Must read

IR GLOBAL RANKINGS 2011 BEST RANKED COMPANIES IN NORTH AMERICA
2/7/2011 4:00 PM - PR Newswire

NEW YORK, Feb. 7, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX News Network/ --
IR Global Rankings ("IRGR"), the most comprehensive technical ranking system for investor relations websites, corporate governance practices and financial disclosure procedures, jointly with its coordination group and supporting entities, Arnold & Porter, MZ, KPMG and Sodali, announced today at The IR Summit, an IR conference produced in association with Institutional Investor, the 2011 Best Ranked Companies in North America, as follows:

Best Ranked IR Websites in North America: Life Technologies, PotashCorp, Intel, Cameco and Microsoft.

Best Ranked Online Annual Report in North America: Nexen.

Best Ranked Financial Disclosure Procedures in North America: URS Corporation, Fedex Corp., Ryder System, Cameco and BMO Financial Group.

Best Ranked Corporate Governance Practices in North America: Nexen.

We congratulate all the investor relations teams of the best ranked companies for their achievements and efforts. The Top 30 global results, as well as the industry results, will be available on our website www.irglobalrankings.com in December 2011.

To learn more about the 2011 IRGR or download the 2010 IRGR magazine, with the winners and best practices, please go to: www.irglobalrankings.com.

32 Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) 25.1%
33 Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE:DLB) 24.8%
34 Arch Coal, Inc. (NYSE:ACI) 24.7%
35 Old Republic International Corporation (NYSE:ORI) 24.6%
36 International Paper Company (NYSE:IP) 24.5%
37 Monster Worldwide, Inc. (NYSE:MWW) 24.4%
38 Amgen, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMGN) 24.4%
39 Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. (NYSE:ANR) 23.9%
40 Cisco Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:CSCO) 23.7%
41 Federal-Mogul Corporation (NASDAQ:FDML) 23.6%
42 Bank of America Corporation (NYSE:BAC) 23.5%
43 Petrohawk Energy Corporation (NYSE:HK) 23.5%
44 AMR Corporation (NYSE:AMR) 23.4%
45 Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ:CLWR) 23.4%
46 Walter Energy, Inc. (NYSE:WLT) 23.0%
47 Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (NYSE:BAH) 22.9%
48 Hillenbrand, Inc. (NYSE:HI) 22.8%
49 Compuware Corporation (NASDAQ:CPWR) 22.8%
50 The AES Corporation (NYSE:AES) 22.7%
51 Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:CCO) 22.7%
52 Cree, Inc. (NASDAQ:CREE) 22.4%
53 Thoratec Corporation (NASDAQ:THOR) 22.3%
54 Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) 22.2%
55 Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. (NASDAQ:PPDI) 22.1%
56 Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (NYSE:WYN) 21.9%
57 Comstock Resources, Inc. (NYSE:CRK) 21.8%
58 Itron, Inc. (NASDAQ:ITRI) 21.7%
59 Oshkosh Corporation (NYSE:OSK) 21.4%
60 Abbott Laboratories (NYSE:ABT) 21.2%
61 AECOM Technology Corporation (NYSE:ACM) 20.9%
62 Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) 20.7%
63 State Street Corporation (NYSE:STT) 20.7%
64 WMS Industries Inc. (NYSE:WMS) 20.5%
65 Rovi Corporation (NASDAQ:ROVI) 20.4%
66 Macy's, Inc. (NYSE:M) 20.4%
67 Motorola Solutions Inc (NYSE:MSI) 20.2%
68 Covanta Holding Corporation (NYSE:CVA) 20.0%
69 Warner Chilcott Plc (NASDAQ:WCRX) 19.8%
70 Republic Services, Inc. (NYSE:RSG) 19.7%
71 Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:HRC) 19.4%
72 ON Semiconductor Corp. (NASDAQ:ONNN) 19.3%
73 Staples, Inc. (NASDAQ:SPLS) 19.1%
74 Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc. (NASDAQ:GMCR) 19.0%
75 Merck & Co., Inc. (NYSE:MRK) 19.0%
76 Myriad Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:MYGN) 19.0%
77 AOL, Inc. (NYSE:AOL) 18.9%
78 Southwestern Energy Company (NYSE:SWN) 18.9%
79 Dollar General Corp. (NYSE:DG) 18.8%
80 Seagate Technology PLC (NASDAQ:STX) 18.7%
81 Alliant Techsystems Inc. (NYSE:ATK) 18.6%
82 Corrections Corporation of America (NYSE:CXW) 18.6%
83 Newfield Exploration Co. (NYSE:NFX) 18.5%
84 BE Aerospace, Inc. (NASDAQ:BEAV) 18.4%
85 Agilent Technologies Inc. (NYSE:A) 18.4%
86 Kohl's Corporation (NYSE:KSS) 18.2%
87 Allscripts Healthcare Solutions Inc (NASDAQ:MDRX) 18.2%
88 Snap-on Incorporated (NYSE:SNA) 18.1%
89 Ball Corporation (NYSE:BLL) 18.1%
90 Copa Holdings, S.A. (NYSE:CPA) 18.1%
91 NetApp Inc. (NASDAQ:NTAP) 18.0%
92 Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. (NYSE:TMO) 17.9%
93 Carnival Corporation (NYSE:CCL) 17.5%
94 The St. Joe Company (NYSE:JOE) 17.4%
95 Akamai Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:AKAM) 17.3%
96 Xerox Corporation (NYSE:XRX) 16.8%
97 CVS Caremark Corporation (NYSE:CVS) 16.7%
98 ConAgra Foods, Inc. (NYSE:CAG) 16.6%
99 Bally Technologies Inc. (NYSE:BYI) 16.5%
100 FTI Consulting, Inc. (NYSE:FCN) 16.5%
101 Halliburton Company (NYSE:HAL) 16.5%
102 CoreLogic Inc. (NYSE:CLGX) 16.5%
103 Leggett & Platt, Inc. (NYSE:LEG) 16.4%
104 Gannett Co., Inc. (NYSE:GCI) 16.3%
105 Crown Castle International Corp. (NYSE:CCI) 16.2%
106 Equinix, Inc. (NASDAQ:EQIX) 16.2%
107 Health Management Associates, Inc. (NYSE:HMA) 16.2%
108 Jarden Corporation (NYSE:JAH) 16.2%
109 RadioShack Corporation (NYSE:RSH) 16.1%
110 Guess?, Inc. (NYSE:GES) 16.0%
111 Kennametal Inc. (NYSE:KMT) 16.0%
112 tw telecom inc. (NASDAQ:TWTC) 15.9%
113 Penn National Gaming, Inc (NASDAQ:PENN) 15.9%
114 Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (NYSE:AAP) 15.8%
115 Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) 15.8%
116 PepsiCo, Inc. (NYSE:PEP) 15.8%
117 O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. (NASDAQ:ORLY) 15.8%
118 Gentex Corporation (NASDAQ:GNTX) 15.7%
119 Telephone & Data Systems, Inc. (NYSE:TDS) 15.7%
120 Whirlpool Corporation (NYSE:WHR) 15.7%
121 Community Health Systems (NYSE:CYH) 15.6%
122 Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc (NYSE:MMI) 15.5%
123 Alere Inc (NYSE:ALR) 15.3%
124 Ralcorp Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:RAH) 15.2%
125 Cliffs Natural Resources Inc (NYSE:CLF) 15.1%
126 Exterran Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:EXH) 15.1%
127 CNA Financial Corporation (NYSE:CNA) 15.0%
128 American Express Company (NYSE:AXP) 15.0%
129 Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE:WFC) 15.0%
130 Apache Corporation (NYSE:APA) 15.0%
131 Ingram Micro Inc. (NYSE:IM) 15.0%
132 Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:HTZ) 14.9%
133 Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) 14.9%
134 Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE:TSN) 14.8%
135 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:REGN) 14.7%
136 MetLife, Inc. (NYSE:MET) 14.7%
137 Western Digital Corp. (NYSE:WDC) 14.7%
138 Nalco Holding Company (NYSE:NLC) 14.6%
139 Universal Health Services, Inc. (NYSE:UHS) 14.6%
140 Cephalon, Inc. (NASDAQ:CEPH) 14.5%
141 Fossil, Inc. (NASDAQ:FOSL) 14.4%
142 Micron Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ:MU) 14.4%
143 Synopsys, Inc. (NASDAQ:SNPS) 14.4%
144 Endo Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:ENDP) 14.3%
145 Broadcom Corporation (NASDAQ:BRCM) 14.2%
146 Lorillard Inc. (NYSE:LO) 14.2%
147 Reinsurance Group of America (NYSE:RGA) 14.1%
148 International Game Technology (NYSE:IGT) 14.1%
149 Navistar International Corporation (NYSE:NAV) 14.1%
150 Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C) 14.1%
151 Life Technologies Corp. (NASDAQ:LIFE) 14.1%
152 Union Pacific Corporation (NYSE:UNP) 14.0%
153 Dollar Tree, Inc. (NASDAQ:DLTR) 14.0%
154 Arrow Electronics, Inc. (NYSE:ARW) 14.0%
155 JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) 14.0%
156 Lear Corporation (NYSE:LEA) 14.0%
157 Seacor Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:CKH) 14.0%
158 Vishay Intertechnology (NYSE:VSH) 13.9%
159 Pfizer Inc. (NYSE:PFE) 13.9%
160 TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. (NYSE:TRW) 13.9%
161 QLogic Corporation (NASDAQ:QLGC) 13.8%
162 LPL Investment Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:LPLA) 13.8%
163 CME Group Inc. (NASDAQ:CME) 13.8%
164 PulteGroup, Inc. (NYSE:PHM) 13.8%
165 Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:BRCD) 13.7%
166 Energizer Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:ENR) 13.7%
167 Ultra Petroleum Corp. (NYSE:UPL) 13.6%
168 SEI Investments Company (NASDAQ:SEIC) 13.6%
169 Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE:BTU) 13.5%
170 Airgas, Inc. (NYSE:ARG) 13.5%
171 Sprint Nextel Corporation (NYSE:S) 13.5%
172 Robert Half International Inc. (NYSE:RHI) 13.5%
173 Corn Products International, Inc. (NYSE:CPO) 13.4%
174 KAR Auction Services Inc (NYSE:KAR) 13.4%
175 MasterCard Incorporated (NYSE:MA) 13.4%
176 Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE:R) 13.3%
177 Intel Corporation (NASDAQ:INTC) 13.3%
178 Express Scripts, Inc. (NASDAQ:ESRX) 13.3%
179 Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE:LVS) 13.3%
180 The Allstate Corporation (NYSE:ALL) 13.2%
181 Norfolk Southern Corp. (NYSE:NSC) 13.2%
182 Molson Coors Brewing Company (NYSE:TAP) 13.2%
183 PNC Financial Services (NYSE:PNC) 13.2%
184 Deere & Company (NYSE:DE) 13.1%
185 Albemarle Corporation (NYSE:ALB) 13.1%
186 Illinois Tool Works Inc. (NYSE:ITW) 13.0%
187 Kraft Foods Inc. (NYSE:KFT) 13.0%
188 First Citizens BancShares Inc. (NASDAQ:FCNCA) 13.0%
189 DIRECTV (NASDAQ:DTV) 13.0%
190 Avery Dennison Corporation (NYSE:AVY) 13.0%
191 The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (NYSE:BK) 12.8%
192 Gardner Denver, Inc. (NYSE:GDI) 12.7%
193 Southern Copper Corporation (USA) (NYSE:SCCO) 12.7%
194 NRG Energy, Inc. (NYSE:NRG) 12.7%
195 The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (NYSE:GT) 12.7%
196 United Parcel Service, Inc. (NYSE:UPS) 12.7%
197 AFLAC Incorporated (NYSE:AFL) 12.6%
198 CIT Group Inc. (NYSE:CIT) 12.6%
199 TransDigm Group Incorporated (NYSE:TDG) 12.6%
200 DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. (NASDAQ:DWA) 12.6%

source www.nasd100.com

Source   www.dallasfed.org/data/pce/2011/pce1101.cfm
Behind the Numbers: PCE Inflation Update, January 2011

This update, prepared by Dallas Fed Senior Economist Jim Dolmas, provides an in-depth analysis of the latest personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation data. Updates will be posted monthly, following the release of the official PCE data by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.


For a second consecutive month, the headline PCE price index posted an annualized rate of increase in excess of 3.0 percent, coming in at 3.5 percent for January, following an annualized gain of 3.3 percent in December. Energy prices—particularly prices for gasoline and other motor fuel—accounted for much of the month-to-month increase in the index. In contrast to prior months, food prices also made a noticeable contribution to the headline rate in January.

The 12-month headline rate held steady at 1.2 percent. Over the past six months, the headline index has averaged an annualized inflation rate of 2.2 percent, up from an average rate of just 0.4 percent over the first half of last year. The acceleration can be traced primarily to energy prices, which fell at an average annualized rate of 10 percent over the first half of 2010 and have since increased at an average annualized rate of nearly 30 percent.

Core PCE posted a 1.5 percent annualized gain in January, up from a 0.4 percent rate in December. January’s 1.5 percent is the fastest one-month rate of increase in the core since March of last year, when the monthly core readings were, by and large, drifting downward. The 12-month core rate remained at 0.8 percent, while the six-month core rate ticked up from 0.5 percent in December to 0.7 percent in January.

A hefty increase in core goods prices—following an unusually large decline the previous month—helped boost January’s core rate. The trimmed mean PCE inflation rate, which abstracts from outsized movements in component prices, suggested that December’s underlying rate of inflation was not quite as low as indicated by the core and—naturally—suggests January’s rate is not quite as high as indicated by the core. January’s trimmed mean rate was an annualized 1.0 percent, similar to December’s 1.1 percent. The six- and 12-month trimmed mean rates held steady at 1.1 percent and 0.9 percent, respectively.

The uptick in the six-month core rate, while small, at least represents a step in the direction of the trimmed mean, for which the six-month inflation rate has been steadily creeping up, from a low of 0.7 percent in the middle of last year to this month’s 1.1 percent. Other inflation gauges that rely on trimming—like the Cleveland Fed’s median CPI and trimmed mean CPI—have also shown a noticeable upward drift at the six-month horizon.

While the trimmed mean suggests substantial continuity between December’s data and January’s, one feature of the data which is notably different is the number of items registering price declines, which fell to its lowest level since August of 2008.

Gasoline Accounts for Bulk of Headline Increase, More Gains in Pipeline
Energy prices, as noted above, accounted for much of January’s headline inflation rate—in fact, gasoline and other motor fuel accounted for about 1.6 annualized percentage points of January’s 3.5 percent headline rate. The price index for gasoline and other motor fuel increased about 3.9 percent at a monthly rate or roughly 58 percent at an annualized rate in January.

Looking toward data for February, we have three weeks’ worth of weekly retail gasoline price data from the Department of Energy. Those data show gasoline tracking at a month-to-month gain of 2.1 percent compared with January. Given the normal seasonal pattern for February—a roughly 2.4 percent decline—we can expect, based on the data so far, a 4.5 percent monthly rate of increase in the seasonally adjusted index for gasoline when February’s PCE data are released.

The ultimate increase, though, is apt to be higher than our incomplete weekly data for February suggest, since the trajectory of gasoline prices has been sharply upward over the latter half of the month.

Price Gains Robust Across Food Categories
Food price increases have made headlines around the world in recent months, but until now, have not shown up in any significant way in U.S. consumer price indexes. As of the latest PCE release, that pattern might be changing. The index for food—which consists of food and beverages purchased for off-premises consumption—increased at an 8.2 percent annualized rate in January, its fastest rate of increase since July 2008.

Gains were broad-based and, notably, cut across the less-processed/more-processed spectrum to which we’ve often referred in these Inflation Updates. More-processed items are, in some ways, like the “core” of food. They embody more substantial inputs of labor and capital, compared with crude or unprocessed items. And because they often have brand identities, their producers have more market power and face more serious pricing decisions than producers of more “commodity-like” items such as fresh produce or meats.

It’s notable, then, that while prices for more-processed items increased by a smaller amount than prices for less-processed items, gains for both were robust—annualized 14 percent for less-processed items and 6 percent for more-processed items. Data at the more-processed end will bear watching in the coming months for signs of further impact from price increases at cruder stages of processing.

January’s Core Rate Reflects Rapid Growth in Goods Prices
For the past several months, core goods prices have fallen at a rather healthy clip, relative to recent historical patterns, declining at an average annualized rate of about 1.6 percent since last September. This has helped hold down the overall core inflation rate and, likely, contributed to the difference in signals coming from the core and the trimmed mean. As we stated in last month’s Inflation Update, noting the modest pickup in the trimmed mean rate over the past several months, “both the core and trimmed mean suggest that underlying inflation is quite low and is lower now than it was in the middle of 2010. They disagree on whether that trajectory is still pointed downward.”

January’s core goods data break with that pattern—and perhaps illustrate the value of trimming in the process—coming in at an annualized rate of increase of 3.3 percent, the biggest one-month gain since a 3.6 percent rate in September 2009. Apparel prices were the chief culprit: The price index for women’s and girls’ clothing increased at a nearly 20 percent annualized rate and alone contributed about 0.3 annualized percentage points to January’s core rate.

Prices for core services—typically much more stable than goods prices—increased at an annualized 0.8 percent rate in January, in spite of another large gain in the price index for airline services (35 percent at an annualized rate).

Rent and owners’ equivalent rent (OER) remained firm in January, with rent up at a 2 percent annualized rate and OER up at a 1.2 percent annualized rate. The rate of increase in rent was down slightly from November and December’s rates (an average 2.5 percent) but about in the middle of the range we’ve seen since last September, when rent growth began to pick up noticeably.

Number of Falling-Price Components Declines Again, Significantly
Finally, January saw a third straight decline in the number of PCE components registering price declines: 54 of the 178 components that potentially go into the trimmed mean fell in price, or about 30 percent of the basket.

In September 2008, the fraction of components registering price declines increased significantly and (up until now) has remained in a range—centered on 40 percent of the basket—that is high by historical standards. January’s 30 percent is the lowest falling-price fraction since before the jump in September 2008, and it is the first reading since that time to fall into what one might consider a normal range.

—Jim Dolmas
   February 28, 2011

Source   pragcap.com/dollar-index-breaking-down-again

DOLLAR INDEX BREAKING DOWN AGAIN
6 MARCH 2011 BY DECISION POINT 15 COMMENTS
By Carl Swenlin, Decision Point

The U.S. Dollar Index is in immediate danger again, so lets take a close look at charts from all three time frames, beginning with the daily bar chart. The most important feature on the chart is the bold rising trend line near the bottom. That is a long-term rising trend line that we will see on the longer-term charts. Note that in November the Index bounced off that line only to retest and penetrate it just a month later. The November breakdown was a bear trap, resulting in a strong rally, which ultimately failed.

The decline from the January top has resulted in a test and retest nearly identical to the previous one, and we are left to wonder if this latest breakdown will be another bear trap.

I am assuming that this is more serious than the first. As of 1/20/2011 the US Dollar Index is on a Trend Model SELL signal. And the PMO configuration is less promising than the oversold PMO bottom in October followed by a PMO positive divergence in November.

The weekly chart below shows the entire rising trend line and demonstrates that it is important support. The weekly PMO is negative and falling.

Finally, the broader context of the monthly chart shows that the rising trend line forms the bottom of a reverse pennant formation. A decisive breakdown from that pennant would have serious implications regarding the potential downside.

Bottom Line: The Dollar Index has broken down through important long-term rising trend line support. A similar breakdown in November proved to be a of no consequence, but technical indicators are less favorable this time around, so we should expect the decline to continue longer-term, although, a short-term snapback toward the line would be a normal technical reaction.

See  also blogs.stockcharts.com/chartwatchers/

marketed Lander becoming bigger trouble

www.snetglobalwaterindexes.com/S-Network Global Water IndexSM (Composite) - JGI Constituents & Weights

As of Dec 17, 2010 quarterly rebalancing
Please click on the company name to view description and data information

   Country     Group   Company      ISIN     SEDOL§Weight

    France   Utility§Veolia Environnement FR0000124141 4031879 6.34%
United States Tech ITT Corporation US4509111021 2465760 5.44%
Switzerland      Tech§Geberit AG Reg CH0030170408 B1WGG93 5.21%
United States Tech Pall Corp US6964293079 2668804 3.30%
United Kingdom Utility United Utilities Group Plc GB00B39J2M42 B39J2M4 2.79%
South Korea Tech Doosan Heavy Indust &Construct KR7034020008 6294670 2.63%
United States Tech Nalco Holding US62985Q1013 B03Q9G3 2.54%
    France   Utility§Suez Environment SA FR0010613471 B3B8D04 2.53%
United Kingdom Utility Severn Trent GB00B1FH8J72 B1FH8J7 2.38%
United States Tech Dionex Corp US2545461046 2270522 2.28%
     Japan      Tech§Ebara Corp JP3166000004 6302700 2.07%
Netherlands      Tech§Aalberts Industries NV NL0000852564 B1W8P14 2.06%
United States Tech Pentair Inc US7096311052 2681588 2.06%
United States Tech IDEX Corp US45167R1041 2456612 2.05%
     Japan      Tech§Kurita Water Industries JP3270000007 6497963 2.00%
United States Utility American Water Works Co Inc US0304201033 B2R3PV1 1.99%
South Korea Tech Woongjin Coway Co Ltd KR7021240007 6173401 1.97%
United States Tech Itron Inc US4657411066 2471949 1.96%
United States Tech Tetra Tech Inc US88162G1031 2883890 1.81%
United Kingdom Utility Pennon Group GB00B18V8630 B18V863 1.60%
 Singapore      Tech§Sembcorp Industries SG1R50925390 B08X163 1.53%
    Greece   Utility§Athens Water Supply & Sewage GRS359353000 5860191 1.46%
     Chile   Utility§Aguas Andinas SA A CL0000000035 2311238 1.41%
     China      Tech§Guangdong Investment Ltd. HK0270001396 6913168 1.40%
United States Utility Middlesex Water Co US5966801087 2589466 1.40%
    Brazil   Utility§Cia de Saneamento Basico Es de S Paulo ADR US20441A1025 2945927 1.39%
United States Utility American States Water Co US0298991011 2267171 1.39%
     China   Utility§Tianjin Capital Environmental Protection Group Co Ltd H Shares CNE1000004G9 6908283 1.38%
United States Utility Aqua America Inc US03836W1036 2685234 1.38%
United States Utility SJW Corp US7843051043 2811932 1.38%
United States Utility Conn Water Service Inc US2077971016 2216258 1.36%
United States Utility California Water Services Group US1307881029 2165383 1.36%
     China   Utility§Sound Global Ltd SG1W63939514 B1CRLB3 1.36%
United States Utility Consolidated Water Co (Cayman) KYG237731073 2099095 1.36%
United States Tech York Water Co US9871841089 2425292 1.34%
United States TECH Pennichuck Corp US7082542066 2287083 1.33%
Hong Kong Utility China Water Affairs Group Ltd. BMG210901242 6671477 1.33%
     Italy   Utility§Acea Spa IT0001207098 5728125 1.33%
United Kingdom Utility Northumbrian Water Group GB0033029744 3302974 1.33%
United States Utility Artesian Resources Corp A US0431132085 2418258 1.32%
  Malaysia   Utility§Puncak Niaga Holdings Bhd MYL6807OO001 B1SC1H8 1.31%
    Brazil   Utility§Cia Saneamento de Minas Gerais BRCSMGACNOR5 B0YBZJ2 1.31%
Philippines   Utility§Manila Water PHY569991086 B0684C7 1.29%
United States Tech Insituform Technologies Inc US4576671030 2462039 1.22%
United States Tech Watts Industries Inc A US9427491025 2943620 1.19%
 Singapore   Utility§Hyflux Ltd SG1J47889782 6320058 1.18%
     Italy   Utility§Acegas SpA IT0003066146 7057098 1.04%
United States Tech Calgon Carbon Corp US1296031065 2164368 0.95%
United States Tech Lindsay Corporation US5355551061 2516613 0.93%
United States Tech Ameron International Inc US0307101073 2030942 0.86%
United States Tech Franklin Electric Co US3535141028 2350383 0.85%
Netherlands      Tech§Wavin NV NL0009412683 B1FY8X2 0.83%
United States Tech PICO Holdings Inc US6933662057 2326737 0.79%
United States Tech Layne Christensen US5210501046 2508018 0.76%
United States Tech Badger Meter Inc US0565251081 2069128 0.73%
United States Tech Mueller Water Products US6247581084 B15RZR4 0.68%
    Greece      Tech§Thessaloniki Water & Sewage GRS428003008 7217052 0.60%
United States Tech Heckmann Corp US4226801086 B29HJ97 0.49%
     Japan      Tech§Organo Corp JP3201600008 6470522 0.27%
     China   Utility§Duoyuan Global Water Inc ADR US2660431089 B51KQS3 0.18%

     Chile   Utility§Aguas Andinas SA A CL0000000035 2311238 1.41%
     China      Tech§Guangdong Investment Ltd. HK0270001396 6913168 1.40%
United States Utility Middlesex Water Co US5966801087 2589466 1.40%
    Brazil   Utility§Cia de Saneamento Basico Es de S Paulo ADR US20441A1025 2945927 1.39%
United States Utility American States Water Co US0298991011 2267171 1.39%
     China   Utility§Tianjin Capital Environmental Protection Group Co Ltd H Shares CNE1000004G9 6908283 1.38%
United States Utility Aqua America Inc US03836W1036 2685234 1.38%
United States Utility SJW Corp US7843051043 2811932 1.38%
United States Utility Conn Water Service Inc US2077971016 2216258 1.36%
United States Utility California Water Services Group US1307881029 2165383 1.36%
     China   Utility§Sound Global Ltd SG1W63939514 B1CRLB3 1.36%
United States Utility Consolidated Water Co (Cayman) KYG237731073 2099095 1.36%
United States Tech York Water Co US9871841089 2425292 1.34%
United States TECH Pennichuck Corp US7082542066 2287083 1.33%
Hong Kong Utility China Water Affairs Group Ltd. BMG210901242 6671477 1.33%
     Italy   Utility§Acea Spa IT0001207098 5728125 1.33%
United Kingdom Utility Northumbrian Water Group GB0033029744 3302974 1.33%
United States Utility Artesian Resources Corp A US0431132085 2418258 1.32%
  Malaysia   Utility§Puncak Niaga Holdings Bhd MYL6807OO001 B1SC1H8 1.31%
    Brazil   Utility§Cia Saneamento de Minas Gerais BRCSMGACNOR5 B0YBZJ2 1.31%
Philippines   Utility§Manila Water PHY569991086 B0684C7 1.29%
United States Tech Insituform Technologies Inc US4576671030 2462039 1.22%
United States Tech Watts Industries Inc A US9427491025 2943620 1.19%
 Singapore   Utility§Hyflux Ltd SG1J47889782 6320058 1.18%
     Italy   Utility§Acegas SpA IT0003066146 7057098 1.04%
United States Tech Calgon Carbon Corp US1296031065 2164368 0.95%
United States Tech Lindsay Corporation US5355551061 2516613 0.93%
United States Tech Ameron International Inc US0307101073 2030942 0.86%
United States Tech Franklin Electric Co US3535141028 2350383 0.85%
Netherlands      Tech§Wavin NV NL0009412683 B1FY8X2 0.83%
United States Tech PICO Holdings Inc US6933662057 2326737 0.79%
United States Tech Layne Christensen US5210501046 2508018 0.76%
United States Tech Badger Meter Inc US0565251081 2069128 0.73%
United States Tech Mueller Water Products US6247581084 B15RZR4 0.68%
    Greece      Tech§Thessaloniki Water & Sewage GRS428003008 7217052 0.60%
United States Tech Heckmann Corp US4226801086 B29HJ97 0.49%
     Japan      Tech§Organo Corp JP3201600008 6470522 0.27%
     China   Utility§Duoyuan Global Water Inc ADR US2660431089 B51KQS3 0.18%

Two Stocks Added to S-Network Global Water Index in Quarterly Rebalancing; Two Stocks Deleted

Mar 8, 2011 3:00:00 AM

NEW YORK, March 8, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- The S-Network Global Water Index(SM) (TICKER: JGI) will add two new components in its quarterly rebalancing, effective 6:00 PM (EDT) Sunday, March 20, 2011.  Two stocks will be deleted from the index, maintaining the number of index components at 60.  

The additions to JGI are:

Uponor Oyj (TICKER: UNR1V FH)

Thai Tap Water Supply PLC (TICKER: TTW TB)

The deletions to JGI are:

Duoyuan Global Water Inc (TICKER: DGW US)

Thessaloniki Water Supply & Sewage (TICKER: EYAPS GA)

source www.businessinsider.com/rare-earths-myth-2010-12

Once again, the rare earth companies are exploding higher today, thanks to a big media push from MolyCorp. Before you get excited though...
There are really good reasons to be skeptical of the mainstream thinking.
This presentation from economist Ed Dolan provides the best, most-concise explanation of the issue that we've seen.
It basically comes down to this:
Yes, China does control 95% of rare earth production.
But that's mainly because it has the loosest environmental regulations. They are in abundance all around the world.
Rare earths aren't really that rare... they're more prevalent than gold.
And demand over the long-run is elastic. Companies are in fact finding alternatives to them.
So before you jump into the rare earth ETF to ride the bubble, at least get some background


Read more: www.businessinsider.com/rare-earths-myth-2010-12#ixzz1G5nnsHIa

source www.businessinsider.com/cibc-rare-earths-story-2011-3?op=1

CIBC World Markets have released a complete sector overview of the rare earths space, noting what elements will perform, and what companies are position to take advantage of it.
There crux of the report is that demand for the products that utilize rare earths is increasing. The supply of those elements is now being pinched, by a China willing to export less. Companies are stepping in to provide supply to the market, notably Avalon Rare Metals, Frontier Rare Earths, and Molycorp.
What's important when investing in the space is not just that the company focuses on rare earths, but that it focuses on key, high demand elements. Those elements include neodymium, praseodymium, yttirium, terbium, and dysprosium, according to CIBC, and the aforementioned companies are there to take advantage.


Read more: www.businessinsider.com/...ths-story-2011-3?op=1#ixzz1G5ontZQy

Die Dunkelziffer der Bedürftigen dürfte noch weitaus höher liegen. Denn um in den “Genuss” der Kreditkarten für Lebensmittelausgaben zu kommen, müssen arbeitsfähige Erwachsene zwischen 16 und 60 Jahren den Nachweis erbringen, dass sie Arbeit suchen und bereit sind bestimmte Arbeiten zu akzeptieren. Die Millionen entmutigten Arbeitnehmer, die aufgegeben haben einen Job zu suchen, fallen wie in der Arbeitslosenstatistik (U-3 komplett und bei der breiter gefassten Arbeitslosenrate U-6 nach einem Monat) auch bei SNAP durchs Netz. Erwachsene ohne Kinder können generell nur maximal 3 Monate SNAP beziehen. Nahezu 76% der Lebensmittelmarken gehen an Familien mit Kindern, davon 61% an Kinder mit nur einem Elternteil.
Als Voraussetzung für die Bedürftigkeit wird die Armutsgrenze herangezogen. Diese ist bei SNAP für einen 1 Personenhaushalt aktuell mit 903 Dollar Nettoeinkommen (649 Euro) je Monat und für einen 4 Personenhaushalt mit 1838 Dollar Netto definiert! Die beziehbaren Lebensmittel der Armen sind stark reglementiert. Bier, Wein, Alkohol, Zigaretten, Tabak, Tiernahrung, Kosmetikprodukte, Medikamente, Vitamine, Restaurants, selbst Fast Food-Lokale sind vom Bezug ausgeschlossen.

Für die Verwerfungen im System, steht auch die Lohnstatistik 2009 der U.S. Social Security Administration, an Hand der W-2 Filings (Lohnsteuerkarten) von 150,917733 Millionen Arbeitnehmern. Die höchsten nominalen Lohneinkommen der obersten 1% bzw. der obersten 1,509 Millionen Arbeitnehmer überstiegen die gesamten Lohneinkommen der untersten 40% der Lohnempfänger bzw. der untersten 60,36 Millionen!

Reloaded: Schockierende Daten
Quelle Daten: Fns.usda.gov/SNAP monthly
Kontakt: info.querschuss@yahoo.de

Source  www.querschuesse.de/...millionen-us-lebenmittelmarkenbezieher/

Ist das ein Vorbild auch für BRD / EU ? Mir ist schlecht ..

10 HEDGEFONDS “ERWIRTSCHAFTEN” 28 MRD. DOLLAR GEWINN IM 2. HJ. 2010

2. März 2011 in Allgemein
Einen lesenswerten Artikel liefert heute die FT.com, bezugnehmend auf eine Studie der LCH Investments verweist sie darauf, dass im zweiten Halbjahr 2010 die 10 größten Hedgefonds mit einem Gewinn von 28 Mrd. Dollar mehr Gewinne an den Finanzmärkten generierten als Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Barclays und HSBC mit kumulierten 26 Mrd. Dollar zusammen. Dies wirft ein bezeichnendes Licht auf die spekulative Wut der Marktteilnehmer, angefeuert durch die Notenbanken mit den historisch niedrigen Zinsen und Quantitaive Easing.
Spitzenreiter im zweiten Halbjahr 2010 war der Hedgefond Paulson & Co mit satten 5,8 Mrd. Dollar Nettogewinn. Seit Gründung der 10 Hedgefonds wurden Gewinne von 182 Mrd. Dollar “erwirtschaftet”, allein George Soros Quantum-Fund erzielte 35 Mrd. Dollar netto, nach Abzug von Gebühren und Verwaltungskosten seit 1973.
Quelle: Ft.com/Top 10 hedge funds make $28bn
Kontakt: info.querschuss@yahoo.de

Quelle
www.querschuesse.de/...ften-28-mrd-dollar-gewinn-im-2-hj-2010/

340,278 MRD. EURO GRIECHISCHE STAATSSCHULDEN

25. Februar 2011 in Allgemein
Nach Angaben des griechischen Finanzministeriums stieg der gesamtstaatliche Schuldenstand Griechenlands zum 31.12.2010 auf 340,278 Mrd. Euro. Die war ein Anstieg von +14% bzw. von +41,75 Mrd. Euro zum Vorjahr. Damit erreichte 2010 der Schuldenstand gewaltige 148,35% des nominalen BIPs in Höhe von 229,396 Mrd. Euro.
...

von  www.querschuesse.de/340278-mrd-euro-griechische-staatsschulden/

Bitte auch unbedingt Comments lesen.

Source
oilandgas-investments.com/2010/natural-gas/...havent-heard-of/

The ‘Freak of Nature’ Gas Field You Haven’t Heard Of
by KEITH SCHAEFER on OCTOBER 26, 2010


Natural gas companies are now trying to market themselves as “liquid rich” or “wet gas” producers whenever possible.That’s because these “wet gases,” or NGLs (natural gas liquids), are worth a lot more money than straight-up dry gas – which is methane.

Angle Energy (NGL-TSX) has what I call a “freak of nature” gas field just northeast of Calgary. The field contains a whopping 193 barrels of NGLs for every thousand cubic metres of gas produced. The industry expresses this as “xx bbl/xx Mmcf.”For a gas to be considered “liquids-rich” it must yield greater than 10 bbls NGLs for every MMcf sales gas when processed through a plant.  Many producers who speak of “liquids-rich” gas will have average yields of 15-40 bbl/MMcf.

So, how does something like 193 bbls/MMcf happen?

The first reason is that Angle’s Mannville gas pool is located in the “oil window” in Alberta.  What this means is that the pool is buried at a depth where the temperature is not too hot and not too cold.(If it was too hot, it would have turned to just gas, and if it was too cold it would never even have turned into hydrocarbons).The other thing that had to happen was MULTIPLE geologic events, which created the full spectrum of petroleum fluids to remain in deposits – and still kept all the hydrocarbons under the same pressure and temperature.

Petroleum fluids (which are oil, gas and condensate) are made up of many different hydrocarbons.  There are  five general types:

1. black oil

2. volatile oi

3. retrograde gas-condensate

4. wet gas

5. dry gas

A “volatile oil” generally has a higher amount of natural gas in it than a “black oil” does.  A volatile oil produces both oil and gas, and the gas helps to lift the oil, making production easier.  Imagine a bottle of pop that’s flat, and one that has just been opened.  Which one will flow out more easily when shaken? – you get the idea.  Think of natural gas & NGL’s as the carbonation and oil as the Coca Cola.

———————————————————————————————————–

Fracking’s “Holy Grail”

It’s a breakthrough technology that not only solves two of the oil & gas industry’s biggest problems…

…But also stands to make everyone involved a lot of money… including you!

——————————————————————

Angle’s freak of nature Mannville pool is a “retrograde gas-condensate”.  The retrograde gas-condensate has much higher total NGLs than a simple “wet gas.”   It produces readily (which means it doesn’t need to be stimulated by a process such as fracking), as a volatile oil would, because it has both natural gas and natural gas liquids.

Also, the natural gas liquids will start to separate from the gas and produce both condensate and dry gas at surface.

Now, these retrograde gas deposits occur from Calgary all along the foothills up to the Montney gas play 1000 km north-north-west.

So why don’t I see other companies with similar NGL counts?

That just appears to be luck of the draw.  (The 2nd largest NGL count I’ve seen is the 100 barrels of condensate per day in Second Wave’s new Gilwood discovery three hours northwest of Edmonton.)

But technology does play a small role. As production of this exceptionally rich gas continues, and the pressure in the pool becomes lower, the condensate (the most valuable NGL) “drops out” in the reservoir itself.

Recovery of all that condensate is difficult.  The problem gets tougher when the reservoir is being produced using only vertical wells.  With 14 vertical wells in the Mannville pool, Angle is only seeing an effective 15-20% recovery of all the hydrocarbons in place.

Horizontal wells help solve this issue and produce the natural gas liquids more efficiently along with the gas.  Possible recovery factors with a horizontal well development are 60-70% of the hydrocarbons in place.  This is obviously a huge difference.

The other technology issue is having the right gas plant.  The capabilities of the hundreds of gas plants around western Canada vary widely.  Some are able to get out all the various NGLs, and some aren’t.  Obviously, the ones that can cost a lot more money and it’s not always worth it, or the operator can’t afford it.

DISCLOSURE: Keith Schaefer owns Angle Energy.

From OilPrice.com:

Ethanol is finally getting the bad press it richly deserves. Cracks are even beginning to appear in its once-solid support on Capitol Hill. In April, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee plans to hold hearings that are expected to skewer ethanol. The Committee is led by Democratic Chair Barbara Boxer and ranking Republican James Inhofe, both committed foes of burning food to run our cars.

However, whether or not Congress has the courage to cut ethanol subsidies, corn-based fuel faces a more fundamental challenge, this one from market forces. Although it has not been widely noticed, the one-two punch of the latest oil price spike and wider development of unconventional natural gas, including shales, tight sands, and coal-bed methane, have pushed the gap between the prices of oil and gas to a record high...

