At the UN - Economic migrant or refugee? Theresa May calls for refugee rule book to be rewritten

Economic migrant or refugee? Theresa May calls for refugee rule book to be rewritten

THERESA May has called for the refugee rule book to be rewritten as she highlighted the need for a distinction between economic migrants and those fleeing war.

By ALIX CULBERTSON & REBECCA PERRING

PUBLISHED: 00:00, Mon, Sep 19, 2016 | UPDATED: 18:40, Mon, Sep 19, 2016

The British Prime Minister has set out plans at a major United Nations summit in New York to tackle the global migrant crisis, as authorities continue to probe an explosion in a crowded Manhattan neighborhood.

At the summit Mrs May told fellow world leaders there should be a better distinction between refugees and people attempting to enter a country for economic reasons.

She also called for refugees to have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

Theresa May is calling for different rules for economic migrants and refugees.

Mrs May called for migrants to have to claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive i

We cannot simply focus on treating the symptoms of this crisis, we need to address its root causes too

The Tory leader stressed nations do have a right to control their borders and a responsibility to prevent illegal and uncontrolled migration.

Addressing global leaders she said: "Across the world today there are 65 million displaced people. That has particular resonance for the United Kingdom - it is equivalent to our entire population." 

The prime minister called for the “international community to come together and find new ways of dealing with the challenges we face today”. 

She went on: "We must all do more. The UK will continue with their global response. 

"We must continue our efforts to end conflicts, tackle human rights abuses and persecution and support those affected. 

"It is the duty of every country to respond. "

Mrs May said the crisis has been “exacerbated by unprecedented levels of uncontrolled migration. 

She said: "It is not only refugees that are making large numbers, it is also those seeking greater economic opportunities and this is a global challenge, imposing huge strains across countries including Asia, Africa Americas and Europe. 

"Of course controlled, legal migration fits our economies and there is nothing wrong with the desire to migrate for a better life. 

"But the uncontrolled migration we see today is not in the best interests of migrants who are exposed to danger, not in the best interest of the rest of the countries they are leaving, travelling through or seeking to reach. 

"It is not in the interest of refugees, of whom popular support is reduced. "

Charity workers in NYC have placed hundreds of life jackets used by migrants to get across to Europe Her urgent calls for reforms to the way refugees are treated represents one of the strongest appeals for change.

Last year more than a million refugees claimed asylum in the European Union (EU), with most heading to Germany after Angela Merkel announced an open-door policy.

The majority of migrants arrived in Greece, Turkey or Italy, but most traveled on to claim asylum in western European countries.

Mrs May, added: "As the world's second-largest bilateral humanitarian donor, the UK is already playing its part and we will step up our efforts with further financial assistance and concrete action in partnership with the countries most affected.

"But we cannot simply focus on treating the symptoms of this crisis, we need to address its root causes too.

"While we must continue our efforts to end conflict, stop persecution and the abuse of human rights, I believe we also need a new, more effective global approach to manage migration.

"This should be based around three principles which will better serve the interests of migrants, who are exposed to danger; the interests of the countries they are leaving, travelling through or seeking to reach; and, most importantly, the interests of refugees, for whom we all share a responsibility to help."

Many migrants have arrived in Greece then trekked across Europe to the west of the continent.

As well as speaking at the UN event, chaired by secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, Mrs May will also take part in a summit on refugees hosted by US president Barack Obama on Tuesday.

By setting out her plan, Mrs May is laying down an early marker as the UN begins two years of negotiations on politically binding contracts on refugees and migrants.

-----------------------------------------------------

Commentary:

Administrator

THE OTIUM POST

Enéas Carneiro falando sobre privatizações e manipulação da mídia- “bem atual”!

Enéas Carneiro falando sobre privatizações e manipulação da mídia- “bem atual”!

18 de setembro de 2016 

O saudoso político brasileiro, Dr, Enéas Carneiro, já falava em tempos atrás, como o Brasil entregava suas riquezas para grupos multi-nacionais, inclusive através de privatizações que foi marca característica do governo FHC. 

A coisa agora parece retornar através do governo Michel Temer! No pacote de privatizações de Temer, o mesmo pretende entregar áreas do pré-sal para a iniciativa privada, e tudo isso financiado pelos próprios bancos estatais. 

No vídeo e em outros que estão à disposição na internet, Éneas fala sempre sobre à questão do Nióbio de como o mega investidor illuminati George Soros está por traz disso tudo, e sobrea a manipulação da mídia. 

