konane's Blog

"The Gulf oil spill is much worse than originally believed.

As the Christian Science Monitor writes:

It's now likely that the actual amount of the oil spill dwarfs the Coast Guard's figure of 5,000 barrels, or 210,000 gallons, a day.

Independent scientists estimate that the renegade wellhead at the bottom of the Gulf could be spewing up to 25,000 barrels a day. If chokeholds on the riser pipe break down further, up to 50,000 barrels a day could be released, according to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration memo obtained by the Mobile, Ala., Press-Register.

CNN quotes the lead government official responding to the spill - the commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Thad Allen - as stating:

If we lost a total well head, it could be 100,000 barrels or more a day.

Indeed, an environmental document filed by the company running the oil drilling rig - BP - estimates the maximum as 162,000 barrels a day:

In an exploration plan and environmental impact analysis filed with the federal government in February 2009, BP said it had the capability to handle a “worst-case scenario” at the Deepwater Horizon site, which the document described as a leak of 162,000 barrels per day from an uncontrolled blowout — 6.8 million gallons each day.

Best-Case Scenario

BP is trying to perform a difficult task of capping the leak by using robotic submarines to trigger a "blowout preventer" 5,000 feet below the surface of the ocean. Here's a photo of the robot trying to activate the switch on April 22nd:

(courtesy of the US Coast Guard)

If successful, the leak could be stopped any day. Everyone is rooting for the engineers, so that they may successfully cap the leak.

Already, however, the spill is worse than the Exxon Valdez, and will cause enormous and very costly destruction to the shrimping, fishing and tourism industries along the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Florida. It will be years before good estimates on the number of dead fish, turtles, birds and other animals can be made.

The Backup Plan

If the blowout preventer can't be triggered, the backup plan is to drill another well to relieve pressure from the leaking well.

Here's a drawing prepared by BP showing the plan (the drilling rig on the left will take months to drill down and relieve pressure from the leaking rig):


Here's a graphic from the Times-Picayune showing the same thing (and accurately showing that there are currently 3 leaking oil plumes):

BP will also attempt to drop concrete and metal "cages" over the leak sites, to try to buy time by collecting oil in the cages, and then draining oil away in a safer manner.    In addition, BP is using chemical disperents to try to break up the oil plumes as they arise.

Worst-Case Scenario

As the Associated Press notes:

Experts warned that an uncontrolled gusher could create a nightmare scenario if the Gulf Stream carries it toward the Atlantic.

This would, in fact, be very bad, as it would carry oil far up the Eastern seaboard.

Specifically, as the red arrows at the left of the following drawing show, the Gulf Stream runs from Florida up the Eastern Coast of the United States:


[Click here for full image.]


But how could the oil get all the way from Louisiana to Florida, where the Gulf Stream flows?

As Discovery explains:

Many ocean scientists are now raising concerns that a powerful current could spread the still-bubbling slick from the Florida Keys all the way to Cape Hatteras off North Carolina.

These oceanographers are carefully watching the Gulf Loop Current, a clockwise swirl of warm water that sets up in the Gulf of Mexico each spring and summer. If the spill meets the loop -- the disaster becomes a runaway.

"It could make it from Louisiana all the way to Miami in a week, maybe less." said Eric Chassignet, director of the Center for Ocean Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University. "It is pretty fast."

Right now, some computer models show the spill 30 to 50 miles north of the loop current. If the onshore winds turn around and push the oil further south: "That would be a nightmare," said Yonggang Liu, research associate at the University of South Florida who models the current. "Hopefully we are lucky, but who knows. The winds are changing and difficult to predict."

Imagine the loop current as an ocean-going highway, transporting tiny plankton, fish and other marine life along a watery conveyor belt. Sometimes it even picks up a slug of freshwater from the Mississippi River -- sending it on a wandering journey up to North Carolina.

The Gulf Loop Current acts like a jet of warm water that squirts in from the Caribbean basin and sloshes around the Gulf of Mexico before being squeezed out the Florida Strait, where it joins the larger and more powerful Gulf Stream current.

***

Oceanographer George Maul worries that the current could push the oil slick right through the Florida Keys and its 6,000 coral reefs.

