Filthy Wall Street & London Banker Swindlers in Collusion with Arabs, Knee-Capping Targeted Economies

Filthy Wall Street & London Banker Swindlers in Collusion with Arabs, Knee-Capping Targeted Economies SOURCE http://www.mintpressnews.com/brics-attack-western-banks-governments-launch-full-spectrum-assault-russia-part/215761/ Eric Draitser BRICS Under Attack: Western Banks, Governments Launch Full-Spectrum Assault On Russia (Part I) Russia is the target of a multi-faceted, asymmetric campaign of destabilization that has employed economic, political, and psychological forms of warfare -- each of which has been specifically designed to inflict maximum damage on the Kremlin. By Eric Draitser @stopimperialism | April 20, 2016  This article is part of a series on Western meddling to foment unrest and destabilize BRICS nations in an effort to ensure the continuation of Western economic and political control over the Global South. The first two parts, focusing on Brazil and South Africa, can be found here and here. Up next: Part II on the assault on Russia, which focuses on the political, psychological and military aspects that run in tandem with the economic war on Moscow. NEW YORK — The U.S.-NATO Empire, with its centers of power in Washington, on Wall Street, and in the city of London, is on the offensive against the BRICS countries. This assault takes many forms, each tailored to its specific target. The ongoing soft coup in Brazil has recently entered a new stage with the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff of the left-wing Workers’ Party. Simultaneously, the destabilization of the ANC-led government in South Africa continues as political forces align to remove President Jacob Zuma. These two situations illustrate clearly the very potent forms of subversion via Western-funded political formations and movements being employed against Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, the bloc of emerging economies also known as BRICS.  However, when it comes to a country as large as Russia, with its vast military capabilities, consolidated and wildly popular political leadership, and growing antagonism toward the West, the tools available to the Empire to undermine and destabilize are in some ways more limited. Indeed, in the context of Russia, the popular mobilization pretext does not apply, and so that weapon in the imperial arsenal is blunted considerably. But there are other, equally potent (and equally dangerous) methods to achieve the desired effect.  Russia is the target of a multi-faceted, asymmetric campaign of destabilization that has employed economic, political, and psychological forms of warfare, each of which has been specifically designed to inflict maximum damage on the Kremlin. While the results of this multi-pronged assault have been mixed, and their ultimate effect being the subject of much debate, Moscow is, without a doubt, ground zero in a global assault against the BRICS nations. Economic war: Hitting Russia where it’s vulnerable While Russia is a world class power militarily, it is highly vulnerable economically. For that obvious reason, this area has been a primary focus of the destabilization thrust. Russia has for decades been overly reliant, if not entirely dependent, on revenues from the energy sector to maintain its economic growth and fund its budget. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration and Russia’s Federal Customs Service, oil and gas sales accounted for 68 percent of Russia’s total export revenues in 2013. With more than two-thirds of total export revenues and roughly 50 percent of the federal budget, not to mention 25 percent of total GDP, coming from oil and gas revenue, Russia’s very economic survival has been as dependent on energy as almost any country in the world. In light of this, it’s no surprise that the drop in oil prices over the 18-month period from April 2014 to January 2016, which saw prices dive from $105 per barrel to under $30 per barrel, has caused tremendous economic instability in Russia. Even many leading Russian officials have conceded that the negative impact to Russia’s economy is substantial, to say the least.  At the World Economic Forum in January, former Russian Finance Minister Alexey Kudrin explained that not only has the drop in oil prices badly hurt the Russian economy, but the worst may be yet to come. Kudrin noted the potential for prices to drop even further, possibly even below $20 per barrel, and he warned that the impact to the economy will be significant. Specifically, it’s not just the loss of revenue, but the negative effect on wages and the currency which have many economic analysts and political figures worried.  According to the Russian Federal Statistics Service, real wages for Russian workers have dropped significantly since the end of 2014, with steep declines throughout 2015 continuing into early 2016. This has been felt by ordinary Russians, whose wages have stagnated while inflation causes prices to shoot upwards and who have had to endure belt-tightening in terms of personal consumption, and at the national level, where the Russian government has been facing a potentially large budget shortfall for 2016. It must be noted, however, that recent months have seen an improvement in the relative performance of the ruble, but the long-term outlook from experts remains gloomy. This has led many Russian analysts and policymakers to advocate yet again for a decreased dependence on energy revenues. They argue that the current climate could force economic restructuring away from the critical energy sector. Aside from Kudrin, Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Trutnev made the case for potential “structural economic reforms,” as did Vladimir Mau of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.  Writing earlier this year in Vedomosti, Russia’s leading business publication, Mau explained: “The demand for oil as a commodity depends on technological progress…And it’s not obvious that oil as a fuel will be always in demand in times of economic growth. With the change of the technological model, it is not ruled out that oil will become just a stock commodity for the energy and chemical industry.” This last point — how oil is used relative to the market — is the most salient; in other words, it’s the financialization of oil. But the analysis must go a step further and explore how the financialization is, in effect, a weaponization process as oil prices become increasingly the playthings of powerful financial institutions, particularly the major banks on Wall Street and in the city of London. And this is no mere conspiracy theory. How Wall Street targeted Russia using oil In July 2013, Sen. Sherrod Brown, chair of the Senate Banking Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection, opened a hearing to probe just how connected major Wall Street banks were to the holding of physical oil assets, and the attendant ability of these companies to manipulate oil prices. The findings of the hearing, considered damning by multiple analysts knowledgeable on the subject, prompted an investigation by the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, published as “Wall Street Bank Involvement with Physical Commodities.” The report highlighted just one of the big banks, Morgan Stanley, noting:   “One of Morgan Stanley’s primary physical oil activities was to store vast quantities of oil in facilities located within the United States and abroad. According to Morgan Stanley, in the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut area alone, by 2011, it had leases on oil storage facilities with a total capacity of 8.2 million barrels, increasing to 9.1 million barrels in 2012, and then decreasing to 7.7 million barrels in 2013. Morgan Stanley also had storage facilities in Europe and Asia.  