E por falar em imprensa, a mesma dá logo um jeito de estereotipar pessoas como Enéas que falam a verdade,  de louco, doido, etc, assim como fazem com Jair Bolsonaro,  assista:

-------------------------------------

CÁRMEN LÚCIA, NOVA PRESIDENTE DO STF, MENCIONA A NOVA ORDEM MUNDIAL EM SEU PRIMEIRO DISCURSO

14 de setembro de 2016 Debates, 

A ministra Cármen Lúcia assumiu nesta segunda-feira (12) a presidência do Supremo Tribunal Federal.

Durante seu discurso na cerimônia de posse, ela faz menção à letra da música de Caetano Veloso:

“Alguma coisa está fora de ordem. Fora da nova ordem mundial” … “O que nos cumpre a nós, servidores públicos em especial, e aos juízes, questionar e achar resposta urgente é: de qual ordem tudo está fora? Os conflitos multiplicam-se e não há soluções fáceis ou conhecidas para serem aproveitadas. Vivemos tempos tormentosos. Há que se fazer a travessia para tempos mais pacificados”, declarou.

 Uma pergunta que muitos já devem conhecer a resposta: Que “ordem” é esta que precisa ser estabelecida? A nova ordem através do caos, lema da maçonaria, e instituída pela elite globalista? Se depender do caos que vive o Brasil, deixado por eles próprios, inclusive (e principalmente) por Lula, Sarney, Renan, Temer, e tantos outros “cordeiros imaculados” presentes no evento, os globalistas não encontrarão maiores intempéries para estabelecer esta nova ordem.

Não é segredo para mais ninguém que nesta política brasileira, que é tão noticiada na mídia prostituta, tudo não passa de uma mera encenação, onde apenas se trocam os atores, mas a agenda globalista-socialista da ONU segue à passos largos, rumo à instituição final da Nova Ordem Mundial.

Marcos Paulo Goes

Via G1
-------------------------------------------------------



Commentary:

Temer and Maria Lucia both happy and relived, promise fulfilled...

Administrator

THE OTIUM POST

An Unorthodox (crazy?) Solution To The World's Economic Problems

An Unorthodox Solution To The World's Economic Problems

by Tyler Durden - Sep 20, 2016 3:30 AM

Submitted by Frank Hollenbeck via Mises.ca,

We currently face a monumental dilemma. How do we extract ourselves from all this excessive debt without crashing the world economy? There is a solution which is totally counter intuitive: print even more money. In other words, to get out of the deep, deep hole we are in, dig even deeper.

It is called the Chicago plan. With a stroke of a pen, money would be substituted for debt, without the negative consequences of printing money. Banking would be restructured so that it never again leads to boom and bust cycles, and most debt, public and private, could be cancelled.  It’s basically a “one time” get out of jail card for the world economy.

The plan, and there are different versions, was first developed in the 1920s and 193os by the leading economists of the time. A version of this plan was actually put on Roosevelt’s desk, and was presented to Congress for implementation in 1934.

Back then, economists realized that it was the rapid expansion and contraction of credit, not driven by fundamentals of the real economy, which created most booms and busts. This is because banks can make a loan and then finance it out of thin air, through the fractional reserve banking system- something no other business can do. Of course, central banks adding unnecessary liquidity aggravated the problem and made the boom and bust cycles worse.

An essential feature of all the different Chicago plans is that it would require banks to hold 100% reserves against deposits.

Currently, banks in the U.S. normally are required to hold between 0 and 10 percent reserves against deposits. According to the Chicago plan, banks would be required to exchange their assets for enough money to bring their reserves up to 100%. It is basically an asset swap, with the government exchanging cash for almost all the banks private and public debt. This new money in the banking system just sits there since banks have a new 100% reserve requirement, so there are no inflationary consequences of all this new printing.  An IMF paper on the Chicago plan estimates that government could cancel the entire government debt held by banks and over $15 trillion of private debt!

Irvin Fisher, a Yale economist whom Milton Friedman called America’s greatest economist, said that the plan would greatly reduce the severity of business cycles, probably eliminating booms and busts. Bank runs would be impossible, making deposit insurance unnecessary, and it would greatly reduce the amount of public and private debt.

The IMF paper using state of the art economic modeling concluded that Dr. Fisher was right, and that the plan would be even more beneficial. Real GDP growth would initially surge by 10% resulting from the elimination of many distortions.

