Law

Survey of Broadcasting: Assignment 2, Question 3. Discuss the elements of libel and the possible defenses one can mount if accused of libel.–Videos

Posted on June 30, 2011. Filed under: Defamation, Law, Libel | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Libel is defamation by written or printed words, pictures or in any form but spoken words or gestures.

A person must establish four elements–publication, identification, harm and fault to prove he or she has been defamed.

Each of the four elements must be proven in court.

More precisely the elements of libel are as follows:

  1. The statements in question must have actually defamed the person and caused some harm.
  2. The statements must have been published.
  3. The statements must have identified the person in the story.
  4. The person defamed must show some degree of fault or error on the part of the media organization.
  5. The statements broadcast or published were false.

The possible defenses to libel are as follows:

  1. Consent
  2. Truth
  3. Privilege
  4. Opinion vs Fact

Consent is a seldom used defense  and is based on the premise that the claimant consented to the dissemination of the statement.

Truth is a commonly used defense and is based on the premise that the statements made about the claimant are in fact true.

The claimant must prove that the statements are false.

Privilege is either absolute or qualified.

Statements made in a court would be an example of absolute privilege and is a complete bar to defamation claims.

Statements made by a journalist may be qualified privileged when they are based on local government  documents, statements made in public meetings, and information relating to public entities such as police and fire departments.

Statements that are opinions is a common defense for opinions cannot be proven to be true or false and are not statement of fact.

Statements that are facts are not a defense unless they are in true.

There are several other defenses to claims of defamation including:

  1. Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true
  2. Fair comment on a matter of public interest
  3. Claimant is incapable of further defamation
  4. Statute of limitations
  5. No Third-party communication
  6. No actual injury.

Claimants that are in the public arena such as politicians, public officials, artists, singers, columnists, professional sports figures, and other who invite public scrutiny are subject to the fair comment on a matter of public interest defense.

However, journalists cannot report factual matters erroneously.

Furthermore, public officials must prove that false and defamatory statements were made with “actual malice” as a result of the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision.

The Supreme Courts defined “actual malice” to mean the publishing or broadcasting of statements with the knowledge that it was false or with “reckless disregard: of whether it was false.

Latter court decisions went further and found that public figures must prove actual malice to win a libel suit.

Background Articles and Videos

Defamation

“…Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]

In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false,[2][not specific enough to verify] and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.[3] Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. “Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy.”[4][not verified in body]

False light laws are “intended primarily to protect the plaintiff’s mental or emotional well-being.”[5] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.[5]

In most civil law jurisdictions, defamation is dealt with as a crime rather than a tort.[6]

A person who destroys another’s reputation may be referred to as a famacide, defamer, or slanderer. The Latin phrase famosus libellus means a libelous writing. …”

“…Types

Slander

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech), each of which gives a common law right of action.

“Defamation” is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between “slander” and “libel”. Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.

Libel

Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.[13] The law of libel originated in the 17th century in England. With the growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the tort of libel.[14]

Cases involving libel

An early example of libel would be the case of John Peter Zenger. Zenger was hired to publish New York Weekly Journal. When he printed another man’s article that criticized William Cosby, the governor of New York at the time, Zenger was accused of seditious libel.[15] The verdict in the 1735 case was returned as “not guilty” on the charge of seditious libel, having proved that all the statements Zenger had published about Cosby had been true, so there was not an issue of defamation. Another example of libel would be the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) which involved a newspaper publication. The Supreme Court overruled a state court in Alabama that had found the New York Times guilty of libel for printing an advertisement that criticized Alabama officials for mistreating student civil rights activists. Even though some of what the New York Times printed was false, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Times, saying that libel of a public official requires proof of actual malice, which was defined as a knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.[16]

 How to prove libel

There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as “proving malice”.[17]

Criminal defamation

Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. ARTICLE 19, a free expression advocacy group, has published global maps[18] charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe, as well as showing countries that have special protections for political leaders or functionaries of the state.[19]

It should be noted that there can be regional statutes as well that may differ from the national norm. For example, in the United States, defamation is generally limited to the living. However, there are ten states (Colorado, Idaho, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Washington) that have criminal statues regarding defamation of the dead.[20]

The OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) has also published a detailed database on criminal and civil defamation provisions in 55 countries, including all European countries, all member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the United States and Canada.[21]

Defenses

Even if a statement is derogatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law.

Truth

In many legal systems, adverse public statements about legal citizens presented as fact must be proven false to be defamatory or slanderous/libellous.[citation needed] Proving adverse public character statements to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel or defamation. Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense. The use of the defense of justification has dangers, however; if the defendant libels the plaintiff and then runs the defense of truth and fails, he may be said to have aggravated the harm.

Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as “facts” are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. From ‘Other Defenses’ (below), under the ‘Opinion’ section: “However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.[17]” To win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements were “statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact” and second that these statements were false. Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a court of law. If the statement can be proved true or false, then, on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine whether it is true or false. If the statement cannot be proved true or false, the court may dismiss the libel case without it ever going to a jury to find facts in the case.

Under English common law, proving the truth of the allegation was originally a valid defence only in civil libel cases. Criminal libel was construed as an offence against the public at large based on the tendency of the libel to provoke breach of peace, rather than being a crime based upon the actual defamation per se; its veracity was therefore considered irrelevant. Section VI of the Libel Act 1843 allowed the proven truth of the allegation to be used as a valid defence in criminal libel cases, but only if the defendant also demonstrated that publication was for the “Public Benefit”.[22]

In some systems, however, notably the Philippines, truth alone is not a defense.[23] Some U.S. statutes preserve historical common law exceptions to the defense of truth to libel actions. These exceptions were for statements “tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead” or “expose the natural defects of one who is alive”.[24]

It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures. Public interest is generally not “what the public is interested in”, but rather “what is in the interest of the public”.[25] [26]

Noonan v. Staples[27] is sometimes cited as precedent that truth is not always a defense to libel, but the case is actually not valid precedent on that issue because for some reason Staples didn’t argue First Amendment protection for its statements. (see footnote at bottom of page 15 of the courts decision) The courts often don’t decide cases on issues not argued by the parties, and thus the court assumed for the sake of that particular case that the Massachusetts law was constitutional under the First Amendment.

See also: Substantial truth

Privilege and malice

Privilege provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted.

There are two types of privilege in the common law tradition:

  • “Absolute privilege” has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it were made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as ‘Parliamentary privilege’ in Commonwealth countries).
  • “Qualified privilege” may be available to the journalist as a defense in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made with malicious intent.

Other defenses

Defences to claims of defamation include:

  • Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
  • Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.[28]
  • Fair comment on a matter of public interest, arguments made with an honest belief in their soundness on a matter of public interest (such as regarding official acts) are defendable against a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.
  • Consent is an uncommon defense and makes the claim that the claimant consented to the dissemination of the statement.
  • Innocent dissemination is a defense available when a defendant had no actual knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory. The defense can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence. Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter.
  • Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant’s position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be “libel-proof”, since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement.
  • Statute of limitations. Most jurisdictions require that a lawsuit be brought within a limited period of time. If the alleged libel occurs in a mass media publication such as a newspaper or the Internet, the statute of limitations begins to run at the time of publication, not when the plaintiff first learns of the communication.[29]
  • No Third-party communication: If an employer were to bring an employee into a sound-proof, isolated room, and accuse him of embezzling company money, the employee would have no defamation recourse, since no one other than the would-be plaintiff and would-be defendant heard the false statement.
  • No actual injury: If there is third-party communication, but the third-party hearing the defamatory statement does not believe the statement, or does not care, then there is no injury, and therefore, no recourse.

In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not actually harm someone’s reputation is prima facie not libelous. Also, the public figure doctrine, also called the absence of malice rule, may be used as a defense.

Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)

Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).[30]

Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff’s reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.

The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but “run of the mill” local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles.[citation needed] Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits.

Freedom of speech

Defamation laws may come into tension with freedom of speech, leading to censorship or chilling effects where publishers fear lawsuits. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech when necessary to protect the reputation or rights of others.[31]

Jurisdictions resolve this tension in different ways, in particular in determining where the burden of proof lies when unfounded allegations are made. The power of the internet to disseminate comment, which may include malicious comment, has brought a new focus to the issue.[32]

There is a broader consensus against laws that criminalize defamation. Human rights organizations, and other organizations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, have campaigned against strict defamation laws that criminalize defamation.[33][34] The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on criminal libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. One notable case was Lingens v. Austria (1986). …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

SPLC Legal Brief
Libel Law


http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?id=27

Los Angeles Internet Defamation Lawyer: What Are The Elements of A Claim For Defamation?

Los Angeles Defamation Lawyer: Truth As A Defense To A Claim Of Defamation

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Survey of Broadcasting: Assignment 1, Question 3: Describe in detail the four “core” departments usually found at most radio stations.

Posted on June 20, 2011. Filed under: Law, Music, News, Public Relations, Radio, Regulations, Technology, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , |

3: Describe in detail the four “core” departments usually found at most radio stations.

http://www.ablongman.com/stovall1e/chap06/radioorgchart.html

The four “core departments” usually found at most radio stations are sales, operations, engineering, and programming.

The sales department  led by a sales manager is responsible for the sale of all commercial time to local, regional, and national sales advertisers. Larger stations may have a sales manager for local advertisers and a national sales manager of spot advertising accounts. The sales department usually includes a promotions director and research manager.

The operations department or traffic department led by an operations manager is responsible for placing the advertising on the air in compliance with the contracts executed with advertisers. This can be a complicated and difficult task in that there may be dozens of different contracts each requiring scheduled air time, position and length. Therefore many stations have automated their traffic functions to varying degrees using computer applications and systems.

The engineering department led by the chief engineer is responsible for keeping the station on the air with the best signal possible. The improvement of electronic equipment, competition from other businesses for engineering talent, and relaxed Federal regulations has led to smaller or streamlined engineering departments at most stations. Some stations also employ a part-time consulting engineer to keep the station operating optimally.

The programming department led by the program director is responsible for the audio sound and format of the station including news, music and public affairs coverage. Stations with a news/talk format may have a news director to coordinate news and public affairs coverage. Stations with a music format may have a music director to coordinate the development and implementation of the station’s music format.

The general manager or station manager has overall responsibility for  leading the four “core departments” and the day-to-day operation of the radio station. The general manager must hire the department heads and establish their goals and monitor and evaluate their performance. The general manager has overall responsibility for the station’s business performance including profits and losses, business and financial matters, budgeting, and forecasting revenues and expenses. The general manager must maintain the station’s reputation in the community. Finally the general manager must run the station in compliance with all local, county, state and Federal government laws and regulations.

 

Background Articles and Videos

CBS Tour- On Air at WCBS Radio -Part1

 

Google Radio Automation Product Tour

 

Presenter Radio Automation Demo from ENCO Systems

 

iMediaTouch Radio Automation Broadcast Software by OMT Technologies

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Survey of Broadcasting: Assignment 1, Question 3: What were the events that led up to the “quiz show scandals”? What were the major effects after the scandal broke?–Videos

Posted on June 20, 2011. Filed under: Advertising, Broadcasting, Business, Communications, Ethical Practices, Ethics, Game Shows, Issues, Law, Movies, News, Politics, Television | Tags: , , , , , , , |

III. What were the events that led up to the “quiz show scandals”? What were the major effects after the scandal broke?

Where Knowledge Is King and The Reward King Size

The concept of winning a large sum of money on a quiz show by correctly answering a series of questions was not new to either television or radio. However, what was new and attracted a large percentage of the viewing audience was the television show, “The $64,000 Question”, that first aired on CBS on June 7, 1955. The contestants would be asked a series of progressively more difficult questions. If they answered correctly, they proceeded to the four big payoff questions: $8,000, $16,000, $32,000, and lastly the $64,000 question.

CBS-$64,000 Question-1956

$64,000 Question

The contestants answered their questions in isolation booths. Armed guards watched over the box that contained the questions that only the editors knew what the questions and correct answers were.

The $64,000 Question show was sponsored by Revlon. Revlon as a direct result of the show saw its sales skyrocket. The other networks quickly followed with their own big money shows. NBC aired “The Big Surprise” where contestants could win $100,000. CBS quickly responded with “The $64,000 Challenge” with a top money prize of $128,000. The show “Break the Bank offered a top prize of $250,000.  Finally, NBC had the show :”Twenty-One” where there was no limit as to the amount of money a contestant could win.

