How Did Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' Predict An America Spinning Out Of Control? | Fox News

Nearly thirty years after her death, Ayn Rand’s novels continue to be wildly popular—"Atlas Shrugged" alone is selling more today than it did when it was first published in 1957 -- more than one million copies have sold since the 2008 elections.

Was the solution to “go Galt” and quit society? No, Rand again answered. The solution was simultaneously much easier and much harder. “So long as we have not yet reached the state of censorship of ideas,” she once said, “one does not have to leave a society in the way the characters did in Atlas Shrugged. . . . But you know what one does have to do? One has to break relationships with the culture. . . . [D]iscard all the ideas—the entire cultural philosophy which is dominant today.”"

If Atlas Shrugged" has been on your list of books-I’ve-been-meaning-to-get-to, then consider finding out for yourself how a story published in 1957 so eerily captures the world we live in today and so beautifully presents a road to a brighter future.

It doesn't seem like she was far off, but anyone could have seen this collapse coming if they just looked at the situation through a critical lens, rather than through rose-colored glasses. Our world is rarely rosey.

How Did Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' Predict An America Spinning Out Of Control? | Fox News

Did You Hear The One About The Bankers? - Home - The Daily Bail

CITIGROUP is lucky that Muammar el-Qaddafi was killed when he was. The Libyan leader’s death diverted attention from a lethal article involving Citigroup that deserved more attention because it helps to explain why many average Americans have expressed support for the Occupy Wall Street movement. The news was that Citigroup had to pay a $285 million fine to settle a case in which, with one hand, Citibank sold a package of toxic mortgage-backed securities to unsuspecting customers — securities that it knew were likely to go bust — and, with the other hand, shorted the same securities — that is, bet millions of dollars that they would go bust.

It doesn’t get any more immoral than this. As the Securities and Exchange Commission civil complaint noted, in 2007, Citigroup exercised “significant influence” over choosing $500 million of the $1 billion worth of assets in the deal, and the global bank deliberately chose collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s, built from mortgage loans almost sure to fail. According to The Wall Street Journal, the S.E.C. complaint quoted one unnamed C.D.O. trader outside Citigroup as describing the portfolio as resembling something your dog leaves on your neighbor’s lawn. “The deal became largely worthless within months of its creation,” The Journal added. “As a result, about 15 hedge funds, investment managers and other firms that invested in the deal lost hundreds of millions of dollars, while Citigroup made $160 million in fees and trading profits.”

Citigroup, which is under new and better management now, settled the case without admitting or denying any wrongdoing. James Stewart, a business columnist for The Times, noted that Citigroup’s flimflam made “Goldman Sachs mortgage traders look like Boy Scouts. In settling its fraud charges for $550 million last year, Goldman was accused by the S.E.C. of being the middleman in a similar deal, allowing the hedge fund manager John Paulson to help choose the mortgages and then bet against them without disclosing this to the other parties. Citigroup dispensed with a Paulson figure altogether, grabbing those lucrative roles for itself.” (Last Thursday, the U.S. District Court judge overseeing the case demanded that the S.E.C. explain how such serious securities fraud could end with the defendant neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing.)

Did You Hear The One About The Bankers? - Home - The Daily Bail

Recycling and Rechargeable Batteries

Proper recycling of used batteries helps to reduce the environmental impact over sending them to the landfill, but there are other options that can help reduce that even further.

National debt nears size of U.S. economy

The Obama administration won a reprieve this week from some particularly scary economic news that had been projected to occur around Halloween.

The news: The ever-escalating national debt will hit and then surpass the size of the entire U.S. economy -- an ignominious distinction previously achieved by the likes of Japan, Italy and Greece.

The reprieve: The Bureau of Economic Analysis posted third-quarter growth figures showing the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.5% through September -- raising the bar to $15.2 trillion.

As a result, the gross national debt, which is what the federal government owes both to outside creditors and its own trust funds (notably Social Security), won't reach 100% of the economy for another month or two. It's a mere $14.9 trillion.

That delays earlier projections, based on second-quarter growth figures, that had fiscal watchdogs and others trying to pinpoint the date when the debt would surpass the size of the nation's gross domestic product.

The website ZeroHedge was among the first to zero in on Halloween, based on an upcoming Treasury bond auction. It was joined by conservative websites such as Townhall and DailyCaller, as well as The Atlantic.

But officials at the Bipartisan Policy Center correctly noted that a growing economy will push the date into November or December. It will take that long for the debt to grow another, oh, $260 billion.

Whew, you say? Hardly.

A debt-to-GDP ratio of 98% is bad enough. It puts the U.S. closer to rarified territory -- countries that owe more than they produce in a year.

Japan is at the head of the class with a 220% debt-to-GDP ratio. Italy, being watched closely now for signs that the European debt crisis based in Greece could be spreading, is around 120%.

Even the troubled 17-nation eurozone is better off than the U.S. in this regard, with a ratio under 90%. So much for U.S. economic leadership.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/national-debt-nears-size-of-us-economy/1

Trends Forecaster Gerald Celente Says Revolution Coming

RT Report with Gerald Celente, CEO,Founder and Director of Trends Research Institute.

http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com

"Our" total evil psychopathic leaders love showing the dead, only the former leaders of middle eastern countys; let them show the maimed, mangled, dead men, women, and children who lived there and did nothing wrong. The innocent people did not invite NATO, the military to kill them to save them from their so called evil dictator. War is a lie for already wealthy satanist psychopaths.

Senators Raise ‘Serious Concerns’ About State Department Study on Tar Sands Oil Pipeline | Tar Sands Action

Three key senators today questioned the U.S. State Department about its dealings with a Canadian company seeking U.S. approval to build a crude oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

The State Department is responsible for deciding whether to approve the billion-dollar Keystone XL pipeline project. TransCanada, the company trying to build the pipeline, reportedly was permitted to screen private firms bidding to perform an environmental impact study.

“We find it inappropriate that a contractor with financial ties to TransCanada, which publicly promotes itself by identifying TransCanada as a ‘major client’, was selected to conduct what is intended to be an objective government review,” the senators said.