Many Austrians would normally cringe at such a plan since it implies massive government intervention and the strengthening, although temporarily, of government influence on the economy. This, however, can be viewed as one of the few legitimate roles for governments: enforcing property rights. Fractional reserve banking is fraud (see here and here) since it generates multiple claims to the same real resources or goods and services. The Chicago plan would simply be taking ill-gotten gains away from the counterfeiters.

The plan, if structured correctly, would achieve most of what Austrian economists have been proposing for many years, and would finally set the world economy on a stable path.

First, it is important to put a wall between the deposit function and the loan function. Historically, the incentive to engage in the FRB Ponzi scheme, committing fraud, is simply too great. These functions should not coexist in the same entity. We should have deposit banks and investment trusts, which should be 100% equity financed. These investment trusts or loan banks would then be like any other business and would not need any more regulation than that of the makers of potato chips.

A very interesting feature of the crypto-currency  bitcoin is the “bitcoin wallet.” To a large degree, this would eliminate the need for deposit banks. We could have a worldwide crypto-currency, call it the Dypre (first letters of major currencies), or multiple crypto-currencies linked to gold.  Banks would then finally act as true financial intermediaries instead of the fraudsters they are today. Some of the assets in the asset swap could be bank ATMs, to be converted to crypto-currency distribution points and then sold off to the private sector.

Governments should not be allowed to finance banks – a feature of the IMF plan. Investing in a loan bank or, more accurately, a 100% equity financed investment trust, should be like investing in the stock market. You know you could lose everything. However, money in a deposit bank is there, for sure, to pay your rent and electricity bills.

Second, central banks should be abolished. Every dollar that the central bank prints is a tax on cash balances: a tax which no one has voted for. Deflation should be the norm, as during much of the 19th century. A real gold standard should be seriously considered, since governments simply cannot be trusted. There is simply too much temptation to print money to fund spending, or to use the printing press to reach unattainable macroeconomic goals. This will finally stop governments from fiddling with the economy’s most important price: the interest rate.

Finally, private debt instruments should cease to exist if they are fraudulent in nature. This is a very important since past attempts to separate deposit banking from loan banking failed because banks were able to create near money-a demand deposit in a different dress (e.g., a money market mutual fund).

Many free market economist fear that such a plan would simply allow government and the private sector to ramp up borrowing all over again. The difference this time is that governments and households would have to compete with the demand for plants and equipment (investment) for a limited amount of funds coming from slow-moving savings. Higher interest rates would quickly create pressures for less borrowing.

The ideal solution would be to link a balance budget to the plan. Governments would then depend solely on direct taxation to fund spending. The government would have to explain to the taxpayer why he must forgo his flat screen television at Christmas to pay for soldiers in Afghanistan or planes over Libya. The average citizen would finally realize there is no free lunch, and that government services require real sacrifices.

The Chicago plan failed in the 30s because the banking cartel killed it. Today the situation is different. People blame banks for the current monumental mess we are in. If academic economists can get together behind some version of this plan, as they did in the 30s, it is possible, with public support, to bring the banking cartel, obviously screaming and kicking, to the alter of 100% reserve banking.

Inaction is not an option. Today, we are between a rock and a hard place with no good choices. We are left with the increasing likelihood of severe depressions and hyperinflations eventually leading to dictatorships. If history is a guide, Napoleon and Hitler, both responsible for millions of deaths, rode to power on a wave of discontent that followed periods of excessive monetary printing. For Napoleon it was the hyperinflation of 1790-1797, and for Hitler the hyperinflation of 1921-1923. In that situation, no one really wins.

Europe is a runaway train with a certain crash in its future. European governments would be wise to discuss a rapid implementation of this plan for their economies, before extremism takes hold again, and Europe repeats its catastrophic past.

It is essential that we start a banking revolution before it is too late. The Chicago plan would restructure the banking system leaving a world for our children that is stable without the booms and busts that have created so much hardship for so many.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Commentary:

Administrator

THE OTIUM POST

Biggest market crash in HISTORY is coming as HUGE debt bubble bursts, top investor warns

Biggest market crash in HISTORY is coming as HUGE debt bubble bursts, top investor warns

NOW is the most dangerous time EVER to be an investor, as a giant bubble could be about to pop and derail the world's financial system, a financial expert has warned.

DAILY EXPRESS - By LANA CLEMENTS

PUBLISHED: 15:20, Mon, Sep 19, 2016 | UPDATED: 16:22, Mon, Sep 19, 2016

'Central banks have created a huge debt bubble'

Since the financial crisis market bubbles have been created by the world's central banks, which have flooded markets with money in the hope of stimulating an economic recovery, according to Michael Pento, president of Pento Portfolio Strategies (PPS).

