Just get your favorite girlfriend to put it under her name for you. Then you won't need a visa to open the account.

Just trying to be helpful.

"Investing" through a cambio is risky. There is no recourse if the cambio simply says FU, you aren't getting any more money and you aren't getting any of your principal back.

IAS-
Have you been hanging with CFK and Jag? OTOH, no worse than giving your money to AIG.

Coming full circle on this issue.

When I opened up my bank account in 2003, I only had a tourist visa, CPF, light bill in my name, and a birth certificate. Somewhere between then and now the rules have changed and it now requires a residence visa of some sort. I now also have residence so in my case it is moot.

But here's the big question. Why should there be such gymnastics for us to invest in a country? There is not really free flow of capital between countries? One would think there would be funds that arbitrage the difference rate differences in interest rate between the US and Brazil? The technical term is called the carry trade but it does not exist between the US and Brazil. Anyone know why?

I've been out-of-pocket for about a week and therefore didn't yet respond to Elimgarak's profound constitutional analysis above. Did anyone else notice that the argument he uses to claim (quite falsely) that income taxes are unconstitutional--namely that they violate the original constitutional contract--also would suggest the amendments that effectively outlawed slavery are also unconstitutional?

All I can say is if I were an African American I would stay clear of his bunker. Or, at least, not go there alone.

Laguy,

He's quite the legal scholar. Even the right wing legal experts such as Posner, who are no fans of Marbury v. Madison and the powers that judicial review give the judiciary, accept the principle of the amendability of the Constitution. It's a living document, not something that was inscribed on tablets of stone by a deity.

LA Guy,

Here's a question for you. The Constitution gives Congress the ability to control the money supply. Also, it has been found that Congress does not have the ability to delegate that authority to a 3rd party. Is the Fed unconstitutional?

Throwing that out, do you think that the Fed should be part of the government?

Bluestraveller: I hate questions that require I think. Could you re-phrase your question in the form of an Elimgarak rant so the response will write itself and not require any hard thinking?

BT-
Some strict constructionists argue that a Central Bank, such as the Fed, is unconstitutional. Obviously, they've lost those arguments. Here's why.

While the Constitution doesn't address banking directly, Congress has the right to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out the enumerated powers given it by the Constitution. Congress has interpreted this to mean, and the courts have concurred, that Congress can pass laws that give it the power to tax (sorry Elimgarak), to print money, to borrow money, to regulate commerce (domestic and foreign) and so forth.

The US once had a Bank of the United States, the first central bank. It was later replaced by the Second Bank, which was deemed constitutional by Court in 1819 (McCulloch v Maryland) on grounds that a central bank performed necessary and proper functions by regulating money and assisting with the supply of credit. The Court has subsequently affirmed McCulloch v Maryland, and after the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 the Court reaffirmed the logic for the constitutionality of a central bank.

While there are lots of folks around proclaiming the unconstitutionality of the Fed, the Court has ruled--repeatedly--that Congress was within its rights to establish a central bank intended to regulate money supply and credit under the "necessary and proper" provision of Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18 ("To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.").

It gets a bit arcane when you go into the details of the individual court cases which have affirmed the right of the Congress to establish the Fed, but I think this covers the basics. There are people who vehemently disagree with the Court's logic (Jefferson was among them), but they've failed to convince the Court in several attempts.

Well, the regional Federal Reserve Banks are definitely not "Federal" in that they are owned by commercial banks and such in their geographic territory. The Board of Governors, here in DC, is actually Federal. Besides, the Reserve doesn't print money, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing does and it's part of Treasury. Same for coins, the Mints do that, again, part of Treasury. The Reserve doesn't issue bonds or anything, again, that's all Treasury.

So technically, the Federal Reserve does not make and distribute money. Thus, they cannot directly control money.

Smit,

Traditional economists have been pretty rare for several decades. Nouriel Roubini is one of the few that come to mind. You also have the Austrian School. Most economists are academic tools that don't manage money.