But run your car on natural gas? Isn't that one of those loony ideas from the inside back cover of Popular Science? No, not at all. Compressed natural gas (CNG) is a fully proven, off-the-shelf technology in wide use around the world. Perhaps only its very simplicity and low-tech reliability have kept it from catching the public imagination in the United States...

read there  about CNG (Compressed Natural Gas)

oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/...asoline-Replacement.html

3.  T. Boone Pickens has lobbied his ass off in DC but because of his Chairmanship and status as largest shareholder of Clean Energy Fuels Corp ($CLNE), he never seemed to be able to shake off the "talking his book" taint.  The guy is like 105 years old, I only hope he lives to see these imbeciles in Washington wake up and get this done.

4.  We are Americans and only get outraged enough to take action right before we are past the point of no return.  Winston Churchill said "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."  Unfortunately, it looks like we're going to be playing the victim a while longer.

Source:
www.thereformedbroker.com/2011/02/24/...said-your-congressman/

www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/...-in-just-a-few-days_03162011



As the effects of the nuclear disaster in Japan remain unclear, panicked US residents are doing whatever they can to get their hands on Potassium Iodide pills.

Distributors of the FDA recommended pills have run out of stock, with one manufacturer reporting that they sold some 250,000 individual packets in a single weekend.

As we reported in What Your Grocery Store Will Look Like In An Emergency, at the onset of a far-from-equilibrium event, the essentials go first. In Japan, food and especially water have become scarce.

The panic is spreading, and residents in the US, fearing a fallout cloud crossing the pacific and affecting Western states, are stocking up as well.

The top priority? Potassium Iodide – or nuke pills.

In recent days, the Surgeon General has advised concerned West Coast residents to get a hold of Potassium Iodide in the event of a radiation threat in the US.

The supply crunch and high demand has forced buyers to turn to the secondary market for acquiring the FDA recommended potassium iodide supplements, driving prices to upwards of $200 for a 14 dose packet. The suggested retail price offered by the supplier at NukePills.com is $10 per pack, indicating that demand has forced prices up as much as 1900% in just a few days.
Radiation monitoring equipment like Geiger counters have also exploded in price since just prior to the nuclear crisis. Normally costing approximately $50 per unit, prices have reached several hundred dollars, an increase of over 250% in some cases:

From the FDA:

The effectiveness of KI as a specific blocker of thyroid radioiodine uptake is well established. When administered in the recommended dose, KI is effective in reducing the risk of thyroid cancer in individuals or populations at risk for inhalation or ingestion of radioiodines. KI floods the thyroid with non-radioactive iodine and prevents the uptake of the radioactive molecules, which are subsequently excreted in the urine.

Author: Mac Slavo
Date: March 16th, 2011
Visit the Author's Website: www.SHTFplan.com/

SOURCE  www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/ki.asp


Potassium Iodide (KI)
Key Facts
You should only take potassium idodide (KI) on the advice of emergency management officials, public health officials, or your doctor.
There are health risks associated with taking KI.
What is Potassium Iodide (KI)?
Potassium iodide (also called KI) is a salt of stable (not radioactive) iodine. Stable iodine is an important chemical needed by the body to make thyroid hormones. Most of the stable iodine in our bodies comes from the food we eat. KI is stable iodine in a medicine form. This fact sheet from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) gives you some basic information about KI. It explains what you should think about before you or a family member takes KI.

What does KI do?
Following a radiological or nuclear event, radioactive iodine may be released into the air and then be breathed into the lungs. Radioactive iodine may also contaminate the local food supply and get into the body through food or through drink. When radioactive materials get into the body through breathing, eating, or drinking, we say that “internal contamination” has occurred. In the case of internal contamination with radioactive iodine, the thyroid gland quickly absorbs this chemical. Radioactive iodine absorbed by the thyroid can then injure the gland. Because non-radioactive KI acts to block radioactive iodine from being taken into the thyroid gland, it can help protect this gland from injury.

What KI cannot do
Knowing what KI cannot do is also important. KI cannot prevent radioactive iodine from entering the body. KI can protect only the thyroid from radioactive iodine, not other parts of the body. KI cannot reverse the health effects caused by radioactive iodine once damage to the thyroid has occurred. KI cannotprotect the body from radioactive elements other than radioactive iodine—if radioactive iodine is not present, taking KI is not protective.

How does KI work?
The thyroid gland cannot tell the difference between stable and radioactive iodine and will absorb both. KI works by blocking radioactive iodine from entering the thyroid. When a person takes KI, the stable iodine in the medicine gets absorbed by the thyroid. Because KI contains so much stable iodine, the thyroid gland becomes “full” and cannot absorb any more iodine—either stable or radioactive—for the next 24 hours.

Iodized table salt also contains iodine; iodized table salt contains enough iodine to keep most people healthy under normal conditions. However, table salt does not contain enough iodine to block radioactive iodine from getting into your thyroid gland. You should not use table salt as a substitute for KI.

How well does KI work?
Knowing that KI may not give a person 100% protection against radioactive iodine is important. How well KI blocks radioactive iodine depends on

how much time passes between contamination with radioactive iodine and the taking of KI (the sooner a person takes KI, the better),
how fast KI is absorbed into the blood, and
the total amount of radioactive iodine to which a person is exposed.
Who should take KI?
The thyroid glands of a fetus and of an infant are most at risk of injury from radioactive iodine. Young children and people with low stores of iodine in their thyroid are also at risk of thyroid injury.

Infants (including breast-fed infants): Infants need to be given the recommended dosage of KI for babies (see How much KI should I take?). The amount of KI that gets into breast milk is not enough to protect breast-fed infants from exposure to radioactive iodine. The proper dose of KI given to a nursing infant will help protect it from radioactive iodine that it breathes in or drinks in breast milk.

Children: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends that all children internally contaminated with (or likely to be internally contaminated with) radioactive iodine take KI, unless they have known allergies to iodine. Children from newborn to 18 years of age are the most sensitive to the potentially harmful effects of radioactive iodine.

Young Adults: The FDA recommends that young adults (between the ages of 18 and 40 years) internally contaminated with (or likely to be internally contaminated with) radioactive iodine take the recommended dose of KI. Young adults are less sensitive to the effects of radioactive iodine than are children.

Pregnant Women: Because all forms of iodine cross the placenta, pregnant women should take KI to protect the growing fetus. However, pregnant women should take only one dose of KI following internal contamination with (or likely internal contamination with) radioactive iodine.

Breastfeeding Women: Women who are breastfeeding should take only one dose of KI if they have been internally contaminated with (or are likely to be internally contaminated with) radioactive iodine. Because radioactive iodine quickly gets into breast milk, CDC recommends that women internally contaminated with (or are likely to be internally contaminated with) radioactive iodine stop breastfeeding and feed their child baby formula or other food if it is available. If breast milk is the only food available for an infant, nursing should continue.

Adults: Adults older than 40 years should not take KI unless public health or emergency management officials say that contamination with a very large dose of radioactive iodine is expected. Adults older than 40 years have the lowest chance of developing thyroid cancer or thyroid injury after contamination with radioactive iodine. They also have a greater chance of having allergic reactions to KI.

When should I take KI?
After a radiologic or nuclear event, local public health or emergency management officials will tell the public if KI or other protective actions are needed. For example, public health officials may advise you to remain in your home, school, or place of work (this is known as “shelter-in-place”) or to evacuate. You may also be told not to eat some foods and not to drink some beverages until a safe supply can be brought in from outside the affected area. Following the instructions given to you by these authorities can lower the amount of radioactive iodine that enters your body and lower the risk of serious injury to your thyroid gland.

How much KI should I take?
The FDA has approved two different forms of KI—tablets and liquid—that people can take by mouth after a nuclear radiation emergency. Tablets come in two strengths, 130 milligram (mg) and 65 mg. The tablets are scored so they may be cut into smaller pieces for lower doses. Each milliliter (mL) of the oral liquid solution contains 65 mg of KI.
According to the FDA, the following doses are appropriate to take after internal contamination with (or likely internal contamination with) radioactive iodine:
Adults should take 130 mg (one 130 mg tablet OR two 65 mg tablets OR two mL of solution).
Women who are breastfeeding should take the adult dose of 130 mg.
Children between 3 and 18 years of age should take 65 mg (one 65 mg tablet OR 1 mL of solution). Children who are adult size (greater than or equal to 150 pounds) should take the full adult dose, regardless of their age.
Infants and children between 1 month and 3 years of age should take 32 mg (½ of a 65 mg tablet OR ½ mL of solution). This dose is for both nursing and non-nursing infants and children.
Newborns from birth to 1 month of age should be given 16 mg (¼ of a 65 mg tablet or ¼ mL of solution). This dose is for both nursing and non-nursing newborn infants.
How often should I take KI?
A single dose of KI protects the thyroid gland for 24 hours. A one-time dose at the levels recommended in this fact sheet is usually all that is needed to protect the thyroid gland. In some cases, radioactive iodine might be in the environment for more than 24 hours. If that happens, local emergency management or public health officials may tell you to take one dose of KI every 24 hours for a few days. You should do this only on the advice of emergency management officials, public health officials, or your doctor. Avoid repeat dosing with KI for pregnant and breastfeeding women and newborn infants. Those individuals may need to be evacuated until levels of radioactive iodine in the environment fall.

Taking a higher dose of KI, or taking KI more often than recommended, does not offer more protection and can cause severe illness or death.

Medical conditions that may make it harmful to take KI
Taking KI may be harmful for some people because of the high levels of iodine in this medicine. You should not take KI if
• you know you are allergic to iodine (If you are unsure about this, consult your doctor. A seafood or shellfish allergy does not necessarily mean that you are allergic to iodine.) or
• you have certain skin disorders (such as dermatitis herpetiformis or urticaria vasculitis).

People with thyroid disease (for example, multinodular goiter, Graves’ disease, or autoimmune thyroiditis) may be treated with KI. This should happen under careful supervision of a doctor, especially if dosing lasts for more than a few days.

In all cases, talk to your doctor if you are not sure whether to take KI.

What are the possible risks and side effects of KI?
When public health or emergency management officials tell the public to take KI following a radiologic or nuclear event, the benefits of taking this drug outweigh the risks. This is true for all age groups. Some general side effects caused by KI may include intestinal upset, allergic reactions (possibly severe), rashes, and inflammation of the salivary glands.

When taken as recommended, KI causes only rare adverse health effects that specifically involve the thyroid gland. In general, you are more likely to have an adverse health effect involving the thyroid gland if you

take a higher than recommended dose of KI,
take the drug for several days, or
have pre-existing thyroid disease.
Newborn infants (less than 1 month old) who receive more than one dose of KI are at particular risk for developing a condition known as hypothyroidism (thyroid hormone levels that are too low). If not treated, hypothyroidism can cause brain damage. Infants who receive KI should have their thyroid hormone levels checked and monitored by a doctor. Avoid repeat dosing of KI to newborns.

Where can I get KI?
KI is available without a prescription. You should talk to your pharmacist to get KI and for directions about how to take it correctly. Your pharmacist can sell you KI brands that have been approved by the FDA.

Other Sources of Information
The FDA recommendations on KI can be reviewed on the Internet at Frequently Asked Questions on Potassium Iodide (KI) .

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Emergency Response Site is available at CDC Radiation Emergencies.

sind hier ev. zu bekommen

www.nukepills.com/shop/

(I wrote a story on the growing importance of fracking – to the industry and to investors – which you can read here: tinyurl.com/yjxexl6)

But the fracking-fluids-potentially-contaminating-water issue has legs – which really surprises me that I haven’t heard more pro-active PR from the industry about their side of this story.  Investors ought to be aware of this issue, especially in shale gas/oil plays close to large population centres, such as the Marcellus Shale Gas play in New York state (where one gas stock in particular has me very, very intrigued….).   I fear this could be a PR disaster for the industry if they don’t handle this properly.

(Of course, this would be bullish for natural gas prices across North America….there’s a silver lining everywhere.  A cynic might even say this issue – which is mostly heard in the US - could be one of the saviours of the Western Canadian gas industry.)

I asked a friend of mine at a Canadian fracking company – who for obvious reasons wants to stay anonymous – to explain this issue for me in simple terms.  He says sometimes there are some “nasty” chemicals used in fracking, but he estimated that 70% of frack jobs use ingredients you buy at a grocery store.

In my next story – Fracking Fluids Part II, he will share his “secret” recipe, outlining how he makes homemade frac sand from ingredients at the grocery store.

“I make a frac gel using household items – MacGyver style,” he told me. “I am literally using items my wife buys regularly and can in a few moments generate a stable frac gel that the kids can hold and play with.  For less than 20 bucks you can whip this together and cover frack gels for ~70+% of all work done in fracturing.”

Stay tuned;  MacGyver will tell all in Part II.

Source
oilandgas-investments.com/2010/natural-gas/...stment-near-you/

How To Invest in “Fracking” Stocks
It's not just the top growth sector for investors in 2011...
It could be the safest, easiest money in the oil patch.
Keith Schaefer
Publisher, Oil & Gas Investments Bulletin (OGIB)


Hydraulic fracturing (“fracking” or “fracing”) companies are overtaking drilling companies as
the largest subset of the energy services sector.
(Fracking is the process of sending water and sand down a well at ultra-high pressure,
blowing it out into the surrounding rock formation, fracturing the rock into many small pieces,
and creating pathways for the oil and gas in the rock to get to the well.)
In fact, research from two Canadian brokerage firms suggests that investors can expect
fracking companies to continue growing strong into 2011 and beyond.

Read more  there
s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/oilandgas/investing-in-fracking.pdf

HOW TO USE: Take this medication by mouth with a full glass of water (8 ounces or 240 milliliters) as directed by your doctor or public health and safety officials. To avoid stomach upset, take after meals or with food. Drink plenty of liquids with this medication unless otherwise directed. If you are taking the tablets, do not lie down for 30 minutes after taking this medication. If you are using the drops or liquid medication, use the dropper that comes with the bottle or a medication spoon/device to measure the correct dose. Liquid forms of this product may be mixed in water, milk, formula, or juice before taking. Do not use this medication if the solution turns brownish-yellow.Dosage is based on your medical condition and response to therapy. In children, dosage is also based on age. Do not increase your dose, take it more often, or take it for longer than prescribed or recommended because of the increased risk of side effects.In a radiation emergency, take this drug only when public health and safety officials tell you to do so. Read the Patient Information Leaflet that comes with the medication. Start treatment as soon as possible for the best protection. Take this medication usually once every 24 hours. The length of treatment will be determined by public health and safety officials and depends on several factors (e.g., whether you continue to be exposed to the radiation, and whether you are pregnant, breast-feeding, or have a newborn baby). See also Precautions.If so directed, use this medication regularly to get the most benefit from it. To help you remember, take it at the same time(s) each day.Inform your doctor if your condition persists or worsens.

Read more  there

www.medicinenet.com/potassium_iodide-oral/article.htm

Also, Stanley L. Rapaport, M.D. had shared with me (way back on 2/15/03) that he has been trying to point the following out to the Surgeon General, Homeland Security, and Armed Forces Surgeon Generals. If the government bought KI in bulk, which then is not very expensive and would work out to about .01 cents per child dose, an easy distribution program could be at the ready in every community in the nation! As Dr. Rapaport explains;

"Bulk purchases must be repackaged from 100# to appropriate sized packages depending on city size and proposed stockpile locations. There are 3492 adult doses per pound or 6984 children’s doses per pound.
Stored in appropriate location viz. pharmacies, fire or police stations.

Made up into a solution of 130mg per 5cc. (1 pound of Potassium Iodide to 17.5 liters of water) gives a solution where one teaspoonful equals one adult dose, 1/2 teaspoonful equals a children’s dose and so forth as per schedule below.

Dispensed from appropriate sites including the hospital , parking lots, drive bys, etc. in any container as is very stable. Paper cups, drink bottles, with dosage directions.

Taken for ten days (even one dose is markedly effective) or as directed via appropriate authorities. Solution is somewhat unpleasant and can be masked by honey, syrup, soft drink, additional water, etc.

The solution as made up is equal to 130mg per 5cc (1 teaspoonful)
Adult dose is 1 teaspoonful
Ages 3-18 1/2 teaspoonful
Ages 1 month to 3 years 1/4 teaspoonful
Age 1 month or less 1/8 teaspoonful" *

* Since this was first written in 2003, the FDA doses for children has changed slightly to the following...

Children over 12 years to 18 years: 5ml or 1 teaspoonful every day (130 mg) who weigh at least 150 pounds

Children over 12 years to 18 years: 2.5ml or 1/2 teaspoonful every day (65 mg) who weigh less than 150 pounds

Children over 3 years to 12 years: 2.5ml or 1/2 teaspoonful every day (65 mg)

Children over 1 month to 3 years: 1.25ml or 1/4 teaspoonful every day (32.5 mg)

Babies at birth to 1 month: 0.625ml or 1/8 teaspoonful every day (16.25 mg)

Pregnant or breastfeeding women, or babies under 1 month of age:

Take as directed above and call a doctor as soon as possible. Repeat dosing should be avoided. It is recommended that thyroid function be checked in babies less than 1 month of age that take KI. Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding should also be checked by a doctor if repeat dosing is necessary. Although these precautions should be taken, the benefits of short-term use of KI to block uptake of radioactive iodine by the thyroid gland far exceed its chances of side effects.

As Dr. Rapaport details above, this is all too easy to have in-place and ready to go, and rightly deserves serious consideration by our government officials tasked with safeguarding public health at all levels; federal, state, and municipal.

Most locales at risk of exposure would have enough time to do a quick drive-through ad-hoc set-up dispensing of it because radioactive iodine is dangerous far downwind and it would take time for the wind to carry it into many communities well downwind of ground zero. There would be enough time to save many, IF powdered or crystal KI had been pre-positioned! Right now, there have not been enough KI tablets produced in all the country to cover even 5% of the population, and the KI, IF pre-positioned in every community with a simple set of instructions, would fill this void and potentially save 10's of thousands of America's children from future thyroid cancer.

This is clearly a legitimate Federal Government public health responsibility, as radioactive fallout travelling on the wind will not respect state borders. The Federal Govt has the opportunity here to be seen as heros to have addressed this issue in advance, or risk being condemned as derelict in their duties if they had failed to, when the need arises. (Most all other developed nations in the world had acquired large emergency stocks of KI after Chernobyl.) Even two years after 9/11, the total Federal Government stockpile consisted of 1 million doses held by the CDC and another 600,000 doses (half of which we sold them) held by the Office of Emergency Preparedness. That's only enough for 1.6 million people, for ONE day, and then it's all gone! And, while that national stockpile has grown since, it's still no where near enough to protect very many, nor is it likely to be where it will be most needed when the time comes!

In the meantime, we've stockpiled here at KI4U, Inc. an emergency reserve of over 6 million adult doses or over 12 million child doses, in the form of our KI vials, where each makes up a KI solution sufficient for 200 adult doses or, at least, 400 child doses, as seen here. This reserve is for if the govt had failed to, and/or everybody had run out of KI tablets, in a future nuclear crisis.

On the local level, community leaders need to pull together their resourceful science teachers, local pharmacists and doctors to fully explore the resources already at hand and available for any future nuclear emergency that might befall their locale. You might could be responsible for saving many in your community from future thyroid cancer by simply bringing this to the attention of these local authorities and experts!

There are two kinds of Potassium Iodide (KI) solutions that can be made. Saturated and anything less than saturated, and both of these two simple formulas and dosing recommendations, along with more details, are at the Potassium Iodide Anti-Radiation Pill FAQ at the Q&A section entitled: How Do You Make a Potassium Iodide (KI) Solution?

#2 - While it is poisonous to ingest (drink/swallow) elemental iodine, like what's in tincture of iodine, or Povidone-iodine solutions (like the Betadine� brand solution), besides being largely ineffective for thyroid-blocking and very dangerous, perhaps even fatal to have a child drink any of them, they can be used topically, on the skin to great effect.

There has been some research with both humans and dogs into topically (on the skin) applied Povidone-Iodine (10%) solution (such as Betadine� or Povidex� solutions), and also with tincture of iodine, to test the absorption rates of iodine directly, and safely, through the skin.

According to research by Health Physicist Ken Miller, Hershey Medical Center, using 24 healthy adult male subjects, an adult could get a blocking dose of stable iodine by painting 8 ml of a 2 percent tincture of Iodine on the abdomen or forearm approximately 2 hours prior to I-131 contamination. The abstract of his study titled "Effectiveness of Skin Absorption of Tincture of I in Blocking Radioiodine from the Human Thyroid Gland" from Health Physics, June 1989, Vol. 56, No. 6, pages 911-914, states:

"Although there were large variations within each subject group in regard to serum-I levels and thyroid uptakes, the increase in serum-I concentration after topical-I application was effective in reducing the thyroid uptake of I131. The authors conclude that in the absence of KI, most humans would benefit from topical application of tincture of-I, and that in some the effectiveness would equal that of oral KI."
More details (and links to this research) on these topical applications (readily available at your local pharmacy) can be found at the Potassium Iodide Anti-Radiation Pill FAQ at the Q&A section entitled: Is Iodized Salt, Tincture of Iodine, Water Purification Tabs, or other Iodine Sources Effective?

Again, here too, you might could be responsible for saving many in your community from future thyroid cancer by simply bringing this research to the attention of your friends, neighbors, relatives, local officials, pharmacists and doctors!

#3 - EDUCATION of the public to basic nuclear Civil Defense is essential! Promoting the public and private distribution, and publication in local newspapers, of WHAT TO DO IF A NUCLEAR DISASTER IS IMMINENT! can literally empower millions of Americans with the life-saving knowledge to respond correctly in a future nuclear crisis. Start with your own local community today to get this vital information out via your local government, media, churches and community organizations. Banish panic, as you help your community embrace these simple life-saving preparations!

And, for the current concerns of the Japanese nuke plants, read and share When An ill Wind Blows From Afar! (Info & Preps for Radiation Here from Japan!)

Remember, too, as often mentioned on the FAQ, touch bases with your personal physician now to assure that there isn't any reason why you, or your children, shouldn't take KI, or use iodine topically on your skin, in a future nuclear emergency. (An iodine allergy is the usual disqualifying condition, if any, but only your doctor knows your full medical history and current medications to make that determination.) Asking them now, before any emergency would likely make that impossible to do so, is just another part of your prudent preparations here.

Shane Connor
KI4U, Inc.  

Sources : www.ki4u.com
www.ki4u.com/plan_b.htm






KI4U, Inc., is the only private radiological laboratory in the nation specializing in calibrating & re-certifying all of our country's Civil Defense radiation meters and dosimeters, AND with over 100,000 instruments and over 6 million doses of Potassium Iodide (KI) have ready our largest emergency stockpile of both in the nation!   We also produce the popular NukAlert™ & are exclusive source of the new RADSticker™ below.
More about all that we do preparing First-Responders and our fellow Americans, including FREE family nuke prep survival guides HERE!

LAST UPDATE: This evening (Friday, 9:20 PM CST, 3/18/2011):
NO NEW ORDERS BEING ACCEPTED...

WHILE WE FOCUS SOLELY ON GETTING OUT WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ORDERED, But See Below For Where Else To Order Now...

When An ill Wind Blows From Afar! (Like from Japan, Iran or North Korea!)
Surviving Radioactive Fallout & Radiation Contamination from Japan, Iran or North Korea Also, Mid-East, South Korea, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Chernobyl, etc.
By Shane Connor
March 12th, 2011

Read carefully all entries there - affected is the whole Earth. Nobody, anywhere be safe

www.ki4u.com/illwind.htm

Source
www.atomwaffena-z.info/atomwaffen-heute/...are-welt/index.html
Im Besitz der neun Atomwaffenstaaten (USA, Russland, China, Großbritannien, Frankreich, Israel, Indien, Pakistan und Nordkorea) befinden sich über 23.000 Atomwaffen. Das ist zwar weniger als die Hälfte der Atomwaffenzahl auf dem Höhepunkt des Kalten Krieges, bedeutet aber immer noch einen Overkill für die Welt. 96% der Atomwaffen gehören den USA oder Russland. Mehr als 8.000 sind sofort einsatzfähig. Davon sind ca. 1.500 in ständiger Höchstalarmbereitschaft (Launch-On-Warning) und erreichen ihr Ziel in Minuten. Alle andere befinden sich in Reserve, im Lager oder sind für die Abrüstung vorgesehen.

Atomwaffen weltweit (Tabelle)
Die Atomwaffenstaaten
ehemalige Atomwaffenstaaten
bereits beendete Atomwaffenprogramme
NATO-Staaten mit "nukleare Teilhabe"
Staaten, die Atomwaffen getestet haben
Schwellenstaaten
Staaten, mit Urananreicherungsanlagen
Staaten, mit Wiederaufarbeitung
Staaten mit MOX-Anlagen
separiertes Plutonium und HEU weltweit (Tabelle)
Die atomaren Brennstoffkette
Staaten mit Atomkraftwerke
Staaten mit Forschungsreaktoren
Staaten mit Uranabbau/Uranverarbeitung
Gruppe der nuklearen Lieferstaaten (NSG)
Staaten mit einem Raketenprogramm (Tabelle)

..Die Atomwaffenstaaten (9)
5 "offizielle" Atomwaffenstaaten, anerkannt durch den Atomwaffensperrvertrag (NPT)
USA, Russland, China, Großbritannien, Frankreich

4 "De-Facto"-Atomwaffenstaaten, nicht Mitgliederstaaten des Atomwaffensperrvertrags
Indien, Pakistan, Israel, Nordkorea

4 ehem. Atomwaffenstaaten:
Weißrussland (bis 1996), Ukraine (bis 1996), Kasachstan (bis 1995), Südafrika (bis 1990)

8 Staaten mit einem (beendeten) geheimen Atomwaffenprogramm:
Brasilien, Algerien, Argentinien, Irak, Libyen, Schweden, Spanien, Schweiz

5 NATO-Staaten, die an der "nuklearen Teilhabe" teilnehmen:
Belgien, Deutschland, Niederlande, Italien, Türkei

8 Staaten, die Atomtests durchgeführt haben (erster Test)
China (16.10.1964), Frankreich (13.02.1960), Großbritannien (03.10.1952), Indien (18.05.1974), Israel (unbekannt), Nordkorea (09.10.2006), Pakistan (28.05.2008), Russland/Sowjetunion (29.08.1949), USA (16.07.1945)

[Stand: April 2010]

"Schwellenstaaten"
im Besitz eine Atomwaffenoption

Folgende Länder können Uran anreichern
14 Staaten: Argentinien (Pilcaniyeu), Brasilien (Resende*), China (Shaanxi, Lanzhou, Lanzhou II), Deutschland (Gronau), Frankreich (Tricastin: George Besse I, George Besse II*), Großbritannien (Capenhurst), Indien (mil. Ratanhalli), Iran (Natans, Qom*), Israel (Dimona), Japan (Rokkasho), Niederlande (Almelo), Nordkorea (Jongbjon**), Pakistan (mil.: Gadwal, Kahuta), Russland (Angarsk, Novouralsk, Zelenogorsk, Seversk), USA (Piketon, OH; Eunice, NM; Areva Eagle Rock; ID; Paducah, KY; GLE Wilmington, NC)
*im Bau **evtl. nicht im Betrieb,


Staaten mit Wiederaufarbeitungsanlagen
10 Staaten: China (Pilot*), Großbritannien (THORP/Sellafield**, B205), Frankreich (La Hague: UP2, UP3), Japan (Rokassho*, Tokaimura**), Indien (mil.: Trombay, zivil./mil.: Tarapur, Kalpakkam), Israel (mil.: Dimona), Nordkorea (Jongbjon**), Pakistan (mil.: Nilore, Chasma), Russland (zivil./mil.: RT-1, Seversk, Zheleznogorsk), USA (H-Canyon/Savannah River)
*noch nicht im Betrieb **zur Zeit nicht im Betrieb

[Stand: Dezember 2010; Quelle: IPFM Report 2010]

Staaten mit MOX-Anlagen
3 Staaten: Belgien (Dessel), Frankreich (Marcoule), Indien (Tarapur).

Geplant sind noch drei in Großbritannien (Sellafield), USA (Savannah River) und Japan (Rokkasho).

[Stand: November 2010; Quelle: NFCIS]

Mehr Informationen über die Verbindung zwischen der zivilen und militärischen Nutzung der Atomenergie
..

Staaten mit Atomkraftwerke 436 AKWs in 30 Ländern
Argentinien (2), Armenien (1), Belgien (7), Brasilien (2), Bulgarien (2), China (11), Deutschland (17), Finnland (4), Frankreich (58), Großbritannien (19), Indien (18), Japan (54), Kanada (18), Mexiko (2), Niederlande (1), Pakistan (2), Rumänien (2), Russland (31), Schweden (10), Schweiz (5),  Slowakei (4), Slowenien (1), Spanien (8), Südafrika (2), Südkorea (20), Taiwan (6), Tschechische Republik (6), Ukraine (15), Ungarn (4), USA (104).

[Quelle IAEO; Stand: März 2010]

Staaten mit Forschungsreaktoren
249 Forschungsreaktoren in Betrieb in 56 Ländern
Ägypten (2), Algerien (2), Argentinien (6), Australien (1), Bangladesh (1), Belgien (3), Brasilien (4), Chile (2), China (17), Deutschland (10), Finnland (1), Frankreich (11), Ghana (1), Griechenland (2), Großbritannien (2), Indien (6), Indonesien (5), Iran (4), Israel (1), Italien (4), Jamaica (1), Japan (15), Kanada (8), Kasachstan (3), Kolumbien (1), Kongo (1), Libyen (1), Malaysia (1), Mexiko (3), Morokko (1), Niederlande (3), Nigeria (1), Nordkorea (1), Norwegen (2), Österreich (1), Pakistan (2), Peru (2), Polen (1), Portugal (1), Rumänien (2), Russland (47), Schweiz (3), Serbien (1), Slowenien (1), Südafrika (1), Südkorea (2), Syrien (1), Taiwan (1), Thailand (1), Tschechische Republik (3), Türkei (1), Ukraine (3), Ungarn (2), USA (41), Usbekistan (2), Vietnam (1), Weißrussland (2)

Drei sind Schnelle Brüter (China, Russland und Indien). Neun davon sind Schwerwasserreaktoren (Algerien, China, Frankreich, Indien (2), Kanada, Norwegen, Serbien, USA); 12 von diesen Forschungsreaktoren sind zur Zeit abgeschaltet.

Darüberhinaus sind 3 neue Forschungsreaktoren in Frankreich, Jordan und Russland in Bau. Weitere 2 sind in Planung, in Jordan und den Niederländen.

[Quelle: IAEO; Stand: November 2010]

Staaten mit Uranbergbau/Uranverarbeitung (Mining and Milling)
Argentinien (San Rafael), Australien (Beverley, Olympic Dam, Ranger), Brasilien (Caetité), China (Benxi, Chonqyi, Fuzhou, Hengyang, Lantian, Tengchong, Yining), Indien (Mosaboni, Jaduguda), Iran (Saghand, Gchine), Kanada (Key Lake, McArthur River, McLean Lake, Rabbit Lake), Kasachstan (Centralnoye, Inkai, Katco, Karamurun, Kaskor, Stepnogorski, Stepnoye), Kirgistan (Kara Balta), Mongolei (Dornod), Namibia (Langer Heinrich, Rössing), Niger (Akouta, Arlit), Nordkorea, Pakistan (Dera Ghazi Khan, Issa Khel), Rumänien (Feldioara, Suceava), Russland (Streltsovsk), Schweden (Ranstand)Südafrika (Doornfontain, Gauteng, Dominion, Vaal Reefs), Tschechische Republik (Dolni Rozinka), Ukraine (Zheltiye Vody), USA (Ambrosia Lake, Canon City, Crawford, Faustina, Douglas, Karnes County, Kleberg County, Midnite, New Wales, Ticaboo, Southern Powder River Basin, Red Desert, Uncle Sam, Blanding) Usbekistan (Kyzylkum).

In Bau: Brasilien (Santa Quitéria), Indien (Turamdih), Kasachstan (Appak, Akdala, Karatau, Ken-Dala, Kizilkum, Zarechnoye), Russland (Khiagda), Südafrika (Buffelsfontein, Doornfontain), Syrien (Homs).

Geplant: Australien (Four Mile, Lake Maitland, Wiluna, Yeelirrie), Indien (KPM).

[Quelle: NFCIS; Stand: November 2010]

Gruppe der nuklearen Lieferstaaten
(NSG, Nuclear Suppliers Group)

46 Staaten: Argentinien, Australien, Belarus, Belgien, Brasilien, Bulgarien, China, Dänemark, Deutschland, Estland, Finnland, Frankreich, Griechenland, Großbritannien, Island, Irland, Italien, Japan, Kanada, Kasachstan, Kroatien, Lettland, Lithauen, Luxemburg, Malta, Niederlande, Neuseeland, Norwegen, Österreich, Polen, Portugal, Rumänien, Russland, Slowakien, Slowenien, Südafrika, Südkorea, Spanien, Schweden, Schweiz, Tschechische Republik, Türkei, Ukraine, Ungarn, Vereinigte Staaten, Zypern.

(Stand: März 2011; Quelle: Webseite der NSG]

     Staat§maximale Reichweite (km)
   Ägypten      685*§
  Armenien       300§
Afghanistan       300§
   Bahrain       300§
   Belarus       165§
 Bulgarien       300§
     China   12.000*§
Frankreich     6.000§
  Georgien       300§
Griechenland       165§
Großbritannien     7.400§
    Indien    5.500*§
      Iran    5.500*§
      Irak       150§
    Israel     2.500§
     Jemen       300§
Kasachstan       120§
 Nordkorea     6.000§
    Libyen     1.300§
  Pakistan     3.000§
  Russland    11.200§
Saudi-Arabien     2.800§
  Slowakei       300§
  Südkorea       300§
    Syrien       750§
    Taiwan       300§
    Türkei       165§
Turkmenistan       300§
   Ukraine       300§
       USA    13.000§
       VAE       300§
   Vietnam§300
* in Test und Entwicklung

Quelle: Arms Control Association, September 2007

My comment : wer, wo und wann wird als der letzter A.. das Licht ausmachen?

Uran-Produktion: Kasachstan wird Weltmarktführer
Die nächste Uranrakete
www.irw-press.com
3,99% Uran auf 17 Meter! 24 Mio. Pfund schon bestätigt
Die Uran-Produktion in Kasachstan beträgt mittlerweile 13.500 Tonnen allein im Jahr 2009. Das entspricht einer Steigerung von 58 Prozent im Vergleich zum letzten Jahr.

Wie das Unternehmen Kazatomprom am Dienstag mitteilte, wird damit der ex-sowjetische Staat Kasachstan jetzt der weltweit führende Produzent von Uran.

Kazatomprom erwartet in diesem Jahr einen Nettogewinn von 326,6 Millionen Dollar.

Source:
www.shortnews.de/id/804751/...Kasachstan-wird-Weltmarktfuehrer

Im Tschernobyl- Sarg sind ca 130 Tonnen noch vorhanden - Zugreifen !!!

Source:
karlweiss.twoday.net/stories/4364507/


CDU: KEIN ANSPRUCH MEHR AUF DEMOKRATIE UND SOZIALE MARKTWIRTSCHAFT!

In Richtung auf die autoritäre Diktatur und den Überwachungsstaat

Von Karl Weiss

Angesichts des Trommelfeuers von Forderungen des Innenministers Schäuble nach Überwachungsmassnahmen und nach dem Abbau bürgerlicher Rechte sowie der Unterstützung, die er durch die Kanzlerin selbst erfährt, fragen sich in Deutschland immer mehr, ob die Haupt-Regierungspartei CDU/CSU eigentlich fest an die Demokratie gebunden ist. Da lässt ein kürzlich entdecktes Zitat aus einer älteren Rede von Frau Merkel, in der sie sagt, wir hätten keinen Anspruch auf Demokratie, alle Alarmglocken schrillen.

Zum 60. Geburtstag der CDU im Juni 2005 hat die Vorsitzende Frau Merkel, damals noch nicht Bundeskanzlerin, eine Rede gehalten, die unserer Aufmerksamkeit wert ist. Damals hat niemand besonders Acht gegeben, was da auf einem Festakt gesagt wurde. Hätte man aber sollen. Frau Merkel sagt nämlich da, wir haben keinen Anspruch auf Demokratie und soziale Marktwirtschaft, sie legt deutlich dar, die Christdemokratie will einen grundlegenden Umschwung in der Politik, nicht einfach gewisse Verschlimmbesserungen, es geht in die autoritäre Diktatur und in den Überwachungsstaat. Selbst die Koalitionspartner von der SPD dürften stutzen, wenn sie lesen, was da wirklich gesagt wurde.Der Tenor der Rede ist:
Alles müsse nun grundlegend anders gemacht werden. Grundlegendes Abwenden vom Bisherigen. Insgesamt sieben Mal in der Rede wird wiederholt, das Bisherige taugt nicht mehr, auf keinem Fall mehr „weiter so“, bzw. es müsse nun bahnbrechend Neues getan werden. Die CDU sei nichts mehr von dem, was sie einmal war.
Ausdrücklich wird gesagt: Kein Anspruch auf Demokratie und soziale Marktwirtschaft
Der Nationalismus wird gepredigt. An insgesamt vier Stellen der Rede wird sich ausdrücklich auf die Nation bezogen.
Das deutsche Volk muss sich als Schicksalsgemeinschaft begreifen, wird zweimal gesagt. Das riecht meilenweit nach dem faschistoiden „Volksgemeinschaftsgedanken“.
Es wird einerseits gesagt, man brauche einen festen Kompass, andererseits, man stände über allen Ideologien, man sei weder rechts noch links. Auch eine Aussage, wie sie schon von Faschisten gemacht wurde.
Der Staat wird von jeder Verantwortung entbunden. Er sei vielmehr überfordert. Die Verantwortung müsse in den Schulen, Familien, Vereinen, Nachbarschaften und Freundeskreisen übernommen werden. Ausdrücklich wird aufgefordert, den jungen Leuten hinterherzuschnüffeln.
Nun müsse realistische Politik gemacht werden und in der Realität gebe es nichts politisch Korrektes. Man hört Rechtsaussen wie Henrik Broder sprechen.
Alle Besitzstände (wie Rentenansprüche, Gesundheitsversorgung und solche auf Arbeitslosenunterstützung) müssen (fast) vollständig abgeschafft werden. Wer so etwas will, soll bei Privatfirmen einzahlen.
Die Politik muss einheitlich sein, „wie aus einem Guss“. Ebenfalls ein beliebtes Thema bei Faschisten.
Alle kollektiven Lösungen sind abzulehnen, wie etwa die Verantwortung des Staates für das Ganze. Dagegen müsse auf den Einzelnen gesetzt werden, die Familie, den Betrieb (die sagenhafte „Betriebsgemeinschaft“), den Verein und die Gemeinde.
Ob wirklich allen CDU/CSU-Wählern bewusst ist, sie geben ihre Stimme einer Partei, die alles anders machen will als vorher? Das ist ziemlich genau das Gegenteil von konservativer Haltung. Damit dürfte der Wertkonservativismus, wie ihn Kohl noch repräsentierte, in der CDU/CSU endgültig zu "ferner liefen" geworden sein.