 

"I looked at some recent satellite imagery and it looks like some of the oil may be shifted to the south," said Maul, a professor at Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Fla. "If it gets entrained in the loop, it could spread throughout much of the Atlantic."

In fact, new animation from a consortium of Florida institutions and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, predicts a slight southward shift in the oil over the next few days.

A graphic from the Discovery article shows what the Gulf loop current looks like:

The Gulf Loop Current enters from the Caribbean basin,
moves around the Gulf of Mexico and
exits out the Florida Strait, where it joins
the more powerful Gulf Stream current.
Naval Oceanographic Office

According to ROFFS, the oil spill is getting close to the loop current:

In a worst-case scenario - if the oil leak continued for a very long period of time - the oil could conceivably be carried from the Gulf Stream into world-wide ocean currents (see drawing above).

I do not believe this will happen. Even with the staggering quantity of oil being released, I don't think it's enough to make its way into other ocean currents. I think that either engineers will figure out how to cap the leak, or the oil deposits will simply run out. It might get into the Gulf loop current, and some might get into the Gulf Stream. But I don't believe the apocalyptic scenarios where oil is carried world-wide by teh Gulf Stream or other ocean currents.

Changing the Climate

There is an even more dramatic - but even less likely - scenario.

Specifically, global warming activists have warned for years that warming could cause the "great conveyor belt" of warm ocean water to shut down. They say that such a shut down could - in turn - cause the climate to abruptly change, and a new ice age to begin. (This essay neither tries to endorse or refute global warming or global cooling in general: I am focusing solely on the oil spill.)

The drawing above shows the worldwide "great conveyer belt" of ocean currents, which are largely driven by the interaction of normal ocean water with colder and saltier ocean currents.

Conceivably -  if the oil spill continued for years - the greater thickness or "viscosity" of the oil in comparison to ocean water, or the different ability of oil and seawater to hold warmth (called "specific heat"), could interfere with the normal temperature and salinity processes which drive the ocean currents, and thus shut down the ocean currents and change the world's climate.

However, while this is an interesting theory (and could make for a good novel or movie), it simply will not happen.

Why not?

Because there simply is not enough oil in the leaking oil pocket to interfere with global ocean currents. And even if this turns out to be a much bigger oil pocket than geologists  predict, some smart engineer will figure out how to cap the leak well before any doomsday scenario could possibly happen."

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/oil-spill-how-bad

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html

Just watched this report on tv ...... absolutely outstanding reporting, excellent video.  Just maybe this report will shake Washington enough to seal the border.

_________

http://www.wsbtv.com/2investigates/23434381/detail.html

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/26/costly-irs-mandate-slipped-into-health-bill/

Created 05/02/2010 - 04:08

Source Zero Hedge

"Today is D-Day for Europe, and soon, the world. Shortly, the IMF will take its historic place as the cash cop of last resort, a post traditionally reserved for the Federal Reserve, which incidentally was rumored to have activated its FX currency swaps with European banks last week (whether or not that is true will be disclosed by next week's H.4.1). This action will open a floodgate of consequences, as every semi-bankrupt country forces itself into a spending frenzy to guarantee that it is truly bankruptcy, no ifs about it, and qualifies for IMF (and thus 20% US) aid. And at that point the politics of a US-funded world bailout really will come to the fore. Because while the Fed bailing out America is one thing due to the Fed's untouchable and unsupervisable status, the IMF, as a corporation, does not share the same "above the law" privileges. And in an election year, with Americans slowly realizing that the fate of the world is truly in their hands, and their tax money is being involuntarily taken away from them as we speak yet again, ahead of midterm elections, all bets are off. For those interested in the actual mechanics of the IMF rescue mechanisms available, as well as some of the political implications likely to follow, here is an overview via Bank Of Countrywide Lynch.

IMF Lending Capacity (Jeffrey Rosenberg )

The IMF has nearly $250 bn in lending capacity currently available. To lend beyond that, the IMF needs consent of participants representing 80 percent of total credit arrangements in their backstop lending facility – the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB). While legislative approval is not required in some countries, it is required in others. In either case, it would be a politically sensitive issue in any non-European country to support the peripheral European countries, especially if this comes on heels of Germany rejecting the aid proposals for Greece next week.

