Wednesday, 31 October 2012
priveledged status is as CLEAR as the NOSE on their INCORPORATED PERSONHOOD
And what a nose. Sticking it into every politician's
orifice. This way, they get to pay no tax.
They're often not even "really here" for tax
purposes. See how their priviledge makes
them like superheroes. Here today, no tax
tomorrow.
Read 'em and weap: Citizens for tax justice
Starbucks chief executive defends UK tax payments
Howard Schultz says Starbucks is not making money in Britain and that he would be happy to co-operate with any tax inquiry
Starbucks and tax: it's time for MPs to wake up and smell the coffee
Don't blame Starbucks' UK division: this is a problem brewed in Seattle
How much tax do Starbucks, Facebook and the biggest US companies pay in the UK
Citizens for tax justice
Nike, Microsoft and Apple Admit to Offshore Tax Shenanigans; Other Companies Plead the Fifth
October 18, 2012 03:48 PM
Permalink
While the presidential candidates debate whether the tax code rewards companies that move operations overseas, a new CTJ report shows that ten companies, including Apple and Microsoft, indicate in their own financial statements that most of their foreign earnings have never been taxed – anywhere. The statements the companies file with the SEC reveal that if they brought their foreign profits back to the U.S., they would pay the full 35 percent U.S. tax rate, which is how we can surmise that no foreign taxes were paid that would offset any of the 35 percent U.S. tax rate.
The most likely explanation of this is that these profits, instead of being earned by real, economically productive operations in developed countries, are actually U.S. profits that have been shifted overseas to offshore tax havens such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. This same type of offshore profit shifting was the focus of a recent Senate hearing where Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard found themselves in the hot seat.
In the tax footnote to their financial statements, companies disclose the amount of their foreign subsidiaries’ earnings which are “indefinitely reinvested,” that is, parked offshore. Calling it "indefinitely reinvested" allows them to embellish their bottom lines, on paper anyway, because they don't have to account for the cost of U.S. taxes they'd pay on that offshore income. But, they must disclose the total amount of their unrepatriated profits, and also estimate the U.S. tax that would be due if those earnings were repatriated.
A new CTJ analysis of the Fortune 500 found that, although 285 companies reported unrepatriated foreign earnings, only 47 companies disclosed in their financial statements an estimate of the U.S. income tax liability they would face upon repatriation, although that disclosure is required by accounting standards. The remaining companies hid behind a common dodge that estimating the U.S. tax would be “not practicable.” Legions of lawyers and accountants help these companies avoid taxes but can’t calculate the costs to the U.S. treasury?
Which Fortune 500 Companies are Shifting Profits to Offshore Tax Havens? ranks the 47 companies that do disclose this figure by the tax rate they’d pay if they repatriated their foreign earnings. Seven of the top ten are members, either directly or through a trade association, of the WIN America campaign that is lobbying for a repatriation tax holiday (aka corporate tax amnesty) that would let them bring the foreign earnings home at a super-low rate.
It’s not as though the rest of the Fortune 500 is innocent.
Booo. did I scare you into more austerity?
So sorry.
Just in time for David Cameron's big speech at
the Conservatory yearly back-patting fest,
the IMF comes in like a ghost at a seance
and says that the UK will be in deep
trouble if it does not listen to Mr.
David R.H.R. Cameron, Esquire.
Read 'em: Reuters
..Cameron won't ease austerity after IMF downgrade
By Matt Falloon
– 35 minutes ago..
..BIRMINGHAM, England (Reuters) - Prime Minister David Cameron said on Tuesday he would not soften his austerity programme with a "Plan B" of slower spending cuts after the International Monetary Fund downgraded its growth forecasts for Britain.
The Conservative-led government, steadfast in its ambition to cut a record budget deficit but under pressure to fix a recession-hit economy, abandoned its original deficit reduction targets last year and could be forced to extend them again.
"What we need in Britain is not 'Plan B', which is more borrowing. How can you borrow your way out of a debt crisis?" Cameron told Sky News, speaking from the Conservative Party's annual conference in the central English city of Birmingham.
"What we need is what I call 'Plan A+', we need to keep our plans, difficult though they are to cut public spending and deal with the deficit, but we need to add to that every measure that business has been asking for. And that's what we're doing."
The IMF cut its UK economic growth estimates on Monday, predicting the economy would shrink 0.4 percent this year before growing by 1.1 percent in 2013. The IMF forecast in July that Britain's economy would grow 0.2 percent this year and 1.4 percent in 2013.
