Do you want a recovery? Let the foreign banks fail

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | OCTOBER 24, 2012

Although the financial crisis is said to have begun in 2008, its actual inception started many years before. As explained yesterday, the so-called recovery that almost every politician says governments are seeking is a sham. There are no plans drawn to have a recovery of the kind spoken of on the main stream media. In fact, it is totally the opposite.

It is true; the crisis that we are experiencing is the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930’s, but the conditions that created the crisis are the same that have existed for the past century. The system of creating money out of thin air enables the money makers to inject fake capital into economies, in what is called investments. After the economies get addicted to ‘free’ quick money to build their businesses, the issuers of the fake money take it away quickly or demand immediate return on those ‘investments’, which causes the decapitalization of those economies and consequently their collapse.

The causes of what seemed to have unraveled in 2008 began at the start of the 20th century with the adoption of the debt-based economic model. According to its precepts, governments yield the power to issue money to a group of international bankers who issue the it on behalf of governments around the world at a profit of as much as 30 percent or so. The interests accrued due to the issuance of the money — which is given to governments as a credit — is charged on those governments’ credit card and are immediately added to the tabs of the people who work to sustain government spending.

In a sense, the debt-based economic model originated on the irresponsibility from the part of the bureaucrats who manage the  government. Instead of spending the people’s money responsibly, the bureaucrats thought it was a better idea to borrow cash at immense interest rates, rather than decrease spending. Then, they decided to accept bribes and advice from international bankers to finance their out of control expenditures while charging the interests of the debt on the working classes.

The same system initiated in 1913, is still used today everywhere there is a central bank. Whether the bank is a private entity or an agency of the government is irrelevant. The bureaucrats elected to represent the people borrow money from the IMF and the World Bank, for example, in exchange for adopting specific policies that will guarantee the international bankers their ownership of the labor force for many generations into the future.

The money paid by working people to the central governments is not used to improve the communities where they live. They go to pay the interests on the debt acquired by the same central government in the name of the people. The type of improvements promised by politicians during their political campaigns are not paid with taxpayer money, but with the cash borrowed from the international bankers. The bankers arrive to nation-states and offer loans to governments that do not have enough liquidity to carry out the promises made during the political campaign. The government accepts all the conditions on the loan contract and effectively sign away sovereignty to the money makers.

The collapse of the kind the world is experiencing now is the last step of the plan that bankers have put together and implemented to become the sole owners of everything out there. The important difference between previous crises and the current one is that this may just be the last time bankers need to use their plan. That is because this time the bankers may simply walk away with everything, so no more manufactured crises will be needed.

The question is then, how do we stop the bankers from doing the same they’ve done in Greece, where they’ve looted it all? It is very easy, actually. All of Europe and the rest of the world needs to do the same that Iceland did. Instead of saying that international financial institutions were too big to fail, Iceland decided to kick them out. As it turns out, around 90 percent of the debt held by the Icelandic government was debt created by the banks and only 10 percent was actual debt incurred into by the people. After that fact was carefully determined, Iceland decided to take the other path towards a real recovery.

Believe it or not, Iceland decided to let the banks fail, which is exactly the opposite of what was done in Italy, France, Greece, Spain, England and the United States, to cite a few countries. Everywhere else where the crisis touched international banks, governments decided that it was a bad idea to tell the banks to get out of their countries and to take their debt with them. Instead, they printed more fake money to ‘rescue’ those banks and passed the debt to the people, who will have to pay interests on that debt for generations to come. This move not only did not solve the problem because the only thing it accomplished was to increase the debt, but also worsened economic conditions as no real solutions to the crisis were enacted.

At the beginning of 2008, the banks operating in Iceland owed the equivalent of 6 times the country’s GDP. The government there decided to nationalize the 3 most important debtor banks, which caused the devaluation of the local currency — the króna — by 85 percent. This seemed to spell trouble for Iceland, but contrary to common wisdom it actually help the nation have a real recovery while it maintained much of its independence and sovereignty. The government went bankrupt by the end of the year, but the country avoided having to make the citizens responsible for the debt generated by the international banks.

Along with the devaluation of the króna, Iceland experienced soaring inflation immediately after the declaration of bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the government decided to take all monies and deposit them in the recently nationalized banks in order to start all over again. The move by the Icelandic government meant a short period of real pain, but also gave the opportunity to the people there to start fresh, with no debt and with spending under control.