According to the Federal Reserve, by 2012, Morgan Stanley held ‘operating leases on over 100 oil storage tank fields with 58 million barrels of storage capacity globally.’” Pam and Russ Martens of the well-respected financial analysis site WallStreetOnParade.com succinctly noted in their analysis of this issue: “With financial derivatives and 58 million barrels of physical storage capacity, it might not be so hard to manipulate the oil market.” Indeed, the sheer scope of Morgan Stanley’s market influence demonstrates the obvious fact that the major Wall Street banks, and their cousins in the city of London, are able to significantly affect global prices using multiple levers like supply and derivatives, among others. The Senate report’s brazen honesty is likely the main reason the corporate media failed to cover it all.  As noted in the report: “Due to their physical commodity activities, Goldman, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley incurred increased financial, operational, and catastrophic event risks, faced accusations of unfair trading advantages, conflicts of interest, and market manipulation, and intensified problems with being too big to manage or regulate, introducing new systemic risks into the U.S. financial system.” But perhaps most jaw-dropping is this January 2014 statement by Norman Bay, director of the Office of Enforcement at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who testified before the Committee on Banking and Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Subcommittee. He plainly outlined how the big banks manipulate global oil markets: “A fundamental point necessary to understanding many of our manipulation cases is that financial and physical energy markets are interrelated … a manipulator can use physical trades (or other energy transactions that affect physical prices) to move prices in a way that benefits his overall financial position. One useful way of looking at manipulation is that the physical transaction is a ‘tool’ that is used to ‘target’ a physical price.” When one considers how much influence these large banks have on global prices, it’s almost self-evident that they would be able to use oil prices to execute a political and geopolitical agenda. With that in mind, it seems highly suspicious (to say the least) that the collapse of the oil price coincided directly with Russia’s move to annex Crimea and assert its dominance over its sphere of influence, thereby effectively stopping the eastward expansion of NATO in Ukraine. It’s amusing then when one reads The New York Times reporting this month that “simple economics” explains the drop in oil prices. In fact, it’s clear that it’s just the opposite: The collapse of oil is the result of financial manipulation by Wall Street in the service of the broader agenda of the Empire. Indeed, in late 2014 Russian President Vladimir Putin implied strongly that the oil plunge had less to do with economic factors than with political decisions. Putin openly theorized: “There’s lots of talk about what’s causing (the lowering of the oil price). Could it be the agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to punish Iran and affect the economies of Russia and Venezuela? It could.” Of course, Putin was not alone in this assessment, as many international observers spread “conspiracy theories” about collusion between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to deliberately depress oil prices by not cutting production despite all market indicators pointing to a needed decrease. With U.S.-Russia relations having reached their nadir at precisely that moment, and with Venezuela and Iran also on the enemies list, it is no surprise that many analysts around the world concluded that Washington and Riyadh were conspiring on oil for political reasons. Of course, the other major impact of the oil plunge on Russia has to do with the burgeoning energy-trade relationship between Russia and China. After the massive oil and gas deals announced between Russia and China in 2014 — deals worth hundreds of billions of dollars over the next three decades, it seems that Washington calculated that while it could not prevent the deals from moving forward, it could undermine them by fundamentally changing the calculus of the deals by tanking oil prices. In so doing, not only have the contracts been rendered less profitable for Russia, they are now subject to decreasing demand from China, which is experiencing its own economic slowdown.    In short, Russia’s attempt to break free of its dependence on revenue from gas sales to Europe by shifting its focus eastward has left Moscow in a bind. Facing the prospect of significantly less revenue than it anticipated coming from the deals with Beijing, Russia has been forced to adjust its own estimates and outlook for the coming years. Sanctions: The other economic weapon The overall impact of Western sanctions against Russia is a hotly debated subject. Russian media tends to downplay the overall impact of the sanctions, while the Western media paints a picture of imminent collapse. Notably, Paul Krugman, the leading liberal doomsayer, prognosticated in The New York Times in 2014 that “Putin’s Bubble Bursts,” warning that Russia was headed for economic meltdown thanks to the courageous sanctions regime imposed by the fearless leader President Barack Obama.  In reality, the sanctions had little immediate, direct impact on the Russian economy, but the indirect bruising might be significant, particularly over the medium- and long-term. Last year, the International Monetary Fund issued a report, noting: “IMF estimates suggest that sanctions and counter sanctions might have initially reduced real GDP by 1 to 1½ percent. Prolonged sanctions may compound already declining productivity growth. The cumulative output loss could amount to 9 percent of GDP over the medium term. However, the report’s authors underline that these model-driven results are subject to significant uncertainty.” But, looking beyond the raw numbers, one must realize that the policy prescriptions outlined by the IMF and leading economists internationally are perhaps the actual target for the West.  The IMF recommended “reforming the pension system” (read: reduce pensions), reducing energy subsidies, reducing tax exemptions, and other measures, while also suggesting that education, health care, and public investment be safeguarded. However, the subtext of the recommendations is that austerity, which by its very definition starves public programs of much needed funding, is the way to go for Russia. There are likely strategic planners in Washington who recognize that the political subversion model employed in Brazil and South Africa simply won’t work in Russia. If nothing else, the failed “White Revolution” protests of late 2011 led by Russian liberals and various pro-Western political forces, demonstrated unequivocally that the Russian state was prepared to prevent precisely this sort of outcome.  And so it seems that those who play on what former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski famously called “The Grand Chessboard,” have made their moves in an attempt to corner Russia economically. Whether that strategy has been, or will be, effective likely depends on perspective. While it alone will not bring about the Western pipe dream of regime change in Russia, the Empire’s elites are banking on the collective assault on Russia and the BRICS broadly to do what political subversion alone could not. About the author Eric Draitser Eric Draitser is a geopolitical analyst based in New York and the founder of StopImperialism. More articles by Eric Draitser [MintPress] SOURCE http://www.mintpressnews.com/brics-attack-western-banks-governments-launch-full-spectrum-assault-russia-part/215761/ -------/\/\/ Eric Draitser "Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City and the founder of StopImperialism.com. He is a regular contributor to RT, Counterpunch, New Eastern Outlook, Press TV, and many other news outlets. Visit StopImperialism.com for all his work."   [RTNews] -------/\/\/ Enemies of the Free World: Morgan Stanley Goldman Sachs JP Morgan City of London Wall Street International Monetary Fund The New York Times -------/\/\/ COMMENT Help save Russia & Brics countries from greedy Wall Street & city of London banks.  Call for worldwide privatisation of their foreign assets ... that ought to throw a spanner in the works.  *Not sure I'll remember much of this.