The IMF also said Britain should delay some spending cuts pencilled in for next year if growth turned out to be weaker than forecast, but Cameron said that did not mean there was any logic in ripping up his plans yet.
Just in time for David Cameron's big speech at
the Conservatory yearly back-patting fest,
the IMF comes in like a ghost at a seance
and says that the UK will be in deep
trouble if it does not listen to Mr.
David R.H.R. Cameron, Esquire.
Read 'em: Reuters
..Cameron won't ease austerity after IMF downgrade
By Matt Falloon
– 35 minutes ago..
..BIRMINGHAM, England (Reuters) - Prime Minister David Cameron said on Tuesday he would not soften his austerity programme with a "Plan B" of slower spending cuts after the International Monetary Fund downgraded its growth forecasts for Britain.
The Conservative-led government, steadfast in its ambition to cut a record budget deficit but under pressure to fix a recession-hit economy, abandoned its original deficit reduction targets last year and could be forced to extend them again.
"What we need in Britain is not 'Plan B', which is more borrowing. How can you borrow your way out of a debt crisis?" Cameron told Sky News, speaking from the Conservative Party's annual conference in the central English city of Birmingham.
"What we need is what I call 'Plan A+', we need to keep our plans, difficult though they are to cut public spending and deal with the deficit, but we need to add to that every measure that business has been asking for. And that's what we're doing."
The IMF cut its UK economic growth estimates on Monday, predicting the economy would shrink 0.4 percent this year before growing by 1.1 percent in 2013. The IMF forecast in July that Britain's economy would grow 0.2 percent this year and 1.4 percent in 2013.
The IMF also said Britain should delay some spending cuts pencilled in for next year if growth turned out to be weaker than forecast, but Cameron said that did not mean there was any logic in ripping up his plans yet.
Police is broke. good. vertical integration
The police will be so far away that everybody
will need to own a gun. That will be good
for the economy.
checkitout: zerohedge
America's Deadliest And Poorest City Set To Disband Its Entire Police Force Over Budget Crisis
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/24/2012 10:51 -0400
While the stock market in the US continues to surge (if not so much in China where the composite is back to 2009 lows) as the relentless liquidity tsunami makes its way into stocks, and other Fed frontrunning instruments, and only there, reality for everyone else refuses to wait. Last week we saw reality striking in Greece, where a section of Athens literally shut down after it ran out of all cash. Today, reality comes to the US, and specifically its poorest city, Camden, which is a twofer, doubling down also as America's deadliest city. It turns out Camden is about to become even deadliest-er, as its police force is set to be disbanded following a budget crisis in this effectively insolvent city.
AP reports:
This city, long among the nation's poorest and most crime-ridden, is on the verge of dismantling its police department and starting anew with a force run by the county government.
... The plan will not work. Good luck Camden: you will need it in your transformation to the first circle of US hell, soon to be joined by many more.
And here are some pictures of just what Dante would see in his modern descent into America.
will need to own a gun. That will be good
for the economy.
checkitout: zerohedge
America's Deadliest And Poorest City Set To Disband Its Entire Police Force Over Budget Crisis
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/24/2012 10:51 -0400
While the stock market in the US continues to surge (if not so much in China where the composite is back to 2009 lows) as the relentless liquidity tsunami makes its way into stocks, and other Fed frontrunning instruments, and only there, reality for everyone else refuses to wait. Last week we saw reality striking in Greece, where a section of Athens literally shut down after it ran out of all cash. Today, reality comes to the US, and specifically its poorest city, Camden, which is a twofer, doubling down also as America's deadliest city. It turns out Camden is about to become even deadliest-er, as its police force is set to be disbanded following a budget crisis in this effectively insolvent city.
AP reports:
This city, long among the nation's poorest and most crime-ridden, is on the verge of dismantling its police department and starting anew with a force run by the county government.
... The plan will not work. Good luck Camden: you will need it in your transformation to the first circle of US hell, soon to be joined by many more.
And here are some pictures of just what Dante would see in his modern descent into America.
City is broke. Good. Lay off some politicians
In the rush to centralise the fascist economies
of the world, local governments will run
out of money, and thus a reason for being.