But now this bubble is set to burst, which will mean the total collapse of financial markets across the world, the wall street expert warned. 

The predicted crash is set to be so severe that there will not be a single asset that is safe, with even the value of diamonds and sports cars completely decimated, according to Mr Pento.

He said the current financial conditions are "the most dangerous markets i have ever witnessed in my entire life - and i've been investing for over 25 years… The membrane has been stretched so wide and so tight that its about to burst."

Deutsche Bank shares CRASH after US hits bank with £10BILLION fine

Anger as Bank of England set to cut interest rates AGAIN in November

Michael Pento says it's a dangerous time to be an investor

It comes as global central bank balance streets have gone from $6trillion in 2007 to $21trn today - and they are still being expanded at the pace of $200billion every month, according to Mr Pento. 

The Bank of England, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan are among the institutions that this year have kept printing money through Quantitative Easing (QE) programmes that involves buying the bonds - or debts - of governments and investment grade companies. 

This has pushed up bond prices higher and higher, while yields - or payouts - have dropped to record lows.

'Prepare for perfect storm that wipes 12 per cent off stock markets'

Germany heading for financial NIGHTMARE as Brexit kills confidence

There are 1810 billionaires worldwide and according to Forbes 2016 rich list, Bill Gates is still the richest person on the planet, along with Bill, here are a few others on that all-important list.

1. Bill Gates - $75 billion: Co-founder of Microsoft, Bill dropped out of Harvard University and became the richest man in the world

2. Amancio Ortega - $67.1 billion: The 79 year old from Spain owns Zara

3. Warren Buffett - $60.8 billion: The 85-year old invester bcame a billion in 1990 after investing in Coca-Cola

4. Carlos Slim Helu- $50 billion: Carlos is the owner of Telecom

5. Jeff Bezos - $45.2 billion: American Jeff, 52, founded Amazon in 1994 from his garage

6. Mark Zuckerberg - $44.6 billion: The Facebook developer has pledged to give away 99% of his fortune

7. Larry Ellison - £43.6 billion: The 71-year old is the executive chairman and chief technology officer for Oracle

8. Michael Bloomberg - $40 billion: Founder and chief executive of the finanical news company of Bloomberg. He also served as the New York Mayor 2002-2013

9. Charles Koch - $39.6 Billion: Charles, 80, co-owns Koch Industries with his borther David

9. David Koch - $39.6 billion: David, 75, is the vice president of Koch Industries

10. Liliane Bettencourt - $36.5 billion: Liliane, 93, is the founder of L'Oreal and one of the most powerful women in the world

12. Larry Page - $35.8 billion: The sucessful 42-year old in the co-founder of Google

13. Sergey Brin - $35.2 billion: The Russian computer expert is a co-founder of Google 

14. Bernard Arnault - $32.7 billion: The 66-year old owns LVMH

15. Jim Walton - Jim Walton is the chief executive of Arvest Bank Group Inc, which owns Walmart.

17. Sam Robson Walton $32.5 Billion: The 72 year old served as chairman for Arvest Bank Group Inc, which owns Walmart, between 1992 and 2015

Alice Walton - $30.9 billion: Alice is the daughter of Sam Waltonm founder of Walmart

18. Christy Walton $29.6 billion: Christy is the widow of John Walton who was one of the sons of Sam Walton, Walmart's founder

19. Li Ka-shing - $28.6 billion: Li Ka-shaing is said to be the richest person in Asia

20. Wang Jianlin - $26.4 billion: Wang is the chairman of the Dalian Wanda Group

Others:

Phil Knight is the co-founder of Nike and is worth $24.9 billion

George Soros is a billionaire investor worth $24.5 billion

Steve Ballmer was chief executive of Microsoft, owns LA Clippers and is worth $23.9 billion

Jacqueline Mars, granddaughter to Frank C Mars, is worth $23 billion

John Mars, grandson of Frank C Mars, is worth $23 billion

Confectionary giant Forrest Mars is worth $23 billion

Jorge Paulo Lemann made his $23.8 billion through Garantia

David Thomson, chairman of Thomson Reuters Corp., is worth $22.8 billion

Sheldon Adelson made his money from casinos and is worth $22.5 billion

Mukesh Ambani worth $22.3

Lee Shau Kee worth $22.2 billion

Maria Franca Fissolo worth $21.8 billion

Jack Ma made his $21.8 billion fortune through e-commerce

Leonardo Del Vecchio, with Giorgio Armarni, made $21.2 billion fortune from Sunglass Hut

