Showing posts with label Money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Money. Show all posts

Saturday, 14 July 2012

Corporations And Tax US Stylee

I found some remarkable facts about US corporations and how they pay tax. Beleave or not some Corporations just do not pay tax, they get rebates. Ha ha hee hee. Did you know that US corporations pay less tax than the lowest-income Americans?

Some figures below are taken from Think progress conomy website.

Pepco Holdings (–57.6% tax rate), General Electric (–45.3%), DuPont (–3.4%), Verizon (–2.9%), Boeing (–1.8%), Wells Fargo (–1.4%) and Honeywell (–0.7%) These are few of the thirty corporations who got paid rebates totaling nearly 11 million dollars. Their pretax profits were $ 160 million.
Seventy-eight of the 280 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2010…In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $156 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $55 billion in income taxes as the 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they reported negative taxes (often receiving outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury), totaling $21.8 billion. These companies’ “negative tax rates” mean that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.
At the end total figures are corporations paid only 11% tax, and low-income Americans paid 17.5%. If you are reading this, I advice you to become a corporate tax lawyer, and cream it.

And talking about tax in US there is some more dirt.  The combined 2011 federal tax for eight companies, the likes of, IBM , Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Microsoft, Apple and Oracle , Cisco and google. All relied on government and military innovations.

By the way are so called derivatives traded by banks taxed. No. Do you know the amount traded? More than a Quadrillion dollars. Hmmm.

I got these facts from an article in Commom dreams.



Friday, 24 February 2012

Bangladeshi Conundrum

A lady living in Bangladeshi put a comment on my blog. It was not a comment but a link to her own blog. This must be another way to attract others to your blog. Hmmm No not for me. So my interest turned to the nation of Bangladeshi.

In 1980's Us Uk etc etc started a new gimmick called offshoring. Very well planned action. Yes the company who takes their factories to places where lobour is cheap statred making big profits. So they went to Bangladeshi.

In the latter part of the 80s or early part of the 90s, a large retailer (don't remember which one) thought it would be a good idea to bring an employee of a factory in Bangladesh to America to see how the clothing the factory was producing was being marketed to Americans. So a Bengali woman was selected to represent her factory and brought to America. This idea didn't work out well. The woman not only saw how the products were being marketed but how much they cost and she was infuriated. She knew what she and her coworkers were being paid, about two percent of the price of the garments. She did not remain silent and was quickly sent back to Bangladesh. Here is the gist of her story:



She said she and her coworkers were not financially better off after being hired by the factory. Yes, the wages were better than those that could have been earned before, but they weren't much benefit. Why? Because when the paychecks began to arrive, the local landlords and vendors increased prices on everything, so just as before, all of their incomes went to pay for basic necessities. The landlords and vendors got the money; the workers were not better off, and those in the community who were not employed by the apparel factory were decidedly worse off. It fact, it quickly became apparent that the workers were working for nothing. They did the work; the landlords and vendors got the pay. But, of course, the country's GNP was better, which is all that matters to economists who still claim that Bangladesh's economy is improving.


And although Americans were able to buy the apparel more cheaply than they could have before the manufacturing was offshored, the American apparel workers who lost their jobs are decidedly not better off.




What is Pensions Reform Agenda

Arizona's Police Pensions lost $ 1.8 Billion without any accountability. There is a big move to reform the pentions in Arizona.

Now in Britain there was a Pensions Reform Act which got the OK from the Queen in december last year. Now I do not understand this even though I went to a public meeting with the that time Home Minister D Blunkett. It was a facade which can be seen through by any child. Ok we were all given certain ideas for pention reforms. There were I think 5. We had to vote which one's are better than others. I asked the boffin there "What if  have a different suggestion?".  He informed me, "Write to the Home Office, we cannot discuss them here now!". Bloody good that is. So I voted for the worst one. Take that you ignorant piece of Sxxxte.

My question is was there any bad accounting in UK pension funds which was discovered in 2006 or so when everything started going tits up, and they are not telling us.

Will the Greece Default bankcrupt Wall Street?

Comments well come!

I have been following the Greek economic status. I thought they might default by January and even took a bet with a mate and lost. Damn!

Now it seems to be Ok dokay. Question is how long will it last. The Policy makers and the government have been divided. People are divided. My experience with Greek people made me believe that they are not paying their taxes properly. Not verified with facts.

Recent articles suggests that, with some facts, by March they will default. Do you think I can take a bet go "double or quits" with my friend. I found this in an article in Yorkshire Post

Speaking to the Yorkshire Post during a visit to Leeds, Dr Stelzer said: “It’s only a matter of time before they (Greece) go bankrupt. They are bankrupt now, it’s only a question of how you recognise it and what you call it.

“Certainly they will default...maybe as early as March. If I were them I’d get out (of the euro). They would be in better shape if they had their own currency.”

He added: “If they (Greece) leave the euro, the euro would probably strengthen because it wouldn’t have this drag any more.”
And further in my reading I came across this term "Derivatives", and found out that the bet I took with my friend can be taken as a derivative. I am a financier ha ha.

So one asks what the heck this got to do with Greece huh? In a bit.

Now read this from:

According to the Comptroller of the Currency, nearly 95% of the banking industry’s total exposure to derivatives contracts is held by the nation’s five largest banks: JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, HSBC, and Goldman Sachs. The CDS market is unregulated, and there is no requirement that the “insurer” actually have the funds to pay up. CDS are more like bets, and a massive loss at the casino could bring the house down.

I, mistyfied about all this wanted to find out more, and found an organisation called the International swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), which has as it's members major banks and hedge funds including above mentioned US banks. So one of the duties of this organisation is to determine whether a 'certain event' is actually a default. If a 'credit event' is at a default the CDS's come into play. So the very same banks who decide this are the same banks who own them. Bloody nice way to do one's business.

Now the interesting bit. There was a bank called MF Global who lent money to Greece and took CDS's with major banks in US. So when the ISDA declared that Greece is not at a default and made to take a 'hair cut' of 50 % , MF Global could not play the CDS's and went bankcrupt. So the very same banks who insure the lender, and take premiums, decide whether to pay or not. Greece went down with 50%, and ISDA decided it is not a default. What percentage makes it a default? No one can tell us. Hope Greece defauls and bring these blood suckers down!

article: and article helped me to reserch this. THere may be errors. If you find them please do comment.






Saturday, 18 July 2009

Credit Rating

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/loans/credit-rating-credit-score

Universal credit ratings are a myth, they don't exist in the UK. Each lender scores you based on its ‘perfect customer’ wish list. Yet so many people are under this misapprehension, and look for info on it, we've had to deliberately mis-title this article.

This is a step-by-step guide to how banks and others assess you, and how to boost your ability to get mortgages, credit cards and more. It includes details on hidden fraud scoring, a trick to instantly get all your credit files for free, and the unique, quick Credit Checker tool that assesses your history and allows you to work out your credit weakness.

Get a loan, mortgage, overdraft, credit card, contract mobile phone or even monthly car insurance and lenders ‘score’ you to predict your likely behaviour. Scoring systems are never published and differ lender-to-lender, and product-to-product. So just because one company rejects you, it doesn't automatically mean another will.

Credit scoring doesn't just dictate what products you'll receive, but also how good the ones you actually get are. For example, most loan rates are ‘typical', meaning the APR depends on your credit score; with credit cards, if your score's too low for the sexy deal you wanted, you might get accepted but sent a different product.