It's just cheaper that way. Vertical political
integration, until we're all ruled directly
by Barroso in Brussels.
checkitout: zerohedge
Athens Municipality Runs Out Of Cash; Suspends All Operations
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/21/2012 09:29 -0400
Remember when we said cash flow is always more important than diluting the M2 (the Fed is great at the latter, powerless at the former)? Here's why: The municipality of Acharnes in northern Athens has decided to suspend all of its operations after running out of money. The municipal council met on Thursday night and voted to stop providing anything other than basic services because of its inability to pay employees’ wages and regular expenses. In Nintendo Donkey Kong Game and Watch parlance: Game over.
“Acharnes Municipality will remain closed indefinitely, until the financial problem can be resolved,” the local authority said in a statement.
The municipality will operate with just skeleton staff, which trash will only be collected from outside schools.
Mayor Sotiris Douros is due to meet Interior Ministry officials on Friday to discuss the municipality's problems.
He wants the government to reduce from 11.5 percent to 5.5 percent the interest rate on a loan to the municipality. Douros argues that the monthly loan repayments of 500,000 euro is to high.
Coming to an insolvent, cash free, Keynesian experimental abortion near you.
of the world, local governments will run
out of money, and thus a reason for being.
It's just cheaper that way. Vertical political
integration, until we're all ruled directly
by Barroso in Brussels.
checkitout: zerohedge
Athens Municipality Runs Out Of Cash; Suspends All Operations
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/21/2012 09:29 -0400
Remember when we said cash flow is always more important than diluting the M2 (the Fed is great at the latter, powerless at the former)? Here's why: The municipality of Acharnes in northern Athens has decided to suspend all of its operations after running out of money. The municipal council met on Thursday night and voted to stop providing anything other than basic services because of its inability to pay employees’ wages and regular expenses. In Nintendo Donkey Kong Game and Watch parlance: Game over.
“Acharnes Municipality will remain closed indefinitely, until the financial problem can be resolved,” the local authority said in a statement.
The municipality will operate with just skeleton staff, which trash will only be collected from outside schools.
Mayor Sotiris Douros is due to meet Interior Ministry officials on Friday to discuss the municipality's problems.
He wants the government to reduce from 11.5 percent to 5.5 percent the interest rate on a loan to the municipality. Douros argues that the monthly loan repayments of 500,000 euro is to high.
Coming to an insolvent, cash free, Keynesian experimental abortion near you.
but decentralisation goes against dogma
You know that we're either
-politicians and bankers , thus living well
-bankrupted people and companies, being supported
by the government
That's because the West has succumbed to Chinese
capitalism with its politburo and 5-year plans.
As is said, a fish starts to stink from the head first.
This system doesn't work and here's the
physical analogy for why.
I remain a decentraliser, including for democracy.
Start locally and F%&*k the centralists.
Read 'em: azizonomics
The Next Industrial Revolution
September 23, 2012
Large, centrally-directed systems are inherently fragile. Think of the human body; a spontaneous, unexpected blow to the head can kill an otherwise healthy creature; all the healthy cells and tissue in the legs, arms, torso and so forth killed through dependency on the brain’s functionality. Interdependent systems are only ever as strong as their weakest critical link, and very often a critical link can fail through nothing more than bad luck.
Yet the human body does not exist in isolation. Humans as a species are a decentralised network. Each individual may be in himself or herself a fragile, interdependent system, but the wider network of humanity is a robust independent system. One group of humans may die in an avalanche or drown at sea, but their death does not affect the survival of the wider population. The human genome has survived plagues, volcanoes, hurricanes, asteroid impacts and so on through its decentralisation.
... Decentralised manufacturing goes hand-in-hand with decentralised energy generation, because manufacturing requires energy input. Microgrids are localised groupings of energy generation that can vary from city-size to individual-size. The latter is gradually becoming more and more economically viable as the costs of solar panels, wind turbines (etc) for energy generation, and lithium and graphene batteries (etc) for home energy storage fall, and efficiencies rise. Although generally connected to a larger national electricity grid, the connection can be disconnected, and a microgrid can function autonomously if the national grid were to fail (for example) as a result of natural disaster or war.
-politicians and bankers , thus living well
-bankrupted people and companies, being supported
by the government
That's because the West has succumbed to Chinese
capitalism with its politburo and 5-year plans.
As is said, a fish starts to stink from the head first.
This system doesn't work and here's the
physical analogy for why.
I remain a decentraliser, including for democracy.
Start locally and F%&*k the centralists.