By common sense I was referring to the true analysts and managers that actually think about the macro cycle and use market history to guide their decisions. These guys do not use Modern Portfolio Theory. They load up on certain sectors and short quite a bit. They also use currencies and commodities of course. Rogers and Soros are good examples.

Modern Portfolio Theory is an interesting THEORY, but the Street quickly adapted it so they can fully 100% invest money and charge a management fee at all times. Over the last 10 years, MPT has worse returns than CD's.

Blues Traveler, thanks again. What's in the past is in the past. Where do we go from here regarding policy. There are 2 options and it appears the first has been thrown out the window.

The problems, fraud, derivatives and debt are so massive that nobody wants to blow the whistle (option 1), so the powers that be are sweeping everything under the rug with masterful propaganda (option 2). They have been talking, talking, talking for 2-3 years. Ironically, the Club is now more insular and the lies grow bolder by the week. The only logical conclusion is they wish to INFLATE their way out and worry about that problem later.

OK. I just wanted to understand the constitutionality issue. From my opinion, the Fed is not doing the job it was intended, and since it is not part of the government, it makes it even more difficult to get back on track. So here is my plan to get things back on track:

1. Make the Fed part of the government. There are two reasons why this is key. First to break the ties between the Fed and Wall Street. Whatever ties that exists would have to be reestablished and under public scrutiny. Secondly, to do the bidding of the American people. It is clear that somehow their is a misalignment between the will of the people and the performance of the Fed.

2. Put back in regulations. It is ludicrous that the regulations were pulled out and they should be renewed with more teeth. When someone invests in a bank, it is an act of trust, and the trust should be defined in these regulations.

3. Make things illegal. There are two things that I can think of that are illegal. First. The credit agencies that rated total junk as AAA. This is more than just a clerical error, or a booboo, this was intentional fraud. People should go to jail. Moreover, the people in AIG that made the credit default swaps that they thought they would never have to honor. They should be in jail too. There are a lot more greedy assholes, but best I can tell they did not do anything illegal. Feel free to pile on to anyone else that you think should be in jail.

BT

BT,
I agree with your points 2 and 3. Point 1, making the Fed part of the govt., is a bit more complicated. Almost everywhere in the world, central banks are independent of governments to a large degree. There are different structures for this "independence," but it exists because governments have been known (repeatedly) to manipulate central banks (when given the opportunity) in order to serve the narrow political interests/ambitions of those in power. We have the opposite problem, with a largely independent Fed serving the interests of powerful financial actors. So the trick is to find a way of reining in the two groups who both want to distort markets to serve their own interests. I think that's one of the key issue governments around the world have to struggle with now. Can you have a central bank that plays it fair, serving neither the financial nor political power brokers, but serving the public? The person that figures it out gets a Nobel.

In the US we had multiple failures compounding one another. An unchecked Fed, an SEC that stopped engaging in significant oversight and enforcement, politicians of both parties who rewrote the rules of the financial systems to serve their benefactors, etc., etc. Thinking about it makes me sick.

To your list I would add campaign reform. Our politicians are bought and sold by the folks with the most money. Changes in banking laws and regulatory policy reflect who's been paying for those campaigns.

Fuck them all.

Obama bowing to the King of Saudi! Looks like he needs their oil too! If Bush would of bowed to the King of Saudi you libs would have gone ballistic.
There is no excuse for the President of the United States to bow to any foreign leader unless there is something we don't know about Obama's relationship with the Muslims?


Obama submission to the Saudi King will be used as propaganda all through the Middle East and the liberal media just ignores it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZv1x0LbkZQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr6SiXRm6po

Bwana,

That makes sense that we don't want the Fed to be run by political interests, but to be honest, I would rather have that because at least you get some transparency. Right now, we have no idea what the fuck is going on with the Fed and Wall Street. We can only speculate.

That said, how can push the needle more towards some sort of oversight?