By 2010, just two years after the declaration of bankruptcy and the nationalization of the banks, Iceland experienced its first signs of economic growth, which marked the beginning of the recovery. By letting the international banks fail, Iceland not only punished irresponsible bankers for their overreach, but also prevented their people from becoming slaves to the banks. The country also admitted to having some real debt — a tiny portion of the total — and is now working on a successful path to a full recovery.

The lesson we get from all this is the following: We cannot fight fire by dumping gasoline on it. If the origin of the current crisis is the debt-based economic system, no solution will emerge when all we do is create more debt to pay the existing one. The reason why most countries decided to choose the issuance of more debt — as nations in Europe are doing now — is because their politicians are bought and paid for by the bankers to make that decision. If the opposite is done, that is, if the debt generated by the banks is rejected and they are left to fail, we will have many other successful recoveries. It is so simple that even Paul Krugman understands it.

So if you want your country to be free from fake money and fake debt, ask your government to renounce the debt-based development model, which is not even a development model. If all you want is a real recovery, let the banks fail.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

European Union Sets Banking Takeover for 2013

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | OCTOBER 19, 2012

The Heads of State and the Government of the European Union (EU) agreed Thursday to create a single banking supervisor. The entity should be ready next December and it will gradually begin its takeover of the banking system during 2013.

The EU leaders confirmed their commitment last June to create a bank union, which would work under the political framework of an agreement adopted back in late 2012. The announcement was made by EU spokesman Olivier Bailly, who posted a message on the social network Twitter.

Diplomatic sources explained that in practice this means that the complete takeover of the financial system by the European Central Bank (ECB) will only be completed in 2014.

With this agreement, the so-called European leaders solved the ‘differences’ regarding how to create and manage a banking supervisor. The disagreement between France and Germany stemmed from details related to the creation of the entity itself as well as the power it would have to manage all banking institutions in the old continent. While French president François Hollande pushed for its creation and effective activation for next January, German Chancellor Angela Merkel argued for delaying its implementation given the deterioration of her image at home and the coming German election.

Other diplomatic sources indicated that “Holland’s demands and proposals were simply unrealistic.” They added that even if the leaders reached an agreement by December, the process of creating such an entity  would not be completed before the end of the first semester of 2013, which means that the ECB would still require a minimum of 6 more months to fully implement its directives.

A few weeks ago, Merkel’s government questioned the schedule proposed by Hollande, while the president of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, added that the European Parliament would need a period of one year to adapt its structures to take on the task of supervising banks in the eurozone.

According to the European Commission’s plan, the centralized banking supervision mechanism will take effect in stages. The new system would only begin to be implemented on the first of January 2013 and initially affect banks that had requested or received public aid. The plan is to include all 6,000 banks that operate in the euro area.

The German delegation did not support the idea that the new supervising entity had the power to manage  all banks, especially regional banks.

Sources said that “the effective establishment of a Europe-wide monitoring system will take several months” from formal approval, as the ECB will have to hire some 1,600 “experts”, which in turn would further delay the possibility that the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) directly recapitalizes troubled banks.

France, Italy and Spain went to the summit with the intention to push for a quick implementation of the banking supervising entity as it was proposed by the ECB, while Germany, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden advocated delaying its implementation.

Some countries that have not adopted the common currency said that the proposal issued by the EU needed changes because in its current form it creates a competitive disadvantage compared to banks in the euro zone.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

You know that Money on your Bank Account? Well, it’s not Yours

By SUSANNE POSEL | OCCUPY CORPORATISM | AUGUST 24, 2012

In June of 2012, Eric Bloom, former chief executive, and Charles Mosely, head trader of Sentinel Management Group (SMG) were indicted for stealing $500 million in customer secured funds. Both Mosely and Bloom were accused of “exposing” customer segregated funds “to a portfolio of highly risky derivatives.”

These customer funds were used to “back up personal investments” which were part of “collateral for a loan from Bank of New York Mellon” (BNYM). This loan derived from stolen customer monies was “used to purchase millions of dollars worth of high-risk, illiquid securities, including collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, for a trading portfolio that benefited Sentinel’s officers, including Mosley, Bloom and certain Bloom family members.”

Fast forward to August 9th of 2012, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (CCA) rules that BNYM can be moved to first in line of creditors over the customers that had their funds stolen by SMG.