Read 'em: azizonomics
The Next Industrial Revolution
September 23, 2012
Large, centrally-directed systems are inherently fragile. Think of the human body; a spontaneous, unexpected blow to the head can kill an otherwise healthy creature; all the healthy cells and tissue in the legs, arms, torso and so forth killed through dependency on the brain’s functionality. Interdependent systems are only ever as strong as their weakest critical link, and very often a critical link can fail through nothing more than bad luck.
Yet the human body does not exist in isolation. Humans as a species are a decentralised network. Each individual may be in himself or herself a fragile, interdependent system, but the wider network of humanity is a robust independent system. One group of humans may die in an avalanche or drown at sea, but their death does not affect the survival of the wider population. The human genome has survived plagues, volcanoes, hurricanes, asteroid impacts and so on through its decentralisation.
... Decentralised manufacturing goes hand-in-hand with decentralised energy generation, because manufacturing requires energy input. Microgrids are localised groupings of energy generation that can vary from city-size to individual-size. The latter is gradually becoming more and more economically viable as the costs of solar panels, wind turbines (etc) for energy generation, and lithium and graphene batteries (etc) for home energy storage fall, and efficiencies rise. Although generally connected to a larger national electricity grid, the connection can be disconnected, and a microgrid can function autonomously if the national grid were to fail (for example) as a result of natural disaster or war.
Encouraging capitalism by handing out public money
I know that money is being given to banks to prop
them up. Well, it has become necessary to give
money to non-FIRE companies because banks
won't lend to them, even with their free
government welfare cheque.
So, the government has to show growth, by
giving out more fake fiat money to companies.
But don't call it capitalism or competition.
capiche?
checkit: Zerohedge
Guest Post: Competing For State Contracts Is Not Competition
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/04/2012 09:48 -0400
Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics
Competing For State Contracts Is Not Competition
Here in Britain, we hear the word competition a lot. Since Margaret Thatcher, there has been a general trend — in the name of competition — toward the selling-off of utilities such as water, railway, electricity and telecoms providers. More recently, there has been a trend toward government services being provided by private companies, such as the bungled Olympic security arrangements contracted out to multinational security giant G4S, as well as work capability assessments contracted out to French IT consultancy ATOS, and the contracting-out of some medical services.
... This has also been the reality of privatisation. Although I am no fan of government-controlled industry, the reality of privatisation in the UK has been the transfer of state monopolies into private hands.
One very clear example of this is telecoms infrastructure. BT Openreach, an arm of the privatised BT, has a complete state-enforced monopoly on telephone exchanges. Other telecoms providers have to lease their infrastructure in order to operate.
And the same for railways; rail lines are sold off as monopolies for ten-year periods. For travellers who want to travel by rail from one destination to another, there is no competition; there is only a state-backed monopoly operating for private profit. No competition, only endless fare hikes, delays and a complete lack of market accountability as contractors take the government cash and do whatever they want.
Ultimately, the state-backed-monopoly model seems to manifest the worst of all worlds. Costs for taxpayers remain high, budget deficits continue to grow, and utilities remain inefficient and messy. The only difference appears to be that taxpayers’ money is now being funnelled off into corporate pockets.
A free society cannot be based on economic planners allocating resources based on a bidding process. A free society is based on the state letting society allocate resources based on the market for goods and services that people want and need. [LOTS OF WASTE IN THAT- Costick67]
them up. Well, it has become necessary to give
money to non-FIRE companies because banks
won't lend to them, even with their free
government welfare cheque.
So, the government has to show growth, by
giving out more fake fiat money to companies.
But don't call it capitalism or competition.
capiche?
checkit: Zerohedge
Guest Post: Competing For State Contracts Is Not Competition
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/04/2012 09:48 -0400
Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics
Competing For State Contracts Is Not Competition
Here in Britain, we hear the word competition a lot. Since Margaret Thatcher, there has been a general trend — in the name of competition — toward the selling-off of utilities such as water, railway, electricity and telecoms providers. More recently, there has been a trend toward government services being provided by private companies, such as the bungled Olympic security arrangements contracted out to multinational security giant G4S, as well as work capability assessments contracted out to French IT consultancy ATOS, and the contracting-out of some medical services.
... This has also been the reality of privatisation. Although I am no fan of government-controlled industry, the reality of privatisation in the UK has been the transfer of state monopolies into private hands.
One very clear example of this is telecoms infrastructure. BT Openreach, an arm of the privatised BT, has a complete state-enforced monopoly on telephone exchanges. Other telecoms providers have to lease their infrastructure in order to operate.
