الفريق سامى عنان يعلن رسميا إعتزامه الترشح لرئاسة الجمهورية 2018
Posted by سامى عنان رئيسا لمصر 2018 on Friday, 19 January 2018
The US government is essentially being managed by Goldman Sachs employees (in Matt Taibbi’s famous phrase representatives of the “great vampire squid“). Their goal is to make as much money for themselves as possible. Stock buybacks have been what the banks and major companies have been spending their profits on almost exclusively since the last crash (besides paying just enough dividends to keep stock market investors interested). This pushes up stock prices, reduces the size of the stock market, and increases executives stock options (and so their wealth). Until Ronald Reagan came along stock buybacks were illegal in the US. After deregulation, Quantitative Easing (QE) since 2007/8 has given the banks and corporations the ability to use debt at no cost. It is not surprising that as the Fed announced the end of QE, there should be a massive tax cut to give the corporations the same benefits from the back door.
As Bernie Sanders writes in his book this situation means that the Fed becomes hugely indebted, the corporations become hugely indebted as their share/equity base gets smaller, and now the banks are lending huge sums of money to stock speculators so that they can get hugely indebted as well, buying the shares on margin which need to keep going up for executives at the banks and large corporations to cash in more options at ever higher stock prices. These retail investors will get scalped as usual in due course. As the Fed tired of supporting the markets, the Trump tax cut was a last throw of the dice for the executive class. Any time in the future that interest rates start rising from their historic zero levels and the corporations cannot meet their financing obligations, the executives will have banked their money, bought their mansions, and stocked up on physical gold, probably parked in massive safes in their basements.
The fact that the US economy is being eviscerated by executive programmes for share buybacks (together with internal cost-cutting and disinvestment in the real economy) is clear from the sharp declines in earnings per share (eps) since 1999. Figures show the greatest move downward in eps has been since the last crash in 2007/8, in tandem with stock prices going up (based on the Fed’s QE programme which started back then). Since the corporations make up the larger part of the US economy, clearly their evisceration is what is being reflected in the evisceration of the US economy as a whole. The fact that this is being played out on a huge scale doesn’t mean it is not a scam. Matt Taibbi was absolutely right in 2010 that after the crash Goldman Sachs was going to engineer another bubble.
Pam Martens explains how this whole process works. To understand how the U.S. central bank, known as the Federal Reserve, is influencing the froth of the stock market, you need to take a few moments to understand the interaction of bond yields with stock prices. Sophisticated investors who predominate in the markets compare the yield on bonds to the cash dividend yield on stocks to determine which is a better value. Following the financial crash of 2008, the Federal Reserve began buying up Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed bonds in the marketplace to the overall tune of more than $3 trillion. This has driven down bond yields and provided an artificial boost to the stock market.
The Fed’s assets swelled from $914.8 billion at the end of 2007 to $4.5 trillion in 2014 from its bond buying program. In just the single year of 2013 the Fed’s assets mushroomed by a staggering $1 trillion — from $2.9 trillion at the end of 2012 to $4 trillion at the end of 2013, according to the audited financial statement of the Fed’s books. As of October 25, 2017, its assets remain in the $4.5 trillion arena, at $4.461 trillion.
The Fed’s active involvement in messing with the stock market as a fair stock pricing mechanism through its massive purchases of bonds was quaintly called Quantitative Easing (QE) and the public was treated to three doses of it: QE1, QE2 and QE3.
Since 2011, the Fed has been jawboning about how it was going to normalize its balance sheet back to something resembling pre-crisis days. It actually began to cut back its bond purchases by shrinking the amount of its maturing bonds that it will roll over into new bond purchases in October of 2017. But its scheduled cuts are so small and gradual that we are not seeing any material shrinkage in its assets.
During Fed Chair Janet Yellen’s September 17, 2014 press conference, in response to a question from Ylan Mui of the Washington Post, Yellen said: “If we were only to shrink our balance sheet by ceasing reinvestments, it would probably take—to get back to levels of reserve balances that we had before the crisis—I’m not sure we will go that low, but we’ve said that we will try to shrink our balance sheet to the lowest levels consistent with the efficient and effective implementation of policy—it could take to the end of the decade to achieve those levels.”
In 2014, the end of the decade would have been 2020. It’s now 2018 and we’re looking at another half decade before the Fed’s balance sheet would normalize under the current schedule. That’s a very, very long time to provide spiked punch to a tipsy stock market.