 

Anyone still think that this process is any less destructive to our environment than oil rigs that spill into our oceans or fracking that destroys the water table? These companies and our supporting government are just bowing to the almighty dollar, discarding environmental concerns.

Senators Raise ‘Serious Concerns’ About State Department Study on Tar Sands Oil Pipeline | Tar Sands Action

Environmental groups have raised new concerns about the close ties between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and lobbyists for the controversial Keystone XL project to carry crude from the tar sands of Alberta to the refineries of Texas.

Friends of the Earth said on Thursday they were expanding their freedom of information request for emails between State Department officials and the pipeline company after learning of seven more pipeline lobbyists who had worked on Obama and Clinton's presidential campaigns, or had ties to Bill Clinton.

How long until we are literally mining in our own backyards for even more limited natural resources?

Environmental groups trying to block the pipeline had initially focused on the role of Paul Elliott. Elliott, the main lobbyist in Washington for TransCanada pipeline company, had been a senior official on Clinton's campaign in 2008."The presence of so many former Clinton associates on the lobbying roster for polluter clients on a high-profile controversy suggests a clash with the repeated campaign pledges of greater transparency and tougher dealings with lobbyists by Secretary Clinton's boss, President Obama," the blog said.

Concern over close ties between Obama, Clinton and tar sands

NY Times Leading Media Fight Against Fracking

Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," got a clean bill of health this week in the first scientific look at the safety of the oil and production practice.

But the headlines about the study did not always reflect that. Many, such as "Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking," pointed toward the fracturing process as a culprit. Even the press release accompanying the study was titled "Hydrofracking Changes Water Wells."

The NY Times is probably singularly responsible for the new PR barrage of pro-mining industry processes in the States. The efforts against the industry are due to concerns over destruction of the water supply in the upper Hudson river valley. Imagine what would happen if the NYC metro were unable to meet the clean water needs of the entire population. We could never truck in enough drinking water to sustain the population, the metro would be wiped out.

People in the oil and gas industry commonly say "fracking" to describe just one part of the whole gas exploration and production process. Chemical-laced water and sand are blasted underground to break apart rock and release gas. Purists would say it is not really even part of "drilling" but actually the "completion" phase. The study released this week, done by scientists at Duke University, suggested that gas drilling causes methane gas to leak into people's water and sometimes their homes (Greenwire, May 9). But methane contamination is not caused by injecting chemicals down the well. It is caused by bad well construction during drilling.

But to many outsiders, particularly industry critics, fracking and drilling are the same thing. Advances in fracturing technology made possible the current shale gas drilling boom, so they have taken to lumping all shale gas production under the banner "fracking," deeming it a new form of natural gas drilling.

The study released this week, done by scientists at Duke University, suggested that gas drilling causes methane gas to leak into people's water and sometimes their homes (Greenwire, May 9). But methane contamination is not caused by injecting chemicals down the well. It is caused by bad well construction during drilling.

Environmentalists and other industry critics consider this distinction to be nothing more than word games concocted by oil and gas lobbyists. Whatever you call it, they say, gas production is fouling air and water. Spills and methane contamination fall under existing state and federal regulations. Fracturing, by contrast, received a specific exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act from a Republican Congress and then-President George W. Bush in the 2005 energy bill.

Baffled About Fracking? You're Not Alone - NYTimes.com

F.A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society

What is the problem we wish to solve when we try to construct a rational economic order? On certain familiar assumptions the answer is simple enough. If we possess all the relevant information, if we can start out from a given system of preferences, and if we command complete knowledge of available means, the problem which remains is purely one of logic. That is, the answer to the question of what is the best use of the available means is implicit in our assumptions. The conditions which the solution of this optimum problem must satisfy have been fully worked out and can be stated best in mathematical form: put at their briefest, they are that the marginal rates of substitution between any two commodities or factors must be the same in all their different uses.

In ordinary language we describe by the word "planning" the complex of interrelated decisions about the allocation of our available resources. All economic activity is in this sense planning; and in any society in which many people collaborate, this planning, whoever does it, will in some measure have to be based on knowledge which, in the first instance, is not given to the planner but to somebody else, which somehow will have to be conveyed to the planner. The various ways in which the knowledge on which people base their plans is communicated to them is the crucial problem for any theory explaining the economic process, and the problem of what is the best way of utilizing knowledge initially dispersed among all the people is at least one of the main problems of economic policy—or of designing an efficient economic system.

If it is fashionable today to minimize the importance of the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place, this is closely connected with the smaller importance which is now attached to change as such. Indeed, there are few points on which the assumptions made (usually only implicitly) by the "planners" differ from those of their opponents as much as with regard to the significance and frequency of changes which will make substantial alterations of production plans necessary. Of course, if detailed economic plans could be laid down for fairly long periods in advance and then closely adhered to, so that no further economic decisions of importance would be required, the task of drawing up a comprehensive plan governing all economic activity would be much less formidable.

It is, perhaps, worth stressing that economic problems arise always and only in consequence of change. So long as things continue as before, or at least as they were expected to, there arise no new problems requiring a decision, no need to form a new plan. The belief that changes, or at least day-to-day adjustments, have become less important in modern times implies the contention that economic problems also have become less important. This belief in the decreasing importance of change is, for that reason, usually held by the same people who argue that the importance of economic considerations has been driven into the background by the growing importance of technological knowledge.

Full Text @ Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society | Library of Economics and Liberty

First Steps Toward Localized Sustainability

The first steps are the hardest. Moving away from using non-renewable resources is a difficult prospect when generations have become more and more reliant upon fossil fuels than the previous. It is like an addiction. The first step is admitting there is a problem. We have acknowledged that we need to move away from fossil fuels as a primary energy source, but global consumption continues to increase. It is like there is a fear of what will happen if one part of our culture cuts the cord on fossil fuels while another increases it's consumption to make up for it. Do all countries need to make the move together, all at once? I think that it comes down to an issue of localization. Each region needs to address it's energy requirements and usage independently, while working with the global community to reduce consumption of non-renewable resources, and the resulting pollution. Coastal areas can take advantage of tidal energy. Hot and sunny areas can take better advantage of solar energy. Some areas have great geothermal potential, while others can utilize wind energy. All of these sources can help supplement, and then replace, burning fossil fuels to create electric energy. We have to take advantage of what nature provides us with to make changes that we can rely upon, while working toward conservation efforts to reduce pollution and restore our environment to a level that can sustain our population and the rest of the species on the planet.