And the same for railways; rail lines are sold off as monopolies for ten-year periods. For travellers who want to travel by rail from one destination to another, there is no competition; there is only a state-backed monopoly operating for private profit. No competition, only endless fare hikes, delays and a complete lack of market accountability as contractors take the government cash and do whatever they want.
Ultimately, the state-backed-monopoly model seems to manifest the worst of all worlds. Costs for taxpayers remain high, budget deficits continue to grow, and utilities remain inefficient and messy. The only difference appears to be that taxpayers’ money is now being funnelled off into corporate pockets.
A free society cannot be based on economic planners allocating resources based on a bidding process. A free society is based on the state letting society allocate resources based on the market for goods and services that people want and need. [LOTS OF WASTE IN THAT- Costick67]
Sunday, 28 October 2012
Making bad, breaking the oligarchy
Now, I never recommend breaking the law. However,
I could be encouraged to make my money work
for me by avoiding the cash economy altogether
by bartering.
Some folks though, feel the need for a bit more ,
shall we say, speed, in their quest for riches.
They see that the oligarchs in the US and EU
are keeping all the fake fiat money for themselves,
and since it's the main legal tender,
"you gotta have the cash in this land of milk and honey"
"don't push me, cuz I'm close to the edge"
checkit: Zerohedge
Guest Post: The Economics Of Breaking Bad
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/04/2012 11:37 -0400
Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics
Breaking Bad is the story of Walter White, a cash-strapped, suburban 50-year old high school chemistry teacher, who following a life-changing cancer diagnosis hooks up with his drug-dealing former student, Jesse Pinkman, to cook and sell crystal methamphetamine. Immediately thrown in at the deep end, White undergoes a vast personality change; from mild-mannered Father into the lying, murderous gangland drug lord Heisenberg; first cooking methamphetamine wearing an apron in a winnebago, then working in a high-tech underground laboratory for the Chilean gangland kingpin Gustavo Fring — who White eventually kills — and finally amassing a multi-hundred-million-dollar pile of cash.
A key dynamic in the show is White’s relationship with his brother-in-law, DEA agent Hank Schrader. It is Schrader who first introduces White to the idea that selling methamphetamine can pay — boasting of multi-hundred-thousand-dollar drug hauls, and even taking White out on a DEA raid of meth lab, where White first encounters his former student Pinkman. As White’s famously pure blue methamphetamine grows in popularity, Schrader becomes increasingly obsessed with its influx, yet spends the course of almost the entire series unaware that its source is his own brother-in-law.
There is another layer of irony, though. For it is not just that Schrader drew White into the drug trade through informing him of its lucrativeness, and then taking him out on a drug raid. In economic terms, Walter White’s illicit drug empire — and all the killing and carnage that spews from it — is utterly dependent upon the protection of Federal agents like Schrader. Breaking Bad is very much a parable of the failed drug war.
As Milton Friedman famously noted:
If you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That’s literally true.
[I thought Miltie was a mafia guy at heart.]
There is no logical basis for the prohibition of marijuana. Our failure to successfully enforce these laws is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Colombia. I haven’t even included the harm to young people. It’s absolutely disgraceful to think of picking up a 22-year-old for smoking pot. More disgraceful is the denial of marijuana for medical purposes.
Why are drugs so lucrative? Why are users forced to pay such a premium over the cost of production? Because of drug prohibition. The more Federal money spent on drug prohibition, the more drugs seized, the higher the markup. Could criminal elements charging a one-thousand percent markup compete with a legal and free market? Of course not; nobody would buy drugs from a wild-eyed gun-wielding dealer when a pure product is available openly for a fraction of the cost.
So it is the Federal drug prohibitionists enforcing drug prohibition — both in the universe of Breaking Bad, as well as the real world — who are empowering the drug cartels, and criminal elements like Walter White who simply get around the law. Supply and demand rule this world. If society demands narcotics, they will be supplied; the only question is how.
As Abraham Lincoln noted:
Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and make crime out of things that are not crimes.
I could be encouraged to make my money work
for me by avoiding the cash economy altogether
by bartering.
Some folks though, feel the need for a bit more ,
shall we say, speed, in their quest for riches.
