It’s a new year, so the count restarts, and we have the first bank and credit union failures of the year.
For the banks
And the credit union closing:
Not enough data for the graph yet.
Yesterday, I heard the news that the 271 year old Swiss bank, Weglin, was shut down following a US Department of Justice investigation into their actions supporting tax evasion and money laundering.
It sounded too good to be true, and , as Yves Smith so eloquently points out, it was too good to be true.
The Nickel version is that the bank’s asserts were transferred to another entity, Raiffeisen, and the proceeds likely given to the owners in the weeks power to its being shut down.
Finally, the DoJ is saying NOTHING about whether the got information about the accounts, and the people who used them too avoid taxes.
This its a pretty good tell that they hour no data: If they had, they would be trumpeting it to the heavens, because they would thereby induce people to turn themselves in.
Go read the while thing, including the reader comments.
Posted via mobile.
The Banksters are terrified of the idea:
Senior banking and business figures spoken to by The Sunday Telegraph have revealed growing disquiet at Government plans for a referendum where one option could be an exit from the EU.
One senior banking executive said: “The whole issue has the potential to be very destabilising for the City.
“It risks playing with the future of the British economy for the next 30 years.”
We need to understand that big finance is not about what should be its primary function, getting capital to from those who want to invest it to those who need it, but it is about sitting athwart the economy and extracting rents.
Any economy that prioritizes shrinking and stigmatizing the big bankers will do better than one (like ours, see Obama/Geithner) that prioritizes the the “health of the existing financial system.”
The banksters are a cancer than need to be excised from our economy.
The latest investment dodge, leveraging green cards for investment capital:
At this remote outpost by the Canadian border, Bill Stenger is overseeing what he says is the biggest economic development project that Vermont has ever seen.
He is expanding the Jay Peak ski resort, which he co-owns, but he is also building a biomedical research firm and a window manufacturing plant, extending the runway at the local airport and rehabilitating much of the nearby town of Newport, where he lives. There, he is developing the waterfront, adding the town’s first hotel and a conference center and rebuilding an entire downtown block. He is also creating what he says is the largest indoor mountain bike park in the world and a state-of-the art tennis center.
The price tag for the entire project, which Mr. Stenger says will create 10,000 direct and indirect jobs over several years, is $865 million.
But even more unusual than the size of the undertaking is the method by which Mr. Stenger and his business partner, Ariel Quiros, are financing it. They have tapped into a federal program that gives green cards, or permanent residency, to foreigners who invest at least $500,000 in an American business — the reward for the investment is a chance at United States citizenship.
(emphasis mine)
It inevitable that any government program that “incentivises” the wealthy is an invitation to corruption and abuse.
Let’s be clear here: People who are investing are not interested in the return that they can get, they are buying a green card.
The whole Calvinist dichotomy that wealth is synonymous with virtue that the Pilgrims brought over is really completely unbounded in reality.
And here they are, ordered, and numbered for the year so far.
No banks for the last weekend of the year, so the number remains at 53 (Full FDIC list), but we did have the 15th credit union failure of the year, Chetco Federal Credit Union of Brookings, Oregon (Full NCUA list).
Here is the graph pr0n with last years numbers for comparison (FDIC only):
Much better than the last two years.
I missed the 53rd bank failure of the year last week, Community Bank of the Ozarks.
I think that it is highly unlikely that a bank will be closed next week, so it looks to be 53 for the year, which is a pretty good number.
Here is a graph of the FDIC closings.
Less than ⅓ the closings of 2010. Not so bad.
Joe Firestone notes that we are starting to see coverage in the media of the trillion dollar platinum coin:
Did the MSM’s new wave of commentaries on platinum coin seigniorage (PCS) miss the really big story about it? Of course, I think it did, and I’ll continue my review of the MSM commentaries with the efforts of Chris Hayes at MSNBC, substituting as host on the Rachel Maddow show (12/05 at 9:20 PM); and John Carney at CNBC (12/06 at 11:54 AM). This is my second review post on this subject.
Platinum Coin Seigniorage is the idea that the US Treasury can use its right to print coins or arbitrary value, (the Federal Reserve has this power with regard to paper and electronic currency) which can then be used to pay down the debt by depositing at the Federal Reserve.
I think that this is a good thing, and so does Firestone, but he takes issue with a couple of points made by Hayes and Carney.