TRANSCRIPT - US State Dept Ludicrous Claim: Long-Standing US Policy of Not Supporting Coups | Latin America

TRANSCRIPT  [for quotation purposes, confirm audio] SOURCE VIDEO  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frO1T3vZNrA&feature=youtu.be Via:  Democracy Now! Video Published:  11 Mar 2015 ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- Female (Press) President Maduro last night went the on-air last night and said that they'd arrested multiple people who are behind a coup that was backed by the United States.  What is your response? US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki These latest accusations, like all previous such accusations, are ludicrous.  As a matter of long-standing policy, the United States does not support political transitions by non-constitutional means.  Political transitions must be democratic, constitutional, peaceful, and legal.  We have seen many times that the Venezuelan government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the United States, or other members of the international community, for events inside Venezuela.  These efforts reflect a lack of seriousness on the part of Venezuelan government to deal with the grave situation it faces. Matt Lee (Press) The US has - whoa, whoa, whoa.  The US has a long-standing practice of not promoting - what did you say?  How long-standing is that?  I would [chuckle] - in particular in South and Latin America, that is not a long-standing practice. US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki Well, my point here, Matt - Matt Lee (Press) [Interjects] Not in this case - US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki - without getting into history, is that we do not support, we have no involvement with, and these are ludicrous accusation. Matt Lee (Press) In this specific case [?] US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki [Interjects] Correct. Matt Lee (Press) But if you go back, not that long ago, during your lifetime even. [background chuckle] US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki This is the last 21 years? [laughter] Matt Lee (Press) Well done.  Touché.  But, I mean - does longs-standing mean 10 years, in this case.  I mean, what is - US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki [interjects] Matt, my intention was to speak to the specific reports. Matt Lee (Press) I understand. But you said it's a long-standing US practice, and I'm not so sure.  It depends on what your definition of long-standing is. US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki [Interjects] We will - OK. Male (Press) [Interjects] [... inaudible ...] in Kiev.  Whatever we say about Ukraine, whatever - the change of government in the beginning of last year was unconstitutional and yet [chuckles] you supported it.  The constitution was not - the constitution - US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki [Interjects] That was also ludicrous. [Video cuts to Amy Goodman] Amy Goodman Democracy Now! That was State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki being questioned by reporters. Professor Miguel Tiner Salas, if you could respond to both that exchange and also Josh Ernest, State Department -- err, White House - spokesperson. Professor Miguel Tiner Salas Promona College I would have loved if that kind of exchange got a broader diffusion in the US press, but the fact is that it hasn't, and we continue to have the belief that the US does not - is not involved in unconstitutional change in Latin America and, as a historian, the record speaks just the opposite: from '53 in Guatemala, to the Dominican Republic, to Chile in '73, and through the ardent support of the Argentine military dictatorships, in Brazil.  And, if we want to go even closer, to 2002 in Venezuela, when the US did actually support a coup against the democratically elected Hugo Chavez - the shortest coup in the world and the coup that brought Chavez back to power.  And, then again, in Honduras in 2009 and, not shortly thereafter, in Paraguay with Fernando Lugo, where they said it was a democratic transition, when, in fact, it was an unconstitutional shift in power.  So, again, the notion that the US has not supported both military coups - directly, or through what they call 'soft power' - is really ludicrous and, in fact, we should turn the question around:  if they want to support democracy, I think the best thing the US can do, in the case of Venezuela and other countries, is to pull back and let things develop on their own.  I think you have a very strong opposition in Venezuela.  It can speak for itself.  And you have a government force and other social forces that are organised in those countries, and I think the best thing, in the case of Mexico and in the case of Venezuela, is for the US to stop intervening. --- end audio 3:38 --- ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- US Supported Coups  (ie merely those mentioned in video) Latin America Guatemala, 1953 Dominican Republic Chile, 1973 Argentina Brazil Venezuela, 2002, Hugo Chavez Honduras, 2009 Paraguay, Fernando Lugo Europe Ukraine, 2014 OTHER (incl. list US coups)   Ecuadorian President Says The CIA Is Attempting To Overthrow His Government The CIA has a history of contributing to coups in Ecuador. Back in 1963, the CIA led a coup which deposed President Carlos Julio Arosemena because he criticized the United States and supported Fidel Castro’s revolution in Cuba. By Derrick Broze | March 25, 2015 SOURCE http://www.mintpressnews.com/ecuadorian-president-says-the-cia-is-attempting-to-overthrow-his-government/203701/ For Full Article (with links to further information, go to source) ꕤ