They see that the oligarchs in the US and EU
are keeping all the fake fiat money for themselves,
and since it's the main legal tender,
"you gotta have the cash in this land of milk and honey"
"don't push me, cuz I'm close to the edge"
checkit: Zerohedge
Guest Post: The Economics Of Breaking Bad
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/04/2012 11:37 -0400
Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics
Breaking Bad is the story of Walter White, a cash-strapped, suburban 50-year old high school chemistry teacher, who following a life-changing cancer diagnosis hooks up with his drug-dealing former student, Jesse Pinkman, to cook and sell crystal methamphetamine. Immediately thrown in at the deep end, White undergoes a vast personality change; from mild-mannered Father into the lying, murderous gangland drug lord Heisenberg; first cooking methamphetamine wearing an apron in a winnebago, then working in a high-tech underground laboratory for the Chilean gangland kingpin Gustavo Fring — who White eventually kills — and finally amassing a multi-hundred-million-dollar pile of cash.
A key dynamic in the show is White’s relationship with his brother-in-law, DEA agent Hank Schrader. It is Schrader who first introduces White to the idea that selling methamphetamine can pay — boasting of multi-hundred-thousand-dollar drug hauls, and even taking White out on a DEA raid of meth lab, where White first encounters his former student Pinkman. As White’s famously pure blue methamphetamine grows in popularity, Schrader becomes increasingly obsessed with its influx, yet spends the course of almost the entire series unaware that its source is his own brother-in-law.
There is another layer of irony, though. For it is not just that Schrader drew White into the drug trade through informing him of its lucrativeness, and then taking him out on a drug raid. In economic terms, Walter White’s illicit drug empire — and all the killing and carnage that spews from it — is utterly dependent upon the protection of Federal agents like Schrader. Breaking Bad is very much a parable of the failed drug war.
As Milton Friedman famously noted:
If you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That’s literally true.
[I thought Miltie was a mafia guy at heart.]
There is no logical basis for the prohibition of marijuana. Our failure to successfully enforce these laws is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Colombia. I haven’t even included the harm to young people. It’s absolutely disgraceful to think of picking up a 22-year-old for smoking pot. More disgraceful is the denial of marijuana for medical purposes.
Why are drugs so lucrative? Why are users forced to pay such a premium over the cost of production? Because of drug prohibition. The more Federal money spent on drug prohibition, the more drugs seized, the higher the markup. Could criminal elements charging a one-thousand percent markup compete with a legal and free market? Of course not; nobody would buy drugs from a wild-eyed gun-wielding dealer when a pure product is available openly for a fraction of the cost.
So it is the Federal drug prohibitionists enforcing drug prohibition — both in the universe of Breaking Bad, as well as the real world — who are empowering the drug cartels, and criminal elements like Walter White who simply get around the law. Supply and demand rule this world. If society demands narcotics, they will be supplied; the only question is how.
As Abraham Lincoln noted:
Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and make crime out of things that are not crimes.
HFTs vs HFBs The Bribes have it
Don't tell the bribe!
Why is it that it's hard to control HFT computers which are
ruining what's left of price discovery, retirement investment
and anything positive for savers?
High frequency bribes.
Checkit: Azizanomics
The High Frequency Trading Debate
September 21, 2012
A Senate panel is looking into the phenomenon of High Frequency Trading.
Here’s the infamous and hypnotic graphic from Nanex showing just how the practice has grown, showing quote volume by the hour every day since 2007 on various exchanges:
It is a relief that the issue is finally being discussed in wider venues, because we are witnessing a stunning exodus from markets as markets mutate into what we see above, a rampaging tempestuous casino of robotic arbitrageurs operating in millisecond timescales.
The conundrum is simple: how can any retail investor trust markets where billions of dollars of securities are bought and sold faster than they can click my mouse and open my browser, or pick up the phone to call their broker?
And the first day of hearings brought some thoughtful testimony.
The Washington Post notes:
David Lauer, who left his job at a high-frequency trading firm in Chicago last year, told a Senate panel that the ultra-fast trades that now dominate the stock market have contributed to frequent market disruptions and alienated retail investors.
“U.S. equity markets are in dire straits,” Lauer said in his written testimony.
One man who I think should be testifying in front of Congress is Charles Hugh Smith, who has made some very interesting recommendations on this topic:
Here are some common-sense rules for such a “new market”:
1. Every offer and bid will be left up for 15 minutes and cannot be withdrawn until 15 minutes has passed.
2. Every security–stock or option–must be held for a minimum of one hour.
3. Every trade must be placed by a human being.
4. No equivalent of the ES/E-Mini contract–the futures contract for the S&P 500 — will be allowed. The E-Mini contract is the favorite tool of the Federal Reserve’s proxies, the Plunge Protection Team and other offically sanctioned manipulators, as a relatively modest sum of money can buy a boatload of contracts that ramp up the market.