There are two big myths to clear up though…

Universal credit ‘ratings’ and ‘blacklists’ DON’T exist.

It mightn't feel like that though, as while each lender scores differently, the information they use is similar. A bad risk for one lender is often a bad risk for others too. You'll be given a different credit rating by each of the three credit agencies (a snapshot on the day you get it). But lenders use that score as just one part of their decision to lend, and each lender will look for a different type of borrower.

Lenders aren't obliged to dole out credit.

Applications are aggregated into millions, and banks prefer to deny a few good quality applicants rather than overspend on personalised vetting procedures or accepting large numbers of unprofitable customers.



It’s all about how financially attractive you are...

Many people still find it deeply frustrating that they get rejected. Yet as the saying sometimes goes, “it's not you, it's them”. While it's crucial to check for errors and do all you can to be as attractive to a lender as possible, sometimes you just aren’t what they’re looking for. Think of it like this:



Jane Bank and Sarah Lender are out on the pull. Neither like guys who are overweight, and both are looking for dark hair, dark eyes and good looks. Yet while Jane leans towards guys with a stubble, Sarah likes a clean shaven man. While Jane likes intense men, Sarah values a sense of humour. So while there's lots of guys they both reject without question, and some they both lust after, they can still end up fancying different blokes.


Credit scoring works the same way. Different companies are looking for different things so a rejection by one doesn't necessarily mean a rejection by all. Yet some borrowers are unattractive to almost all lenders so if you're a bad risk most will turn you down. However, a few (very few in the credit crunch) may have a fetish for those with poor credit histories as they can charge more.

And sadly for those rejected, just as when the guys ask Sarah or Jane why they're not interested, they just say: "Cos I don't fancy you," and that's about it. We don't always get to know other than: "Your credit score wasn’t high enough."



The aim of this guide is to make sure that lenders see you in the best possible light, that when they’re looking at you, you’re always dressed up to the nines, looking as hot as you can, and your skirt/shirt isn't tucked into your pants without you knowing.



Credit scoring's about profit not risk...

This is so important, let's make it as clear as possible.

Even good risks can be rejected simply because they won't make the bank money!

Banks pick customers for their own good, NOT yours, so the scoring process is about profit not risk. Of course, risk plays a part, as those unlikely to repay are a threat to profits. Yet even the most solvent may be rejected if they're unlikely to act in a way that'll generate profit for lenders.

The credit crunch has only magnified this. The sooner we understand banks are there to make money, not help us, the better we can play the system

It’s about sophisticated customer weeding

At the high end, the whole process is about lenders picking their perfect customers, and their reasons for rejection can seem bizarre on the outside, but make perfect sense to them. For example…

Credit card companies may reject you for always repaying cards in full.

While you feel like the perfect punter, for credit card companies, you’re a nightmare. If they can spot this trend, you’re likely to be rejected. The most profitable credit card customers are those who are perpetually in debt, never defaulting, but always managing to meet the minimum repayment.

Pay off in full every month, don’t use cards enough, or always shift debt to 0% cards, and if they can spot you, they may reject you.

Banks score you based on products they'd like to sell you in future.

Imagine this scenario: a bank wants new mortgage customers, yet that’s a costly sell. Instead, it draws you in with a current account paying a high rate of interest on a small amount kept in it. Yet, when you apply, rather than scoring you as a bank account customer, it could actually be scoring to see if you’re likely to be a profitable mortgage borrower in the future.


What they know about you
Banks use a variety of information to make their decision whether to lend to you, including data held by three companies known as ‘credit reference agencies’: Experian, Equifax and Callcredit. Yet the info they have is by no means comprehensive.



What banks know about you…

There are three prime sources of information used for scores.

The application form.

Here, lenders obtain the crucial details of your postcode, salary, family size, reason for the loan and whether you're a home owner. Ensure you fill the forms in carefully. One slight slip, such as “£2,000” salary rather than “£20,000”, can immediately kibosh any application and possibly future ones too. See the fraud scoring section

Past dealings with the company.

Companies use any previous dealings with you to help assess your behaviour, though complicated data protection rules can limit which separate units of a company can communicate to each other. This could mean if you've behaved well with one company, but poorly with others, it's more likely to give you credit.

Credit reference agency files.

Experian, Equifax and Callcredit compile information, allowing them to send data on any UK individual to prospective lenders. All lenders use at least one agency when assessing your file. This data comes from five main sources:



Electoral roll information. This is publicly available and contains address and who lives with whom details.

Court records. County Court Judgements (CCJs) and Bankruptcies indicate if you have a history of debt problems.

Search, address and linked data. This includes records of other lenders who've searched your file when you've applied for credit, addresses you're linked to or other people you have a financial association with.

Fraud data. If you've committed a fraud (or someone has stolen your identity and committed fraud) this will be held on your file under the CIFAS section. More on that below.

Account data. Banks, building societies and other organisations compile details of all your payments and transactions on credit/store cards, loans, mortgages, bank accounts and mobile phone contracts. In theory, they could also hold your record of paying utility bills, though few, if any, utility firms submit the necessary data.

Around 350 million records a month are tracked including details 'default data', where you're officially in default, and 'full data' which incorporates how you generally operate the account, from being the model customer to defaulting.

‘Default data’ has always been shared by financial companies but now ‘full data’ is shared too. This means each lender now has access to all information about you from other organisations.

Now, the 'full data' that credit card companies share about you is increasing. From 1 December 2008, Barclaycard, Capital One, GE Money, HBOS and MBNA began sharing a lot more.

As well as your available credit, actual debts, and whether you've missed repayments, they'll include the amount you repay (ie, if it's the minimum, or repaying in full) and whether you've a promotional deal (plus, if you use credit card cash advances, which you NEVER EVER should).

While, overall, the aim is to stop irresponsible lending, we suspect lenders are salivating that they'll now have info to score out those customers who play the system, and constantly shift from 0% to 0% deals.

What banks don't know about you…

There are many myths about what information is held on credit files. Don't be fooled, though. They hold an enormous amount of financial data, but not everything.

The following things are NOT listed on your report that lenders can see:

Parking or Driving Fines. Any fines you have incurred, for example parking or driving fines. Even though they’re issued by the courts they aren’t ‘credit’ issues so they’re not listed.

Race, Religion, Colour. None of these personal details about you are held.

Whether you've checked your file. While this info is held, and does appear when you check your file, it isn't passed on to lenders and doesn't play any role in any assessment of you.

Salary. How much you earn isn't on your file either, though you will usually be asked on the application form.

Savings Accounts. As savings are not a credit product they don’t appear on credit files.

Medical History. Medical problems you may have had in the past aren't listed.

Criminal record. No criminal convictions are listed.

Child Support Agency. Information from the Child Support Agency is excluded.

Information on relatives. Provided you don’t have any joint financial products (see later) there is no information about members of your family who live, or have lived, with you or any other third parties.

Student Loans (for some). Until recently, no info about official Student Loans Company loans was passed to credit reference agencies, unless you had a County Court Judgement (CCJ) against you for lack of payment. That meant they don't know whether you have one or not.

However, in early 2009, the SLC has said it will start including defaults on old-style 'mortgage-loans' which students who started Uni pre-1998 have, as part of credit reference agency data. This doesn't apply to the modern loans which are paid through the tax system.

Declined applications. Lenders can only see whether you've applied for credit elsewhere, not whether you've been accepted or declined. However, they may be able to guess by examining the credit accounts you have open.