When a banking customer deposits their money into their bank account, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SPIC) are in place to protect the customer from fraud or theft. The ruling from the CCA means that these regulatory systems will not insure customer funds, investments, depositors and retirees who hold accounts in banks. In fact, the banking institution is now legally allowed to use those customer funds deposited as collateral, payment on debts for loans made, or free use on the stock market to purchase investments as the bank sees fit.

Fred Grede, SMG trustee, explained that brokers are no longer required to keep customer money separate from their own. “It does not bode well for the protection of customer funds.”

Since the ruling gives banks the right to co-mingle customer funds with their own, no crime can be committed for the use of customer deposited monies.
According to Walker Todd , former lawyer for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Cleveland: “Basically, there is a new 7th Circuit opinion saying that there is no reason to impose a constructive trust on a lender’s takings of customers’ funds from client commodity firms that were used (inappropriately) to secure the firms’ borrowings, as long as the lender can say that it did not know WITH CERTAINTY that customers’ funds were being repledged. Negligence and misappropriation (vs. knowing criminal intent) are now a sufficient excuse for letting the lender keep the money and go to the head of the line for distributions in bankruptcies of the client commodity firms.”

When a customer deposits money into a bank, the bank essentially issues a promise to have those funds available when the customer returns to withdraw the deposited amount. When the same customer withdraws funds from their account (whether checking or savings) the customer assumes that the bank has enough funds to cover their withdrawal; including the presumption that their monies are separate from the bank’s assets.

Now, those funds are up for grabs by the bank at their discretion without explanation to the customer – nor is the bank obligated to recoup the customer should they “lose” those funds due to bad loans, bankruptcy or stock market loss.

In Texas, Pamela Cobb, manager of Bank of America (BoA), stole an estimated $2 million from customer funds for personal use. Cobb had been taking customer segregated funds since 2002.

Customers have complained of fraudulent charges placed on their accounts that BoA cannot explain. When the customer brings these charges to the in-house fraud department, they are given the run-around until they acquiesce.

Other customers have had their private possessions stolen right out of their safety deposit box held at BoA. The safety deposit box was drilled into and the contents shipped to the BoA corporate holding center in South Carolina.

In 1992 to 2003, Citibank called their theft of customer funds “account sweeping” wherein they stole more than $14 million from customers nationally. Using computerized credit card processes to remove positive and negative balances from customers, the scheme included double payments or funds paid out on returned purchases that were then attributed back to the customer.

At Chase bank, an anonymous employee opened an account under a customer name (targeting an Alzheimer’s sufferer), complete with a personal debit card. An estimated $300 per day was withdrawn on the fraudulent account. When family representing the victim alerted Chase, they brushed them off with an internal investigation claim – even as the family sought legal action.

Banking fraud against the elderly has risen of late, since banks realize they can steal massive amounts of cash from their aging customers with little to no repercussions.

The recent ruling on SMG has given the banking industry the legal backing they have been lacking when stealing from their customers.

Our financial institutions have been planning for a financial collapse wherein the US government will not offer assistance. The resolution plans required by the Federal Reserve Bank, described schemes to have the major domestic banks remain afloat by selling off assets, finding alternative sources of funding, reducing risky measures that make a quick buck. These strategies were to be perfected with “no assumption of extraordinary support from the public sector.”

The mega-banks, through Wall Street, are also acquiring firearms, ammunition and control over private mercenary corporations like DynCorp and ‘Blackwater” as authorized by the Department of Defense (DoD) directive 3025.18 .

DynCorp is a military-based private mercenary contractor that provides (among other services) intelligence training and support, international security, contingency plans and operations. Ninety-six percent of their funding is based on annual revenues from the US federal government. The international branch of DynCorp has operated as a “police force” even assisting local law enforcement during Hurricane Katrina.

Named as investors for the amassing of gun and ammunition manufacturers are Citibank, BoA, Barclays and Deutsche Bank who are pouring money into Cerebus and Veritas Equity who have taken over private corporations involved in the controlling riot situations.

The Federal Reserve Bank, one of the heads of banking cartels, has their own police force which operates as a protective security for the Fed against the American public. As part of the Federal Reserve Act signed in 1913, the designation of a Federal Law Enforcement – special police officers that are exclusively regulated by authority of the Fed (whether in uniform or plain clothes. These specialized police officers (who train with Special Response Teams) can work in tandem with local law enforcement or US federal agencies. These officers are heavily armed with semi-automatic pistols, sub machine guns and assault rifles as well as body armor.