Latin America - Bolivia, Evo Morales | Venezuela

Fight Imperialism with Unity, Says Morales Evo Morales speaks at the University of Panama as part of the People's Summit, an alternative summit running in parallel to the OAS' Summit of the Americas, April 4, 2015. EFE Published 10 April 2015 (10 hours 37 minutes ago) U.S. imperialism is being challenged by regional organizations like CELAC, according to Bolivia’s president. Bolivian President Evo Morales accused the United States Friday of conspiring to undermine democracy in Latin America, including in his home country. During a keynote address to the People's Summit in Panama, Morales said the United States has been one of the most serious threats to Bolovia's national security, and his own presidency. “Where there is a U.S. embassy, there are coups,” Morales said. The president alleged the U.S. government has been plotting to overthrow him for years. “The (Bolivian) right-wing, the opposition and the U.S. ambassador have always conspired … against the (revolutionary) process,” he said. However, he said regional initiatives aimed at promoting Latin American solidarity are the region's best defenses against U.S. imperialism. “I think actually the member countries of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), are a threat to the neoliberal, transnational (corporations) … but will never be a threat to U.S. security,” he said. The People's Summit   Morales is the only world leader to deliver a speech to this year's People's Summit, though Ecuador's President Rafael Correa has also stated he will attend the meeting. The summit brought together close to 2,000 representatives from social movements across the Americas to discuss issues ranging from U.S. sanctions on Venezuela to Puerto Rican independence. Organizers say the summit is a grassroots alternative to the Summit of the Americas, which is also taking place in Panama this week. In a statement, organizers said the summit is a forum for “the voice of our peoples, to highlight problems the other meeting (the Summit of the Americas) doesn't address.” On Thursday, the People's Summit led a rally through the streets of Panama City to condemn U.S. imperialism and express solidarity with Venezuela. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Fight-Imperialism-with-Unity-Says-Morales-20150410-0011.html COMMENT US efforts to subvert governments in Latin American countries is nothing new, so it's probably safe to take Bolivia President Evo Morales at his word.  :) Nothing else to add.  Brain's fried.  Think it's sleep deprivation.  If I'm woken, I cannot go back to sleep ... and then I can't switch off to sleep at the other end of the day.  Switch is temporarily out of order.  :)