Hier im Einzelnen die entsprechenden Zitate aus der Rede von Frau Merkel:

Zunächst das Wichtigste, das den Ton angibt:

„Denn wir haben wahrlich keinen Rechtsanspruch auf Demokratie und soziale Marktwirtschaft auf alle Ewigkeit.“

Dann die einzelnen Punkte auf dem Weg zu einer Gesellschaft ohne Demokratie und soziale Marktwirtschaft:

„Wir sind nicht einer Ideologie verpflichtet.(...) Unsere Motivation heißt Deutschland. (...) [Die CDU ist] die Partei des Neubeginns in Deutschland. Die CDU war und ist nie eine Partei, die Angst hat. Wir haben keine Angst vor wegweisenden Entscheidungen. Vor bahnbrechenden Entwicklungen.“

„...steht unser Land wieder an einer entscheidenden Weggabelung. (...) ... brauchen wir eine veränderte gesellschaftspolitische Architektur, um die materiellen, die sozialen und die moralischen Werte unseres Landes zukunftsfähig zu machen. Ein „Weiter so“ geht nicht mehr.“

„Mut zur Auseinandersetzung, um eigene Überzeugungen auch gegen Widerstände zu behaupten und durchzusetzen. (...) Politik, die ... das Bekenntnis zu einem Kompass wagt. Ein Kompass, der die Wertegebundenheit unserer Politik verbürgt.“

„Unser Staat ist überfordert. Wir müssen ihn wieder befähigen, seinen Aufgaben ... nachkommen zu können. ... befreit ...vom Glauben an die Überlegenheit kollektiver Lösungen, (...) Wir setzen auf den Einzelnen, auf seine Familie, seine Gemeinde, seinen Verein, seinen Betrieb.“

„Ich weiß, heute werden unsere Reformkonzepte von nicht wenigen als zu weitreichend empfunden und kontrovers diskutiert. Aber ich bin überzeugt: Morgen werden sie die Grundlage für ein neues gemeinsames Verständnis sein. (...) Die CDU [passt] nicht in das gewohnte Schema. Sie [ist] weder rechts noch links.“

„...wir uns nicht mit zunehmenden Spaltungstendenzen in unserer Gesellschaft abfinden dürfen. Verdrängung hilft nicht. Auch Illusionen helfen nicht. Die Wirklichkeit ist nicht politisch korrekt. (...) Eine Million Kinder in Deutschland leben heute von der Sozialhilfe. Ihr Lebensunterhalt ist gesichert [???]. Aber ihre Lebenschancen drohen zu verderben. Viele dieser Kinder sind völlig sich selbst überlassen. Oft interessiert sich niemand dafür, ob und was sie lesen, was und wie viel sie fernsehen, wie sie lernen und ihre Freizeit verbringen. Diese Kinder steigen nicht aus freier Entscheidung aus, sie werden zurückgelassen."

"Ich nenne das fürsorgliche Vernachlässigung. Wir können das nicht hinnehmen.(...) ... ein Prinzip, das wir anwenden müssen, und das ist das Prinzip Verantwortung. Diese Verantwortung geht uns alle an. Sie ist eine gemeinsame Aufgabe der Politik, der Wirtschaft, der Schulen, der Vereine, der Familie, der Nachbarn, der Freunde. (...) ... wenn Kinder von vornherein auf der Schattenseite der Gesellschaft leben. ... wenn junge Leute den Einstieg in das Arbeitsleben nicht finden.“

„...die Spaltungen in unserer Gesellschaft heilen. Wir werden sie aber nur heilen können, wenn die Bürger unser Land als Schicksalsgemeinschaft - als eine Nation – begreifen.“

„Die geistigen Ressourcen von 1968 waren zu eng für die Zukunft unseres Landes. Die Utopien dieser Generation müssen der Realität Platz machen, wenn das Land eine gute Zukunft haben soll. Nun übernimmt die nächste Generation. Es ist Zeit für eine realistische Politik.“

„Wenn wir die Kraft haben, die Wahrheit der Illusion entgegen zu setzen, wenn wir die Kraft für eine realistische Politik haben, dann wird die Macht alter Besitzstände vor den neuen Wirklichkeiten unserer Generation keinen Bestand mehr haben.“

„Mir scheint, von uns wird mehr verlangt. Gleichsam eine Quadratur des Kreises, ein grundsätzlicher Wandel politischen Handelns.

Dabei geht es um eines: Weg vom Stückwerk. Hin zu einer Politik aus einem Guss. Wer A sagt, muss auch B sagen.“

„Zurzeit habe ich ... allerdings den Eindruck, dass manche unserer verehrten politischen Gegner [in der CDU] eine Partei bekämpfen, die es gar nicht [mehr] gibt. Aber seis drum.“

„[Die Zukunft wird uns daran messen, ob wir] an einer entscheidenden Weggabelung eine gestaltende Kraft geblieben sind oder nicht, ob wir den Herausforderungen der Zeit gerecht geworden sind oder nicht, ob wir die Weichen für einen Politikwechsel gestellt haben oder nicht.“

Und zum Abschluss für jeden, der es noch nicht verstanden hat:

„Ich sage heute: Wir werden es grundlegend anders machen, damit es grundlegend besser wird für Deutschland.“

Der hauptsächliche Grund, warum diese Rede damals nicht mehr Aufsehen hervorgerufen hat, dürfte sein, es wurden keine Details genannt, wie denn wirklich dieses Deutschland ohne Demokratie und soziale Marktwirtschaft aussehn würde. So blieb die Aussage, es gäbe keinen Rechtsanspruch auf Demokratie und soziale Marktwirtschaft, fast völlig unbemerkt.

Heute aber, nach zwei Jahren „Grosse Koalition“, müssen wir einerseits sagen, bisher wurde jene vollständige Kehrtwendung noch nicht durcgesetzt, da ist wohl auch der Koalitionspartener noch hinderlich. Aber gleichzeitig haben wir jetzt eine klare Vorstellung, was gemeint war mit diesen Worten. Die diversen Ankündigungen und Forderungen von Schäuble zum Gang in den vollständigen Überwachungsstaat und zur Aufhebung von bürgerlichen Rechten machen deutlich, wohin es gehen soll, wenn nur endlich der unbequeme Koalitionspartner abgeschüttelt würde.

Verteidigungsminister Jung konnte ganz forsch erklären, er habe schon eine Gruppe von Piloten, die dem Befehl zum grundgesetzwidrigen Abschuss von Passierflugzeugen folgen würde. Damit hat er deutlich gemacht, er hat bereits Militärs, die auf ihn und nicht mehr aufs Grundgesetz eingeschworen sind, die – wenn Jung das für nötig hält – den Militärputsch durchführen würden.

Es ist auch höchstes Augemerk auf die Bemerkung zu legen, alle Besitzstände seien abzuschaffen.

Es ist nicht übertrieben zu sagen, das ist die Ankündigung des Streichens aller Renten- und Arbeitslosen-Unterstützungs-Ansprüche wie auch der Gesundheitsversorgung über die Sozialversicherung (bis auf irgendwelche unbedeutenden Reste). Der eine oder andere mag dies als übertrieben ansehen, „das würden die nicht wagen“, aber es wird ja auch ausdrücklich gesagt, man erwartet Widerstände und sie würden gebrochen werden.

Ebenso ist in diesem Zusammenhang zu sehen, wie zunehmend jegliche grundsätzliche Opposition in Deutschland als „terroristisch“und „Terrorismus“ verunglimpft wird. Die Gleichsetzung der kämpferischen ausserparlamentarischen Opposition mit Terrorismus hat System.

Da solche radikalen Massnahmen sicherlich nicht ohne Widerstand bleiben würden, kann man damit im „grossen Krieg gegen den Terror“ die Unterdrückung und Ausschaltung der Dissidenten als „leider notwendig“ abhaken.Da muss man sich auch erinnern, Schäuble hat gegen „Terroristen“ bereits die Abschaffung der Unschuldsvermutung gefordert, er hat sich für vorbeugende Haft und vorbeugendes Erschiessen angeblicher Terroristen ausgesprochen.

In diesem Zusammenhang muss auch die in der CDU weit verbreitete Verehrung von Filbinger gesehen werden. Schäuble hat sich nicht umsonst im Rollstuhl auf den beschwerlichen Weg nach Freiburg gemacht, um seinem engen Freund die letzte Ehre zu erweisen. Die innige Verquickung von Teilen der CDU/CSU mit faschistischen oder faschistoiden Kräften ist früher schon aufgefallen.

Was als grundlegende Neuausrichtung genannt wurde, ist nichts anderes als der Weg in eine Diktatur oder jedenfalls ein extrem autoritäres System und in einen Überwachungsstaat, gegen den die Stasi-Republik eine lahme Vorstufe gewesen wäre.

Zieht man all dies in Rechnung, wird diese Aussage in Merkels 2005-Rede zu einem Fanal:

„Denn wir haben wahrlich keinen Rechtsanspruch auf Demokratie und soziale Marktwirtschaft auf alle Ewigkeit.“


Veröffentlicht am 19. Oktober 2007 in der Berliner Umschau

Faschistoide Züge der CDU womöglich daran verantwortlich?
Dies bedeutet zugleich das Ende der Schweiz als Bankenland!
Ein unglaublicher Vorgang, wenn in einem Nachbarstaat wie der Schweiz eine solche Reiheitseinschränkung durchgesetzt wird! Damit sind die goldenen Zeiten der Schweizer vorbei!

das Ende der Schweiz als Bankenrepublik

Ungeachtet des Reaktorunglücks in Japan ist in der Schweiz die Atomenergie-Lobby weiterhin anderer Meinung: Roland Bislang, Geschäftsführer beim Nuklearforum Schweiz, verneint, dass es sich bei den Themen Unfall und Endlagerung um Externalitäten handelt. Dem widerspricht ein Vertreter der erneuerbaren Energien: Christian Zeyer, Leiter Strategie beim liberalen, auf Nachhaltigkeit ausgerichteten Wirtschaftsverband Swisscleantech ist überzeugt, dass die externen Kosten der Atomenergie nicht internalisiert sind und deshalb nicht richtig gerechnet wird.
Unzureichende Haftung
Wer würde in der Schweiz für einen Unfall ähnlich wie in Fukushima haften? Laut Bislang sind durch Versicherungen und internationale Verträge Schäden bis zu 2 Mrd. Franken gedeckt. Für mindestens 900 Mio. Franken haftet der Betreiber des AKW, weitere 640 Mio. Franken deckt der Staat ab. Weitere 380 Mio. Franken sind über internationale Verträge geregelt. Darüber hinaus haften die Betreiber unbeschränkt. Gemäß Bislang erscheinen 2 Mrd. Franken auf den ersten Blick als wenig, entsprechen aber «dem vollen Risiko, da große Schadenspotenziale mit kleinen Eintretenswahrscheinlichkeiten multipliziert werden».
Wie Fukushima gezeigt hat, ändert die kleine Unfallwahrscheinlichkeit nichts daran, dass die tatsächlichen Unfallfolgen verheerend ausfallen. Zudem beruhen sowohl Schadenspotenziale wie auch Eintretenswahrscheinlichkeiten auf Modellrechnungen, die je nach Annahmen völlig unterschiedliche Resultate liefern. Nach Fukushima müssen viele Behauptungen, die in der Branche als selbstverständlich galten, kritisch hinterfragt werden.
Prohibitiv teurer Schaden
Sollte sich in der Schweiz ein ähnlich verheerender Unfall wie in Fukushima ereignen – sei dies durch einen AKW-internen oder -externen Schock – , dann reicht die Haftungsbegrenzung von 2 Mrd. Franken gemäß Zeyer schnell nicht mehr, was auch Schätzungen des Bundes zeigten. Allein schon das Aufräumen eines größeren Nuklearunfalls ohne starker Verstrahlung der Umgebung würde vermutlich Kosten von mehreren Mrd. Franken nach sich ziehen. Es frage sich, ob die Betreiber dann noch in Lage sein würden, für die Dekontaminationskosten aufzukommen oder ob das Eigenkapital bereits aufgebraucht sei und der Staat die Kosten übernehmen müsse.
Laufe ein Unfall – analog zu Fukushima – aus dem Ruder könnte sogar eine Versicherungsdeckung von 50 Mrd. Franken nicht mehr reichen. Das Bundesamt für Energie sei in einer in der Folge von Tschernobyl erstellten Studie gar von einem möglichen Gesamtschaden von 4000 Mrd. Franken ausgegangen. Das Szenario sei dabei von einer Freisetzung großer Mengen Radioaktivität aus dem AKW Gösgen, einer großflächigen Verstrahlung sowie einer Evakuierung und Dekontamination der ganzen Region Zürich ausgegangen.
Zu Lasten des Steuerzahlers
Da die Schweizer Betreiber von Atomkraftwerken zu einem beträchtlichen Teil der öffentlichen Hand gehören, haftet der Steuerzahler bereits indirekt bis zur Zahlungsunfähigkeit des Betreibers. Wenn dann zudem der Staat einspringen muss, wird der Steuerzahler schließlich auch direkt zur Kasse gebeten. Er kommt also für die gesamte Differenz zwischen der Versicherungssumme und dem Gesamtschaden auf. Die ungenügende Haftung der Betreiber ist ein klassisches «Moral hazard»-Problem. Analog zur «Too big to fail»-Thematik bei Grossbanken werden auch in der Atombranche Gewinne privatisiert und Kosten sozialisiert.
Der Förderung des billigen Stroms zuliebe hat die Politik den Atomstrom bisher subventioniert. Die Hersteller und Betreiber von Atomkraftwerken haben ein Interesse daran, dass die Bevölkerung die wirtschaftlichen Risiken und externen Kosten übernimmt. Bei der ungelösten Endlagerungsfrage wird das Problem gar an die nächsten Generationen weitergereicht. Es gibt ähnliche Beispiele, dass Politiker oftmals zu kurzfristig denken, weil sie in erster Linie ihre Wiederwahlchancen optimieren wollen. Man sieht die Folgen davon auch bei der Verschuldung von Staaten oder bei den wenig nachhaltigen Vorsorgesystemen.
Wege der Internalisierung
Mit einer konsequenten Internalisierung der negativen externen Effekte des Atomstroms könnte die verzerrende Subventionierung vermindert werden.
usw.... es geht da um politische Preise, subjektive Kriterien, Nachhaltigkeit, all das was AKW-Fans halt nicht interessiert, aber trotzdem sehr lesenswert.....
Die Hoffnung in der Büchse
Paradoxerweise ruhen die Hoffnungen für eine regulatorische Internalisierung auf den Politikern – dabei gilt es zu bedenken, dass gewisse Politiker – beispielsweise als Lobbyisten – von der Energiebranche profitieren. Ein Kurswechsel angesichts solcher Verflechtung wird schwierig. Hinzu kommt, dass eine Internalisierung idealerweise auf europäischer oder internationaler Ebene abgestimmt sein müsste. Die langsame Geschwindigkeit, mit der in jüngster Zeit an Klimakonferenzen Fortschritte erzielt wurden, lässt auch hier wenig Hoffnung aufkommen.
Damit schließt sich der Kreis zur Büchse der Pandora. In der griechischen Sage enthielt diese neben all dem aus ihr entweichenden Übel als einzig Positives auch die Hoffnung – doch bevor diese hätte entweichen können, wurde sie schon wieder geschlossen. Kommt es diesmal anders? Mit jedem Tag, an dem die nukleare Katastrophe in Fukushima andauert, entweicht zusammen mit der Radioaktivität als einzig Positiveres auch ein wenig Hoffnung, dass die externen Kosten von Energie künftig stärker internalisiert werden. Dies würde Unfälle unwahrscheinlicher machen und langfristig gesehen den Nutzen Aller nachhaltig erhöhen.

Source
www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/wirtschaft/aktuell/...e_1.10012987.html

www.webcamgalore.com/DE/webcam-karte/Japan/.../stadt-8183.html
www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/...&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-25GMT15:41


www.infokriegernews.de/wordpress/2011/03/...kushima-evakuiert/

extra 15, 25, 26, 256

Source:
www.radio-utopie.de/2011/03/11/...erwaffen-aus-dem-jahre-1976/


Die ENMOD-Konvention (“Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques”, “Konvention über das Verbot von militärischem oder jedem anderen feindlichen Gebrauch von umweltverändernden Techniken”) ist ein bindender völkerrechtlicher Vertrag, der von der Generalversammlung der Vereinten Nationen (UNO) als Resolution 31/72 am 10. Dezember 1976 verabschiedet wurde. Vom 18. Mai 1977 bis zum 5. Oktober 1978 unterzeichneten 47 Staaten die Konvention, die dann am 5. Oktober 1978 für die Unterzeichnerstaaten in Kraft trat.
Seit 2005 gehört auch China zu den unterzeichnenden Staaten, die sich dadurch verpflichten dieses Verbot von Wetterwaffen auch einzuhalten. Die Staaten, die dieses Abkommen nicht unterschrieben haben – darunter die Atommächte Südafrika, Frankreich und Israel – sind rein völkerrechtlich nicht dazu verpflichtet es einzuhalten. Im deutschen Wikipedia-Artikel wird übrigens der Hinweis auf die eigentliche Bedeutung der ENMOD-Konvention galant ausgelassen. Wie viele andere seltsame Dinge in der Informationswelt wird auch dies – mit innerer irdischer nationaler Sicherheit – alles Gottes Wille sein.
In dem Abkommen von 1976 heisst es wörtlich (1):
Geleitet von dem Interesse eines gesicherten Friedens, und im Wunsch dem Wettrüsten Einhalt zu gebieten, und die generelle und komplette Entwaffnung unter strikte und effektive internationale Kontrolle zu bringen, und die Menschheit vor der Gefahr neuer Arten der Kriegführung zu bewahren, ..

Erkennend das wissenschaftliche und technische Fortschritte möglicherweise neue Wege in der Veränderung der Umwelt geöffnet haben,

In der Erinnerung an die Deklaration der Vereinten Nationen zur menschlichen Entwicklung, angenommen am 16.Juni 1972,

Erkennend dass der Gebrauch von Techniken zur Veränderung der Umwelt für friedliche Zwecke die gegenseitige Beziehungen von Mensch und Natur verbessern beitragen könnte zur Erhaltung und Verbesserung der Entwicklung zum Nutzen der Generationen in Gegenwart und Zukunft,

Trotzdem erkennend, dass militärischer oder jeder andere feindliche Nutzen solcher Techniken extrem schädliche Effekte auf das Wohlergehen der Menschheit haben könnte..

soll es jedem Staat als Vertragspartei nicht erlaubt sein Wetterwaffen zum Einsatz bringen, auch nicht aus dem Orbit bzw. Weltraum, wenn diese laut Artikel 1 “weitverbreitete, langanhaltende oder schwere Effekte in der Bedeutung von Zerstörung, Schaden oder Verletzung irgendeiner anderen Staatspartei” hat.
Ausdrücklich erwähnt werden:
- Erdbeben oder Veränderungen der Erdkruste
- Tsunamis
- Wetterphänomene wie Zyklone, Tornados, Wolkenbildung, Niederschlag/Regen
- Störung der ökologischen Balance einer Region
- Beeinflussung der Meeresströmungen, usw

Source;
www.20min.ch/news/dossier/atomenergie/story/24705594



Der vergessene Schweizer Atom-GAU
von Daniel Huber -

Vor 42 Jahren entging die Schweiz knapp einer Katastrophe, als es im Schweizer Versuchsreaktor Lucens zu einer Kernschmelze kam. Einer der schwersten Atomunfälle weltweit ist heute nahezu in Vergessenheit geraten.
Am 21. Januar 1969 fuhren die Techniker im Schweizer Versuchsatomkraftwerk Lucens (VAKL) den Reaktor nach einer mehrmonatigen Pause wieder hoch. Die Anlage war erst einen Monat zuvor für den dauerhaften Betrieb abgenommen worden. Nur wenige Stunden nach dem Neustart kam es zu einem folgenschweren Zwischenfall, der nur deshalb nicht zu einer Katastrophe führte, weil es sich um einen relativ kleinen Reaktor handelte, der zudem in einer Felskaverne eingebaut war.

Maschinenraum in Lucens, 1965 Reaktorplan Stollen zur Kaverne
Das Aus für die Schweizer Atombombe
Nach dem Abwurf der amerikanischen Atombomben über Hiroshima und Nagasaki machten sich auch in der Schweiz Politiker und Militärs Gedanken über die Landesverteidigung im nuklearen Zeitalter. Schon im November 1945 richtete der Bundesrat eine geheime «Studienkommision für Atomenergie» (SKA) ein, die von dem bekanntesten Schweizer Nuklearforscher, Paul Scherrer, geleitet wurde. Von 1956 bis 1960 wurde ein erster Forschungsreaktor - der «Diorit» - gebaut, der waffenfähiges Uran herstellen sollte, sich aber als sehr störungsanfällig erwies und 1977 stillgelegt wurde.
Einer der wichtigsten Sargnägel für das Projekt einer eigenen Schweizer Atombombe war jedoch der Störfall in Lucens. Danach war an eine eigene Atomwaffenproduktion kaum mehr zu denken. Dazu kam noch der Mirage-Skandal, der dazu führte, dass das vorgesehene Trägerflugzeug für die geplante Atombombe nicht in geeigneter Form und Stückzahl angeschafft werden konnte.
Grosse Schwierigkeiten

Der Bau des Versuchsreaktors, der acht Megawatt Strom produzieren sollte, war schon 1961 in Angriff genommen worden. Der Reaktor wurde in eine Kaverne im Fels gebaut, die über einen 100 Meter langen Tunnel erreichbar war; über der Erde befanden sich nur das Dienstgebäude und die Notstromaggregate.
Das Firmenkonsortium, dem unter anderem Sulzer, Escher Wyss, die Maschinenfabrik Oerlikon und verschiedene Baufirmen angehörten, hatte von Beginn weg mit grossen Schwierigkeiten zu kämpfen. Mangel an Bauarbeitern und Wassereinbruch in die Kaverne führten zu massiven Verzögerungen; statt der geplanten vier dauerte der Bau sieben Jahre, wie ein Ausstellungsprojekt der ETH Zürich feststellt.

Inzwischen hatten verschiedene Akteure kalte Füsse bekommen. Schon im Februar 1964 hatten sich die «Nordost schweizerischen Kraftwerke AG» (NOK) verabschiedet; sie entschieden sich für den Bau des Atomkraftwerks Beznau, für das sie einen Leistungsreaktor aus amerikanischer Fertigung bestellten. 1967 stieg dann die Firma Sulzer aus, die in dem Projekt langfristig keine Rentabilität sah.
Die «Nationale Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Industriellen Atomtechnologie» (NGA) führte das Projekt dennoch weiter. Als der Versuchsreaktor 1968 den Betrieb aufnehmen konnte, war die Technologie der Brennelemente bereits veraltet.

Der GAU

Nach einer ersten Inbetriebnahme im Frühjahr 1968 wurde der Reaktor wieder stillgelegt und erst im Januar 1969 wieder hochgefahren. In der Zwischenzeit war jedoch Wasser von aussen über eine defekte Gebläse-Dichtung in den Kühlkreis des Reaktors geflossen. Die fatale Folge: Die aus einer Magnesium-Legierung bestehenden Umhüllungsrohre der Brennstäbe korrodierten unbemerkt.
Beim Neustart am 21. Januar behinderten die Korrosionsprodukte die Kühlung bei zwei der Brennelemente, sodass es zu einem Kontrollverlust mit einer partiellen Kernschmelze kam: Einer der Brennstäbe schmolz und explodierte; das Kernmaterial wurde in das Schwerwasser versprüht, was eine Dampfexplosion verursachte, die den Moderator-Tank bersten liess. Nun traten Kohlendioxid (Kühlmittel) und Schweres Wasser (Moderator) in die Reaktorkaverne aus.

Langwierige Aufräumarbeiten

Die Techniker hatten die erhöhte Radioaktivität gerade noch rechtzeitig festgestellt, sodass das Personal evakuiert und die Kaverne verschlossen werden konnte. Gleichwohl wurde die Kaverne massiv verstrahlt; die radioaktiv verseuchten Trümmer konnten erst nach Jahren weggeräumt werden. Durch undichte Stellen in der Kaverne entwichen radioaktive Gase nach draussen. Der Traum von einer eigenständigen Schweizer Reaktorlinie war ausgeträumt.
Erst im Mai 1973 waren die Aufräumarbeiten abgeschlossen. Die 250 versiegelten Fässer mit radioaktiven
Abfällen blieben vorerst auf dem Gelände; 2003 wurden sie dann ins zentrale Zwischenlager in Würenlingen (ZWILAG) gebracht.

Auf der Internationalen Bewertungsskala für nukleare Ereignisse (INES-Skala), die Störfälle von 0 («Ereignis ohne oder mit geringer sicherheitstechnischer Bedeutung») bis 7 («katastrophaler Unfall») bewertet, steht Lucens bei Stufe 4-5. Damit zählt die Kernschmelze im Versuchsreaktor Lucens zu den schwersten Störfällen, die bei der friedlichen Nutzung der Atomenergie vorkamen.

Das Aus für die Schweizer Atombombe

Nach dem Abwurf der amerikanischen Atombomben über Hiroshima und Nagasaki machten sich auch in der Schweiz Politiker und Militärs Gedanken über die Landesverteidigung im nuklearen Zeitalter. Schon im November 1945 richtete der Bundesrat eine geheime «Studienkommision für Atomenergie» (SKA) ein, die von dem bekanntesten Schweizer Nuklearforscher, Paul Scherrer, geleitet wurde. Von 1956 bis 1960 wurde ein erster Forschungsreaktor - der «Diorit» - gebaut, der waffenfähiges Uran herstellen sollte, sich aber als sehr störungsanfällig erwies und 1977 stillgelegt wurde.
Einer der wichtigsten Sargnägel für das Projekt einer eigenen Schweizer Atombombe war jedoch der Störfall in Lucens. Danach war an eine eigene Atomwaffenproduktion kaum mehr zu denken. Dazu kam noch der Mirage-Skandal, der dazu führte, dass das vorgesehene Trägerflugzeug für die geplante Atombombe nicht in geeigneter Form und Stückzahl angeschafft werden konnte.

from   imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png

26.03.2011
Unfall im japanischen Kernkraftwerk Fukushima (Update: 26. März 2011 10:00)

www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/...&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-26GMT09:11

Bundesverbraucherministerin Ilse Aigner (CSU) sieht ebenfalls keine Gefahr. "Die vor fast 25 Jahren beschlossenen Grenzwerte, die auch jetzt als Konsequenz aus der Reaktor-Katastrophe in Japan europaweit Anwendung finden, entsprechen den aktuellen international verfügbaren wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen", sagte ein Sprecher. "Die europäischen Grenzwerte sind international wie national anerkannt." Sie stellten den Schutz der Verbraucher sicher.

Die Sicherheitsmaßnahmen für Importe aus Japan waren seit dem Wochenende EU-weit verschärft worden. Alle Lebensmittellieferungen aus Japan werden an den Außenkontrollstellen überprüft. Aus Japan werden sehr wenige Lebensmittel nach Deutschland importiert.

(dpa, N24)29.03.2011 19:18 Uhr

Die UNO und der Überfall auf Libyen  
Jörg v. Paleske

Libyen wird derzeit von verschiedenen Staaten und von der Nato massiv und mit schweren Waffen angegriffen. Die Behauptung, diese Gewaltmaßnahmen seien gerechtfertigt, weil es einen Beschluß des Sicherheitsrates gäbe, der dies gestatte, ist frei erfunden.

Einen solchen Beschluß gibt nicht. Dies folgt aus der UNO-Charta - www.unric.org/de/charta.

A) Es wurde auf dieser Seite schon aufgezeigt (siehe 19.03.2011 - "Unsere kriegsgeilen Medien..."), daß nur bei Bedrohung des "Weltfriedens" (das ist ein zumindest grenzüberschreitender Krieg) und  zugleich  bei Bedrohung der "internationalen Sicherheit" Gewaltanwendung durch die UNO möglich ist. Diese Voraussetzungen liegen beim libyschen Bürgerkrieg definitiv nicht vor (Argument auch das Wort "Staat" in Art. 2 Abs. 5).  

Die derzeitige Gewaltanwendung durch die Nato ist deshalb selbst ein Angriff auf den "Weltfrieden" und eine Bedrohung der "internationalen Sicherheit". Daß nur Beschlüsse des Sicherheitsrates Rechtskraft haben, welche die Charta einhalten, wird bestätigt durch Art. 2 Abs. 5. Dieser lautet: "5. Alle Mitglieder leisten den Vereinten Nationen jeglichen Beistand bei jeder Maßnahme, welche die Organisation im Einklang mit dieser Charta ergreift; sie leisten einem Staat, gegen den die Organisation Vorbeugungs- oder Zwangsmaßnahmen ergreift, keinen Beistand."

B) Besonders gravierend ist, daß der angebliche Gewaltanwendungsbeschluß des Sicherheitsrates NICHT mit der erforderlichen Stimmenmehrheit erfolgte. Denn gemäß Art. 27 Abs. 3 der Charta bedurfte es für dieser Beschluß (der eine sog. "sonstige Frage" betrifft - s. u.) der ausnahmslosen Zustimmung zumindest ALLER STÄNDIGEN MITGLIEDER des Sicherheitsrates. Wortlaut des Art. 27 (Hervorh. Von mir):

"Artikel 27

(1) Jedes Mitglied des Sicherheitsrats hat eine Stimme.

(2) Beschlüsse des Sicherheitsrats über Verfahrensfragen bedürfen der Zustimmung von neun Mitgliedern.

(3) Beschlüsse des Sicherheitsrats über alle sonstigen Fragen bedürfen der ZUSTIMMUNG von neun Mitgliedern einschließlich SÄMTLICHER STÄNDIGEN MITGLIEDER ... "

Ständige Mitglieder sind folgende Staaten: USA, VR China, Rußland, Frankreich, Großbritannien. Da Rußland und China  n i c h t  zugestimmt hatten, ist der Beschluß auch nicht mit der erforderlichen Stimmenzahl angenommen worden, sondern gescheitert.

Daß China und Rußland nicht explizit  d a g e g e n  ("Veto") gestimmt hatten, ist dabei unbeachtlich. Denn das war auch gar nicht erforderlich!

Ergebnis: Der Sicherheitsrat hat damit KEINEN Beschluß betr. Das "Flugverbot" betr. Libyen gefaßt, sondern dieser Beschluß scheiterte an der fehlenden Zustimmung von zwei Veto-Mächten (Rußland und China)!

C) Eine Ausführung von UNO-Gewalt-Beschlüssen durch Militärbündnisse - wie jetzt durch die Nato - oder etwaige andere Organisationen verstößt ebenfalls grundsätzlich gegen die UN-Charta. Dies ergibt sich aus  Artikel 48 Abs. 1 (Hervorhebung von mir):

"(1) Die Maßnahmen, die für die Durchführung der Beschlüsse des Sicherheitsrats zur Wahrung des Weltfriedens und der internationalen Sicherheit erforderlich sind, werden je nach dem Ermessen des Sicherheitsrats von allen oder von einigen MITGLIEDERN der Vereinten Nationen getroffen."

Ausführen dürfen Beschlüsse also nur 'Mitgliedsstaaten'. Die Nato ist kein 'Mitgliedsstaat'!

Also ist auch die derzeitige Ausführung der Gewaltmaßnahmen rechtswidrig!

Dem steht auch nicht entgegen, daß es in Art. 48 Abs. 2 heißt:

"(2) Diese Beschlüsse werden von den Mitgliedern der Vereinten Nationen unmittelbar sowie durch Maßnahmen in den geeigneten internationalen Einrichtungen durchgeführt, deren Mitglieder sie sind."

Denn hier handelt es sich um Maßnahmen "in (!) den geeigneten internationalen Einrichtungen". D.h. dass diejenigen internationalen Einrichtungen, denen Libyen angehört, Maßnahme gegen Libyen als dortiges Mitglied ergreifen können. Wäre also Libyen Mitglied der Nato, könne z. B. seine Mitgliedschaft für ruhend erklärt werden o.ä.

Die Bestimmung des Art. 48 Abs. 2 besagt aber gerade  nicht, daß die "geeigneten internationalen Einrichtungen" nun nach  außen   gegen z. B. Libyen handeln dürfen.  Die Formulierung heißt "in den geeigneten internationalen Einrichtungen" und eben nicht "durch die geeigneten internationalen Einrichtungen"!

Es verbleibt vielmehr dabei, daß "Maßnahmen" ausschließlich "von ... MITGLIEDERN der Vereinten Nationen getroffen" (Art.48 Abs. 2) werden können. Die Einschaltung der Nato in die militärischen Angriffe auf Libyen stellt demnach einen weiteren gravierenden Bruch der UNO-Charta dar.

D) Hinzukommt auch noch folgendes: Artikel 46 lautet:

"Die Pläne für die Anwendung von Waffengewalt werden vom Sicherheitsrat mit Unterstützung des Generalstabsausschusses aufgestellt."

Die Tomahawk-Angriffe und die vielen sonstigen Bombardements sind NICHT in "Pläne(n) für die Anwendung von Waffengewalt  ... vom Sicherheitsrat ... aufgestellt (worden)" (Wortlaut des Art. 48).  Denn solche Pläne kamen im Sicherheitsrat nie zur Abstimmung!

Lediglich sich in Libyen vom Boden erhebende Flugzeuge durften zur Landung gezwungen - notfalls: abgeschossen - werden ("Flugverbot"). MEHR NICHT!

E) Ergebnis:

Der beantragte Beschluß über das Flugverbot für libysche Flugzeuge im eigenen Luftraum konnte mangels Bedrohung des "Weltfriedens" gar nicht wirksam getroffen werden, da ihm der Wortlaut der UNO-Charta entgegenstand (oben "A").

Als dieser Beschluß dennoch zur Abstimmung kam, scheiterte er, da er nicht alle Veto-Mächte zustimmten (oben "B") .

Ein solcher Gewaltanwendungs-Beschluß - wäre er ergangen - dürfte keinesfalls durch die Nato ausgeführt werden (oben "C").

Der beantragte Beschluß über das Flugverbot für libysche Flugzeuge im eigenen Luftraum ist mangels der erforderlichen Stimmenmehrheit gescheitert.

Die derzeitige Anwendung von Waffengewalt durch die Nato und durch verschiedene Länder wäre nur rechtens, wenn es hierüber eine entsprechende Beschlußfassung des Sicherheitsrates in Form von "Plänen" (Art. 48) gegeben hätte. Diese gibt es aber nicht (oben "D").

Der militärische Überfall auf Libyen stellt eine Verhöhnung und Entmachtung der Vereinten Nationen dar, wie sie gravierender kaum denkbar ist.



Die Weiterverbreitung der Texte auf dieser Website ist durchaus erwünscht. In diesem Fall bitte die Angabe der Webadresse www.antikrieg.com nicht zu vergessen!

In einem Artikel auf der Internetseite von Prawda wurde gemeldet, dass der staatseigene Ölkonzern Libyens, National Oil, 2008 einen Bericht über die Thematik angefertigt hatte, worin Beamte vorschlugen, die Vereinbarungen mit ausländischen Konzernen bezüglich der Produktionsaufteilung zu verändern, um die Staatseinnahmen zu erhöhen.

Hätte man diese Vertragsänderungen umgesetzt, wären die Öleinnahmen Libyens um USD 5,4 Milliarden gestiegen. Reuters und die Konzernmedien berichteten über die Pläne.

Neben der Verstaatlichung der Ölfelder forderte der libysche Führer auch, dass der Staat zurückgebaut und die Öleinnahmen direkt an die 5 Millionen Libyer gehen sollten. Die Bürokraten verwarfen diese Idee jedoch, da sie Angst hatten, ihre kuscheligen Arbeitsplätze zu verlieren, und sich darüberhinaus vor dem Zorn der transnationalen Ölkonzerne und den dahinterstehenden Banken fürchteten.

Der libysche Premierminister al-Baghdadi und die libyschen Zentralbanker Ali al-Mahmoudi und Farhat Omar Bin Guida erklärten Gaddafi, dass die Wirtschaft des Landes durch derartige Maßnahmen zerstört würde und es zu einer „Kapitalflucht“ käme – also dass die Globalisten ihr Geld aus dem Land abziehen würden.

„Die Regierung ist gescheitert und die Staatswirtschaft ist gescheitert. Genug ist genug. Für das libysche Volk lautet die Lösung, dass sie direkt an den Öleinnahmen beteiligt werden und darüber befinden, was damit geschehen soll.“

so Gaddafi in einer Ansprache im libyschen Staatsfernsehen. Zur Erreichung dieses Ziels drängte er auf eine radikale Reform der Staatsbürokratie. Die Regierung stimmte jedoch gegen den Plan Gaddafis, dem libyschen Volk das Öl zuzusprechen. Von dem 468-Mann starken Volksausschuss stimmten 64 Abgeordnete für die Maßnahme.

„Während all dieser Jahre war es mein Traum gewesen, die Macht und das Vermögen direkt an das Volk zu geben.“ so Gaddafi in einer Reaktion auf die Abstimmung.

1953 hatten die Vereinigten Staaten und Großbritannien einen Plan ausgeheckt, um den demokratisch gewählten Premierminister des Irans, Mohammad Mossadegh, zu stürzen, der versprochen hatte, die im britischen Besitz befindliche Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) zu verstaatlichen und dem iranischen Volk die Gewinne zukommen zu lassen. Mossadegh versuchte mit der AIOC in Verhandlungen zu treten, aber der Konzern lehnte den von ihm vorgeschlagenen Kompromiss ab.

Um einen Putsch vom Zaum zu lassen, überzeugten die Briten den damaligen US-Außenminister John Foster Dulles, dass der Iran zu den Sowjets überlaufen würde. Den damaligen US-Präsidenten Truman ließ diese Vorstellung kalt. Als dann im Jahre 1953 jedoch Dwight D. Eisenhauer US-Präsident wurde, konnten die Briten ihn davon überzeugen, einen gemeinsamen Putschversuch einzuleiten.

Man entsandte die CIA, um das Land zu destabilisieren, Mossadegh loszuwerden und den brutalen Diktator Mohammad Reza Pahlavi und seine Geheimpolizei SAVAK zu installieren.

Für den Fehler, vorzuschlagen, dass die Ölgewinne an das libysche Volk gehen sollten, wird Muammar al-Gaddafi nun dasselbe Schicksal zuteil.


Lesen Sie mehr über Kriegserklärung: Gaddafi plante Verstaatlichung der libyschen Ölfelder von www.propagandafront.de

Jod, Cäsium, Plutonium » Rott & Meyer
März 29, 2011by Frank Meyer (online)Kommentare

rottmeyer.de/index.php/...-teufels-namen-jod-casium-plutonium/

Die Hölle brennt. Diesmal in Japan. Und das flüchtige Teufelszeug schraubt sich in die Hochatmosphäre.