Of recent, when withdrawing cash from an ATM, the daily allotted amount has decreased with some banks, thereby forcing the customer to go into the branch and extract the difference with a teller. At this point, according to anonymous informants, the customer is taken into a backroom to be questioned as to why they want the cash, what they are purchasing with the cash, why they are not choosing to use a debit card or another form of digital trade to make the purchase. These questions are not only intrusive, they are illegal.

Some anonymous sources have said that banking representatives who conduct the integrations are directed to keep a record of customer responses on an online application that will be sent to the FBI in conjunction with Patriot Act mandates on tracking banking activity.

Customer funds are no longer secure, no longer backed by the FDIC or other insurance corporations, and banks are legally allowed to co-mingled customer money with other funds of the bank. The only safe place for your money is with you.

Now is the time to close your bank account.

U.S. Banks told to make plans for Financial Collapse

By RICK ROTHACKER | REUTERS | AUGUST 10, 2012

U.S. regulators directed five of the country’s biggest banks, including Bank of America Corp and Goldman Sachs Group Inc, to develop plans for staving off collapse if they faced serious problems, emphasizing that the banks could not count on government help.

The two-year-old program, which has been largely secret until now, is in addition to the “living wills” the banks crafted to help regulators dismantle them if they actually do fail. It shows how hard regulators are working to ensure that banks have plans for worst-case scenarios and can act rationally in times of distress.

Officials like Lehman Brothers former Chief Executive Dick Fuld have been criticized for having been too hesitant to take bold steps to solve their banks’ problems during the financial crisis.

According to documents obtained by Reuters, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency first directed five banks – which also include Citigroup Inc,, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co – to come up with these “recovery plans” in May 2010.

They told banks to consider drastic efforts to prevent failure in times of distress, including selling off businesses, finding other funding sources if regular borrowing markets shut them out, and reducing risk. The plans must be feasible to execute within three to six months, and banks were to “make no assumption of extraordinary support from the public sector,” according to the documents.

Spokespeople for the five banks declined to comment. The Federal Reserve also declined to comment.

Recovery plans differ from living wills, also known as “resolution plans,” which are required under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Living wills aim to end bailouts of too-big-to-fail banks by showing how they would liquidate themselves without imperiling the financial system.

“Recovery plans are about protecting the crown jewels,” said Paul Cantwell, a managing director at consulting firm Alvarez & Marsal. “It’s about, ‘How do I sell off non-core assets?’ The priority is to the shareholders. A resolution plan is about protecting the system, taxpayers and creditors.”

The recovery plans are being used as part of regulators’ ongoing supervisory process. In Britain, recovery and resolution plans have both been part of the living will requirements for large banks.

Mike Brosnan, senior deputy comptroller for large banks at the OCC, said the regulator continuously evaluates contingency planning at the banks and savings associations it supervises.

“Recovery plans required of the largest banks are helpful in ensuring banks and regulators are prepared to manage periods of severe financial distress or instability affecting the banking sector,” he said.

This summer, nine global banks submitted living wills to the Fed and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, and regulators released the public portion of the documents.

The recovery plans requested in 2010, meanwhile, have received little publicity. The names of the banks required to submit them have not been previously disclosed, and Reuters obtained them only through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The Fed supplied Reuters with the letters requesting plans from banks, but not the banks’ actual plans because they were deemed confidential supervisory information. The regulator said it was withholding 5,100 pages of information.

MOVING FURTHER FROM DISASTER

Five years after the financial crisis, concerns remain about whether blow-ups at big banks could lead to another round of taxpayer bailouts. Trading losses have cost JPMorgan nearly $6 billion so far, and scandals such as the alleged rigging of an international interest rate benchmark have only highlighted the risks lurking inside big banks.

These disasters have damaged banks’ reputations, but not their balance sheets. Most are still profitable, and in recent years the five banks have improved their capital bases and liquidity. They also have been subjected to annual Federal Reserve stress tests that measure whether the banks have sufficient capital to weather severe economic scenarios.

Bank of America and Citigroup, in a sense, have already been executing the kind of moves called for in the recovery plans. Both have been selling off non-core operations and assets to streamline their sprawling businesses, after receiving multiple bailouts during the financial crisis.

Bank of America in June 2011 told Fed officials that it could shed branches in some parts of the country if it needed to raise capital in an emergency, a person familiar with the matter said in January. The proposal was part of a series of options provided to the Fed, including issuing a tracking stock for Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch operations.