First, he objects to their characterization that such an action is unlikely to happen. I disagree.
I understand his point, that the legal and economic barriers to doing this are not great, but the psychological and political barriers, particularly for two people as wedded to economic and financial orthodoxy as Barack Obama and Timothy Geithner does make the possibility that this strategy would be implemented to be vanishingly small.
The area where I disagree is his argument that using the coin won’t cause inflation.
While it is clear that if the coins are used exclusively to retire debt held by the Fed will not have much inflationary effect, Federal Reserve held Treasury Bonds are basically an accounting trick.
That being said, if you start retiring other debt, that money has to go somewhere, and if the trillions parked in US government securities need to find another place to park, one could expect these funds to slosh around and this would have an inflationary effect.
My more significant area of disagreement is his assumption that inflation is a bad thing, which is why he argues against the potential inflationary impacts.
I do not think that inflation right now is a bad thing. Given that we have a significant debt overhang, and inflation serves to devalue debt, favoring the debtor over the creditor, I think that inflation is a good thing.
In a very real way, we are in a position very similar to that at the end of the 1800s, when William Jennings Bryan gave his “Cross of Gold” speech.
Seigniorage is today’s free silver, and much like free silver, it is not a likely to be implemented, except as a bargaining strategy.
Case in point, HSBC, which was literally laundering drug cartel money.
It will not be criminally prosecuted because it is too big to fail:
State and federal authorities decided against indicting HSBC in a money-laundering case over concerns that criminal charges could jeopardize one of the world’s largest banks and ultimately destabilize the global financial system.
Instead, HSBC announced on Tuesday that it had agreed to a record $1.92 billion settlement with authorities. The bank, which is based in Britain, faces accusations that it transferred billions of dollars for nations like Iran and enabled Mexican drug cartels to move money illegally through its American subsidiaries.
While the settlement with HSBC is a major victory for the government, the case raises questions about whether certain financial institutions, having grown so large and interconnected, are too big to indict. Four years after the failure of Lehman Brothers nearly toppled the financial system, regulators are still wary that a single institution could undermine the recovery of the industry and the economy.
But the threat of criminal prosecution acts as a powerful deterrent. If authorities signal such actions are remote for big banks, the threat could lose its sting.
Behind the scenes, authorities debated for months the advantages and perils of a criminal indictment against HSBC.
Some prosecutors at the Justice Department’s criminal division and the Manhattan district attorney’s office wanted the bank to plead guilty to violations of the federal Bank Secrecy Act, according to the officials with direct knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The law requires financial institutions to report any cash transaction of $10,000 or more and to bring any dubious activity to the attention of regulators.
Given the extent of the evidence against HSBC, some prosecutors saw the charge as a healthy compromise between a settlement and a harsher money-laundering indictment. While the charge would most likely tarnish the bank’s reputation, some officials argued that it would not set off a series of devastating consequences.
A money-laundering indictment, or a guilty plea over such charges, would essentially be a death sentence for the bank. Such actions could cut off the bank from certain investors like pension funds and ultimately cost it its charter to operate in the United States, officials said.
Seriously. Burn, motherf%$#er burn.
If there is no rule of law, the banks don’t matter.
H/t Matt Stoller.
I know that this sounds like a joke, but I’m as serious as a heart attack.
The Euro (as it is currently structured, it should be called the Reichsmark, because it is structured by Germany to benefit it’s position as a predatory exporter) is of no real benefit to Italy, and Berlusconi is the only credible Italian political figure who is willing to say this:
The nation is richer than Germany in per capita terms, with some €9 trillion of private wealth. It has the biggest primary budget surplus in the G7 bloc. Its combined public and private debt is 265pc of GDP, lower than in France, Holland, the UK, the US or Japan.
It scores top of the International Monetary Fund’s index for “long-term debt sustainability” among key industrial nations, precisely because it reformed the pension structure long ago under Silvio Berlusconi.
“They have a vibrant export sector, and a primary surplus. If there is any country in EMU that would benefit from leaving the euro and restoring competitiveness, it is obviously Italy,” said Andrew Roberts from RBS.
“The numbers are staring them in the face. We think the story of 2013 is not about countries being forced to leave EMU but whether they choose to leave.”
A “game theory” study by Bank of America concluded that Italy would gain more than other EMU members from breaking free and restoring sovereign control over its policy levers.