64 THOUSAND DOLLAR CHALLENGE SONNY FOX part 2 VINCENT PRICE

 

Twenty One: Stemple vs. Van Doren–Part One

Rumors began to circulate that the producers tried to keep popular contestants on the shows by “controlling” the questions asked and even coaching contestants to look nervous and tense while answering.

One contestant on “Twenty-One” charged that he was encouraged to take a dive or intentionally lose to another popular contestant, Charles Van Doren, a 30-year old English instructor at Columbia University. Van Doren stated that the quiz show was honest. The New York City district attorney’s office investigated the allegations and a grand jury was impaneled to hear the mounting evidence.

A losing contestant on NBC’s “Twenty-One” sent three self-addressed letter containing the questions and answers to an upcoming show by registered mail. These unopened envelopes were presented to the grand jury as evidence. Other contestants came forward indicating they too had been given the answers. In 1959 the House of Representatives conducted a hearing on the matter. One of the witnesses was Charles Van Doren who finally admitted that he too was given the answers and was coached.

By 1960 all the big money shows were taken off the air. The networks took  more control over program development and less power and control was given to the producers and sponsors of network shows. In the next few years, the networks attempted to restore their reputation and gain back the viewing public’s trust by broadcasting such shows as CBS Reports. Several networks also placed limits on the amounts of money contestants could win on quiz shows that were not rigged. These limits were repealed in 2008.

The Congress of the United States also passed amendments to the Communication Act of 1934 that were designed to prevent any one from fixing quiz shows in the future.

The Federal Communications Commission also ordered that the host of “Twenty-One”, Jack Barry, and the producer, Dan Enright, sell their  radio station in Hollywood, Florida, WGMA.

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Twenty One: Stemple vs. Van Doren–Part Two

 

Twenty One: Stemple vs. Van Doren–Part Three

 

 

21-Quiz Show Scandals

 

Quiz Show Scandals

 Quiz Show Trailer

Quiz show scandals

“…The American quiz show scandals of the 1950s were a series of revelations that contestants of several popular television quiz shows were secretly given assistance by the show’s producers to arrange the outcome of a supposedly fair competition.

In 1956, the game show Twenty-One, hosted by Jack Barry, featured a contestant coached by producer Dan Enright to make the other contestant win the game. This was brought into focus in 1958 when Enright and Barry were revealed to have rigged the show and caused networks to cancel the quiz shows. This element of the scandal was portrayed in the 1994 movie Quiz Show.

As a result, many contestants’ reputations have been tarnished. The United States Congress passed the 1960 amendments of the Communications Act of 1934, preventing anyone from fixing quiz shows. Due to that action, many networks imposed a winnings limit on game shows, such as Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy! and The Price Is Right (the limits were repealed by 2008). The scandal even resulted in the declining ratings of shows that were not rigged, such as You Bet Your Life.

Twenty One

“…Twenty One is an American game show that aired in the late 1950s. While it included the most popular contestant of the quiz show era, it achieved notoriety for being a rigged quiz show which nearly caused the demise of the entire genre in the wake of United States Senate investigations. The 1994 movie Quiz Show is based on these events.

In 1982, a pilot for a new version of the game (titled 21) was taped with Jim Lange hosting, but was not picked up. A new version aired in 2000 with Maury Povich hosting, lasting about five months on NBC. …”

“…Overview

The initial broadcast of Twenty One was played honestly, with no manipulation of the game by the producers. Unfortunately, that broadcast was, in the words of producer Dan Enright, “a dismal failure”; the first two contestants succeeded only in making a mockery of the format by how little they really knew. Show sponsor Geritol, upon seeing this opening-night performance, reportedly became furious with the results, and threatened to pull their sponsorship of the show if it happened again.

The end result: Twenty One was not merely “fixed”, it was almost totally choreographed. Contestants were cast almost as if they were actors, and in fact were active and (usually) willing partners in the deception. They were given instruction as to how to dress, what to say to the host, when to say it, what questions to answer, what questions to miss, even when to mop their brows in their isolation booths (which had air conditioning that could be cut off at will, to make them sweat more).

 Charles Van Doren

Charles Van Doren, a college professor, was introduced as a contestant on Twenty One on November 28, 1956, as a challenger to then-champion Herbert Stempel, a dominant contestant, though somewhat unpopular with viewers and eventually the sponsor. Van Doren and Stempel ultimately played to a series of four 21-21 games, with audience interest building with each passing week and each new game, until finally the clean-cut, “All American Boy” newcomer was able to outlast his bookish, quasi-intellectual opponent, who at one point after the game was referred to backstage as a “freak with a sponge memory”. The turning point came on a question directed to Stempel: “What film won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1955?” Stempel legitimately knew the answer to that question was Marty, as it was one of his favorite films. The producers ordered him to answer the question with 1954’s Best Picture winner, On the Waterfront. Stempel later recalled that there was a moment in the booth when his conscience and sense of fair play warred with his sense of obligation and that he almost disrupted the scripted outcome by giving the correct answer. Stempel ultimately did as he was instructed, which opened the door for Van Doren to win the game and begin one of the longest and most storied runs of any champion in the history of television game shows.

Van Doren’s popularity soared as a result of his success on Twenty One, earning him a place on the cover of Time magazine and even a regular feature spot on NBC’s Today show; at one point, the program even surpassed CBS’ I Love Lucy in the ratings. He was finally unseated as champion on March 11, 1957, by a woman, Vivienne Nearing, after winning a total of $143,000.

In the meantime Stempel, disgruntled over being ordered to “take a dive,” attempted to blow the whistle on what exactly was going on behind the scenes at Twenty One, even going so far as to have a federal investigator look into the show. Initially, little came of these investigations and Stempel’s accusations were dismissed as jealousy because there was no hard evidence to back up his claims. But by August of 1958 Dotto, a popular CBS daytime game show, was abruptly canceled after a contestant found a notebook containing the answers to every question that was to be asked to Dotto’s current champion, future journalist Marie Winn. Suddenly, Stempel’s allegations began to make more sense. Even so, the public at large didn’t seem to want to accept the dishonesty until Van Doren, under oath before a House hearing, ultimately confessed to being given answers to all of his questions before each show.

Twenty One was canceled without warning after its broadcast of October 17, 1958. A nighttime version of Concentration took over its time slot the following week. The scandal forced producers Barry and Enright into virtual exile. Barry would not host another national TV show for more than a decade, and Enright moved to Canada to continue his production career.

Aftermath

The scandal also caused the Federal Communications Commission to mandate the sale of Barry-Enright’s radio station in Hollywood, Florida, WGMA. The station was purchased by its general manager, C. Edward Little, who promptly affiliated the station with the Mutual Broadcasting System. After serving for a time as the head of Mutual’s affiliates association, Little became the president of Mutual from 1972-1979. During this time Little created the Mutual Black Network, the first U.S. broadcast network catering exclusively to African-Americans, in addition to the Mutual Spanish Network and the Mutual Southwest Network. Under Little’s administration, Mutual became the first commercial broadcasting entity to use satellite technology for program delivery.

During his tenure as head of Mutual, Little hired Larry King to host an all-night phone-in talk show Little had created. King was a one-time announcer for Little at WGMA. King, who had previously hosted a similar morning show on Miami radio station WIOD, went on to national fame on both radio and television, winning a coveted Peabody Award along the way. King, therefore, indirectly owes a portion of his success to the quiz-show scandals.

Barry finally returned to game-show hosting in 1969, succeeding Dennis Wholey on ABC’s The Generation Gap for which he publicly thanked the producers and ABC-TV for giving him a chance for a comeback. In 1971, he sold ABC his first new game show The Reel Game which he also hosted. It ran for 13 weeks. He became a success again as a producer-host with The Joker’s Wild, which ran on CBS from 1972–1975 and in syndication from 1977-1986 (Barry died in June 1984 and was replaced by Bill Cullen for the final two years). Enright would work as Joker’s executive producer in the final year on CBS, and the two revived their partnership full-time in 1976, reviving Tic-Tac-Dough which also ran until 1986. It was revived once more in 1990, but was cancelled after a few months. Enright died in 1992. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiz_show_scandals

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 35, December 1, 2010: The Audacity of Grope: A TSA Exposé–Progressive Pervert Petulent Prevaricating President–Must View Video!

Posted on December 1, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Democratic Party, Digital Communication, Ethical Practices, Ethics, Issues, Law, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Policies, Political Parties, Politics, Print Media, Public Relations, Radio, Recordings, Republican Party, Society, Speech, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Campaign for Liberty launches a public relations campaign against President Obama’s TSA government interventionism:

“…Got questions about the TSA? This video’s got answers. Jam-packed with all the information you need to get up to speed on the 2010 holiday airport security uproar. Get the inside scoop on full body scanners, radiation health risks, pat-downs, screw-ups, underwear bombers, cavity searches, special interests, government officials, the Constitution (specifically, the 4th Amendment), scanner storage capability, and hear from some of the most engaged minds in the debate; including Congressman Ron Paul…”

Campaign for Liberty Mission Statement

“Our mission is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.”

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php

http://www.youtube.com/user/campaignforliberty

One point that the above video failed to address is the spread of disease as a direct result of the TSA not changing their blue gloves after each pat down.

Instead the TSA screeners use the same pair of blue gloves most of the day.

Imagine going to a doctor or dentist who wore the same blue gloves while examining many patients during the day.

An unintended consequence of the government grope will be the spread of the various influenza (flu) viruses.

The time has come to stop this security theater nonsense and start profiling passengers and targeting individuals that are more likely to be terrorist bombers.

Flawless Airline Security on Israeli Planes

TSA: Enemy of the American People?

Ron Paul: TSA Has Gone too Far

Enough is enough.

Terminate the TSA peepers and pat downs.

President Obama responds:

President Obama explains the new TSA Airport Security Screenings

Wink

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 34, November 12, 2010: TSA–Thousands Standing Around To Trained Sexual Assaulters To Tyrants Scanning Americans–Videos

Posted on November 12, 2010. Filed under: Audio, Balanced Budgets, Budget, Communications, Debt, Deficits, Democratic Party, Digital Communication, Economics, Fiscal Policy, Issues, Law, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Political Parties, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Taxes, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, housses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

~United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment

If you are planning to fly this Thanksgiving or Christmas holiday to visit family and friends, you might want to seriously consider driving or taking a bus instead of flying or just stay home.

The American people’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…” is being challenged by the Transportation Security Administration of the United States Government.

When you go to through airport security you must first pass through a metal detector then a full body radiation scan.

If you elect not to have the full body radiation scan, you are called a opt outer and subject to a perverted pat down of your entire body including genitals, breast and buttocks by the government gropers of the TSA.

Woman, children, and the disabled in wheel chairs may have to go through both the full naked body radiation scan and the perverted pat down.

You choices are as follows when you opt out:

  1. Full naked body radiation scan
  2. Perverted pat downs
  3. Interrogation and possible detention, arrest and lawsuit
  4. Leave airport and drive to destination
  5. Just stay home

More and more Americans are electing to just stay home and save the time, money and invasion of their bodies and property and the legal molestation of their children by Federal Government Employees.

The American people should respond to the use of full naked body radiation scans and perverted pat downs by simply not travelling on commercial airlines.

The commercial airlines and not the Government should be responsible for security and safety on an airline flight.

When the airlines and the travel industry experience significant drops in their revenues and profits, they will insist the full naked body scans and pat downs not be used and current TSA employees become employees of the airline and not the government.

Time for Congress to revisit the whole subject of TSA, government unions, and unreasonable searches and seizures.

Metal detectors and thermal detectors are fine.

Airport Security and Screening on Fox News Channel profiling Thermal Matrix and the ACT System

End the full naked body radiation scans.

End the perverted pat downs.

End the Transportation Security Administration or TSA.

Stop unreasonable searches and seizures.

Start profiling passengers and target those who have the higher probability of being terrorists or suicide bombers.

Give the airlines the responsiblity for security and screening passengers.

 

Airline Attack Highlights Israel’s Security Success

 

Terminate Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano for approving these unreasonable searches.

Demand that your local airport opt out of TSA and select another company to perform security. 

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano

Pushes Perverted Pat Downs and

 Full Naked Body Radiation Scans

TSA Posts Airport Screening Manual Online

TSA Manual Posted on the Internet

Senator Collins questions TSA officials on security procedure posting

TSA Fondles Women and Children Refusing Airport Naked Body Scanners

TSA airport full body scanner: a perverts dream come true.

\

TSA Child Porn or Protection ?