The IMF primarily funds itself through payments of quotas from member countries based on their relative sizes in the world economy. Currently, these quotas total SDR 217 billion (SDR or special drawing rights, is an international reserve asset created by the IMF and is based on a basket of four currencies), or $328 billion. Additionally, the IMF supplements  quota subscriptions through two credit arrangements between the IMF and a group of member countries – New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB) and General Arrangements to Borrow (GAB). The GAB enables the IMF to borrow  from participant countries, or their central banks, under certain circumstances at marketrelated interest rates.The NAB is used as a credit facility intended to backstop quota resources, and was recently approved to be expanded to nearly $550 billion from 38 participants, up from $50 billion and 26 participants earlier. Until the expansion goes into effect, the additional lending amounts are available as bilateral agreements, which would eventually be folded into the multilateral (According to a recent IMF conference call, since the NAB is a multilateral loan framework, the IMF usually draws upon it on a proportionate basis to member commitments) expanded NAB.

In reality, the amount the IMF has readily available for new lending is primarily determined by the one-year forward commitment capacity (though this figure is not a rigid maximum). The amount equals usable resources, including unused amounts under loan and note purchase agreements, plus projected loan repayments over the subsequent twelve months, less the resources that have already been committed under existing lending arrangements, less a prudential balance (The prudential balance is an amount set aside to safeguard members’ quotas and claims, also taking into consideration potential erosion of the IMF’s resource base. The prudential balance is set at 20% of member’s quotas used and any amounts activated under NAB and GAB). Currently, the one-year forward capacity stands at SDR 165 billion, or $248 billion.

[1]

Spreading the Political Risk Beyond Europe

The lack of a ready liquidity support mechanism for sovereigns in Europe highlights the importance of the IMF in the Greek bailout. Absent the ability or willingness of member states to extend bilateral loans to Greece, the IMF would
be the only support available, in our view. While its current facilities are of sufficient size, the much larger NAB facilities both are not yet operational and in our view require significant political support to execute. Given that the US represents nearly 20% of the total IMF lending capacity (both current and NAB), the failure of Europe to agree to support Greece would shift that political debate to the US and elsewhere.

Until an actual EU/IMF/Greece agreement has been reached and approved in all relevant countries – including by the parliament in some - uncertainty remains elevated in financial markets. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG all faced shorter time lines at the end of their crises. The abbreviated time line in financial crises stems from the instability of funding. In the case of Greece, that instability may come from what is otherwise regarded as a source of funding stability – deposits. Under normal circumstances, government guarantee schemes generally support stable deposit bases but these are clearly not ordinary circumstances. This week the risk of restructuring – a Greek sovereign default – roiled financial markets.

Whether this concern spreads to depositors in domestic Greek banks will determine whether time will have finally run out on an EU brokered liquidity bailout. Absent that, the IMF stands as the only viable source of funds to avoid further spillover to systemic risk, in our view. And while they currently have enough capacity to fulfill this role, they would likely need to tap the NAB to enable them to support the broader periphery of Europe’s financing needs in a worst case scenario. Such an outcome would test the NAB and the political willingness of a much broader group of countries to support the fiscal deficit challenges of Europe.

The Bank Run

Much has been said over the ongoing Greek bank run by depositors. Some (RBS) did not believe us. They are now stuck holding bonds about 20% lower from where they could have sold them had they listened to us instead of mocking us. But that seems to be a recurring theme. We harbor no ill will toward the nationalized and failed banking institution. Yet, once again we are reminded that once a cascade of events is in motion, depositors, no matter what the level of assurances, simply refuse to keep their money in a banking system in troble. And while Greece is now done, and reliant on the ECB to collateralize its junk-rated sovereign debt, the spotlight now shifts to Spain, Portugal and Italy: are deposit redemptions in those 3 countries approaching the level seen in Greece? Stay tuned and find out. In the meantime, as the TimesOnline [2]reports, Europe has, too late, discovered that by the time the liquidity cascade begins, it is far too late.

Central bankers are also working on a separate scheme to stop Greek banks from succumbing to a run on their funds.

The European Central Bank plans to introduce a new emergency liquidity scheme as part of the wider bailout of the country, said sources close to the talks.

Greek banks have suffered a huge outflow of corporate deposits in recent weeks, reducing their financial strength, according to senior bankers.

