Save starving men, the earth can feed all of us and more, Rich are throwing away millions of food to keep prices higher and higher…
Do you find good and just that a few individuals can earn salaries above US $ one billion per year, with all bonuses, incentives, stock options, one hundred million, 20 millions and so on, when others are dying of hunger ?
While large financial assets are growing exponentially and in a continuous manner, debts will increase even much more. It is the responsibility of the working population to generate interest and accumulated interest. This creation takes place directly in purchases – Helmut Creutz, estimates that 40% of the price of consumer goods, at least, are now hidden interest – and most in the form of unfair and unjust taxes.
Even central and local government must provide debt service continuously paying interest and accumulated interest. This development requires an exponential growth of the economy and constantly leads to new crises.
One author, Hermann Kendel from Berlin, describes in detail the propensity to the crisis and the various attempts to moderate. In doing so, he mentioned other consequences of the system of accumulated interest, including the ongoing crisis in the Third World and ecological disaster.
We must work several hours every day to cope with those hidden costs, we have houses 77 % more expansive or smaller, food is twice the price, everything costs too much. 99,9999999 % of the population has to pay those crazy bonuses in New-York to the happy few shylocks.
The US $ has now a value of only 1 swiss franc, from four francs ( 4,47) in 1948, and it will continue to go down. Small is beautiful and Switzerland is very decentralized, we have even the wir system, a private money system. see www.wir.ch
What are they offering ? what "solutions" in one year time ?
Remember, the FED is a private organization, created just before Christmas 1913, the 23th December ( most christian politicians were already gone to buy presents for their families…), to pass discretly a law to racket the poorer, at a very high cost, human lifes, wars, revolutions, terrorism.
They create the roots of most troubles.
What are the costs of such a system ? Alcool, drug, psy, depression, cancers, divorces, abortions, wars, crisis, unemployment…
Joy for many people…
Landmark Decision: Massive Relief for Homeowners and Trouble for the Banks
By Ellen Brown
URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15324
Global Research, September 21, 2009
A landmark ruling in a recent Kansas Supreme Court case may have given millions of distressed homeowners the legal wedge they need to avoid foreclosure. In Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834, the Kansas Supreme Court held that a nominee company called MERS has no right or standing to bring an action for foreclosure. MERS is an acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, a private company that registers mortgages electronically and tracks changes in ownership. The significance of the holding is that if MERS has no standing to foreclose, then nobody has standing to foreclose – on 60 million mortgages. That is the number of American mortgages currently reported to be held by MERS. Over half of all new U.S. residential mortgage loans are registered with MERS and recorded in its name. Holdings of the Kansas Supreme Court are not binding on the rest of the country, but they are dicta of which other courts take note; and the reasoning behind the decision is sound. Eliminating the “Straw Man” Shielding Lenders and Investors from Liability The development of “electronic” mortgages managed by MERS went hand in hand with the “securitization” of mortgage loans – chopping them into pieces and selling them off to investors. In the heyday of mortgage securitizations, before investors got wise to their risks, lenders would slice up loans, bundle them into “financial products” called “collateralized debt obligations” (CDOs), ostensibly insure them against default by wrapping them in derivatives called “credit default swaps,” and sell them to pension funds, municipal funds, foreign investment funds, and so forth. There were many secured parties, and the pieces kept changing hands; but MERS supposedly kept track of all these changes electronically. MERS would register and record mortgage loans in its name, and it would bring foreclosure actions in its name. MERS not only facilitated the rapid turnover of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, but it has served as a sort of “corporate shield” that protects investors from claims by borrowers concerning predatory lending practices. California attorney Timothy McCandless describes the problem like this:
The real parties in interest concealed behind MERS have been made so faceless, however, that there is now no party with standing to foreclose. The Kansas Supreme Court stated that MERS' relationship “is more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer.” The court opined:
MERS as straw man lacks standing to foreclose, but so does original lender, although it was a signatory to the deal. The lender lacks standing because title had to pass to the secured parties for the arrangement to legally qualify as a “security.” The lender has been paid in full and has no further legal interest in the claim. Only the securities holders have skin in the game; but they have no standing to foreclose, because they were not signatories to the original agreement. They cannot satisfy the basic requirement of contract law that a plaintiff suing on a written contract must produce a signed contract proving he is entitled to relief. The Potential Impact of 60 Million Fatally Flawed Mortgages The banks arranging these mortgage-backed securities have typically served as trustees for the investors. When the trustees could not present timely written proof of ownership entitling them to foreclose, they would in the past file “lost-note affidavits” with the court; and judges usually let these foreclosures proceed without objection. But in October 2007, an intrepid federal judge in Cleveland put a halt to the practice. U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Boyko ruled that Deutsche Bank had not filed the proper paperwork to establish its right to foreclose on fourteen homes it was suing to repossess as trustee. Judges in many other states then came out with similar rulings. Following the Boyko decision, in December 2007 attorney Sean Olender suggested in an article in The San Francisco Chronicle that the real reason for the bailout schemes being proposed by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was not to keep strapped borrowers in their homes so much as to stave off a spate of lawsuits against the banks. Olender wrote: “The sole goal of the [bailout schemes] is to prevent owners of mortgage-backed securities, many of them foreigners, from suing U.S. banks and forcing them to buy back worthless mortgage securities at face value – right now almost 10 times their market worth. The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.
Needless to say, however, the banks did not buy back their toxic waste, and no bank officials went to jail. As Olender predicted, in the fall of 2008, massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie were pushed through by Henry Paulson, whose former firm Goldman Sachs was an active player in creating CDOs when he was at its helm as CEO. Paulson also hastily engineered the $85 billion bailout of insurer American International Group (AIG), a major counterparty to Goldmans' massive holdings of CDOs. The insolvency of AIG was a huge crisis for Goldman, a principal beneficiary of the AIG bailout. In a December 2007 New York Times article titled “The Long and Short of It at Goldman Sachs,” Ben Stein wrote:
The pirates seem to have captured the ship, and until now there has been no one to stop them. But 60 million mortgages with fatal defects in title could give aggrieved homeowners and securities holders the crowbar they need to exert some serious leverage on Congress – serious enough perhaps even to pry the legislature loose from the powerful banking lobbies that now hold it in thrall. 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.