Euro deal leaves much to do on rescue fund, Greek debt

Euro zone leaders struck a last-minute deal to limit the damage from the currency bloc's debt crisis early on Thursday but are still far from finalizing plans to slash Greece's debt burden and strengthen their rescue fund.

If we were actually bailing out the people of those countries, rather than the banks who knowingly bought insolvent debt, there would not be so much opposition to these efforts. But the reality is that the banks are looting the public resources, attempting to make one last resource grab as the house of cards collapses. 

http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/reuters/topNews/~3/ga3gYAgJuKE/us-eurozone-idUSTRE79I0IC20111028

Ex-Goldman director faces insider charges

A FORMER Goldman Sachs director faces six counts of insider trading, according to an indictment that alleges he shared information on Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble and Berkshire Hathaway.

What are the chances he will face real consequences for theft from the masses. It is disgraceful that bankers and investors can steal vast amounts of wealth out of greed and get a slap on the wrist, compared to us peasants who are sometimes forced to steal to survive. 

Maybe this is what the 99% are on about? Steal a little and receive massive punishment. Steal from everyone and get sent to your room without dinner. Funny, society seems to have the same regard for mass murderers, just ask Pol Pot. (died under house arrest)

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/ex-goldman-director-faces-insider-charges/story-e6fredec-1226177866361

US stocks higher ahead of EU talks

US stocks have opened higher as EU leaders prepared to meet amid hopes they will reach a deal on a comprehensive and convincing resolution to the eurozone debt crisis.

This is most likely due to some companies set up to make a profit from the failures of foreign banks, which bought insolvent debt from EU governments knowing they could seek bailouts from the IMF. There can't be much of any support left by those actually paying taxes and dealing with inflation down here at the bottom, where the energy and false money for these bailouts comes from. 

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/us-stocks-higher-ahead-of-eu-talks/story-e6fredec-1226177864988

Max Keiser: Whether Debt Slash or Hike, Collapse is Guaranteed!

Why are the US taxpayers being forced into supporting a bailout of EU banks that bought unsustainable debt from individual governments? 18% of the IMF comes from the US taxpayers without our consent. Keiser is rightly irate about this, as should we all be.

With the euphoria over the deals reached at Brussels dying down, the numbers are now being pored over by economists and experts to see if they add up. One of them is RT's Max Keiser who believes nothing's changed - the EU's still fighting debt with debt.

RT on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
RT on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews

Zeitgeist Movement's Global Radio with Ben McLeish

Yesterday's Zeitgeist Movement radio show on BlogTalkRadio was a great one. Our current financial system benefits those holding the majority of the wealth, but a system of debt is unsustainable. The Occupy protests are evidence that the majority of the victims of this system are fed up.

Ben McLeish gives an eye-witness update on Occupy London, the Zeitgeist Movement advocate band Enter Shikari's London gigs, covers a personal visit to an Austrian prison with alternative approaches to rehabilitation, and updates on TZM and "Occupy" activities globally.

Listen to internet radio with TZM Global Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Source

I Want You to Get Mad

Increase in Unemployment Rate: More problems

United States is experiencing a variety of increasing problems as this century grows older. Some of these problems include the global financial problem that has bankrupted many, while many more have lost employment. In October of 2011, unemployment is running at 9.1% according to Government reviews. These reviews indicate that between 1948 through to 2010, the general unemployment rate is put at around 5.7%. While a jump of 3.4 per cent in unemployment does not mean much on its own, when taken as a number in job seeker terms is a massive jump and demonstrates the number of American families in crisis. The US Census Bureau cites that the country's population was just fewer than 312 million people according to the 2010 census. 3.4 per cent equates to 10,608,000 more people than usual out of work in America.

Rarely does anyone consider that automation and increases in efficiency, in efforts to maintain competitiveness between businesses, contributes significantly to unemployment in a negative way. If a business goes from a manual method of a process that reduces the reliance upon workers, then the unemployment rate goes up. As entire industries make steps toward efficiencies, the workforce suffers. Reducing the the median income to a more moderate level can help, but can be considered socialist in it's application.

More

The Infinite Growth Paradigm and Economics

Our economic system is based on readily available resources, since our form of currency has changed from one of value to a fiat currency rooted instead in debt. This system can and has worked well for many when economic times are good, but relies on ever-increasing growth based on energy. Without increases in extraction and availability of natural resources like oil, natural gas, and even water, our economy can not continue to grow. Without growth, our economy can not remain healthy or sustainable. Keynesian theory never was that great for anyone but those possessing or seeking great wealth at the expense of the majority.

Keynesian economics rely on this growth, but until the reality of the limits of growth were realized, few listened to it's critics. Ludwig von Mises was a Russian-born economist whose works built the basis for Austrian economic theory, paving the way for F. A. Hayek, Lew Rockwell (founder of the Mises Institute), and many others who saw the inability for those Keynesian economics to remain sustainable without positive growth. They also recognized the parity between John Maynard Keynes' theories and those of socialism, which was supported in Mises' book on the subject (full text available online). Only because people were not allowed to talk or to think about the nature of the socialist community was Socialism able to become the dominant political movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. - Mises

Automation and efficiency are yet another was that our economy has changed, resulting in increases in unemployment. During the Great Depression, GDP was cut in half. Unemployment rose from 3% to 25% (we are likely at about 15% actual today) and Roosevelt tried to institute a half work day to help keep as many people working, even if it reduced household income, but industry refused to participate, drawing out the Depression. A resource-based currency system is sustainable, not a fiat currency. Every fiat currency has collapse at some point in it's history, with 30 years being about the average lifespan. Nixon killed the Gold Standard, so we're a bit past average now.

Contrary to Keynesian theories, a country can not spend itself out of a depression. It can, however, prepare for one by reducing government spending and halt actions that cause inflation, which include bailouts. With 1 out of every 6 US dollars that the IMF is proposing to use for bailing out banks that bought Greek, Irish, and Portuguese debt, it should be more apparent that global financial systems are not sustainable, especially when they lay the burden of paying those increases on the lower classes that already have precious little resources, increasing the wealth gap.