The Goldman Sachs overlords who have so thoroughly infused themselves into the Donald Trump administration (the Presidential candidate who promised a draining of the Washington swamp) have figured out a way to get another round of cheap money. Instead of calling it QE4 and getting it from the Fed, it’s being called a corporate tax cut and its coming from the American public who will be squeezed in other areas to pay for it. Jamie Dimon, the Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, quickly recognized it for what it was, stating “think of it as a QE4” at an Axios event in Ann Arbor, Michigan in December.
Republicans have been peddling the tax cut as a boon to the economy. That’s not what’s going to happen. U.S. corporations and, particularly, the biggest Wall Street banks are going to use the extra money to continue buying back their own company’s stock, boosting the bank CEOs’ own stock options and enriching their shareholders to the detriment of business and job creation.
On July 31 of last year, Thomas Hoenig, the Vice Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), sent a stunning letter to the Chair and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee. Hoenig explained that the 10 largest banks in the country “will distribute, in aggregate, 99 percent of their net income on an annualized basis,” by paying out dividends to shareholders and buying back excessive amounts of their own stock. If those 10 banks had retained a larger share of the earnings they earmarked for dividends and share buybacks in 2017, said Hoenig, they would have been able “to increase loans by more than $1 trillion, which is greater than 5 percent of annual U.S. GDP.”
Hoenig included a chart showing payouts on a bank-by-bank basis. Highlighted in yellow on Hoenig’s chart is the fact that four of the big Wall Street banks are set to pay out more than 100 percent of earnings: Citigroup 127 percent; Bank of New York Mellon 108 percent; JPMorgan Chase 107 percent and Morgan Stanley 103 percent.
Hoenig adds that if just the share buybacks were retained by the banks instead of being paid out, the banks could “increase small business loans by three quarters of a trillion dollars or mortgage loans by almost one and a half trillion dollars.”
Stock buybacks also perform another magic trick for Wall Street bank CEOs like Jamie Dimon whose compensation is based on overall performance. By shrinking the number of shares outstanding through buybacks, it makes the bank’s per share earnings look more robust because they are spread over a smaller number of shares.
According to JPMorgan Chase’s 2017 proxy statement, “Based on Mr. Dimon’s performance, the Board increased his annual compensation to $28 million [in 2016] (from $27 million in 2015).” Notably, according to the proxy, the portion of Dimon’s compensation that was in stock awards was $20.5 million for 2015 and $21.5 million for 2016. Thus, Wall Street CEOs are highly incentivized to keep those stock prices aloft.
July 3rd, 2013 coup d’état announcement by Sisi prior to announcement by Obama and John Kerry on behalf of the US of the Egyptian ‘Democratic Roadmap’
The Guardian Editor writes: Egypt is at present a sham democracy. Real power resides with the army, which has lurked in the shadows but overseen an often brutal crackdown on opponents since 2013. The military came to power by toppling the Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Morsi, and killing more than 800 protesters in Cairo’s Rabaa Square. Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump lavishes praise on Mr Sisi’s government. Thankfully the US State Department has fingered its “unlawful killings and torture”. Last week Egyptian authorities executed five inmates – four of whom had links with the Muslim Brotherhood – despite credible claims of them having unfair trials. This looks like a warning to rivals that Egyptian politics is deadly rather than deadly serious.
Human Rights watch writes: Public criticism of the government remained effectively banned in Egypt in 2016. Police arrested scores of people in connection with protests, many preemptively. Authorities ordered travel bans and asset freezes against prominent human rights organizations and their directors and brought criminal charges against the head of the Press Syndicate and the country’s top anti-corruption official. Parliament proposed a new law regulating nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that would effectively end independent human rights work in the country.
Members of the security forces, particularly the Interior Ministry’s National Security Agency, continued to routinely torture detainees and forcibly disappeared hundreds of people with little or no accountability for violations of the law. The disappearance, torture, and death of Italian doctoral researcher Giulio Regeni, probably at the hands of security services, highlighted these abuses and caused a diplomatic rift between Egypt and Italy.
Investigations by National Security officers, often without any hard evidence, formed the basis of many of the 7,400 or more military trials of civilians brought since President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi issued a decree widening the scope of military jurisdiction in 2014.
Conditions in detention remained harsh. The quasi-official National Council for Human Rights continued to report that prisons and other detention facilities were severely overcrowded. Conditions were particularly harsh in Cairo’s Scorpion Prison, where inmates, most of them political prisoners, suffered abuses at the hands of Interior Ministry officers, including beatings, force feedings, deprivation of contact with relatives and lawyers, and interference in medical care that may have contributed to at least six deaths in 2015.