………
Rome holds a clutch of trump cards. The one great obstacle is premier Mario Monti, installed at the head of a technocrat team in the November Putsch of 2011 by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the European Central Bank – to the applause of Europe’s media and political class.
Mr Monti may be one of Europe’s great gentlemen but he is also a high priest of the EU Project and a key author of Italy’s euro membership. The sooner he goes, the sooner Italy can halt the slide into chronic depression.
The sooner that someone who counts (not Greece, not Portugal, and probably not Spain) declares that the Euro is a failure, and that it needs to be abandoned, the better it will be for most of the people in the Euro Zone.
The Eurobanksters will lose, and Angela Merkel will lose, but the entire Euro Zone, including Germany, is now in recession because of German competitive needs, and German mythology. (it wasn’t the hyperinflation that brought the Nazis to power, it was the hard money contractionary policies, policies that the Germans are demanding for the rest of the EZ that did)
Absent Germany withdrawing from the Euro, the currency is doomed, and the sooner that it is abandoned, the better.
The Federal Reserve has made a major change in its targeting, raising its inflation target tfrom 2% to 2½% and stating that they will continue quantitative easing until unemployment drops below 6½%.
This is a very big deal for two reasons, first, it’s the first time that the Fed has ever linked its rates to employment levels, and second, it’s a marked departure from their previous statements which said stuff like, “ZIRP for the nest 6 months, and then we reevaluate”.
What they are doing now is much clearer, and makes it much easier to determine near term behavior.
I’m not a big fan of the “confidence fairy” theory of economics, particularly when used to justify “expansionary austerity”, but the opacity of the Fed has not served the economy; all it has done is to reinforce the “high priesthood” aspects of the Federal Reserve’s reputation.
Fed statement after the break:
Press Release
Release Date: December 12, 2012For immediate release
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in October suggests that economic activity and employment have continued to expand at a moderate pace in recent months, apart from weather-related disruptions. Although the unemployment rate has declined somewhat since the summer, it remains elevated. Household spending has continued to advance, and the housing sector has shown further signs of improvement, but growth in business fixed investment has slowed. Inflation has been running somewhat below the Committee’s longer-run objective, apart from temporary variations that largely reflect fluctuations in energy prices. Longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee remains concerned that, without sufficient policy accommodation, economic growth might not be strong enough to generate sustained improvement in labor market conditions. Furthermore, strains in global financial markets continue to pose significant downside risks to the economic outlook. The Committee also anticipates that inflation over the medium term likely will run at or below its 2 percent objective.
To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with its dual mandate, the Committee will continue purchasing additional agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month. The Committee also will purchase longer-term Treasury securities after its program to extend the average maturity of its holdings of Treasury securities is completed at the end of the year, initially at a pace of $45 billion per month. The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and, in January, will resume rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. Taken together, these actions should maintain downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, support mortgage markets, and help to make broader financial conditions more accommodative.
The Committee will closely monitor incoming information on economic and financial developments in coming months. If the outlook for the labor market does not improve substantially, the Committee will continue its purchases of Treasury and agency mortgage-backed securities, and employ its other policy tools as appropriate, until such improvement is achieved in a context of price stability. In determining the size, pace, and composition of its asset purchases, the Committee will, as always, take appropriate account of the likely efficacy and costs of such purchases.
To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends and the economic recovery strengthens. In particular, the Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that this exceptionally low range for the federal funds rate will be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6-1/2 percent, inflation between one and two years ahead is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal, and longer-term inflation expectations continue to be well anchored. The Committee views these thresholds as consistent with its earlier date-based guidance. In determining how long to maintain a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy, the Committee will also consider other information, including additional measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments. When the Committee decides to begin to remove policy accommodation, it will take a balanced approach consistent with its longer-run goals of maximum employment and inflation of 2 percent.
Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Elizabeth A. Duke; Dennis P. Lockhart; Sandra Pianalto; Jerome H. Powell; Sarah Bloom Raskin; Jeremy C. Stein; Daniel K. Tarullo; John C. Williams; and Janet L. Yellen. Voting against the action was Jeffrey M. Lacker, who opposed the asset purchase program and the characterization of the conditions under which an exceptionally low range for the federal funds rate will be appropriate.
2 weeks ago, a staffer at the Republican Study Committee published a study calling for common sense reductions in copyright regulation.
It was retracted in less than a day.