Stefan Persson is the owner of H&M and is worth $20.8 billion

Carl Icahn founded Icahn Enterprises and is worth $18.5 billion

Michael Dell made his $18.4 billion fortune from Dell computing

Paul G. Allen is the co-founder of Microsoft and is worth $17.9 billion

Beate Heister and Karl Albrecht Jr, co-founders of Aldi, are worth $17.7 billion

Susanne Klatten made her $17.5 billion from pharmaceuticals and BMW

Anne Cox Chambers was a director of Coca-Cola Company and is worth $17.3 billion

Dhanin Chearavanont is a food businessman worth $17.2 billion

Tadashi Yanai owns Fast Retailing $17.2 billion

Laurene Powell is the widow of Steve Jobs and is worth $17.1 billion

Ma Huateng is the Chief Executive of Tencent Inc, one of China’s largest online companies, and is worth $16.8 billion

Len Blavatnik, with Rita Ora, from America, is worth $16.6 billion

Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud is Saudi billionaire worth $16. Billion and co-founder of Kingdom Holding Company

Theo Albrecht Jr is the son of Aldi’s founder and is worth $16.1 billion

Stefan Quandt is German.serves as a supervisory board member at BMW, worth $16 billion

Azim Premji made his money in software and is worth $16 billion        

Michael Otto, with his wife Christi,fortune from retail -real estate and is worth $15.9 billion

Dilip Shanghvi made his money from pharmaceuticals and is worth $15.9 billion

Ray Dalio is the founder of Bridgewater Associates and is worth $15.7 billion

Donald Bren worth $15.2 billion 

Serge Dassault is a French aviation businessman worth $14.8 billion

Srichand and Gopichand Hinduja own various banks, media groups and energy firms, worth $14.5 billion

Aliko Dangote is the richest man in Africa through his cement company Dangote Industries and is worth of $14.3 billion 

Dieter Schwarz owns Lidl and Kaufland and is worth $14.2 billion

James H. Simons is a billionaire star of mathematics,private investment worth $14 billion

Cheng Yu-Tung from Hong Kong is worth $13.9 billion

Charles Ergen owns Dish Network, is worth $13.9 billion

It means some corporate bonds - or debts - are now trading with negative yields, which means that investors are essentially paying to lend money in the hope the debt price will keep rising. 

Mr Pento has now warned that when policymakers signal they are set to stop buying, which will stop bond prices rising, there is going to be a devastating crash - not just in bond markets but across all investment assets. 

He said: "When the bond market breaks, when that bubble bursts, it will wipe out every asset, everything will collapse together… I mean diamonds, sports cars, mutual funds, municipal bonds, fixed income, reits, collateralised loan obligations, stocks, bonds - even commodities - will collapse in tandem along with the bond bubble burst."

EU crisis looms as Greece, Spain and Portugal pose TRIPLE THREAT

Tim Martin DESTROYS Brexit doom-monger claims

Mr Pento argues that central banks should have allowed house prices and stock prices to take their natural course during the financial crisis. 

He said: "I think 2008 was just a preview of what's going to happen. 

"If we allowed markets to repair themselves in 2008, in other words, if we allowed home prices to fall and, stock prices to fall and interest rates to rise, and debt levels to contract, then we would have had a depression for a few years, at the most. 

"But then we would be able to come out of that with stable money supply, stable interest rates, stable currency, low debt to GDP ratios, high productivity rates, massive capital expenditures, and a nice healthy growing economy. 

"But none of that has been able to occur.... 

We are in a very bad situation..and this is not going to end very well."

---------------------------------------------------------

Latest economic news from UN : >


-------------------------------

Commentary:

Administrator

THE OTIUM POST

Theresa May to warn UN of dangers of uncontrolled mass migration

Theresa May to warn UN of dangers of uncontrolled mass migration

Prime minister will call for new global approach aimed at ‘reducing today’s unman-aged population movement’ 

Theresa May’s intervention at the UN comes as she faces criticism at home for failing to do enough to help refugees.




Photograph: Nick Ansell/AFP/Getty Images

the guardian - Rowena Mason Deputy political editor

Monday 19 September 2016 00.01 BST 

Theresa May is to tell the UN general assembly of the dangers of “uncontrolled mass migration” as it meets in New York to discuss how to help more than 21 million refugees around the world.

The prime minister will call for a different global approach to migration aimed at “reducing today’s unman-aged population movement” as world leaders gather for the general assembly and a separate summit hosted by Barack Obama.