Withdrawing the Palestine Liberation Organization’s recognition of Israel is likely to spark some international backlash, although most observers would consider this unsurprising. A previous vote by the same PLO Council in 2015 to suspend security coordination with Israel was never implemented, although this is now also reaffirmed in the Monday vote.
The significance of the vote is that the normally infuriatingly cautious Mahmoud Abbas voted in favour of both motions. He called Trump’s peace plan the “slap of the century.” Let us see what actions follow, at least the suspension of security coordination is guaranteed once the US defunds the Palestinian Authority as Trump has promised to do.
New York City announces a lawsuit Wednesday that blames the top five oil companies for contributing to global warming and says the city will sell off $5 billion in fossil fuel investments from its pension fund of $189 billion.’Safeguarding the retirement of our city’s police officers, teachers and firefighters is our top priority, and we believe that their financial future is linked to the sustainability of the planet,’ said NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer .
Mayor de Blasio said: ‘We’re bringing the fight against climate change straight to the fossil fuel companies that knew about its effects and intentionally misled the public to protect their profits. As climate change continues to worsen, it’s up to the fossil fuel companies whose greed put us in this position to shoulder the cost of making New York safer and more resilient.’ NYC alleges the fossil fuel industry was aware for decades that burning fuel was impacting climate change. The defendants in the city’s federal lawsuit are BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
But Exxon Mobil’s Scott Silvestri retorted that “reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global issue and requires global participation and actions. Lawsuits of this kind — filed by trial attorneys against an industry that provides products we all rely upon to power the economy and enable our domestic life — simply do not do that.’ Petroleum sources are predictably downplaying the importance of this move.
Clara Vondrich of the DivestInvest campaign says the city joins a movement that started about six years ago. She says hundreds of institutional investors managing assets of over $5.5 trillion have taken their money out of fossil fuel investments. Last month, Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced plans to have the state pension funds also divest from fossil fuel investments. He and state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli are creating an advisory committee to examine the way to proceed with divestment.
Vondrich said other cities and entities selling off fossil fuel interests have included Berlin and Washington, D.C.; insurance companies Swiss Re, Axa and Allianz; and educational institutions such as the University of Oxford in Great Britain, Stanford University in California and Trinity College in Ireland. Philanthropies have included the Wallace Global Fund and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, notable because the late John D. Rockefeller grew his wealth as an oil baron.
Environmental activist Bill McKibben called the actions by the city one of a handful of the most important developments in the past 30 years. ‘The mightiest city on the planet has now sort of walked into a real fight with the richest and most irresponsible industry on the planet,’ he said.
This will take years to play out (as did the smoking class action suits against the tobacco companies), but the very fact of the legal risk to oil corporations as well as the fact that investors generally are beginning to divest from oil shares will create a self-reinforcing cycle which will drive the oil companies to make entirely new decisions for their future.
Peter Schwartzstein writes about how climate change, rising populations and the understudied construction of dams are destroying the longest river in the world. The source of the Blue section of the Nile in Lake Tana is the river’s engine. It is there, in the East African Rift Valley of both Lake Tana and Lake Victoria (the source of the White Nile) that the hominid/human species first developed. The river’s creeping destruction is thus symbolic of our current species-level suicide project.
Early in the film “The Square,” a reporter called Anne asks a museum curator about the challenges of running a museum. The museum in question is a modern art museum, the butt of much social criticism. Ruben Östlund is the film’s director. and his film asks the question about the function of the modern art museum and its exhibitions and performances. Is the art market, classical or modern, with its exhibitions and organised art-performances, anything other than a safe haven for the extremely rich where they can park their money whilst waiting for other opportunities? Are we all that surprised that a Saudi prince (Mohamed bin Salman or MbS) may not know what to do with his extra cash and invests it in one of those objects (Salvatore Mundi) that can hold so much sheer monetary value in excess of its physical worth?
The curator of this museum (called Christian) is the main protagonist. In answer to all the criticism he faces about art, he responds by mounting an exhibition involving just a square painted on the ground before the museum. This is supposed to represent a “space of safety”, or safe haven. Muslim viewers could draw parallels with the 3-D cube at the center of their worship and their relationship with the Universe (the Ka’aba). Designating a specific area as a sanctuary goes back a long way in terms of religious practice, and the square Christian places at the center of this film proposes the idea that modern art is the new religious experience for an atheist liberal elite.