Until you change the way money works, you change nothing - Michael C. Ruppert

Obama Bank Bailouts, More of the Same

With the ink of President Obama’s signature on the Barney Frank-Chris Dodd financial reform bill barely dry, the next bank bailout already has begun. How can that be, you might ask? Weren’t we promised that this “landmark” legislation would end bank bailouts? Weren’t we promised that this legislation ushered in a new era of transparency on Wall Street? Could it be that the politicians lied to us? Say it ain’t so - but it is.

How can I make such a preposterous claim, you might ask? What evidence do I have to support my assertion? Well, I reply, look no further than the second-quarter earnings report of the Wall Street titan J.P. Morgan Chase. You will, however, have to dig deep into the report, into the financial supplement on Page 32, where the company reports information on the credit quality of its loan portfolio. At the bottom of the page in footnote (a), you will learn of more than $12 billion in non-accrual loans (read: the borrower ain’t gonna pay) made by the bank but that the bank does not consider to be “nonperforming.”

Why not, you might ask? There in footnote (a) is your answer and prima facie evidence of the next bank bailout. These bad loans are insured by U.S. government agencies. Which agencies, you ask? So do I, because the bank doesn’t identify them. But the most likely culprit is the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which insures residential mortgages.

Of course, it is unfair to single out J.P. Morgan Chase. So take a look at the second-quarter earnings report of Bank of America. There, on Page 40 of its supplemental information, is a line item “Federal Housing Administration insured loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing,” showing a balance of more than $15 billion. Why are these loans not considered to be “nonperforming”? The answer is simple: Bank of America plans to collect from the FHA.

Likewise for Wells Fargo. On Page 33 of its supplemental information is a footnote saying that its “90-plus days past due and still accruing” line item “excludes GNMA [Ginnie Mae] and similar loans whose repayments are insured by the Federal Housing Administration or guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.” By comparing the reported amount with the amount from its Y9C form, which reports basic financial information to the Federal Reserve, I estimate the exposure at more than $30 billion.

If this brings to mind the backdoor bailout of Wall Street banks by AIG, it should. At just these three big banks, the taxpayers are on the hook for almost $60 billion in bailout money. This is yet another way to funnel our taxpayer dollars from Main Street into the banks on Wall Street. So the next time you hear Mr. Obama, Sen. Dodd or Rep. Frank tell us how they have “ended bank bailouts,” remember that old comment from Yogi Berra, “This is like deja vu all over again.” Only this time, the conduit is not AIG, it’s the FHA.

Obama's next big bank bailout

To reintroduce an unpopular idea by a different name is a classic trick of politicians. Obama has done precisely this in unveiling his bank bailout plan.


In a desperate attempt to distance himself from Bush, the Obama administration has added some complicated economic terms packaged into a system he simply calls the “bad bank.”  The essence of the plan, however, is exactly what Bush originally proposed.

Although the details are fuzzy, simply put, U.S. taxpayers could have to pay up to $2.5 trillion more to buy the garbage loans that the banks accumulated, saving them from bankruptcy, while maintaining the same greedy shareholders and inept managers that drove the banks to ruin in the first place.

To distinguish this plan from Bush’s, Obama will force taxpayers to pay trillions to private firms so that they can purchase the junk debt. Of course this changes nothing.


The result is well known: bank executives did whatever they wanted to with taxpayer money, such as holding lavish banquets and paying millions to management — all the while making no new loans and now pleading for more money.  

The public was rightly outraged, and demands came from all corners of society for something to be done.  Leading economists such as Joseph Stiglitz (Colombia University) and Paul Krugman (The New York Times) advocated that the government should assert ownership over the amounts injected into the banks, since “a takeover is preferable to leaving firms in the hands of those who have so badly mismanaged them.” (New York Times, February 7, 2009)


To address the steadily worsening economic crisis, serious measures are desperately needed that will benefit working people, who need jobs, health care, and a moratorium on home foreclosures.  The government hand outs to the big corporations have utterly failed; not one cent more need be given.

Obama’s Bank Bailout: Bush’s Plan Resurrected

Global Consumers have Eyes on Mongolia's Resources

Mongolia is a sizeable country blessed with unimaginable resource wealth. It almost seems that just about every other Tuesday brings another major resource discovery. Oil. Coal. Gold. Copper. Rare earths. Iron ore. Molybdenum. Uranium. You get the idea.

These deposits are substantial… in many instances, world class. Mongolia's copper reserves alone rival those of Chile. Its oil wealth is in the same class as Angola. Its coal deposits blow Australia's out of the water. And yet, the vast majority of this country is still unexplored. We can (and should) expect more discoveries in the months and years to come.

I'm not telling you this so that you'll buy shares in every junior resource company with Mongolia exposure that you can find. Even with all of this mineral wealth, a lot of mining companies (and their shareholders) are going to lose their shirts.  Drilling holes in the earth is expensive, risky business.

The knock-on effect to Mongolia's population, however, will be of historic proportions. There are only three million people in this country. Trillions of dollars of resource wealth divided by a few million people is exceptionally high per-capita wealth… and it's all going to happen in less than a generation.

Perhaps the best example of this in history is the United Arab Emirates. Like the Mongols, these people were just nomadic tribesmen roaming the desert for hundreds of years. Oil was discovered in the early 1960s, and within a generation, people in Abu Dhabi were among the wealthiest in the world.

But I think it can happen even faster in Mongolia; much of the world has a vested interest in pulling Mongolia's resources out of the ground as quickly as possible. The Middle East is destabilizing quickly, China has nearly monopolistic control over rare earth minerals, and demand for physical gold is skyrocketing.

As the rest of the major resource regions begin to fail, eyes turn to one of the last great untouched regions. Demand for those resources could turn it into the next oilfield, destroying its environment in the quest for false wealth. 

All of these projects will also require substantial infrastructure investment before any extraction takes place, and billions of dollars are already being invested in the country to this end. You can imagine the economic effect when a $6 billion infrastructure investment is made in a $5 billion economy.