Some defaults or missed payments. Usually, these stay on your file for six years, so anything before that may be wiped off. However, if you close an account, then missed payments could remain on your file until the sixth anniversary of account closure. With bankruptcy, it is wiped six years from the date you're declared bankrupt, as long as you're been discharged from the bankruptcy.


Check your credit files for free
As every company uses a different credit scoring procedure, pinpointing how any given one will view you is impossible. Yet keeping an eye on your general credit healthiness is important.

You’ve a statutory right under the Consumer Credit Act to write and get your files, yet this is slow and costs £2 per agency (see the officially checking credit files note). Instead, there’s a trick to instantly get more detailed info online for free at the two main agencies (see the section below). After you’ve done this, have a play with the quick, anonymous credit checker below to see if you can improve your score too.

How many and how often?

If possible, check all three agencies, as there’s no harm. While doing a check is recorded on your file, it does NOT add a ‘credit search’ that a lender can see, so has no impact. It's worth checking because an error can cause you a problem. It’s a good idea to do a check-up roughly every year to 18 months, and always do one in good time before making any important applications.

If time is short and you can only use one, then choose Experian or Equifax.



Check your file for free online...

Credit ratings have become big business. In the old days, the agencies made their money flogging their data to lenders, but our desire for credit means they spotted a lucrative market to sell it back to us too. Luckily, this leaves open a nice loophole.

The top end service offered is ‘credit monitoring', which costs around £70 a year (find out more about other credit services ). To tempt you in, they offer free month-long trials, which require you to set up a Direct Debit or regular credit card payment.

Of course, the aim is you’ll not bother to cancel it when the month’s up so it still drips from your account, so much so, often it may look like you're just signing up for a freebie, until they ask for your card details, that is.

The Trick…

As part of the monitoring service you get to see your credit file online whenever you want, and laid out in a much easier to understand way than if you order the statutory file.

Therefore sign up, then view your file at no cost (you may be able to do this instantly, though may have to be posted a passcode), and then cancel the subscription. Even though they allow 30 days, it's best to cancel straight away, as leave it a month, and you may forget.

The different systems are as follows:

Experian’s Credit Expert.

Details: Credit Expert* offers a ‘free 30-day trial, then £6.99 per month' service which includes your credit report, so if you want your credit reference file just sign up and cancel this. Don’t confuse it with the Credit Score service which costs a one off £5.95.

How to cancel: It makes it very easy, just call the free-phone number 0800 656 9000.

Equifax’s Credit Watch Gold.

Details: Credit Watch Gold* has two options, one at £7.50 a month, but the one you need to choose is the ‘Free for 30 days and then £69.99 for the year'. When you sign up, a payment card will need to be authorised but the £1 fee is not actually charged to your card if you cancel in time.

How to cancel: To request cancellation call 0870 0100583 and quote your account reference.

If you're worried about hassle, then the best system is simply use the official credit checking system.

Get paid to check your file

And even better, you can sometimes get paid up to £7 to check your credit file if you go via a Cashback Websites. It’s worth checking.





What to check on your file
Once you’ve got your credit files, the key is to check the accuracy of the info that banks are judging you on. As we're talking billions of pieces of data, there are always mistakes. So, quite simply…

Check EVERYTHING! One mistake can be a hammer-blow to credit applications

First, the obvious stuff. Are all your debts correctly listed? Are there any inaccuracies on your repayment history?

Yet other details are important too. Check your present and past address details. Errors here can lead to you being judged on someone else's credit history. Also, your finances may be incorrectly linked with someone else's. Focus especially on any currently active accounts. If they're still open, even if you haven't used them for years, it can cause problems.



What to do if there's an error?

If you disagree with anything on your file, just write to the agency and request it's changed. If the agency agrees it should quickly change the file, though sometimes you'll need to talk to the company that originally filed the data.

Unfortunately, sometimes it may refuse to amend your file. If this happens you're entitled to add your own comments as a ‘notice of correction'. This will often mean your credit applications take longer, but it may help you to obtain better deals.

Don't go on too much when explaining the error, though, and don't overly berate. Be concise, explanatory and factual.


Fraud Scoring... the hidden credit killer.
When you apply for a product, it isn't just a case of assessing whether you're desirable, but also checking that the application is legitimate. Therefore, as well as the credit reference agencies, lenders also use completely separate anti-fraud agencies to try and weed out problems. The two big ones work in very different ways

National Hunter. Spots anomolies on application forms, so be consistent

How it operates. This system's much less factual and therefore is prone to greater errors. However, it's used by almost all major banks and building societies, receives 100,000 applications a day and has a real impact, yet is very rarely mentioned.

It works by looking for inconsistencies between your current application form and any past applications you've made, trying to spot factual errors. While it can't block your application itself, it triggers a red warning flag to lenders, and this happens roughly 1 in 20 times. Lenders can then check the info, and either ignore it, or do further checks. They are not allowed to reject you based on the National Hunter ref flag alone.

Things like a number of applications in a few days can also trigger warnings, though generally that's more acceptable with mortgages where it's more common than with credit cards.

What to watch for. It's crucial to be consistent, even over long periods, when you fill in application forms. If you have a number of job titles or phone numbers try and use the same one, on every application. Changes to guidance introduced in 2009 mean lenders are supposed to tell you if National Hunter has been a contributing reason for your rejection.

Check your file. To check the info it holds on you, it's necessary to write to it making a data protection request and enclosing £10. The National Hunter website explains this. This can also be a useful thing to do if you think you're a victim of ID fraud.

What you'll get is effectively a list of the information you've put on past applications. If there's an error on the file, which is possible, you can't correct it directly with National Hunter, you'll need to go back to the lender who submitted that application to have it corrected.

CIFAS: Lists confirmed past fraud

How it operates. It is simply a record of known fraud, so if you're on there, in general, you should know about it. It's also the organisation to speak to if you think you've been a victim of ID fraud. Worryingly, any fraud committed at your address could appear on your CIFAS file, even if you did not commit the fraud.

Though like with National Hunter, a lender cannot refuse your application based on the CIFAS data, but must investigate first. Hopefully, that should prove you were not the perpetrator.

Check your file. The info it holds on you should be contained on your credit report under the CIFAS section. For a £10 fee, you can also request a copy of any files CIFAS holds on you (which is hopefully nothing). Full details on the CIFAS website.

If you've a dispute with the info held, you need to contact the company that logged the information on your CIFAS file first. If you're not happy with the response, once you've recevied a final response letter, you can then contact CIFAS to investigate.

For more information on ID fraud protection see the free ID fraud help guide.


Manage and improve your credit score
Once you know what lenders see, you are in a better position to sway their opinion. You do this by thinking tactically and behaving appropriately. Unfortunately though, there's no magic. After all, every lender does it differently, but there are easy ways to improve the odds.

A quick note, though. You may've seen adverts for credit repair agencies promising to improve your ‘rating' for a fee, yet there's nothing they can legally do that you can't do yourself for nowt (find out more about credit repair agencies ).



The quick Credit Checker tool...

Answering ten quick questions gives you a rough indication of how good a risk you’re likely to be to lenders. Of course, risk isn’t everything, profitability is, but this is a good clue to general attitudes.

Don’t be afraid to play

The most used credit reference agency, Experian*, provided the calculations and data to build this tool, so the results are kosher. Try playing with different answers, and see the impact on your score. Once you’ve pondered the list below and thought what you can possibly improve, plug some different answers into the checker and see if it affects the results.







Improve your credit score...