Östlund slowly chips away at the protective layers that Christian, a priest of the liberal religion, surrounds himself with. Accidents throw him into the lives of ordinary people who would never normally visit his museum, yet after each event he becomes obsessed with the people he meets. In a desperate attempt to find someone he lost contact with, Christian finds himself in a garbage dump on a rainy night trying to recover a piece of paper with the person’s phone number. Many scenes in the film explore the complacency of the art world in a radical way. In the film’s poster (above), an art-performance event is depicted where an “artist” acts like an ape to entertain the elite who, elegantly dressed, are dining in an ornate hall. The performer is supposed to test the boundaries of what his polite audience will endure in order to protect their investment in this act of modern art. Here, Östlund explores how much artistic license we are prepared to give the artist, on the basis that all art is a dare.
What the religion of the rich clearly indicates is the disdain and fear of lesser mortals felt by rich individuals and their search for safety through a sense of mutual reinforcement which the art market provides. A similar “religion of the nobility” existed in Zoroastrian fire worship in the period of Sassanian Iran, which held that all craftsmen, or people who worked with their hands, were unholy. It would be these craftsmen, who eventually locked in their tens of thousands to become Muslims in 7th century Iraq, which revolutionised Islam, turning it from an Arabic into a world religion.
Resolution no.: A/RES/ES-10/19 on 12/21/2017 (21st Dec) at 12:13:55 PM. Jerusalem motion at UNGC (two weeks after the Trump declaration) passed with overwhelming majority for the resolution and against the position of the United States. 128 states voted for the resolution, including all members of the UNSC except the United States.
9 countries out of 193 UN member states voted against the resolution: Canada, Guatemala, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, the United States and Israel. 35 countries abstained from the resolution including: Australia, Cameroon, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, South Sudan and Togo. Canada and Australia clearly did nothing for their white colonial settler image in this vote, although both Canada and Mexico are clearly in the throes of NAFTA renegotiations with Trump at the moment.
Others, significantly the ‘NATO’ front line in Eastern Europe (Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania) also abstained, although plucky Estonia and Lithuania voted yes with the resolution.
21 states were absent.
Turkey and Yemen: draft resolution
Status of Jerusalem
The General Assembly,
Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolution 72/15 of 30 November 2017 on Jerusalem,
Reaffirming also the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, including resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980, 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980 and 2334 (2016) of 23 December 2016,
Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
Bearing in mind the specific status of the Holy City of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for the protection and preservation of the unique spiritual, religious and cultural dimensions of the city, as foreseen in relevant United Nations resolutions,
Stressing that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations in line with relevant United Nations resolutions,
Expressing, in this regard, its deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem,
- Affirms that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and in this regard calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem, pursuant to Security Council resolution 478 (1980);
- Demands that all States comply with Security Council resolutions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem, and not recognize any actions or measures contrary to those resolutions;
- Reiterates its call for the reversal of the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution and for the intensification and acceleration of international and regional efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative1 and the Quartet road map,2 and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967;
- Decides to adjourn the tenth emergency special session temporarily and to authorize the President of the General Assembly at its most recent session to resume its meeting upon request from Member States.
Mohamed bin Salman it has been revealed is the owner of the Château de Louveciennes, in western suburbs of Paris, which he bought for $300m two years ago. Added to his purchase of a $450m yacht and most recently the Leonardo painting of Christ for similar amount, bought through a minor prince in his household (Bader bin Abdullah bin Mohammed bin Farhan al-Saud), this completes a fairly complete psychological profile of the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia.
Given what we know of MbS from these facts, a clear avaricious streak in his personality allows us to interpret recent actions taken against the rich in his country, including members of his family, as a desire to “own” Saudi Arabia singly. Together with his vicious launching of the Yemen War and his ill treatment of the Yemeni population, it is also clear he has little or no empathy. With no counter-balancing forces within the atavistic Saudi polity a ruthless and coercive tyranny is unfolding, which is unlikely to garner legitimacy whether by sticking to traditional Islamic modalities or indeed attempting to move on to more “secular” modalities.
In fact, the announcement that MbS seeks a more secular Saudi Arabia is tied to his wish to sideline resistance, but as the Wahhabi establishment will merely now roll over and do whatever he wishes, it is likely that the potentially destabilising effects of a move towards secularism, will be followed by a harsh return to such traditional Saudi-Islamic mores that help reinforce tyranny. Instinctively MbS is expecting the US and Israel to provide the support for his rule, where legitimacy will be absent. This will reinforce the decline of American influence in the region and reaffirm the continuing rise of Iran.