'We have a moral obligation': advocates look to Obama as refugee crisis wears on

At the UN, May will argue that it is not in the interests of the migrants to be exposed to exploitation and danger as they cross borders, nor the interests of the countries they are leaving, travelling through or seeking to reach. She will say that mass population movements reduce resources and popular support for refugees.

Her arguments appear to echo those made by David Cameron’s government, which targeted most of its aid to refugees in countries bordering war zones, in contrast to Germany’s approach of accepting hundreds of thousands of people who had journeyed across Europe.

It does, however, leave the door open for the UK to accept more refugees straight from camps, who have not embarked on journeys across seas and borders.

May will propose three measures: helping refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach; a better distinction between refugees and economic migrants; and the right of all countries to control their borders, along with a responsibility to stop uncontrolled migration flows.

Why won’t the world tackle the refugee crisis?

Speaking before the general assembly, May said: “We cannot simply focus on treating the symptoms of this crisis, we need to address its root causes too.”

The gathering comes as May faces criticism in the UK for failing to do enough to help refugees and demands to improve the UK’s pledge to settle 20,000 people from Syria over four years.

Last week, the former archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams was one of 200 religious leaders to call for more action, criticizing the government’s response as “too slow, too low and too narrow”.

David Miliband, the head of the International Rescue Committee, said this weekend that May should use the summit to promise that the UK will resettle more refugees.

“Frankly, the UK should be saying we’ll take 20,000 or 25,000 a year, so four times the current level, 25 refugees per parliamentary constituency rather than just six, because countries like Canada are already doing that,” he said. “So I think the UK could do more on the refugee resettlement side to match the frankly exemplary performance that the UK has on international humanitarian aid.”

Migrant death toll expected to exceed 10,000 in 2016

Yvette Cooper, the chair of Labour’s refugee task-force, called on May to speed up the government’s pledge to resettle 20,000 Syrians – setting a 2018 target rather than 2020 – and offer more help to those fleeing the war.

She urged the prime minister to resettle 500 unaccompanied child refugees from the Calais camp and ensure that none were left by Christmas.

“The prime minister must show leadership on the refugee crisis,” Cooper said. “She must go to this summit to galvanize international support for refugees and show that Britain can and will meet our commitments. Right now, the decisions parliament and our country have taken are being mired in red tape and government foot-dragging.”

The UN summit on refugees and migrants comes as the outgoing secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and Obama attempt to use their remaining time in office to try to make some headway on issue.

The UK government has said it will support the New York declaration on refugees and migrants due to be adopted at the UN, which reaffirms humanitarian principles but has been criticized by campaign groups for lacking teeth. Human Rights Watch called the draft of the final document “a missed opportunity” and Amnesty International accused member states of stripping away any proposals of substance.

On Tuesday, Obama will host a separate leaders’ summit which will attempt to raise money and secure concrete pledges from countries to accept higher numbers of refugees for resettlement.

May is expected to announce additional humanitarian support for refugees from the government’s ring-fenced aid budget later this week, and further action to provide services and create jobs in host countries.

---------------------------------------------------------

Commentary:

Administrator

THE OTIUM POST

George Soros Open Society Org “Handbook For New Euro Immigrants” Being Given To Muslim Invaders!

SKY News Finds Soros Open Society Org “Handbook For New Euro Immigrants” Being Given To Muslim Immigrants!

Submitted by IWB, on September 14th, 2015

Jonathon Samuels, a SKY News reporter currently on Lesbos, Greece, showed a handbook that Muslim “Immigrants”/Invaders are being given before they leave for Europe.

The “Rough Guide”, being printed and Distributed by the Soros “Open Society” group “W2eu” or “Welcome to the EU”, contains maps, tips, and phone numbers of organizations and government welfare agencies that could help them, once they arrive in Europe. 
There is a well organized group spreading the booklet and fliers in Africa,all funded by a Soros foundation.   Headquarter in Zurich with 6 or more local representatives in Africa and the Middle East.

SKY News finds Handbook for Europe immigrants:>

W2eu’s website says “We welcome all travellers on their difficult trip and wish you all a good journey – because freedom of movement is everybody’s right!”.

The Soros-funded Leftists have been preaching for well over two decades that the people of the “Third World” are entitled to the wealth of the white World, because it was stolen from them.

The hordes are now at the Gates, and they want their FREE STUFF, folks.

