This is a documentary explaining how world banking was used to fund the Nazi Party. The BIS was formed in 1930. The main actors in its establishment were the then-Governor of The Bank of England, Montagu Norman, and his German counterpart Hjalmar Schacht, later Adolf Hitler’s finance minister.

The world central bank is located at Basel, Switzerland.

1. Lockheed Martin Corp. |  Aerospace and Defense | $35,828,421,340.83 |

2. The Boeing Company | Aerospace and Defense | $19,486,294,255.83 |

3. Northrop Grumman Corporation | Aerospace and Defense | $16,797,921,451.22 |

4. General Dynamics Corporation | Defense | $15,249,055,811.75 |

5. Raytheon Company | Aerospace and Defense | $15,245,234,506.52 |

6. United Technologies Corporation | Conglomerate | $7,721,459,648.98 |

7. L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. | Communications and Defense | $7,445,106,575.43 |

8. Oshkosh Truck Corporation | Trucks and Vehicles | $7,243,489,906.25 |

9. SAIC Inc. | Technology and Defense | $6,796,280,361.66 |

10. BAE Systems plc | Aerospace and Defense | $6,561,185,112.84 |

11. Cerberus Capital Management LP | Private Equity | $4,768,901,697.89 |

12. McKesson | Healthcare | $4,601,060,051.58 |

13. Computer Sciences Corporation | IT Services and IT Consulting | $4,372,553,085.04 |

14. URS Corporation | Engineering | $3,947,003,912.81 |

15. Bechtel Group Inc. | Engineering and Construction | $3,939,025,644.12 |

16. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. | Consulting | $3,748,607,534.52 |

17. KBR Inc. | Engineering, Construction and Private Military Company | $3,625,557,555.82 |

18. Harris Corporation | Communications | $3,301,564,466.11 |

19. Humana Inc. | Health Insurance | $3,248,780,847.62 |

20. Health Net Inc. | Health Insurance | $3,224,143,073.24 |

21. General Electric Company | Conglomerate | $3,134,833,212.85 |

22. ITT Corporation | Conglomerate | $2,814,320,312.00 |

23. Bell Boeing Joint Project | Aerospace and Defense | $2,752,694,557.21 |

24. TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corporation | Health Benefits | $2,721,404,316.04 |

25. Government of Canada | Good Neighbors | $2,678,746,839.33 |

[Source: Wikipedia]

The Top 100 Contractors Report for Fiscal Year 2010 lists contracts totalling $284.7 billion.

In Fiscal Year 2011, the top five departments by dollars obligated were the Department of Defense ($373.6 billion), Department of Energy ($25.1 billion), Health and Human Services ($19.3 billion), Department of Veteran Affairs ($17.4 billion), and NASA ($15.4 billion).

No, I don’t consider myself to be an economist. Being an avid reader, I stumbled across something that was very interesting, to say the least. I was reading a book entitled End The Fed, authored by Ron Paul, and then I ran into an intriguing concept. The subject was Exchange Stabilization Fund, an idea that I’m trying to grasp.

The Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) is an emergency reserve fund of the United States Treasury Department, normally used for foreign exchange intervention. This arrangement (as opposed to having the central bank intervene directly) allows the US government to influence currency exchange rates without affecting domestic money supply.

The U.S. Exchange Stabilization Fund was established at the Treasury Department by a provision in the Gold Reserve Act of January 31, 1934.

As of October 2009, the fund held assets worth $105 billion, including $58.1 billion in special drawing rights (SDR) from the International Monetary Fund. Okay, enough of that.

Then I ran across an amusing video. Alan Grayson, a former U.S. Representative for Florida’s 8th congressional district, popped a serious question to Ben Bernanke, the Fed Chair. “Which Foreigners Got the Fed’s $500,000,000,000?” Bernanke: “I Don’t Know.”

Grayson Questions Bernanke About Federal Reserve Loans

Grayson: There’s a table on page 26 which consists of your balance sheet, and one of the entries on the balance sheet is under Assets Central Bank Liquidity Swaps, which shows an increase from the end of 2007; from $24 billion to $533 billion in change, at the end of 2008. What’s that?

Bernanke: Those are swaps that were done with foreign central banks. Many foreign banks are short dollars and slip into our markets looking for dollars and drive up interest rates and create volatility in our markets. What we have done is with a number of major central banks, like European Central Bank for example, we swap our currency dollars for their currency Euros. They take the dollars and lend it out to the banks in their jurisdiction. That helps bring down interest rates in the global market for dollars, and meanwhile we’re not lending to those banks; we’re lending to the central bank. The central bank is responsible for repaying us.

Grayson: So, who got the money?