Invasive TSA Airport Pat-Down

TSA Gropping People With New Pat Down Procedure-Getting Lawsuits

Air Travelers Not Happy With New TSA Security Measures

LIVE DEMONSTRATION OF NEW BODY AIRPORT SCANNER

TSA installs full-body scanners at Boston Logan International, other airports nationwide

TSA Body Scanners Deprive Americans of their Dignity

Scanners Too Revealing?

Woman Claims Security at DC Airport Beat Her Up

Airline Pilot to TSA: ‘No Groping Me and No Naked Photos!’ DNA Damage, Cancer Risk

Full-Body Scanners Damage Human DNA

Alex’s Encounter with TSA During Latest Trip to California

Paul Watson Discusses TSA Agents Gone Wild on The Alex Jones Show 1/2

Paul Watson Discusses TSA Agents Gone Wild on The Alex Jones Show 2/2

EPIC FOIA – Feds and TSA save and transmit Body Scan images

TSA pulls pants off 71 y/o man with knee implant

Full Body Scanner Images Stored

Paul Watson Feds Caught Storing Body Scan Images at Florida Courthouse Security Checkpoint

TSA not screening screeners

Nude Protest: Airport Body Scanners in Germany

Airport scanner – TheBikerSite

Funny Body Scanner

EXCLUSIVE: TSA Unveils New Genital Visualizers

Background Articles and Videos

Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

by Declan McCullagh

“…For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they’re viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that “scanned images cannot be stored or recorded.” Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse. This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for “testing, training, and evaluation purposes.” The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports. Body scanners penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image so accurate that critics have likened it to a virtual strip search. Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing fuzzier images, and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail. The U.S. government likes the idea because body scanners can detect concealed weapons better than traditional magnetometers. This privacy debate, which has been simmering since the days of the Bush administration, came to a boil two weeks ago when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that scanners would soon appear at virtually every major airport. The updated list includes airports in New York City, Dallas, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, and Philadelphia. …” Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html#ixzz14ztWIFHJ

Pilots and passengers rail at new airport patdowns

By Jeremy Pelofsky

“…Executives from the travel industry, including online travel sites, theme parks and hotels, were set to meet Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Pistole on Friday to discuss their concerns that security is crimping travel. “We have received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls from travelers vowing to stop flying,” said Geoff Freeman, an executive vice president of the U.S. Travel Association, which set up the meeting with the Obama administration officials. “You can’t talk on the one hand about creating jobs in this country and getting this economy back on track and on the other hand discourage millions of Americans from flying, which is the gateway to commerce,” he said. Privacy groups have challenged the new body scanners in court, saying they are a violation of privacy and illegal. Lawmakers plan to hold hearings on aviation security next week when they return to Washington. Some travelers are also livid about how children are being screened. During a trip last Sunday by a father and son through Orlando airport in Florida, the 8-year-old boy was selected for extra screening by TSA after going through the metal detector. The father said the officer described the procedure before conducting it. Then he patted down the boy in the open security area, using the backside of his hands to check his genital area, he said. “I didn’t think it was going to be as horrible as he was describing,” said the boy’s father, Bill, who works as a lobbyist in Washington and did not want his full name used. …” http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AA55S20101111?ref=nf

U.S. Marshals Service Storing Naked Body Scanner Images

Kurt Nimmo “…Now it turns out police agencies, including the U.S. Marshals Service, are storing naked body scanner images too. In response, the advocacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction and putting a kibosh to the intrusive and unconstitutional snoop program. Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct Despite the revelation, the TSA steadfastly maintains that naked body scanners are delivered to airports with the image recording functions disabled. “We’re not recording them,” TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz told CNET on Wednesday. “I’m reiterating that to the public. We are not ever activating those capabilities at the airport.” Let’s get serious here. Naked body scanners are obviously being used to compliment existing dossiers on Americans. The NSA, FBI, CIA, and multitudinous government agencies have long profiled all aspects of the lives of American citizens. Images captured by naked body scanners, including images of genitals, are merely the next logical step in this process. …” http://www.infowars.com/u-s-marshals-service-storing-naked-body-scanner-images/

Transportation Security Administrion

PROCUREMENT SPECIFICATION FOR WHOLE BODY IMAGER DEVICES FOR CHECKPOINT OPERATIONS

“…3.1.1.1.2 Privacy TSA policy dictates that passenger privacy is maintained and protected during passenger screening. To ensure passenger privacy safeguards arc in place, WEI systems will prohibit the storage and exporting of passenger images during normal screening operations. When not being used for normal screening operations, the capability to capture images of non-passengers for training and evaluation purposes is needed. To ensure that image capturing maintains passenger privacy, the WEI will provide two distinct modes of operation: Screening Mode and Test Mode as defined in 3.1.1.3.1. During Screening Mode, the WEI shall (6) be prohibited from exporting passenger image data, including via STIP. During Test Mode, the WEI shall (7) not be capable of conducting passenger screening. The WBI shall (8) prohibit local storage of image data in all modes. The WEI shall (9) employ 256-bit encryption for image data in accordance with Fcderal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 197 Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Procurement_Specs.pdf

Are airport full body scanners a danger?

Jane Jamison

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) “Technology Review” reports the technology can harm human DNA:

“The evidence that terahertz radiation damages biological systems is mixed. “Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none,” say Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a few buddies. Now these guys think they know why.

The airport scanning technology creates a “picture” of the passenger’s body. Clothing is not really visible. Body parts, or any “additions” or augmentations to the body, such as an implanted plastic bag of explosives, are visible. …”

By Wesley Clark, MD
“…The Department of Homeland Security has the authority to stop, search, and detain anyone and anything (including the contents of your computer), for any reason, within a “Constitution-Free Zone,” resident or traveler, without a warrant and without even having probable cause — only a reasonable suspicion, which by DHS rules and case law can include even ethnic indicators. Two-thirds of Americans live within this Constitution-Free Zone, especially the “liberal” residents of coastal cities in the “blue states.”
Ostensibly, your decision to travel by airline implies your choice to abandon your rights to privacy in order to serve the cause of collective security. If you don’t like it, just travel by car or bus instead — but don’t venture within one hundred miles of the border or the coast, or you may be subject to warrantless search without probable cause by other TSA agents with the Border Patrol or the Immigration and Customs Enforcement divisions.
The newly infamous body scanners are of two types. Millimeter wave scanners generate high-frequency photons, in the “terahertz” radiation band from 30 to 300 gigahertz frequency, that are able to penetrate clothing to strike the body — but penetrating much less than x-rays, that have a higher frequency and energy levels.
Backscatter scanners generate low-energy x-rays, which readily penetrate clothing, while some portion are reflected (backscattered) from the surface of the skin, detected, and used by the scanner to generate the detailed image. X-rays are ionizing radiation and are judged to have no minimum safe threshold exposure. Exposure is cumulative over one’s lifetime. This has potential implications for frequent fliers and flight personnel, who also accumulate increased lifetime exposure from cosmic ray exposures at altitude.
Consequently, serious concerns have been raised regarding unrecognized radiation effects of the body scanners. Exposure to high-energy photons of terahertz frequencies may be damaging to the

Airport Body Scanners Finding Controlled Substances NOT Bombs!

TSA Screeners Frequently Miss Fake Bombs!

How the airport body scanner is used

TSA – Three Simple Steps

TSA – Laptops and Electronics

TSA – Why ID?

TSA – Traveling with Children

AT X-ray and Advanced Belts: TSA Checkpoint Evolution

Composure Benches: TSA Checkpoint Evolution

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

“…The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001. The TSA was originally organized in the U.S. Department of Transportation but was moved to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on March 25, 2003. The agency is responsible for security in all modes of transportation.[1] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

News Journal: Number 31, November 3, 2010: Tea Party Tidal Wave Falls and Rises–Videos

Posted on November 3, 2010. Filed under: Books, Issues, Law, News, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Society, Speech, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

The tea party movement supported many candidates for public office in the 2010 elections.

Some lost and some won.

One candidate for public office had a record of failure if you believed the press and lost several races for public office in the past.

The person lost his job.

The person failed in business.

The person lost a state representative race.

The person had a nervous breakdown.

The person lost a state house speaker race.

The person lost a U.S. Senate race.

The person lost the nomination to be U.S. Vice President.

The person lost again a U.S. Senate race.

The person finally ran for President of the United States.

The person won.

Abraham Lincoln, one of America’s most respected Presidents was the first Republican President of the United States.

 One tea party supported candidate who lost for a second time a U.S. Senate race was Christine O’Donnell of Delaware.

Tea Party Favorite Christine O’Donnell

O’Donnell’s Internal Opposition

Delaware is a very liberal state where union endorsements and support play a big role in determining who wins a state-wide election.

Delaware’s Senator for 36 years had been Joe Biden, the current Vice-President of the United States.

Christine O’Donnell lost the U.S. Senate race in 2008 against Senator Biden who was running for both Senator and Vice-President of the United States.

Christine O’Donnell lost again the U.S. Senate race in 2010.

Character and integrity matter and ideas have consequences.

A person with character and integrity and the right ideas does not always win a political race.

Christine O’Donnell has character and integrity and the right ideas.

Like Abraham Lincoln, I do not believe the American people have heard the last from Christine O’Donnell.

Many tea party movement supported candidates did win the privilege of governing their state and to represent the citizens of their state in Congress and the Senate.

Four standout.

Vicky Hartzler: A Friend to Small Business in Congress

Rand Paul: ‘It’s a Tea Party Tidal Wave’

REPLAY: Marco Rubio acceptance speech

NIKKI HALEY (R-SC)

NIKKI HALEY (R-SC) on HANNITY GOP Gubernatorial Candidate

Vicky Hartler was elected to represent Missouri’s 4th District in the United States House of Representatives.

Rand Paul was elected to represent Kentucky as Senator in the United States Senate.

Marco Rubio was elected to represent Florida as Senator in the United States Senate.

Nikki Halley was elected to govern South Carolina as Governor.

All four favor limited Constitutional government, balanced budgets, lower taxes, less regulation, capitalism and a free market place.

The Founding Fathers were men of character and integrity and knew that ideas have consequences.

The Founding Fathers–Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and others– gave the American people the benefit of their wisdom contained in The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

The Founding Fathers gift to the American people was a representative republic with separation of powers and a system of checks and balances.

On Tuesday the American people elected a few of their fellow citizens to represent them in Congress and the Senate and govern their states.

The tea party movement goes to Washington and will have its own caucus in the House and Senate.

Rand Paul on Tea Party’s Future

Only time will tell whether the American people choose wisely.

Background Articles and Videos

Tea party candidates win in Fla., Ky.; lose Del.

“…Two tea party champions won high-profile Senate elections Tuesday, spearheading a likely cadre of libertarian-leaning Republicans who will press party leaders to be more adamant about lower taxes, less spending and smaller government.

Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida rocked the GOP establishment last spring by routing leadership favorites in party primaries. Then they beat back Democrats’ efforts to paint them as too extreme, winning comfortably on Tuesday. However, another well-publicized tea party darling, Christine O’Donnell of Delaware, lost to Democrat Chris Coons. She also won a stunning GOP primary victory, beating longtime Rep. Mike Castle, but she failed to extend her popularity to the broader November electorate. …”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101103/ap_on_el_se/us_senate_14

“…List of Lincoln’s failures

A common list of the failures of Abraham Lincoln (along with a few successes) is:

  • 1831 – Lost his job
  • 1832 – Defeated in run for Illinois State Legislature
  • 1833 – Failed in business
  • 1834 – Elected to Illinois State Legislature (success)
  • 1835 – Sweetheart died
  • 1836 – Had nervous breakdown
  • 1838 – Defeated in run for Illinois House Speaker
  • 1843 – Defeated in run for nomination for U.S. Congress
  • 1846 – Elected to Congress (success)
  • 1848 – Lost re-nomination
  • 1849 – Rejected for land officer position
  • 1854 – Defeated in run for U.S. Senate
  • 1856 – Defeated in run for nomination for Vice President
  • 1858 – Again defeated in run for U.S. Senate
  • 1860 – Elected President (success)

That looks like a pretty glum résumé, making you wonder how he ever made it to the top. But when you really think of it, to run for office or high positions so many times, you have to have something on the ball and have more successes than meet the eye. …”

http://www.school-for-champions.com/history/lincoln_failures.htm

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 30, November 2, 2010: Dump Democrats–Vote–Remember Tuesday Is Soylent Green Day–Trust But Verify–Videos

Posted on November 2, 2010. Filed under: Audio, Communications, Digital Communication, Issues, Law, Mass Media, Movies, News, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , |

SOYLENT GREEN music – Fred Myrow (HQ + ending)

Trust but verify

I still stand by my wild ass guess (WAG) that the Republicans will win 77 seats in the House of Representatives for a total of 255 seats and 10 seats in the Senate for a total of 51 seats giving the Republican Party majority control of both the House and Senate.