Jet streams tragen die Radioisotope flugs rund um die Welt. Von kalkulierter Sicherheit wird geschwafelt. Diese Muss ins Kalkül ziehen, dass der eine oder andere der 432 Kernreaktoren in der Welt mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit irgendwann in die Luft fliegt…
Bewusst opferte man den anfänglich hohen Sicherheitsstandard auf dem Altar der gierigen Gewinnmaximierung. Längst überträgt man Verantwortung „verschmiert“ auf windige Wartungsfirmen: Subunternehmen mit ungenügend ausgebildeten Leuten, die als Kernkraftnomaden laborierend von einem AKW zum nächsten ziehen. Preisgünstig, versteht sich, denn die privaten Betreiber wollen eins: verdienen, verdienen und nochmals verdienen. Der Schutz der Bevölkerung ist zweitrangig. Wer trägt hier die Verantwortung? Fukushima ist nicht das letzte Tschernobyl, sondern eher die furchtbare Fortsetzung einer makaberen Tragödie der Menschheit.
All das führt auf die Frage: Auf welche Radionuklide müssen wir in Deutschland notfalls gefasst sein? Wie schützen wir uns vor Strahlenschäden relevanter Spaltprodukte (radioaktive Isotope)?
Beginnen wir unsere Odyssee mit den leichtesten Strahlenflüchtlingen: dem radioaktiven Jod-131 und Jod-133, die eine Kernschmelze in rauhen Mengen freisetzen kann. Jod-133 hat die geringste Halbwertzeit von etwa einem Tag und erzeugt beim Zerfall eine Beta-Strahlung. Sie reicht in der Luft einige Meter weit, im menschlichen Körper einige Millimeter. Etwas langlebiger ist Jod-131. Hauptangriffsziel im Körper sind unsere Schilddrüsen. Diese Organspeicher sind das Sammelbecken für „normales“ Jod, aber auch für radioaktives Jod, das sich z.B. über die Atmung und Nahrung Eintritt verschafft. Bedenken Sie, unser Körper kann die Strahlemänner nicht erkennen und abweisen.
Die rechtzeitige Einnahme von Kaliumiodid-Tabletten soll aber verhindern, dass sich radioaktives Jod in den Schilddrüsen ansammelt. Man bezeichnet das als Jodblockade. Zeitlich richtig dosiert, kann die so mit Normaljod gesättigte Schilddrüse das gefährliche radioaktive Jod nicht mehr aufnehmen und einlagern. Gelingt der Schutz aber nicht, steigt die Wahrscheinlichkeit für einen späteren Schilddrüsenkrebs. Übrigens helfen Jod-Tabletten nicht gegen andere Spaltprodukte.
Allein schon wegen der Laufzeit der „Strahlenden Luftpost“ aus Japan und der kurzen Halbwertszeit, kann uns radioaktives Jod nicht erreichen. Aber wie steht es mit dem Isotop Cäsium 137? Kleiner Anhaltspunkt: Damals betrug die freigesetzte Gesamtmenge an Cäsium-137 durch die Tschernobyl-Katastrophe etwa eine Trillionen Bq (Kernzerfalle).
Durch den niedrigen Schmelz- und Siedepunkt des Cäsiums verflüchtigte sich dieses leicht bei einem beschädigten Kernreaktor – wegen der hohen Temperaturen.
Cäsium-137 irritiert unseren Körper durch sein „Biomimikry“, denn wegen der biologischen Ähnlichkeit mit Kalium wird es genauso im Magen-Darm-Trakt resorbiert und reicher sich in den Körperzellen an. Dabei zerstört es den Energiehaushalt der Zellen. Cäsium-befallene Zellen sterben ab. Während das Leben mit einer Zelle startet, beginnt in diesem Fall das langsame stille Sterben aller Zellen. Cäsium 137 hat eine Halbwertszeit von 30 Jahren, indes eine biologische Halbwertszeit von etwa 110 Tagen, d.h. der menschliche Körper scheidet nach 110 Tagen die Hälfte aus; vor allem über die Leber und Galle. Allerdings führt der Darm Cäsium teilweise wieder in den Organismus zurück – ein Teufelskreis.
Wer hätte gedacht, dass ein Jahrhundert bekanntes Pigment in der Malerei gegen radioaktives Cäsium-137 hilft? Bereits Pieter van der Werff gebrauchte 1709 in seinem Gemälde „Die Grablegung Christi“ den berühmten Farbstoff Preußischblau. Heute ist das Farbpigment die Arznei gegen radioaktives Cäsium. Die Verbindung aus Eisen, Kohlenstoff und Stickstoff heißt allerdings anders, nämlich Radiogardase. Das Medikament schwemmt Cäsium und auch Thallium aus dem Körper und ist rezeptpflichtig. 30 Kapseln gibt’s für 46 Euro. Der berühmte Farbstoff bindet Cäsium-137 im Körper. Er kann eine radioaktive Verseuchung zwar nicht verhindern, reduziert aber Schäden und Folgekrankheiten. Wundern Sie sich nicht über den blauen Stuhl, nachdem Sie den Farbstoff eingenommen haben. Preußischblau bindet Cäsium: das Alkalimetall wird rascher ausgeschieden. Die biologische Halbwertszeit von Cäsium sinkt so auf 40 Tage. Sofort angewendet, würden 75% des verschluckten Cäsiums direkt wieder ausgeschieden

Zur strahlenden Triade gehört Plutonium-239, ein hochgefährlicher Alpha-Strahler. Beginnen wir bei natürlichen Plutoniumisotopen, die in den Mineralien Pechblende oder Monazit vorkommen. Im Uranerz entfällt auf 140 Milliarden Uranatome vielleicht ein Plutoniumatom. Aus der Entstehungszeit unseres Sonnensystems stammt das Mineral Bastnäsit: es enthält das langlebigste natürliche Plutoniumisotop Pu-244 mit 80 Millionen Jahre. Überhaupt ist Plutonium eines der seltensten Schwermetalle in der Erdkruste, weitaus seltener als Gold und sogar mit einer Dichte von 19,86 kg pro Liter etwas schwerer als das edle Metall. Erst mit verfeinerter Analysetechnik gelang es, geringste Spuren dieses Isotop nachzuweisen. Das silberglänzende Schwermetall Plutonium zählt trotz seiner Seltenheit zu den natürlichen Spurenelementen.
Der erste Frevel gegen die Menschheit mit künstlichem Plutonium-239 war die Atombombe; sie zerstörte Nagasaki. Heute strahlt Plutonium-230 „friedlich“ in Kernreaktoren vor sich hin, bis sich sein Geist durch einen „Flüchtigkeitsfehler“ aus der Flasche verflüchtigt. Gemeint sind Mischoxidbrennstäbe – wie in Block 3 in Fukushima. Zusammen mit angereichertem Uran wird es zu diesen MOX-Brennelementen verarbeitet und in Leichtwasserreaktoren Schneller Brüter eingesetzt. Plutonium-239 hat eine Halbwertszeit von über 24000 Jahren und zerfällt überwiegend unter Aussenden von Alpha-Strahlung in Uran-235.
Wie andere Schwermetalle ist Plutonium giftig und schädigt besonders die Nieren. Es dockt an Proteine im Blutplasma an und lagert sich unter anderem in den Knochen und der Leber ab. Wir strahlen dann von innen. Die für einen Menschen tödliche Dosis liegt im zweistelligen Milligrammbereich. Viel gefährlicher als die chemische Schädigung ist seine Radioaktivität, die Krebs verursacht. Die von Plutonium-239 ausgesendete Alpha-Strahlung wird durch die Haut abgeschirmt. Schutzlos ist unser Körper dem Strahlenbombardement ausgeliefert, wenn wir Plutonium 239 als feinen Staub einatmen oder das Teufelszeug mit der Nahrung aufnehmen.
Mir ist kein probates Mittel bekannt, wie man Plutonium-239 aus dem Körper entfernen könnte, außer die Menschheit beschließt, die AKW und Atombomben für immer aufzugeben. Erst dann wäre Ruhe. Aber wohin mit dem gefährlichen Atomschrott, der ja bereits zu Tausenden von Tonnen in Meeren, Wüsten und geheimen Verließen vagabundiert. Übrigens könnte auch eine Atemschutzmaske das Eindringen nanogroßer Plutoniumpartikel nicht verhindern.
Selbst die historische Dimension des japanischen Supergaus mit den schier unübersehbaren Folgen wird die Menschen nicht in ihre Schranken verweisen und zum Umdenken bewegen. Allein die Halbwertzeit radioaktiver Substanzen ist extrem groß gegenüber dem nahen Verfallsdatum der ganzen Menschheit. Nur ein Wettlauf gegen Unvernunft, Gier und Arroganz könnte die Menschheit noch vor dem Schlimmsten bewahren. Laut und vernehmlich tickt die Atomuhr!


©Jörg Müllenmeister

"Pikanterweise liegen die neuen Strahlengrenzwerte der EU noch über den ebenfalls in Windeseile heraufgesetzten Grenzwerten in Japan. So gilt beispielsweise für verstrahltes Fleisch in Japan ein Grenzwert von 500 Bq/kg, während in der EU der Grenzwert bei 1.250 Bq/kg liegt."

www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=8900

Ich würde unsere Politiker zwangsernähren und zwar mit Nahrungsmitteln, die in Japan wegen gesundheitlicher Risiken verboten, bei uns aber nach Meinung unserer Politiker gesundheitlich unbedenklich sind.

Numbers of Children of Whites Falling Fast
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: April 6, 2011

www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/us/06census.html?_r=1&bl

WASHINGTON — America’s population of white children, a majority now, will be in the minority during this decade, sooner than previously expected, according to a new report.

The Census Bureau had originally forecast that 2023 would be the tipping point for the minority population under the age of 18. But rapid growth among Latinos, Asians and people of more than one race has pushed it earlier, to 2019, according to William Frey, the senior demographer at the Brookings Institution who wrote the report about the shift, which has far-reaching political and policy implications.

The single largest increase was among Hispanics, whose birthrates are far above those of non-Hispanic whites, largely because the white population is aging and proportionally has fewer women in their child-bearing years. The median age of whites is 41, compared with 27 for Hispanics, the report said.

As a result, America’s future will include a far more diverse young population, and a largely white older generation. The contrast raises important policy questions. Will the older generation pay for educating a younger generation that looks less like itself? And while the young population is a potential engine of growth for the economy, will it be a burden if it does not have access to adequate education?  

The population of white children fell by 4.3 million, or about 10 percent, in the last decade, while the population of Hispanic and Asian children grew by 5.5 million, or about 38 percent, according to the report, which was based on 2010 Census numbers.

The number of African-American children also fell, down by 2 percent. Over all, minorities now make up 46.5 percent of the under-18 population.

Whites are now the minority of child populations in 10 states, double the number from the previous decade, according to the report, and in 35 cities, including Atlanta, Phoenix and Orlando, Fla. Vermont had the largest drop in its child population of any state.

The changes also have political implications. Though whites are still 63 percent of the population as a whole, that is down from 75.6 percent in 1990, and minorities, particularly Hispanics, who now outnumber blacks, are becoming an increasingly important part of the electorate.

Mr. Frey estimates that whites will slip into the minority by about 2041.  The number of whites grew by just 1.2 percent in the population as a whole in the last decade, a fraction of the 43 percent growth among Latinos.

A version of this article appeared in print on April 6, 2011, on page A14 of the New York edition.

--------
Und in der BRD ? Kann uns die deutsche Demokratie diese Information zugänglich machen ?

Source  
www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/science/earth/...a.html?ref=science

Rush to Use Crops as Fuel Raises Food Prices and Hunger Fears
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: April 6, 2011

The starchy cassava root has long been an important ingredient in everything from tapioca pudding and ice cream to paper and animal feed.

Agnes Dherbeys for The New York Times
Thailand's cassava goes mainly to China, which has sought new energy sources to power growth.
Readers' Comments
"People are starving around the world and we are filling our gas tanks instead. If this isn't perverse and and immoral, I don't know what is."
got hope, Austin, TX

But last year, 98 percent of cassava chips exported from Thailand, the world’s largest cassava exporter, went to just one place and almost all for one purpose: to China to make biofuel. Driven by new demand, Thai exports of cassava chips have increased nearly fourfold since 2008, and the price of cassava has roughly doubled.

Each year, an ever larger portion of the world’s crops — cassava and corn, sugar and palm oil — is being diverted for biofuels as developed countries pass laws mandating greater use of nonfossil fuels and as emerging powerhouses like China seek new sources of energy to keep their cars and industries running. Cassava is a relatively new entrant in the biofuel stream.

But with food prices rising sharply in recent months, many experts are calling on countries to scale back their headlong rush into green fuel development, arguing that the combination of ambitious biofuel targets and mediocre harvests of some crucial crops is contributing to high prices, hunger and political instability.

This year, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported that its index of food prices was the highest in its more than 20 years of existence. Prices rose 15 percent from October to January alone, potentially “throwing an additional 44 million people in low- and middle-income countries into poverty,” the World Bank said.

Soaring food prices have caused riots or contributed to political turmoil in a host of poor countries in recent months, including Algeria, Egypt and Bangladesh, where palm oil, a common biofuel ingredient, provides crucial nutrition to a desperately poor populace. During the second half of 2010, the price of corn rose steeply — 73 percent in the United States — an increase that the United Nations World Food Program attributed in part to the greater use of American corn for bioethanol.

“The fact that cassava is being used for biofuel in China, rapeseed is being used in Europe, and sugar cane elsewhere is definitely creating a shift in demand curves,” said Timothy D. Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University who studies the topic. “Biofuels are contributing to higher prices and tighter markets.”

In the United States, Congress has mandated that biofuel use must reach 36 billion gallons annually by 2022. The European Union stipulates that 10 percent of transportation fuel must come from renewable sources like biofuel or wind power by 2020. Countries like China, India, Indonesia and Thailand have adopted biofuel targets as well.

To be sure, many factors help drive up the price of food, including bad weather that ruins crop yields and high oil prices that make transportation costly. Last year, for example, unusually severe weather destroyed wheat harvests in Russia, Australia and China, and an infestation of the mealy bug reduced Thailand’s cassava output.

Olivier Dubois, a bioenergy expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, said it was hard to quantify the extent to which the diversions for biofuels had driven up food prices.

“The problem is complex, so it is hard to come up with sweeping statements like biofuels are good or bad,” he said. “But what is certain is that biofuels are playing a role. Is it 20 or 30 or 40 percent? That depends on your modeling.”

While no one is suggesting that countries abandon biofuels, Mr. Dubois and other food experts suggest that they should revise their policies so that rigid fuel mandates can be suspended when food stocks get low or prices become too high.

“The policy really has to be food first,” said Hans Timmer, director of the Development Prospects Group of the World Bank. “The problems occur when you set targets for biofuels irrespective of the prices of other commodities.”

Mr. Timmer said that the recent rise in oil prices was likely to increase the demand for biofuels.

It can be tricky predicting how new demand from the biofuel sector will affect the supply and price of food. Sometimes, as with corn or cassava, direct competition between purchasers drives up the prices of biofuel ingredients. In other instances, shortages and price inflation occur because farmers who formerly grew crops like vegetables for consumption plant different crops that can be used for fuel.

China learned this the hard way nearly a decade ago when it set out to make bioethanol from corn, only to discover that the plan caused alarming shortages and a rise in food prices. In 2007 the government banned the use of grains to make biofuel.

Chinese scientists then perfected the process of making fuel from cassava, a root that yielded good energy returns, leading to the opening of the first commercial cassava ethanol plant several years ago.

“They’re moving very aggressively in this new direction; cassava seems to be the go-to crop,” said Greg Harris, an analyst with Commodore Research and Consultancy in New York who has studied the trade.

In addition to expanding cassava cultivation at home, China is buying from Cambodia and Laos as well as Thailand.

Although a mainstay of diets in much of Africa, cassava is not central to Asian diets, even though the Chinese once called it “the underground food store” because it provided crucial backup nutrition in lean harvest years. So the Chinese reasoned that making fuel with cassava would not directly affect food prices or create food shortages, at least at home. The proportion of Chinese cassava going to ethanol leapt to 52 percent last year from 10 percent in 2008.

More distant or indirect impacts are considered to be likely, however. Because cassava chips have been commonly used as animal feed, new demand from the biofuels industry might affect the availability and cost of meat. In Southeast Asian countries where China is paying generously for stockpiles of cassava, farmers may be tempted to grow the crop instead of, for example, other vegetables or rice.

And if China turned to Africa as a source, one of that continent’s staple food crops could be in jeopardy, although experts note that exporting cassava could also become a business opportunity.

“This is becoming a more valuable cash crop,” Mr. Harris said. “The farmland is limited, so the more that is devoted to fuel, the less is devoted to food.”

The Chinese demand for cassava could also dent planned biofuel production in poorer Asian nations: in the Philippines and Cambodia, developers were recently forced to suspend the construction of cassava bioethanol plants because the tuber had become too expensive.

Thailand’s own nascent biofuel industry may have trouble getting the homegrown cassava it needs because it may not be able to match the prices offered by Chinese buyers, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Biofuels development in wealthier nations has already proved to have a powerful effect on the prices and the cultivation of crops. Encouraged by national biofuel subsidies, nearly 40 percent of the corn grown in the United States now goes to make fuel, with prices of corn on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange rising 73 percent from June to December 2010.

Such price rises also have distant ripple effects, food security experts say. “How much does the price of corn in Chicago influence the price of corn in Rwanda? It turns out there is a correlation,” said Marie Brill, senior policy analyst at ActionAid, an international development group. The price of corn in Rwanda rose 19 percent last year.

“For Americans it may mean a few extra cents for a box of cereal,” she said. “But that kind of increase puts corn out of the range of impoverished people.”

Higher prices also mean that groups like the World Food Program can buy less food to feed the world’s hungry.

European biofuels developers are buying large tracts of what they call “marginal land” in Africa with the aim of cultivating biofuel crops, particularly the woody bush known as jatropha. Advocates say that promoting jatropha for biofuels production has little impact on food supplies. But some of that land is used by poor people for subsistence farming or for gathering food like wild nuts.

“We have to move away from the thinking that producing an energy crop doesn’t compete with food,” said Mr. Dubois of the Food and Agriculture Organization. “It almost inevitably does.”

A version of this article appeared in print on April 7, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition
---------
"Marginal Land" gibt es auch in Europe - Slovenien, Polen, Ukraine, Litauen, Weissrussland, Moldavien .... Menschen hungern und verhungern massenhaft u.a. durch diese krankhafte Biofuel- Ideen.

Was haben die Grünen dazu zu sagen ? Das ist ein Irrweg.

New Barriers to a Foreign Degree
By CHRISTOPHER F. SCHUETZE
Published: April 3, 2011

www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/education/...ucside.html?ref=europe

PARIS — At the same time that the number of university students who study abroad continues to climb, a few countries have moved to put up barriers to entry.

Three nations — Australia, Britain and Sweden — have made access to their highly attractive higher education systems more difficult for foreigners. Britain and Australia are adjusting visa and immigration policies, while Sweden will, for the first time in modern history, charge tuition for some foreign students.

The moves have led some educators, students and politicians in those countries to warn that having fewer international students would not only hurt the academic prestige of educational institutions, but also their pocketbooks.

In Britain, a parliamentary committee report published on March 17 warned that any new visa caps “could seriously damage the UK’s higher education industry and international reputation.”

Despite the criticism surrounding the announcements and a decline in the number of international students in Australia, there is no universal agreement on the long-term effects the changes will have on global education.

The most recent action occurred in Britain, where the Home Secretary, Theresa May, announced on March 22 new rules that will cut student visas by up to 80,000 a year, or almost a quarter of the total granted annually in previous years. The rules, which also include a more stringent English-language requirement, will be rolled out this year and should be fully in place by April 2012.

The new rules are part of an effort in Britain to stop fictitious colleges and students from exploiting student visas to avoid regular immigration procedures. “We are tightening up the system, tackling the abuse and supporting only the most economically beneficial migrants,” Ms. May told Parliament when announcing the changes.

According to Universities UK, an association that represents British university administrators, educational institutions benefit not just by attracting top talent, but also by earning a portion of the estimated £5 billion, or $8 billion, that international students spend in Britain during such educational exchanges.

University and College Union , Britain’s largest union for higher education professors and staff, warned in a statement released March 17 of “knee-jerk populist policies that will deny our universities billions of pounds.”

Once the actual rules were announced, some opponents said they were resigned to the changes, while others, like Universities UK, vowed to work with the Home Office to ensure that the 80,000-visa reduction would not affect the ability of British universities to attract high-quality foreign students.

Meanwhile, in Sweden, which according to government figures hosts some 42,200 foreign undergraduate and master’s degree students (foreign doctoral students are not counted separately from Swedish students), the government has announced that it will stop subsidizing the education of non-European Union foreign students starting this autumn. Long known for offering a free post-secondary education, Swedish universities will introduce fees for foreign students from outside the Union, with prices for a two-year master’s program running an average of roughly 229,100 Swedish krona, or $36,325.

“We want to make sure that people study here because of the high-quality education, not because it’s free,” Elin Boberg, press secretary to Jan Bjorklund, the Swedish minister of education, said.

Though the fees are not yet in place, officials say that their announcement has already had an effect. The Swedish government has released figures showing that 13,408 foreign students have been accepted to study for undergraduate or master’s level degrees in the autumn of 2011, just 55 percent of the number of students admitted for study in the autumn of 2010. Of those accepted to begin study this autumn, 75 percent would have to pay the new tuition fees.

Dr. Andreas Schleicher, education policy advisor to the secretary general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said that for years free post-secondary education was part of Sweden’s social contract. Universities were subsidized by the state, but many foreign scholars stayed on, providing the country with talent and a tax base that made the state’s investment worthwhile.

“They could be hurting themselves,” Mr. Schleicher said of the decision to impose the new fees. “Sweden might end up paying for this.”

Blerim Shaqirvela came to Lund University in Sweden last autumn to pursue a master’s degree at the School of Economics and Management. Mr. Shaqirvela, a 26-year-old Macedonian, now thinks he will have to take a part-time job to help pay for tuition. “Had I known that they would charge tuition, I would have definitely applied somewhere else,” he said.
Australia is also feeling the immediate effects of government policies to limit the number of foreign students. The country, which hosts nearly a quarter of a million foreign university students, saw a 9.6 percent decline in first-year undergraduate students between 2009 and 2010, according to government figures.
Related

Academic Freedom, With Strings Attached? (April 4, 2011)
Asia Leads E.U. and U.S. in Chemistry Research Papers (April 4, 2011)
Recent changes to the immigration code have put a strong emphasis on the ability to speak and write English at a high level, while downgrading certain types of training that prospective immigrants might have — like cooking — in the application process, said Ashraf Alias of the Council of International Students Australia.

Pengfei Li, a second-year civil engineering student at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, said he left his native China when he was 16 so that he could learn English in an Australian high school. He then went on to earn a cooking degree in an Australian technical college before starting his engineering studies. Mr. Li, 25, and his parents had hoped that he would eventually become a long-term resident of Australia, but because of shifting rules, he is now looking elsewhere.

“I’m considering Canada, because I think they will take me,” Mr. Li said, explaining that he would choose to do his master’s studies there.

Despite new hurdles set up by some of the world’s top foreign student destinations, Peggy Blumenthal, senior counselor in New York at the Institute of International Education, a U.S. research organization, said she believed the effects would be moderate.

“Obviously, there is going to be a dip because of the backlog, but also because of rumor and perception,” Ms. Blumenthal said, comparing the new British visa policy with the tightened U.S. standards put into place in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 2001.

Between 2003 and 2005, the number of international students in the United States declined for three consecutive years, according to the Institute of International Education. Since 2006, however, the number of foreign students coming to the United States has grown continuously, and with nearly 700,000 visiting scholars, the United States is the top destination for students who study abroad.

“There’s going to be a short-term impact” Ms. Blumenthal said, but she added that in the case of Britain, students would still pursue an education there.

Dr. Schleicher said he did not think the new rules would keep the most qualified international students out of Australia or Britain.

But for Pengfei Li, there remain concerns. He worries most about his parents, who invested a great deal of money in his Australian education. It will bring them “anger and confusion,” he said.

“It means most people have to go back to China,” he said referring to Chinese students at Australian universities.

A version of this article appeared in print on April 4, 2011, in The International Herald Tribune.

Source :
green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/...ism-as-a-field-of-study/

April 9, 2011, 9:05 AM
Q. and A.: Taking On Climate Skepticism as a Field of Study
By FELICITY BARRINGER

Andrew J. Hoffman, the Holcim professor of sustainable enterprise at the University of Michigan, has spent the last year or so applying his tools as a social scientist to researching the cultural and social underpinnings of the backlash against climate change science.

He wrote of the need for such work earlier this year for Strategic Organization, a journal produced by Sage, a British academic publisher.

We interviewed him by telephone from his office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he is on sabbatical. Following are excerpts, edited for brevity.

Q.
The debate over climate science has involved very complex physical models and rarefied areas of scientific knowledge. What role do you think social scientists have to play, given the complexity of the actual physical science?


Andrew J. Hoffman
A.
We have to think about the process by which something, an idea, develops scientific consensus and a second process by which is developed a social and political consensus. The first part is the domain of data and models and physical science. The second is very much a social and political process. And that brings to the fore a whole host of value-based, worldview-based, cognitive and cultural dimensions that need to be addressed.

Social scientists, beyond economists, have a lot to say on cognition, perceptions, values, social movements and political processes that are very important for understanding whether the public accepts the conclusions of a scientific body.

So when I hear scientists say, “The data speak for themselves,” I cringe. Data never speak. And data generally and most often are politically and socially inflected.

They have import for people’s lives. To ignore that is to ignore the social and cultural dimensions within which this science is taking place.

Q.
Have you seen this before, this dynamic?

A.
(Laughs.) I’m hesitating for a second because I’ve learned that making analogies can be tricky. But I do think that there is a process by which, for example, the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer for decades had a scientific consensus that this was an issue, then a social process begins, and then it becomes accepted.

The interesting thing with climate change, I find, is that positioning on climate change is strikingly predictable based on someone’s political leanings. One-third of Republicans and three-quarters of Democrats think that climate change is real. That to me speaks to the political, ideological and cultural dimensions of this debate.

It’s interesting because it wasn’t always so. In 1997 with the Kyoto treaty, with the development of regulations that would impact economic and political interests, sides started to be drawn. We’ve reached the stage today that climate change has become part of the culture wars, the same as health care, abortion, gun control and evolution.

Q.
Why is peer-reviewed science rejected?

“The interesting thing with climate change, I find, is that positioning on climate change is strikingly predictable based on someone’s political leanings.”
— Andrew J. Hoffman
A.
There are many who distrust the peer-review process and distrust scientists. So that can be step one. I think a lot of people will be uncomfortable accepting a scientific conclusion if it necessarily leads to outcomes they find objectionable. People will be hesitant to accept the notion of climate change if that leads directly towards ideas that are at variance with values that they hold dear.

Q.
What values?

A.
Well, do you trust the scientific process? Do you trust scientists? The faith-and-reason debate has been around for centuries. I just read a book that I thought was prescient, “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,” about this suspicion people have about intellectuals who are working on issues that are inaccessible, opaque to them, yielding conclusions that alter the way we structure our society, the way we live our lives.

There’s a certain helpless frustration people have: Who are these cultural elites, these intellectual elites who can make these conclusions in the ivory tower of academia or other scientific institutions and tell me how to live my life?

And we can’t leave out power. There are certain powerful interests out there that will not accept the conclusions this will yield to, therefore they will not accept the definition of the problem if they are not going to accept the solutions that follow it. I’m speaking of certain industry sectors that stand to lose in a carbon-constrained world.

Also, if you can’t define solutions on climate change and you’re asking me to accept it, you’re asking me to accept basically a pretty dismal reality that I refuse to accept. And many climate proponents fall into this when they give these horrific, apocalyptic predictions of cities under water and ice ages and things like that. That tends to get people to dig their heels in even harder.

Some people look at this as just a move for more government, more government bureaucracy. And I think importantly fear or resist the idea of world government. Carbon dioxide is part of the economy of every country on earth. This is a global cooperation challenge the likes of which we have never seen before.

Q.
And so if you think global cooperation is a dangerous notion, it makes you see the science as unacceptable?

A.
It can in part come down to: Do you trust the message and do you trust the messenger? If I am inclined to resist the notion of global cooperation — which is a nice way to put what others may see as a one-world government — and if the scientific body that came to that conclusion represents that entity, I will be less inclined to believe it. People will accept a message from someone that they think shares their values and beliefs.

And for a lot of people, environmentalists are not that kind of person. There’s a segment of the population that sees environmentalists as socialists, trying to control people’s lives.

Q.
There are a lot of organizations that I don’t believe are seen as elites: municipal water authorities, a department of the Army that examines future risks. Are they potential messengers?

A.
In our society today, I think people have more faith in economic institutions than they do in scientific institutions. Scientists can talk until they are blue in the face about climate change.

But if businesses are paying money to address this issue, then people will say: It must be true, because they wouldn’t be throwing their money away.

And so what I’m laying out is that this is very much a value- and culture-based debate. And to ignore that – you will never resolve it and you will end up in what I have described a logic schism, where the two sides talk about completely different things, completely different issues, demonizing the other, only looking for things that confirm their opinion. And we get nowhere.

dort findet man vieles von Fachwelt zu Radiation, über Methodic und Verfahrens.
Und das alles ohne Manipulation, Propaganda und Politik.

www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/news/...?VAR=radiationoveraccu

Neben dem Email-Verkehr von Phil Jones ist unter den Dateien auch eine fünfseitige PDF-Anleitung mit dem Namen “The Rules of the Game”, welche Methoden aufzeigt, um die öffentliche Meinung zu manipulieren. Um das Konzept “Klimawandel” in den Köpfen der Menschen zu verankern solle man emotionale und visuelle Botschaften verwenden, statt auf Fakten zurückzugreifen. Gegenargumente sollten sogar komplett ignoriert werden, und man solle von Anfang an keine Debatte über die Existenz des Klimawandels zulassen, sondern nur die Vermeidungsstrategie betonen um das politische Projekt “menschenverursachte Klimaerwärmung” in Großbritannien voranzubringen.[1]

Sollten Lügen endlich einmal kurze Beine haben? Und all die Zweifler endlich Belege dafür bekommen, dass es eine riesen Verarsche gibt um uns weitere Co² Steuern aufzubrummen? Es ist der absolute Wahnsinn wenn diese Informationen alle korrekt sind. Kurz vor dem Gipfel in Koppenhagen wurde die Dose der Pandorra geöffnet.
Ich kann grade nicht einmal mehr dazu schreiben, ich bin einfach sprachlos.
UPDATE: Hier im Artikel die Emails im Klartext , Chronologisch mit Suchfunktion
[1] www.ibtimes.de/articles/20091121/...itive-daten-entlarvung.htm
[2] blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...-global-warming/

andere Erforschungen, kein Gebrauch chemischer Substanzen.
Dies ist die einzige Möglichkeit für die menschliche Rasse,
die Tiere und die alten Bäume, zu überleben und die neue Sonne* zu sehen.

Wenn wir uns nicht ändern, werden nur wenige überleben
und die Ankunft der sechsten Sonne sehen.

Schließen wir Frieden mit unserem Schöpfer und unserer Mutter Erde,
jeder auf seine eigene Art.
Für uns Maya wird es unser heiliges Feuer sein.

Mit respektvollen Grüßen

" Wandering Wolf"
*Anmerkung: Entgegen weit verbreiteter Meinung stimmen die Maya nicht damit überein,
dass der 21. Dezember 2012 das Ende ihres Kalenders darstellt.

Original Text aus: The Shift of the Ages; www.ShiftoftheAges.com/maya-message-2012  

Übersetzung: Christina Volpi
Verbreitung: INDALOSIA-BARBARA

Quelle ; www.indalosia.de/home.htm

Option 2: "The EU swallows Greece's default, or "reprofiles" the Greek debt" is exactly what is going to happen. It will happen without any bad effects to the banks by the simple virtue of ECB [which doth protest too much] will simply monetize the Greek debt by buying it with Euros that it "prints". Not to mention it can do the exact same thing to the debt held by French and German banks too. Yes, it can't keep increasing the M1 supply forvever, however it can do this inflationary maneuver for 1 or two years. This is the horizon of Merkel and Sarkozy and the lesser politicians. All they want to do is kick the can down the road, declare they "saved" Europe and win relection. They don't care what happens after they get relected. Both Merkel and Sarkozy, but expecially Merkel, have shown an extraordinary willingness to sell out the interests of the tax payers in their own country.

Option 3: 'Greece abandons the Euro" This is not likely to happen, even though this would be the best option. First, the author of this article seems to have forgotten that over 80% of the debt issued are subject to Greek law, which means haircuts on those bonds will be close to 100% for bondholders. The yields on the other 20% are just a couple of percentages points higher than German bunds. The Greek government knows fully well if moved to the drachma, either it would need to continuously increase the Greek M1 to pay all the bloated public sector as well as all those lavish pensions. Or it would have to run deficits and rely on orivate funding. Since no private investor would touch the Greek Drachma bonds, it will have to be continuous expansion of M1, followed by Weimar/Mugabe-Zimbabwe type inflation. I don't see any Greek government short of a military one, having the will to seriously cut spending, because by now the freeloaders form the majority of the voting public. And we all know that once a entitlement is created, the affected group will NEVER give it up.

So, all that is really going to happen is option 2 above, the rape of German taxpayers (via the ECB) and the rape of emerging economy taxpayers (via the IMF). These two entities will funnel taxpayer money from all over the world into Greece and the rest of the PIIGS in exchange for fake promises of "austerity" which will never be kept. All so that a few politicians in Europe can post pone judgement day for two years and get relected.

-----
More and less thats also my opinion. Robin W.
-----------------------------------------------
Source online.wsj.com/article/...tml?mod=WSJEurope_hpp_LEFTTopStories

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama on Monday tapped Gen. Martin Dempsey to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, selecting the nation's top Army officer to be his senior uniformed adviser.

But it is mostly the low price that makes gas alternatives – conventional, renewable, and nuclear – look like dead ducks. As one expert witness told the Commons Select Committee, quite nicely, shale gas is the only part of the energy industry that doesn't come to the taxpayer begging for handouts.

Energy experts and the scientific community have looked on in despair as the Western media fill their bulletins from Japan by projecting the journalists' apocalypse fantasies onto the Japanese tragedy. Rather than making the case for replacing the ancient reactors with much safer modern designs, Fukushima is presented as a moral tale of nature's retribution on man's folly – essentially a pre-scientific, pagan view of the world.

But Rowe agrees that the attention will prompt a rethink.

"It will cause Americans to face a fresh look [sic]," he said. "The American people will have a lot of time to watch their government and the utility industry learn from this terrible event, and respond with proper gravity and learning."

Once the crisis has been dealt with, Japan probably will return to nuclear energy, and quite soon. It has a world lead in small safe reactor designs, as Robert Cringely writes here. And it has little choice. ®

Source

www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/17/nuclear_future_and_gas/

Ports must switch from diesel-operated equipment to that which uses electric power or alternative fuels such as natural gas or biodiesel.
Ports need to demonstrate a Zero-Emission Container Movement System infrastructure immediately.
Regulators must ensure a fair marketplace for companies that comply with regulations and address the economic justice needs of impacted communities and workers.
California influences market demand far beyond its borders. Together, with environmental and community organizations, the private sector and government agencies have begun to lay the regulatory foundation to dramatically reduce GHG pollution from the port and freight transport sector. This partnership is important not only for reducing the impacts of climate change, but for boosting the economy as well.

This report showcases the economic advancements made by companies implementing cleaner technologies, and it is meant to encourage others to take similar, immediate steps. Solutions to our climate crisis are available today. There are costs associated with investment in these technologies; nevertheless, the cost savings associated with reduced fuel consumption and maintenance—not to mention the lives saved by reducing diesel particulate emissions—far outweigh the initial outlay.

Source web.accelerizefinancialemail.com/ize/4/...Dax9DlgiumwD51wDlt20

For issuers rated at Greece's level (single-B), S&P looks to market cues to determine if a bond exchange—even if it is billed as voluntary—is really designed to hurt creditors and help a troubled borrower with dwindling options.

Given that long-term Greek bonds trade in the secondary market with very high yields, an investor replacing his soon-to-mature Greek bonds with new ones at low yields is getting a raw deal. And thus, says S&P, the bond is in default.

The other major ratings companies largely sing the same tune. Fitch Ratings' sovereign-debt chief said in a recent interview that it's "hard to envision" a solution that both hurts creditors (to please Germany) and avoids default (to please the ECB). But would a selective default really be that bad?

One immediate consequence might be that the ECB stops accepting Greek government debt as collateral for lending to banks. Mr. Trichet didn't directly address this Thursday, but he hinted that the ECB would apply its "rules" for what it accepts. Generally, the ECB won't accept junk bonds as collateral—let alone those from an issuer in default. The ECB already waived the regular rules for Greece, but waiving them for a defaulting borrower is another matter.

Still, Greece could have a relatively short stay in the land of selective default. Several analysts point to Uruguay, which did a voluntary bond exchange successfully in 2003. S&P knocked Uruguay's foreign-currency issuer rating to selective default in mid-May; it was back up to single-B-minus 17 days later. Fitch dropped Uruguay to default for a month. (Moody's didn't issue a default rating at all.) The raters concluded the exchange made Uruguay's outlook materially sunnier. Uruguay, though, isn't Greece.

Crucially, Uruguay was able to convince investors that its problems were temporary and that, with a little forbearance to get it through a few hard years, it would come out in better shape.

After a boffo 1990s, fueled by credit, Uruguay hit recession around the turn of the millennium. What pushed Uruguay into real chaos was the crisis in neighboring Argentina, which in 2002 triggered a local banking crisis, a contraction in credit and a vertiginous economic plunge. The debt-to-GDP ratio doubled between 2001 and 2003 to 100% as a severe devaluation in the peso blew up the cost of foreign-denominated debt.

But Uruguay's public finances, while not great, were far from Grecian. The budget deficit remained below 5% of GDP in 2001 and 2002. The debt was high, but growth prospects were good. The largest problem was a big string of bonds coming due in a few years. The government offered to exchange those bonds for similar ones that matured later.

With the help of a big stick—the government indicated it would repay new bonds before old bonds and told domestic banks they'd have to hold huge pots of capital against old bonds and none against new bonds—the lion's share of creditors went along.

The delayed repayments gave Uruguay welcome breathing room, and with strong growth and fiscal discipline, the debt load quickly stabilized. Today, the debt-to-GDP ratio is down near 50%, roughly where it was before the crisis in 2001.

It's harder to see how Greece fits that story. Greece's crisis is largely of its own making, not the result of a storm outside that could quickly recede. Its debt, at around 150% of GDP, is far bigger than Uruguay's ever was. It has struggled to contain its deficit. Its growth prospects are clearly weaker.

Investors might conclude that Greece faces an unconquerable mountain, not a bump in the road.

—Manuel Priego-Thimmel contributed to this article.

online.wsj.com/article/...5620604066778.html?mod=ITP_pageone_3

But Mr. Trichet's anti-inflation rhetoric was overshadowed by the unfolding crisis in Greece. European leaders are scrambling to put together another aid package by July to keep Athens afloat, and which role the private sector should play has become a major sticking point.