While it's not an exact science, there are a number of specific things you can do as good practice to improve both your credit score and lenders' attitudes towards you.

Get on the electoral roll.

If you're not on the roll, it's unlikely you'll get any credit. Write to your local council to ensure you are. Do it immediately, don't wait for it to send round the annual forms.

For those who aren't eligible to vote (mainly foreign nationals), send all the credit reference agencies proof of residency and ask them to add a note to verify this.

Time applications correctly.

Lots of credit searches, the notes left on your file when you apply for things, in a short space of time hurt your score. Space out applications, not just for credit but for car insurance, mobile phones and others, as all can leave searches on your file.

Moving house also disrupts a score, so make important applications pre-moving. Plus, you'll score better when you're earning, so if you're about to take time off, go on maternity leave or suspect potential redundancy, apply beforehand - though never lie on applications, if asked.

Building a good credit history/repairing past problems.

Credit scoring tries to predict your behaviour. If you've no credit history it's more difficult for lenders to do this, so you're more likely to be rejected. Therefore, both for those with poor and no credit histories, you need to build a good one.

Use ‘expensive’ credit cards.

If you can't get credit, sadly, the solution is apply for hideous 30%-ish rate credit cards offered by the likes of Barclaycard Initial*, Capital One Classic*, Monument, Aquacard* and Vanquis*

You can also try the special Smartsearch from comparison site MoneySupermarket*, which effectively assesses your credit worthiness (a bit like our Credit Checker), then tries to match you up with the best card.

Importantly, it doesn’t do a credit search, as that itself would hit your credit score. Instead, it just asks a few basic credit history questions and works with credit reference agency Equifax to give a rough and ready assessment, followed by indicating ‘suitable cards’.

To help rebuild your credit rating, you can use these for six to twelve months, spending a little every month. It's even better if you can use two cards to build more data. But there is a vital golden rule....

Strictly repay EVERY month, in FULL, so there's no interest cost.

After that, you should've built a credit history allowing you to move into the mainstream. This tactic is also useful for those who've defaulted in the past.

As a last resort pay for a special prepaid card.

If you've been rejected for cards like this, there is a 'last resort' solution. The Cashplus Creditbuilder* is a prepaid card costing £9.95, meaning you have to load it with cash before spending, rather than having a credit facility.

Cunningly, it charges a £4.95 monthly fee, which technically counts as a £59.40/year loan. As long as you pay the fee every month for a year, this info will be passed on to credit reference agency Experian.

Crucially, though, no credit check is needed to get the card. Once you've made 12 payments, it should show on your credit history as a fully repaid loan agreement, making you a more attractive customer (to those companies that use Experian for credit scoring, which is the vast majority of them) and hopefully meaning you can apply for better credit card and loan deals. Though you are, of course, paying £70 for it!

For more details on this, including pros and cons, read Cashplus Creditbuilder discussion.

Keep up payments and never be late.

Always try to follow at least the minimum repayment plan for your financial products. Even if you're struggling, don't default or miss payments. Doing this once or twice could cause problems that can cost you for years (though you may be able to get past charges back – see Bank Charges Reclaiming article). Though those in the previous 12 months will hurt you the most.

If you are in difficulties, the cliché 'contact your lender' is a good one. Hopefully, it will try and help a little. Changing your repayment schedule is preferable to you defaulting - and though it will hit your credit score, it's better than a County Court Judgment (CCJ) against you.

For repaying credit cards, the simplest method is to set up a Direct Debit to repay it each month. Then, you'll always hit the key criteria. If you have to, just do it for the minimum repayment, but then always try and pay extra by web, phone or post to get rid of the debt quicker (see the minimum repayments guide)

Marriage doesn't hurt, joint finances do.

Simply marrying or living with someone with a bad credit score shouldn't impact your finances, as third-party data (ie, someone else's info) doesn't appear on your file.

Yet if you're 'financially linked' to someone on any product, it can have an impact. Even just a joint bills account for flat sharers can mean you are co-scored. If one partner has a poor history, keep your finances rigidly separate, and it should maintain access to good credit for the other.

In fact, there are only two common products that can infer financial linking: mortgages and joint bank accounts. As a note, there's no such thing as a ‘joint' credit card. Technically, it's one person's account and the other just has access to it. It is technically possible that joint utility bills could be reported on credit files, though current practice is not to do so.

If you split up with someone you've joint finances with, once the accounts are separated or no longer active, always write to the credit reference agencies and ask for a notice of 'disassociation', to stop their credit history affecting yours in future.

Get a 'quotation search' not a 'credit search'.

If you're just trying to get a specific quote for a loan, ask the lender to do a ‘quotation search' and not a ‘credit search'. This means the enquiry won't have a negative impact on your credit score. Sadly, many lenders haven't yet adopted this practice, but it is worth asking. If not, consider whether you really want to get a quote - if it's unlikely you'll get the product, don't bother.

In both the Personal Loan and Credit Card Balance Transfer articles, there are details on special comparisons available to find out who's likely to accept you, without actually applying. Plus the credit checker gives you an idea for free of the type of cards you’ll get.

Frankly, this situation is a disgrace, we should have a right to know the rate you’ll get before applications go on credit files. Apply for a product and it puts a search on your credit file which hits your credit score, yet many products are rate for risk, without applying you can’t know the rate. This vicious circle thats hurts comparing products should be stopped. Until it does, be careful.

Evidence of stability is good.

Home owners rather than renters, and those who are employed, rather than self-employed, tend to be accepted more. Putting a fixed (land) line rather than a mobile number on application forms can help with security checks and improve your chances. Being with the same employer, bank and current address for a while all help too.

Check the address on all active accounts.

You may not have used your old mobile contract or credit card for five years, but if the account is still listed as open and you had a different address this can stymie applications due to ID checks. Check your file and go through every active account's address to ensure it's up to date.

Avoid the ‘rejection spiral'.

There’s a nightmare scenario you need to avoid, called the rejection spiral. It works like this:

You apply.
You get rejected (sometimes falsely, due to an error).
You apply elsewhere.
You get rejected again.

This continues, until finally you check your files and get the error corrected.

You apply again
You’re rejected, not due to the error, but because of all the recent ‘searches’.

Thus, if you're rejected once, immediately check the files are correct, otherwise you may mess up your score for an age as more applications mean more searches, which compounds the problem. You'll be told by the lender which credit reference agency it used to assess your info, so focus on that.

It is possible after an error to get successive searches wiped, but it involves negotiation both with the agency and the lender, and isn't easy.

The rejection spiral also applies when you apply for credit normally reserved for those with an 'excellent' score when you, say, only have a good score (sadly, many lenders do not publish their criteria so it's difficult to know in advance). So you're a perfectly acceptable risk for most, yet once you get that first rejection, it can harm your chances of getting further credit because a search has been registered. So check your file and call lenders you plan to apply to in advance to check.

Dealing with defaults on your file.

One of the major problems people face are past debt defaults on your file, these can easily hamper most apppications to get new credit and if they're genuine and fair are tough to deal with. There are a few things you can try though especially if the default is unfair.

Complain to the Ombudsman. First write to the company and complain the default isn't fair and lay out your terms. Ask it to wipe the fault from your file, which it can do if it's disputed. If that fails, complain to the Financial Ombudsman the free independent arbiteur of disputes, it can rule both that the debt is unfair and that the default can be wiped.

Negotiate with the lender. If you are prepared to settle the debt, either in part or in full, then you can enter a negotiation with whomever you owe the money. As part of this you can make a condition of settlement that the default is wiped off your credit file. Companies are allowed to do this for disputed defaults.