Now the author of this paper has been fired:
The Republican Study Committee, a [right wing even by the standards of Congressional Republicans(!)] caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives, has told staffer Derek Khanna that he will be out of a job when Congress re-convenes in January. The incoming chairman of the RSC, Steve Scalise (R-LA) was approached by several Republican members of Congress who were upset about a memo Khanna wrote advocating reform of copyright law. They asked that Khanna not be retained, and Scalise agreed to their request.
The release and subsequent retraction of Khanna’s memo has made waves in tech policy circles. The document argues that the copyright regime has become too favorable to the interests of copyright holders and does not adequately serve the public interest. It advocates several key reforms, including reducing copyright terms and limiting the draconian “statutory damages” that can reach as high as $150,000 per infringing work.
The interesting thing is that it is likely that the real effect of the briefly released memo may be that it moved the Overton Window, because the proposals appear to have gone from unthinkable to merely radical, which is a very significant move.
The 14th credit union of the year, Border Lodge Credit Union in Vermont, was closed November 30.
Should have included this in last week’s bank failure Friday.
Naked Capitalism has been writing for some time about how the SEC’s chief of enforcement, Robert Khuzam, has been hostile to the idea of actual enforcement, particularly with regards to reports from whistle blowers, but the latest case is indisputably corrupt:
Two days ago, we said it was time to fire the SEC’s chief of enforcement Robert Khuzami, who has not provided the tough policing warranted by the biggest financial crisis in the agency’s history. Our call was based on compelling evidence of failure. Specifically, a year and a half after Dodd Frank created a $450 million whistleblower fund, which Khuzami confirmed had produced hundreds of high quality leads, the agency had taken only one referral far enough to merit a payout, that of a measley $50,000. We stressed that this was an astonishing lapse:
… whistleblowers are insiders and therefore should in many cases have access to the sort of internal documents that would serve to substantiate conduct and save the SEC a ton of time. In other words, this should be a prime, potentially its best, source of leads, since the SEC would be further along in case development if any of these tips had meat (ie, both damning info and on target with a clear violation).
We didn’t anticipate that the story of Khuzami’s negligence would blow so big so quickly. Today, the Financial Times reported that three separate whistleblowers charged that Deutsche Bank had mismarked up to $12 billion in exposures to make it look healthier in 2008 and 2009 than it was, yet the agency had not acted on these allegations. And this level of window dressing most assuredly would make a difference.
………
Khuzami’s position is hopelessly conflicted. He was general counsel for the Americas for Deutsche from 2004 to 2009, so this behavior took place on his watch. Although he has recused himself from this probe, that’s inadequate. Recusal does not work when the people working on the matter in the end have the party with the conflict as their boss. They can’t pursue any real dirt that could implicate him without hurting themselves. If it came to naught, they’d still fear the risk of reprisal if he survived. And if he were forced to leave, they’d be faced with a new boss who might not be at all to their liking.
The only way to have an effective investigation is either to have Khuzami resign or to have the matter handed off to a completely independent firm (and even that’s a stretch, both from the agency side, and from the dearth of firms with decent securities law expertise that would be willing to face off against a major bank. Just as with the bankruptcy bar, you either work for the banks [the creditors] or against them [for the debtors]). It’s also a wee bit too cozy that Deutsche’s current general counsel is also a former SEC head of enforcement. And KPMG, the accountant that blessed all this highly dubious financial footwork, and Fried Frank, which led an investigation initiated by Deutsche and apparently found nothing much wrong, also don’t come out looking very good.
When you look Republican investigations of alleged Obama corruption, what is clear is that they are trying to gin up a false bullsh%$ like Benghazi and “Fast and Furious”.
This one is real, and it’s an accusation that would serve to benefit the Republicans politically, and unlike the investigatory theater that Darryl Issa favors.
Additionally, such an investigation might lead the white house to get tougher with the banksters, because it is clear that one of the administration’s conceits, notwithstanding the rapidly spinning revolving door (Elizabeth Fowler anyone?), is that they are a model of probity, and this, along with the political consequences, might produce some meaningful action.
The bankster lobbyists lost, and Elizabeth Warren will get a seat on the Senate Banking Committee:
Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), one of the harshest critics of the financial sector, is being tapped to serve on the Senate Banking Committee.
The Harvard law professor is expected to join Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on the committee in the next Congress, according to a Democratic Senate aide.