FOREIGN SERVICE UPDATES

Anti Benjamin Netanyahu protest: 35,000 -- #Israel Tel Aviv's Rabin Square Saturday 35,000 - anti #NETANYAHU rally reckon ignoring domestic / obsessed with Iran Dissenters say Bibi focus on Iran = avoiding Palestine issue also 'ISIS excuse' >made the security of Israel hostage settlers Issues raised by speech-makers: >peace with Palestine >occupation >economy >housing crisis >damage to relations with USA Ditch Ron Dermer Writer suggests #Netanyahu get rid of 'political hack' at embassy - Ron Dermer  presumably -  replace with competent and professional ambassador http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/political-insider/israel-wants-change -- Israel - Non-residents Voting - General Election Israel elections limited absentee votes for citizens abroad mainly for diplomats & other official emissaries Israel - other citizens return to Israel to vote / civic commitment driving force Israel - Woman interviewed says overseas voters not fair having say a on issues affecting her & other permanent residents. Well, yeah, I'd be complaining about that as well ... if it's people that have been away for ages. http://www.jewishaz.com/us_worldnews/israel/for-some-israelis-abroad-cost-and-distance-no-barrier-to/article_7c6104a8-c777-11e4-a102-8f52dd54429f.html -- LatAm  Venezuela Following US sanctions, Venezuela demand: Washington cut embassy staff from about 100 to 17 {same number Caracas is allowed in WA} LatAm Venezuela vehemently criticised new US sanctions. Washington goal:  for new govt to be installed. LatAm Venezuela US = Venezuela top trading partner Venezuela in 2014 = 4th largest oil supplier to USA *trade unaffected by sanctions row http://www.spyghana.com/venezuela-vents-her-anger-on-new-us-sanctions/ --- Rev. Hyeon Soo Lim, 60, #Canada detained #NorthKorea in Feb. #Sweden embassy mediating for US (US = no ties) http://www.christiandaily.com/article/canada.church.prays.for.pastor.detained.in.north.korea/49931.htm #Indonesia #auspol Jakarta = abt 10 death row prisoners to finish legal appeals before setting a date for executions  http://www.echo.net.au/2015/03/sukumaran-paints-jokowi-portrait/ #India Delhi Police baton charged & detained exiled Tibetans staging a protest outside #Chinese Embassy. #Tibet March 10 Tibetan National Uprising Day (1959) http://www.newkerala.com/news/2015/fullnews-29562.html Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between #EU & #KoreaSouth is in effect South Koreans want to suspend NorKs nukes program Bilateral buddies #Latvia  #Latvia   http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/legislation/?doc=103532 -- Said it before and I'll say it again:  look how buddied up the Swedes are with the US, standing in for the US in negotiations with North Korea.

Venezuela - Ay, Caramba! British Spooks Up To No Good?

UK Accused Over Venezuela Court 'Spy Glasses' Posted on Friday 6 February 2015 Venezuela is seeking an explanation from Britain about a diplomat's role in an attempt to film the trial of an opposition protest leader using "spy glasses". The incident occurred during the trial of Leopoldo Lopez, who has been in jail for a year since leading protests against President Nicolas Maduro's socialist government. Violence during the demonstrations left 43 people dead, including demonstrators, Maduro backers and security officials. Lopez's father reportedly sneaked the recording glasses into a Caracas courtroom but was caught when they fell out onto the floor. "They're $20 glasses from Amazon made in China, not a NASA instrument!" said the father. "They don't allow recording by phone, but there's no rule against glasses. "But I was caught, and when one of the sheriffs pulled me out, I let the glasses drop and they fell on this British fellow who had nothing to do with it," he said. However, Venezuela's attorney general, Luisa Ortega, suspected deliberate conspiracy, demanding answers from Britain in what she described as an "irregular" incident with signs of international interference. "Episodes like this show there is a permanent effort to study ways of penetrating the Venezuelan state, destabilising and creating chaos and conflict," she said. The British embassy said the diplomat was not involved in the incident. [Well, they would.] "We strongly reject any suggestions of wrongdoing by the officer concerned," ambassador John Saville said. http://www.citytalk.fm/news/uk-and-world/20150206-uk-accused-over-venezuela-court-spy-glasses/ COMMENT Hilarious.  Latin American ambassadorial posts sound like lots of fun.

US Trying to Bring Veneuzuela Down / Biden Lobbying LatAm Countries, US Embassy Bribe, US Sanctions / Car Bomb

UNASUR to Review Evidence of US Interference in Venezuela Venezuela Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro met on Wednesday with Secretary General of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), Ernesto Samper. Published 4 February 2015 (1 hours 15 minutes ago) Speaking following their meeting in Caracas, the blocs chief thanked the Venezuelan president for his willingness to create dialogue with the opposition. Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro met with Secretary General of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), Ernesto Samper Wednesday in Caracas, asking the bloc's meditation on the interventionist actions carried out against the country by the United States. Maduro urged the United States to stop the aggressions and threats against Venezuela, saying his government is willing to initiate dialogue along with UNASUR in order to halt the violence in the South American country. Meanwhile the head of the regional bloc thanked Maduro for his willingness to ensure peace to Venezuela and said he will bring the evidence provided by the president's before UNASUR's Foreign Ministers Council. Samper also rejected any violent action threatening the country's stability and people. On Tuesday, Maduro said that he would seek to create a joint initiative between UNASUR and the Community of Latin American Nations (CELAC) in order to defend his country against interventionist measures carried out by the United States, which the leader maintains are aimed at toppling his government. The Venezuelan president said he had been told by other regional leader that U.S. Vice President Joe Biden had been telling other country’s to “isolate” Venezuela, adding that he had proof that the U.S. Embassy in Venezuela was attempting to bribe officials in order to turn against his government. The United States recently imposed new sanctions on the South American country, despite the unanimous declaration rejecting U.S. interference in the region at the recent CELAC Summit in Costa Rica. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/UNASUR-to-Review-Evidence-of-US-Interference-in-Venezuela-20150204-0037.html SEE ALSO That article has been pulled & is a dead link, but this is still visible on the Google news feed search. Hey, I wonder if this is the CIA trying to knock off Maduro?  Or maybe it's just a warning?   Read the article via the cache the other day.  From recollection, the device was reportedly found in the petrol tank but wasn't properly hooked up to explode. COMMENT Trust Joe Biden to have a hand in this, like he's got a hand in Ukraine. Venezuela must be going down. Keep an eye on this.