But just because the bank proposed selling branches does not mean it’s a desirable move or highly probable, the person said. In the past year, Bank of America has shown progress in building capital without such actions. Its Tier 1 common capital ratio increased to 11.24 percent of risk-weighted assets as of June 30 from 8.23 percent a year earlier.

Tier 1 refers to a bank’s core capital and has been the main focus of regulators in assessing a bank’s capital adequacy.

MENTIONED IN PASSING

The banks’ chief risk officers, and in the case of Citigroup, Chief Executive Vikram Pandit, received letters in May 2010 instructing them on what to include in the recovery plans. The requests stemmed from January 2010 crisis management meetings held by regulators. The letters sent to the five banks were nearly identical.

Each plan was to address severe financial stress at the firm, as well as “general financial instability.” The plans should be capable of being executed ideally within three months, but no longer than six months, the documents said.

The plans should “make appropriate assumptions as to the valuations of assets and off-balance sheet positions,” the documents said.

Recovery plans have been mentioned in public before, but only in passing. In testimony to Congress in July 2010, Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo said the “largest internationally active U.S. banking organizations” were working on recovery plans. The initiative stemmed from work led by the Financial Stability Board, a body that coordinates the work of international financial regulators, he said.

In a presentation in March, JPMorgan Chase said it had a recovery plan in place and said it was ordered by regulators. The presentation was organized by Harvard Law School and was closed to the media at the time, but is available online. (here)

Banks Can No Longer Hide the Collapse

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | MAY 16, 2012

It’s been at least four years since the current financial collapse began. Back in 2008, when the crisis was already taking shape, the banks supported by international financial institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, Bank of Europe, Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve did not hesitate to calm everyone down saying that the earliest signs of a global financial collapse were nothing to worry about. It was all a minor cough, they said. But as time went by, those who warned about the coming depression were proven correct. The forecasts of local, regional and global crisis were unfortunately true.

Today, four years after the banks recognized the existence of a ‘difficult situation’ due to the accumulation of sovereign debt, we have confirmed, over and over, that the threat of a global financial collapse is greater than ever, and that it is just a matter of time before more countries declare bankruptcy. The crisis did not begin with Greece, as many would have us believe. It did not start with Iceland either. In fact, Iceland did what it had to do in order to clean its own house. The collapse began from the moment the bankers were set free to gamble away investments into fake financial products they invented to lure nations into fast and easy returns on their savings.

The signs of the crisis have been so alarming, that in the past few weeks the same entities that once said there was no crisis, and that the economy would begin to pick up, started to warn that the world was getting to edge of the precipice. Their acceptance of the inevitable did not come easy. It was only after reality made it impossible to hide the current financial collapse that the bankers had to come out and publicly accept that their debt based business model came to an end. However, this acceptance was not a clear ‘it is our fault’ kind of thing. Instead, the bankers sought to blame countries for their irresponsible management of savings and investments which the bankers themselves had helped to carry out by swindling politicians and bureaucrats to divest their people’s monies to put it all in one single bag; the banker’s bag.

The collapse couldn’t have happened without the help of accomplice politicians who opened their country’s doors to powerful financial institutions by deregulating their activity, permitting investment banks to fuse their operations with savings banks. Those banks then offered toxic financial products which countries around the world invested their monies in under the premise that their cash would be returned fast and multiplied many times over.

As we now know, in the case of Greece and Iceland deregulation brought about more debt rather than a healthy recovery. The difference is that Iceland decided to face their debt problem the right way, liquidating what needed to be liquidated instead of bailing out their banks and other institutions that had used their money to buy credit default swaps. Greece on the other hand decided to bend over to the bankers’ demands and began accept supposed financial aid provided by other European nations. As a result, the country is in a financial comma from where it will probably not wake up unless it exits the Euro zone and goes back to the drachma, its former currency. Greece’s exit from the Euro will not only allow it to start fresh, but also will free the country from the chains attached to it by powerful European bankers in command of the fraudulent Euro scheme. Greece’s only possible change of survival as a nation is to reject the payment of a gigantic illegally incurred debt acquired by corrupt politicians on behalf of their people, who were not consulted about it. Most of that debt, as it happened in the case of Iceland, does not belong to the Greek, but to banks themselves.