Germany and the ECB are on a collision course, and time is running out before Greece runs out of cash in mid-July.

Germany is so far refusing to make new money available unless Greek bondholders carry part of the burden via a bond swap. German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble raised the stakes earlier this week by writing Mr. Trichet and euro-zone finance ministers a letter spelling out a seven-year bond-maturity-extension plan via a debt swap that he said would bring a "quantified and substantial contribution of bondholders."

The ECB's consent to such a swap is needed because the central bank must agree to accept the restructured Greek bonds as collateral for loans to banks. Otherwise, Greece's banks could face collapse. But ECB officials have insisted they can't accept Greek government bonds as collateral if Greece is technically in default, warning that even a simple form of Greek debt restructuring could undermine fragile investor confidence in the bonds and banks of other struggling countries on the euro-zone periphery.

The ECB won't budge on its collateral rules, Mr. Trichet said on Thursday.

The ECB, backed by the French government, supports a strictly voluntary agreement by banks to buy new Greek bonds when existing bonds mature. Berlin thinks such a gentleman's agreement would be insufficient, and wants to start negotiating with banks to swap soon-to-mature Greek debt for new paper, using a mixture of incentives and threats.

Ratings agencies have suggested the German plan would be considered a debt default by Greece, even if European officials try to present the exchanges as voluntary.

"It's hard to imagine a voluntary situation" for private-sector holders of Greek debt, said Bart Oosterveld, managing director at Moody's Investors Service.

Mr. Trichet said the ECB wouldn't participate in any debt rollover with its own Greek bond holdings. The ECB has purchased more than €75 billion ($109 billion) of government bonds of peripheral euro-zone countries. It doesn't provide a breakdown, but economists estimate that its Greek bond stake exceeds €40 billion.

Mr. Trichet repeatedly declined to comment on the specifics of Mr. Schäuble's proposal, saying he is "not embarking on a dialogue" with individual ministries. Still, the implication of his remarks was clear, analysts said: Berlin's plan is a nonstarter in Frankfurt.

"It's a giant poker game, and it's hard to predict what will happen," said Melvyn Krauss, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, California.

In a nod to the problems facing the periphery, the ECB voted to extend unlimited loans to commercial banks at low interest rates at least through the third quarter.

Those loans are a lifeline to Greek and Irish banks that can't meet their funding needs in the private markets.

Write to Brian Blackstone at brian.blackstone@dowjones.com

Source

online.wsj.com/article/...5641718831946.html?mod=ITP_pageone_3

If a central bank transfers less money to other central banks than it receives through the system, it acquires a claim on the system; if it transfers more money than it receives, it develops a liability. TARGET2 plays no role in the creation of central bank money, which is done through the ECB's regular refinancing operations. Crucially, the Bundesbank's TARGET2 claims aren't against other central banks, they are against the whole Eurosystem. Were any one counterparty of the system to default, the losses would be shared by other members, according to the ECB's capital key, which reflects the respective "stakes" of the member states in the system.

No one knows this better than the Bundesbank, which was virtually the only Eurosystem counterparty of Lehman Brothers when it defaulted, and was able to defray around three-quarters of the loss it suffered among its partners in the Eurosystem.

All numbers involving TARGET2 are necessarily huge. The system clears more than €2 trillion a day, and, it's only fair to admit, the imbalances in the current accounts of individual euro-zone members make any snapshot of claims and liabilities in the system look lopsided.

But the euro zone has always had problems with internal current-account balances: they have only become visible in the TARGET2 balances since the private sector refused to finance them. As such, the TARGET2 imbalances reflect only the long-known fact that the ECB temporarily took over the role of credit intermediary during the crisis. That it is taking longer to shake off this role is hardly a secret, but Ireland, Spain and Portugal have all taken clear steps to have their banking systems develerage and recapitalize. If given time, they will take that role back from the ECB and the TARGET imbalances will wither. As Professor Sinn knows, the alternative to this intermediation is a disorderly default.

His logic becomes more strained when he says this "forced capital export" from Germany is crowding out lending by German banks to (presumably more virtuous, profitable and deserving) local borrowers. This is just plain wrong. The ECB is operating a policy of unlimited liquidity. Any bank that wants to refinance a loan to a private-sector counterparty is able to do so through the ECB's regular open-market operations. There is no credit-rationing in Germany, as the Bundesbank has repeatedly testified in its own publications. If anything, the reverse is happening. Credit should be tighter in Germany because of its boom, but ECB interest rate policy is ensuring that it stays loose.

By Professor Sinn's reasoning, the more current-account deficits accumulate at the periphery, the harder German banks would find it to lend locally. This isn't happening. For one thing, the ECB's bank lending surveys have shown a gradual easing of credit standards during the period in which the TARGET2 imbalances have arisen, with only a modest tightening in April's survey. And if I haven't taken out a loan from my bank (Commerzbank), it's certainly no fault of Frau Krüger, my untiring branch rep, or of the bank's equally energetic direct-mail operations. But you don't have to take my word for it: This is from Ifo's press release in May on its own indicator of credit constraints: "The economic upswing in Germany is being fuelled by unusually strong domestic investment activity that is supported, if not triggered, by the favourable lending conditions of the banks. The credit hurdle for small manufacturers is now lower than at any time since the introduction of the survey."

Hmm.

The ECB's real risk is in the money it lent to commercial banks. Of the €418 billion in loans outstanding, almost two-thirds is to banks in the four problem countries, and much of that is secured against collateral that isn't even sovereign-quality. Well-informed acquaintances of mine take Professor Sinn's presentation as representing additional exposures, whereas the TARGET imbalances are—at most—a snapshot of the same problem from a different angle.

It is tempting to think that this was Professor Sinn's intention all along–to ratchet up populist German mistrust of the periphery. He has been the arch-exponent of a biased German narrative of the crisis: a narrative that dumps all blame on lazy Mediterranean types and Irish hucksters, and ignores the failure of Germany to adhere to and enforce the Stability and Growth Pact, the recklessness of German banks in fuelling the bubble, and the inability of German regulators to stop them. The euro has enough real problems without worrying about bogus ones like TARGET2.

Write to Geoffrey T. Smith at geoffrey.smith@dowjones.com

Source

online.wsj.com/article/...3488.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read

Nicht der Artkel ist interessant für mich aber deren Comments von den Lesern.
Eine kostliche Probe ;

pumpernickel

Captain ...

Whilst I in general are with you on the Euro I have not heard of any poll here in Germany. Sadly most Germans, if asked, will reply „let the Greeks swing“ and „to hell with the banks“.

Informed Germans will say „Let's help the Greeks but only if they are willing and seen to be willing to take their medecin, if not, let them swing „ and „in any case, let's make sure the banks get severe haircuts but let's protect pension funds, if possible“.

Realistic Germans will say „We have no choice. They have us by the short and curlies and not helping them could trigger Lehman 2, so we better hand over the lolly. If only we could put all the Greeks together with our banksters and politicians on a space shuttle to the planet Pluto with fuel only for the one-way trip.“ Pluto is composed primarily of rock and ice . Pluto's temperature is about −230 °C.

I believe this is more or less how Germans feel about it.

Source:

Germany and ECB disagree over Greece
The stand-off between Germany and the European Central Bank over the Greek debt crisis intensified yesterday causing further unrest in the debt markets.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...d-ECB-disagree-over-Greece.html

richardjones

The USA, a trading economy, is trying to boot the $ through QE and the generation of internal and external demand, catalysed by a 'cheap currency'.
The euro is, apart from Germany, Holland, Finland and Estonokia, a centrist, statist, protectionist embryonic economy that needs to have a strong currency to encourage necessary DFI and fight inflation.
One monetary unit, as I see it, whilst strongly and in different ways protecting itself, is not doing anything too nefarious to cause failure of the other. As I blabbed before, these monnies need each other. Thus I'm interested as to your more detailed insight on $ deliberately causing euro subsidence.
Lagarde is supported by the USA because they feel, it may change if Sarkozy and the Eurozone/EU Commission can effectively manipulate her for their own ends, she understands the $ and euro interdependence and is not, as most Americans think of the French, per se anti-Anglo-Saxon. She lived and worked in the USA for many years and is very competente: I worked with and against her there.
DSK is a victim of his own reputation and until the trial opens I am not convinced either way as to his culpability, although his past is full of well-documented felonies of this kind. I suspect what will happen, as I see the maid's lawyer trying to widen the scope, largely increase number of witness and garner incitations of precedence is a mistrial.
Read Meyer's Comparative Criminal Law in the America''s (or American States - title depends on publisher) and note that the mistrial protocols in New York state are compendious and the decision  made by the judge, in chambers - alone.
New York state also, most states do, class physical aggression crimes of first and second degree as crimes of double jeopardy.
Thus if DSK gets a mistrial, and the maid's conceited, self-serving attorney is helping, on the grounds of double jeopardy DSK will walk. Betcha this is what happens...

source
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/andrewlilico/...greece-defaults/

Andrew Lilico

Andrew Lilico is an Economist with Europe Economics, and a member of the Shadow Monetary Policy Committee. He was formerly the Chief Economist of Policy Exchange.

What happens when Greece defaults
By Andrew Lilico Economics Last updated: May 20th, 2011
356 Comments Comment on this article
It is when, not if. Financial markets merely aren’t sure whether it’ll be tomorrow, a month’s time, a year’s time, or two years’ time (it won’t be longer than that). Given that the ECB has played the “final card” it employed to force a bailout upon the Irish – threatening to bankrupt the country’s banking sector – presumably we will now see either another Greek bailout or default within days.
What happens when Greece defaults. Here are a few things:
- Every bank in Greece will instantly go insolvent.
- The Greek government will nationalise every bank in Greece.
- The Greek government will forbid withdrawals from Greek banks.
- To prevent Greek depositors from rioting on the streets, Argentina-2002-style (when the Argentinian president had to flee by helicopter from the roof of the presidential palace to evade a mob of such depositors), the Greek government will declare a curfew, perhaps even general martial law.
- Greece will redenominate all its debts into “New Drachmas” or whatever it calls the new currency (this is a classic ploy of countries defaulting)
- The New Drachma will devalue by some 30-70 per cent (probably around 50 per cent, though perhaps more), effectively defaulting 0n 50 per cent or more of all Greek euro-denominated debts.
- The Irish will, within a few days, walk away from the debts of its banking system.
- The Portuguese government will wait to see whether there is chaos in Greece before deciding whether to default in turn.
- A number of French and German banks will make sufficient losses that they no longer meet regulatory capital adequacy requirements.
- The European Central Bank will become insolvent, given its very high exposure to Greek government debt, and to Greek banking sector and Irish banking sector debt.
- The French and German governments will meet to decide whether (a) to recapitalise the ECB, or (b) to allow the ECB to print money to restore its solvency. (Because the ECB has relatively little foreign currency-denominated exposure, it could in principle print its way out, but this is forbidden by its founding charter.  On the other hand, the EU Treaty explicitly, and in terms, forbids the form of bailouts used for Greece, Portugal and Ireland, but a little thing like their being blatantly illegal hasn’t prevented that from happening, so it’s not intrinsically obvious that its being illegal for the ECB to print its way out will prove much of a hurdle.)
- They will recapitalise, and recapitalise their own banks, but declare an end to all bailouts.
- There will be carnage in the market for Spanish banking sector bonds, as bondholders anticipate imposed debt-equity swaps.
- This assumption will prove justified, as the Spaniards choose to over-ride the structure of current bond contracts in the Spanish banking sector, recapitalising a number of banks via debt-equity swaps.
- Bondholders will take the Spanish Banking Sector to the European Court of Human Rights (and probably other courts, also), claiming violations of property rights. These cases won’t be heard for years. By the time they are finally heard, no-one will care.
- Attention will turn to the British banks. Then we shall see…

Article 125 of the EU Treaty states:
The Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State… A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State
Everyone knows that this Treaty article was violated by the Greek, Irish and Portuguese bailouts. Indeed, senior French politicians have not been shy of spelling matters out. For example, in May last year, French Europe Minister Pierre Lallouche cheerfully declared: “De facto, we have changed the treaty”. Again, Christine Lagarde – now favourite for the IMF job – stated last December: “We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone…The Treaty of Lisbon was very straight-forward. No bailout.”
Now if, say, Greece and Ireland default, then bureaucrats and politicians will have lost lots of my money doing something forbidden by ratified international treaty.
They are going to lost more of tax-payer money (Dr.Schauble / BRD Regierung idea).
Can I sue them, to get some of it back?

By Ian Covie  --
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/...ash-in-your-wallet/


Each euro banknote’s serial number tells you which country created it. Some could be worth more than others if the Greek crisis causes debt worries to drive a wedge between northern and southern countries in the eurozone.
Worries about sovereign states’ differing abilities to repay their debts prompted world leaders at the G20 Summit in Toronto to pledge they will half their national budget deficits by 2013. But translating words into action will be a more difficult challenge for some than others. For a few, the challenge could prove simply impossible.
Now rising fears about southern European countries’ financial stability mean it could pay to be able to read the code on your euro. Some Germans are already insisting on holding on to euros issued in their own country and passing on those backed by southern states. They know from not too distant history what it feels like to be left holding worthless paper which used to be official currency.
While it may seem far-fetched to worry about the future of one of the world’s largest currencies, the wealthy speculator George Soros expressed doubts last week and several other commentators have done so earlier.
When I called the European Union Parliament and Commission press offices in London this morning to seek their comments , none was forthcoming. To be fair, there was some sort of a fuss about eggs going on and one of the people I spoke to promised to call me back. I’ll let you know if they do.
All euros are backed by the European Central Bank but the serial numbers prefixed with X may be regarded as most secure because they are issued by Germany. N is also a good prefix, because these come from Austria. P, L, U and Z prefixes may also be favoured because these are issued by the authorities in Holland, Finland, France and Belgium.
If you share widespread fears that the euro cannot last in its present form, you might want to avoid notes with the prefixes F, G, M, S, T or Y. These are issued by Malta, Cyprus, Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Greece.
Here and now, in a long-planned move to make life difficult for forgers, about 150m British £20 notes with a picture of Edward Elgar will be replaced as legal tender on Thursday, July 1, by notes with a picture of Adam Smith. When the change was first announced during the last Labour government, I noted how apt it was that Gordon Brown should replace a great English composer with a Scots tax collector – for that was Smith’s day job before he became an economist.
The transition will no doubt be smooth and the Bank of England says it will continue to honour all the notes it has issued.
Let’s hope the same can be said of the European Central Bank and all its euros.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/...untry-in-europe/

You might be tempted to assume Britain holds the dubious accolade of being the most indebted nation in Europe, when it comes to households. But, in cash terms at least the perhaps surprising answer is that German households owe more than any of their European neighbours. The evidence can be found in this recent European Parliament paper, and the chart which underlines this is this one.

Now, I’m being slightly disingenous here: Germany has a considerably larger population (82m) than the UK (61m) or Spain (46m), so perhaps it’s not a surprise that it has a larger stock of household debt than other nations in Europe.
Nonetheless, even when you compare household debt to disposable income (a pretty good yardstick of how overextended families are), it isn’t as if Germany is a paragon of economic virtue. The chart below shows that Spain has by far the most overextended households, with debts worth over 90pc of their annual disposable income, followed by the UK at around 75pc. But it is striking that Germany actually has more overextended households than Greece, and although its position is improving (while others have seen their indebtedness worsening), it remains severely stretched.

You might be tempted to assume Britain holds the dubious accolade of being the most indebted nation in Europe, when it comes to households. But, in cash terms at least the perhaps surprising answer is that German households owe more than any of their European neighbours. The evidence can be found in this recent European Parliament paper, and the chart which underlines this is this one.

The chart below shows that Spain has by far the most overextended households, with debts worth over 90pc of their annual disposable income, followed by the UK at around 75pc. But it is striking that Germany actually has more overextended households than Greece, and although its position is improving (while others have seen their indebtedness worsening), it remains severely stretched.

Griechenland will Suche nach Öl und Gas international ausschreiben
07.06.11 | 22:25 Uhr  
www.ad-hoc-news.de/...und-gas-international--/de/News/22202321

Griechenland will die Erkundung von Ölvorkommen südlich der Insel Kreta und in dem westlichen Teil des Ionischen Meeres für internationale Unternehmen ausschreiben. In einer Mitteilung des griechischen Umweltministeriums vom Dienstag hieß es, die betreffenden Gebiete sollten bis Mitte 2012 in Erkundungszonen für internationale Öl- und Gasunternehmen aufgeteilt werden.

-------
Was nicht gesagt wurde;
nur bei Kreta gibt es bestätigte über 6 bln cbm von Gas Vorkommnissen.
Seit dem €-Einführung in Griechenland (als Trojanisches-Pferd der US zu Bekämpfung der Währungskonkurenz) "betreut" GS alle griechische Regierungen. Obwohl die Tatsache der Mammut-Entdeckung bei Kreta in Fachkreisen bekannt war, haben die Griechen offiziell nie es zugegeben.
Im Jahr 2003 haben Schweden-Finnland- Norwegen-Dänemark eine 250mlrd € schwere Offerte für den Erwerb (80% für GR, 20% für den Käufer) dieser Vorkommnissen abgegeben. Lange Zeit haben sie sogar keine Antwort darauf bekommen. Die CN ist auch dabei - seit 2005 will CN auf Kreta unbedingt ein Umschlag-Hafen für 10 mln TEU bauen.
Exxon hat Exploatation - Lizenzen für Kretas-Gas schon bekommen.
Warum?
GR sollte raus aus der EU und mit eigener Währung und mit Mrd. aus Gas&Oil durchstarten.
Bis dahin sollten die Euro-Länder (besonders BRD, Luxemburg, Holland, FR, Be) bluten bis Euro Desintegration folgt.
Die US befinden sich in Währungskrieg mi CN, die Chinesen investieren am Meistens in der nicht-Euro Staaten in Europa (UK, Norwegen, Schweden, GB und auch in Spain).
Europa ist ein Spielball für Big_Boys geworden und schon den Krieg um Ressourcen längst verloren.

Mit großen Interessen erwarte ich die Nachrichten aus den Bilderberg-Kreisen.

Once the Bilderberg meeting finishes, a decision on all the forthcoming news will be made.

Diese Informationen habe ich, indem, im TELEGRAPH(UK) gelesen.

The context of Mr. Sarkozy's speech was remarkable, analysts said. European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and Christine Lagarde, French finance minister and prospective International Monetary Fund Managing Director, sat in the front row.

"The symbolism of this speech was extremely important," said Karel Lannoo, head of the Centre for European Policy Studies, a Brussels-based think tank. "He doesn't often speak in public in Brussels like this. This is France trying to recover its status in the EU that it lost to Germany during the euro crisis."

Mr. Lannoo noted that Mr. Sarkozy lectured Mr. Barroso "as if he were a student."

Mr. Sarkozy has been a strong proponent of financial-market regulation, but his language has recently become more specific and forceful. His speech comes as the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, debates several initiatives to regulate derivatives and commodities trading.

The EU, he said, should "be inspired by what the U.S. already has done." Last summer, U.S. legislators passed the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul, which consolidated regulatory agencies, forced more derivatives trading onto exchanges and tightened regulation of credit-rating firms.

Mr. Sarkozy wants the EU to go further, especially in regulating what he called speculation. "In oil, the size of financial markets is currently 35 times that of the physical market," he said on Tuesday, his voice rising. "In agricultural raw materials, on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange alone the total of derivatives annually exchanged is 46 times the world production of wheat." This, he said, "is not how a market economy should function, and we need to act."

"The determination [to regulate financial markets and trading houses] by France is total. I hear that we need fair competition between financial markets, and that we [shouldn't regulate too much]. I know this argument. But let me ask a question: Should we all give up fighting the mafia just because one country fails to fight the mafia? If a country has a deficit in one regulation, does the world have to follow that country?"

Glencore said Mr. Sarkozy's speech didn't concern it because it was engaged in trading physical commodities, not speculation. "We mine and farm commodities in more than 30 countries world-wide, increasing global supply," Simon Buerk, a spokesman, said in an email. "On the marketing side we are engaged in physically moving commodities around the world, ensuring they reach the customers that need them in the most efficient way possible."

Derivatives and futures markets "are already well regulated," said Brian Durkin, chief operating officer of the CME Group Inc., which operates the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. U.S. markets would support a move to align European market rules with those in the U.S., which already has cash deposit requirements in certain circumstances and rules on market manipulation, he said.

A commission spokeswoman declined to comment on Mr. Sarkozy's speech, saying that speeches by two commissioners at the conference were a sufficient response.

Mr. Barroso said the commission will present a proposal in October to force mining companies to disclose more financial information, even if they're not listed. "The commission will publish proposals in October, including an obligation on companies to publish information on their activities," he said. "That is essential to fight the corruption which is seen in some trades. I would appeal to all partners to follow the same approach. Only co-ordinated global action will produce a real solution."

Internal markets commissioner Michel Barnier, who spoke after Mr. Sarkozy, said the commission would propose rules limiting the size of the position any one company can take on financial markets. "A bit like the Americans, we are going to make sure you are not having a dominant operator on the market," he said.

Write to John W. Miller at john.miller@dowjones.com

Source
online.wsj.com/article/...ml?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_LEFTTopWhatNews

'For all the talk of another Lehman moment, European banks are a lot less nervous. Just look at interbank rates: j.mp/lWs9VH'

There is a rumour that the will end the CNY and USD peg on sunday

Only a matter of time when this debt blowsup in their faces-- they should be more concerned with their domestic issues than propping up insolvent nations and institutions, but people have to learn the very hard way. Unfortunately sometimes it takes violent revolutions before those lessons are ever learned and change occurs-- you can't own people through debt that is designed to take they're individual right and sovereignty-- history has proven this to be ill-fated thinking.(by AldoHux_IV). THATS RIGHT !!!

Source

www.businessinsider.com/chinese-ghost-cities-2011-5?op=1

My Fazit ; Globalisation's  Results

Moody's Just Put Italian Debt On Downgrade Watch
Gregory White | Jun. 17, 2011, 3:34 PM

Italy's sovereign debt has just been put on downgrade watch by Moody's (via Zero Hedge).
From Moody's (via Zero Hedge):
Moody's Investors Service has today placed Italy's Aa2 local and foreign currency government bond ratings on review for possible downgrade, while affirming its short-term ratings at Prime-1.

The main drivers that prompted the rating review are:

(1) Economic growth challenges due to macroeconomic structural weaknesses and a likely rise in interest rates over time;

(2) Implementation risks surrounding the fiscal consolidation plans that are required to reduce Italy's stock of debt and keep it at affordable levels; and

(3) Risks posed by changing funding conditions for European sovereigns with high levels of debt.
Like we've said before, Italy's weak growth outlook coupled with its unstable political situation is not good news for the country's debt.
The result is a slide in the euro, from above $1.43 to below.


Read more: www.businessinsider.com/...owngrade-watch-2011-6#ixzz1PbX0Wn5o
-------

Lavine rollt schon.

www.businessinsider.com/...0-is-still-headed-to-1500-by-2012-1

My recommendation !!

All that being said, Obama does have the support of serious lawyers, and he himself was a constitutional lawyer, so the idea that just because Johnson and Krass opposed this decision doesn't in itself end it.
But this is still tough.
For some context, see this American Conservative story (from last June) on the war philosophy of Harold Koh, a renowned liberal legal scholar who also has a history of justifying hostile activity.
At the end of March, Harold Koh, top lawyer at the State Department, used his keynote address at the annual confab of the American Society for International Law to make an announcement: the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to kill suspected terrorists is legal. The drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan are lawful because, Koh delineated, they are done only in national self-defense, their proportionality is always precisely calibrated, and they carefully discriminate civilians from combatants.
There’s both more and less to it than that, but the legal argument itself is of minor importance. What matters is that Koh said it. Harold Hongju Koh: renowned human rights advocate; leading theorist of international law (which, the ASIL conventioneers would happily have told you, is much more civilized than mere national law); until last year dean of Yale Law School and therefore unofficial pope of the American legal system, and former director of the school’s Orville H. Schell Jr. Center for International Human Rights; Obama appointee accused by Glenn Beck and likeminded screamers of wanting to smuggle Sharia law into U.S. courts. All of which is to say, if a liberal lion like Harold Koh says drone strikes are lawful, what more do you need to know?


Read more: www.businessinsider.com/...wyers-on-libya-2011-6#ixzz1PbcbkIkD

www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2011/NEW061711A.htm

13.Company: AstraZeneca plc (AZN)
Current Dividend Yield: 7.51%
Sector: Drugs
Country: UK
14.Company: Vodafone Group Plc (VOD)
Current Dividend Yield: 7.42%
Sector: Telecom
Country: UK
15.Company: Westpac Banking Corporation (WBK)
Current Dividend Yield: 7.24%
Sector: Banking
Country: Australia
Note: Dividend yields noted are as of June 21, 2011
The majority of the companies in the above list are in the telecom sector. Nokia’s yield is so high since its stock price fell heavily recently.
Disclosure: Long BBVA, STD

Source

topforeignstocks.com/wp/

A haircut of 30-70% would cripple the balance sheets of the institutions most exposed to Greek fixed income write downs. BNP Paribas (OTCBB:BNPQY), for example, has 5 billion Euro in Greek debt holdings while Societe Generale (OTCBB:SCGLY) carries a 3 billion Euro exposure. A haircut at the higher end of the possible spectrum of 50-70%, as predicted by the S&P would cause many Greek financial institutions such as Alpha Bank (OTCBB:ALBKY) and the National Bank of Greece (NYSE:NBG) to require substantial bailouts.

American Banks
Even the U.S. banks holds $1.8 billion worth of distressed Greek securities with an additional $4.7 billion of holdings in the private sector. When all types of claims and exposures are considered, the United States has $43.1 billion dollars invested in Greece. Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) and JPMorgan Chase (NYSE:JPM) addressed the issue of deteriorating credit conditions in Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland in their latest quarterly reports. JPM does not provide a concrete breakdown of its figures but states "aggregate net exposures to these five countries as measured under the Firm's internal approach were less than $20.0 billion at March 31, 2011, with no one country representing a majority of the exposure".

Bank of America, on the other hand, shows its direct sovereign and non-sovereign exposures to the aforementioned countries; cumulative Greek exposure amounts to only $677 million. Other banks did not reveal their figures.

The Bottom Line
With a CCC debt rating and on the verge of bankruptcy, Greece is now forced to take drastic actions to handle its massive debt load. State asset sales, austerity measure and a steady restructuring process will bode more favorably for investors than either the suggested 70% haircut or the worst case scenario - default. (To learn more, see Credit Default Swaps: An Introduction.)

By Arthur Pinkasovitch

Arthur Pinkasovitch is a Financial Research Analyst at Investopedia and is currently a CFA level 3 candidate. His investment focus is centered on energy and commodities as well as applying basic economics principles to everyday investment analysis. Arthur teaches introductory corporate finance at a local college and is part-owner of a Russian Grocery Store. You can follow Arthur on Twitter.


Read more: stocks.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/...ahooSA#ixzz1QDTKXXbT

for 24th of June , 1 PM

S&P 500: -70. The market action continues to reflect a trading range. Major downside support is at $1,250. Upside resistance begins at $1,300.
Silver: -70. This market is heading for a test of the lower levels of the Donchian trading channel.
Gold: +55. An exit signal at $1,532.73 was given yesterday, as was a sell signal at $1513.18 for short term and intermediate traders only. Major support at $1,480. Major resistance at $1,550.
Crude Oil: -100. This market is at the lower levels of support. We wanted to buy for a trading turn around the $90.07 level which represents a 61.8% Fibonacci retracement. The trend is down based on our Trade Triangle technology.
The Dollar Index: -70. Pretty much the same as yesterday. Our indicators are still negative longer-term for this index. Minor support at $74.50. Resistance at $76.00. Look for a possible test of the upper line of the Donchian channel.
The Thomson Reuters/Jefferies CRB Commodity Index: -100. We are at the lower range of the Donchian channel and the market is oversold. We would not rule out some sort of bounce from current levels. Market is in a downtrend and moved out of the Donchian Channel due to the surprise crude oil announcement out of the White House yesterday.
Every success,
Adam Hewison
President of INO.com
Co-founder of MarketClub

The government of Ireland, for example, just announced that it is set to take its “fair share” of private retirement funds.

Drowning in debt, and faced with unpopular, unrealistic austerity measures, the Irish government announced that it will now tax private pensions to raise 470 million euros (roughly $675 million) per year…

Seizing a portion of the entire country's retirement savings.

But Ireland is not the only country to call this play, nor will it be the last…

Late last year, the French government went through an elaborate process to change its pension laws, “legally” allowing politicians to steal retirement funds from the public in order to pay off other debts.

Other countries' governments have done the same in the past few years: they include Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Argentina, and Australia.

Think this couldn't happen in the US?

Well, guess what? It's already happening…

The fact is, public pensions in America have been raided for years.

Congress routinely “borrows” from Social Security to make up budget shortfalls.

What do you think the chances are of Social Security being paid back in full?

Or the chances of the Treasury paying back the government pensions they're using to stave off the debt ceiling?

I don't know about you…

But I think the chances are next to nil.

In fact, I believe Congress' next target for funding new spending is the trillions of dollars in private, individual retirement accounts (IRAs).

How would the US government get away with this?

It's diabolically simple…

First, there will be some big unforeseen market event... another financial catastrophe similar to the market meltdown we saw in 2008 after Fannie and Freddie collapsed.

This is when Congress will step in… citing its desire to “protect” the American people from future market shocks.

Then politicians will mandate that a portion of all managed retirement funds be invested in the “safety and security” of US Treasury bonds.

Does that sound fair?

Well, who asked you anyway? Just be a good citizen and turn over your money already.

After all, the most important part is that the big Wall Street institutions still get their big fees… and the government gets its hands on the mother lode.

This is how I believe US taxpayers will end up being forced to “loan” their hard-earned retirement savings to the government… at rates far below inflation.

But before any of this happens…

Right now, there is a window of opportunity to take action to protect yourself and your retirement money.

You see, I've found a unique way US taxpayers with retirement accounts can set up a special kind of IRA.

I guarantee that not one in 100,000 Americans has ever heard of this…

Yet this simple-to-set-up account allows you to take control of your retirement savings, from the comfort of your own home – and even send it offshore, if you want to.

It's 100% US legal… and best of all, if this scenario comes to pass, the government can't touch a penny of it.

You can buy and store gold and silver coins… hold foreign currencies… buy securities on US and international stock exchanges… purchase agricultural property… or even a beautiful apartment on the beach in some sunny country.

The possibilities are endless.

Best of all, anything and everything you put into this account cannot be touched by the US government if this scenario comes to pass.

That said… the most important thing right now is that you get your retirement money off the radar of the politicians, ASAP… before they pull an Ireland and announce some new measure, virtually overnight.

Because in my experience, these things can happen very, very quickly.

If what I'm saying makes sense to you, I'll give you all the details on this special retirement account.

I'll even give you the number of a good friend and colleague of mine to call, who is the world's leading expert in these kinds of special accounts.
......

more  on www.sovereignman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/kit3.html

Research shows African Mango extract may offer significant slimming and health benefits. Click image above to enlarge.

source  healthdiscoveriesmag.com/Travel.html

www.crtv.cm/cont/nouvelles/...;table=nouvelles&sub=societe

BUSH MANGO IDENTIFIED AS EFFICIENT FOR WEIGHT LOSE
20/06/2011

STUDIES CARRIED OUT BY THE LABORATORY OF NUTRITIONAL BIOCHEMISTRY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF YAOUNDÉ 1 REVEAL THAT IRVINGIA GABONENSIS IS EFFICIENT IN CONTROLLING BODY WEIGHT.

The research study was initiated in 2005 and later confirmed by nutritionists in the  United States of America.

After the revelation, Irvingia Gabonensis or  bush mango as it is known locally referred to,  has suddenly become of high demand in the US weight loss market.

Competent experts argue that the fruit has the strongest natural fat burner known, so far.

Prof Julius Oben, one of the Cameroonian scientists who took part in the research, indicated that the bush mango burns fats and has no side effects.

The African mango is found in the forest of Leboudi outside Yaoundé. Since its added value was published, the fruit has become increasingly scarce.

Fonka Mutta Beau Bernard

The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion.
“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.
American and Afghan officials agreed to discuss the mineral discoveries at a difficult moment in the war in Afghanistan. The American-led offensive in Marja in southern Afghanistan has achieved only limited gains. Meanwhile, charges of corruption and favoritism continue to plague the Karzai government, and Mr. Karzai seems increasingly embittered toward the White House.
So the Obama administration is hungry for some positive news to come out of Afghanistan. Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact.
Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.
The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.
Endless fights could erupt between the central government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich districts. Afghanistan has a national mining law, written with the help of advisers from the World Bank, but it has never faced a serious challenge.
“No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits.
At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.
Another complication is that because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry before, it has little or no history of environmental protection either. “The big question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way that is environmentally and socially responsible?” Mr. Brinkley said. “No one knows how this will work.”
With virtually no mining industry or infrastructure in place today, it will take decades for Afghanistan to exploit its mineral wealth fully. “This is a country that has no mining culture,” said Jack Medlin, a geologist in the United States Geological Survey’s international affairs program. “They’ve had some small artisanal mines, but now there could be some very, very large mines that will require more than just a gold pan.”
The mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency.
A version of this article appeared in print on June 14, 2010, on page A1
The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.
“The Ministry of Mines is not ready to handle this,” Mr. Brinkley said. “We are trying to help them get ready.”
Like much of the recent history of the country, the story of the discovery of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth is one of missed opportunities and the distractions of war.
In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
During the chaos of the 1990s, when Afghanistan was mired in civil war and later ruled by the Taliban, a small group of Afghan geologists protected the charts by taking them home, and returned them to the Geological Survey’s library only after the American invasion and the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.
“There were maps, but the development did not take place, because you had 30 to 35 years of war,” said Ahmad Hujabre, an Afghan engineer who worked for the Ministry of Mines in the 1970s.
Armed with the old Russian charts, the United States Geological Survey began a series of aerial surveys of Afghanistan’s mineral resources in 2006, using advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment attached to an old Navy Orion P-3 aircraft that flew over about 70 percent of the country.
The data from those flights was so promising that in 2007, the geologists returned for an even more sophisticated study, using an old British bomber equipped with instruments that offered a three-dimensional profile of mineral deposits below the earth’s surface. It was the most comprehensive geologic survey of Afghanistan ever conducted.
The handful of American geologists who pored over the new data said the results were astonishing.
But the results gathered dust for two more years, ignored by officials in both the American and Afghan governments. In 2009, a Pentagon task force that had created business development programs in Iraq was transferred to Afghanistan, and came upon the geological data. Until then, no one besides the geologists had bothered to look at the information — and no one had sought to translate the technical data to measure the potential economic value of the mineral deposits.
Soon, the Pentagon business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai.
So far, the biggest mineral deposits discovered are of iron and copper, and the quantities are large enough to make Afghanistan a major world producer of both, United States officials said. Other finds include large deposits of niobium, a soft metal used in producing superconducting steel, rare earth elements and large gold deposits in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan.
Just this month, American geologists working with the Pentagon team have been conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan where they believe there are large deposits of lithium. Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large of those of Bolivia, which now has the world’s largest known lithium reserves.
For the geologists who are now scouring some of the most remote stretches of Afghanistan to complete the technical studies necessary before the international bidding process is begun, there is a growing sense that they are in the midst of one of the great discoveries of their careers.
“On the ground, it’s very, very, promising,” Mr. Medlin said. “Actually, it’s pretty amazing.”

www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/...als.html?pagewanted=2

source online.wsj.com/article/...24.html?mod=WSJEurope_article_forsub

By YUKA HAYASHI

TOKYO—A former nuclear adviser to Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan blasted the government's handling of the crisis, and predicted more revelations of radiation threats to the public in the coming months.

In his first media interview since resigning his post in protest in April, Toshiso Kosako, one of the country's leading experts on radiation safety, said Mr. Kan's government has been slow to test for dangers in the sea and to fish, and has understated certain radiation threats to minimize clean-up costs. In his post, Mr. Kosako's role was to advise the prime minister on radiation safety.



STR?Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Toshiso Kosako, who resigned in April as a senior nuclear adviser to Prime Minister Naoto Kan, says the government is still failing at radiation protection.

And while there have been scattered reports of food contamination—of tea leaves and spinach, for example—Mr. Kosako predicted there will be broader discoveries later this year, especially as rice, Japan's staple, is harvested.

"Come the harvest season in the fall, there will be a chaos," Mr. Kosako said. "Among the rice harvested, there will certainly be some radiation contamination—though I don't know at what levels—setting off a scandal. If people stop buying rice from Tohoku … we'll have a tricky problem."

Mr. Kosako also said that the way the government has handled the Fukushima Daiichi situation since the March 11 tsunami crippled the reactors has exposed basic flaws in Japanese policy making.

"The government's decision-making mechanism is opaque," he said. "It's never clear what reasons are driving what decisions. This doesn't look like a democratic society. Japan is increasingly looking like a developing nation in East Asia."

Specifically, Mr. Kosako said the government set a relatively high ceiling for acceptable radiation in school yards, so that only 17 schools exceeded that limit. If the government had set the lower ceiling he had advocated, thousands of schools would have required a full cleanup. With Mr. Kan's ruling party struggling to gain parliamentary approval for a special budget, the costlier option didn't get traction, he said.

"When taking these steps, the only concern for the current government is prolonging its own life," Mr. Kosako said.

Mr. Kan's office referred questions about Mr. Kosako's remarks to a cabinet office official, who declined to be identified. The official said the government is making "utmost efforts" to improve radiation monitoring in the sea and working closely with fishermen and others.

"Particularly close attention is paid to the safety of rice as Japan's staple food," the official said, adding the government would suspend the shipment of crops if radiation exceeding a set standard is detected. The government has banned the planting of rice in certain areas.

As for schools, the official said the government was working to lower the ceiling for acceptable radiation, and "is also considering additional steps. "

Mr. Kosako, a 61-year-old Tokyo University professor who has served on a number government and industrial panels, quit Mr. Kan's newly appointed group of nuclear experts on April 30, fueling concerns about the government's handling of the accident.

Saying that many of recommendations from himself and the group were ignored by Mr. Kan, the scientist described the government's ceiling on schoolyard radiation levels as "unacceptable." The image of him wiping tears at a news conference on the day of his resignation, as he said he wouldn't subject his own children to such an environment, was widely broadcast.

Having spent two months focusing on teaching radiation-safety courses at his university, Mr. Kosako said he is ready to begin speaking his mind again, starting with foreign audiences outside of the Japanese controversies. Over the coming weeks, he is scheduled to give speeches in the U.S. and in Taiwan.

He said he is especially concerned with contamination of the ocean by the large amounts radioactive material from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi reactors dumped into surrounding waters. The government has released only sketchy information about what has drained into the sea as a result of efforts to cool the smoldering reactors. Mr. Kosako has urged more seawater monitoring, more projections of the spread of polluted water and steps to deal with the contamination of different types of seafood, from seaweed to shellfish to fish.