G’bye Europe, it was nice knowin’ ya’.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Commentary:

Soros and his fellow globalist elite,Bilderberg,Illuminati, are at the root of the mass incursion
of economic immigrants from Africa and the Middle-East.

These are the people Theresa May has to accuse when she visits the UN in order to curb the
destructive and tragic invasion of Europe.   ALL but the most needy,escaping from war torn
countries must be returned soonest possible to their own countries,with financial aid from UN.

Administrator

THE OTIUM POST

The Casino Economy

Integrity, sovereignty, honesty have gone down the drain in an economic system operated exclusively for the purpose of milking humanity.

Nothing is what it seems, no matter where you turn your gaze. What we today call ”The Economy” is nothing more than a badly run casino. Welcome to the rabbit hole where truth is stranger than fiction.

The Casino Economy

May 2, 2011 Issue

Charles K. Wilber

How Wall Street is gambling with America's financial future

Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done.

—John Maynard Keynes

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, 1936.

Starting in 2007 the U.S. financial system imploded. It was followed by a collapse of the economy into a recession that continues, with unemployment hovering at just below 9 percent. Recovery is moving along in the stock market, and consumer spending is reviving, aided by government fiscal policy. But two questions remain. First, how do we get unemployment down? And second, how do we keep a collapse like this from happening again? I have already discussed the first issue (America, 6/22/09); here I discuss the second.

Following the financial collapse that led to the Great Depression of the 1930s, the U.S. government passed the Glass-Steagall Act, which among other things separated commercial banking activities from riskier investment bank operations. Since 1980, however, one of the main thrusts of public policy has been to free up markets by deregulation (including repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999), cutting taxes and eliminating or reducing social programs. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have pursued these policies. The result has been constant federal deficits, a dramatic increase in income and wealth inequality, periodic financial scandals, decay of public services and infrastructure, the growth of large banks and finally the collapse of the financial services sector and the continuing economic recession. Throw in the cost of fighting two wars and the built-in escalation of so-called entitlement costs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) and the prospects for normal economic recovery are less than rosy. The prospect of another financial disaster is all too probable.

When Big is Not Better

A key question demands attention in the midst of all this: Will the financial sector be reformed so as to reduce significantly the risk of future implosions? A key issue in addressing this question is the very large size of the major banks and the fact that they are seen as “too big to fail.” This has an unfortunate effect on bank executives if they believe they will always be bailed out, even if they are reckless. The insurance industry calls this a moral hazard. A person who buys auto theft insurance, for example, has less incentive to be careful, say, by locking the car doors. If the car is stolen, the insurance company will compensate. Likewise, bank executives will be tempted to take on more risk than is prudent when they know they will be bailed out by government, as they were in the most recent financial crisis.

In an article on the op-ed page of The New York Times (12/1/10), Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, wrote that despite financial reform legislation, the biggest banks still control our economy and pose a serious threat. After the last round of bailouts, “the five largest financial institutions are 20 percent larger than they were before the crisis. They control $8.6 trillion in financial assets—the equivalent of nearly 60 percent of gross domestic product. Like it or not, these firms remain too big to fail.”

“Too big to fail” is a threat that should not be ignored. The financial system is the lifeblood of the economy. Firms need to borrow for investment purposes from banks and other financial institutions. Consumers borrow from banks and credit unions to finance big-ticket purchases like automobiles, houses, appliances and the like. The financial system and the entire economy are deeply intertwined, and if a very large bank goes bankrupt it takes many other firms down with it. The political reality is that very large financial institutions will not be allowed to go under, whichever political party controls government.

If large banks and other financial institutions will not be allowed to go bankrupt, what can be done to reduce their incentives to take on excessive risk?

One possibility is to break up existing banks above some maximum size and enact regulations that will make it difficult for others to grow beyond that maximum. Then the much smaller banks can be allowed to fail when they overextend. This course, however, is unlikely. Neither political party has been serious about downsizing overgrown financial institutions. Why? Executives in the financial services industry are major contributors to both parties. The newly released report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee notes that the financial industry spent $2.7 billion on lobbying from 1999 to 2008 and individuals and committees affiliated with it took in more than $1 billion in campaign contributions.

In addition, government regulators often move back and forth between the private sector and government. Goldman Sachs, for example, paid Lawrence Summers $135,000 for one speech just before he was appointed to be President Obama’s economic adviser. The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, which allows corporations to make unlimited political contributions, has magnified the banks’ political clout, making it even more unlikely that Congress or the administration will enforce a banking reform that breaks up large banks.