In Brief: On Venezuela & On New Zealand

VENEZUELA Standard & Poor’s downgraded #Venezuela & put the chances of sovereign DEFAULT in coming 2 yrs at 50%. >>http://goo.gl/aXg9py >>> Uh-oh! #Peru Alonso Segura is new Finance Minister / has the task of reviving economy hit by lower commodity prices. http://goo.gl/aXg9py -----------------------------------------------------  NEW ZEALAND MT I've just spoken 2 my friend John key PM of NZ. I congratulated him on a big election win on back of great economic plan [Dave Cameron] >> Fancy these two being chums ... LOL -----------------------------------------------------  COMMENT ALONSO SEGURA new Finance Minister, Venezuela. Wall Street Journal indicates he's a well-known economist.  No policy changes expected.  Article - here. Not only is it unbelievable that Key got elected; now Judith Collins is back as well! *Facepalm* -- what's going on in NZ? The Scotland and New Zealand results are really depressing.

Will US Pick Off Latin American Opportunities following 2015 Americas Summit?

Obama says yes to Africa but no to Latin America? By ANDRES OPPENHEIMER Published: 12 August 2014 07:40 PM Updated: 12 August 2014 07:40 PM Watching President Barack Obama at his mega-summit with nearly 50 African heads of state in Washington, in which he announced $33 billion in investments and vowed to increase access to electricity to 60 million African households, many of us asked ourselves the same question: Why doesn’t he do the same with Latin America? The conventional wisdom among the thousands of dignitaries and businesspeople who converged on Washington for the Aug. 5 U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit was that the Obama administration organized the event in a desperate effort to catch up with China. In recent years, China has become Africa’s top business partner. Well, I’ve got news for U.S. policymakers: If Washington continues to pay little attention to Latin America, the same will happen there. It’s already happening in several countries in the region. Not only China, but also Russia and Japan — whose heads of state visited Latin America in recent weeks — have announced big plans to expand their presence in the region. The U.S. share of Latin America’s trade has dropped from 53 percent of the region’s worldwide trade in 2000 to 35 percent in 2013. Meanwhile, China’s share has soared from 1.9 percent to 12 percent over the same period, according to Inter-American Development Bank figures. What’s more, if current trends continue, by 2025 Latin America’s trade with the United States will have declined to 17 percent of its total trade, while Latin America’s trade with China will have reached 17 percent, says chief development bank trade economist Mauricio Moreira. And these figures include Mexico, a huge Latin American economy that does relatively little business with China. If you exclude Mexico, China’s presence in the region will dwarf the United States’ by 2025, the projections show. Yes, the United States holds a regular Summit of the Americas every three or four years, and the next one will be in Panama in 2015. But recent summits have been a flop, to a large extent because of Venezuela’s petro-dollar diplomacy, which virtually controls the votes of at least 16 Central American and Caribbean countries through its Petrocaribe-subsidized oil shipments, and because of Brazil’s reluctance to work for the success of any summit it does not lead. So what can the United States do? Here are three things: First, the Obama administration should show the region that it cares. Everybody understands that Secretary of State John Kerry is tied up with more urgent matters in the Middle East and Ukraine, but so far this year only two of his 21 trips abroad were to the region.  ['Cares' LMAO] And for last week’s second-term inauguration of Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, which was attended by the presidents of Mexico, Peru and several other countries, the White House sent U.S. State Department counselor Thomas Shannon, a highly respected diplomat but hardly a celebrity. Second, Obama could build his legacy in the region by proposing a new plan to deepen trade and investment relations with the 11 countries in the region with which the United States has free trade agreements, including Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Chile. The White House is negotiating free trade agreements mostly with Asian Pacific Rim countries and the 28-nation European Union. Kerry told me in an exclusive interview in December that he is exploring a regional trade initiative in the Americas, starting with deepening ties with Mexico and Canada, but that’s the last I heard of it.  [Bet that's the shale gas / oil ties.] Third, Obama should counter Petrocaribe with a U.S.-Caribe initiative, taking advantage of the fact that Venezuela has gone bankrupt and its oil facilities are crumbling, while the United States will soon become self-sufficient in energy, and may even become an oil exporter. Petro-diplomacy may be used by Washington, just as it has been used by Venezuela, some Washington insiders are thinking. [...]  [...]   The U.S. economy is recovering, and China’s is slowing down. It’s time for Obama to focus on Latin America, much as he did on Africa last week. http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20140812-obama-says-yes-to-africa-but-no-to-latin-america.ece

What makes the world go around?

1.  Trade Race.

2.  Arms Race.

It's just a relentless race to have more than the other guy:  more guns, more money, more investment, more regional control, more profits, more whatever.  It never lets up.

US (given huge shale boom) is probably focusing on securing energy export to Europe, which is probably a more stable trade opportunity than Latin America, I'm guessing.  US now has a huge energy supply it needs to find markets for and it wants to make the most of locking Russia out of the European energy market, I'm guessing.  Europe, on the other hand, has high energy needs. 

Anyway, that's what I'm thinking but I'm new to watching politics, so don't take that as gospel.