Bernanke: [It went] To financial institutions in Europe and other countries.

Grayson: Which ones?

Bernanke: I don’t know.

Grayson: Half a trillion dollars and you don’t know who got the money?

Bernanke: The loans go to the central banks and they put them out to their institutions to try to bring down short-term interest rates.

Grayson: Well, let’s start out with which central banks got the money.

Bernanke: There are fourteen of them, I’m sure they’re listed in here somewhere.

Grayson: So, who actually made that decision to hand out a half a trillion dollars that way? Who made that decision?

Bernanke: The Federal Open Market Committee.

Grayson: Was it done at one time or in a series of meetings?

Bernanke: A series of meetings.

Grayson: And under what legal authority?

Bernanke: We have a longstanding authority to do swaps with other central banks. It’s not an emergency authority of any kind.

Grayson: Anything specific about it?

Bernanke: My counsel says Section 14 of the Federal Reserve Act.

Grayson: We actually looked at one of the arrangements, and one of the arrangements is $9 billion for New Zealand. That works out to $3,000 for every single person for who lives in New Zealand. Seriously, wouldn’t it be better to extend that kind of credit to Americans, rather than New Zealanders?

Bernanke: It’s not costing Americans anything. We’re getting interest back and it’s not at the cost of any American credit. We are extending credit to Americans.

Grayson: Wouldn’t it necessarily affect the credit markets if you extend a half a trillion dollars credit to anybody?

Bernanke: We are lending to all U.S. financial institutions in exactly the same.

Grayson: Look at the next page. The very next page has the US dollar nominal exchange rate, which shows a 20% increase in the US dollar nominal exchange rate at exactly the same time that you’re handing out a half a trillion dollars to foreigners. Do you think that’s a coincidence?

Bernanke: Yes.

Grayson: The Constitution (art. I. § 9) says “no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence appropriations made by law”. Do you think it’s consistent with the spirit of that provision of constitution for a group like the FMOC (Federal Open Market Committee) to hand out a half a trillion dollars to foreigners, without any action by this congress?

Bernanke: Congress approved it in the Federal Reserve Act.

Grayson: When was that?

Bernanke: Quite a long time ago. I don’t know the exact date. The Federal Reserve Act was in 1913.

Grayson: At that time the entire gross national product of this country was well under a half a trillion dollars, wasn’t it?

Bernanke: I don’t know.

Grayson: It is safe to say that nobody in 1913 contemplated that your small little group of people would decide to hand out a half a trillion dollars to foreigners?

Bernanke: This particular authority has been used numerous times over the years.

Grayson: Actually, according to the chart on page 28, virtually the entire amount that’s reflect on your entire balance sheet went out starting in the last quarter of 2007. And before that, going back to the beginning of this chart, the amount of lending was zero, to foreigners.

Bernanke: It was zero before the crisis. This was part of the process working with other central banks to try to get dollar money markets working normally in a global economy.

In Ron Paul’s End The Fed, a must read for anyone interested in economics, he confirms the following:

The Treasury can spend billions of dollars any way it pleases. It also has “legal” power to be involved in the gold market. Although there’s no admission by Treasury, I’ve always been convinced that the Exchange Stabilization Fund is involved in stock, commodity, and currency transactions by manipulating prices.

The GSA, an agency that “develops government-wide cost-minimizing policies”, may need to improve performance a bit. A GSA Vegas party hit taxpayers with a bill of $820,000. The training conference in 2010 was held near Vegas, at the M Resort Spa and Casino, with 300 federal employees attending.

There was food, drink, entertainment, and much more at the event. There was singing and dancing. There were tuxedos.

One certain official is demanding an investigation, and called the expenses “outrageous” but said it’s “just the tip of the iceberg.” This is to be sure.

Nevada Senator Harry Reid said that an investigation isn’t necessary. Is this more revenue for the state of Nevada?

The extravagant party tapped out over three quarters of a million dollars. Here are just a few of those items:

Greg Smith resignation letter

March 14, 2012 was Greg Smith’s last day at Goldman Sachs. His resignation letter that was published in The New York Times was an internet success overnight. Smith has recharged the OWS warrior battle cry. The Goldman Sachs profit video gives us an idea what Smith is talking about.

From the subprime mortgages to bank bonuses, to the investigations, Goldman Sachs can’t seem to escape the fury of the public.

Lloyd Blankfein, named by Financial Times as “2009 Person of the Year”, is one of the highest paid executives on Wall Street. Blankfein earned a total of $54.4 million in 2006. The compensation included a cash bonus of $27.3 million, with the rest paid in stock and options.