There will also be 35 state Republican  governors.

The Democratic Party led by President Obama have lost the independents, older voters, white voters, the unemployed and increasingly the young.

Since the core progressive/liberal base of the Democratic Party is between 20% and 25% even in the best of turnout election years, they simply cannot win in districts that have a high percentage of Republican and Independent voters.

The conservative and libertarian movement is more than energized–they want to throw the bums out of office.

The major issues were jobs, spending, taxes, deficits, debt, bailouts, illegal immigration and Obama care.

On all these issues the Democratic Party is simply on the minority side of the issue and their economic policies of a stimulus package, green jobs, and Obama care have been an abject failure in creating jobs and reducing spending and deficits.

The tea party patriots have become a political force to be reckoned with by the political establishments of the Democratic and Republican parties.

The real test for the Republican Party will be in the next two to four years.

At a bare minimum the Republican Party must cut back spending and balance the budget with no tax or debt increases.

If the Republican Party does not deliver on this, more and more tea party patriots will look to forming a new political party instead of taking over the Republican Party.

I am simply not optimistic that the current Republican Party establishment is up to the job.

The Republican establishment lacks both vision and courage to do what needs to be done.

What the Republican Party should be doing is closing down entire Federal Departments and passing the FairTax.

Very few Republicans and Republican talk radio and television show hosts mention either.

Instead it is business as usually with the same talking points that we need to cut spending by x% and tax rates by y%.

This approach has failed time and time again for the simple reason that it is quickly reversed by the progressives in both the Democratic and Republican parties when they win majorities in the House and Senate.

Only by passing the FairTax and eliminating ten Federal Departments will the cancer of out-of-control government intervention be permanently stopped.

The time for a new political party that replaces either the Republican or Democratic Party is fast approaching.

Tea parties or rallies are great but results count and that requires MOMMA–Money, Organization, Message, Momentum and Ambition.

MOMMA is what is required to win elections.

A new political party that favors limited constitutional government is required–American Citizens Alliance Party–ACAP on spending, deficits, debt, regulations, and taxes.

The American people are also waiting for its twenty-first century George Washington and Thomas Paine to emerge from the tea party patriots.

The election of 2016 is the one to watch out for.

By then I fully expect that both the Democratic and Republican parties will be so widely perceived as failures in delivering results that the American people will finally support candidates that want limited constitutional government and belong to another political party.

NRA Tribute to Charlton Heston

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 29, October 26, 2010: American People’s No Confidence Voting Wave Wipes Out Democrats–It’s The Economy Stupid!–Videos

Posted on October 26, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Ethics, Issues, Law, Magazines, News, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Regulations, Society, Television, Web | Tags: , , , |

Republican Governors 35

Republican Senators 51

Republican Representatives 255

 

The Republicans will pickup a net total of 77 seats in House of Representatives for a total of 255.

The Republicans will also pickup a net total of 10 seats in the Senate for a total of 51 seats.

The American people want to stop the massive Government spending, deficits and bailouts and rising National debt of the Obama Administration.

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

Issue number 1 is jobs and the economy with nearly thirty million Americans looking for a full-time job and continuing high rates of unemployment.

www.shadowstats.com

Issue number 2 is massive Federal Government spending, deficits, bailouts and a rising National debt.

The National Debt Road Trip

The Trillion $$$ Dollar U.S. Economic Deficit Caused By Our Government

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Issue number 3 is Obamacare– the American people want it repealed as soon as possible and no money bills or appropriations to fund Obamacare.

Fight Obamacare Texas

Issue number 4 is illegal immigration–the American people want it stopped by immigration law enforcement and a completed border fence that is heavily patrolled.

What Are True Costs And Benefits Of Illegal Immigration?

Stop Illegal Immigration

 

The American people expect the Republican Party to balance the Federal Budget by significantly reducing Government spending and permanently closing Federal Departments including Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, and Transportation.

The number of Federal employees should be cut from over 2,000,000 to less than 1,000,000.

3 Reasons Public Sector Employees are Killing the Economy

 

The American people expect the Republican Party to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers and pass the FairTax–it is time!

The FairTax: It’s Time

Should the Republican Party fail to balance the budget and cut the size and scope of the Federal Government by permanently shutting down the above departments, these Republicans will be wiped out by the 2012 wave of tea party patriots.

Background Articles and Videos

Editor in Chief Insights: Obama’s Job Approval Trajectory

 

President Obama Heads into Midterms at Lowest Approval Rating of Presidency

Two-thirds of Americans believe country going off on the wrong track

“…Currently, two-thirds of Americans (67%) have a negative opinion of the job President Obama is doing while just over one-third (37%) have a positive opinion. This continues the president’s downward trend and he is now at the lowest job approval rating of his presidency.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 3,084 adults surveyed online between October 11 and 18, 2010 by Harris Interactive.

It’s perhaps not surprising that nine in ten Republicans (90%) and Conservatives (89%) give the job the president is doing negative ratings. What may be surprising is that one-third of Democrats (34%) and Liberals (33%) also give him negative ratings, as do seven in ten Independents (70%) and six in ten Moderates (60%).

Americans who give the president the highest positive ratings are those with a post-graduate education (48%), a college education (47%), and those living in the West (42%). On the other end of the spectrum, almost three-quarters of those with a high school education or less (72%) and two-thirds of Midwesterners (66%) and Southerners (66%) give the President negative marks on his overall job.

While the president is at a low point, there is a political body with ratings much lower than his. Just one in ten Americans (11%) give Congress positive ratings on the job they are doing while nine in ten (89%) give them negative marks. While Congress may be under Democratic control, even four in five Democrats (81%) give them negative ratings.

Part of this negativity may have to do with the way Americans believe the country as a whole is going. Just one-third of U.S. adults (34%) say the country is going in the right direction while two-thirds (66%) say it is going off on the wrong track. While not close to the low it was before the 2008 election (11% said things were going in the right direction), this is one of the lower points of this year. …”

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/Hi_assets/TopHitPageNews.html

Rasmussen Reports

Trust on Issues

Voters Trust Republicans More on Eight of 10 Key Issues

“…Voters now trust Democrats over Republicans in only two areas – government ethics and corruption by a 41% to 36% margin and education where Democrats have a slight 42% to 40% edge.

The economy continues to be the most important issue on voters’ minds this election, and 49% place their trust in Republicans to handle this issue. Thirty-nine percent (39%) trust Democrats more. These findings show little change from early June 2009.

On the issue of health care, which voters place second on the list of important issues, Republicans hold a modest 47% to 40% advantage. Democrats were trusted more on this issue until the debate over a proposed national health care bill began to heat up in early September of last year.

Most voters continue to favor repeal of the national health care law, but the number of voters who expect the law to increase the deficit has fallen to the lowest point since its passage by Congress in March.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Two surveys of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters each were conducted October 12-13 and October 14-15, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Government ethics and corruption rate number three in terms of overall importance, but voters have been narrowly divided for the past several months over which party to trust more on this issue. Democrats have held small leads since February.

As for education, both parties have held very modest leads on the issue at different times for months now.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters nationwide place their trust in the hands of Republicans when it comes to the issue of taxes. Thirty-nine percent (39%) would rather the Democrats handle this issue. The GOP has held a solid lead over Democrats on this issue since early July 2009.

But most voters believe that Democrats in Congress want to raise taxes and spending, while Republicans in Congress want to cut taxes and spending.

When it comes to immigration, 45% trust Republicans, while 33% trust the Democrats more. The gap between the two parties has widened since the beginning of January as the debate over the immigration law in Arizona intensified. At the beginning of the year, voters were essentially evenly divided on which party to trust.

Voters feel more strongly than ever that the federal government is encouraging illegal immigration and that states like Arizona have the answer to the problem, but the Obama administration is challenging the Arizona law in federal court.

Republicans continue to be trusted more on national security issues and the war on terror, with 49% of voters trusting the GOP versus 39% who trust the Democrats more. When it comes the war in Afghanistan, Republicans hold a six-point advantage, 42% to 36%.

Similarly, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats to handle the war in Iraq, 43% to 37%. …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues

Historical Federal Workforce Tables

Executive Branch Civilian Employment Since 1940

(end-of-fiscal-year count, excluding Postal Service, in thousands)

Fiscal Year Total Executive Branch Department of Defense Civilian Agencies
Total Agriculture HHS, Education, Social Sec. 1 Homeland Security Interior Justice Transportation Treasury Veterans Other
1940 699 256 443 98 9 18 46 11 … 45 40 176
1941 1,081 556 525 91 10 20 50 15 … 52 43 244
1942 1,934 1,291 643 95 11 20 49 22 … 55 44 348
1943 2,935 2,200 735 109 11 21 43 23 … 69 53 406
1944 2,930 2,246 683 78 11 21 42 21 … 81 51 378
1945 3,370 2,635 736 82 11 20 45 19 … 84 65 409
1946 2,212 1,416 795 97 12 20 51 17 … 95 169 335
1947 1,637 859 777 88 12 20 53 17 … 82 217 288
1948 1,569 871 698 82 13 18 57 20 … 79 196 233
1949 1,573 880 694 87 12 19 59 19 … 77 195 226
1950 1,439 753 686 84 13 20 66 20 … 76 188 219
1951 1,974 1,235 738 81 16 21 65 25 … 79 183 269
1952 2,066 1,337 729 79 15 22 61 25 … 75 175 278
1953 2,026 1,332 694 78 35 22 59 23 … 71 178 226
1954 1,875 1,209 666 76 35 21 56 24 … 67 179 207
1955 1,860 1,187 673 86 40 21 54 24 … 65 178 206
1956 1,864 1,180 684 89 46 20 53 24 … 64 177 210
1957 1,869 1,161 708 96 53 20 55 24 … 65 174 222
1958 1,817 1,097 720 101 55 20 56 24 … 64 172 227
1959 1,805 1,078 727 97 59 20 55 23 … 63 171 238
1960 1,808 1,047 761 99 62 21 56 24 … 62 172 265
1961 1,825 1,042 782 103 70 20 59 25 … 67 175 265
1962 1,896 1,070 827 111 77 20 63 25 … 69 177 284
1963 1,911 1,050 861 116 81 21 73 25 … 73 173 300
1964 1,884 1,030 855 108 83 21 70 26 … 72 172 302
1965 1,901 1,034 867 113 87 21 71 27 … 74 167 307
1966 2,051 1,138 913 119 100 21 75 27 … 76 170 324
1967 2,251 1,303 949 122 106 24 77 27 52 79 173 289
1968 2,289 1,317 972 123 117 23 78 29 56 79 176 292
1969 2,301 1,342 960 125 113 21 75 30 58 79 175 283
1970 2,203 1,219 983 118 112 23 75 33 62 84 169 308
1971 2,144 1,154 989 120 115 25 72 38 66 86 180 288
1972 2,117 1,108 1,009 118 114 29 72 40 65 90 184 295
1973 2,083 1,053 1,030 113 128 29 74 43 66 90 198 289
1974 2,140 1,070 1,070 116 142 30 77 46 68 97 202 292
1975 2,149 1,042 1,107 121 147 31 80 47 69 101 213 297
1976 2,157 1,010 1,147 128 155 32 82 48 71 105 222 303
1977 2,182 1,009 1,173 132 159 32 87 48 70 107 224 313
1978 2,224 1,000 1,225 138 161 37 84 49 70 110 229 348
1979 2,161 960 1,201 128 161 40 78 48 67 102 226 352
1980 2,161 960 1,201 129 163 40 77 48 66 102 228 346
1981 2,143 984 1,159 129 162 38 76 47 54 100 232 321
1982 2,110 990 1,121 121 153 38 79 48 57 98 236 291
1983 2,157 1,026 1,131 124 152 39 80 50 57 104 239 286
1984 2,171 1,044 1,127 119 150 39 79 53 57 109 240 283
1985 2,252 1,107 1,145 122 147 40 80 55 56 110 247 286
1986 2,175 1,068 1,108 113 138 39 74 56 56 114 240 277
1987 2,232 1,090 1,142 117 132 44 74 60 57 125 250 284
1988 2,222 1,050 1,172 121 128 48 78 63 58 135 245 297
1989 2,238 1,075 1,162 122 127 49 78 66 60 126 246 289
1990 2,250 1,034 1,216 123 129 49 78 71 61 132 248 326
1991 2,243 1,013 1,230 126 135 50 82 77 64 139 256 302
1992 2,225 952 1,274 128 136 56 85 82 64 133 260 329
1993 2,157 891 1,266 124 135 56 85 82 63 127 268 326
1994 2,085 850 1,235 120 133 55 81 83 59 128 262 315
1995 2,012 802 1,210 113 132 56 76 87 58 128 264 297
1996 1,934 768 1,166 110 130 62 71 88 58 118 251 279
1997 1,872 723 1,149 107 131 64 71 93 59 112 243 270
1998 1,856 693 1,163 106 130 68 72 95 59 112 240 281
1999 1,820 666 1,155 105 130 69 73 97 58 113 219 290
2000 1,778 651 1,127 104 126 70 74 98 58 113 220 265
2001 1,792 647 1,145 109 129 73 76 99 59 117 226 258
2002 1,818 645 1,173 98 130 76 77 96 96 118 223 258
2003 1,867 636 1,231 100 131 153 72 102 58 132 226 257
2004 1,882 644 1,238 111 130 153 77 104 57 111 236 257
2005 1,872 649 1,224 108 131 147 76 105 56 108 235 258
2006 1,880 653 1,227 105 129 154 72 107 54 107 239 260
2007 1,888 651 1,237 103 129 159 72 107 54 104 254 254
2008 1,960 670 1,289 104 132 172 76 109 55 106 274 261
2009 2,094 737 1,357 104 139 180 75 113 57 109 297 283