"I've been telling them to hurry up and do it, but they haven't," he said.

As he resigned, Mr. Kosako submitted to government officials a thick booklet that contained all the official recommendations by him and his group he had offered during his six-week tenure. A copy of the booklet was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal through an independent source. Mr. Kosako authenticated the material.

From the time of his appointment on March 16, Mr. Kosako and some of his colleagues offered recommendations touching on a broad range of topics, according to the booklet. It was weeks before the public learned of some of them, such as a March 17 call for using the government's Speedi radiation-monitoring system to project residents' exposure levels using the "worst-case scenario based on a practical setting."

On March 18, they urged the government's Nuclear Safety Commission to re-examine the adequacy of the government's initial evacuation zones, based on such simulations by Speedi.

The Speedi data weren't released to the public until March 23, and the evacuation zones weren't adjusted by the government until April 11. Critics inside and outside the government say the delay in the adjustment may have subjected thousands of Fukushima residents to high levels of radiation exposure.

Write to Yuka Hayashi at yuka.hayashi@wsj.com

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Toshiso Kosako, who resigned in April as a senior nuclear adviser to Prime Minister Naoto Kan, says the government is still failing at radiation protection.

blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2011/06/30/...-not-so-green-presidency/

Poland’s Not-So-Green Presidency

By Alessandro Torello


Reuters
Tonight at midnight, Poland takes the helm of the European Union for the first time.

An awkward proposal to increase the European Union’s budget by a minimum 5% for 2014-20 will place Poland in the uncomfortable position of finding agreement among EU governments  and the European Parliament, and risks making it it a difficult six months. But there may some strains also over Poland’s environmental credentials.

At a meeting of environment ministers last week, Poland refused to sign off to a set of conclusions that it thought were suggesting that the EU could be moving to a more ambitious target in cutting CO2 emissions by 2020 beyond the current 20%.

There was so little controversy over the final document that the Hungarian minister who chaired the meeting –his country holds the presidency until Poland takes over tonight– was already declaring it approved, when Poland finally got his attention and spoke out against it.

Many countries wouldn’t be happy to face more ambitious targets as it would mean spending more money at a time of financial constraints, but Poland is more nervous than others because 95% of its electricity production comes from burning coal, which has a high rate of CO2 emissions.

Even though the momentum for climate-change policies has slowed since the fiasco of the United-Nations sponsored Copenhagen conference, the debate has never faded, especially in the EU, where a dedicated commissioner –Connie Hedegaard– keeps it alive and running.

Poland’s chairmanship of climate talks within the EU will likely mean that many issues will be frozen until next year, when Denmark takes over.

This may also have a more global consequence because in December South Africa will host another UN-sponsored global climate conference, at which Poland will lead the EU delegation.

Expectations for the Durban meeting are not, it must be said, particularly high, but the EU still has the ambition of being an inspiring force behind the international negotiations for a deal to cut CO2 emissions, and having a skeptical lead negotiator may not help.

So, where will the Poles focus their climate and energy efforts during the six months?

Shale gas is a good bet. Poland is seeking to develop this technology that’s changing the global natural gas market since the U.S. brought it to an industrial scale. Poland is considered one of the countries with the most significant resources in Europe, even though research is just starting.

Shale gas –whose environmental consequences are questioned by many– would have a big impact economically and politically for Poland, helping reduce the country’s dependence on gas imports from Russia. This dependence gives Moscow strong political leverage, Brussels a lingering concern of possible disruptions in case of a dispute, and Warsaw a big gas bill.

Gas also emits much less CO2 when it’s burned to produce electricity, so it would help the country reduce its impact on climate change, in line with European goals.

That may not help much for 2020, though: Shale gas production might still be a decade away even then.

Forget Greece: 10 Not-So-Fun-Facts About German Banks
July, 5th 2011   by The Ox
Source ;
seekingalpha.com/article/...cts-about-german-banks?source=feed


1. German banks are perhaps the most leveraged in the developed world- far more so than any of the so called PIIGS countries. The graph below is based on data from the IMF Global Financial Stability Report and was created by earlywarn.blogspot.com. The IMF defines leverage as tangible assets to tangible common equity."



2. In the 2010 stress tests of European banks, 6 of the 14 German Banks tested declined to publish the expected detailed breakdown of their sovereign debt holdings. The only other European bank to shirk this disclosure was Greece’s ATE bank, which ended up failing the test.

3. According to John Mauldin, his sources tell him “many of the state-owned German Landesbanks are essentially insolvent, with massive amounts of sovereign debt.”

4. Landesbanks are a group of state owned banks – they account for about 20% of German bank assets. Competitors of Landesbanks complain that the Landesbanks have an unfair advantage over commercial banks because they can raise money at a cheaper rate, due to their implicit government backing. Kind of like people used to complain about Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB).

5. In May 2011, Germany’s financial regulator, BaFin banned naked shorts against several large German banks, insurance companies, and reinsurance firms.

6. In April 2009, a German newspaper published a leaked list from BaFin that showed German banks had approximately 816 billion euros in toxic assets, about twice what was generally assumed prior to then. German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck told Reuters that it was “regrettable" that the list was publicized. Steinbruek said the leak was "not funny.”

7. The German Bank Restructuring Act, which was passed in November, makes it less likely that German taxpayers will have to bail out bondholders with Tier 2 seniority. Moody’s responded to the rule change by downgrading the subordinated debt of 23 German banks.

8. Ben Bernake stated last week that US money market funds had substantial exposure to core European banks. “A disorderly Greek default would have significant effects on the US” economy, according to the Federal Reserve Chairman.

9. The Euribor rate, which approximates the average interest rate banks offer to lend unsecured funds to each other, has been steadily rising since the Spring of 2010 and has more than doubled since then.

10. As the chart below illustrates, the iShares MSCI Europe Financials Index ETF, EUFN is close to having its 50 day moving average cross below its 200 day moving average. At Ox Mountain, our extensive research indicates it’s generally a good idea to exit an ETF when the 50-200 downward cross occurs.
(Click to enlarge)

For a summary of which other ETFs are gaining or losing momentum this week, please go here. www.fairweatherinvesting.com/resources/market-news

To see how following a long term moving average strategy can possibly increase your risk-adjusted returns considerably, please go here.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

This article is tagged with: The Macro View, Economy

wir sind die Besten !

Signals to Expect From ECB's Trichet
July, 6th 2011

online.wsj.com/article/...731982195632.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

By BRIAN BLACKSTONE

European Central Bank chief Jean-Claude Trichet's monthly news conference on Thursday could be among the most significant in recent memory: Greece is edging closer to default; Moody's has pushed Portugal into junk status with Greece; euro-zone inflation is near two-year highs; and the economy is slowing.

Oh, and the ECB is almost certain to raise interest rates for the second time in three months, further distancing itself from the U.S. Federal Reserve and Bank of England, which have rates closer to zero and are expected to hold them there for many more months.

Here's a road map for Thursday:

Greece: The ECB initially took a strong stance against debt restructuring or any sort of arrangement with the private sector that leads to default by rating agencies. It forced Germany to back down from its earlier insistence for a maturity extension (which would have almost certainly been ruled a default).

But ECB officials ceded control of the debate when they started speaking favorably about voluntary private-sector participation. The problem is that, ultimately, what constitutes voluntary participation is a judgment call. Governments and banks have touted recent Greek rollover plans as strictly voluntary. Rating agencies are skeptical. Mr. Trichet's remarks will be eyed for whether he thinks private-sector participation is still useful to even be discussing, or whether the very debate is doing more harm than good.

Collateral rules: The ECB suspended its collateral requirements for Greece one year ago, meaning its bonds can be used at the ECB's lending window despite being rated deep into junk status. A default rating changes things, because the ECB rules also require "adequate" collateral be posted.

One question that needs clarity is whether the ECB will look for loopholes to keep Greek banks afloat. For instance, it could insist that all three rating agencies declare a default before cutting Greece off, or make distinctions between individual bond issues and the rating of Greece itself, or make it clear that emergency loans from the Greek central bank would still be available to Greek banks. That would provide some calm to markets and governments, but at the expense of the ECB's credibility.

If Mr. Trichet takes a hard line, suggesting he would side with the first default ruling and cut Greece off, the onus would shift back to governments and banks to either come up with rollover plans that pass muster with the rating agencies, or abandon the idea altogether.

Rating agencies: Moody's on Tuesday cut Portugal's rating to junk status, the first agency to do so. If S&P and Fitch follow suit in coming weeks, Portuguese bonds risk losing their eligibility at the ECB (though economists think the ECB would suspend the rules for Portugal as it already has for Greece and Ireland). Still, the move raises two issues for the ECB. First, given its vast exposure to Greece, Ireland and Portugal via bond purchases and collateral, how secure is the ECB's balance sheet? And second, why are rating agencies still given such a central role in the ECB's crisis response? Expect Mr. Trichet to be quizzed on both.

The economy/inflation: The ECB has been largely upbeat on the economic outlook and worried about inflation. But growth appears to have weakened in the second quarter, raising the question as to whether this is a temporary soft patch or start of a more pronounced slowdown. Inflation, meanwhile, was 2.7% in June. That's above the ECB's 2% target but below its recent peak of 2.8% in April. Mr. Trichet's comments may provide clues to whether the ECB thinks the worst of inflation is over, or whether the risk remains for a renewed upturn.

Interest rates: Lost in the Greek drama is the fact that the ECB will almost surely raise its main policy rate to 1.5% from 1.25%, the second increase in three months. The Fed and Bank of England appear nowhere near raising rates, meaning further ECB rate increases may put upward pressure on the euro. Look for any hints from Mr. Trichet on whether more increases are in the pipeline later this year (by, for instance, continuing to warn about inflation risks) or if he is ready to hit the pause button.

Write to Brian Blackstone at brian.blackstone@dowjones.com

www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/07/...ve-idUSTRE7660GE20110707

Exclusive: Treasury secretly weighs options to avert default
WASHINGTON | Wed Jul 6, 2011 11:40pm EDT

(Reuters) - A small team of Treasury officials is discussing options to stave off default if Congress fails to raise the country's borrowing limit by an August 2 deadline, sources familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

Senior officials, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have repeatedly said there are no contingency plans if lawmakers do not give the U.S. government the authority to borrow more money.

But behind the scenes, top Treasury officials have been exploring ways to prevent a financial meltdown that would be triggered if the government were unable to pay its bills on time, sources told Reuters.

Treasury has studied the following issues:

- Whether the administration can delay payments to try to manage cash flows after August 2

- If the U.S. Constitution allows President Barack Obama to ignore Congress and the government to continue to issue debt

- Whether a 1985 finding by a government watchdog gives the government legal authority to prioritize payments.

The Treasury team has also spoken to the Federal Reserve about how the central bank -- specifically the New York Federal Reserve Bank -- would operate as Treasury's broker in the markets if a deal to raise the United States' $14.3 trillion borrowing cap is not reached on time.

The U.S. government currently borrows about $125 billion each month. The Obama administration wants Congress to raise the limit by more than $2 trillion to meet the country's borrowing needs through the 2012 presidential election.

The contingency discussions, which have remained a closely guarded secret throughout weeks of negotiations with Congress over the debt ceiling, are being led by Mary Miller, Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets, who is effectively custodian of the country's public debt.

Miller's team has debated whether Obama could ignore Congress and order continued borrowing -- by relying on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- if it fails to raise the borrowing cap.

The fourth section of the 14th Amendment states the United States' public debt "shall not be questioned." Some argue the clause means the government cannot renege on its debts.

Obama dismissed talk of invoking the amendment on Wednesday. "I don't think we should even get to the constitutional issue," he said. "Congress has a responsibility to make sure we pay our bills. We've always paid them in the past."

HINT OF PLAN B COULD HURT TALKS

The White House declined to comment on the discussions at Treasury, but administration officials sought to tamp down talk of relying on the 14th Amendment.

There has been growing speculation in Washington in recent days that the administration could use the amendment to ignore the congressionally imposed limit on the amount of money the United States can borrow.

"Despite suggestions to the contrary, the 14th Amendment is not a failsafe that would allow the government to avoid defaulting on its obligations," said White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage.

Miller's team has discussed the Government Accountability Office's 1985 assessment that Treasury has the authority to prioritize payments in the event of a default -- an option Treasury officials have been wary of.

The administration's nightmare scenario is that investors panic at the prospect of a default, triggering a crisis that eclipses the 2008 financial meltdown. That could plunge the U.S. economy into another recession, something that could doom Obama's re-election prospects in 2012.

Some conservative Republicans have argued the Treasury can prioritize payments and manage a default. The administration wants to keep lawmakers focused on the August 2 deadline, and even a hint of a "Plan B" could lessen the urgency to strike a deal by then.

"As we have said repeatedly over the past six months, there is no alternative to raising the debt limit," Treasury spokeswoman Colleen Murray said when asked to comment on the Treasury discussions.

"The only way to prevent a default crisis and protect America's credit-worthiness is to enact a timely debt limit increase, which we remain confident Congress will do."

TREASURY OFFICIALS MUM

Obama meets leaders from both parties at the White House on Thursday as he seeks to get an agreement to cut trillions from the U.S. deficit, which Republicans have demanded in exchange for their support to raise the debt limit.

The fear of any loss of momentum in the debt and deficit talks is so great that even in their private conversations with former colleagues and investors, administration officials are refusing to admit to contingency discussions.

"There has to be contingency planning," said one former Obama administration official. "But they won't even tell me that."

That view was echoed by numerous former officials from the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.

"You have to have a backup plan. If you are relying on Congress to avoid the possibility of an Armageddon, you can't just bet on that," said Keith Hennessey, who headed the White House National Economic Council during President George W. Bush's administration.

In August, the Treasury will take in roughly $172 billion, but is obligated to make $306 billion in payments -- meaning it cannot pay about 45 percent of its bills without borrowing more money, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

That would force the administration to make some difficult choices, even though officials believe emergency measures will buy little time and cannot stave off an economic catastrophe.

OPTIONS "PRETTY UGLY"

If Treasury were to decide to delay some payments, one option could be to postpone a disbursement of more than $49 billion to Social Security recipients that is due on August 3.

It would be a politically explosive step but one that could allow the government to temporarily pay bondholders to try to avoid foreign investors dumping U.S. Treasuries and the dollar.

The administration has warned that any missed payments, including those to retirees, veterans and contractors, would be default by another name, and the Treasury team still has concerns that any contingency plan would prove unworkable.

Steve McMillin, a former deputy director of the White House Office of Management and Budget under Bush, said Treasury has options but most of them are "pretty ugly."

If Treasury were to decide to delay payments, it would need to re-program government computers that generate automatic payments as they fall due -- a massive and difficult undertaking. Treasury makes about 3 million payments each day.

From their second floor offices in Treasury, Miller and Fiscal Assistant Secretary Richard Gregg, are the lieutenants Geithner is relying on if the administration's first option of negotiating a deal with Republicans falls apart.

"She's dealing with this day in and day out," said a former Treasury official.

The former official said Treasury aides were "speaking with Congress on a daily basis," giving them the latest updates on receipts and when default could occur.

The source said White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley and other officials regularly ask Miller for information.

"Every day they talk about the debt ceiling. The night before, they get the most recent numbers," the source said.

Michael Barr, a former Treasury official who worked closely with Miller, said he spoke with Miller and Gregg a month ago.

"They were exploring if there were any legal and practical alternatives. It was not obvious to them that the president has the legal authority to pick and choose who gets paid," he said.

Barr added: "It is not obvious that even if they had legal authority, that as a practical matter you can do it."

As recently as June 21, Miller told a group of sovereign debt holders in London that there is no Plan B and assured them that the debt limit would be raised before August 2.

Publicly, Treasury has maintained there is no contingency plan. "Our plan is for Congress to pass the debt limit," Geithner said late in May. "Our fall-back plan is for Congress to pass the debt limit, and our fall-back plan to the fall-back plan is for Congress to pass the debt limit."

(By Richard Cowan, Rachelle Younglai, Tim Reid, and Caren Bohan)

(Editing by Ross Colvin and Jackie Frank)

Der Hauptsitz des Unternehmens muss sich in Deutschland befinden. Außer um den Rechtssitz kann es sich hierbei auch um den operativen Sitz des Unternehmens handeln. Der operative Sitz ist der teilweise oder vollständige Sitz der Geschäftsleitung oder der Unternehmensverwaltung. Befindet sich der Hauptsitz nicht in Deutschland, muss der Schwerpunkt des Börsenhandels mit der Aktie an der Frankfurter Börse liegen, und das Unternehmen muss seinen juristischen Sitz in der Europäischen Union oder einem Staat der Europäischen Freihandelszone (EFTA) haben.
Liegt der operative Sitz eines Unternehmens in Deutschland, nicht jedoch dessen Rechtssitz, muss das Unternehmen diese In-formation öffentlich kenntlich machen. Die Hauptanforderung des Umsatzschwerpunkts ist erfüllt, wenn mindestens 33 Prozent des Gesamtumsatzes innerhalb der letzten drei Monate über die Frankfurter Wertpapierbörse (einschließlich XETRA) liefen.
Bei Erfüllung dieser Kriterien basiert die Auswahl der Indexwertpapiere im DAX® Index auf dem Orderbuchumsatz in XETRA® und auf dem Parkett der Frankfurter Wertpapierbörse innerhalb der letzten 12 Monate sowie der Streubesitz-Marktkapitalisierung (nachstehend die "Streubesitz-Marktkapitalisierung") zu einem bestimmten Berichtszeitpunkt (letzter Handelstag des Monats). Diese Marktkapitalisierung wird unter Verwendung des Durchschnitts der volumengewichteten Durchschnittspreise der letzten 20 Handelstage vor dem letzten Tag des Monats bestimmt.
Zusammenstellung des DAX® Index
Die Auswahl von Unternehmen für den DAX® Index basiert ausschließlich auf zwei quantitativen Kriterien: Börsenumsatz und Marktkapitalisierung. Dazu werden vier Regeln (Fast Exit, Fast Entry, Regular Exit und Regular Entry) angewandt. In Ausnah-mefällen, einschließlich kurzfristig angekündigter Übernahmen oder wesentlicher Veränderungen in Bezug auf den Streubesitz eines Unternehmens, kann die Geschäftsleitung des Indexanbieters in Absprache mit dem Arbeitskreis Aktienindizes von diesen Regeln abweichen. Eine reguläre Anpassung findet jährlich statt. Erfüllen mehrere Unternehmen die Kriterien, werden die besten bzw. schlechtesten Kandidaten gemäß ihrer Streubesitz-Marktkapitalisierung aufgenommen bzw. ausgeschlossen.
Der DAX® Index ist kapitalgewichtet, wobei die Gewichtung der einzelnen Titel dem jeweiligen Anteil an der Gesamtkapitalisierung aller den Index bildenden Titel entspricht. Die Gewichtung basiert ausschließlich auf dem als Streubesitz geltenden Anteil des Grundkapitals einer jeden Aktiengattung. Sowohl die Anzahl der Aktien des Grundkapitals als auch der Streubesitzfaktor werden vierteljährlich bei der Verkettung aktualisiert. Im Rahmen der Verkettung kann die Anzahl der Aktien einzelner Unternehmen reduziert werden, um eine begrenzte Gewichtung dieser Unternehmen innerhalb des DAX® Index zu erreichen. Die Obergrenze beträgt 10%. Die Berechnung des Index erfolgt unter Verwendung der Laspeyres-Formel.
Weitere Informationen
Die Deutsche Börse AG hat Leitfäden zu ihren Aktienindizes herausgegeben. Die Leitfäden werden fortlaufend aktualisiert und können von der Deutsche Börse AG bezogen oder über das Internet unter www.deutsche-boerse.com abgerufen werden.

The Right Way to Use Inverse Funds


By Keith Fitz-Gerald  

www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/...=portals&from=yahoo


More by Keith Fitz-Gerald
3 Ways to Slash Your Risk Despite the Negative Investing Outlook
Socially Responsible Investing: Four Ways to Profit as You Help Clean Up Wall Street
Financial Reform Follies: By Upstaging Bernanke, JPMorgan's Dimon Shows Us Where Washington Went Wrong
          §
Editor's Note: Keith Fitz-Gerald is the chief investment strategist for Money Morning, an online investment research site.

So-called "inverse funds" are widely misunderstood and can be tricky to use, but these specialized investments have a place in most portfolios.

In fact, with US stocks having zoomed more than 80% off their March 2009 market lows, now could be the ideal time to add inverse exchange-traded funds to your portfolio.

But there's definitely a right way and a wrong way to use them, so it's worth taking a closer look.

The Lowdown on Inverse ETFs

If you're not familiar with inverse exchange-traded funds (ETFs) -- or haven't used them -- don't worry. You're not alone. Despite the fact that they've been around a few years, I've found that many investors either aren't aware of them or don't quite understand how they can be used.

Others who are familiar with inverse ETFs view them solely as a hedging instrument and don't realize that their strategic use can lead to higher, more-consistent returns over time.

That's ironic, because they've proven their worth time and again -- such as during the run-up in oil prices that we saw in 2005 and 2006, and during the financial crisis that got its start in late 2007.

As their name implies, an inverse ETF is a specialized investment vehicle that moves opposite whatever security or index they're designed to track.

Inverse ETFs trade just like stocks on regular exchanges, which means that investors who want to use them don't have to have special accounts or approval from their brokers. And because they are priced in "real time" -- just like regular stocks (and as opposed to conventional mutual funds) -- investors who want to really fine-tune their approach can literally monitor their exposure down to the minute or the tick if they wish.

Inverse funds can utilize a variety or combination of financial instruments -- including options and futures -- to achieve their objectives. And yet, their operation is almost completely invisible to the investor. That makes ETFs ideal for counter-balancing long positions in a diversified portfolio without having to worry about the intricacies of short selling, put options, liquidity, taxes, or margin management.

Inverse funds also remove the element of market timing from the equation. And that's a very good thing, since the vast majority of investors -- individual and professional alike -- fail to keep pace with the market averages. In fact, in any given year, about three-quarters of all professional managers lag the performance of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index.

Rydex/SGI created one of the first inverse funds: The Rydex Inverse S&P 500 Strategy Inverse Fund (RYURX). In professional trading circles, it was known as the Rydex URSA, or simply "ursa," which is Latin for "bear."

Today, as part of a $1 trillion industry segment, there are more than 100 inverse funds tracking the S&P 500, the Nasdaq Composite Index, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, as well as all sorts of other indices ranging from domestic small caps to foreign choices like the iShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (FXI).

There are even so-called "ultra" inverse funds, which offer double or even triple the inverse results if you want to be more aggressive. These come with their own unique wrinkles because they use leverage to achieve their objectives. But don't necessarily believe all the bad press they've received in recent years. If used properly, they're hardly the "return killers" pundits would have you believe.

I like to use inverse funds in two ways:

As an "income stabilizer."
And as an "absolute-return producer."

Let's take a look at both.

Inverse Funds as an Income Stabilizer

If you've ever been sailing and hit rough water, you might be familiar with something called a "storm anchor." It's something that's thrown overboard in an effort to stabilize the boat.

That's a great analogy. Because inverse funds are truly non-correlated assets, they serve the same purpose as a storm anchor. So if you're dependent on income, using inverse funds can stabilize the principal value of your holdings, while allowing you to concentrate on preserving your income.

This is more of a "set-it-and-forget-it" approach to income investing. And research studies underscore that having 5% to 10% of your overall assets in such holdings is just about right.

Income as an Absolute-Return Producer

If you're more aggressive, you can use inverse funds to achieve absolute returns (aka profits) during rough market stretches in which everyone else around you is fretting about the losses they're incurring.

Investors who travel this route typically allocate more than 5% to 10% of their portfolios in inverse-type investments -- depending upon what it is that they're trying to hedge.

Investors in this group also tend to rebalance their inverse funds regularly -- sometimes even daily -- to accommodate the market's inevitable ebbs and flows (see related graphic).



Consider, for example, a $10,000 investment that outperforms the markets by 5%. An investor who uses inverse funds to hedge that investment would now want to add an additional $500 to an appropriate inverse fund to rebalance the incremental return (or "alpha," as it's referred to by professional investors).

Similarly, if a hedged investment has fallen by 5%, that same investor would want to sell $500 worth of inverse funds to reduce the net exposure to zero ($0.00).

A Worthwhile Sacrifice

In investing, as in physics, there is no "free lunch." In other words, in order to get the security that these inverse funds provide, you have to give up something.

Because inverse funds move in the opposite direction to the underlying indices they track, they'll take a little off the top when markets are rising.

However, in a world characterized by out-of-control government spending and markets that are exposed to the risks created by seriously out-of-control financial institutions, that's an acceptable trade-off. Especially when it comes to the peace of mind I get by using them.

Actions to Take

Although they are specialized investments, I believe "inverse funds" have a place in most portfolios.

Here are a few of my favorite choices to help you get started.

If you're partial to US stocks, consider the aforementioned Rydex Inverse S&P 500 Strategy Inverse Fund. It moves opposite the S&P 500 Index.

If you've got heavy US Treasury exposure -- particularly at the longer end of the spectrum as many investors do right now -- consider the Rydex Inverse Government Long Bond Strategy Inverse Fund (RYJUX) or even the iPath US Treasury Long Bond Bear ETN (DLBS). Although the latter is technically an exchange-traded note (ETN), the purpose and function is similar.

If you're an investor who favors high tech, or who is big into energy, there's the ProShares Short QQQ ETF (PSQ) or the United States Short Oil Fund (DNO).

If you find that you share one of my major worries, and are concerned about the outlook for the US dollar, or if you have the majority of your portfolio in dollar-denominated investments, you might find that the PowerShares DB US Dollar Index Bearish (UDN) will provide the security that eases those fears.

Finally, if you share my view that China represents the greatest long-term investment potential on the planet -- but you still wish to "smooth out" some of the interim volatility that's certain to come -- consider the Ultrashort FTSE/Xinhua China Proshares ETF (FXP). This is kind of the yin to the yang of the aforementioned iShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index ETF.

For more on ETFs, try a free trial of Ron Coby and Denny Lamson's Grail ETF & Equity Investor.

How are we certain it was just a price correction? The slope of the 200-day moving average line (blue line) remained positive during the price dip. I viewed that as a strong indicator that the overall “investment community” remained committed to the long side of the US stock market.

Remember, technical analysis reflects trader psychology, and human investment patterns tend to be repetitive.

Once key support is identified, and that region was verified (the fact the index held support above our proprietary region in July 2010), we thought it prudent to to go long the index. That was in in August 2010 at 1044. We remained in that posture until March 2011 as the market traded above 1325, just prior to the April high and subsequent correction to the end of June.

Is history repeating itself once again this year (April to end of June correction) as it did last? Currently it appears that way, and if so we should expect constructive price action ahead for the next few months.

Currently the S&P 500 Index continues to work its way toward historical highs (the 1575 region) as we get closer to our overall prognostication. That being said, the last 20% will be the toughest as the area of the old highs, denoted by the double top on the chart, will provide a formidable test.

How to play this move?

As stated above, our long term view is the S&P 500 will reach new historical highs before year end. However, during the last five to six trading days the index has exhibited a near term parabolic move to the upside. Therefore, to chase the market at current levels is not prudent. Traders may want to wait for a pullback to go long the SPY, near the $131.00 region.

Editor's Note: For more content, visit www.thechartlab.com.

www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/...arket/7/8/2011/id/35619

source
seekingalpha.com/article/...-portfolio-management?source=yahoo

Barclays iPath ETNs: Useful Tools for Bond Portfolio Management

by Lawrence Weiman

Since August, Barclays iPath has introduced two sets of ETNs that make available to smaller investors bond portfolio management tools which were previously only available through the use of futures or swaps markets. They allow investors to take positions on the particular parts of the yield curve or on the shape of the yield curve. I will focus on the first set in this article.

iPath offers bull and bear instruments on two year interest rates (DTUS, DTUL), 10 year interest rates (DTYS, DTYL) and 30 year rates (DLBS, DLBL). The “bear” instruments (ticker ends in S) increase in value with increases in interest rates, and vice versa for the bull notes (ticker ending in L).

Unlike many of the ETFs in fixed income, these instruments are based on absolute moves, not daily moves, and they are not leveraged.

While the most obvious use of these instruments would be simply to take an outright view on interest rates, the more interesting application for investors would be to make use of these as tools for modifying the risk of an overall fixed income strategy, much in the way institutional investors make use of futures and interest rate swaps.

Here are a few examples:nterest Rate Risk Management
The bull and bear ETNs allow fixed income investors to alter the risk of their fixed income investments and exposure to the impact of changing interest rates, without the need to liquidate bond holdings. A couple examples:

1. An investor holds an existing portfolio of individual corporate bonds, including some maturing in 2021 that were purchased in 2006 at rates well above current 10-year rates and with an attractive spread over Treasuries for the bonds.

The investor has unrealized gains on those bonds but feels that long term rates have bottomed. The investor would prefer not to sell the individual bond because of issues related to liquidity, bid ask spreads and the current low spreads for high grade corporates vs. Treasuries.

By purchasing the 10 year bearish ETN, the investor would accomplish the following:

Lock in the gains on the bond due to the fall in long term interest rates;
Preserve the attractive spread vs. Treasuries on his existing corporate bond;
Eliminate the need to trade out of the illiquid corporate bond;
Retain the flexibility to easily alter his strategy in response to changes in market conditions and / or his view of the market.
2. When constructing fixed income portfolios, most investors assess their outlook for interest rates and shorten or extend maturities based on their forecast of future interest rates.

For example, in the current interest rate environment with three month T-bills at .15 and 2-year Treasuries at .61%, there is a strong disincentive for investors anticipating higher rates to lock in a two year investment.

An investor anticipating higher inflation and thus higher interest rates would keep maturities very short. This would eliminate the risk of locking in current rates and leave open the opportunity to benefit from rolling the short term investment at higher rates at a later date.

As an alternative, an investor anticipating higher rates could do the following:

Invest cash in short term T-bills or an ETF with a very short duration;
purchase the 2-year bear ETN.
A variation on this strategy that sought to generate higher yield would be to combine a position in a floating rate loan fund such as Fidelity Floating Rate High Income (FFRHX - yield 2.80%) combined with the 2-year bear note. The yield on the fund will rise along with short term rates and the 2-year bear note would increase in value as well.

The graph below, with 3 month T-bills (red) vs. 2-year Treasury notes (blue), shows both extremely low levels of overall interest rates as well as a large spread between three month and two year rates. A "reversion to the mean" would mean both higher interest rates and a narrower spread between the two rates.

As tools for interest rate management, these ETNs allow an investor to alter the interest rate risk of his portfolio without selling off individual bonds or trading in and out of his bond ETF or mutual funds.


“Stripping Out” Interest Rate Risk From a Bond Position
Use of these interest rate ETNs can be particularly useful for investors in municipal or corporate bonds by allowing the investor to “strip out” the interest rate risk from the credit risk out of a corporate or municpal bond position. Here are two examples:

1. Municipal Bonds

Consider the municipal bond investor who feels that the current relationship between municipal bonds and Treasuries presents an attractive opportunity. The investor is considering buying a 10-year municipal bond with yields above those of Treasuries, while the long term average is for such bonds to trade at a yield .85 of Treasuries.

However, the investor anticipates that the overall level of long term interest rates will rise, meaning that even if the spreads between munis and Treasuries revert to the mean, the investor will get hurt by the increase in the overall level of interest rates. Purchasing a bear ETN on the 10-year interest rates would eliminate the risk associated with overall interest rates and make the municipal bond purchase a “pure play” on the relative levels of munis vs. Treasuries.

2. Credit Spreads

In a similar manner, investors could take advantage of opportunities in investment grade or high yield bonds without taking a view on interest rates.

For example in a typical “flight to quality” financial panic scenario, it is very common for interest rates on government securities to fall sharply while credit spreads for both investment grade and high yield bonds move to extremely high levels. The investor who anticipates a “reversion to the mean” after the panic subsides would expect rates to rise and credit spreads to narrow. The graph below shows several periods, including 2008, when a flight to quality pushed the spread between corporate bonds (red) and Treasuries (blue) to extreme levels and then subsequently narrowed:



Thus, if this investor purchased investment grade or high yield individual bonds or ETFs, part of the gain from the narrowing of the yield spreads would be offset by losses due to the increase in interest rates. A strategy that would have combined the purchase of the credit risk bonds with the purchase of a bear Treasury ETN would, in combination with the credit bond position, create a “pure play” on the narrowing of the interest rate spreads regardless of the overall level of interest rates. I would not be surprised if an ETN is soon introduced that will offer a direct way to express a view on credit spreads

All of these strategies have been used by institutional fixed income investors for decades but they required either the complications of futures contracts, shorting bonds or ETFs and / or accesss to the institutional-only swaps markets. With these new ETNs, retail investors have some new tools for their portfolio management.

I will cover the other new fixed income ETNs on the yield curve in my next article.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

T

There is no inflation furthermore ; deflation is coming. Groupon/coupon society wont allow higher prices, we all use Grocery/Gas discount points etc. locally as well, more "discounting" so buy bonds it aint over yet, 30+ years of gains, again read Gary Shilling latest book. buy zero coupon 30yr for max gain potential (Bea of Yahoo think).

This picture belowed to the posted article by L. Weiman .

Source  (July, 8th 2011)

finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/...worry-bonds-125525974.html

With Stocks Near the Top, It’s Time to Worry About Bonds

Remember the archery contest in Robin Hood where they are shooting arrows and each time they hit the bullseye, they move the target 10 paces further away and shoot again, with the fair Maid Marian watching all the while? I kind of get the feeling that's how money manager Chip Cobb of BMT Asset Management feels right now. He's happy to have reached his full year target of 1350 on the S&P 500, but woeful that it happened only one week into the second-half of the year.
How do you play a market that you think is going nowhere for the next 25 weeks? Answer: you worry about bonds.
"My biggest concern is with the fixed income markets" Cobb says, explaining that he thinks a lot of people are going to get hurt by rising market rates long before the Fed actually lifts its own. "So much money flood into the bond market...but unfortunately, these people who tried to do the right thing at the time and go away from risk assets are going to be greatly disappointed when rates start to rise," he says.
Cobb doesn't see the Fed raising rates for at least another year and says even when they do they won't be ''overly aggressive." And given the many headwinds we face, he says it makes sense for Treasury buyers to look at other asset classes, even ''higher paying dividend stocks, north of 3%, to get a better return for the next 12 months."
And maybe he's right. With the S&P 500 now up about 8% year-to-date and paying about 1.8% in dividends, it's right on target (to keep with the Robin Hood theme) with its long-term average of 10%.
When asked about the imminent start of 2nd quarter earnings season, Cobb flatly recites "the driver of markets has been, and will continue to be corporate earnings" before warning that record profit margins "have already started a very mild retreat."
Cobb adds, "If you're a worker, you might be disappointed with your job prospects, but if you're a shareholder, it doesn't get much better than this."
Extrapolate that to his call on the stock market, add in the fact that profitability is either at or very near the the top, and doggonit, you might consider pulling a different arrow from your quiver too.

Forget Gold and Silver: THIS Could be the SAFEST Way to Protect Against Inflation

www.streetauthority.com/bonds/...tect-against-inflation-458324

Whenever the topic of inflation arises, the two words that most often come from investors' mouths are "gold" and "silver." And while it's true that gold and silver are inflation hedges that offer large potential returns, they also tend to carry an equally large degree of risk.
Common wisdom holds that the prices of commodities will keep up with inflation and help investors by delivering high potential returns even as consumer prices rise. There's just one problem with that. Volatility. Risk is measured by volatility. Huge losses that occur when you need the money can be disastrous, as many investors learned in the two recent bear markets.
There is, however, a near-riskless way to hedge against inflation. This doesn't mean you can't lose money, but it does mean if inflation goes up, then your investment will likely increase in value and greatly reduce the risk of loss. In fact, economic laws practically dictate that this investment will rise with inflation, and markets almost always respect basic economic laws.

Another basic principle of economics is that the interest rate on a bond is like rent paid by the bond issuer to use the investor's money for a time. Academic research has shown that bonds deliver an average return of 3.7% a year more than inflation. The total return is equal to this rent income plus an inflation premium. Right now, with long-term rates at record lows, investors aren't getting any inflation premium.
Because interest rates include that inflation premium, interest rates and inflation usually move in the same direction. If inflation rises, then interest rates will have to go up. While investors in gold and other inflation hedges are trying to protect against inflation, one of the only ways you are virtually guaranteed to be on the right side of the inflation bet is to own interest rates.
As an exchange-traded fund (ETF), ProShares UltraShort Lehman 20+ Year Treasury (NYSE: TBT)makes it possible for you to do this. This ETF is designed to go up in value when the interest rates on long-term Treasury bonds go up. It uses derivative contracts that take leveraged positions in these bonds. Fund managers buy $2 worth of contracts for each dollar invested, giving investors leverage and a little more bang for their investment buck.
Bond prices move down as interest rates move up, and this ETF allows you to profit from a decline in the price of bonds. Again, it uses derivative contracts, but by using Treasuries, almost all of the credit risk is eliminated. The U.S. government has never defaulted on its debt, and investors in Treasuries continue to assume a default will never actually happen.
The potential upside for TBT is impressive. Right now, the Federal Reserve is buying most of the available U.S. bonds. Since the financial crisis began in 2008, the Fed has purchased almost 70% of all Treasury bonds issued, and they now own even more than China. When its program of buying these bonds, known as "QE2," ends, most likely later this year, prices are likely to fall and TBT could bounce as much as 25% higher to about $40. This projection is based on the security's chart pattern, with $40 representing the first level of resistance (see the chart below).
Long-term, in the next year or so, could see TBT double as interest rates go back to more normal, pre-crisis levels -- especially if inflation rises above 3%. This would put TBT at the level where it traded before the financial crisis, when economic conditions were considered normal.


TBT's price is near its all-time low. It is also oversold on a technical basis, meaning we should expect a move higher. Stocks can remain oversold for extended periods of time, however, they almost always follow the fundamental trend. Value investors use oversold extremes to establish long-term positions, confident that they will be rewarded in time. With the fundamental trend likely to favor higher inflation, TBT represents a value play on that idea.
The chart above shows the Rate of Change (ROC) indicator in the bottom of the frame is about two standard deviations below normal. The ROC indicator is like a car's speedometer for the stock price, showing how fast the price is moving. Just like cars moving too fast or too slow in traffic tend to cause problems, stocks moving up or down too fast also tend to encounter problems.
To help spot what's too fast or too slow, I've added Bollinger bands to the ROC indicator. These bands apply standard deviations to the indicator, a term that's used to define what's "normal" from a mathematical perspective. They are often used by technicians on price charts, but applying them to an indicator like ROC provides insight into when a "buy" or "sell" should be made. When the ROC moves outside of the bands, the general trend of the stock price usually changes direction. So in TBT's case, we see that ROC fell below the lower Band. What's important to notice is how the black line in the bottom (rate of change) tends to bounce between the two blue Bollinger Bands. From the bottom, where it is now, I expect the rate of change to increase along with the price.