China's hardly doing a massive take-over in South America.  Its trade's grown, but it's nowhere near as high as US trade.

Trying to work out what petro-diplomacy is, I came across this:

Politics of Oil Nationalization

Several countries have nationalised foreign-run oil businesses, often failing to compensate investors. Enrique Mosconi, the director of the Argentine state owned oil company ... YPF, which was the first state owned oil company in the world ...

In 1953, Iran's Premier Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown by a CIA/MI6 covert action known as Operation Ajax. The goal was to prevent Mossadegh from nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian oil company which later became British Petroleum.

Similarly Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in 1976. [wikipedia]

How evil is this?  They violated national sovereignty and changed the course of a nation's future -- for oil!

It gets worse.  The Shah was involved in helping foreigners profit.  The wikipedia on Operation Ajax is - here.

Anyway, don't exactly know what petro-diplomacy is, but the Op Ajax was an interesting aside.

Petrocaribe - wikipedia here - is a Venezuela and Caribbean countries alliance for purchase of oil from
Venezuela for 'preferrential payment' (whatever that is).

Found preference payment in relation to bankruptcy, but that's not it.  Couldn't be bothered looking any further.  Guessing that it has something to do with making payment to Venezuela a priority or something like that.

Venezuela's gone bankrupt, according to the article.  So how can that be?  (Should know this from prior look-ups, but I've got a shocking memory.  LOL)

At a quick glance, looks like Venezuela going bust is to do with 'pillaging' (ie social spending and SUBSIDISED PRICE selling, as well as no investment and low production) the oil companies - Economist - here.

Haven't checked to see what other oil producers there is in Latin America.  

So what's the US likely to do?  

Well, the summit in 2015 isn't a long way off.  The bet is that if the US can make a dollar in Latin America it will pursue that avenue as well.

WTO TALKS - INDIA STAYING STRONG

WTO talks down to the wire, India holds out fe Bureau | New Delhi | Published: Jul 31 2014, 01:08 IST Even as Thursday’s deadline for signing the protocol for the trade facilitation agreement (TFA) at the WTO loomed large, India remained obdurate, asserting that the pact — expected to ease customs rules and potentially add $1 trillion to the world economy — could not be a done deal till it saw progress on the food security issue. Visiting the US commerce secretary Penny Pritzker, however, sounded optimistic about finding a solution to the vexed issue “over the next couple of days”. Secretary of state John Kerry, before starting for India on Wednesday morning, had expressed the hope that India’s opposition to TFA would wither away, adding that this was a test case for the country’s commitment to advance liberalisation of global trade and investment. Kerry arrived in India in the evening on a three-day visit. ... http://www.financialexpress.com/news/wto-talks-down-to-the-wire-india-holds-out/1275271

WTO (World Trade Organisation).

Re:  adoption of free trade facilitation protocol for Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA).

WTO is negotiating an easing of 'customs and rules'.

WTO says 'public stockholdings' of food/grain must not exceed 10% of grains produced by a country. 

But this is on the basis of a 1986-1988 stockholdings 'base price', and India is challenging on the basis of rising INFLATION.

Hey, I learnt about inflation. 

So the WTO 10% (dollar?) figure doesn't take into account rising inflation and India is like a trade union for food/grain reserves, asking for the reserve to be brought up in step with inflation?

Fair call, India.

India points out that there's a potential $1 TRILLION to the world economy coffers.  Go India! 

India standing firm:  insists no shift in its stand.

India wants TFA implemented ONLY as part of SINGLE UNDERTAKING ... INCLUDING the PERMANENT SOLUTION ON FOOD SECURITY.

For Food Security Against Food Security WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION vs FOOD SECURITY INDIA CHINA CUBA PAKISTAN BOLIVIA VENEZUELA

Deadline is on 31 July 2014.  Support of two-thirds of member countries is required to implement the TFP.

India suggested a postponement of adoption of TFP and outlined steps towards resolution by a date in December.

*Note:  there is a couple of other issues at stake. Bali Package (a big one) ... and LDC.

Bali Package is yet another trade agreement 'to lower trade barriers'.

LDC issues relate to Least Developed Country ... it's a United Nations designation of a country (I think) on the basis of:

lowest indicators of socio-economic development, with the lowest Human Development Index ratings of all countries in the world.  [wikipedia]

So there is some formula the UN apply for rankings of countries on socio-economic development.

Formula:  (1) Poverty assessment (2) Human Resource assessment (ie the labour force) (3) Economic Vulnerability ... eg. are exports stable etc.

Gee, sounds like estimating the quality of cattle.

All this stuff is worked out by economists and I guess it affects the trade deals that countries are party to and, I think, the concessions that countries may receive.

As I'm new to looking at politics and economics, this information is best double-checked.  LOL.

This is just my take at the moment.

Stand firm India ... world economy wants those trillions.

PS ... Love how John Kerry wants India's opposition to 'wither away'.  Bet he does.  LOL.