The scheme would allow the banks to post junk-rated Greek government bonds as collateral in exchange for emergency loans. It will require a change in the European Central Bank's rules: at present it allows only government bonds with a high credit rating to be used in its emergency lending facilities."

Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/quantifying-imfs-ability-bail-out-world

Links:
[1] http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/Bofa IMF.jpg
[2] http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article7114070.ece

"Tonight I was listening to Hugh Hewitt as I drove to the grocery store, and got so engrossed that I missed my exit. What was so interesting? Hugh was arguing that the Obama administration failed to respond promptly to the oil spill in the Gulf, and that its belated response was inadequate.

Is that a fair charge? Normally, I would be slow to blame government at any level for a natural (or, as here, man-made) disaster. But the basic facts are curious: the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 21, nine days ago. This was no minor event; at least 11 workers were killed. The resulting oil slick has been evident, covering many miles, for some days now. Yet the federal response lagged.

There is a basic difference between this incident and Hurricane Katrina, to which it is being compared. In the case of Katrina, the primary responsibility for disaster response lay with the local and state governments. The local response was very poor; among other things, the governor of Louisiana was slow to call out the National Guard. Here, responsibility lay with the Obama administration from the beginning. State and local governments have no jurisdiction and no ability to deal with an oil spill miles out to sea. Only the federal government can act. It didn't, until, perhaps, it was too late.

Should more have been done, sooner? It is way too early to tell. The facts will emerge over the next several years. But the Obama administration's response does seem to have been oddly slow. Today, efforts to contain the spill have been hampered by high winds and choppy seas.

High winds and choppy seas frustrated efforts to hold back the oil spill seeping into Louisiana's rich fishing grounds and nesting areas Friday, and the government desperately cast about for new ideas for dealing with the nation's biggest environmental crisis in decades. ...

The seas were too rough and the winds too strong Friday to burn off the oil, suck it up effectively with skimmer vessels, or hold it in check with the miles of orange and yellow inflatable booms strung along the coast.

The floating barriers broke loose in the choppy water, and waves sent oily water lapping over them.

But what if these efforts had been made three or four days ago, when the oil slick was smaller and farther out to sea? It may turn out that the Obama administration's mysterious slowness in swinging into action was a critical failure that resulted in far greater environmental and economic damage.

So far, the Obama administration seems to have focused more on passing the buck than on containing the oil spill. The administration has told us, over and over, that British Petroleum is responsible for the accident and ultimately will pay the bills. Perhaps so. But those of us who have worked in the civil justice system for many years are well aware of the uncertainty of such predictions. More fundamentally, it is absurd for Barack Obama and Eric Holder to claim that the damage caused by this oil spill is of little concern because someday, British Petroleum may write a number of checks. Animals will be killed, livelihoods of fishermen and others will be destroyed, beaches will be fouled, untold damage will be done. The federal government has the unique responsibility to prevent that damage, if it can. Hoping to collect damages years later is hardly an adequate substitute.

It is too early to tell how extensive the damage will be, or to what extent the Obama administration failed to carry out its most basic duties. All we can say for the moment is that serious questions have been raised.

UPDATE: Oddly, the New York Times is documenting the Obama administration's failures:

BP officials said they did everything possible, and a review of the response suggests it may be too simplistic to place all the blame on the oil company. The federal government also had opportunities to move more quickly, but did not do so while it waited for a resolution to the spreading spill from BP, which was leasing the drilling rig that exploded in flames on April 20 and sank two days later. ...

The Department of Homeland Security waited until Thursday to declare that the incident was "a spill of national significance," and then set up a second command center in Mobile. The actions came only after the estimate of the size of the spill was increased fivefold to 5,000 barrels a day.

The delay meant that the Homeland Security Department waited until late this week to formally request a more robust response from the Department of Defense, with Ms. Napolitano acknowledging even as late as Thursday afternoon that she did not know if the Defense Department even had equipment that might be helpful.

Officials initially seemed to underestimate the threat of a leak, just as BP did last year when it told the government such an event was highly unlikely."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/04/026199.php

"Earlier today, Janet Napolitano appointed Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen to coordinate the federal response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. That's great, but the oil rig blew up eleven days ago, on April 20. In the meantime, the oil slick has tripled in size over the last two days and is approaching the Gulf coast. Now there is speculation that the oil could make its way all the way to the Atlantic. President Obama, reversing an earlier announcement, made hasty plans to visit the Gulf tomorrow.