I saw similar effects in Panama years ago– in 2005, Panama's GDP was roughly $15 billion.  After several years of substantial foreign investment (including tranches of the multi-billion dollar Panama Canal expansion project), GDP is now $27 billion. Perhaps more importantly, a strong middle class emerged in Panama as a result. It wasn't just 5 guys getting rich.

I suspect the same thing will happen in Mongolia; the government is already handing out shares of mining concessions to the population, and in the long run, this society is probably going to look a lot like Kuwait: every native born into a life of privilege and state-sponsored welfare in the form of ridiculously overpaid "government jobs".

This is the much safer bet– investing in Mongolia's rising economy, and by consequence, the rising per capita income of the local population. Acknowledging the possibility for short-term fluctuations, I think it's going to be very hard to get hurt with this investment thesis.

Put it this way: you know you can make some serious money in a country where the absolute -worst- that you can do is open a savings account yielding 13% interest, denominated in a currency that gained 15% against the US dollar last year.

I can't see this playing out well for the people of Mongolia. I'm not thinking in terms of financial wealth, I am thinking of social implications. This is a culture rich in heritage and restraining foreign economies from having influence over their lives. I would hate to see big globalist companies more in and strip-mine and frack the environment to gain natural resources, leaving their ecology in the same mess as the rest of the world. It is such a beautiful, mostly unspoiled region with low population density. It is one of the last few naturally conserved environments left on the planet. The best thing would be for the country to hold fast against industrial exploitation for the same false wealth (debt) the rest of the developed world has been forced into. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-worst-you-can-do-in-this-country-is-make-28-2011-10

Unemployment Versus Efficiency

One of the things that many people don't quite seem to be able to wrap their heads around with the topic of unemployment is efficiency. As companies work toward greater efficiencies to maintain profitability and competitiveness, they contribute to the decreased demand on the workforce, creating higher levels of unemployment.

Expert opinion on Texas Earthquake

Expert opinion on Texas quake

HYDROFRACKING the likely causelink to the blog post with screenshots of the frac (fracking) well .. 

http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/10202011-texas-4-7-magnitude-earthquake-man-made-epicenter-at-fracking-well/ 

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GlobalRumblings/~3/31Z2OgCmvSA/expert-opinion-on-texas-earthquake.html

US/NATO Humanitarian War Results

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/10/libya-before-and-after-image-shows-what.html

All hail humanitarian war. Regime change can be a bitch.  Start with sanctions because of 'humanitarian' reasons.  If they don't work, arm ragtag mercenaries and implement a 'no-fly zone' through an international body.  If the rebels can't hunt down the defunct leader, then just bomb the hell out the country until a bloody carcass vaguely resembling the leader turns up.  Then claim that the humanitarian intervention was a wild success.  PS: Make sure you destroy enough of the infrastructure to secure a huge IMF bondage loan for reconstruction.

The before and after picture of Libya below shows what the U.S./NATO means by a humanitarian war.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/venezuelas-hugo-chavez-says-muammar-gaddafis-death-is-an-outrage/story-e6frf7lf-1226172541707?sv=2b73acd3f8603862acdc94024f0d0f97

VENEZUELAN President Hugo Chavez expressed anger over the death of Muammar Gaddafi, calling it an "outrage" and saying the ousted Libyan strongman was a "martyr".

"Sadly the death of Gaddafi has been confirmed," said Chavez, who had just returned to Venezuela from cancer treatment in Cuba.

"They assassinated him. It is another outrage," the Venezuelan leader told reporters in the town of La Grita.

"We shall remember Gaddafi our whole lives as a great fighter, a revolutionary and a martyr," he said.

Chavez had defended Gaddafi since the start of the uprising against the Libyan leader's regime in February, and accused NATO of using the conflict to gain control over Libya's oil.

"The saddest thing is that in its quest to dominate the world, the empire and its allies are setting it on fire," Chavez said, referring to the United States by his preferred nickname.

http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/misrata-before-and-after-chavez-says-muammar-gaddafis-death-is-an-outrage/

The Fracking Industry's War On The New York Times -- And The Truth

Superb investigative journalism by the New York Times has brought the paper under attack by the natural gas industry. That campaign of intimidation and obfuscation has been orchestrated by top shelf players like Exxon and Chesapeake aligned with the industry's worst bottom feeders. This coalition has launched an impressive propaganda effort carried by slick PR firms, industry funded front groups and a predictable cabal of right wing industry toadies from cable TV and talk radio. In pitting itself against public disclosure and reasonable regulation, the natural gas industry is once again proving that it is its own worst enemy. I confess to being an early optimist on natural gas. In July of 2009, I wrote a widely circulated op-ed for the Financial Times predicting that newly accessible deposits of natural gas had the potential to rapidly relieve our country of its deadly addiction to Appalachian coal and end forever catastrophically destructive mountaintop removal mining. At that time, government and industry geologists were predicting that new methods of fracturing gas rich shale beds had provided access to an astounding 2000-5000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the lower 48 -- enough, they claimed to power our country for a century. These rich reserves might have allowed America to mothball or throttle back our 336 gigawatts of mainly antiquated and inefficient coal fired electric plants replacing them with underutilized capacity from existing gas generation plants. That transition could reduce U.S. mercury emissions by 20%-25%, dramatically cut deadly particulate matter and the pollutants that cause acid rain and slash America's grid based CO2 by an astonishing 20% -- literally overnight! Gas could have been a natural companion for wind and solar energy with its capacity to transform variable power into base load, and could have been a critical bridge fuel to the new energy economy rooted in America's abundant renewables.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/236589-The-Fracking-Industry-s-War-On-The-New-York-Times-And-The-Truth

Europe’s Bank Bill: $3 Trillion

As the European Union continues to discuss the possibility of a new bailout fund, news is breaking that any European banking bailout may cost as much as 2 trillion Euros, or $3 trillion. The $3 trillion sum, which would be raised through the EFSF, may also be charged to the IMF. International Bailout US taxpayers may have received the short-end of the stick in bailing out troubled banks in 2008 and 2009. Under TARP, the US government purchased securities from banks in exchange for equity stakes and long-term preferred share holdings. The program was profitable, depending on who you ask, but much of the $700 billion fund found its way overseas, where it was paid to international banks to settle debts and open transactions. The taxpayer that first bailed out American banks may be asked once more to provide a second round of bailouts. In reports that circulated over the weekend, the IMF may be asked to provide resources toward any European bailout. 