Add a 'Notice of Correction'. If all else fails, and you believe the default's justifiably unfair, add a notice of correction to the file explaining the problem eg,saying: "It was a joint account and the debt was run up once I no longer had access by my errant ex-husband/wife." This will slow applications down, as most companies will look at it manually, but as a substantial default is likely to stop you getting credit anyway, that's usually not a problem, providing it helps.

Cancel unused credit cards, debts and accounts.

Access to too much credit, even if it isn't used, can be a problem. If you have a range of unused credit cards, cancel most of them; this lowers your available credit and should help (see the Cancel Old Cards article for full info on what to close when).

However long standing bank accounts with good credit histories can be a benefit to your credit score, so they're often best left open.

Use any savings to pay off debts.

The amount of outstanding debt you have is part of the info lenders have access to, so minimising this is a clever strategy. In general, you’ll be better off by using savings to pay off expensive debts anyway (read Pay off Debts with Savings).

With the credit crunch biting, this is particularly true if the product you’re applying for is a mortgage. People who haven’t paid much of their mortgage debt off are struggling to get decent new deals (see the Remortgage guide).

For those with an LTV (Loan to Value ratio) of over 90%, meaning your mortgage debt is at least 90% of the house’s value, getting a new mortgage has become very difficult. For those with an 80% to 90% LTV you should get a new deal, but it won’t be too cheap.

So if you have savings, and can use them to significantly lower your mortgage borrowing, enabling you to get a better deal, it's often worth doing. The extra amount your savings will earn isn’t likely to be as much as the benefit from a cheaper mortgage. Read Should I Pay Off My Mortgage?

And a final thought. Though it may be tempting, lying on your application form doesn't help. Firstly it's an offence, but also if lenders can't corroborate your information you may well get rejected anyway.

Tuesday, 21 April 2009

Secretive Plans for the Issuing of a Global Currency

The Tower of Basel:
Secretive Plans for the Issuing of a Global Currency

Do we really want the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) issuing our global currency

By Ellen Brown

April 18, 2009 "Global Research" April 18, 2009 -- In an April 7 article in The London Telegraph titled “The G20 Moves the World a Step Closer to
a Global Currency,” Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote:



“A single clause in Point 19 of the communiqué issued by the G20 leaders amounts to revolution in the global financial order.



“‘We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity,’ it said. SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund that has lain dormant for half a century.



“In effect, the G20 leaders have activated the IMF’s power to create money and begin global ‘quantitative easing’. In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.”



Indeed they will. The article is subtitled, “The world is a step closer to a global currency, backed by a global central bank, running monetary policy for all humanity.” Which naturally raises the question, who or what will serve as this global central bank, cloaked with the power to issue the global currency and police monetary policy for all humanity? When the world’s central bankers met in Washington last September, they discussed what body might be in a position to serve in that awesome and fearful role. A former governor of the Bank of England stated:



“[T]he answer might already be staring us in the face, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). . . . The IMF tends to couch its warnings about economic problems in very diplomatic language, but the BIS is more independent and much better placed to deal with this if it is given the power to do so.”1



And if the vision of a global currency outside government control does not set off conspiracy theorists, putting the BIS in charge of it surely will. The BIS has been scandal-ridden ever since it was branded with pro-Nazi leanings in the 1930s. Founded in Basel, Switzerland, in 1930, the BIS has been called “the most exclusive, secretive, and powerful supranational club in the world.” Charles Higham wrote in his book Trading with the Enemy that by the late 1930s, the BIS had assumed an openly pro-Nazi bias, a theme that was expanded on in a BBC Timewatch film titled “Banking with Hitler” broadcast in 1998.2 In 1944, the American government backed a resolution at the Bretton-Woods Conference calling for the liquidation of the BIS, following Czech accusations that it was laundering gold stolen by the Nazis from occupied Europe; but the central bankers succeeded in quietly snuffing out the American resolution.3


In Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966), Dr. Carroll Quigley revealed the key role played in global finance by the BIS behind the scenes. Dr. Quigley was Professor of History at Georgetown University, where he was President Bill Clinton’s mentor. He was also an insider, groomed by the powerful clique he called “the international bankers.” His credibility is heightened by the fact that he actually espoused their goals. He wrote:



“I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. . . . [I]n general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”



Quigley wrote of this international banking network:



“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”



The key to their success, said Quigley, was that the international bankers would control and manipulate the money system of a nation while letting it appear to be controlled by the government. The statement echoed one made in the eighteenth century by the patriarch of what would become the most powerful banking dynasty in the world. Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild famously said in 1791:



“Allow me to issue and control a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its laws.”



Mayer’s five sons were sent to the major capitals of Europe – London, Paris, Vienna, Berlin and Naples – with the mission of establishing a banking system that would be outside government control. The economic and political systems of nations would be controlled not by citizens but by bankers, for the benefit of bankers. Eventually, a privately-owned “central bank” was established in nearly every country; and this central banking system has now gained control over the economies of the world. Central banks have the authority to print money in their respective countries, and it is from these banks that governments must borrow money to pay their debts and fund their operations. The result is a global economy in which not only industry but government itself runs on “credit” (or debt) created by a banking monopoly headed by a network of private central banks; and at the top of this network is the BIS, the “central bank of central banks” in Basel.


Behind the Curtain



For many years the BIS kept a very low profile, operating behind the scenes in an abandoned hotel. It was here that decisions were reached to devalue or defend currencies, fix the price of gold, regulate offshore banking, and raise or lower short-term interest rates. In 1977, however, the BIS gave up its anonymity in exchange for more efficient headquarters. The new building has been described as “an eighteen story-high circular skyscraper that rises above the medieval city like some misplaced nuclear reactor.” It quickly became known as the “Tower of Basel.” Today the BIS has governmental immunity, pays no taxes, and has its own private police force.4 It is, as Mayer Rothschild envisioned, above the law.



The BIS is now composed of 55 member nations, but the club that meets regularly in Basel is a much smaller group; and even within it, there is a hierarchy. In a 1983 article in Harper’s Magazine called “Ruling the World of Money,” Edward Jay Epstein wrote that where the real business gets done is in “a sort of inner club made up of the half dozen or so powerful central bankers who find themselves more or less in the same monetary boat” – those from Germany, the United States, Switzerland, Italy, Japan and England. Epstein said:



“The prime value, which also seems to demarcate the inner club from the rest of the BIS members, is the firm belief that central banks should act independently of their home governments. . . . A second and closely related belief of the inner club is that politicians should not be trusted to decide the fate of the international monetary system.”



In 1974, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision was created by the central bank Governors of the Group of Ten nations (now expanded to twenty). The BIS provides the twelve-member Secretariat for the Committee. The Committee, in turn, sets the rules for banking globally, including capital requirements and reserve controls. In a 2003 article titled “The Bank for International Settlements Calls for Global Currency,” Joan Veon wrote:



“The BIS is where all of the world’s central banks meet to analyze the global economy and determine what course of action they will take next to put more money in their pockets, since they control the amount of money in circulation and how much interest they are going to charge governments and banks for borrowing from them. . . .