Here's my theory. During the last 15 years, probably with Greenspan, the Fed and Wall Street firms cut a deal. The Fed would continue to print more money and lower interest rates. Normally, this economic policy would be absurd because it is highly inflationary. Therefore, the inflation had to be channeled into certain areas. If the inflation could be channeled into the stock market and the housing market, it could be viewed as an economic stimulus rather than inflationary. Of course, it also showed up in oil futures, etc.

Anyways, that's my theory of the under the table deal between Wall Street and the Fed. So the question is whether these deals can be made without the consent of the government? At least can there be transparency so we really know what's going on?

Blues, all 3 are in the Club with no checks and balances. Politicians provide the on-going lip service so they appear to be doing something. Most of these politicians are very wealthy. Yes, the wave of socialism will affect everybody but the top 1%. Vast fortunes and payouts were made for years and then the system imploded. Pensions, insurance, annuities etc are completely FUBAR. They will not offer a solution othan than to inflate. It is a total fait accompli. The only outlier for real change would be an extreme global depression and nobody wants that.

April 9 (Bloomberg) -- Now that we have a rough idea how President Barack Obama and his lieutenants plan to prop up insolvent financial institutions using taxpayers’ money, we’re left with a more difficult question: Why?

Why doesn’t the Obama administration force insolvent banks and insurance companies to come clean about their losses first? It’s the “why” that’s so vexing. The who, what, when, and how are mere details, by comparison.

More than anyone else’s, it should be in Obama’s political self-interest to accelerate the worst of the financial crisis and get as much of the inevitable pain behind us as quickly as possible. Every day he waits is one less day he will have between the time we hit rock bottom and the next election. And yet, Obama and his minions are doing all they can to delay the reckoning, which only will make it worse.

When publicly owned companies change management, often the smartest thing a new chief executive officer can do is clear the decks and take a “big bath” charge to earnings. In other words, the company writes off all its worthless assets and reports huge losses, pushing every conceivable drop of red ink into the past. The new CEO gets to blame his predecessor’s dumb mistakes. The company gets a fresh start with the investing public.

Obama could have taken the same approach with the banks the moment he took office, while he still had standing to blame the financial crisis on George W. Bush’s administration, stupid regulators, and corrupt lawmakers -- that is, everyone but himself.

Executive Order

He could have ordered all U.S. financial institutions to immediately confess whatever losses they hadn’t yet recognized. And he could have backed that up by vowing to prosecute every officer, director and auditor the Justice Department could find who had approved numbers they knew to be wrong.

Obama didn’t do that. And now, six months into the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, his administration’s approach to the financial crisis is largely indistinguishable from its predecessor’s. The only objective, it seems, is to buy time, in hopes that an economic recovery somehow will materialize and lift the financial system back to health.

The Obama administration’s “strategy,” for lack of a better word, is to keep plying broken financial institutions with as much taxpayer money as the government can print. And so the government will keep subsidizing failed mega-banks indefinitely, rather than placing any into receivership or liquidating them.

Taxpayers at Risk

The latest iteration of this policy is the Treasury Department’s Public-Private Investment Program. In short, struggling financial institutions will be encouraged to swap their most toxic mortgage-related assets with one another at inflated prices. The purchases will be financed by big government loans, so that taxpayers are at risk for the bulk of any losses.

If the government wanted transparency, it would force financial institutions to write down their bad assets now, and figure out afterward which companies deserve taxpayer support. Instead, the Treasury plans to recapitalize them first, keep their current financial condition hidden, and let their failed managers stay in their jobs.

The key assumption underlying this plan is that the declines in the values of these companies’ toxic assets are the result of private investors’ temporary reluctance to buy them, and that prices will rebound if Treasury can revive the markets where these assets trade.

Proper Values

The Treasury hasn’t explained why it believes the assets’ proper values are their original book values, rather than the prices unsubsidized investors are willing to pay for them. (This is one of the points made in an April 7 report(link below) by the U.S. bailout program’s Congressional Oversight Panel.) If Treasury’s hunch proves wrong, the government will need to rely on something other than a rising economy to restore the banks to solvency.