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/ExecutiveBranchSince1940.asp

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 28, October 16, 2010: The Obama Depression Deepens–Federal Reserve Executes–QE II Plan–“Operation Pawnshop”–$2,500 Billion In Quantitative Easing–Money Printing–Will It Be Enough?

Posted on October 16, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Globalization, International Trade, Issues, Law, Magazines, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Non-conventional vs. Traditional Federal Reserve System Building

“Credit expansion is the governments foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate the capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous.”

“The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.”

~Ludwig von Mises

Peter Schiff – It’s Scary How Clueless Bernanke Is

The Gold Dollar | Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Fed’s Next Move: What Will Boost the Economy?

Helicopter Ben Bernanke 10/15/10 Part 1

Helicopter Ben Bernanke 10/15/10 Part 2

Swonk Says Bernanke Laid Out Rationale for Fed QE: Video

Currencies, Phillips curve, inflation target, Ramsey, SchiffRadio.com

Bernanke Says Fed Stimulus Move Coming, Amount Unknown

Tyson Says Quantitative Easing ‘Only Policy Option Left’

Jim Grant on Bloomberg 10/8/10: Quantitative Easing Is Just Money Printing

Mandelbrot (Chaos Theory) Taleb (Black Swan) on markets

End the Fed | Ron Paul

The primary goal of the Federal Reserve System is price stability or the avoidance of inflation for the U.S. economy.

However, unlike other central banks, the Federal Reserve also was given several other goals by Congress:

“The goals of monetary policy are spelled out in the Federal Reserve Act, which specifies that the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee should seek “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” …”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_2.pdf

Since the Fed already has a zero interest rate policy or ZIRP with the Federal Funds rate target range of between 0.0% – .25% and a low inflation rate for the time being under 2%, the Federal Reserve now turns it monetary policy tools on the persistent high unemployment rates, now at 9.6% and headed once again to 10% or more.

Series Id:           LNS14000000 Seasonally Adjusted Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, communicated in an October 15, 2010 speech in Boston what the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) unconventional monetary policy was targeting– maximum employment–by printing more money and purchasing Treasuries and other bonds:

“…In short, there are clearly many challenges in communicating and conducting monetary policy in a low-inflation environment, including the uncertainties associated with the use of nonconventional policy tools. Despite these challenges, the Federal Reserve remains committed to pursuing policies that promote our dual objectives of maximum employment and price stability. In particular, the FOMC is prepared to provide additional accommodation if needed to support the economic recovery and to return inflation over time to levels consistent with our mandate. …”

Translation, the Fed will be printing more money starting in November to expand the money and credit supply by purchasing Treasury securities including bills, notes and bonds in the market as well other assets such as bonds with the objective of lowering the unemployment rate.

http://nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html

The Fed will be attempting to “inflate” the economy out of the current “jobless recovery” into another economic boom.

Call it quantitative easing, credit easing or “nonconventional” monetary policy, I call it overdosing on interventionism.

Quantitative Easing–Videos

What is the size, scope and duration of the “quantitative easing” or overdosing on interventionism ?

How big will the Fed’s weekly habit be?

My guess it will start “small” with $2 to $5 billion per week and gradually increase to about $15 billion per week?

How long will the Fed persist in this habit before going cold turkey?

At least twelve to forty-eight months or until the unemployment rate is below 6% and core inflation is over 2%.

This will require another massive expansion of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet.

How much will it take?

My guess is a 1% reduction in the U-3 official unemployment rate would take a minimum of $600 billion per year ($200,000 money or credit expansion times 3,000,000 new jobs in one year)

A 4% reduction in the unemployment rate from 10% to 5% or the creation of about 12,000,000 new jobs would require a minimum of $2,500 billion dollars over four years.

The U.S. official unemployment rate as measured by U-3 is again headed towards 10% with over 15,000,000 Americans unemployed.

The private sector needs to create between 250,000 and 300,000 jobs per month to reduce the official unemployment rate by just .1%.

Currently the private sector is creating less than 100,000 jobs per month.

The United States needs between 100,000 to 150,000 jobs to absorb new entrants into the labor market due to the population growth. There are currently over 1.1 million unemployed new entrants that have not found their first job.

Another 150,000 to 200,000 jobs is are needed to reduce the unemployment by .1%.

Unfortunately, the persistent unemployment problem is even worse.

The U-6 total unemployment rate increased from 16.7% in August to 17.1% in October 2010.

With a total civilian labor force of about 155 million, a 17.1% unemployment rate means that over 26,500,000 Americans are looking for full-time jobs.

This represents over twice the number of unemployed Americans, about 13 million, during the worse month of the Great Depression, March 1933.

Assume it takes a minimum of $200,000 increase in the money and credit supply to create one new job.

Assume it takes 250,000 new jobs per month to reduce the unemployment rate by .1% or 3,000,000 jobs per year to reduce the unemployment rate by 1.2%.

Then the Federal Reserve would need to expand the money and credit supply by about $600 billion per year.

If the objective is to reduce the unemployment rate official unemployment rate U-3 from about 10% to 5% then the Federal Reserve would need to expand the money and credit supply by about $2,500 billion over a forty-eight month period.

I fully expect both the U-3 and U-6 unemployment rates to rise by at least .1 to .2% per month for next three to six months.

This would bring the official unemployment rate or U-3 over 10% during the first quarter of 2011 and the total unemployment rate or U-6 over 18% by the start of the second quarter of 2011.

This would represent over 15 million Americans unemployed and over 28 million seeking full-time unemployment.

This in turn will mean the U.S. economy is entering a “new” recession or a “double dip recession” with declining and most likely negative growth rates in the second and third quarter of 2011 and an increased probability of deflation or a declining general price level for goods and services.

Therefore the case for an expansionary monetary policy is still strong and increasing.

With the Federal Funds rate essentially zero, the Federal Reserve will be purchasing assets such as Treasury securities and agency mortgage-backed securities starting in November and continuing for a least six months until the U.S. unemployment rates are down by at least 1% to 2% or more and growth in production or the gross national product is at least above 3% to 4%.

Assuming the Federal Reserve purchases $12 billion in assets or securities each week, the total amount of the quantitative easing will be about $2,500 billion over the next forty-eight months to bring the official unemployment rate U-3 to about 5%.

The Federal Reserve cannot count upon the central bank of Communist China, the People’s Bank of China, to appreciate the Yuan by more than 5% to 10% per year relative to the U.S. dollar to encourage U.S. exports and reduce Chinese imports to the United States.

The real problem is Federal government spending that should be drastically cut until a balanced or even surplus budget is the result.

The Bush tax rate cuts in 2001 and 2003 need to be made permanent as well.

Until such fiscal economic policies are actually implemented, the only monetary policy “bullets” that the Federal Reserve has left is quantitative easing or money printing to purchase assets by expanding their balance sheet.

The Federal Government has for the last two years run deficits exceeding 1,000 billion each year and totaling over $2,500 billion not counting interest and this is likely to continue for at least one or two years until the U.S. economy fully recovers and the unemployment rates are well below 7%.

These budgetary deficits need to be financed by the Treasury Department issuing Treasury bills, notes and bonds.

The Federal Reserve will monetize some of these Treasury debts as part of its quantitative easing operations to the extent other buyers of Treasuries cannot be found.

What is the size or quantity of the quantitative easing?

I do not expect this to be announced, but at least $2,500 billion may be needed in the next forty-eight months to avoid another recession, significantly reduce unemployment to under 6%, and increase the growth of the economy above 4%.

Will such a “nonconventional” monetary policy work?

Only if the Congress and the President drastically cut the Federal Budget so it balances, do not increase taxes, and repeal Obama care.

In other words,this “nonconventional” monetary policy strategy of asset purchases or quantitative easing is not very likely to work any time soon.

The problem with government intervention into the economy is it always requires even more government intervention to correct past mistakes.

Both fiscal and monetary policy are generating massive uncertainty and a lack of confidence by consumers and businesses results in the deferral of consumption and investment expenditures and the hiring of new employees.

Bernanke understands this for he wrote in his Ph.D. dissertation at M.I.T.:

“…increase uncertainty provides an incentive to defer investments in order to wait for new information.”

Massive increases in the size and scope of the Federal government has resulted in huge budgetary deficits and proposed tax increase during a “jobless recovery”.

These deficits must be financed and the Federal Reserve will make sure that Treasury debt in the form of bills, notes and bonds will be purchased by printing more money as needed.

The Federal Reserve “nonconventional” monetary policy of printing more money is essentially government intervention into the economy to accommodate the U.S. Government’s Department of the Treasury need in financing massive government deficits

The Federal Open Market Committee will purchase Treasuries, mostly short-term Treasury bills but some notes and bonds in exchange for Federal Reserve Notes or money.

While the Fed’s cover story may be that this is needed to reduce unemployment, the real objective is financing massive Federal government spending and deficits. This is similar to what was done from 1942 to 1951 where Treasury long-term government bond yields were fixed at very low levels to finance World War II.

In fact, the Federal Reserve will be debasing the U.S. dollar by reducing the purchasing power of the dollar.

End the Fed | Ron Paul

This is a hidden tax paid by all the American people.

The cost of exports will rise as the U.S. dollar depreciates relative to other foreign currencies.

The price of petroleum will significantly rise and Americans will be paying over $3 a gallon in 2011 and over $4 a gallon in 2012.

The increases in petroleum and gasoline prices will in turn impact food prices.

The Federal Reserve uses a core personal consumption expenditure (PCE) price index approach in measuring and setting inflation targets, which excludes food and energy. The core personal consumption is a less volatile inflation or price measure than a change in total personal consumption expenditures which includes energy and food.

However, the American people need to eat and use gasoline to power their cars and heating oil to warm their homes.

The American people do not tolerate fools, even educated fools of the ruling class, for very long when they are losing their jobs, homes, health care and retirement plans and their children and grandchildren cannot find jobs or complete their college education.

The Second American Revolution has started.

On Tuesday November 2, 2010, election day, a shot will be heard around the world that even the world’s central bankers will be able to hear, if not fully comprehend.

During which the Federal Open Market Committee or FOMC will meet to decide when and how much quantitative easing or credit easing is needed to create jobs, avoid another recession and finance the U.S. government massive deficits.

The U.S. economy is in a liquidity trap where conventional monetary policy is ineffective and “nonconventional” monetary policy cannot work effectively until the appropriate fiscal policies are a reality and working.

The U.S. economy is slowly drowning in a flood of government intervention that has simply failed in generating jobs and high rates of economic growth and wealth creation.

The American people are paying the price for our ruling class’s continuing failures.

After quantitative easing or “operation pawn shop” fails and the value of the U.S. dollars is further debased, a period of inflation will follow and the Obama Depression will become an inflationary depression–a black swan.