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/gold-speculator/fejA/~3/msC4HXJ-bko/showthread.php

The Federal Reserve and Bank of America Initiate a Coup to Dump Billions of Dollars of Losses on the American Taxpayer

Bloomberg reports that Bank of America is dumping derivatives onto a subsidiary which is insured by the government – i.e. taxpayers.

Yves Smith notes:

If you have any doubt that Bank of America is going down, this development should settle it …. Both [professor of economics and law, and former head S&L prosecutor] Bill Black (who I interviewed just now) and I see this as a desperate move by Bank of America's management, a de facto admission that they know the bank is in serious trouble.

The short form via Bloomberg:

Bank of America Corp. (BAC), hit by a credit downgrade last month, hasmoved derivatives from its Merrill Lynch unit to a subsidiary flush with insured deposits, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation…

Bank of America's holding company — the parent of both the retail bank and the Merrill Lynch securities unit — held almost $75 trillion of derivatives at the end of June, according to data compiled by the OCC. About $53 trillion, or 71 percent, were within Bank of America NA, according to the data, which represent the notional values of the trades.

That compares with JPMorgan's deposit-taking entity, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, which contained 99 percent of the New York-based firm's $79 trillion of notional derivatives, the OCC data show.

Now you would expect this move to be driven by adverse selection, that it, that BofA would move its WORST derivatives, that is, the ones that were riskiest or otherwise had high collateral posting requirements, to the sub. Bill Black confirmed that even though the details were sketchy, this is precisely what took place.

And remember, as we have indicated, there are some "derivatives" that should be eliminated, period. We've written repeatedly about credit default swaps, which have virtually no legitimate economic uses (no one was complaining about the illiquidity of corporate bonds prior to the introduction of CDS; this was not a perceived need among investors). They are an inherently defective product, since there is no way to margin adequately for "jump to default" risk and have the product be viable economically. CDS are systematically underpriced insurance, with insurers guaranteed to go bust periodically, as AIG and the monolines demonstrated. [Background.]

The reason that commentators like Chris Whalen were relatively sanguine about Bank of America likely becoming insolvent as a result of eventual mortgage and other litigation losses is that it would be a holding company bankruptcy. The operating units, most importantly, the banks, would not be affected and could be spun out to a new entity or sold. Shareholders would be wiped out and holding company creditors (most important, bondholders) would take a hit by having their debt haircut and partly converted to equity.

This changes the picture completely. This move reflects either criminal incompetence or abject corruption by the Fed. Even though I've expressed my doubts as to whether Dodd Frank resolutions will work, dumping derivatives into depositaries pretty much guarantees a Dodd Frank resolution will fail. Remember the effect of the 2005 bankruptcy law revisions: derivatives counterparties are first in line, they get to grab assets first and leave everyone else to scramble for crumbs. [Background.] So this move amounts to a direct transfer from derivatives counterparties of Merrill to the taxpayer, via the FDIC, which would have to make depositors whole after derivatives counterparties grabbed collateral. It's well nigh impossible to have an orderly wind down in this scenario. You have a derivatives counterparty land grab and an abrupt insolvency. Lehman failed over a weekend after JP Morgan grabbed collateral.

But it's even worse than that. During the savings & loan crisis, the FDIC did not have enough in deposit insurance receipts to pay for the Resolution Trust Corporation wind-down vehicle. It had to get more funding from Congress. This move paves the way for another TARP-style shakedown of taxpayers, this time to save depositors. No Congressman would dare vote against that. This move is Machiavellian, and just plain evil.

The FDIC is understandably ripshit. Again from Bloomberg:

The Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. disagree over the transfers, which are being requested by counterparties, said the people, who asked to remain anonymous because they weren't authorized to speak publicly. The Fed has signaled that it favors moving the derivatives to give relief to the bank holding company, while the FDIC, which would have to pay off depositors in the event of a bank failure, is objecting, said the people. The bank doesn't believe regulatory approval is needed, said people with knowledge of its position.

Well OF COURSE BofA is gonna try to take the position this is kosher, but the FDIC can and must reject this brazen move. But this is a bit of a fait accompli,and I have NO doubt BofA and the craven, corrupt Fed will argue that moving the derivatives back will upset the markets. Well too bad, maybe it's time banks learn they can no longer run roughshod over regulators. And if BofA is at that much risk that it can't survive undoing this brazen move, that would seem to be prima facie evidence that a Dodd Frank resolution is in order.

Bill Black said that the Bloomberg editors toned down his remarks considerably. He said, "Any competent regulator would respond: "No, Hell NO!" It's time that the public also say no, and loudly, to this new scheme to loot taxpayers and save a criminally destructive bank.

Professor Black provided a "bottom line" summary in a separate email:

1.The bank holding company (BAC) is moving troubled assets held by an entity not insured by the public (Merrill Lynch) to the Bank of America, which is insured by the public
2. The banking rules are designed to prevent that because they are designed to protect the FDIC insurance fund (which the Treasury guarantees)
3. Any marginally competent regulator would say "No, Hell NO!"
4. The Fed, reportedly, is saying "Sure, no worries" by allowing the sale of an affiliate's troubled assets to B of A
5. This is a really good "natural experiment" that allows us to test whether the Fed is protects the public or the uninsured and systemically dangerous institutions (the bank holding companies (BHCs))
6. We are all shocked, shocked [sarcasm] that Bernanke responded to the experiment by choosing to protect the BHC at the expense of the public.

Karl Denninger writes:

So let's see what we have here.

Bank customer initiates a swap position with Bank. In doing so they intentionally accept the credit risk of the institution they trade with.

Later they get antsy about perhaps not getting paid. Bank then shifts that risk to a place where people who deposited their money and had no part of this transaction wind up backstopping it.

This effectively makes the depositor the "guarantor" of the swap ex-post-facto.

That the regulators are allowing this is anoutrage.