So why don’t Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke force the banks to write down their troubled assets first, as a condition of government assistance? We can only speculate, because their explanations so far have made no sense.

Perhaps they’re scared the markets would panic if large, insolvent financial institutions started telling investors just how undercapitalized they are. There’s the distinct chance some of Obama’s advisers are beholden to failed banksters, because they used to work for them and may want to do so again someday.

Manpower Shortage

There also could be a manpower problem. The government might not have enough employees to seize all those sickly banks and supervise the process of winding them down. Probably, it’s some combination of those and other factors.

Why else would the Treasury tell the 19 biggest U.S. banks to undergo “stress tests” of their financial health, and then put the banks in charge of performing the tests on themselves? Those reasons also might help explain why regulators pressured the board that sets U.S. accounting standards to weaken the rules on mark-to-market accounting, so the banks could hide their losses and show more capital.

Whatever the case, as long as the government refuses to remove the cancer of zombie banks from our financial system, there’s little hope the U.S. will return to robust economic growth anytime soon. And the longer our wounded banks are allowed to stagger along with no end-game in sight, the greater the risk for Obama that voters will conclude he’s as responsible for blowing the cleanup as others were for causing the crisis.

He’d better act soon. Time may not be our side any longer.

I know why. The reason is that he still trusts the Wall Street types. They are telling him that if they don't bail out the banks that the economy will implode. Bush bought the line and so is Obama.

The question is if at some point he will stop trusting these fuckheads.

"Progressive deterioration in the value of money through history is not an accident, and has had behind it two great driving forces -- the impecuniousity of governments and the superior political influence of the debtor class."--J.M.K.

The current strength of the dollar is a function of our history of economic stability and our enviable (and useful) position as de facto world currency.(the threat of our still imposing military strength is a factor as well) I agree they will intentionaly inflate and try to keep the rate manageable. It will be a tightrope walk with similar consequences if we make a misstep.

There might be a few deflationary shoes left to drop but eventually the dollar will resume its downward march.

In a way the growing strength of China and our expanding debt to them will act as a brake on our leaderships eagerness to devalue the dollar. Lets hope they are reasonably successful at threatening us.

In previous recessions people could find work in retail stores or restaurants, but those 2 industries are under siege with bankruptcies and store closings.

Here is some enlightening news for you to do whatever you want regarding tax day. April 15th should be the real April fools day!

http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter/altCtC-Flyer.pdf

I say FUCK the IRS, and am with this guy - bunch of moronic thugs. (PS - I did not write this)

THE IRS SHOULDN'T JUST BE LEFT TO DIE
THE IRS MUST BE DESTROYED!


"An elimination of the IRS and the income tax would inspire
more productivity in the free market than any stimulus
package ever contemplated." bob minarik - rochester indiana
- 2008

I'm hearing chatter in the news about the IRS
being sickly because of lack of funding, a rising
tide of national opposition and low morale within
its ranks.

The IRS is sick all right, but that isn't good
enough. This agency should be left to die or better
yet, be killed outright just as you would destroy
a virus or cancer! Its death would benefit
all. Credibility would be added to an ethics
starved government and the most vile, the most
contemptible, the most reprehensible agency in
existence in the U.S.A. today, would be eliminated.

Even now, the bleeding hearts, who worship big
government as their savior, are crying for more
funding and pleading that we can't survive without
an increase in the Gestapo and fear tactics that
the IRS now uses to steal from the American people,
but such is utter nonsense!

Elimination of the IRS and the income tax would
not only inspire more productivity in the free
market, it would inspire an economic boom that would
eliminate the present need for government subsidies
and give-a-ways. Ironically, those give-a-ways
equal the exact 43% of the expenditures of the
proposed national budget that is collected from
the American people as an income tax.

Other benefits of a dead IRS and no income tax
would be free and fair elections where the IRS
could no longer intimidate with threats, audits or
criminal investigations, the people who donate to
candidates. Even judges, both Federal and State, would
have one less agency to black-mail them to stay within
the agency determined parameters when deciding cases.

