economic blueprint that emphasized Wall Street. It also emphasized bailouts, believing it was counterproductive to let banks fail, or to punish them with losses, or fines or, God forbid, charge them with crimes, and risk endangering the economy.
The use of bailouts should have also been a reason to heavily regulate Wall Street, to prevent behavior that would require a bailout. But the administration didn’t do that; instead they went the opposite direction and continued to deregulate it, culminating in the repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999.
It changed the trading floor, which started to fill with Democrats. On my trading floor, Robert Rubin, who had joined my firm after leaving the administration, held traders attention by telling long stories and jokes about Bill Clinton to wide-eyed traders.
Wall Street now had both political parties working for them, and really nobody holding them accountable. Now, no trade was too aggressive, no risk too crazy, no behavior to unethical and no loss too painful. It unleashed a boom that produced plenty of smaller crisis (Russia, Dotcom), before culminating in the housing and financial crisis of 2008.“
For related articles on Hillary’s long standing Wall Street love affair, see:


Pepe ESCOBAR: Oil to Recover by July, Saudis Digging Their Own Graves to Please Global Elite; RI 22.01.2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 22.01.2016

Dear all,

Escobar’s article – quoted in extracts below – corresponds with various reports/analysis around the dramatic oil-price-dumping and its outcome – for example:
Russia Breaking Wall St Oil Price Monopoly
By F. William ENGDAHL
New Eastern Outlook
primary source:
Oil, War, & Drastic Global Change
zerohedge, 16.01.2016

Martin Zeis