5. All bids, offers and trades will be transparently displayed in a form and media freely available to all traders with a standard PC and Internet connection.
6. Any violation of #3 will cause the trader and the firm he/she works for to be banned from trading on the exchange for life–one strike, you’re out.
However, I doubt that any of Smith’s suggestions will even be considered by Congress (let alone by the marketplace which seems likely to continue to gamble rampantly so long as they have a bailout line). Why? Money. Jack Reed, the Democratic Senator chairing the hearings, is funded almost solely by big banks and investment firms:
Why is it that it's hard to control HFT computers which are
ruining what's left of price discovery, retirement investment
and anything positive for savers?
High frequency bribes.
Checkit: Azizanomics
The High Frequency Trading Debate
September 21, 2012
A Senate panel is looking into the phenomenon of High Frequency Trading.
Here’s the infamous and hypnotic graphic from Nanex showing just how the practice has grown, showing quote volume by the hour every day since 2007 on various exchanges:
It is a relief that the issue is finally being discussed in wider venues, because we are witnessing a stunning exodus from markets as markets mutate into what we see above, a rampaging tempestuous casino of robotic arbitrageurs operating in millisecond timescales.
The conundrum is simple: how can any retail investor trust markets where billions of dollars of securities are bought and sold faster than they can click my mouse and open my browser, or pick up the phone to call their broker?
And the first day of hearings brought some thoughtful testimony.
The Washington Post notes:
David Lauer, who left his job at a high-frequency trading firm in Chicago last year, told a Senate panel that the ultra-fast trades that now dominate the stock market have contributed to frequent market disruptions and alienated retail investors.
“U.S. equity markets are in dire straits,” Lauer said in his written testimony.
One man who I think should be testifying in front of Congress is Charles Hugh Smith, who has made some very interesting recommendations on this topic:
Here are some common-sense rules for such a “new market”:
1. Every offer and bid will be left up for 15 minutes and cannot be withdrawn until 15 minutes has passed.
2. Every security–stock or option–must be held for a minimum of one hour.
3. Every trade must be placed by a human being.
4. No equivalent of the ES/E-Mini contract–the futures contract for the S&P 500 — will be allowed. The E-Mini contract is the favorite tool of the Federal Reserve’s proxies, the Plunge Protection Team and other offically sanctioned manipulators, as a relatively modest sum of money can buy a boatload of contracts that ramp up the market.
5. All bids, offers and trades will be transparently displayed in a form and media freely available to all traders with a standard PC and Internet connection.
6. Any violation of #3 will cause the trader and the firm he/she works for to be banned from trading on the exchange for life–one strike, you’re out.
However, I doubt that any of Smith’s suggestions will even be considered by Congress (let alone by the marketplace which seems likely to continue to gamble rampantly so long as they have a bailout line). Why? Money. Jack Reed, the Democratic Senator chairing the hearings, is funded almost solely by big banks and investment firms:
UK government builds Vodafone Bypass with tax money
The government is building a new piece of road for the super rich
in London, so that they don't have to set foot on democratic
soil as they travel from Knightsbridge (the Royal borough) to
their offices in the City of London (owned by the Corporation).
Unfortunately, the UK government is using our money to do so
because the Vodafone Bypass is also the unwritten rule
whereby Vodafone and other grandees get to offshore their
money before paying any tax.
checkit:
VODAFONE BYPASS
Lib dems
Why is the UK government encouraging companies to use tax havens?
By Adrian Sanders MP
31st August 2012 - 2:46 pm
Plans by the government to change Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) rules are threatening to deny the developing world billions of pounds in tax revenues. The current CFC rules discourage UK companies from using tax havens, by requiring them to pay UK levels of corporation tax whether they are based in the UK or abroad. This system discourages the practice of profit shifting and protects the tax incomes of both the UK and developing countries.
The changes were proposed in the Budget earlier this year and will mean that companies will only be charged full corporation tax when using tax havens if UK tax revenues are threatened. In spite of calls by the IMF, UN and World Bank for the government to look into how this will affect countries in the developing world, the government have refused. The Treasury argue that
“It is not sustainable for developing countries to protect their revenue using our tax rules, a much better way is to build their capacity and capability to collect the tax that they are due.”