“When you understand that the BIS pulls the strings of the world’s monetary system, you then understand that they have the ability to create a financial boom or bust in a country. If that country is not doing what the money lenders want, then all they have to do is sell its currency.”5



The Controversial Basel Accords



The power of the BIS to make or break economies was demonstrated in 1988, when it issued a Basel Accord raising bank capital requirements from 6% to 8%. By then, Japan had emerged as the world’s largest creditor; but Japan’s banks were less well capitalized than other major international banks. Raising the capital requirement forced them to cut back on lending, creating a recession in Japan like that suffered in the U.S. today. Property prices fell and loans went into default as the security for them shriveled up. A downward spiral followed, ending with the total bankruptcy of the banks. The banks had to be nationalized, although that word was not used in order to avoid criticism.6



Among other collateral damage produced by the Basel Accords was a spate of suicides among Indian farmers unable to get loans. The BIS capital adequacy standards required loans to private borrowers to be “risk-weighted,” with the degree of risk determined by private rating agencies; and farmers and small business owners could not afford the agencies’ fees. Banks therefore assigned 100 percent risk to the loans, and then resisted extending credit to these “high-risk” borrowers because more capital was required to cover the loans. When the conscience of the nation was aroused by the Indian suicides, the government, lamenting the neglect of farmers by commercial banks, established a policy of ending the “financial exclusion” of the weak; but this step had little real effect on lending practices, due largely to the strictures imposed by the BIS from abroad.7



Similar complaints have come from Korea. An article in the December 12, 2008 Korea Times titled “BIS Calls Trigger Vicious Cycle” described how Korean entrepreneurs with good collateral cannot get operational loans from Korean banks, at a time when the economic downturn requires increased investment and easier credit:



“‘The Bank of Korea has provided more than 35 trillion won to banks since September when the global financial crisis went full throttle,’ said a Seoul analyst, who declined to be named. ‘But the effect is not seen at all with the banks keeping the liquidity in their safes. They simply don’t lend and one of the biggest reasons is to keep the BIS ratio high enough to survive,’ he said. . . .



“Chang Ha-joon, an economics professor at Cambridge University, concurs with the analyst. ‘What banks do for their own interests, or to improve the BIS ratio, is against the interests of the whole society. This is a bad idea,’ Chang said in a recent telephone interview with Korea Times.”



In a May 2002 article in The Asia Times titled “Global Economy: The BIS vs. National Banks,” economist Henry C K Liu observed that the Basel Accords have forced national banking systems “to march to the same tune, designed to serve the needs of highly sophisticated global financial markets, regardless of the developmental needs of their national economies.” He wrote:



“[N]ational banking systems are suddenly thrown into the rigid arms of the Basel Capital Accord sponsored by the Bank of International Settlement (BIS), or to face the penalty of usurious risk premium in securing international interbank loans. . . . National policies suddenly are subjected to profit incentives of private financial institutions, all members of a hierarchical system controlled and directed from the money center banks in New York. The result is to force national banking systems to privatize . . . .



“BIS regulations serve only the single purpose of strengthening the international private banking system, even at the peril of national economies. . . . The IMF and the international banks regulated by the BIS are a team: the international banks lend recklessly to borrowers in emerging economies to create a foreign currency debt crisis, the IMF arrives as a carrier of monetary virus in the name of sound monetary policy, then the international banks come as vulture investors in the name of financial rescue to acquire national banks deemed capital inadequate and insolvent by the BIS.”



Ironically, noted Liu, developing countries with their own natural resources did not actually need the foreign investment that trapped them in debt to outsiders:



“Applying the State Theory of Money [which assumes that a sovereign nation has the power to issue its own money], any government can fund with its own currency all its domestic developmental needs to maintain full employment without inflation.”



When governments fall into the trap of accepting loans in foreign currencies, however, they become “debtor nations” subject to IMF and BIS regulation. They are forced to divert their production to exports, just to earn the foreign currency necessary to pay the interest on their loans. National banks deemed “capital inadequate” have to deal with strictures comparable to the “conditionalities” imposed by the IMF on debtor nations: “escalating capital requirement, loan writeoffs and liquidation, and restructuring through selloffs, layoffs, downsizing, cost-cutting and freeze on capital spending.” Liu wrote:



“Reversing the logic that a sound banking system should lead to full employment and developmental growth, BIS regulations demand high unemployment and developmental degradation in national economies as the fair price for a sound global private banking system.”



The Last Domino to Fall



While banks in developing nations were being penalized for falling short of the BIS capital requirements, large international banks managed to escape the rules, although they actually carried enormous risk because of their derivative exposure. The mega-banks succeeded in avoiding the Basel rules by separating the “risk” of default out from the loans and selling it off to investors, using a form of derivative known as “credit default swaps.”

However, it was not in the game plan that U.S. banks should escape the BIS net. When they managed to sidestep the first Basel Accord, a second set of rules was imposed known as Basel II. The new rules were established in 2004, but they were not levied on U.S. banks until November 2007, the month after the Dow passed 14,000 to reach its all-time high. It has been all downhill from there. Basel II had the same effect on U.S. banks that Basel I had on Japanese banks: they have been struggling ever since to survive.8



Basel II requires banks to adjust the value of their marketable securities to the “market price” of the security, a rule called “mark to market.”9 The rule has theoretical merit, but the problem is timing: it was imposed ex post facto, after the banks already had the hard-to-market assets on their books. Lenders that had been considered sufficiently well capitalized to make new loans suddenly found they were insolvent. At least, they would have been insolvent if they had tried to sell their assets, an assumption required by the new rule. Financial analyst John Berlau complained:



“The crisis is often called a ‘market failure,’ and the term ‘mark-to-market’ seems to reinforce that. But the mark-to-market rules are profoundly anti-market and hinder the free-market function of price discovery. . . . In this case, the accounting rules fail to allow the market players to hold on to an asset if they don’t like what the market is currently fetching, an important market action that affects price discovery in areas from agriculture to antiques.”10



Imposing the mark-to-market rule on U.S. banks caused an instant credit freeze, which proceeded to take down the economies not only of the U.S. but of countries worldwide. In early April 2009, the mark-to-market rule was finally softened by the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB); but critics said the modification did not go far enough, and it was done in response to pressure from politicians and bankers, not out of any fundamental change of heart or policies by the BIS.



And that is where the conspiracy theorists come in. Why did the BIS not retract or at least modify Basel II after seeing the devastation it had caused? Why did it sit idly by as the global economy came crashing down? Was the goal to create so much economic havoc that the world would rush with relief into the waiting arms of the BIS with its privately-created global currency? The plot thickens . . .



Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from “the money trust.” Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature’s Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com .


NOTES

1. Andrew Marshall, “The Financial New World Order: Towards a Global Currency and World Government,” Global Research (April 6, 2009).

2 Alfred Mendez, “The Network,” The World Central Bank: The Bank for International Settlements, http://copy_bilderberg.tripod.com/bis.htm.

3 “BIS – Bank of International Settlement: The Mother of All Central Banks,” hubpages.com (2009).

4 Ibid.

5 Joan Veon, “The Bank for International Settlements Calls for Global Currency,” News with Views (August 26, 2003).

6 Peter Myers, “The 1988 Basle Accord – Destroyer of Japan’s Finance System,” http://www.mailstar.net/basle.html (updated September 9, 2008).

7 Nirmal Chandra, “Is Inclusive Growth Feasible in Neoliberal India?”, www.networkideas.org (September 2008).

8 Bruce Wiseman, “The Financial Crisis: A look Behind the Wizard’s Curtain,” Canada Free Press (March 19, 2009).

9 See Ellen Brown, “Credit Where Credit Is Due,” www.webofdebt.com/articles/creditcrunch.php (January 11, 2009).

10 John Berlau, “The International Mark-to-market Contagion,” OpenMarket.org (October 10, 2008).

© Copyright Ellen Brown, Global Research, 2009

Sunday, 18 January 2009

Was the "Cold War" Hoax Perpetrated by International Banking?