“To be told that the Fed did what it could isn’t much comfort to a family who loses its house to foreclosure, a businessman forced into bankruptcy, a sixty-five-year-old whose retirement fund is devastated, a would-be borrower turned away by a beleaguered bank, a new college grad who can’t find a job, any job. For those victims and all the others, a final verdict on the Fed’s response to the Great Panic must await the health of the U.S. economy in 2010 and 2011 and beyond.”

~David Wessle, In Fed We Trust, Ben Bernanke’s War On the Great Panic, page 266.

“It is indeed one of the principal drawbacks of every kind of interventionism that it is so difficult to reverse the process.”

“Economics does not say that isolated government interference with the prices of only one commodity or a few commodities is unfair, bad, or unfeasible. It says that such interference produces results contrary to its purpose, that it makes conditions worse, not better, from the point of view of the government and those backing its interference.”

~Ludwig von Mises

Roubini: U.S. Running Out of Options to Stimulate Economy

Roubini On Double Dip

Nassim Nicholas Taleb – What is a “Black Swan?”

Background Articles and Videos

Peter Schiff “We Should Save ‘Person Of The Year’ For People Who Do Good!

Ron Paul: Allow The Free Market, Not The Fed, To Set Interest Rates

Maynard Keynes Inventor of Quantitative Easing

The Financial Crisis and the Death of Macroeconomics | Joseph T. Salerno

Government’s Response to the Crisis: A Fantastic Success, for Government | Robert Higgs

Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Keynesian Predictions vs. American History | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Our Wise Overlords Are Just Here to Serve Us | Thomas E. Woods. Jr.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb Angry

16. The Evolution and Perfection of Monetary Policy

Crisis and Capitalism

Understanding the Financial Crisis

The Psychology of the Financial Crisis

Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve

How to Abolish the Federal Reserve

Speech

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke

At the Revisiting Monetary Policy in a Low-Inflation Environment Conference, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Boston, Massachusetts

October 15, 2010

Monetary Policy Objectives and Tools in a Low-Inflation Environment”…

“…However, possible costs must be weighed against the potential benefits of nonconventional policies. One disadvantage of asset purchases relative to conventional monetary policy is that we have much less experience in judging the economic effects of this policy instrument, which makes it challenging to determine the appropriate quantity and pace of purchases and to communicate this policy response to the public. These factors have dictated that the FOMC proceed with some caution in deciding whether to engage in further purchases of longer-term securities.

Another concern associated with additional securities purchases is that substantial further expansion of the balance sheet could reduce public confidence in the Fed’s ability to execute a smooth exit from its accommodative policies at the appropriate time. Even if unjustified, such a reduction in confidence might lead to an undesired increase in inflation expectations, to a level above the Committee’s inflation objective. To address such concerns and to ensure that it can withdraw monetary accommodation smoothly at the appropriate time, the Federal Reserve has developed an array of new tools.7 With these tools in hand, I am confident that the FOMC will be able to tighten monetary conditions when warranted, even if the balance sheet remains considerably larger than normal at that time.

Central bank communication provides additional means of increasing the degree of policy accommodation when short-term nominal interest rates are near zero. For example, FOMC postmeeting statements have included forward policy guidance since December 2008, and the most recent statements have reflected the FOMC’s anticipation that exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate are likely to be warranted “for an extended period,” contingent on economic conditions. A step the Committee could consider, if conditions called for it, would be to modify the language of the statement in some way that indicates that the Committee expects to keep the target for the federal funds rate low for longer than markets expect. Such a change would presumably lower longer-term rates by an amount related to the revision in policy expectations. A potential drawback of using the FOMC’s statement in this way is that, at least without a more comprehensive framework in place, it may be difficult to convey the Committee’s policy intentions with sufficient precision and conditionality. The Committee will continue to actively review its communications strategy with the goal of providing as much clarity as possible about its outlook, policy objectives, and policy strategies.

Conclusion
In short, there are clearly many challenges in communicating and conducting monetary policy in a low-inflation environment, including the uncertainties associated with the use of nonconventional policy tools. Despite these challenges, the Federal Reserve remains committed to pursuing policies that promote our dual objectives of maximum employment and price stability. In particular, the FOMC is prepared to provide additional accommodation if needed to support the economic recovery and to return inflation over time to levels consistent with our mandate. Of course, in considering possible further actions, the FOMC will take account of the potential costs and risks of nonconventional policies, and, as always, the Committee’s actions are contingent on incoming information about the economic outlook and financial conditions. ..”

Bernanke sees case for more Federal Reserve easing

“… Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Friday offered his most explicit signal yet that the U.S. central bank was set to ease monetary policy further, but provided no details on how aggressively it might act.

Bernanke warned a prolonged period of high unemployment could choke off the U.S. recovery and that the low level of inflation presented an uncomfortable risk of deflation, a dangerous downward slide in prices.

“There would appear — all else being equal — to be a case for further action,” Bernanke said at a conference sponsored by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank.

With overnight interest rates already close to zero, many economists expect the Fed to launch a fresh round of bond purchases, perhaps on the order of $500 billion, to push borrowing costs lower at its next policy meeting on November 2-3.

Prices for longer-dated U.S. government debt fell after Bernanke’s remarks as investors bet the Fed would be successful in generating more inflation. Stocks were mixed while the dollar briefly hit an eight-month low against the euro.

Bernanke said the central bank could bolster its economy and inflation-lifting efforts by indicating a willingness to hold interest rates low for longer than currently expected.

The Fed pushed overnight rates to zero in December 2008 and then bought $1.7 trillion in U.S. government and mortgage-linked bonds to offer more support for the economy.

Officials have said further asset buying, or quantitative easing, would be the course they would most likely pursue to spur a stronger recovery.

Bernanke indicated Fed policymakers were still weighing how aggressive they should be, leaving markets to guess as to the details of any operation. …”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bernanke-says-sees-case-for-rb-4235164349.html?x=0&.v=3

Personal consumption expenditures price index

“…he PCE price index (PCEPI) (or PCE deflator, PCE price deflator, Implicit Price Deflator for Personal Consumption Expenditures (IPD for PCE) (by the BEA), Chain-type Price Index for Personal Consumption Expenditures (CTPIPCE) (by the FOMC )) is a United States-wide indicator of the average increase in prices for all domestic personal consumption. It is indexed to a base of 100 in 2005. Using a variety of data including U.S. Consumer Price Index and Producer Price Index prices, it is derived from the largest component of the Gross Domestic Product in the BEA’s National Income and Product Accounts, personal consumption expenditures.

The less volatile measure of the PCE price index is the core PCE price index which excludes the more volatile and seasonal food and energy prices.

In comparison to the headline United States Consumer Price Index, which uses one set of expenditure weights for several years, this index uses a Fisher Price Index, which uses expenditure data from both the current period and the preceding period. Also, the PCEPI uses a chained index which compares one quarter’s price to the last quarter’s instead of choosing a fixed base. This price index method assumes that the consumer has made allowances for changes in relative prices. That is to say, they have substituted from goods whose prices are rising to goods whose prices are stable or falling.

The PCE rises about one-third percent less than the CPI, a trend that dates back to 1992. This may be due to the failure of CPI to take into account substitution. Alternatively, an unpublished report on this difference by the BLS suggests that most of it is from different ways of calculating hospital expenses and airfares.[1] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_consumption_expenditures_price_index

Black Swan Theory

“…The Black Swan Theory or “Theory of Black Swan Events” was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to explain: 1) the disproportionate role of high-impact, hard to predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance and technology, 2) the non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to their very nature of small probabilities) and 3) the psychological biases that make people individually and collectively blind to uncertainty and unaware of the massive role of the rare event in historical affairs. Unlike the earlier philosophical “black swan problem”, the “Black Swan Theory” (capitalized) refers only to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history. Such events, considered extreme outliers, collectively play vastly larger roles than regular occurrences.

Black Swan Events were characterized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his 2007 book (revised and completed in 2010), The Black Swan. Taleb regards almost all major scientific discoveries, historical events, and artistic accomplishments as “black swans” — undirected and unpredicted. He gives the rise of the Internet, the personal computer, World War I, and the September 11 attacks as examples of Black Swan Events.

The term black swan was a Latin expression — its oldest known reference comes from the poet Juvenal’s characterization of something being “rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno” (6.165).[1] In English, this Latin phrase means “a rare bird in the lands, and very like a black swan.” When the phrase was coined, the black swan was presumed not to exist. The importance of the simile lies in its analogy to the fragility of any system of thought. A set of conclusions is potentially undone once any of its fundamental postulates is disproven. In this case, the observation of a single black swan would be the undoing of the phrase’s underlying logic, as well as any reasoning that followed from that underlying logic.

Juvenal’s phrase was a common expression in 16th century London as a statement of impossibility. The London expression derives from the Old World presumption that all swans must be white because all historical records of swans reported that they had white feathers.[2] In that context, a black swan was impossible or at least nonexistent. After a Dutch expedition led by explorer Willem de Vlamingh on the Swan River in 1697, discovered black swans in Western Australia[3], the term metamorphosed to connote that a perceived impossibility might later be disproven. Taleb notes that in the 19th century John Stuart Mill used the black swan logical fallacy as a new term to identify falsification.

Specifically, Taleb asserts[4] in the New York Times:

What we call here a Black Swan (and capitalize it) is an event with the following three attributes.

First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility. Second, it carries an extreme impact. Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable.

I stop and summarize the triplet: rarity, extreme impact, and retrospective (though not prospective) predictability. A small number of Black Swans explains almost everything in our world, from the success of ideas and religions, to the dynamics of historical events, to elements of our own personal lives.

Coping with black swan events

The main idea in Taleb’s book is not to attempt to predict Black Swan Events, but to build robustness against negative ones that occur and being able to exploit positive ones. Taleb contends that banks and trading firms are very vulnerable to hazardous Black Swan Events and are exposed to losses beyond that predicted by their defective models.

Taleb states that a Black Swan Event depends on the observer—using a simple example, what may be a Black Swan surprise for a turkey is not a Black Swan surprise for its butcher—hence the objective should be to “avoid being the turkey” by identifying areas of vulnerability in order to “turn the Black Swans white”.

Identifying a black swan event

Based on the author’s criteria:

  1. The event is a surprise (to the observer).
  2. The event has a major impact.
  3. After the fact, the event is rationalized by hindsight, as if it had been expected.

Taleb’s ten principles for a black swan robust world

Taleb enumerates ten principles for building systems that are robust to Black Swan Events:[10]

  1. What is fragile should break early while it is still small. Nothing should ever become Too Big to Fail.
  2. No socialisation of losses and privatisation of gains.
  3. People who were driving a school bus blindfolded (and crashed it) should never be given a new bus.
  4. Do not let someone making an “incentive” bonus manage a nuclear plant – or your financial risks.
  5. Counter-balance complexity with simplicity.
  6. Do not give children sticks of dynamite, even if they come with a warning.
  7. Only Ponzi schemes should depend on confidence. Governments should never need to “restore confidence”.
  8. Do not give an addict more drugs if he has withdrawal pains.
  9. Citizens should not depend on financial assets or fallible “expert” advice for their retirement.
  10. Make an omelette with the broken eggs.

In addition to these ten principles, Taleb also recommends employing both physical and functional redundancy in the design of systems. These two steps can be found in the principles of resilience architecting. (Reference: Jackson, S. Architecting Resilient Systems: John Wiley & Sons. Hoboken, NJ: 2010.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_complete.pdf

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Quantitative Easing–Videos

Cracking Communist Chinese Currency–Float The Yuan/RBN or Devalue Your Currency Via U.S. Dollar 10% Per Year For Next Five Years Or Face U.S. Import Ban–No Pressure–Your Choice–Videos

Chinese Communist State Company–China National Offshore Oil Corp.(CNOOC)–Invests In Texas Oil–Videos

Printing More Money (Quantitative Easing) and The Coming Currency War and Decline In The Purchasing Power of The U.S. Dollar–Robbing The American People–Videos

The Monetarization of The Debt and Quantitative Easing: The Federal Reserve is printing $1,000,000,000,000!–Run-Away Inflation Coming Soon!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 26, October 15, 2010: Printing More Money (Quantitative Easing) and The Coming Currency War and Decline In The Purchasing Power of The U.S. Dollar–Robbing The American People–Videos

Posted on October 15, 2010. Filed under: Audio, Books, Communications, Digital Communication, Issues, Law, Magazines, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Recordings, Society, Sound, Television | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

“True, governments can reduce the rate of interest in the short run. They can issue additional paper money. They can open the way to credit expansion by the banks. They can thus create an artificial boom and the appearance of prosperity. But such a boom is bound to collapse soon or late and to bring about a depression.”