Also, Obama’s top funder in 2008: Goldman Sachs, whose CEO Lloyd Blankfein has visited the White House 10 times. This is another reason that the company is under public scrutiny.

How Does Goldman Sachs Make Its Profits (Part 2) PBSNewsHour

THE SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT GAS PRICES?

What is the deal with high gas prices? It seems like every spring gas prices go through the roof. We are misled to believe that it’s all about supply and demand, which ought to apply to oil and gas as well. But the reality is this — gas prices are connected to global prices.

The view of the speaker in this video suggests that the United States is producing more oil, there are more oil reserves than in the past several years, and no matter if we produced more than we are now, the price of gas would change little or none at all. True?

OIL TRADING
Producers and merchants — 36%
Speculators — 64%

In fact, according to a Bloomberg report — the U.S. exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported in 2011 for the first time since 1949, the Energy Department said recently.

This fact pretty much nulls the argument that oil is based on supply and demand. Whether you want to bring the Iran threat into the equation, or some other nimble explanation , here is essential proof that there is plenty of oil going around at the moment.

One could argue that there is an increase in the demand of oil in developing countries, however, there is a decline on that demand in the United States.

If you add the fact that this was one of the mildest winters ever in America, this would lower the demand for oil more so than other years. Okay, why is gas so high if the demand has dropped exponentially?

An article in the Los Angeles Times reiterates the problem:

The House and Senate lawmakers — all Democrats — wrote to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to urge the agency to immediately put in place limits on traders in crude oil markets and take whatever steps necessary to rein in prices at the pump.

The lawmakers said it is clear that “excessive oil speculation significantly increases oil and gas prices.”

Sen. Bernard Sanders and Democrat lawmakers wrote a note expressing the need for a call of action in regards to excessive oil speculation.

As we all know, much more than this needs to be done to solve the problem.

✔ But sometimes one just has to be different. Being human is after all, is only human. Professionals cater to humans, or at least they should aspire to do so. Some organizations are up ≥ to that challenge. The marketing game is all about the wants and needs of people.

We are processed from childhood to adult, to think rationally and to conform to the extreme. Today’s market requires a complete turnaround of thought. You’re considered to be a diamond ♦ if you’re different these days. On the same wavelength, the empowerment of the people is a practice that should be optimized. The more the customer or reader is engaged, the better the experience will be.

The company that does not get the blog — may be the company that falls behind in sales. Blogging has created a social and economic impact that can no longer be ignored ∞.

The pie π has exceedingly changed in the past few years. Consumerism has integrated with a social-cultural background. Technology has rocked the boat for sure.

It’s really a very potent idea if you stop and think about the social media environment today. Just a few years ago one might have asked, “what is Twitter”?

The social factor demands that companies adhere to the responsibility of profit, and weigh in the obligation to the customer. A company’s statement or action can be published in a second. This is remarkably powerful.

You might say I have a magical crystal ball hidden in a dark room. You might say I have the exquisite touch of Nostradamus. You might speculate that I may be gifted when it comes to politics. My response — well not exactly.

Let’s take a look at the LA Times script for example — “Obama campaign’s staggering haul: $86 million raised for reelection. Republican candidates combined are expected to raise less than $35 million this quarter.”

The headline says it all. Doesn’t it take an atrocious amount of money to win an election these days? What ever happened to keeping campaign promises and holding the politician accountable after the election? Is this a bit of nostalgia that Americans have forgotten about? Accountability?

By enlarge, the matter is not groundbreaking. The GOP has not really raised a clear argument against President Obomba. Why?

Because his presidency model is a replicate of George W. Bush. More spending on largely unpopular wars, more promises that have mostly been broken, more tax breaks for the wealthy, and total gridlock in government. President Obama has moved far to the right as it would appear to most of the crowd. Some are starting to say he looks more like Dick Cheney every day. Others say Obama resembles President Herbert Hoover.

Obama has become the chief collaborator of the Republican Party. It’s hard to oppose something that you resemble the most. What were media pundits calling him — the “change president”? Change in your pocket maybe.

Relegate fact from fiction. Assess the incumbency advantage. Since World War II, a whopping 90% of incumbents who ran for reelection did get reelected!

What will the slogan be this time? Because the “change” and “yes we can” lines do not apply anymore. Then you have the Republicans trying to hold the President hostage over a routine debt ceiling deal. President Obama will certainly remind the public about this extravaganza coming out of Washington.

And the winner of the United States presidential election, 2012 is…

Analysis in the mainstream media gets rehashed on a regular basis. You have the so called researchers, writers, educators, and the privileged few who sometimes act as if the public is really beyond any type of understanding.