If you're a Bank of America customer and continue to be one you deserve whatever you get down the line, whether it comes in the form of higher fees and costs assessed upon you or something worse.
Stand Up to the Coup

Bank of America has repeatedly become insolvent due to fraud and risky bets, and repeatedly been bailed out by the government and American people. The government and banks are engineering an age ofpermanent bailouts for this insolvent, criminal bank (and the other too big to fails). Remember, this is the same bank that is refusing to let people close their accounts.

This is yet another joint effort by Washington and Wall Street to screw the American people, and to trample on the rule of law.

The American people will be stuck in nightmare of anever-ending depression (yes, we are currently in a depression) and fascism (or socialism, if you prefer that term) unless we stand up to the overly-powerful Fedand the too big to fail banks.

More

Michael Rupperts' Latest Lifeboat Hour Radio Program

MCR's guest is Charles Eisenstein, brilliant author of the book Sacred Economics.  They discuss the rapidly growing global Occupy Movement, the ongoing collapse of infinite growth economics, and designing the next economic paradigm.

The Lifeboat Hour - 10/16/11

Ruppert addresses a variety of issues in this week's show, including supporting the Occupy movement. His guest Eisenstein is well-versed in economics.

Fed to Bailout Bank of America without Taxpayer Consent

Bank of America is shifting derivatives in its Merrill investment banking unit to its depository arm, which has access to the Fed discount window and is protected by the FDIC. This means that the investment bank's European derivatives exposure is now backstopped by the taxpayer.

Bank of America didn't get regulatory approval to do this, they just did it at the request of frightened counterparties. Now the Fed and the FDIC are fighting as to whether this was sound. The Fed wants to "give relief" to the bank holding company, which is under heavy pressure.

This is a direct transfer of risk to the taxpayer done by the bank without approval by regulators and without public input.

You will also read below that JP Morgan is apparently doing the same thing with $79 trillion of notional derivatives guaranteed by the FDIC and Federal Reserve.

What this means for you is that when Europe finally implodes and banks fail, U.S. taxpayers will hold the bag for trillions in CDS insurance contracts sold by Bank of America and JP Morgan. Even worse, the total exposure is unknown because Wall Street successfully lobbied during Dodd-Frank passage so that no central exchange would exist keeping track of net derivative exposure.

HOLY BAILOUT - Federal Reserve Now Backstopping $75 Trillion Of Bank Of America's Derivatives Trades - Home - The Daily Bail

Is #OccupyWallStreet the Millennial Generation's WTO?

I was at the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999. Other than blocking the entrance to the WTO summit, and a few pre-organized march routes at certain days and times, there wasn't much in the way of plans. So people collected into 'affinity groups' to make their own group decisions about what to do and where to go: Shall we lock arms in front of this door to the convention center and risk some pushing, or just stick to standing and yelling? Shall we sit down in front of this police advance and resign ourselves to being arrested?

It was also a radicalizing experience. At least 1,000 of us eventually gathered in front of the downtown Seattle prison to demand the release of those who'd been arrested. And that thousand-some of us (and eventually many more) started hearing about some pretty terrible things. Protestors in custody being held on police buses and kept there for hours without access to a bathroom. Vegetarian protestors in custody being given nothing to eat for over half a day, or longer, except a baloney sandwich. There was even a story that some protestors, perhaps the more unruly ones, had been stripped and cuffed to floors of their cells. (And I doubt it was lost on anyone that, if this was the way us largely middle-class, educated white folks were being treated, it was surely significantly worse for the countless underprivileged young black men who are thrown into the U.S. prison system daily.)

And of course, there was the policy brutality many of us witnessed first-hand on the street. It still boils my blood when I hear the protests referred to as a "riot." A handful of black-masked kids trashing a few corporate storefronts is not a riot. A squad of heavily armored police rushing a group of sitting, peaceful demonstrators, pepper-spraying them point-blank and hauling them off to vans with bruises and broken bones... that's closer to the definition of a riot in my opinion.

There are now tens of thousands of so-called Millennials who—for likely the first time ever—are having the life-changing experience of standing up and demanding change, of marching in the streets, of getting beat on and pepper-sprayed by the police, of getting misportrayed and vilified by the media,... and of coming back and keeping at it, and seeing their actions pay off.

http://www.postcarbon.org/blog-post/535288-is-occupywallstreet-the-millennial-generation-s-wto

Want To Talk To Vikram Pandit, CEO Of Citigroup? Here’s His Cell Phone Number

This is a brilliant write-up from Gawker.  And shockingly, Pandit has not changed his number since this was published.  I just called, and it goes directly to voicemail.  Gawker has provided suggestions for discussion material (printed below). 

Source - Gawker

Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit told a Fortune conference on Wednesday that he "would be happy to talk to" Occupy Wall Street protesters "any time they want."  That's so cool of him!  Here's his cell phone number.  He's waiting for your call.

Things you might want to ask Pandit: Can I borrow $3.4 billion at no interest if I put up a bunch of my worthless shit as collateral?  I promise to pay it back, because I'm just going to lend it out to a bunch of idiots at like 9% interest and book profits.  Or how about you just buy $27 billion of my worthless shit?  No deal?  How about you just guarantee to eat 90% of the losses on that worthless shit up to $300 billion?

You may be interested to know that, according to the Citizen Media Law Project, New York law permits the recording of phone calls as long as one of the parties consents to the recording. So if you feel like it, record your message to Pandit, or conversation if you get him on the line, and send it to us at The Daily Bail.  We'll post it for all to enjoy.

Oh, and if he doesn't pick up his cell, his office line is(212) 793-1201, and his email address is vikram.pandit@citi.com.  Tell him hello from The Daily Bail.

 

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheDailyBail/~3/34E_rIS_osU/want-to-talk-to-vikram-pandit-ceo-of-citigroup-heres-his-cel.html

A Voice Of Reason from Wall Street: “If We Lose America We Have Nowhere Else to Run for Freedom”

As the Wall Street Protests and those spreading around the country are being systematically bastardized and appropriated by those who promoted the election of President Obama, pushed for corporate lobbying, and the massive unions that claim government is the problem, yet ask for more government intervention into our economic, financial, and political lives, there are still some voices that remain true to the original message and intent of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.