“The gold standard alone makes the determination of moneys purchasing power independent of the ambitions and machinations of governments, of dictators, of political parties, and of pressure groups.”

~Ludwig von Mises

Jim Rogers Currency Wars

“IMF Meeting Stokes Fear of Currency War”

Grant Says Quantitative Easing Is Just Money Printing: Video

Global Currency War Brewing

Is The World On The Verge Of A Currency War?

Daniel Rosen: Currency War

IMF Meeting Stokes Fear of Currency War

Webster Tarpley: “There’s a currency war!”

Heller Says `Very Difficult’ for Fed to Boost Growth: Video

Feldstein Predicts Dollar to Weaken, Boosting Exports: Video

Japan cooperates with US on international currency issues – NHK 101010

US House committee approves China currency bill – NHK 100925

US criticizes China, Japan over currency interventions – NHK 100917

Clyde Prestowitz discusses valuation of Chinese currency

Mar 24 10 Hearing on China’s Exchange Rate Policy, C. Fred Bergsten Opening Statement

Mar 24 10 Hearing on China’s Exchange Rate Policy, Clyde Prestowitz Opening Statement

The Truth About The Economy: Total Collapse

Ron Paul in September 14, 2007

The Federal Reserve System is a banking cartel that benefits the large banks at the expense of the American people.

Cartel economists and so-called experts cannot replace the market by attempting to fix the price of money or the dollar.

Abolish the Federal Reserve System.

Abolish fiat paper currency.

Establish a new United States currency backed by gold.

Milton Friedman on Monetary Policy – 1/3

Milton Friedman on Monetary Policy – 2/3

Milton Friedman on Monetary Policy – 3/3

This is necessary to stop the financing of massive Federal Government deficits by the Federal Reserve that is purchasing U. S. Treasury bills and notes with Federal Reserve Notes by printing money or the monetarization of government debt.

Money printing or quantitative easing decreases the purchasing power of the money supply–debasing of the currency– robbing the American people.

Will the Federal Reserve System and fiat paper money be abolished?

Not any time soon.

The result will first be a longer and deeper recession lasting well into 2013.

In 2013 the Federal Reserve System will be 100 years old.

The Federal Reserves System will celebrate by achieving by then the devaluation of the dollar by 99%.

In other words one dollar in 1913 will be worth 1 cent in 2013.

If this is monetary stability, one wonders what inflation really is.

Time to do away the Federal Reserve System for incompetence.

I do not expect the unemployment rate to fall below 8% for U-3 until 2013 at the earliest.

As unemployment slowly declines in 2011 and 2012, there will be at first a gradual increase in the general price level that will accelerate in 2013.

This will be due the inability of the Federal Reserve to reverse quickly enough its very aggressive expansive monetary policy.

In 2011 and 2012 import prices will rise as the Federal Reserve attempts to devalue the dollar compared with other national currencies in an attempt to expand exports by making them cheaper.

The price of a gallon gasoline in the United States will first rise above $3 in 2011 and $4 in 2012 mainly due to the devaluation of the U.S. dollar.

As Communist China gradually lets the value of its currency rise in value relative to the U.S. dollar, exports from China will rise in price. This means higher prices for goods imported into the U.S. from China.

The decline in the value or purchasing power of the dollar in 2011 and 2012 combined with unemployment rates exceeding 8% will mean further losses for the Democratic Party in 2012 including the Presidency.

The American people are rightfully mad as hell at the ruling class and political elites in Washington D.C.

Power of the Market – How to Cure Inflation 1

 

 

Power of the Market – How to Cure Inflation 2

 

Power of the Market – How to Cure Inflation 3

 

Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve and Government Deficit Spending

The Gold Standard in Theory and Myth by Joseph Salerno

“The gold standard has one tremendous virtue: the quantity of the money supply, under the gold standard, is independent of the policies of governments and political parties. This is its advantage. It is a form of protection against spendthrift governments.”

“Inflationism, however, is not an isolated phenomenon. It is only one piece in the total framework of politico-economic and socio-philosophical ideas of our time. Just as the sound money policy of gold standard advocates went hand in hand with liberalism, free trade, capitalism and peace, so is inflationism part and parcel of imperialism, militarism, protectionism, statism and socialism.”

~Ludwig von Mises

9. Consolidated Statement of Condition of All Federal Reserve Banks

Millions of dollars
Assets, liabilities, and capital Eliminations from
consolidation		 Wednesday
Oct 6, 2010		 Change since
Wednesday
Sep 29, 2010		 Wednesday
Oct 7, 2009
Assets  
Gold certificate account   11,037 0 0
Special drawing rights certificate account   5,200 0 0
Coin   2,114 + 3 + 124
Securities, repurchase agreements, term auction
credit, and other loans		   2,101,199 + 7,113 + 216,329
Securities held outright 1   2,051,716 + 7,403 + 456,429
U.S. Treasury securities   819,072 + 7,403 + 49,887
Bills 2   18,423 0 0
Notes and bonds, nominal 2   752,832 + 7,390 + 52,364
Notes and bonds, inflation-indexed 2   42,318 0 – 2,270
Inflation compensation 3   5,499 + 13 – 207
Federal agency debt securities 2   154,105 0 + 20,294
Mortgage-backed securities 4   1,078,539 0 + 386,248
Repurchase agreements 5   0 0 0
Term auction credit   0 0 – 178,379
Other loans   49,483 – 290 – 61,721
Net portfolio holdings of Commercial Paper
Funding Facility LLC 6		   0 0 – 41,059
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane LLC 7   28,510 + 40 + 2,206
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane II LLC 8   15,674 – 201 + 1,213
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane III LLC 9   22,782 – 258 + 2,616
Net portfolio holdings of TALF LLC 10   601 0 + 601
Preferred interests in AIA Aurora LLC and ALICO
Holdings LLC 11		   26,057 + 324 + 26,057
Items in process of collection (84) 463 + 98 + 310
Bank premises   2,222 – 7 + 1
Central bank liquidity swaps 12   61 0 – 49,770
Other assets 13   95,313 + 2,248 + 11,389
 
Total assets (84) 2,311,231 + 9,358 + 170,016

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. Footnotes appear at the end of the table. 9. Consolidated Statement of Condition of All Federal Reserve Banks (continued)

Millions of dollars
Assets, liabilities, and capital Eliminations from
consolidation		 Wednesday
Oct 6, 2010		 Change since
Wednesday
Sep 29, 2010		 Wednesday
Oct 7, 2009
Liabilities
Federal Reserve notes, net of F.R. Bank holdings 918,609 + 4,849 + 42,489
Reverse repurchase agreements 14 64,440 – 2,930 + 1,540
Deposits (0) 1,253,413 + 6,593 + 113,645
Term deposits held by depository institutions 2,119 0 + 2,119
Other deposits held by depository institutions 1,000,014 + 15,875 + 33,477
U.S. Treasury, general account 49,530 – 8,299 + 18,525
U.S. Treasury, supplementary financing account 199,962 + 1 + 70,006
Foreign official 1,345 – 1,066 – 540
Other (0) 444 + 84 – 9,940
Deferred availability cash items (84) 2,598 + 410 – 182
Other liabilities and accrued dividends 15 15,029 + 91 + 6,468
Total liabilities (84) 2,254,089 + 9,014 + 163,961
Capital accounts
Capital paid in 26,687 + 1 + 1,798
Surplus 25,881 + 6 + 4,500
Other capital accounts 4,575 + 338 – 242
Total capital 57,142 + 344 + 6,055

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

1. Includes securities lent to dealers under the overnight and term securities lending facilities; refer to table 1A.

2.Face value of the securities.

3. Compensation that adjusts for the effect of inflation on the original face value of inflation-indexed securities.

4. Guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae. Current face value of the securities, which is the remaining principal balance of the underlying mortgages.

5.Cash value of agreements, which are collateralized by U.S. Treasury and federal agency securities.

6. Includes the book value of the commercial paper, net of amortized costs and related fees, and other investments held by the Commercial Paper Funding Facility LLC.

7. Refer to table 4 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 10.

8. Refer to table 5 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 10.

9. Refer to table 6 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 10.

10. Refer to table 7 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 10.

11. Refer to table 8.

12. Dollar value of foreign currency held under these agreements valued at the exchange rate to be used when the foreign currency is returned to the foreign central bank. This exchange rate equals the market exchange rate used when the foreign currency was acquired from the foreign central bank.

13. Includes other assets denominated in foreign currencies, which are revalued daily at market exchange rates, accrued dividends on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s (FRBNY) preferred interests in AIA Aurora LLC and ALICO Holdings LLC, and the fair value adjustment to credit extended by the FRBNY to eligible borrowers through the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility.

14. Cash value of agreements, which are collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities, federal agency debt securities, and mortgage-backed securities.

15. Includes the liabilities of Maiden Lane LLC, Maiden Lane II LLC, Maiden Lane III LLC, and TALF LLC to entities other than the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, including liabilities that have recourse only to the portfolio holdings of these LLCs. Refer to table 4 through table 7 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 10.

Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee September 21, 2010″…At the conclusion of the discussion, the Committee voted to authorize and direct the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, until it was instructed otherwise, to execute transactions in the System Account in accordance with the following domestic policy directive:

“The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent with federal funds trading in a range from 0 to 1/4 percent. The Committee directs the Desk to maintain the total face value of domestic securities held in the System Open Market Account at approximately $2 trillion by reinvesting principal payments from agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in longer-term Treasury securities. The System Open Market Account Manager and the Secretary will keep the Committee informed of ongoing developments regarding the System’s balance sheet that could affect the attainment over time of the Committee’s objectives of maximum employment and price stability.”

The vote encompassed approval of the statement below to be released at 2:15 p.m.:

“Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in August indicates that the pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed in recent months. Household spending is increasing gradually, but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Business spending on equipment and software is rising, though less rapidly than earlier in the year, while investment in nonresidential structures continues to be weak. Employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls. Housing starts are at a depressed level. Bank lending has continued to contract, but at a reduced rate in recent months. The Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability, although the pace of economic recovery is likely to be modest in the near term.Measures of underlying inflation are currently at levels somewhat below those the Committee judges most consistent, over the longer run, with its mandate to promote maximum employment and price stability. With substantial resource slack continuing to restrain cost pressures and longer-term inflation expectations stable, inflation is likely to remain subdued for some time before rising to levels the Committee considers consistent with its mandate.The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate for an extended period. The Committee also will maintain its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings.The Committee will continue to monitor the economic outlook and financial developments and is prepared to provide additional accommodation if needed to support the economic recovery and to return inflation, over time, to levels consistent with its mandate.”

Voting for this action: Ben Bernanke, William C. Dudley, James Bullard, Elizabeth Duke, Sandra Pianalto, Eric Rosengren, Daniel K. Tarullo, and Kevin Warsh.Voting against this action: Thomas M. Hoenig.Mr. Hoenig dissented, emphasizing that the economy was entering the second year of moderate recovery and that, while the zero interest rate policy and “extended period” language were appropriate during the crisis and its immediate aftermath, they were no longer appropriate with the recovery under way. Mr. Hoenig also emphasized that, in his view, the current high levels of unemployment were not caused by high interest rates but by an extended period of exceptionally low rates earlier in the decade that contributed to the housing bubble and subsequent collapse and recession. He believed that holding rates artificially low would invite the development of new imbalances and undermine long-run growth. He would prefer removing the “extended period” language and thereafter moving the federal funds rate upward, consistent with his views at past meetings that it approach 1 percent, before pausing to determine what further policy actions were needed. Also, given current economic and financial conditions, Mr. Hoenig did not believe that continuing to reinvest principal payments from SOMA securities holdings was required to support the Committee’s policy objectives.It was agreed that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Tuesday-Wednesday, November 2-3, 2010. The meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m. on September 21, 2010. …”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20100921.htm

Background Articles and Videos

Marc-Faber– FedsPrinting to Create Final Crisis 8-3-2010

Quantitative easing

Marc Faber Sees Fed Introducing `Massive’ Quantitative Easing

Ron Paul: If You Care About The Poor You Have To Look At Monetary Policy

The Gold Standard Before the Civil War | Murray N. Rothbard

Monetary Policy, Deflation, And Quantitative Easing

“…Aren’t the excess bank reserves inflationary?