The decision is pending final approval from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), but would mean that Warren will play a lead role in overseeing the financial firms that have sparred with her for years over consumer protections and regulations.
Warren originally came to Washington as head of the government’s official bailout watchdog, and later served as President Obama’s architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which was created by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.
She butted heads with congressional Republicans as an adviser to the CFPB, and Obama ultimately selected one of her top deputies, Richard Cordray, to serve as its first director. Warren was recruited by Democrats to run for the Senate from Massachusetts, where she defeated Sen. Scott Brown (R) last month.
Boo Yah!!!!
So now they have decided to go after the disabled.
The Republicans in the Senate just killed a treaty on rights of the disabled:
The Senate rejected a United Nations treaty aimed at banning discrimination against individuals with disabilities Tuesday, falling five votes short of the two-thirds needed in a 61-38 vote.
The U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities calls on participating countries to work to attain equality in access to education, healthcare and more, and was based largely on the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It was negotiated by President George W. Bush’s administration in 2006 and has since been signed by President Obama. So far, 126 countries have ratified the treaty.
The treaty, which passed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before an attempt to ratify it through a voice vote fell flat in August, had a broad base of support, with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) standing next to each other Monday to implore senators to join their cause.
Former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), backed by his wife, fellow former Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), attended Tuesday’s vote to urge the treaty’s ratification. The former Senate majority leader looked on from his wheelchair as senators voted from their desks instead of approaching the room’s podium.
But many Republicans, who accounted for the 38 opposing votes, have been vocal in their opposition to the treaty, which they say infringes on U.S. sovereignty.
It appears that was as a result of the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories from the “whacko, my parents are first cousins, X-Files wannabe, black helicopter, tinfoil hat wearing, stupid, dim-witted, thinks pro wrestling is real,” lunatics*from the right wing of the home schooling movement that now defines the Republican base.
*Sorry, I think that I just channeled the comedian Denis Leary.
Last year, the government blocked the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, and the free-market mousketeers said that it was going to kill private sector investment.
Well, not so much:
Last year, the regulatory agencies charged with overseeing the wireless communications market did something unusual: they actually regulated. After spending the Bush years eagerly facilitating the consolidation of the wireless market, in 2011 the FCC and the Justice Department blocked AT&T from merging with T-Mobile over fears that the deal would be anti-competitive and result in job losses. At the time, conservatives in the media decried this move as gross overregulation of a burgeoning market that would dampen investment and stifle technological development. But here we are almost one year out, and those dire prognostications haven’t played out. In fact, quite the opposite has happened.
………
So what’s happened since then? Well, when the AT&T/T-Mobile merger was first announced, T-Mobile’s parent company, Deutsche Telekom, was looking to wash its hands of the U.S. market. But after the merger fell through and AT&T was obligated to fork over $3 billion to T-Mobile along with a sizeable chunk of wireless spectrum, T-Mobile took the money and invested it almost immediately in network modernization. Now Deutsche Telekom — once eager to be done with the U.S. — is moving to acquire low-cost carrier Metro PCS to build out T-Mobile’s high-speed 4G LTE network.
Meanwhile, the Japanese telecommunications firm Softbank is snapping up Sprint Nextel and infusing $8 billion into the wireless carrier, which will be used to build out its own network. Back when people still thought the AT&T/T-Mobile merger was a sure thing, it was assumed that Sprint would have had to merge with Verizon and we’d be left with a wireless duopoly. Now both Sprint and T-Mobile are investing in their own networks and working to emerge as serious competitors.
And what of AT&T? When the company first announced the proposed merger with T-Mobile in March 2011, it made much of the fact that it would “increase AT&T’s infrastructure investment in the U.S. by more than $8 billion over seven years.” Three weeks ago, AT&T bumped up that number significantly, announcing that “it would invest an extra $14 billion to expand its wireless and broadband services over the next three years.” The New York Times reported on November 9 that the decision to boost infrastructure investment “was motivated by AT&T’s failed $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile USA.”
As a rule of thumb, if a free market absolutist says that something is white, bet on black.
H/t DC at the Stellar Parthenon BBS.
Because it’s hit the New York Times:
Since 1974, when the Justice Department sued to break up the Ma Bell phone monopoly, Americans have been told that competition in telecommunications would produce innovation, better service and lower prices.
What we’ve witnessed instead is low-quality service and prices that are higher than a truly competitive market would bring.