While you will undoubtedly see mainstream media provide airtime for the incoherent messages and talking points of labor leaders, so-called activists for the working man like multi-millionaire Michael Moore, political hacks, debt ridden students looking for handouts, and operatives of the corporate elite, what you won't see is the following video of a young man delivering a passionate speech (sans teleprompter, of course) denouncing the monetary policy of the federal reserve, fractional reserve lending, Washington's involvement in State's rights, and excessive taxation of the citizenry. Additionally, he warns of the serious consequences that will ultimately result from inaction and misguided policy decisions.

The depression will be nothing compared to 1930 when it hits us… If we lose America we have nowhere else to run for freedom. There is no country left that promotes free markets, corporations not in politics… There's no country that has their own sound currency.

There is nowhere left to run.

If we lose America, we lose the world to the elite.

The 1% will continue to get rich, as we all live like slaves.

If you think the way of life is bad now, you will all be living in Projects like Hoovervilles.

We cannot continue to print money. We cannot continue to debase our currency.

…

State's rights. when you minimize government it is easier to control by the people…

…If you don't like the policy in one state, you go to another state. Because that's how America was set up. America was not supposed to be uniform in policy. Each state was supposed to reflect the views and positions of everyone in that state. It is much easier to influence Governors and Mayors than Presidents and Vice-Presidents.

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/a-voice-of-reason-from-wall-street-if-we-lose-america-we-have-nowhere-else-to-run-for-freedom_10062011

FDA Is Urged To Toughen Rules on Salt

A consumer group prodded the Food and Drug Administration yesterday to regulate salt as a food additive, arguing that excessive salt consumption by Americans may be responsible for more than 100,000 deaths a year.

The government has long placed salt in a "generally recognized as safe" or GRAS category, which grandfathers in a huge list of familiar food ingredients. But in an FDA hearing yesterday, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) urged the agency to enforce tougher regulations for sodium.

Doing so "lays the foundation for saving tens of thousands of lives per year," said CSPI Director Michael Jacobson in an interview after the hearing. It "just has tremendous potential to health and to cut health-care costs."

The nanny state is picking up steam, seeking to restrict salt from your diet. Silly me. I always thought that if I were eating too much salt, I would be responsible for making decisions to address the issue. I guess that government believes they know better than you do how much salt is too much. Can sweeping regulations apply to everyone, since each individual has different salt needs?

FDA Is Urged To Toughen Rules on Salt

Homeowners Associations and Threats of Violence

 

I'm seeing less and less reasons to continue to maintain a HOA. I'd rather see it change to a voluntary organization, especially in rough economic times. I keep my property clean and well-maintained, so I don't see the point in having anyone tell me to do what I already do, under threat of violence. As for those who fail to maintain and clean their property, I see it as their right, since it's their property and not mine. I believe that most state, city and county ordinances are sufficient in maintaining safety and sanitary situations.

I am here to say, I am not sure of the HOA’s job.  My guess is, it’s an effort to line their pockets, so someone can sit behind a desk and write letters from tattle tailing neighbors, and charge too much for mowing grass, but I could be wrong.  I guess this is the price you pay to live in civilization, and even though I knew about the HOA before moving, I didn’t know about the fluctuating fees, and nosy neighbor clause.  My advice is to get a copy of the HOA guidelines for a neighborhood you are considering, along with several yearly projections of their estimated costs (if it’s an established neighborhood) and see if the fees have changed from year to year, so you can get an idea of how they manage things.  And, if you get the chance, have a chat with the people living there, it will give you a feel for what you are getting into.  We will see if the economy gets better, what kind of surprise fee change we will get!  The HOA=government at its finest.

Home Owners Associations Is it a Dictatorship, Government?

Are HOA dues a form of violent threats?

Extortion: Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. This is a common reaction to forced taxation, but can apply to a variety of scenarios, including mandatory owners associations. Threat of legal action up to and including taking away possession of one's home is a threat of violence. This is why I believe that a voluntary owners association is more practical and supports individual property rights and freedoms. I believe that a homeowners association should simply encourage residents to maintain and keep property clean, without that threat of violence. If residents chose to participate and improve or maintain the community beyond their homes, that should be a choice, not a mandate. It is the people that make a community work, not the threat against them, which improves or maintains the community.

Should others have the right to dictate how you live your life?

A Chicago suburbanite has been growing his front yard for food. And it raises a lot of questions about the legality of food independence. So far, the act of growing food for personal use is not illegal; rather, it is left up to neighbors to decide what is best for their neighborhoods. More or less, this is probably the best and most democratic method of neighborhood sustainability for now, except when trouble comes days like ours where a serious economic decline in which unkempt front lawns of abandoned or repossessed houses invite a further plunge in already slumping real estate values.

Urban Agriculture: Chicago Suburb Gives a Yarden the Stinkeye

Most people are not happy with these HOA's and their Communist / Nazi dominating overseeing warlord attitude concerning you as an individual property owner and your rights.
Some states like Arizona now compel builders to have HOA's, which are regulated by a general real estate term called CC&R's (covenants, conditions & restrictions).

Homeowner Association Rant blog

Sign a petition to take some of the bite out of homeowners associations: Permanently Stop Homeowner and Property Owner Association Foreclosures 

A Slow Recovery in the Banking Sector

Banking failures are exactly what we need to move toward a post-bank world. We have been under the thumb of money changers for centuries and it has only led to suffering. It's time for a real change. 

As the banking sector recovers from the financial crisis and the subsequent recession, its recovery has mirrored the slow and fragile recovery of the general economy. Despite the growth in total assets, loans and leases at depository institutions actually fell from the fourth quarter of 2010 to the second quarter of 2011.

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/trends/2011/1011/01banfin.cfm?DCS.nav=RSS-aaa-000-17

Rand Paul: Obama inflaming ‘Occupy Wall Street’ mob

Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky on Fox Business warned Thursday that the "Occupy Wall Street" protest in New York City could become violent thanks, in part, to President Barack Obama.

"As far as this Occupy Wall Street movement goes, you know I see it sort of like a Paris mob," he said. "I see the president's rhetoric of envy inflaming the public."

Sen. Paul said he "hoped" that the "Parisian mob" that Obama was inflaming didn't result in "lawlessness" where protesters looted iPhones, "because rich people don't deserve to have them."

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheRawStory/~3/O5pZIDJ8qvo/