As we reported before, people have begun to realize that their trusted leaders defrauded them and one by one they’ve been voted out of office. Greece’s former Prime Minister was outed, France’s Sarkozy was also kicked out of office and Angela Merkel had giant loses in the latest state elections in Germany. Meanwhile, in the United States, the man who came with change written all over himself will most likely be changed next november. Any and all efforts made by the bankers to provide a rosy picture of reality has failed because reality has shown the dark side they didn’t want people to see.

World stocks and the euro have fallen in value as nations become less capable of paying their debt. Banks all over the Eurozone continue to be downgraded and borrowing rates for eurozone countries continue to go up as none of the nations are trusted to pay their dues. Attempts by Greece’s President to form a new government which he openly called to be composed by technocrats failed Tuesday and new elections will have to take place. The rejection by Greek politicians to form a government led by their president comes during a time when the country is incapable of paying the interests on its debt and with it the likelihood of Greece abandoning the Eurozone becomes more real than before.

The shaky conditions in the Mediterranean nation has prompted people to take their money out of the banks. In the last week, depositors have withdrawn at least 1 billion out of Greece’s banks and the trend is expected to continue. Meanwhile, the Bank of England has cut down its forecast for economic growth for Britain as it warned that the debt crisis was the biggest threat to the financial recovery. Suddenly the organizations that promoted indebtedness are now portraying themselves as the speakers of truth. In its announcement, the BoE says that growth will be limited to just 1 percent, as supposed to just over 1 percent, a number given by the bank in a previous financial report. The BoE also cut down its growth estimate for 2013. It now sets it at 2 percent, as supposed to 3 percent from its previous estimations in February.

The financial crisis’ effects have been augmented by the interconnectedness of the global economy, composed by economic blocks as supposed to independent nation-states. Nowadays, a sneeze in Italy will carry its waves to all the European Union. A protectionist measure in Argentina will impact the whole Mercosur. Another trend that shows the reach of the current financial crisis is the movement of large amounts of cash from one country to another. Investors seem to trust Germany more than Greece as they’ve bet their assets will be safer there. The interest rate which Germany must pay to borrow money for 10 years fell to the lowest level ever in early trading on Wednesday, which is a reflection of the growing concern about the need for Greece to carry out elections. “New elections are risky because they could confirm the population’s support for anti-austerity parties and lead eventually to a eurozone exit”, said bond strategist Jean-Francois Robin to AFP.

The latest voice of alarm came from the International Monetary Fund’s President, Christine Lagarde, who said that when it comes to Greece she is prepared for anything, and that she believes that a Greek exit from the Eurozone must be done in an orderly fashion. Both Angela Merkel and Greece’s President, Karolos Papoulias, have gone out fear mongering on the public they most make the right decision in the coming election, of face a “threat to our national existence”. According to the UK Telegraph European shares and the euro itself fell again. The stock markets, such as the Eurostoxx 600 fell 0.7 per cent to a year-low; Germany’s Dax dropped 0.8 percent and Spain’s Ibex was down 1.6 per cent. In London the FTSE100 slid 0.5 per cent. These are clear signs that not even the banks believe that a solution to the Greek crisis will emerge, or that a recovery will take place anytime soon.

Elsewhere in Europe, the worrisome situation in Spain, for example, further accelerates the collapse of the Euro system. The rate of borrowing for debtor nations which are seen as riskier borrowers jumped sharply this week. In Spain, the market rate on 10-year bonds increased to 6.49 percent, exactly .4 above the levels that analysts consider safe to sustain in the long run. Despite its decision to once again bailout commercial banks, Spain continues to struggle to keep its head over the water. The banks that the country is trying to ‘rescue’ from their knowingly bad investments are feeling their loses from their loans to the real-estate sector, which collapsed in 2008. Local media reported today that Moody’s, an entity created by the banks themselves, was ready to once again cut down the ratings of some 20 spanish banks just a couple of days after it cut down the ratings of 26 Italian banks.

Italy, Spain and Portugal are said to be the next countries that will join Greece in the financial bankruptcy wagon; a process that will only be delayed if the European bankers decide to continue with their policies to force the hand of countries which they are in complete control of to bailout more local banks that invested in heavily toxic financial products. This process is set to go on for as long as the bankers need in order to further consolidate power in Europe and the United States. The final implosion will occur after the banks have absorbed the largest and most important nations of the troubled European Union zone, which is originally composed by 17 countries.