The case of Ireland should ring warning bells. There the banks and their executives became so strong that even after having been major contributors to the economic collapse they were still able to dictate the direction of national policies. I do not see any conspiracy at work here, just the reality that economic power translates well into political power. Individual banks in the United States are much smaller relative to the government than in Ireland. Still, it is worth noting that both Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service in January 2011 published statements that the AAA rating of government bonds might be in danger of being downgraded, presumably unless government policies were changed.

Ways to Reduce Risk-Taking

If breaking up the very large financial institutions is not on the table, what other policies might avert another implosion caused by the financial sector’s excessive risk-taking? One way to think about the “too big to fail” issue is this: When the government takes on an implicit liability for bailing out extra-large firms, that is a subsidy to those firms. This encourages smaller banks to get bigger so they, too, can benefit from the subsidy. Therefore, policies must reduce the banks’ incentive for risk-taking and/or discourage them from growing ever larger.

A partial, piecemeal approach would include minimum capital requirements for all financial institutions above a certain size. Switzerland, for example, mandates that their two largest banks, UBS and Credit Suisse, have 19 percent capital by 2019. This will give the banks a cushion during the next financial crisis so they can pay their debts and work out other arrangements to remain solvent. In contrast, according to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee, the five largest investment banks in the United States had only 2.5 percent in capital to cover potential losses. Regulations could also require that in a crisis some bondholders must accept nonpayment or have their bonds converted to stock. Even these proposals will be fought by the financial services industry, particularly by the largest institutions. And there is no guarantee that the Congress or the administration will strongly push them.

An Asset-Based Approach

A more comprehensive approach to re-regulating the financial services sector of the economy, one that might have a chance of being accepted by Congress and the administration, is known as “asset-based reserve requirements,” A.B.R.R. for short. Basically this shifts reserve requirements from a system based on banks’ liabilities (that is, on their checking account deposits) to one based on the assets (loans receivable) of all financial institutions.

Under an asset-based system, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors would require every financial institution to have on deposit in low- or no-interest-bearing accounts with the Federal Reserve, as reserves, fixed percentages of each type of loans receivable (mortgages, auto loans, credit card debt, etc.). The percentages of reserves required would vary depending on the riskiness of the loans. This would force the lending financial institution to be more aware of the costs of riskier loans. Since the deposits with the Federal Reserve accrue little or no interest, risky loans that require a greater percentage of deposits would cause an institution to give up the alternative income that would come from less risky categories of loans. This also means that the Federal Reserve could increase or decrease the reserve requirement for a particular category to either dampen a bubble or bolster a sagging sector.

This is not a new idea. It has been around at least since the early 1970s, when two Federal Reserve governors recommended the approach as a way to direct loans to communities in need. In the 1970s Lester Thurow, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argued for asset-based reserve requirements as a way to control the allocation of lending to various sectors of the economy. But the idea lost steam as the proponents of deregulation commanded center stage during the 1980s. In the early 1990s Robert Polin, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, developed the idea into a specific tool for economic stabilization. In the late 1990s, the economist Thomas Palley, founder of Economics for Democratic & Open Societies, developed the details of the regulatory mechanisms required to make the asset-based reserve system practical.

While a system of asset-based reserves would be far better than the outmoded liability reserve system we presently have, there will be opposition to any attempt to reregulate the financial system. This struggle will not be won overnight. Instead of hand-wringing in the meantime, ordinary Americans can take specific steps to further financial reform.

First, shift personal or family financial accounts from the big banks to a local community bank or credit union; this is a new application of a political tactic called “starve the beast.”

Second, do everything possible to keep the issue of financial instability and the promise of asset-based reserve requirements before the policymakers. Write elected representatives, donate money to Internet groups that keep the issue alive, write letters to the editor of the local newspaper and the like.

Third, urge your parish priest and local bishop to join the cause by reminding them that these financial implosions cause human suffering. That is the real issue—what happens to people, particularly the poor. For 30 years wages for most workers in the United States have been stagnant and poverty has worsened, while the income and the wealth of the richest 1 percent has grown dramatically. The economy has come to resemble a casino.

Political reform may be needed before the power of the financial sector can be restrained and our economy be reformed to serve all the people, including the poorest and least powerful. That too requires us voters to do what we can, letting our representatives know that we will hold them accountable, just as we expect them to hold the financial services sector accountable.

Charles K. Wilber is emeritus professor of economics and a fellow at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind.

--------------------------------------------------

Commentary:

Administrator

THE OTIUM POST

(click for info))