Propaganda and populism are ubiquitous as we sift through the nonsensical jumble of fabricated streams. The burnt ideology invades our critical thinking level. It’s absurd to even question the populous nowadays, or so they say at least.

More often than not, a simple basic understanding of any subject leads to real truth eventually. Everyone claims to be an expert and only the truly gifted are totally irrefutable. There are patents of knowledge on every corner of the street.

The speculation of oil for instance, we are told time and time again, has no bearing on what the price of oil commands. Again, MSM gives us the daily dose of disproportionate, manufactured consented news to brainwash those that do not dare to question authoritative journalism.

Today, the price of a barrel of oil is $96.48. The price has been hovering around this range for weeks now. Earlier in the year, a barrel of oil fluctuated over the $100 mark. Could there be other circumstances causing the fluctuation?

Here’s where I fail to grasp what the experts are saying. If political unrest is a key factor, then oil should keep rising indefinitely. Right? The world has seen more political thunderstorms this year than in past decades. Some predict that worldwide economic collapse is just around the corner. So, why has the price of oil fallen recently? How can you justify this? The truth is you can’t. It’s a rigged game.

On May 12, 2011, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) at a Senate Finance Committee hearing, asked Exxon Mobil Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson a simple question. What would the price of oil be if it was based on supply and demand fundamentals? Without the speculation?

Senate Finance Committee hearing

Senator Maria Cantwell: What do think the price would be today if it was based on the fundamentals of supply and demand?

Rex Tillerson: Well again it’s… If you were to use a pure economic approach the economists would say, would be set at the price to develop the next marginal barrel.

Senator Maria Cantwell: What do think that would be today?

Rex Tillerson: Well, it’s pretty hard to judge. But it would be, you know, when we look at it, it’s gonna be somewhere in the sixty to seventy dollar range. If you said, if I had access, that’s the assumption.

If I had access to the next marginal barrel, what would it cost, everything in, to put the next barrel of supply in? Now, soon as I develop that one and it depletes, then the next barrel marginal cost goes up. Okay, now over the years the industry has historically done a very, I think, successful job of mitigating that through technology advancements, efficiencies, things we learn how to do better to keep the cost of the marginal barrel down.

But in a purely economical, you know, if all things were according to economics and people didn’t risk manage and they didn’t do everything else they do, uh… it would be set at the marginal cost of the next increment of supply.

Senator Maria Cantwell: Sixty to seventy dollars a barrel of oil sounds pretty good today. I can tell you that.

In conclusion, Senator Maria Cantwell goes on to say: “Well, I would just say this — that with 70% of that futures market now being made up of speculators, that are not in use of that oil product is a problem.

“To go from having the market made up of 30% today of people who legitimately have to hedge, dominated by 70% of people who are just getting obviously in on this oil game is a problem. Do you agree?”

The online press is singeing with the hottest story of the day. The Republican party is willing to hold out on the debt ceiling and risk going into financial default, because of the unwillingnness to close tax loopholes for the wealthiest on Wall Street.

John Boehner will say publicly on television that the rich business community needs these tax breaks (loopholes) to help create jobs. Republicans should be worried about jobs, their own jobs.

Where are those jobs that were created by tax breaks? Hasn’t worked so far yet.

Do Republicans think that ordinary voters are too dumb to understand the real issue? What are Republicans trying to hide? This is a must watch video!

Big shot managers of financial institutions that deal with certain equities are gaming the system legally. Hedge fund managers are only paying 15% on their profits — which is a capital gains tax. These same hedge fund managers should be paying a personal tax rate — which is 35% (New York Times).

The top 1% of the wealthiest class owns more capital than 90% of the population on the bottom! And they want to remain tax dodgers?

So Americans should be willing to cut funding on social security, Medicaid, Medicare, city parks, college assistance, and much more to let these weasels stuff billions more in their back pockets? Is this fair treatment for the great American Society?

Want to know more about the richest 25 hedge fund managers and how they fared last year? Check out the hit list (Reuters). The poor fellows on Wall Street.

President Obama has his plate full with balancing a deficit budget while the top earners in the nation try everything to avoid paying their piece of the pie. Americans as a whole are paying less on taxes since the year of 1958 (USA Today). This is the real reason that America is sinking. Government entities have existed for decades and the United States flourished. However, the tax rate was much higher.

Hedge fund managers do have one source of competition — U.S. Senators that are getting corporate insider trade information. A study in 1995 shows that U.S. Congresssmen regularly buy stock after they have passed legislation contributing to the same stock (AR Magazine).

Loopholes that Congressmen use are perfectly legal as well. This isn’t controversial either. Right?

Is closing down the hedge fund loophole going to cause the next “class war” (Daily Kos)?