Was the "Cold War" Hoax Perpetrated by International Banking?


To the casual reader of the news, the "Cold War" seemed like a very real threat to the United States. The Korean War, occurring only 5 years after World War II, and the Viet Nam War were both fought to contain the "International Communist Conspiracy." These were "hot spots" in the "cold war" and themselves were real enough as human lives and property were being destroyed. Also, the nuclear arms race became an insane dimension of the "Cold War". But miraculously, none of these weapons of mass destruction were ever used between the "contenders" of the "Cold War."

As historians take a closer look at the history of events during and after World War II, the reality of events take on another, completely different picture than that presented us by "official sources" !

Most revolutionary movements are not spontaneous uprising of suppressed people. The sucessful revolution is highly organised, well financed, and directed by hidden persons.

The American Revolution of 1776 was largely organised by the secret Freemason Societies. The French Revolution was also organised by the Freemasons of Continental Europe that had been taken over by, even more secret, Illuminati societies headed by Adam Weishaupt and financed by the international bankers centered around the Banking House of Rothschild.

This author is of the opinion that the original Freemasons were men of principal, working for greater human freedom. However, Illuminised Freemasonery was the source of great deception, Communism, and great human suffering. Hence, the great difference in outcome between the American Revolution with the ensuing human freedom and the French and the Bolshevik revolutions with their ensuing reigns of terror.

In the case of the Soviet Union, the thinking man would wonder why, if Communism is such a monumental economic failure, did the Soviet Union evolve from a poor agrarian society in 1920 to being a military and industrial super power by 1950? They achieved real economic growth, considered miciralcous even by American standards in that time period of 3 decades.

A closer look reveals that the Soviets were getting massive technical and financial assistance from persons and institutions primarily in Western Europe and the United States. The Bolsheviks were origonaly, largely financed by the Khun Loeb Bank of New York and the Max Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Germany. Later, the Brown Brothers Harriman Bank of New York, Standard Oil Corporation and Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum would provide tremendous financial assistance. The largest Factory in the world, the Kama River Truck Factory in Russia was financed in a deal set up by the President of the Export Import Bank, William Casey (later to become Director of the CIA) with the financing supplied by Armand Hammer.

During World War II, the Soviets were considered our Allies and tremendous technical assistance was provided under operation "Lend Lease." During the "Big 3" meetings held between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, Europe was effectively divided up between the West and the Soviets. There can be little doubt that the Soviets were handed every advantage by the Western powers during this time.

In 1990, in the words of President George Bush "the Cold War is over - and we won it!" But how could this have happed without a shot being fired? Soon after this, unexpected turn of events led to our FBI and CIA cooperating with the KGB in exchanging intelligence information. Then, bills were "fast tracked" through Congress to put together a 20 billion dollar Aid package to the newly formed CIS (former USSR) to, in the words of President George Bush, "preserve a fragile democracy." The orchestration of events soon became blatantly obvious to the more intelligent person.

To see why the "Cold War" was a hoax one must look at the secret history of events going on behind the scenes in the unlikely alliance between Capitalist and Communist. The Historical Influence of International Banking gives a concise outline of this history.


The primary purpose of this book is to reveal a little known side of history. This history is about secret societies that are very serious about secrecy because their survival usually depends on it.

I can agree that there are times when secrecy is needed as in military operations and undercover police work. But, when secrecy is used for the wholesale dismantling of our Constitutional government and used to practice thievery on a grand scale as with the Federal Reserve Banking system, when the secrecy is used to impose war and the New World Order on us whether we want it or not. Then, it is time to expose the secret.

Because I write about the Jewish money lenders backing the Zionist cause and the secret illuminati organizations, some will say that my writings are anti-semitic. I would point out that only a very small percent of the Jewish people know the secrets of the illuminati. The revelations of this book are as shocking to them as to many of the rest of us.

I have many Jewish friends and many of them are struggling to pay the bills and raise their families just like the rest of us. They are just as much in the dark about the New World Order as the majority of the people in this country. On the other hand, there are illuminati leaders like Edmond De Rothschild who openly speak of the common man being "cannon fodder" while planning a world only for the enjoyment of the "elite."

Some claim that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were invented to be used as anti-semitic propaganda. I am open to this possibility. However, the Protocols do explain most of the phenomenon that we observe in politics, the economy and the media to day.

The history that is here presented goes a long way towards explaining the present state of world affairs. For example, in the "Dessert Storm" War, which most informed persons understand was really a war over oil, the sole refiner of Kuwait's oil is British Petroleum which is owned by the Rothschilds. The recent flurry of currency devauleations in Asia was being directly manipulated by the International Bankers to give the IMF more lending (and thereby political) leverage in that area of the world.

I respect the Judaic traditions and lore and the right to freely practice one's religion of choice. This with the qualification that no harm should come to another of God's creations in the practice of that religion. While I may not be against Judaism, I am opposed to political Zionism which is very warlike and destructive and is the real source of mideast tension.

The treatment of Palestinians in Israel is as shameful as the white mans's treatment of the Native Americans in the United States. I say this as a white man. I long for the day when all races and all people are treated with respect and dignity everywhere on this planet.

Finally, I am not opposed to a World Government. In fact, I favor one. However, it should represent the wishes of the governed with respect for the sovereignty of the individual (all individuals). It should operate honestly, openly and above board on all issues and it should not garner favor for an elite few.

The present New World Order does none of the above. After reading my book, one can see that The NWO has a very poor track record, which is a fairly good indicator of it's future performance.

How the Free Press is Owned and Managed by Big Money

How the Free Press is Owned and Managed by Big Money

During the nineteenth century, after the Rothschilds controlled the Bank of England, a controlling interest was also purchased in the Jewish operated Reuters newspaper in London. Also, controlling interests were purchased in Wolff and the French Havas news papers, creating a virtual international news monopoly.

In 1942, the General manager of Associated Press, Kent Cooper, spoke of this international news monopoly in his book "Barriers Down:" "..the news of the world was it's own private property to be withheld, to be discolored to it's own purposes, or to be sold to whom and to where they directed."

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was created by Rockefeller in 1921, as the American branch of the British Royal Institute on International Affairs (RIIA). The RIIA was the brainchild of Cecil Rhodes as a means to "expand British Hegemony globally and to regain Britain's control of the United States." The CFR was responsible for the creation of the United Nations and works to direct U.S. foreign policy.

The CFR recieves much of it's financial support from the private Consortuim of banks collectively called the Federal Reserve Bank. Since the "Fed" has all "Income Tax" money deposited in it and collects most of the interest on the U.S. National Debt (over $200 Billion per year), it has astronomical financial power and influence.

The world news sources and wire services have members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) directing and working for them. These include; Reuters, Associated Press, United Press International, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, and RCA. Most national and international news is derived from these sources.

The CFR is also heavily entrenched in the major energy corporations, the military and the U.S. Government.

So, with the CFR managing the news and molding public opinion about world affairs, they are in a key position to influence the direction of our democratic government.

The Illuminati's order of "Skull and Bones" forms an inner circle of the CFR and has control of other forms of public information:

Henry Luce of the "Time-Life" syndicate, William Buckley of "National Review",Alfred Cowles of "Minneapolis Star", Emmert Bates of Litton Educational Systems, Richard Ely Danielson of"Atlantic Monthly", Russell Davenport of "Fortune" and Nieman Fellowship's first director, Archibald Mc Leash are all members of the Order Of Skull and Bones.