The Obama administration's slow-footed response to the disaster threatens to become a major political problem, as the spill itself threatens to turn into one of the worst environmental disasters ever. You're doing a heck of a job, Napolitanie!  "

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026203.php

http://www.naturalnews.com/z028687_Henry_Waxman_health_freedom.html

http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1790422&spid=32364

Article below video ..... very plain language so be advised.

___________

_________

Found this take interesting, even citing SOCUS rulings.

_____________

Source American Thinker

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/sedition_is_constitutional.html

@ April 30, 2010 9:38 AM

Source Boortz.com 

"Just want you to ponder this one as we head toward the weekend ...

In our economy, who decides how much money you should be allowed to make? Is it your employer? If you are working for someone else, clearly your employer sets the salary. But that is not necessarily your full earning potential .. if you want to earn more money you can find more jobs or engage in some other entrepreneurial activities to increase the amount of money you are earning. So, no, your bosses decision on your salary does not limit what you can earn. So what are you limited by? In a capitalist, free-enterprise economy, you are limited by only two things: your abilities and your work ethic. The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing whatever it was that made them rich. Ditto for the poor. YOU decide how hard you want to work. YOU decide how many jobs you want to have. YOU decide how much money you want to make.

But what about in the world according to Barack Obama? Would you like to live in a country where the GOVERNMENT decides how much money you get to make? Would you like to live in a country where politicians get to opine over what kind of money you should make?

Well this is what Barack Obama had to say to a crowd in Illinois, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."

According to whom, Mr. President?? What business do you have even expressing an opinion as to how much anyone not working for you should or should not make? If I'm not mistaking, didn't you pull down a cool $5 million last year? I guest we can all assume then that you don't think that $5 million is too much. Well, at least we have that.

Don't you see the inherent danger in a president of the United States who gets out there and tells you that there is a certain point where you've made "enough" money? OK, well let's define that "point." Is it when you make an 8-hour day? Is it when I make a million dollars a year? What the hell business is it of his?

What this comment displays is the true character of Barack Obama. This comment, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money" was unscripted .. it was off teleprompter. It was not pre-approved by the ObamaDrones. His dogwashers didn't scrub that comment down, making sure that every word is carefully chosen and crafted to be politically correct and safe. But I guess they can only contain him so much. A true wealth redistributor, a true lover-of-government, can only hide for so long before he is caught with his pants down."

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2010/04/how-much-is-enough.html

April 30, 2010 Posted by Scott at 7:12 AM

"Given that poorer citizens always outnumber the rich, the classic political philosophers held that government based on majority rule was untenable. They were of the view that it would lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses. Thus Aristotle warned in The Politics, for example: "If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city."

The Founders of the United States were deep students of politics and history, and they shared Aristotle's concern. Up through their time, history had shown all known democracies to be "incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." James Madison and others held that the "first object of government" was to protect the rights of property. Numerous provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were incorporated to protect the property rights of citizens from the power of the government.

Whatever else might be said about him, President Obama operates on a different philosophy of government from that of the Founders. As Michelle Malkin observes, he spoke the most revealing and clarifying 10 words of his administration this week: "I think at some point you have made enough money."

The Founders thought that at some point the government had enough power. Obama, however, is a devout believer in unlimited government. The common denominator among so-called health care reform and financial regulatory reform as well as Obama's other big proposals is the augmented power they confer on the government in general and the executive branch in particular.

Alluding to other elements of Obama's Quincy speech earlier this week, Michelle observes that we have a president who presumes to know when you have earned "enough," who believes that only those who provide what he deems "good" products and services should "keep on making it," and who has determined that the role of American entrepreneurs is not to pursue their own self-interest, but to fulfill their "core" responsibility as dutiful growers of the collective economy. Michelle concludes: "That famous mock-up poster of Obama as the creepy socialist Joker never seemed more apt."