The rights of people would also be enhanced 1000%.
The people would once again be more secure in their
personal papers, privacy and effects. They would
no longer be compelled to be a witness against
themselves or required to take an oath against
their will. Much fear and private waste attempting
to comply with an intentionally complicated Revenue
Code would be eliminated. And thousands of lawyers,
accountants and tax preparers would have to become
givers of production instead of takers of it.

Yes, it's past time to let this thieving agency
die. For certain, few would mourn it's death. To the
contrary, celebration would abound as the cause of
liberty would once again take a giant step forward.





Elim

Such brilliance! Such depth of analysis!

Elim, you earn

You really hate this country. I suggest you try Zimbabwe. You'd be happier there.

Wow, 1000%. That's pretty high.

Yeah, lets just eliminate taxes, the feudal system was just wonderful during the Dark Ages, let's just return there.

Fucking retards all around. I would love to see one of these assholes survive long on their own in a lawless land without government and rule of law. Fuck Zimbabwe, think Haiti or Somalia. As long as you have cash you can pay to stay alive, I'm not sure what happens when the cash runs out but I think you turn into dogfood.

Cat,

You have this all wrong. He is not against laws. It's law enforcement that wastes tax dollars. The laws themselves are fine.

Elim has his Krugerrands. He'd last a long time in Somalia with his bag of coins. Man, he gets my award for the biggest fruitcake to ever land on CH.

Why does he have such a hard-on for the IRS? Nobody likes them this time of year, but I've never ever thought of them as the embodiment of evil. That would be FOX News. So I have to assume the Mr. Elim is a tax cheat who got his ass nailed by the IRS. Maybe he spent some time in prison and got buggered by some of the other tax cheats? Maybe that's why he's such an angry person? Seems a reasonable possibility.

Bingo! Whenever you see someone really railing about lawyers, it usually means the either got convicted or lost a lawsuit/divorce settlement/whatever. Bitching at the IRS usually means they got audited hard and had to cough up some dough.

BT, without enforcement, who would ever file an income tax return? Without income taxes, what alternative would there be? A VAT and/or national sales tax? A national property/personal property tax?

I think BT was being facetious...

They should have put Bush on the cover too..

Obama....he is doing such a great job.

What do all you libs have to say about the deficits that are in the making?

Unemployment at 9.4% and rising.

Government Motors?

Telling Iran that they have a right to develop nuclear energy....we might as well give them a few bombs.

North Korea " a time bomb (nuclear) waiting to happen" .....I forgot Hillary is on that!

....and to think all your Mother wanted was a back rub!!

So much for my theory the reason we hadn't heard from him recently was that Beachman had died and gone to hell.

All the libs are hiding now that the true intentions of Obama socialism are starting to to root. He and the Dems are trying to push through as much legislation as they possibly can in the next 2 years.....know that what they can get past will be very difficult to overturn in the future.


Look what is going on with Ameri-Corps in Sacramento....Obama isn't even obeying the law on legislation he co-sponsored in the Senate. Doesn't that worry any of you libs?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Gerald-Walpin-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-AmeriCorps-firing-48030697.html

Christ, after a few months in county lockup, the first thing you do on exit is come on hear and post stupid shit?

Shouldn't Screechman be about halfway across the US in his motorhome by now? I figured he and GCL would be fucking buffalo in South Dakota by mid-June. Instead, we have more drivel.

Beachman,

It is good to have you back. Unlike the insensitive liberals on this board, I was truly worried about your mental health. Perhaps you had a breakdown, or you couldn't deal with your latent homosexual tendencies.

But now against all of the odds, you are back. And may I say better than ever.

Bluestraveller-

You seem to be fixated on homosexual tendencies....seems like you are the one who has homosexual tendencies. Just like a typical lib...when you have lost an arguement....you go on the attack name calling.

Looks like unemployment is over 10% in the western states with the great liberal state of California at 11.5%.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_state_unemployment

Yep, high unemployment, thanks to the Bush Administration.