Venezuela - Economic Hassles Puzzle

Venezuela

• Top end South America
• (officially called the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Do *not confuse with Bolivia)
• Colonised by Spain 1500s
• First to declare independence (1811 ... secured 1821)
• One of the most urbanised countries of Latin America
• ... world's largest oil reserves and [has] been one of the world's leading exporters of oil.
• Previously an underdeveloped exporter of agricultural commodities such as coffee and cocoa, oil quickly came to dominate exports and government revenues.
• 1980s oil glut = external debt crisis + long-running economic crisis
• (inflation peak @ 100% 1996)

[Source - Wikipedia - here]

------------------------------------------

Forbes Article - here.

Noticed high inflation in Venezuela, and having discovered 'hyperinflation' in the little tutorial, thought I'd check out Venezuela.

So their economy ... is what?  Either a depressed economy or a war economy, judging by tutorial? 

Background:

President Hugo Chavez (Socialist) died 2013. 

Venezuela is described as a 'South American oil giant' and the article indicates this isn't the worst economic period it's experienced. 

IMF makes an appearance. Inflation 'running rampant', according to IMF. Low economy growth. Economy shrinkage.

... devaluation of the currency in the case of Venezuela represents a reallocation of resources from the private to the public sector, which is practically the only exporter thanks to oil giant PDVSA.

If IMF has something to say, then there's most likely an IMF debt involved.

Moving onto the 2010 Article -  

Economist - 'Towards State Socialism' - here:

Article's dated, but it seemed to have good information.

GDP 'contracting' (less production); 'currency supply problem' mentioned. 

 Possible 'deepening' of recession mentioned. 

So, Venezuela's is a depressed economy.

Article indicates:  Decline in oil shipments associated with decline in oil export. There's also a decline in oil prices.  

[Don't understand how you can sit on oil but have a decline.]

The Economist

Chavez the socialist president (1999-2013) had progressively been nationalising everything:

... seizing everything from steel companies and bottle makers to housing schemes. When workers have protested, he has deployed the national guard against them. The government has justified the confiscations by saying that it was breaking up monopolies or stopping breaches of labour or environmental rules. But the aim appears to be to move decisively against what Mr Chávez calls “the oligarchy”...

2007/2008 Chavez government took over the private oil sector (and more) -- or what there was of it.

Economist reports that:

any bank which declined to “co-operate with national development” by assigning credit according to government priorities would also be taken over.

[Don't suppose they attract much investment, then?  Wouldn't most businesses shut shop?]

Country appears partly 'nationalised' (ie national/state property vs private property) -  some industry in govt hands and rest private hands. 

Govt portion GDP did nothing since the late 1990s .

Oil boom 2004-2008.

Nationalised companies are producing less than when they were in private hands.

To gain 'food sovereignty', most of the food industry has been nationalised, but (the Economist reports) there's been a steep increase in imports.

Couple of exceptions: milk company and telecommunications company ... have done well.

What tends to happen:

... once companies are in state hands their staffing levels rise, prices fall and they become dependent on government subsidies.

Construction industry damaged by slump in materials production since nationalisation.

'Housing schemes' slowed or stopped.  

Govt won't allow developers to ask for prices in line with inflation rises (as at 2010 article @ 30% -- now over 60%).

Govt took over what was already largely govt controlled oil industry:  production of crude and refined products dropped.

Article closes:

Polls suggest that most Venezuelans disapprove of the nationalisations and firmly support private property. But Mr Chávez seems to be following the advice of Alan Woods, a Welsh Trotskyist who has become an informal adviser. Mr Woods, who is better known in Caracas than Cardiff, publicly urged the president to respond to his electoral setback by “accelerating the revolutionary process”, expropriating land, banks and the main industries. Venezuelans had better brace themselves for more nationalisation, scarcity and economic decline.

So what is driving the the inflation rate?

I'd like to apply the inflation lesson, but I'm not sure I've got it.

Cost of production has risen - more employees; less efficiency; government subsidy of industry; so it's like bleeding out money and it costs more to produce the goods because bleeding out the money eats into the profits? Also, less goods are being produced. *NB also money going out on *imports*.

Checking out what the go is with the oil not moving, came across this article - Bloomberg Feb 2014 - here.

Bloomberg says:

Venezuela’s plummeting oil sales to the U.S., its biggest export market, are exacerbating a collapse in the nation’s debt securities. 

Bonds released by Venezuela 'sank'.  Sank doesn't sound too good. Don't know enough about bonds to judge why they 'sank'.  No idea what this is about.

Article goes on:

The tumble in oil exports, Venezuela’s biggest source of dollars, comes as President Nicolas Maduro faces a shortage of U.S. currency that’s caused consumer prices to soar 56 percent and foreign reserves to plunge to a decade-low of $21 billion. Petroleos de Venezuela SA, the state-run oil producer known as PDVSA, is sending hundreds of thousands of barrels a day to China to repay loans totaling more than $40 billion since 2008, at a time when its production is shrinking. 

When they're not producing as much oil, they're sending it to China to repay a debt and they're losing out on US trade they otherwise would have had (?) -- and on US currency (or is that just income, as opposed to a specific currency?) because of lost sales of oil to the US, which is driving the inflation.

Think I might need to do a bit more reading on Venezuela and on bonds, foreign reserves etc. because  have no idea.  LOL.

So far, it's been fun trying to figure it out.