JOHN adds: Federal employees now are paid much more money than their counterparts in private industry. Is Obama willing to acknowledge that they earn "enough" and should forgo future pay increases? Obama himself earned more than $5 million last year. Is that "enough"? George Soros has made countless millions from currency manipulations that many regard as little better than extortion. Does he have "enough"? I suspect that "enough" will prove to be a standard that is both highly flexible and intimately related to political influence."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/04/026193.php

Source  TheEconomicCollapseBlog.com

"Today financial power is being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals.  In fact, the six biggest banks in the United States now possess assets equivalent to 60 percent of America's gross national product.  Back in the 1990s that figure was less than 20 percent.  These six banks - Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo - literally dictate what goes on in the U.S. banking industry.  These entities are the poster children for "too big to fail", and they donate massive amounts of cash to the campaigns of both Republicans and Democrats to ensure that they will continue to receive favorable treatment.  The vast majority of Americans have had a banking account, a credit card and/or a mortgage with one of these institutions at some point.  If they acted in concert, these six banks could literally bring down the U.S. economy overnight if they wanted to.  Together with the Federal Reserve, these six banks represent the real financial power in America.  They are the 800 pound gorilla in the room that influences nearly every major financial deal that gets done and virtually every major political decision that gets made.  As the last couple of years have demonstrated, top politicians from both parties (John McCain and Barack Obama for example) will instantly jump into action and start advocating that the U.S. government spend billions upon billions of dollars when the interests of these behemoths are threatened.  The frightening thing is that the power of these megabanks is growing at a frightening pace.  As dozens upon dozens of smaller U.S. banks are "allowed to fail", they either go out of existence or the Feds actually encourage these smaller banks to sell themselves to one of the big sharks.  In either event, the banking power in the United States becomes further consolidated in the hands of the megabanks.

Bill Moyers recently interviewed Simon Johnson and James Kwak, the authors of a new book entitled 13 Bankers: The Wall St. Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown.  During that interview Kwak described to Moyers just how explosive the growth of the power of these megabanks has been....

Bill Moyers: And you write that they control 60 percent of our gross national product?

James Kwak: They have assets equivalent to 60 percent of our gross national product. And to put this in perspective, in the mid-1990s, these six banks or their predecessors, since there have been a lot of mergers, had less than 20 percent. Their assets were less than 20 percent of the gross national product.

Does it alarm you that the banking elite have accumulated such a large amount of financial power?

It should.  These institutions have the power to wreck entire economies.  Just consider what happened in Greece lately.  Now, it is being alleged that the megabanks are ripping off American cities with the same kinds of predatory deals that brought down the financial system in Greece. 

And that is what these megabanks are.

They are predators.

In fact, a very revealing article in Rolling Stone described Goldman Sachs this way....

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

Unfortunately, they may have actually been understating things a bit.

These megabanks have rigged the game so that the wealth of the nation is slowly transferred from us to themselves and to the international financial interests that control them.

They can make money if the markets are going up, and they can make money if the markets are going down.

For example, in a newly released email from the height of the housing crash, the CEO of Goldman Sachs bragged that his firm "made more than we lost" by betting against the housing market.

Thankfully the SEC is starting to look into the fraud that Goldman Sachs committed during this time period, but the truth is that Goldman is not likely to receive any more than a slap on the wrist for what it has done.

They are way too big, way too powerful and have too many friends in high places for them to get into any real trouble.

For example, it has come out that Barack Obama does not intend to return any of the campaign contributions that he received from Goldman Sachs.  And surely they will be glad to continue to pour big money into his political coffers.

So where does that leave the rest of us?

Well, the rest of us can expect higher taxes and a lower standard of living according to the IMF.  The IMF (which has deep connections to these megabanks) says that the party is "over" for nations that have been enjoying the good life.  In a recent article, the Washington Post summarized the message that the IMF is trying to communicate through their recent policy papers....

To keep the global economy on track, people in the United States and the rest of the developed world need to work longer before retiring, pay higher taxes and expect less from government. And the cheap imports lining the shelves of mega-chains such as Wal-Mart and Target? They need to be more expensive.

So are you ready to work longer, pay higher taxes, expect less from government and have a lower standard of living?

That is what the IMF says we are all going to be facing in the years ahead.

We are all going to financially suffer as the megabanks continue to thrive and consolidate power.

Isn't that wonderful?

You say you don't like that so much?

Well, good luck taking on the 800 pound gorilla."

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/megabanks-the-banking-oligarchy-that-controls-assets-equivalent-to-60-percent-of-americas-gnp