It's amazing. The guy starts a thread in which he calls Obama various names, he disparagingly calls those whose politics are to the left of Attila the Hun "libs," (and if one were to review the thread, I'm sure other things as well) and then he cries like a baby about others calling him names.

I have no reservations whatsoever about calling him what he obviously is: a dumb guy. Like in a guy who thinks the current economic mess has only to do with who was President the last five months and nothing to do with Bush and his group (I wonder if he even remembers how the financial system was on the edge of totally imploding when Bush left office?).

The GOP has two basic constituents. The Rich, and the Stupid. There may be a few in between, but they generally migrate towards one side or the other eventually.

The Rich left town with all our dough and left the Stupid behind to pitch us on the idea that it's Obama's fault.

Laguy-

i didn't know you were so offended being called a lib......you are a liberal aren't you.


You know it is funny....conservatives don't it upset if you call them a conservative....but if you call a liberal a liberal they act like a girly man having their period! Be proud of being one of the 21% of Americans who call themselves liberals.

Cat.....the stimulus bill was suppose to take care of the unemployment..... Obama promised that unemployment would go over 9% if we didn't pass the bill.

Now he is grabbing control of anything he can....Government Motors, the financial sector, Health Care....what does he want next.
Maybe it will be you industry next.

California is an example of who bad this country is headed. The liberals in CA have tried to establish a socialist Society and look how bankrupt CA is! Is that what you want for thew future of this country?

In comparison to right-wing nut jobs some might consider me liberal. OTOH, some leftists I know consider me conservative. Most importantly compared to the mainstream I am moderate on fiscal issues and libertarian on social issues. With regard to foreign policy such labels are such gross over-simplications they really shouldn't be used.

Why I even bothered to respond to the question though befuddles me.

Trust me Laguy. You are a liberal.


Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I am sancho: When it comes to political matters, you are the last person on this board I would trust. . . Well, maybe the second to last.

Screechman says:

Bluestraveller-

You seem to be fixated on homosexual tendencies....seems like you are the one who has homosexual tendencies.


This sound a lot like the popular retort from 5-year-olds: "Takes one to know one."

Is that the best you can do, Screechman? That's truly pathetic! Lame beyond belief, and a bit sad. You are hereby banned from all retorts for a period of one month.

Oh, BTW, since you appear to know shit-all about CA and its problems, you should know that there's blame to go around to all parties, all ideologies. Your simplistic approach, posing this as a "liberal" failure, shows precisely how ignorant (or flat-out stupid) you are. Instead of spraying your little ideological turd-bombs everywhere, try actually informing yourself about something. Dems, Repubs, liberals, conservatives...they've all screwed the pooch in California. Even the citizenry of CA have contributed to the problems of the state through some enormously short-sighted initiatives they passed over the years.

Bottom line: you have to be stunningly ignorant or amazingly stupid to see the California situation in terms as simplistic as those you posed above.

It appears, though, that trying to reason with you is about as useful as

(Message edited by Bwana_dik on June 19, 2009)

Beachman,

I think that the Republican word for homosexuals are queers and fags. I said that you had latent homosexual tendencies, which you don't deny. Nor should you!

Look at what happens to Republicans with latent tendencies such as yours. They end up on their hands and knees an airport bathroom. I know deep in your heart, you thought "Glad that's not me!"

I knew that you would start hitting on me. That's the old trick, but I ain't falling for it. Check out my trip reports! I think that you should stick to discussing politics or more people will discover your deep dark secret.

On the other hand, I fail to understand the Republican argument that a government-run, health-care program would put bureaucrats between doctor and patient decisions while private health-care-insurance companies currently don't do the same.

I don't know if my failure to understand such rubbish makes me a liberal, or simply someone with at least half a brain.

If you haven't already, check out these videos:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/19/obama-radio-and-tv-corres_n_218326.html

I must say, this guy makes me laugh even harder than Beachman's posts. It is, however, a proud laugh.