To an extent this statement is true, building up the ability of developing countries to collect their own tax is the way forward. But the government’s new CFC rules will reduce the income of many countries. Considering the fact that tax revenues are a much more sustainable income for countries than aid it would be sensible to build up the capacity of these countries to collect their own tax revenues before thinking about changing the CFC rules. According to ActionAid, African governments receive more than ten times more income from tax revenues than from aid. However, this will inevitably fall once the new rules come into force, with the developing world losing out on up to £4billion.
in London, so that they don't have to set foot on democratic
soil as they travel from Knightsbridge (the Royal borough) to
their offices in the City of London (owned by the Corporation).
Unfortunately, the UK government is using our money to do so
because the Vodafone Bypass is also the unwritten rule
whereby Vodafone and other grandees get to offshore their
money before paying any tax.
checkit:
VODAFONE BYPASS
Lib dems
Why is the UK government encouraging companies to use tax havens?
By Adrian Sanders MP
31st August 2012 - 2:46 pm
Plans by the government to change Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) rules are threatening to deny the developing world billions of pounds in tax revenues. The current CFC rules discourage UK companies from using tax havens, by requiring them to pay UK levels of corporation tax whether they are based in the UK or abroad. This system discourages the practice of profit shifting and protects the tax incomes of both the UK and developing countries.
The changes were proposed in the Budget earlier this year and will mean that companies will only be charged full corporation tax when using tax havens if UK tax revenues are threatened. In spite of calls by the IMF, UN and World Bank for the government to look into how this will affect countries in the developing world, the government have refused. The Treasury argue that
“It is not sustainable for developing countries to protect their revenue using our tax rules, a much better way is to build their capacity and capability to collect the tax that they are due.”
To an extent this statement is true, building up the ability of developing countries to collect their own tax is the way forward. But the government’s new CFC rules will reduce the income of many countries. Considering the fact that tax revenues are a much more sustainable income for countries than aid it would be sensible to build up the capacity of these countries to collect their own tax revenues before thinking about changing the CFC rules. According to ActionAid, African governments receive more than ten times more income from tax revenues than from aid. However, this will inevitably fall once the new rules come into force, with the developing world losing out on up to £4billion.
after Arab Spring, the Bloomsbury Spring
Actually, I don't see any springing going on in London,
the tax haven of choice, any time soon. It has a
deeply entrenched mafia, it's own City Corporation,
in lieu of democracy, so I wish the tax researchers
all the luck.
Checkit: from Tax research
Tax haven UK is alive – and prospering on the back of corruption
Sep 03,2012
The FT reports this morning:
A £38bn development boom in London’s most expensive neighbourhoods has been spurred by rampant demand from European and Asian buyers seeking safe investments away from turbulent Eurozone economies.
The pipeline of upmarket housing projects in planning or already under construction in the UK capital has increased more than two-thirds during the past year, with 15,500 units slated for delivery by 2021, even as building work in other parts of the country remains stagnant.
That’s one version of the story. The Guardian offers another (in a compelling story that deserves to be read in full). They report:
Britain has allowed key members of Egypt’s toppled dictatorship to retain millions of pounds of suspected property and business assets in the UK, potentially violating a globally-agreed set of sanctions.
The situation has led to accusations that ministers are more interested in preserving the City of London’s cosy relationship with the Arab financial sector than in securing justice.
the tax haven of choice, any time soon. It has a
deeply entrenched mafia, it's own City Corporation,
in lieu of democracy, so I wish the tax researchers
all the luck.
Checkit: from Tax research
Tax haven UK is alive – and prospering on the back of corruption
Sep 03,2012
The FT reports this morning:
A £38bn development boom in London’s most expensive neighbourhoods has been spurred by rampant demand from European and Asian buyers seeking safe investments away from turbulent Eurozone economies.
The pipeline of upmarket housing projects in planning or already under construction in the UK capital has increased more than two-thirds during the past year, with 15,500 units slated for delivery by 2021, even as building work in other parts of the country remains stagnant.
That’s one version of the story. The Guardian offers another (in a compelling story that deserves to be read in full). They report:
Britain has allowed key members of Egypt’s toppled dictatorship to retain millions of pounds of suspected property and business assets in the UK, potentially violating a globally-agreed set of sanctions.
The situation has led to accusations that ministers are more interested in preserving the City of London’s cosy relationship with the Arab financial sector than in securing justice.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