In 1880, Members of the Order created both the American Economic Association and The American Historical Association. Andrew Dickson White was the first president of American Historical Association.

By the turn of the century the "Order of Skull and Bones" had already made significant penetration into the educational establishment. Timothy Dwight was president of Yale, later to be followed by Arthor T. Hadly. Andrew Dickson White was president of Cornell. Daniel C. Gilman was president of John Hopkins University. All men were members of the Order.

Later Daniel Gilman became president of Carnegi Institute. The philosophy and practice of the present public school system is due to the massive infusion of funds and grants from private foundations which are directed by Illuminati organizations. These same foundations, can virtually dictate which textbooks can be used in the public school system.

This one reason most people don't know the true history of the 20th century. Any history that goes against the official line of the American Historical Association will find it impossible to obtain research funding or publication in "acceptable" forms.

On the other hand, in 1946, the Rockefeller Foundation allotted $139,000 to create an official version of World War Two that hid the massive U.S. Corporate Assistance in building the Nazi War Machine. A major contributor to the Nazi effort was Rockefeller's own Standard Oil Co.

The Ford Foundation, was originally created from Henry Ford's Auto Manufacturing fortune. But eventually, members of the "Order of Skull and Bones" infiltrated the foundation and used it's financial power to influence the nature of public education.

For example, Mc Goeoge Bundy (a member of the Order of Skull and Bones) was the National Security Advisor during the Viet Nam debacle. In 1966 he became the president of the Ford Foundation. Bundy then appointed another member of the Order, Harold Howe II, as Vice President in charge of the Education and Research Department. Their flagrant misuse of foundation money caused the remaining Ford Family members to resign in disgust.6

The official historical version of the John F. Kennedy assassination reflects the Warren Commission Report. The president was killed by a lone assassin, Lee Harvy Oswald.

The true account will demonstrate that the CIA worked in conjunction with organized crime and Cuban Exiles to have the president assassinated in a large scale conspiracy. Some of the names of the conspirators are Orlando Bosch, E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, (all CIA employees) and Jack Rubenstien (alias Jack Ruby of organized crime.) The CIA paid off some large gamboling debts that Jack Rubenstien owed Organized crime figures to enlist his aid in the Dallas Shooting.

Lee Harvey Oswald was also a one time employee of the CIA, but at the time of the shooting was working for Jack Ruby and was set up to be the "fall guy". Jack Ruby had to kill him before he talked.

Many of these facts were brought out in the House Special Committee on Assassinations hearings in 1976. But, most of the information was sequestered in the National Archives and not to be made public until sometime in the next century.

After the hearings, congress did pass a resolution forbidding the CIA from carrying out covert operations within the territorial boundaries of the United States.

The official media had already determined that the presidential assassination had not been a conspiracy within 9 hours of the shooting at Dealy Plaza. The headlines were Blaring "Oswald Acted Alone!"

This blatant statement was made even though an actual investigation had barely started. Obviously, these media statements were also a prepared part of the conspiracy. Which is a typical demonstration of how the Illuminati uses the media to mould public opinion.

These facts will never appear in the "official" media reports, although some of them may appear in the small independent publications that have not been taken over by the Illuminati organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Order of Skull and Bones.

Where Does the Income Tax Money Really Go?

Where Does the Income Tax Money Really Go?

Whenever the Internal Revenues Service (IRS) collects Income Tax money it is deposited into the Federal Reserve Bank. Persons who volunteer to pay Income Tax to the IRS with checks will see the "Deposit in the Federal Reserve Bank" stamp on their returned, cancelled checks.

There is a popular delusion (probably fostered by agents of the Federal Reserve Bank) among persons who volunteer to Pay Income Tax that this "Income Tax" money pays the cost of running the Federal government.

Nothing could be further from the truth! The Federal Reserve Bank is a private consortium of banks operated for profit. The only time the U.S. Congress gets money from the Federal Reserve Bank is when it is lent to them at interest!

A number of Bills have been placed before Congress to Audit the federal Reserve Bank. But, because the Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned company, the General Accounting Office (GAO), which routinely audits Federal agencies, has been unable to audit the Federal Reserve Bank.

So, where does the Income Tax money go? Insiders report that, besides the profit taken by the shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank, a good deal of the money goes to finance "New World Order" organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This makes sense from a historical viewpoint since these organizations were originally created by agents for the International Bankers.

What is Money and How is it Created?

What is Money and How is it Created?

Money is generally created by central Banks like the Bank of England or the Federal Reserve Bank in the United States.

The Original Constitution for the United States stated that Congress was to mint the money and set the value of money in the United States.

However, in 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed. This act passed the authority to create money from congress over to the private consortium of banks collectively known as the Federal Reserve Bank.

The Federal Reserve Bank is pretty secretive about who it's owning banks or shareholders are. It has been determined that the "class A" stock in the Federal Reserve Bank are held by the following 8 institutions:

1. ROTHSCHILD BANKS OF LONDON AND BERLIN.

2. LAZARD BROTHERS BANK OF PARIS.

3. ISRAEL MOSES SEIF BANK OF ITALY.

4. WARBURG BANK OF HAMBURG AND AMSTERDAM.

5. LEHMAN BANK OF NEW YORK.

6. KUHN LOEB BANK OF NEW YORK.

7. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK OF NEW YORK.

8. GOLDMAN SACHS BANK OF NEW YORK.

The Remaining Stock is held by the Chemical Trust and the Rockefeller Trust. These stockholders hold Federal Government Obligations which amount to about $5 Trillion Dollars - The U.S. National Debt! Their annual profits from interest payments are over $200 Billion dollars per year!

Before the passage of the federal reserve act congress could print it's own treasury notes and use the money to pay for the cost of government. After the passage of this act congress had to borrow money from the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank at interest!

There are legal experts that maintain that the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional and therefore unlawful.

Although, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Marketing Board is appointed by the president of the United States, the Federal Reserve Bank is otherwise independent of United States Government.

There have been numerous attempts by congress to pass legislation to have the General Accounting Office (GAO) audit the Federal Reserve Bank. All such attempts have failed, primarily because congress cannot force an audit on a private company.

The Federal Reserve Bank can order the U.S. Treasury to print a determined amount of Federal Reserve Notes and have the U.S. Mint deliver them for the cost of printing, which is a small fraction of the face value of the notes.

These Federal Reserve Notes are then lent into circulation by lending them either to congress or to the Federal Reserve Member banks.

Some economists point out that money lent into existence would be impossible to totally repay because only the principal was lent into circulation but the principal plus interest has to be paid back.

Sunday, 1 June 2008

Candlestick Charting

http://www.aspenres.com/Documents/AspenGraphics4.0/Candlestick_History.htm

In 17th century Japan had a flourishing rice market. At the time there were four social classes; the soldier, the farmer, the artisan, and the merchant, were ruled by a military government known as the Bakufu, who were growing increasingly weary of the merchant class. So Bakufu killed the greedy merchants children and banished them from Japan. This discouraged greed in the merchant class for many years.

At the same time Shogun Tokugawa's Shogunate got rid of the feudal system and made the rice market national. There is a system of charting called Candlestick Charting, which makes it easy to understand the production and predict future productions. The rice dealers started using this system.

Dōjima Rice Exchange