Potentially yes, but currently no. Even though banks are earning a meager 25 basis points on their reserves, that is not sufficient incentive to keep large quantities of excess reserves uninvested or unloaned. As they were in the mid-1930s, massive excess reserves are the result of banker fear and uncertainty. The banking system has been saved, but it hasn’t been made whole yet. Bankers continue to worry about reserve levels and liquidity levels and capital levels. They are willing to lend, but only very conservatively to credit-worthy borrowers. Also, much of the slowdown in bank lending comes from low demand for loans by highly qualified borrowers.

The idea that the excess reserves held on banks’ balance sheets should be “mopped up” to prevent them being used in inflationary ways later is a very dangerous idea. They are there voluntarily because bankers feel they are needed. To remove them would cause further bank retrenchment, as it did in the 1930s when the Fed decided to “mop up” the excess reserves of that time.

As the economy and confidence improves, banks will begin using their excess reserves more aggressively. At that point, the Fed will have to be very careful not to stifle that desirable activity on the one hand or let it get out of hand and become inflationary on the other hand. Since they have lots of good, two-handed economists, I think they can pull it off. ..”

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2010/07/30/monetary-policy-deflation-and-quantitative-easing/

The Founding of the Federal Reserve | Murray N. Rothbard

If you work to earn money you need to watch this

Quantitative Easing

“…The term quantitative easing (QE) describes a monetary policy used by central banks to increase the supply of money by increasing the excess reserves of the banking system. This policy is usually invoked when the normal methods to control the money supply have failed, i.e the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

A central bank implements QE by first crediting its own account with money it creates ex nihilo (“out of nothing”).[1] It then purchases financial assets, including government bonds, agency debt, mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds, from banks and other financial institutions in a process referred to as open market operations. The purchases, by way of account deposits, give banks the excess reserves required for them to create new money, and thus hopefully induce a stimulation of the economy, by the process of deposit multiplication from increased lending in the fractional reserve banking system.

Risks include the policy being more effective than intended, spurring hyperinflation, or the risk of not being effective enough, if banks opt simply to sit on the additional cash in order to increase their capital reserves in a climate of increasing defaults in their present loan portfolio.[1]

“Quantitative” refers to the fact that a specific quantity of money is being created; “easing” refers to reducing the pressure on banks.[2] However, another explanation is that the name comes from the Japanese-language expression for “stimulatory monetary policy”, which uses the term “easing”.[3] Quantitative easing is sometimes colloquially described as “printing money” although in reality the money is simply created by electronically adding a number to an account. Examples of economies where this policy has been used include Japan during the early 2000s, and the United States, the United Kingdom and the Eurozone during the global financial crisis of 2008–the present, since the programme is suitable for economies where the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

Concept

Ordinarily, the central bank uses its control of interest rates, or sometimes reserve requirements, to indirectly influence the supply of money.[1] In some situations, such as very low inflation or deflation, setting a low interest rate is not enough to maintain the level of money supply desired by the central bank, and so quantitative easing is employed to further boost the amount of money in the financial system.[1] This is often considered a “last resort” to increase the money supply.[4][5] The first step is for the bank to create more money ex nihilo (“out of nothing”) by crediting its own account. It can then use these funds to buy investments like government bonds from financial firms such as banks, insurance companies and pension funds,[1] in a process known as “monetising the debt“.

For example, in introducing its QE programme, the Bank of England bought gilts from financial institutions, along with a smaller amount of relatively high-quality debt issued by private companies.[6] The banks, insurance companies and pension funds can then use the money they have received for lending or even to buy back more bonds from the bank. The central bank can also lend the new money to private banks or buy assets from banks in exchange for currency.[citation needed] These have the effect of depressing interest yields on government bonds and similar investments, making it cheaper for business to raise capital.[7] Another side effect is that investors will switch to other investments, such as shares, boosting their price and thus creating the illusion of increasing wealth in the economy.[6] QE can reduce interbank overnight interest rates, and thereby encourage banks to loan money to higher interest-paying and financially weaker bodies.

More specifically, the lending undertaken by commercial banks is subject to fractional-reserve banking: they are subject to a regulatory reserve requirement, which requires them to keep a percentage of deposits in “reserve”,[citation needed]: these can only be used to settle transactions between them and the central bank.[7] The remainder, called “excess reserves”, can (but does not have to be) be used as a basis for lending. When, under QE, a central bank buys from an institution, the institution’s bank account is credited directly and their bank gains reserves.[6] The increase in deposits from the quantitative easing process causes an excess in reserves and private banks can then, if they wish, create even more new money out of “thin air” by increasing debt (lending) through a process known as deposit multiplication and thus increase the country’s money supply. The reserve requirement limits the amount of new money. For example a 10% reserve requirement means that for every $10,000 created by quantitative easing the total new money created is potentially $100,000. The US Federal Reserve‘s now out-of-print booklet Modern Money Mechanics explains the process.

A state must be in control of its own currency and monetary policy if it is to unilaterally employ quantitative easing. Countries in the eurozone (for example) cannot unilaterally use this policy tool, but must rely on the European Central Bank to implement it.[citation needed] There may also be other policy considerations. For example, under Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union[7] and later the Maastricht Treaty, EU member states are not allowed to finance their public deficits (debts) by simply printing the money required to fill the hole, as happened, for example, in Weimar Germany and more recently in Zimbabwe.[1] Banks using QE, such as the Bank of England, have argued that they are increasing the supply of money not to fund government debt but to prevent deflation, and will choose the financial products they buy accordingly, for example, by buying government bonds not straight from the government, but in secondary markets.[1][7]

HistoryQuantitative easing was used unsuccessfully[8] by the Bank of Japan (BOJ) to fight domestic deflation in the early 2000s.[9] During the global financial crisis of 2008–the present, policies announced by the US Federal Reserve under Ben Bernanke to counter the effects of the crisis are a form of quantitative easing. Its balance sheet expanded dramatically by adding new assets and new liabilities without “sterilizing” these by corresponding subtractions. In the same period the United Kingdom used quantitative easing as an additional arm of its monetary policy in order to alleviate its financial crisis.[10][11][12]

The European Central Bank (ECB) has used 12-month long-term refinancing operations (a form of quantitative easing without referring to it as such) through a process of expanding the assets that banks can use as collateral that can be posted to the ECB in return for Euros. This process has led to bonds being “structured for the ECB”[13]. By comparison the other central banks were very restrictive in terms of the collateral they accept: the US Federal Reserve used to accept primarily treasuries (in the first half of 2009 it bought almost any relatively safe dollar-denominated securities); the Bank of England applied a large haircut.

In Japan’s case, the BOJ had been maintaining short-term interest rates at close to their minimum attainable zero values since 1999. With quantitative easing, it flooded commercial banks with excess liquidity to promote private lending, leaving them with large stocks of excess reserves, and therefore little risk of a liquidity shortage.[14] The BOJ accomplished this by buying more government bonds than would be required to set the interest rate to zero. It also bought asset-backed securities and equities, and extended the terms of its commercial paper purchasing operation.[15]

RisksQuantitative easing is seen as a risky strategy that could trigger higher inflation than desired or even hyperinflation if it is improperly used and too much money is created.

Quantitative easing runs the risk of going too far. An increase in money supply to a system has an inflationary effect by diluting the value of a unit of currency. People who have saved money will find it is devalued by inflation; this combined with the associated low interest rates will put people who rely on their savings in difficulty. If devaluation of a currency is seen externally to the country it can affect the international credit rating of the country which in turn can lower the likelihood of foreign investment. Like old-fashioned money printing, Zimbabwe suffered an extreme case of a process that has the same risks as quantitative easing, printing money, making its currency virtually worthless.[1]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

Federal Open Market Committee

“…About the FOMCThe term “monetary policy” refers to the actions undertaken by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve, to influence the availability and cost of money and credit to help promote national economic goals. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 gave the Federal Reserve responsibility for setting monetary policy.The Federal Reserve controls the three tools of monetary policy–open market operations, the discount rate, and reserve requirements. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is responsible for the discount rate and reserve requirements, and the Federal Open Market Committee is responsible for open market operations. Using the three tools, the Federal Reserve influences the demand for, and supply of, balances that depository institutions hold at Federal Reserve Banks and in this way alters the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend balances at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions overnight.Changes in the federal funds rate trigger a chain of events that affect other short-term interest rates, foreign exchange rates, long-term interest rates, the amount of money and credit, and, ultimately, a range of economic variables, including employment, output, and prices of goods and services.

Structure of the FOMC

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) consists of twelve members–the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis. The rotating seats are filled from the following four groups of Banks, one Bank president from each group: Boston, Philadelphia, and Richmond; Cleveland and Chicago; Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas; and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Francisco. Nonvoting Reserve Bank presidents attend the meetings of the Committee, participate in the discussions, and contribute to the Committee’s assessment of the economy and policy options.The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings per year. At these meetings, the Committee reviews economic and financial conditions, determines the appropriate stance of monetary policy, and assesses the risks to its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth.For more detail on the FOMC and monetary policy, see section 2 of the brochure on the structure of the Federal Reserve System and chapter 2 of Purposes & Functions of the Federal Reserve System.

2010 Members of the FOMC

  • Members
    • Ben S. Bernanke, Board of Governors, Chairman
    • William C. Dudley, New York, Vice Chairman
    • James Bullard, St. Louis
    • Elizabeth A. Duke, Board of Governors
    • Thomas M. Hoenig, Kansas City
    • Sandra Pianalto, Cleveland
    • Sarah Bloom Raskin, Board of Governors
    • Eric S. Rosengren, Boston
    • Daniel K. Tarullo, Board of Governors
    • Kevin M. Warsh, Board of Governors
    • Janet L. Yellen, Board of Governors …”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomc.htm

FEDERAL RESERVE statistical release
H.4.1
Factors Affecting Reserve Balances of Depository Institutions and
Condition Statement of Federal Reserve Banks

Why Chinese Currency Manipulation Is America’s Fault by: Ian Fletcher April 15, 2010

“…Unfortunately, the token appreciation that is probably now in store won’t help very much. For one thing, Beijing has played this game before. China first started diversifying its currency reserves away from the dollar (which weakens currency manipulation) in July 2005, and from then until July 2008 allowed the yuan to rise from 8.28 to the dollar to 6.83, where it has since been held nearly steady. But this appreciation, while showcased by China, was purely nominal; after adjusting for inflation, the change was far smaller: about two percent.

How does China manipulate its currency? Mainly by preventing its exporters from using the dollars they earn as they wish. Instead, they are required to swap them for domestic currency at China’s central bank, which then “sterilizes” them by spending them on U.S. Treasury securities (and increasingly other, higher-yielding, investments) rather than U.S. goods. As a result, the price of dollars is propped up — which means the price of yuan is pushed down — by a demand for dollars which doesn’t involve buying American exports.

The amounts involved are astronomical: as of 2008, China’s accumulated dollar-denominated holdings amounted to $1.7 trillion, an astonishing 40 percent of China’s GDP. The China Currency Coalition estimated in 2005 that the yuan was undervalued by 40 percent; past scholarly estimates have ranged from 10 to 75 percent.

Why is this America’s fault? Because China’s currency is manipulated relative to our own only because we permit it, as there is no law requiring us to sell China our bonds and other assets. We could, in fact, end this manipulation at will. All we would need to do is bar China’s purchases, or just tax them to death.

This would be neither an extreme nor an unprecedented move. It is roughly what the Swiss did in 1972, when economic troubles elsewhere in the world generated an excessive flow of money seeking refuge in Swiss franc-denominated assets. This drove up the value of the franc and threatened to make Swiss manufacturing internationally uncompetitive. To prevent this, the Swiss government imposed a number of measures to dampen foreign investment demand for francs, including a ban on the sale of franc-denominated bonds, securities, and real estate to foreigners. Problem solved. (It did not even damage Switzerland’s standing as an international financial center, a key worry at the time.) …”

“…So the real underlying problem is that America doesn’t generate enough savings on its own to meet its voracious appetite for borrowing. China’s savings rate, thanks to deliberate suppression by the Chinese government of its people’s opportunities to spend what they earn, is an astonishing 50 percent. Ours was negative four percent in the last Federal Reserve report on the subject. We are—Oh, how Mao would have loved this!—decadent. …”

http://seekingalpha.com/article/198825-why-chinese-currency-manipulation-is-americas-fault


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

« Previous Entries

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...