Action to Takeý The risk for this investment is limited. A more detailed review of the chart shows there is support at $31, and I would not expect TBT to fall below that level. This price level is where the double bottom can be seen forming last August and September. These are usually reliable bottom patterns, and prices should remain above those lows. If inflation picks up to as much as 3%, then we can easily expect the long-term interest rate to rise to about 6%. From current levels, that would lead TBT to roughly double in the value.
If you're worried about inflation, consider TBT. As a leveraged ETF investment that goes up along with interest rates, I think it's a better bet than gold, silver or other commodities as a hedge against inflation. Consider placing a stop-loss order at $31, limiting risk to less than 10%. When QE2 ends, you could very well see a quick 25% gain and possibly even a 100% gain in the next 12-18 months.


--Michael Carr

Die Zinsen in den Ländern der Eurozone waren jahrelang ähnlich. Im November 2009 haben es „die Märkte“ geschafft, aus Bonitätsdifferenzen Zinsdifferenzen zu erzwingen. „Die Märkte“ – das sind die Seismografen von Ratingagenturen, die aus diesen Differenzen ein Geschäft machen. Diese Agenturen werden von den Investmentbanken bezahlt, deren Papiere sie bewerten. AAA-Bewertungen generieren mehr Geschäft. Die Gewinne der Ratingagenturen Fitch und Standard & Poor haben sich von 2000 bis 2007 verdoppelt, der Gewinn von Moody’s hat sich auf US$ 2,2 Milliarden verdreifacht.
Die Ratingagenturen haben die Bonität einzelner Euroländer herabgestuft. Das hat Kreditausfallversicherungen (CDS) gegen diese Länder lukrativ gemacht. Die reichen Euroländer wussten, dass die Entgleisung eines ersten Landes aus den Euroschienen in Zeitlupe die Entgleisung des ganzen Zuges auslösen würde. Schweden hatte auf Betreiben einer Ratingagentur schon die kostenlose Kinderbetreuung abschaffen und Kanada sein Schienennetz vom Atlantik bis zum Pazifik gegen CAN$ 2 Milliarden privatisieren müssen.

Die Hinrichtung der Griechen
Die Neue Züricher Zeitung berichtet am 14. Juni 2011, dass „Gläubiger, welche in griechische Staatsanleihen mit noch zweijähriger Laufzeit investieren, EU-weit garantierte Renditen von um die 25 % einstreichen“. Als die deutsche Bundesregierung diese privaten Gläubiger aufgefordert hat, sich an der Rettung Griechenlands zu beteiligen, fand Bankensprecher Josef Ackermann die Diskussion „ganz unglücklich“ und drohte zunächst, die Märkte würden das negativ aufnehmen.
Am 30. Juni 2011 hat er dann einer Beteiligung im Umfang von 1 % der griechischen Schuldenlast doch zugestimmt – gemessen am Gesamtpaket „Peanuts“, wie einer seiner Vorgänger gesagt hätte. Die Banken würden auf dieses 1 % auch nicht verzichten, sondern es in griechische Staatsanleihen reinvestieren. Damit wäre das Arrangement auf Kosten der Steuerzahler politisch durchsetzbar. Die Milliarden fließen ohnehin nicht nach Griechenland, sondern zum größten Teil direkt an die Gläubiger.
Die Ratingagenturen haben dann aber sogar diesen bescheidenen Beitrag privater Gläubiger mit der Drohung verhindert, den Euro dann zu zerschießen. „Wenn es den US-Ratingagenturen und Finanzalchemiebanken gelingt, einen Anstieg der Zinsen spanischer und italienischer Staatspapiere gegen 7 % zu erreichen“, schreibt Stephan Schulmeister aus Wien, „hat das Endspiel um den Euro begonnen. Denn Spanien und Italien passen unter keinen Rettungsschirm“.
Dann ist – dank europäischer Dummheit – die Position des Dollars als Weltleitwährung gewahrt. Südeuropäische Staaten sinken auf Prekariatsstatus und die Europäische Union unterwirft sich mit ihren Mitgliedern der hoheitlichen Gewalt US-amerikanischer Ratingagenturen. Auch US-Behörden sind machtlos. Die effiziente Lobbyarbeit der Finanzbranche hat erreicht, dass das Personal der US-Bankenaufsicht (Securities and Exchange Commission) systematisch abgebaut worden ist, so dass eine wirksame Überprüfung ihres Geschäftsgebarens nicht mehr möglich ist.
Für die Griechen wäre ein Schuldenschnitt ein Befreiungsschlag, aber sie haben nicht die Macht, das durchzusetzen. Die Sparauflagen zerren das Land immer tiefer in den Strudel.
Mit Griechenland hat das Bankhaus Goldman Sachs beizeiten und heimlich einen Sprengsatz in die Eurozone eingeschleust und dadurch den Fortbestand des Dollars als Weltleitwährung vorerst gesichert:
Die damalige griechische Regierung wurde 2001 gegen ein Honorar von 300.000 Dollar und einen Kredit von mehreren Milliarden Dollar darin unterstützt, die Statistiken so geschickt zu fälschen, dass die Kriterien für den Eintritt in die Eurozone erfüllt schienen. Die Bürokraten in Brüssel haben dieses perfide Spiel nicht durchschaut.
Als jeder amerikanische Staatsbürger mit siebenfach höherer öffentlicher Schuld belastet war als ein griechischer Staatsbürger und der Euro den Dollar als Weltleitwährung hätte ablösen können, haben die US-Ratingagenturen Griechenland wegen zu hoher Verschuldung, Spanien dagegen wegen zu niedriger Verschuldung herabgestuft. Pensionsfonds und institutionelle Investoren konnten in Anleihen dieser Staaten jetzt nicht mehr investieren. Die USA behielten ihr AAA-Rating, der Kurs amerikanischer Staatsanleihen stieg, die Zinsen sanken. Portugal musste für zehnjährige Anleihen 11 % Prozent zahlen, die USA nur 3 %.

„Die Märkte“ unterhöhlen die Demokratie
Wer sind diese „Märkte“, vor denen alle zittern? Sie treiben viele Regierungen dazu, ihre Völker in Elend und Verzweiflung zu stoßen. Sie lösen weltweit Hungersnöte aus – Jean Ziegler spricht von hundert Millionen „Morden“. Sie zwingen Regierungen dazu, die Parlamente zu übergehen, Gesetze zu brechen und in wenigen Tagen Rettungsschirme in Milliardenhöhe auf Kosten der Steuerzahler aufzuspannen – „alternativlos“, wie die deutsche Kanzlerin zu sagen pflegt. In den USA haben sie die Zahl der Zwangsvollstreckungen von Wohnhäusern auf sechs Millionen pro Jahr vervielfacht.
Sind „die Märkte“ eine abstrakte, unsichtbare Kraft, die über aller politischen Macht thront? Über dem Selbstbestimmungsrecht und dem Willen der Völker? Über der unantastbaren Würde des Menschen, welche das deutsche Grundgesetz zu garantieren meint? Über den „unveräußerlichen Rechten wie Leben, Freiheit und dem Streben nach Glück“ in der großartigen Vision der amerikanischen Verfassungsväter? Sind diese „Märkte“ stärker als alle militärische Gewalt? Wirkungsvoller als alle Aktionen von Selbstmordattentätern?
Vor dem Gesetz mögen alle Menschen gleich sein. Die Gesetze aber werden im Interesse derer gemacht und umgesetzt, die die Gleichheit der Menschen vor dem Gesetz durch die Gleichheit der Dollars und Euros vor dem Gesetz ersetzt haben. Wall Street Börsenmakler haben Regierungsbeamte bestochen, Bücher gefälscht, Kunden betrogen, Geldwäsche betrieben, Scheinverluste gedeckt, bei der Steuerflucht geholfen, Betrug begangen und vieles mehr. Dafür haben sie eine Strafe von $ 1 Milliarde akzeptiert.
Credit Suisse hat eine Strafe von $ ½ Milliarde angenommen, die Deutsche Bank $ 554 Mio, die UBS $ 780 Mio, Citibank, JP Morgan und Merrill Lynch je $ 385 Mio, die weltweit größte Versicherungsgesellschaft AIG $ 1,6 Milliarden und die Bank of America gar $ 8,5 Milliarden – immer in Verbindung mit einer „Nichtverfolgungsvereinbarung“ mit der amerikanischen Staatsanwaltschaft und der Steuerbehörde IRS. Auch in London wollten die Behörden durchgreifen: £ 840.000 Strafe und £ 1,5 Mio Entschädigung wurden der Deutschen Bank auferlegt. In Südkorea, musste sie € 642.000 Strafe zahlen und ihre Wertpapiergeschäfte für sechs Monate teilweise aussetzen.
Im Gegensatz zu Mafiabossen sind die hierfür Verantwortlichen strafrechtlich nirgendwo belangt worden. Vielleicht weil sie – wie Marcus Antonius über Marcus Iunius Brutus gesagt haben soll – zwar korrupt sind, morden und die Welt zerstören, es sich aber um ehrenwerte Leute handelt. Wer sind denn diejenigen, die die ganze Welt in ihrem Bann halten?

Korrupte Männer beherrschen die Märkte
Henry M. Paulson begann seine Karriere als stellvertretender US-Verteidigungsminister. Als Chef des Bankhauses Goldman Sachs war sein Jahresverdienst $ 37 Mio. Als er in 2006 Finanzminister wurde, musste er Goldman Sachs Aktien im Wert von $ 485 Mio verkaufen. Der Verkaufserlös war nach einem vom Bush-Vater durchgebrachten Gesetz steuerfrei.  
Der Chef des Bankhauses Merrill Lynch hat 2006 und 2007 $ 90 Mio verdient und bei seinem Ausscheiden Aktien im Wert von $ 131 Mio und eine Barabfindung von $ 30 Mio erhalten. Sein Nachfolger bekam für 2007 noch $ 87 Mio. Merrill Lynch ist im Dezember 2008 vom Staat gerettet und von der Bank of America übernommen worden. Zuvor haben sich deren vier höchste Manager Erfolgsbeteiligungen in Höhe von $ 121 Mio gezahlt. Nach der Rettung mit Steuergeldern kassierte das Management insgesamt Boni $ 3,6 Milliarden.
Am 16. September 2008 ist Lehman Brothers in Konkurs gegangen. Ein späterer Prüfbericht hat aufgedeckt, dass die Investmentbank Bilanzen geschönt hatte und schon Wochen vor dem Zusammenbruch insolvent war. Fünf Männer an der Spitze, die ihre eigene Bank zerstört und die ganze Welt in eine Finanzkrise gestürzt haben, haben sich für die Jahre 2000 bis 2007 eine Erfolgsbeteiligung von $ 1,1 Milliarden gezahlt, die sie nach der Pleite behalten durften. Der Vorstand der Bank hatte sechs Firmenjets und zahlreiche Hubschrauber und der Vorsitzende Richard Fuld einen persönlichen Aufzug, der ihn direkt in das 31. Stockwerk brachte. Für sein Ausscheiden erhielt er eine Prämie von $ ½ Milliarde.
Martin J. Sullivan hat mit Finanzprodukten der weltgrößten Versicherungsgesellschaft AIG in 2008 einen Verlust von $ 11 Milliarden produziert. Die AIG ist danach verstaatlicht worden. Der heutige Finanzminister Timothy F. Geithner hat dafür $ 150 Milliarden Steuergelder eingesetzt, private Gläubiger aber nicht beteiligt. „Sie behalten alle Zahlungsansprüche aus dem AIG-Incentiveplan für Finanzprodukte und erhalten zusätzlich ein monatliches Beratungshonorar von $ 1 Mio“, wird Sullivan bei seiner Entlassung bestätigt.
Die AIG-Zweigstelle in London hatte 400 Mitarbeiter, denen bis 2007 jährlich $ 3,5 Milliarden gezahlt wurden – also im Durchschnitt für jeden fast $ 9 Mio pro Jahr. Der Chef der Londoner Niederlassung erhielt jährlich $ 35 Mio. Joseph St. Denis, der aus Protest gegen solche Geschäftspraktiken gekündigt hatte, wurde in der Jahresversammlung voller Häme nachgerufen, Versagern wie ihm, die vom Geschäft nichts verstünden, könnte selbstverständlich nichts gezahlt werden.
2008 hat Henry Paulson mit einem Rettungspaket von $ 700 Milliarden aus öffentlichen Geldern das Überleben der US-Finanz-„industrie“ gesichert. In 2009 und 2010 haben Morgan Stanley und Goldman Sachs ihren Managern wieder Erfolgsprämien im zweistelligen Milliardenbereich gezahlt. Goldman-Sachs-Chef Lloyd D. Blankfein, der mit seinem berühmten Spruch „Ich bin ein Banker, der Gottes Werk verrichtet“ Aufsehen erregt hatte, hat nach Berechnungen der Frankfurter Allgemeinen in 2010 ca. $ 20 Mio verdient und hält Goldman Sachs Aktien im Wert von $ ½ Milliarde.
In Deutschland sind die Maßstäbe etwas verschoben: Die HRE ist mit € 10 Milliarden Steuergeldern verstaatlicht worden und musste mit Garantien von € 150 Milliarden gestützt werden. Die Vorstände Axel Wieandt, Kai Wilhelm Franzmeyer und Frank Krings, die nur ca. zwei Jahre bei der Bank tätig waren, erhalten nach Erreichen der Altersgrenze eine jährliche Betriebsrente von 240.000 bzw. 192.000 Euro.
Im Vergleich mit dem Einkommen des New Yorker Hedgefondsmanagers John Paulson sind solche Summen lächerlich. In 2007 verdiente er $ 3,7 Milliarden. In 2010 konnte er sein Einkommen auf $ 5 Milliarden steigern – an jedem einzelnen Tag mehr als das Jahreseinkommen des armen Deutsche-Bank-Chefs Josef Ackermann. Ermittlungen der US-Wertpapierbehörde wegen gemeinschaftlichen Betrugs von John Paulson mit dem Bankhaus Goldman Sachs sind gegen Zahlung von mehr als einer $ ½ Milliarde eingestellt worden.

Die Nach-uns-die-Sintflut-Mentalität
Ein richtiger Ingenieur entwickelt und produziert technischen Fortschritt. Ein „financial engineer“, wie es im Fachjargon heißt (also ein Finanzingenieur – vielleicht besser Finanzjongleur) entwickelt oder produziert nichts, was irgendjemandem das Leben erleichtert. Im Gegenteil – er vernichtet Arbeitsplätze, Ersparnisse, Altersversorgungen, Ausbildungshoffnungen, Lebenschancen, ja Leben und vermehrt Not, Verzweiflung und Hunger auf der Welt. Aber er verdient bis zu hundert Mal mehr als ein richtiger Ingenieur.
Die Erfolgsprämien der Wall Street Banker stiegen von $ 9 Milliarden in 2002 auf $ 33 Milliarden in 2006. Das durchschnittliche Jahresgehalt eines Angestellten im öffentlichen Dienst ist in vielen US-Bundesstaaten um $ 20.000. Das durchschnittliche Jahresgehalt eines Mitarbeiters von Goldman Sachs beträgt $ 600.000. Die durchschnittliche private Verschuldung eines amerikanischen Haushalts ist von $ 18.000 in 1980 auf $ 47.000 in 2008 gestiegen. „Wenn du keine Augen zum Sehen hast, wirst du sie brauchen, um zu weinen“, hat Jean-Paul Sartre das erbärmliche Los dieser Ausgebeuteten beschrieben.
Das Bankhaus Goldman Sachs – „Gottes Stellvertreter auf Erden“ – hat für $ 40 Milliarden nicht werthaltige Hypothekenpapiere verkauft, davon $ 22 an die AIG und heimlich auf den Zusammenbruch des US-Hypothekenmarktes gewettet. Gleichzeitig haben sie sich gegen eine Prämie von $ 150 Mio gegen einen Bankrott von AIG versichert.
Neue Papiere sind speziell auf einen maximalen Verlust bei den Käufern hin konstruiert worden. Kongressabgeordnete haben das Goldman-Sachs-Chef Lloyd Blankfein später als verbrecherisch vorgehalten. Der meinte dazu: „Im Zusammenhang mit Marketingoptimierung ist das kein Verbrechen“. Sein Kollege von der Citibank kommentierte diese Bemerkung mit Bezug auf den Titanic-Untergang: „Wir müssen tanzen, solange die Musik spielt“.
Der weltweite Handel mit diesen seltsamen, für die Realwirtschaft nutzlosen Wertpapieren hat inzwischen ein Volumen von mehr als $ 600.000 Milliarden erreicht – das Zehnfache des Bruttoinlandsprodukts der ganzen Erde. Solange die Regeln dieses Spiels bleiben wie sie sind, haben die Finanzinstitutionen, die diese Papiere herausgeben und mit ihnen handeln die Macht, die Welt jederzeit in den Abgrund zu stürzen – oder zumindest damit zu drohen und so zu erzwingen, was immer ihnen in den Sinn kommt.
Der amerikanische Finanzjournalist Max Keiser nennt die Finanzmogule „Papier-Terroristen“ und Präsident Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865) erkannte: „Der Finanzsektor ist despotischer als eine Monarchie, unverschämter als eine Diktatur, selbstsüchtiger als die Bürokratie. Sie wird ihre Herrschaft ausdehnen, bis aller Reichtum in wenigen Händen und die Republik zerstört ist“. Lincoln ist ermordet worden. Der New Yorker Finanzkolumnist John Cassidy meint, Wall Street und das Finanzzentrum in London könnten einfach abgeschafft werden, ohne irgendeinen Nachteil für die reale Wirtschaft.

Prof. Berger ist Mitglied im wissenschaftlichen Beirat der Wissensmanufakturund wird einer der Referenten beim WISSENS-FORUM 2011 sein.  Er leitet das Business Reframing Institut Karlsruhe (www.business-reframing.de), das mit einer schnellen und wirksamen Methode artgerechte Menschenführung in mittelständischen Unternehmen einführt. Sein Interesse an Fragen der Finanzordnung hat sich aus dem Leiden des Mittelstands an den Machenschaften der Finanz-„industrie“ ergeben.
www.wissensmanufaktur.net

www.wissensmanufaktur.net/bankrotterklaerung

Auszug aus dem Interview der Börsenzeitung vom 4.6.2011

Frage:
Aber wieder wird der Aufschwung auf Pump finanziert. Wer hält den Mechanismus eigentlich am Laufen: Sind es die Sparer, die ihre Anlagen wie vor der Krise in die USA transferieren? Oder findet die Geldschöpfung im Bankensystem statt, gefördert durch die viel zu niedrigen Zinsen der Notenbanken?

Bofinger:
Beides. Es ist ja nicht so, dass das Verschuldungsniveau durch eine vorgegebene Ersparnisbildung begrenzt wird, wie in den Lehrbüchern immer suggeriert wird. Stattdessen gilt: Banken können so lange uneingeschränkt Kredite schöpfen, wie sich das angesichts des Leitzinsniveaus noch rechnet. Die einzelne Bank ist also nie richtig restringiert. Wenn sie Liquidität benötigt, geht sie einfach zur Notenbank, oder sie holt sich die Refinanzierung am Geldmarkt. Das hat nichts mit dem Lehrbuch-Modell zu tun, wo Banken nur dann Kredite vergeben, wenn sie zufällig eine Einlage durch einen Sparer bekommen oder wenn ihnen die Notenbank am Geldmarkt eine Anleihe abkauft.



Diese im ersten Moment für den Laien nicht besonders revolutionär klingende Aussage Bofingers hat gewaltige Konsequenzen für alle Bürger, die über Sparguthaben verfügen. Wer nun als Betroffener noch ruhig bleibt (nach dem Motto, „Das kriegen Die schon wieder hin“), sollte spätestens jetzt sein Weltbild hinterfragen.

Regelmäßige Leser oder Zuschauer unserer Veröffentlichungen wissen, dass Banken nur dann durch Kredite neues Geld erzeugen dürfen, wenn sie gewisse Auflagen für Mindestreserven in Form von Spareinlagen und einen „Hauch“ von Eigenkapital erfüllen. Auf diese Weise sollte das Volumen der Geldschöpfung durch Banken eigentlich begrenzt werden. Laut Bofinger spielt diese Grundlage im Rahmen der Krise offenbar nun keine Rolle mehr.

Man kann also seitens der Kreditinstitute Geld produzieren, wie es beliebt.

Mir ist wichtig, dass diese „Bankrotterklärung“ ganz Europas (!) in diesem Fall nicht von der Wissensmanufaktur benannt wird, sondern von einem der Wirtschaftsweisen! Nun tröstet es wenig, wenn eigentlich alle Staaten der Welt (allem voran die USA) durch diese Banksystempraxis bankrott sind. Diese Realität wird natürlich nur hinter verschlossenen Türen in Expertenzirkeln ausgesprochen. Ausgerechnet diese Personen verkünden aber über die Medien mit ihren Politdarstellern stets „Sicherheit“ für alle Sparer.

Was ich neulich in einem n-tv-Interview mit Herrn Prof. Norbert Walter (ehem. Chefvolkswirt der Deutschen Bank) hörte, hatte mich ebenfalls geschockt. Da wurde von dem Journalisten Frank Meyer (den ich sehr schätze) in aller Klarheit darauf hingewiesen, dass die Euro-Rettung am Beispiel Griechenland komplett gegen geltendes Recht verstößt, worauf Herr Walter mit einem süffisanten und menschenverachtenden „Ich bin mir dessen bewusst…“ reagierte. Interview siehe:

www.n-tv.de/mediathek/sendungen/...nigsweg-article3286506.html

Diese Dreistigkeit und Beleidigung unseres angeblichen Rechtsstaates sucht natürlich ihresgleichen, aber ich dachte mir, dass dieser Volkswirt sich schon bei der Einführung des Euros auf ganzer Linie irrte und ich seinen Kommentaren eh nur noch wenig Gehalt beimesse.

Nun aber Bofinger, der in Amt und Würden des Sachverständigenrates mit dem heutigen Wissen und den Erfahrungen des Euro-Irrtums solche Bomben in Texte einbaut, ist eine gewaltige Entwicklung. Hier arbeitet offenbar ein Insider an seiner Reputation, die nach der Enteignung der Sparer wohl weiterhin erhalten bleiben soll (nach dem Motto, „Ich hab es ja schon immer gesagt…). Es erschließt sich mir nicht, ob Herr Bofinger über das Abstraktionsvermögen verfügt, dass er hier eine widerrechtliche Tyrannei beschreibt und offenbar toleriert, mehr noch, die er sogar im Rahmen seiner Funktion aktiv mitgestaltet… Für unser Institut ist dieser Vorgang besonders erwähnenswert, da wir schon seit langem erklären, dass Banken quasi ohne Restriktionen Geld produzieren können, woraufhin wir oft nur Kopfschütteln von Bankenvertretern ernten…

Wie aber kommen solche dramatischen rechtsverachtenden Verwerfungen zustande, die man nur noch als „bananenrepublikanisch“ bezeichnen kann? Die Herstellung von „Willkür-Geld“ durch private Geschäftsbanken bedeutet schließlich eine fundamentale Machtabgabe des Staates (also der Bürger) zugunsten der Banken.

Ich glaube nicht, dass es zu weit geht, wenn ich an dieser Stelle das Grundgesetz zitiere:



Grundgesetz Art. 20

Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist ein demokratischer und sozialer Bundesstaat.
Alle Staatsgewalt geht vom Volke aus. Sie wird vom Volke in Wahlen und Abstimmungen und durch besondere Organe der Gesetzgebung, der vollziehenden Gewalt und der Rechtsprechung ausgeübt.
Die Gesetzgebung ist an die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung, die vollziehende Gewalt und die Rechtsprechung sind an Gesetz und Recht gebunden.
Gegen jeden, der es unternimmt, diese Ordnung zu beseitigen, haben alle Deutschen das Recht zum Widerstand, wenn andere Abhilfe nicht möglich ist.


Nun stellt sich die Frage, inwieweit wir nun berechtigt (oder sogar verpflichtet?) sind, gemäß Art. 20 Abs. 4 Widerstand zu leisten, da der Rechtsbruch der Systemfunktionäre nun völlig offen und für jeden klar erkennbar stattfindet. Wie könnte das aussehen, denn wer will schon Ärger haben? Auf die Gerichte und deren Repräsentanten können wir wohl eher nicht hoffen. Wenn der Rechtstaat (wie durch Herrn Prof. Walter geschehen) schon offen negiert werden darf, was hat dann das Grundgesetz für einen Wert?

Ich will an dieser Stelle keine Diskussion zur Rechtmäßigkeit des oft irrtümlich „Verfassung“ genannten Grundgesetzes eröffnen, sondern auf der Basis des Systems argumentieren (welches sich gerade selbst ad absurdum erklärt). In meinen Vorträgen zur momentan praktizierten „Demokratie“ vertrete ich seit Langem die Ansicht, dass diese Gesellschaftsform grundsätzlich(!) in eine Tyrannei entarten muss.

Zurück zum Bankensystem, bevor ich mir komplett die Finger verbrenne…

Eine Geschäftsbank soll laut Lehrmeinung über zwei klassische Funktionen verfügen:

Das Kreditgeschäft, welches eine Art „Vermittlungstätigkeit“ darstellen soll, ist der bekannteste Part, denn er versorgt durch Geldverleihung konkret Menschen und Firmen mit finanziellen Mitteln.
Eine Art „Schleusenfunktion“ dient der Zentral- bzw. Notenbank, die Geldmenge im Verhältnis zur Realwirtschaft zu steuern. Dazu benötigt sie Geschäftsbanken. Es geht also um einen volkswirtschaftlich wichtigen Vorgang.
Beleuchten wir diese Punkte ein bisschen tiefer. Da gibt es auf der einen Seite Anleger, die bei einer Bank Kapital parken und auf der anderen Seite Kreditnehmer, die dieses Geld mit einem Zinsaufschlag ausleihen, um damit z.B. wirtschaftlich produktiv zu werden oder schlicht zu konsumieren. In den Statuten der Mindestreservehaltung wird es dann konkreter. Danach kann eine Geschäftsbank das angelegte Sparergeld bis zu 50-fach als neues Geld in Form von Krediten verleihen.

(Bei der FED 10-fach, bei der EZB 50-fach, Mindestreservesatz = 2%) Auf Basis von 200,- Euro Kundenanlagen kann die Bank also 10.000,- Euro Kredit geben. Diese neuen 9.800,- Euro entstehen also erst durch den Kredit. Die Bank bekommt also für 9.800,- Euro Zinsen, obwohl sie nur 200,- Euro als Grundlage benötigt.

Auch wenn es dramatisch klingt, ist diese Regel zumindest eine Einschränkung der Geschäftsbanken, denn wenn kein Geld mehr angelegt würde, könnte keines mehr produziert werden. Die Notenbanken legen ein verbindliches Zinsniveau (Leitzins) für die Kreditwirtschaft im Interesse der Volkswirtschaft fest. Eine Notenbank (z.B. die EZB) hat die Aufgabe der Geldwertstabilität und muss dafür sorgen, dass die Geldmenge im Verhältnis zu den realen Waren und Dienstleistungen angemessen ist. Gibt es ein hohes reales Wirtschaftswachstum zu verzeichnen, kann die Notenbank das Zinsniveau senken und somit den Geschäftsbanken günstiges Buchgeld verleihen, die dafür im Gegenzug ihrerseits Sicherheiten in Form von Wertpapieren bieten muss.

Zurzeit erkennen wir deutlich, dass die Zentralbanken allerdings auch „Schrottanleihen“ als „Sicherheit“ akzeptieren. Der derzeitige niedrige Zins führt zu günstigen Krediten und somit zu mehr Geld in der Wirtschaft, welches ja entsteht, wenn die Geschäftsbanken diese Reserven nun bis zu 50-fach gehebelt weiterverleihen. Das Gegenteil wäre die Zinserhöhung, die den Kreditfluss senkt, da Darlehen nun teurer werden und somit die Geldmenge reduziert wird. Bei einer rückläufigen Realwirtschaft ist dieser Vorgang im Interesse der kalkulierbaren Kaufkraft des Geldes enorm wichtig.

Ein selbst von den meisten Experten unerkanntes Problem ist die Tatsache, dass bei einer Geldschöpfung durch Kredit nur der Kreditbetrag entsteht, der Schuldner aber den Kreditbetrag plus Zinsen und Gebühren zurückzahlen muss. Diese erhöhte Summe muss nun von anderen Marktteilnehmern „herausgewirtschaftet“, um nicht zu sagen „gepresst“, werden. Da sind Verwerfungen vorprogrammiert und immer mehr Menschen geraten in Armut, bzw. können ihre Kredite nicht mehr zurückzahlen.

(Sehen Sie hierzu auch das Video:
„Wie funktioniert Geld“ www.wissensmanufaktur.net/externe-videos).

Deshalb legen Banken bekanntlich einen so großen Wert auf Sicherheiten. Kann jemand seine Kredite nicht mehr bedienen, ermächtigt sich die Geschäftsbank einfach des Pfandes, bzw. der weiteren Arbeitskraft, falls dieses nicht ausreicht. Man könnte auch böswillig „moderne Sklaverei“ dazu sagen. Diese beschriebenen Vorgänge führen zu unglaublichen Vermögen einiger weniger Marktteilnehmer, deren Zinsforderungen aus Guthaben ähnlich eines astronomischen Schwarzen Loches ansteigen und zum Desaster führen müssen.

Um diese Umverteilungsmechanismen auf die Spitze zu treiben bzw. zu verlängern, entstanden in den 1990er Jahren Investmentbanken. In dieser Zeit war die Macht der Kapitalsammelbecken schon extrem angewachsen und die Politiker hingen als kleine „Blinddärme“ unten drunter. Um die unendliche Zins-Gier zu befriedigen, senkten die Zentralbanken einfach das Zinsniveau (obwohl die realökonomische Lage das Gegenteil gebot), sodass die Geschäftsbanken sich nun günstig Geld leihen konnten, um selbst wieder als Kapitalanleger aufzutreten. Diese Anlagegelder dienen nun wieder als Grundlage neuer Kredite mit dem Faktor 50. Dass diese „Politik“ zu einer Krise führen musste, lag auf der Hand. Schon im Jahre 2003 beschrieb ich diese Zusammenhänge in meinem Buch „Brot und Spiele“, auch wenn diese Texte damals belächelt wurden.

Richtig wäre es, wenn die Zentralbanken die Zinsforderungen gegenüber den Geschäftsbanken höher ansetzen würden, als diese von den Kreditkunden an Zinsen zurückbekommen. Das reduzierte natürlich massiv die Nachfrage nach Mindestreserven-Buchgeld, um darauf neue Kredite zu schöpfen. Stattdessen bekommt die EZB fast gar keine Zinsen und Kreditinstitute leihen sich diese neuen(!) Gelder lustig aus, um sie selbst höherverzinslich anzulegen.

Wir erkennen an dieser verwerflichen Praxis zugunsten des Geldmonopols und zu Lasten der Bürger eine Umkehr der vermeintlichen Hierarchie des Bankenwesens in sich. Die Kreditinstitute für das Publikum (z.B. Sparkassen, Commerzbank, Deutsche Bank, usw.) scheinen bei der Machtfrage gegenüber den Zentralbanken (z.B. EZB) übergeordnet.

Zusammenfassend möchte ich festhalten:

Selbst wenn die Bankkunden durch ein berechtigtes Misstrauen in das System ihre Guthaben abziehen würden und somit den Kreditinstituten die Grundlage für das Kreditgeschäft entzögen, könnte laut Bofinger weiterhin die Schuldenproduktion und somit die Geldflutung vollzogen werden. Man produziert sich seine Sparanlagen eben selbst, um es bissig auszudrücken.

Nur so ist es übrigens zu erklären, dass die Banken immer noch in der Lage sind, Geld auszuzahlen, obwohl der gefürchtete „Bankrun“ längst im Gange ist. Was das für die Währung Euro bedeutet, sollte spätestens jetzt klar sein. Er ist zum Untergang verurteilt worden und das von denselben Leuten, die predigen, dass er gerettet werden müsse.

An dieser Stelle möchte ich wieder einmal darauf hinweisen, dass wir in der Wissensmanufaktur längst relativ ausgereifte Lösungen entwickelt haben, um im Rahmen einer neuen Ordnung diesen sich steigernden Verelendungsprozess zu stoppen, der bei vielen Normalbürgern in ganz Europa immer sichtbarer wird. Der propagierte Wirtschaftsaufschwung dient halt nicht allen Menschen, sondern vor allem den globalisierten Konzernen. Die klassische, noch aktuelle Wirtschaftswissenschaft hat komplett versagt. Leider werden wir von führenden Politikern nicht nach unserem Rat gefragt. In meinem Buch „Der Währungs-Countdown“ steige ich in die Lösungen konkret ein.

Der Kapitalismus hat das ausschließliche Ziel des Profits, wie es der Begriff schon aussagt. Die Demokratie beschreibt den Menschen als Mittelpunkt (sog. Volkssouverän). Die Kombination eines demokratischen Kapitalismus oder einer kapitalistischen Demokratie ist paradox. Warum wird dieser sichtbare Widerspruch eigentlich nie hinterfragt?

Wir stehen voll hinter der Europäischen Idee und wollen Frieden zwischen den Völkern und einen konstruktiven internationalen Handel, im Rahmen einer ehrlichen ressourcenschonenden Wirtschaft.

Der Euro aber ist eine Lunte (?) gegen die europäischen Völker. Wir können schon jetzt immer öfter in den Medien hören, dass „wir Deutschen“ den „faulen Griechen“ keine Hilfe mehr schicken sollten. In Griechenland werden Plakate mit deutschen Fahnen und Hakenkreuzen geschwenkt, weil sie sich nicht bevormunden lassen wollen. Das dramatische ist nur, dass sich die Opfer gegenseitig beschuldigen und offenbar nicht erkennen, dass dieses „Teile- und Herrsche-Spiel“ System hat.



Ihr Andreas Popp, Juli 2011

Eine Delegation des Deutschen Bundestages unter Leitung des Vorsitzenden des Rechtsausschusses, Siegfried Kauder, hat an der mündlichen Verhandlung teilgenommen. Kauder wies in seiner Eingangsstellungnahme den Vorwurf, das Parlament habe sich bei den Beratungen der entsprechenden Gesetze von der Bundesregierung erpressen lassen, als unrichtig zurück. Er erläuterte den Richtern, dass das Parlament im Zuge seiner Beratungen vielmehr auf weitergehende Kontrollrechte bei der Übernahme finanzieller Garantien bestanden und diese auch gegenüber der Bundesregierung durchgesetzt hat. Der Deutsche Bundestag hat seine Rechte in den parlamentarischen Beratungen der „Griechenland-Hilfe“ und des „Euro-Rettungsschirms“ daher mit großem Selbstbewusstsein wahrgenommen. Der Prozessbevollmächtigte des Deutschen Bundestages, Prof. Dr. Franz Mayer von der Universität Bielefeld, unterstrich einleitend, dass schon erhebliche Zweifel an der Zulässigkeit der Verfassungsbeschwerden bestünden, sie jedenfalls aber unbegründet seien. Die Beschwerdeführer würden sich auf ein neuartiges Recht berufen, das bisher gar nicht existiere, nämlich ein umfassendes Grundrecht auf Demokratie. Für die Anerkennung eines solchen Grundrechts und eine damit verbundene Ausweitung der Möglichkeiten zur Verfassungsbeschwerde gebe es aber keinen Anlass. Die rechtlichen Vorgaben zur Beteiligung des Bundestages seien eingehalten worden und die Durchführung eines den verfassungsrechtlichen Anforderungen genügenden Gesetzgebungsverfahrens in kürzester Zeit gerade ein Ausweis für die Leistungsfähigkeit des Bundestages in Krisenzeiten. Wiederholt betonte Mayer die Einschätzungsprärogative von Bundestag und  Bundesregierung zu den vorliegenden schwierigen währungs- und finanzpolitischen Fragen."
Der Delegation gehören folgende Abgeordnete des Deutschen Bundestages an: Siegfried Kauder (Vorsitzender des Rechtsausschusses), CDU/CSU, Gunther Krichbaum (Vorsitzender des Ausschusses für die Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union), CDU/CSU, Dr.Michael Meister (Stellvertretender Fraktionsvorsitzender), CDU/CSU, Thomas Silberhorn, CDU/CSU, Michael Stübgen, CDU/CSU, Werner Schieder, SPD, Christian Ahrendt, FDP, Florian Toncar, FDP, Manuel Sarrazin, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN.

Quelle:www.bundestag.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/2011/pm_1107051.html



Kurzer Auszug aus einem E-Mail Dialog zwischen Prof. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider und Andreas Popp vom 10.7.2011:
Schachtschneider: "…Der Anspruch auf Demokratie folgt richtigerweise aus Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG, dem Grundrecht der politischen Freiheit, in Verbindung mit Art. 20 GG, der die Fundamentalprinzipien der deutschen Verfassung regelt, auch das demokratische Prinzip. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht leitet begrenzte demokratische Rechte des Bürgers aus Art. 38 GG, wonach die Abgeordneten Vertreter des ganzen Volkes sind, her. Das ermöglicht dem Gericht, den Schutz der Demokratie so eng zu ziehen, wie es passt. Darauf wird es in der Entscheidung in Sachen Rettungsschirm und Griechenlandhilfe entscheidend ankommen. Das materielle Recht wird nur in den engen Grenzen des zugestandenen Grundrechtsschutzes geprüft. Traurig, aber wahr. Ich habe schon vor Jahrzehnten, 1970, in meinem ersten Aufsatz nach der Promotion einen Anspruch auf Demokratie dogmatisiert und postuliert. Allmählich komme ich zum Ziel. Vierzig Jahre braucht man schon. Die Mühlen der Justiz mahlen langsam…"

source www.wissensmanufaktur.net/bankrotterklaerung

ps. bitte lesen Sie mein Beitrag zum Frau Merkel Rede (Abschafung der Demokratie)

Category: US Economy, Global Markets
Topic: Greek Bailout

by John Tamny,  Toreador Research and Trading (Guest Contributor)

www.valueexpectations.com/blogs/...al-economic-mistake07062011

As any sentient being knew would happen, the Greek government got its bailout. It was a foregone conclusion, and there's a 99% chance that the IMF would have disbursed more billions to the profligate government even if Greece's Parliament had failed to pass an "austerity" program.
The reason why Greece was saved should be obvious, but if not, let's be clear that the bailout was not one meant to aid a Greek government that has been in default for much of its debt-issuing existence, rather it was a bailout of banks around the world that have exposure to Greek debt. If the latter were not the case, if Greek debt were locally held, it's near certain that the IMF would not have stepped in, and those with exposure to the debt would have taken a "haircut" on their holdings as normal investors in stocks and bonds do with great regularity.
Sadly for the rest of us, from individuals to small-business owners to big-business CEOs, we'll all suffer globally for this egregious mistake by an IMF that is the dictionary definition of mission creep. We will because the bailout of Greek government creditors (meaning banks) signals to investors worldwide that all government debt is safe. Indeed, if a country as economically insignificant as Greece can't be allowed to default given what it would mean for the wards of the state that we call banks, no country can.The global economic implications are ugly because it's now true beyond any doubt that fiscally incontinent governments will always be able to raise more debt owing to certainty among creditors that if governments ever experience revenue shortfalls, other governments or other government-sponsored entities will step in to save them as a backdoor bailout of the financial institutions that would be rendered insolvent by a default. The economic harm here is obvious.