After a brief fling with competition, ownership has reconcentrated into a stodgy duopoly of Bell Twins — AT&T and Verizon. Now, thanks to new government rules, each in effect has become the leader of its own cartel.
The AT&T-DirectTV and Verizon-Bright House-Cox-Comcast-TimeWarner behemoths market what are known as “quad plays”: the phone companies sell mobile services jointly with the “triple play” of Internet, telephone and television connections, which are often provided by supposedly competing cable and satellite companies. And because AT&T’s and Verizon’s own land-based services operate mostly in discrete geographic markets, each cartel rules its domain as a near monopoly.
The result of having such sweeping control of the communications terrain, naturally, is that there is little incentive for either player to lower prices, make improvements to service or significantly invest in new technologies and infrastructure. And that, in turn, leaves American consumers with a major disadvantage compared with their counterparts in the rest of the world.
On average, for instance, a triple-play package that bundles Internet, telephone and television sells for $160 a month with taxes. In France the equivalent costs just $38. For that low price the French also get long distance to 70 foreign countries, not merely one; worldwide television, not just domestic; and an Internet that’s 20 times faster uploading data and 10 times faster downloading it.
It’s not from their editorial board, it’s from former Times correspondent David Cay Johnston, whose beat is consumer protection and tax loopholes, but the fact that anyone gets space in the “Gray Lady” to suggest that deregulation will not create a telecommunications utopia is worth noting.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has effectively shut down Intrade, the online gambling house futures trading exchange, for US investors:
Facing accusations that it allowed American investors to bet on the outcome of wars and other world events without the blessing of regulators, Intrade announced on Monday that it was closing its Web site to United States residents.
The disclosure, which referred to “legal and regulatory pressures,” was released hours after American authorities sued the company, which is based in Dublin, over its popular trading network. Investors log on to Intrade by the thousands to bet on the outcomes of elections, the weather and even whether the United States will bomb Iran.
But in a civil complaint filed in federal court in Washington, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission took aim at the company and an affiliate for offering the contracts outside traditional exchanges and without regulatory approval. The agency also accused the companies of “making false statements” to regulators and violating a past order barring it from offering so-called prediction contracts outside traditional exchanges.
“Unfortunately this means that all U.S. residents must begin the process of closing down their Intrade accounts,” the company said on its Web site. “We understand this announcement may come as a surprise and a disappointment, and we apologize for the short notice and haste required to deal with this.”
I’m stunned.
I’m pleased, but I am stunned.
It’s a refutation of the philosophy of the “free-market mousketeers” who are inclined to allow all kinds of crazy sh%$ to pretend to be high finance, as opposed to a particularly abusive casino, in which the house takes even more than Vegas.
BTW, Intrade’s record sucked too, witness the gyrations in the 2008 Democratic and 2012 Republican primary markets.
Some people call the US Senate, “the World’s greatest deliberative body”. I call the US Senate, “A petri dish for narcissistic sociopaths,” thanks to the need for unanimous consent (of failing that a vote of 60 Senators) to proceed.
Theoretically, the Senate Democrats can change filibuster rules by a simple majority vote at the start of the next Congress.
Unfortunately, it appears that Harry Reid does not have the votes to make a meaningful reform:
Democrats don’t have the 51 votes they need in the Senate to change filibuster rules that could make it harder for the GOP minority to wield power in the upper chamber.
Lawmakers leading the charge acknowledge they remain short, but express optimism they’ll hit their goal.
“I haven’t counted 51 just yet, but we’re working,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a leading proponent of the so-called constitutional or “nuclear” option, in which Senate rules could be changed by a majority vote.
“We’re building the momentum right now,” Udall said. “It’s hard to say at this point, but I think it’s looking very good. The last two years have really helped coalesce people’s minds around the idea that we need to change the way we do business.”
The problem for Udall and other supporters of filibuster reform is that many veteran Democratic senators remember when the filibuster was a useful tool in their years in the minority.
In the tradition-bound Senate, these veterans aren’t thrilled with changing the upper chamber’s rules, particularly with the use of the controversial constitutional option — which has never been used to change the chamber’s rules.
It’s all well and good to respect Senate tradition, but part of that tradition was to use a bit of restraint, and using the filibuster for the little things.
It’s sh%$ like this that makes people voting for Republicans.
As repugnant as their agenda, and their values, are at least Republicans are willing to fight for them.