Indeed, by virtue of propping up Greece the global economic bureaucracy has clearly stated that government debt is preferred debt. This means the very government spending that screams capital destruction will continue without endpoint, often in support of other strapped governments that will have zero incentive to fix their finances.  At the same time private individuals and private businesses governed by market discipline such that they can default will only receive what's left. There are no entrepreneurs, businesses and jobs without capital, but thanks to the privileged status that governments enjoy in the capital markets, there will be less and less capital for those actually interested in creating wealth with it.

Assuming the opposite of what's transpired, as in if we lived in a world governed by market signals whereby government creditors were singed, and governments subsequently put on a diet, there would be some room for optimism. Simply put, if Greece's creditors had suffered a haircut, and a few (or many) banks had failed, the economic signal would be a positive one for investors/creditors being made aware in none too subtle fashion that government debt is not a one-way bet. If so, investors would be forced to rethink their allocation strategies such that what is always limited capital would migrate away from the capital destruction that is government spending, and into private, capital expanding hands.

Of corse, the economic tragedy that is the Greek bailout doesn't quite end there. Indeed, the beauty of pure capitalism is that much like the blind scales of justice, it only knows profit and loss. Or put more simply, capitalism is merely a word for a beautiful process in which bad, economy sapping ideas are regularly starved of capital, while good, economy-enhancing ideas receive it in abundance.

Considering banks, markets guided by the invisible, non-discriminatory hand of capitalism have for at least 100 years been trying to shrink a banking sector that is increasingly unnecessary when it comes to the allocation of capital. If this is doubted, consider that as of the fall of 2008, which was the last time markets tried to right-size finance, 80% of all lending occurred away from traditional banks. To state the supremely obvious, free markets have been trying to rid the economy of banks since at least the early part of the 20th Century, but with banks nothing if not heavily regulated - meaning politically protected - their natural path to obsolescence has been blocked.

The global economy suffers the political class's unwillingness to let markets work in two harmful ways. For one, bank bailouts disguised as government bailouts ensure that governments around the world will continue to extract far more capital from the productive private sector than they would if actual market discipline were brought to bear on their fiscally irresponsible ways.

For two, banks, which are nothing more than collections of good and bad human talent, would play an even smaller role in the private economy if true capitalism were allowed to work its magic. No doubt some or many financial institutions would fail, and while this would bring short-term pain, the long-term gain from such a scenario would be profoundly good for economic growth given the certainty that former financial professionals, pushed out of a profession that the economy needs less of, would find their way to higher value, economy-enhancing work.

Naturally some will say that the Lehman experience means we can't let governments default because we can't let banks fail, but that's a gross misinterpretation of what occurred nearly three years ago. Lehman's bankruptcy on its own could never have caused a crisis. Instead, the "crisis" revealed itself precisely because governments occasionally (and improperly) bail out financial institutions. If banks were treated like most other failed economic ideas - as in, allowed to fold - the markets would have been prepared for Lehman's demise well in advance, and it would have been a quiet economic event.

As Adam Smith long ago observed, stationary economies are stagnant, recessionary ones for the stationary economic state repelling investment. In short, every day we prop up banks that should be allowed to go under for their mistakes, is another day of economic advancement lost for unnecessary concepts being perpetuated at the expense of necessary ones that don't see the light of day due to capital remaining locked up in the sectors of yesterday.
Though a small, economically irrelevant country, Greece's troubles and our bailout of same signal something much worse for the global economy. Economies can't advance without failure, and if fear of near-term pain means we can't even let Greece fail, we should all get ready for many more years of economic pain.



About John Tamny:
Mr. Tamny is a senior economic advisor to Toreador Research & Trading, columnist for Forbes and editor of RealClearMarkets.com. Mr. Tamny frequently writes about the securities markets, along with tax, trade and monetary policy issues that impact those markets for a variety of publications including the Wall Street Journal, National Review and the Washington Times. He’s also a frequent guest on CNBC’s Kudlow & Co. along with the Fox Business Channel.

My recurring nightmare ever since the Western debt edifice began to crumble four years ago is that the denouement would track the events of mid-1931, when leaders failed to reform a destructive fixed exchange system (Gold Standard) and the fuse finally detonated on Europe’s banking system. It was when political blunders turned recession into the Great Depression, and ideology intruded with a vengeance.
The narrative of 1931 is already well-known to readers. France sabotaged a rescue of Vienna’s Credit Anstalt because of strategic disputes with Germany. This set off a financial chain reaction. Frightened markets tested the weak links of the Gold Standard. They withdrew funds from Britain after naval ratings “mutinied” over pay cuts. Contagion spread back to New York. By October 1931 the international system had collapsed, though the full horror did not become evident until the next year. A string of countries retreated into variants of autarky, or fascism, or both. Communists and Nazis together won more than half the seats in the Reichstag election of July 1932.
It is far from clear that the international order is more secure today than it was in the seemingly calm days of May 1931, so one cannot lightly forgive the reckless brinkmanship on Capitol Hill over recent days.
I write before knowing the outcome of weekend talks but we can rule out any form of US default. President Barack Obama can invoke the 14th Amendment in extremis, or issue a Bush-style “Catastrophic Emergency” directive.
The more plausible risk is that the debt ceiling is not raised, forcing a ferocious fiscal squeeze to avoid default. Washington would have to slash spending at an annual rate equal to 11pc of GDP, and do so in a disorderly fashion that would shatter confidence.
There are historical cases of respectable growth following fiscal contractions, not least in Britain after 1932 and 1993, but the scale of cuts needed to close America’s double-digit deficit at a stroke is of an entirely different order. You do not have to be Keynesian to see the dangers of such a violent shock in an over-leveraged economy.
If cuts continued into September without either side blinking, the knock-on effects might rapidly set off serial defaults by states and an implosion of the $2.5 trillion municipal bond market. The bankruptcy saga of Jefferson County, Alabama, is a foretaste.
Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, New Mexico and Tennessee have all be put on negative watch. California has had to raise an emergency $5bn loan. Nevada is spending half its tax-take on debt service costs, and Michigan 40pc. These states are hanging on by their fingernails.
Yet if disaster is an outside risk in America, it is an odds-on likelihood in Europe. It is already clear that the latest EU summit deal is too little to stop a spiralling crisis in confidence, let alone acknowledge that North and South have diverged too far to share a currency union. Spanish and Italian yields are back to pre-summit danger levels, and might fly out of control at any moment unless a lender-of-last resort steps in to guarantee the market.
The European Central Bank still refuses to do so, and the EFSF bail-out fund cannot legally do so until all national parliaments ratify the summit deal to widen its remit. Yet these chambers have shut down for the summer. Europe’s leaders have gone on holiday. The €440bn EFSF is an any case too small. The bond vigilantes broadly agree that the EFSF needs €2 trillion in pre-emptive firepower to forestall a twin crisis in Italy and Spain, though quite how France might pay for this without being drawn into the maelstrom itself is an open question.
Germany’s “triangulating” finance minister Wolfgang Schauble has once again over-promised in Brussels, only to retreat under pressure in Berlin. There will be no “carte blanche” for EFSF bond purchases. So will Germany do whatever it takes to uphold monetary union in its current form, or will it not? We are no wiser.
As the details dribble out from the summit deal, we can now see that Greece will enjoy no debt relief despite having been pushed into default. Citigroup said the net effect will increase Greece’s debt by a further 4pc of GDP to more than 160pc next year. Since this is obviously untenable, Greece will need a third rescue.
The EU has brought about the first sovereign default in Western Europe since the Second World War and set a fateful precedent without actually resolving the Greek problem. This is the worst of all worlds.
Moody’s cited the summit terms as a key reason why it put Spain on negative watch last week. “Pressures are likely to increase still further following the official package for Greece, which has signaled a clear shift in risk for bondholders of countries with high debt burdens or large budget deficits,” it said.
EU ineptitude - or rather, German, Dutch and Finnish unwillingness to face up to the implications of EMU - have raised the risk of a traumatic August crisis in Italy and Spain. EU leaders are bringing about exactly what they pledged to avoid.
The US cannot insulate itself against the consequences of Europe’s elemental EMU blunder, but it can mitigate the effects by restoring order in its own political house. The Fed has already bought a degree of insurance by gunning the money supply in advance. The executive institutions of the US government are viable and still functioning.
We can only pray that at least one half of the Atlantic system holds relatively firm. If both go down together, buy a shotgun and prepare for 1932.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Source;

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/...Europe-risks-death.html

Unlike those maddeningly lucky or well-run economies at the top of the triple-A tree, Switzerland, Norway, Canada and Australia et al, it's going to take a miracle for these three to hang on. They'll have to implement, then deliver, years of highly uncharacteristic state austerity. And they'll probably have to do it against a backdrop of agonizingly slow economic growth, if any, falling tax takes and rising unemployment. Good luck with that.

France will also hold presidential elections in 2012; these are not times when candidates like to play Scrooge; and, in any case, the opposition Socialist Party is implacably opposed to current incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy's plans to write a balanced budget into the constitution. It's not buying austerity.

And there is another important wrinkle in any chance of a French downgrade that doesn't apply to the Anglo-Saxon pair. France's triple-A rating doesn't just stand behind the Fifth Republic anymore. It stands behind the euro zone's chief bailout mechanism, the European Financial Stability Facility. Thanks to recent beefing up, the EFSF should soon be authorized to lend up to €440 billion in support of any struggling member state locked out of the markets, with a total guarantee capacity of €780 billion.

At the moment, its borrowings are rated triple-A, but that's largely thanks to the presence the euro zone's twin, top-rated titans, Germany and France, as guarantors. There are other triple-A states in the mix of course--Luxembourg, Finland, the Netherlands and Austria--but the big two bring the real firepower and economic depth.

As Rabobank put it this week, "an important question, and one to which the rating agencies have yet to provide an answer, is how a downgrade to the rating of the participating guarantor countries (particularly the largest AAA countries of Germany, France and the Netherlands) would affect the credit rating of the EFSF."

Now there are very good reasons why the agencies haven't answered this. At the moment, the ratings in question are stable, and they needn't deal in hypotheticals, even when they aren't circling like vultures over the U.S.

But the most likely consequence of a French downgrade would be a smaller EFSF, with a more limited ability to lend. "Its lending capacity would drop," says UBS strategist Simon Penn, even if it's tough to say by how much.

In any case that would hardly suit financial markets, already worried that the fund is too small to stand behind Spain or Italy should the need arise.

It probably wouldn't suit the German electorate, either; Germany left naked as sole major guarantor, once again, as yet another, less prudent nation folds.

Unhappily, France is also the country with the greatest overall exposure to Greek debt. According to the last quarterly data from the Bank for International Settlements, French institutions had nearly $57 billion of Greek debt on their books (though Germany was revealed to be the biggest single holder of Greek government paper, with close to $23 billion).

Little wonder, then, that the premium demanded by investors for holding French bonds rather than German bunds more than doubled in the two weeks leading up to the Greek bailout deal announced on July 21.

And we needn't stray too far into the realm of fantasy to imagine a future Greek debt crisis requiring a vast rescue of French banks that finally puts paid to France's triple-A rating, undermines the EFSF and, well, so on down the line.

The ancient Romans used to look at their endemically corrupt city guard and wonder gloomily "who watches the watchmen." The modern Greeks, Irish and Portuguse may well look at the credit ratings of France, creaking ominously behind the façade of the EFSF, and wonder who will bail out the bailers.

Write to David Cottle at david.cottle@dowjones.com

source;
online.wsj.com/article/...3111903341404576479951926219690.html

Aftershock to Economy Has a Precedent That Holds Lessons

By JAMES B. STEWART
Published: August 12, 2011

source ;
www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/business/...-in-history.html?src=se

Like earthquakes, financial crises seem to be accompanied by aftershocks, like the one we’ve been living through this week. They can feel every bit as bad as the crisis itself. But economic history and academic research suggest they can set the stage for a sustainable recovery — and eventual sharp stock market gains.

The events of the last few weeks — gridlock in Washington, brinksmanship over raising the debt ceiling, Standard & Poor’s downgrade of long-term Treasuries, renewed fears about European debt and a dizzying plunge in the stock market — bear an intriguing resemblance to some of the events of 1937-38, the so-called recession within the Depression, with a major caveat: it was a lot worse back then. The Dow Jones industrial average dropped 49 percent from its peak in 1937. Manufacturing output fell by 37 percent, a steeper decline than in 1929-33. Unemployment, which had been slowly declining, to 14 percent from 25 percent, surged to 19 percent. Price declines led to deflation.

“The parallels to what is happening now are very strong,” Robert McElvaine, author of “The Great Depression: America, 1929-1941” and a professor of history at Millsaps College, said this week. Then as now, policy makers were struggling with how and when to turn off the fiscal stimulus and monetary easing that had been used to combat the initial crisis.

Are we at similar risk today? David Bianco, chief investment strategist for Merrill Lynch Bank of America, told me this week that “the market is collapsing faster than any fundamentals would warrant.” The possibility that the United States faces a recession as bad as 1937’s seems far-fetched. Nonetheless, Mr. Bianco notes that the market is now pricing in an 80 percent chance of recession, one likely to be more severe than in 1991. (He said Merrill Lynch places the odds at 35 percent.) He noted that there had been only three instances when such a steep market decline was not followed by recession: 1966, 1987 (after the October stock market crash) and 1998 (after the implosion of Long Term Capital Management.) “Confidence is shaken and rapidly falling,” he said, a problem worsened by falling stock prices.

By 1937 an economic recovery seemed to be in full swing, giving policy makers every reason to believe the economy was strong enough to withdraw government stimulus. Growth from 1933 to 1936 averaged a booming 9 percent a year (rivaling modern-day China’s), albeit from a very low base. The federal debt had swelled to 40 percent of gross domestic product in 1936 (from 16 percent in 1929.). Faced with strident calls from both Republicans and members of his own party to balance the federal budget, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress raised income taxes, levied a Social Security tax (which preceded by several years any payments of benefits) and slashed federal spending in an effort to balance the federal budget. Income-tax revenue grew by 66 percent between 1936 and 1937 and the marginal tax rate on incomes over $4,000 nearly doubled, to 11.6 percent from an average marginal rate of 6.4 percent. (The marginal tax rate on the rich — those making over $1 million — went to 75 percent, from 59 percent.)

The Federal Reserve did its part to throw the economy back into recession by tightening credit. Wholesale prices were rising in 1936, setting off inflation fears. There was concern that the Fed’s accommodative monetary policies of the 1920s had led to asset speculation that precipitated the 1929 crash and ensuing Depression. The Fed responded by increasing banks’ reserve requirements in several stages, leading to a drop in the money supply.

The possible causes of the ensuing stock market plunge and steep contraction in the economy provide fodder for just about everyone in the current political debate. Republicans can point to the Roosevelt tax increases. Democrats have the spending reductions, which coincides with Mr. McElvaine’s view. “It appears clear to me that the cause was policies put into effect in 1936-37, mainly cutting spending when F.D.R. believed his re-election was secured,” he said.

The Nobel-prize winning economist Milton Friedman blamed the Fed and the contraction in the money supply in his epic “Monetary History of the U.S.” And the stock market itself may have been a culprit, falling so steeply that it wiped out the wealth effect of rising prices, undermined confidence and brought back painful memories of the crash. But taken together, they suggest that policy makers moved too quickly to withdraw government support for the economy.

In the current context, it’s hard to blame the Fed for being too restrictive in its monetary policy, as the Fed was in 1937. If anything, critics fault it for being too accommodating, raising many of the same issues that led the Fed to tighten in 1937. Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, is a student of Depression history and is well aware of Mr. Friedman’s monetary analysis. “He won’t make the same mistake,” Jeremy Siegel, professor of finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, said.

The Fed’s pledge this week to keep interest rates near zero not just for a vague “extended period” but for a full two years rendered two-year Treasuries virtually risk-free and depressed their yields to a record low of 0.19 percent. This should lead investors to seek income from riskier assets, leading to lower interest rates across the spectrum, including mortgage rates.
Despite a brief stock market rally after the Fed’s announcement, Mr. Bianco said he believed investors might be underestimating the significance of the Fed’s move. “You will see household funding costs go down. That will be a benefit and should boost confidence.” At the least, “The Fed has not abandoned us. They’re doing what they can,” he said.

But monetary policy can only do so much, especially if fiscal policy is moving in the opposite direction.

Christina Romer, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who has written extensively about the Great Depression, declared two years ago while chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors: “The urge to declare victory and get back to normal after an economic crisis is strong. That urge needs to be resisted.”

Yet both political parties have strapped themselves to the mast of deficit reduction, one through spending cuts, the other tax increases. The recent market plunge may reflect not the largely symbolic S.& P. downgrade of United States Treasuries or worries about political gridlock, but widespread investor fears that both approaches risk a renewed recession by withdrawing stimulus from a fragile economy too soon. No one seriously disagrees that the budget deficit has to be addressed, either through spending cuts or tax increases or in some combination of the two. The question is when.

The good news about the 1937-38 recession, severe though it was, is that it lasted just a year, from May 1937 to June 1938 by most calculations. The precipitous 1937 stock market decline and surging unemployment jolted Washington into action. The Fed reversed its higher bank reserves policy and cut the discount rate to 1 percent. In April, President Roosevelt announced a $2 billion “spend-lend” program and embraced deficit spending. But the tax increases remained in effect. Economic growth resumed in June 1938 and was stronger than it had been in the 1933-37 period. Stocks surged.

Of course, history never repeats itself exactly, and unfortunately for today’s policy makers, the causes of the 1938 economic rebound seem less clear than the causes of the recession. While Keynesians have embraced the Roosevelt stimulus package to support their arguments for government intervention, others argue it came too late and was too small to account for the recovery. A Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago senior economist, François Velde, concluded that while traditional monetary and fiscal analyses tended to account for the severity of the 1937 downturn, other still-unidentified factors are needed to explain why the economy “rebounded so strongly.”

Still, the sense that Washington was doing something to address the problems may have played a key role by bolstering confidence, which was reinforced by rising stock prices.

Historians can’t know if the 1938 recovery, strong as it was, would have been enough to finally end the Great Depression. World War II intervened. But nothing today seems nearly as dire as the problems facing the world in 1938. The 1937 aftershocks had the effect of galvanizing policy makers who had grown complacent about the recovery. The result was renewed economic growth, higher employment, higher wages and productivity — and higher stock prices. Investors who had the courage to buy stocks at their 1937 lows were looking at a 60 percent gain less than a year later.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: August 12, 2011


An earlier version of this column published online paraphrased the views of the chief investment strategist for Merrill Lynch Bank of America incorrectly. The strategist, David Bianco, said that the market is pricing in an 80 percent chance of a recession; that is not his personal opinion. (He said Merrill Lynch places the odds at 35 percent.)

A version of this article appeared in print on August 13, 2011, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: An Aftershock With Precedent.

AUGUST 10, 2011, 1:26 PM ET
Without France, EFSF Sad

source

blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2011/08/10/...=WSJBlog&mod=brussels

By Charles Forelle


Markets were convulsed today by speculation about France’s creditworthiness.

Nicolas Sarkozy even interrupted his summer by the sea to jet back to the capital for an emergency cabinet meeting. (But only briefly.)

Our colleague David Gauthier-Villars in Paris reports:

The surprise cabinet meeting and the announcement of likely extra belt-tightening efforts came as economists have started to question whether France—the euro zone’s second largest economy after Germany—can retain its triple-A credit rating and avoid being swept up in the broad reassessment of the creditworthiness of highly indebted developed countries.

The credit-rating companies all reiterated Wednesday their triple-A designation of France and gave no indication it would change.

We have no insight into that question, but we can run some numbers on what would happen to the European Financial Stability Facility, the euro zone’s bailout fund, if France were downgraded.

It’s not pretty.

For the EFSF to retain its own triple-A status, without a loss of lending firepower, Germany would see its guarantee to the fund rise to €325 billion, or 13% of the country’s 2010 GDP, from €211 billion under the system expected to come into place this fall and €119 billion right now.

Recall that the EFSF, in order to borrow at low cost, seeks a triple-A rating for its own bonds. To do so, it commits that all its bond issues are backed either by the guarantee of a triple-A country or by cash it holds in its own account. The EFSF is structured as an off-balance-sheet vehicle that issues debt backed by the guarantees of all 17 euro-zone countries (less the ones that are getting aid), but in practice only the guarantees of the six triple-A euro-zone countries count towards the amount the EFSF can borrow.

EFSF 1.0 (which is the current version) uses an absurdly complicated combination of prepaid interest, cash buffers, overguarantees and the like to ensure that all its debt issues are backed by triple-A guarantees or cash. EFSF 2.0, expected to be ratified this fall, makes things (relatively) simpler.

In EFSF 2.0, all the 17 countries pledge guarantees totaling €779.8 billion. Subtracting the guarantees of bailed-out Greece, Ireland and Portugal brings the total down to €726 billion. The countries agree that every EFSF bond will be backed by up to 165% of its size in guarantees, so the EFSF can borrow a maximum of €440 billion (since €440 billion x 1.65 = €726 billion).

Helpfully, the individual guarantees of the six triple-A countries–Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Luxembourg–total €450 billion.

France’s guarantee accounts for €158 billion of that €450 billion.

Losing it would mean the other five countries would have to raise their guarantees so that the triple-A portion remained around €450 billion. In other words, everyone gets a 54% bump.

There are a few ways to mitigate this:

First, the EFSF could issue non-triple-A bonds. Hey, if double-A-plus is good enough for the U.S….

Second, the EFSF could return to a model that takes cash in advance through fees and prepaid interest. Unfortunately, there isn’t much room for that now that the EFSF seems to be lending around cost to its patients. When it was charging above-cost rates, it could roll up that profit margin and receive it up front.

Third, it could take capital from countries immediately, and leverage that to amplify its borrowing power and reduce the need for guarantees. That’s what the EFSF’s successor, the ESM, is supposed to do when it starts running in 2013. But there probably isn’t much appetite for cash commitments to a bailout fund in euro-zone capitals right now.

Here are the figures, in billions:

   Country§EFSF 1.0 EFSF 2.0 EFSF 2.0 ex-FR
   Germany    €119.4    €211.0    €325.2§
    France     €89.7    €158.5         -§
Netherlands     €25.1     €44.4     €68.5§
   Austria     €12.2     €21.6     €33.3§
   Finland      €7.9     €14.0     €21.5§
Luxembourg      €1.1      €1.9§€3.0

Follow @charlesforelle on Twitter.

AUGUST 13, 2011
French Growth Falls to a Flat Zero
Economy Stalled in Second Quarter, Complicating Government Efforts to Cut the Budget Deficit

Source;
online.wsj.com/article/...ml?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_LEFTTopWhatNews

By WILLIAM HOROBIN And NATHALIE BOSCHAT

PARIS—France's economic growth fell to zero in the second quarter, dashing expectations of a modest expansion, as consumers sharply cut spending.

The data complicate the French government's plans to reduce its budget deficit at a time when financial markets are questioning France's prized triple-A credit rating.

Gross domestic product in the euro zone's second-largest economy was flat in the second quarter after growing at a nearly 4% annualized rate in the first quarter, according to figures from national statistics agency Insee. The data fueled concerns that France, a key player in supporting euro countries in bailout programs, might struggle to meet its deficit targets.
Consumer spending, the traditional driver of the domestic economy, held up during the recession in 2009, but fell at an annualized rate of nearly 3% in the second quarter.

Earlier this year, spending was fueled by deliveries of new cars snapped up by households under a government-sponsored scrapping scheme. The cutoff for those incentives was the end of 2010.

Exports also stopped growing in the second quarter after a strong increase in the first, although weaker imports minimized the impact.

As France suffered economic tremors, other euro-zone countries in investors' sights made progress on their fiscal fronts.

Italy, which has become the latest major flashpoint for the debt crisis, unveiled a new package of measures on Friday designed to reassure investors who are worried about whether the country can pay down its €1.9 trillion ($2.7 trillion) debt, equivalent to 120% of GDP.

The measures seek to balance Italy's budget by 2013, a year earlier than planned, by slashing €45 billion in public spending.

Also Friday, officials from the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank gave a positive first review of Portugal's implementation of a €78 billion bailout program. They said they are confident Portugal will meet budget-deficit targets for 2011 and that further stress in the euro zone shouldn't hurt that goal.

Meanwhile, Greek GDP contracted at an annual rate of 6.9% in the second quarter, compared with a decline of 8.1% in the first three months of the year—slightly better than expected. The GDP flash estimate published Friday by the country's statistics service wasn't seasonally adjusted, however.

In seasonally adjusted terms, economists had expected a contraction of 5.1% from a year earlier. The latest data correspond to a seasonally adjusted contraction of around 4.8% to 5%.

But the Greek economy remains in recession, as austerity measures promised in exchange for two international bailout packages bite into consumer spending.
Meanwhile, June industrial production in the 17 countries that make up the euro zone fell 0.7% from May, the sharpest drop since December, the European Union's Eurostat agency said.

The industrial output was 2.9% stronger than in June last year, which is the weakest annual rise since January last year and another sign that the currency area's economy is slowing rapidly. But output growth in May was revised up slightly to 0.2% on the month and 4.4% on the year.

The French GDP data capped a bruising week for France, where markets were whipsawed by speculation about the fate of the nation's credit rating and rumors about the vulnerability of the large French banks.

The market volatility prompted France's stock-market regulator, along with others in Belgium, Spain and Italy, to slap restrictions on short-selling of financial shares.

Analysts said the ban was partly responsible for gains in French assets on Friday, with financial stocks rallying, French bond yields falling and the cost of insuring French debt against default sliding sharply. Traders said the moves in French assets also stemmed from a sense that this week's drubbing was overdone.

Some economists are concerned that the French government was too optimistic when it factored a 2% economic-growth forecast into this year's budget and 2.25% into next year's. Weaker-than-expected growth could result in lower tax collection and higher spending on unemployment benefits, making it harder for the government to meet its budget-deficit target of 5.7% of GDP this year, 4.6% in 2012 and 3% in 2013.

France already has come under pressure from the IMF to craft contingency measures to ensure it meets its targets.

Economists started to pare their forecasts on Friday. French bank Natixis cut its French GDP-growth estimate for 2011 to 1.6% from 1.8% and to 1.2% for 2012 from 1.6% previously.

According to the bank, the deficit for 2011 still could come in fairly close to the government's target at 5.8% of GDP, but in 2012 it would diverge significantly at 5.4%—instead of the 4.6% the government forecasts for 2012.

"GDP growth is the most important factor in state budget projections," ING senior economist Philippe Ledent said. Less growth puts downward pressure on tax intake and upward pressure on spending, such as on jobless benefits.

The government insisted it will meet its deficit targets no matter what, and signaled after an emergency meeting between President Nicolas Sarkozy and members of his cabinet this week that it will make further spending cuts and possibly eliminate more tax exemptions and loopholes.

A sharper-than-expected slowdown, however, would increase pressure on Mr. Sarkozy to announce large, unpopular spending cuts.

That would be a tricky move with less than a year to go to presidential elections in May 2012.

French Finance Minister François Baroin sought Friday to cast the growth outlook in a positive light.

"For this year we are in line," he said on French radio, adding the parameters the government is working on for its 2012 budget were unchanged.

Economists were less bullish.

"Without a miracle there won't be a return to strong growth in the coming six months, unless the euro falls steeply," said Nicolas Bouzou, economist at French financial consultancy Asterès. "There is no margin for stimulus," he added.

—Nicholas Winning in London, Patricia Kowsmann in Lisbon, and Stelios Bouras and Alkman Granitsas in Athens contributed to this article.
Write to William Horobin at William.Horobin@dowjones.com and Nathalie Boschat at nathalie.boschat@dowjones.com

Some of Europe's biggest banks—including France's Société Générale SA, Germany's Deutsche Bank AG and Italy's UniCredit SpA—have major operations in the U.S. and rely heavily on borrowed funds to finance those operations. There is no indication that regulators are focused in particular on those banks.
Foreign banks that lack extensive U.S. branch networks have a handful of ways to bankroll U.S. operations. They can borrow dollars from money-market funds, central banks or other commercial banks. Or they can swap their home currencies, such as euros, for dollars in the foreign-exchange market. The problem is, most of those options can vanish in a crisis.

Until recently, that hasn't been a problem. Thanks partly to the Federal Reserve's so-called quantitative-easing program, huge amounts of dollars have been sloshing around the financial system, and much of it has landed at international banks, according to weekly Fed reports on bank balance sheets.

Fed officials recently have held meetings with U.S.-based executives from top European banks to discuss their funding positions, according to the people familiar with the matter. Officials also are in contact with regulators in the countries where the European banks are headquartered.

The New York Fed has also been coordinating with New York's superintendent of financial services, Benjamin M. Lawsky, to monitor the foreign banks' funding positions, said people familiar with the matter. The state regulator supervises the New York outposts of many major European banks, and it has the power to force them to keep more money on hand in the U.S. Mr. Lawsky's office has been getting near-daily updates from examiners embedded in European banks' New York offices about their funding positions.

Regulators are trying to guard against the possibility European banks that encounter trouble could siphon funds out of their U.S. arms, these people said. Regulators recently have ramped up pressure on European banks to transform their U.S. businesses into self-financed organizations that are better insulated from problems with their parent companies, a senior bank executive said.

In one sign of how European banks may be having trouble getting dollar funding, an unidentified European bank on Wednesday borrowed $500 million in one-week debt from the European Central Bank, according to ECB data. The bank paid a higher cost than what other banks would pay to borrow dollars from fellow lenders. It was the first time for that type of borrowing since Feb 23.

Anxiety about European banks' U.S. funding comes amid broader concerns about whether Europe's struggling banks will be able to refinance maturing debt in coming years. Investors, wary of many European banks' holdings of debt issued by troubled euro-zone governments, are shunning large swaths of the sector. While top European banks already have satisfied about 90% of their funding needs for 2011, they still need to raise a total of roughly €80 billion ($115 billion) by the end of the year, according to Morgan Stanley.

Part of what is unsettling regulators and bankers is the speed at which funding can reverse direction. This spring, foreign banks were able to build up ample cash cushions, thanks largely to quantitative easing—the Fed's $600 billion bond-buying program, which brought more money into the banking system in the U.S., including foreign banks' coffers.

In July 2010, non-U.S. banks had $418.7 billion on reserve and collecting interest at the Fed, according to Fed data. By July 13 of this year, the total had more than doubled, to about $900 billion. Some major European banks were among the main drivers of this trend, according to their U.S. regulatory filings.

On June 30, 2010, for example, Société Générale had $55 million in cash reserves in its main New York branch. A year later, that amount had soared to $24.6 billion. At Deutsche Bank, cash reserves at its U.S. arm rose to $66.8 billion from $178 million.

Spokesmen for Société Générale and Deutsche Bank declined to comment on the reasons for the funding buildup or whether there has been a pullback.

In recent weeks, though, the cash piles at foreign banks' U.S. arms have diminished. While individual banks haven't reported data after June 30, foreign banks' overall U.S. cash reserves fell to $758 billion as of Aug. 3, the latest data available. That is down 16% from three weeks earlier, though it's still up sharply from the beginning of the year.

The latest Fed data "could be telltale signs that foreign banks are in need [of dollars] again, or institutional investors are getting concerned about foreign bank credit," said George Goncalves, a rates strategist for Nomura Securities.

—Aaron Lucchetti
and Liz Rappaport
contributed to this article.
Write to David Enrich at david.enrich@wsj.com and at carrick.mollenkamp@wsj.com

online.wsj.com/article/...3111904070604576514431203667092.html

from  online.wsj.com/article/...3111903639404576514442074736706.html


Latest European Tax Plan Is an Emotional Irrelevance

By GEOFFREY T. SMITH

I suppose we knew that the meeting between Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday wouldn't produce any serious results. After all, there had been pretty clear guidance from both sides that there would be no ground-breaking agreements on euro-zone bonds or increasing the European Financial Stability Facility.

What we were unprepared for, however, was the emphasis on an initiative for a financial-transactions tax, and this is surely the best explanation for the markets' disappointed reaction Wednesday. Quite apart from being negative for markets in its own right, it signaled better than anything the fact that they had nothing more urgent to agree on.

For one thing, common wisdom argues that FTTs will achieve nothing unless adopted everywhere, and the chance of that happening has been virtually zero since the International Monetary Fund came down against them in a report to the G-20 in June 2010. The report, which in many other ways was sympathetic to the notion of making the financial sector pay for the damage it had caused to the world economy, spelled out that FTTs did nothing to address the root cause of financial instability, and said that any marginal benefit from damping the effects of short-term trading activity—i.e., speculation—was outweighed by the extra cost of capital it imposed on companies by making markets less liquid. Moreover, it stressed that the costs of such taxes are invariably passed on to bank customers, rather than absorbed by banks.

The IMF recommended—and most of the G-20 states appeared to agree—that there were better ways both to collect more revenue from the financial sector and to address the financial-stability issues raised by the crisis. A raft of bank levies at national level have followed, as well as the new Basel III regulations on capital and liquidity, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest these are having, within the limits of realistic expectations, the desired effect: deleveraging has begun, higher-risk activities are being isolated from Main Street's savings, and more and more business is being channeled through platforms where regulators can keep a better eye on them.

With the intellectual basis for the FTT rather convincingly rubbished, it may seem strange that the European Commission has made such a startling U-turn on the issue in the past 12 months, to the point where it now supports the introduction of a tax of 0.1% on equity and bond transactions and 0.01% on derivatives.

The explanation isn't simple, but it goes roughly like this: In both France and Germany, the financial sector is still the best possible scapegoat for the ills caused by the financial crisis. Despite the bank levies and, in Germany, the salary caps, the perception is still that the cost to the taxpayer of bailing out the banks—estimated around 27% of euro-zone GDP by European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet—still far outweighs the financial-stability benefits. Emotion, in politics a force as unreliable as it is irresistible, demands that more be squeezed from the bankers. Since nationally levied FTTs can't function in a world of free capital movements, the only solution is to levy it at European level.

Meanwhile, in Brussels, a European-levied FTT satisfies the traditional yearning for a way to bolster the EU's own resources without having to beg national governments. Tax Commissioner Algirdas Semeta, a late and, one senses, reluctant convert to the idea of the FTT, argues that the revenue would replace the money transferred from national budgets to fund the EU budget, rather than represent a new tax. He also says the tax will be levied according to the domicile of the customer ordering the transaction, rather than according to the marketplace in which it is executed. This supposedly solves the problem of the funds being generated largely in the U.K., France and Germany.

So far, so good. Mr. Sarkozy and Ms. Merkel get the credit for soaking the banks, while Mr. Semeta gets to show his receptiveness to the democratic demands of the EU Parliament, which passed a nonbinding vote on the issue by a thumping majority in March (again, what parliament doesn't vote for more resources to fund its own budget?).

In years gone by, none of this would have mattered because the U.K. government would simply have vetoed it, both as threatening to the British economy and as an unjustifiable expansion of the EU's revenue-raising powers. Also, if the Continent had plowed ahead, regardless of its ability to impose its will on the U.K., the reaction in London would have been one of unalloyed joy, as yet more jobs and income migrated from the overregulated mainland to the single market's offshore paradise.

But the U.K. authorities' response to such a development today might not necessarily be the same. The government, while no less hostile to the EU, is certainly less naïve about the financial-services industry, and the Bank of England is painfully aware of the systemic risks to the broader economy from the sector's sheer size.

The central U.K. objection—that business would still migrate to jurisdictions without the tax—stands. But it is equally clear that a large taxable mass would stay in the EU. Setting an example would also make it easier for other jurisdictions to follow, though one can hardly see this U.S. Congress adopting it. In short, an FTT might—just—be more workable now than in the past, but only if your most serious political purpose in life is to soak the rich in an inefficient and essentially emotional way. Europe has to do better than that.

Write to Geoffrey T. Smith at geoffrey.smith@dowjones.com

------

I agree with Geofrey.

AUGUST 17, 2011, 12:37 PM GMT /  

blogs.wsj.com/source/2011/08/17/...-sarkozy-recycle-old-ideas/


Merkel and Sarkozy Recycle Old Ideas

By BERND RADOWITZ

It’s not surprising that investors gave a lukewarm reaction to the proposals made by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy Tuesday–with great fanfare–in the Élysée Palace in Paris.

JP Morgan Chase Bank’s Malcolm Barr said the measures consist of lots of rhetoric with questionable substance.

“Tough questions about sanctions for fiscal misbehavior and the degree of sovereignty nations are prepared to pool remain unanswered,” Mr. Barr said.

Safe-haven German bunds were higher Wednesday. At 0955 GMT, 10-year bunds were yielding 2.27%, from 2.31% Tuesday, according to Tradeweb. Italian and Spanish 10-year yields were unchanged at just below 5%. They have been at or close to this level since the European Central Bank began buying Italian and Spanish sovereign bonds last week.

European stocks were falling early Wednesday as investors digested the proposals.

Mrs. Merkel acknowledged she doesn’t believe the troubles of the euro zone can be fixed with a “big bang.” But what the leaders of Europe’s top two economies recommended nevertheless disappointed as it looked rather like a series of recycled ideas.

Take the proposal that all members of the currency area enshrine balanced budget amendments in their constitutions by next summer. Trying to appease a population and parliament at home that is increasingly unwilling to pay for their neighbors’ fiscal sins, Mrs. Merkel has been trying to export Berlin’s “debt brake,” as the balanced budget clause in Germany’s constitution is called.

But during a March EU summit, she wasn’t able to convince her peers to adopt the idea. Mrs. Merkel may figure that as the escalation of the debt crisis now threatens EU core countries Italy and France, now is the time she may succeed in whipping her euro zone peers into line on the debt brake.

Mr. Sarkozy Tuesday lobbied for the “golden rule,” as the measure is dubbed in France, knowing that he faces headwinds from the opposition Socialists in a Congress of all French lawmakers that needs to approve the constitutional change.

Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy also proposed to set up an economic council, or economic government, for the euro zone. It would consist of the currency area’s heads of state and government and meet at least twice a year. In practice, euro zone leaders already hold irregular meetings. But those gatherings have never been formalized.

Non-euro zone countries like the U.K. had complained the summits could take important decisions affecting financial policy that affects it, while having no say in the outcome. Reviving the idea again could lead to new resistance. On the other hand it’s not clear why those summits would bring the necessary breakthrough the informal meetings or the summits of all 27 EU leaders don’t achieve.

The renewed commitment by Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy to a Europe-wide tax on financial transactions further soured the mood in financial markets. The U.K.’s well-known objection to the measure should render it impracticable, though, as London is the continent’s main financial hub.

Mark Brown and David Roman contributed to this article.