The Paul File

[adoucette]

Guess you didn't notice the details of your own post:

between 2004 and 2007 Wachovia had failed to monitor and report suspected money laundering by narcotics traffickers

Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia in 2008, a year AFTER that ML affair.

By the way, even Wells has to rely on people to monitor and report suspected money laundering (Cash transactions). I don't know of the exact issues of this case but it's highly unlikely the CEO of a company this size would or could do anything about that.

Consider that as CEO of WF you are responsible for over 11,000 branches and 270,000 employees and so the 11,000 branches are managed by Geographic divisions and so the actual branch managers involved in that kind of money laundering would be several management levels below the CEO.

Once again, I know you want to blame the CEO for everything that happens in a huge organization, but that just means you don't have a clue about how a very large corporation like Wells Fargo is managed.

 

[Michael]

Guess you didn't notice the details of your own post:

between 2004 and 2007 Wachovia had failed to monitor and report suspected money laundering by narcotics traffickers

Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia in 2008, a year AFTER that ML affair.

By the way, even Wells has to rely on people to monitor and report suspected money laundering (Cash transactions). I don't know of the exact issues of this case but it's highly unlikely the CEO of a company this size would or could do anything about that.

Consider that as CEO of WF you are responsible for over 11,000 branches and 270,000 employees and so the 11,000 branches are managed by Geographic divisions and so the actual branch managers involved in that kind of money laundering would be several management levels below the CEO.

Once again, I know you want to blame the CEO for everything that happens in a huge organization, but that just means you don't have a clue about how a very large corporation like Wells Fargo is managed.

Then these CEOs are not like a Steve Jobs then are they? He might not know every little day to day detail, but, I don't seem to hear about Apple purchasing a company that was illegally importing tons of cocaine into Mexico and laundrying the money.

I don't recall Microsoft doing that.
I don't recall Ford doing that.
I don't recall Sony doing that.
Google? Yahoo? Nope.
What about Farmer Jacks? Nope.

Yet, big surprise, a big bank like WF (just the sort of institution that has ruined our economy).... they just so happen to also buy a company that only made ends meet by dealing drugs in Mexico. Yep, just one big coincidence that one - here we have a story of yet ANOTHER bank that is involved with the dirtiest sleaziest businesses on earth.

Like I said, it doesn't matter where you look in History or which culture you are looking at, sooner or later the general public WILL get pissed off enough and either kill off these parasitic bankers or regulate them down to the tiniest aspect of the economy (akin to a utility) or both.


BUT, hey, it's not like the BANKS had ANYTHING to do with the financial crises, right?
Come on....

You go on ahead and think of banking CEOs as your heroes (Dimon makes over 30 MILLION a year - what a joke) and I'll keep thinking of people like Albert Einstein, Mark Twain and Thomas Jefferson (who never made anywhere NEAR that amount of money) as my heroes. Small community banks, the ones that turn over next to zero profit and work FOR the people IN the community, these are the sorts of banks we need. I suggest to everyone, if it's possible, put your savings into a small credit union or a local banks with a few local branches. The only way to deal with these large parasitic banks is simply NOT to do business with them. That's a start.


Another thing we should do, is introduce monetary competition in the USA. Why should someone in MI have to live under the monopoly and oppression of the New York Federal Reserve? They shouldn't. Support changing the monetary system so that each State has the ability to print it's own currency with it's own interest rates completely independent of the New York Federal Reserve. We don't tolerate monopolies in other "products" (which is how the banks want everyone to think of their role - as providing financial products). Well, good, lets introduce competition into the monetary system.

 

[Michael]

Ron Paul supports introducing monetary competition in the USA.

Ron Paul proposes 'currency competition' in bid to end federal monopoly on money.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on Tuesday said he would soon introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act, which would dismantle what he described as the federal government's self-proclaimed monopoly on legal tender in the U.S. and allow states and private enterprises to issue their own currency.

Free Competition in Currency Act

• The Honest Money portion would repeal the legal tender law, which gives the Federal Reserve a monopoly over the money supply.
  
• The Competitive Currency section would repeal the words of Title 18 Section 489 of the U.S. Code, which gives the United States government a monopoly over the creation of coins for use as currency.
  
• The Tax-Free Gold component of the bill would prohibit federal and state taxes, such as capital gains, on precious metal coins and bullion.

A Plea for Monetary Competition
Most students of economics today do not even know that monetary competition was the norm rather than the exception for large periods of human history. Even worse, almost none pay attention to this question at all. Tacit acceptance of legal tender laws and currency monopolies is the norm. This has resulted both in a true intellectual loss for those who are already or want to become economists, and in the absence of a public and academic debate on a true exception and even an anomaly of a market economy.



Quick News: Senior citizens occupy, shut down Bank of America

Bank Transfer Day saw a billion dollars moved out of large commercial banks. In one of the most visible actions against Bank of America, a San Jose church divested $3 million, closed its accounts, and moved to a local credit union. care2.com

 

[Michael]

All American Citizens should support competing currencies IF they truly support Liberty and Freedom. With competing currencies NO ONE would be forced to use ANY particular currency. You could, as a free person, choose to use Federal Reserve notes and ONLY Federal Reserve notes in your transactions. No one is forcing you to use a different currency. what currency competition does is give Citizens the Freedom to choose NOT to if they want to. It's THEIR personal choice.

Just like smart phones, internet providers, trucks, food, you should have the FREE CHOICE determine for yourself which financial currency product you'd like to use and when, how you'd like to store your wealth and which currency you'd like to conduct your trades in.

To suggest people should not have this right runs counter to our entire culture. There's no logical argument to using FORCE against a Citizen when it comes to their personal wealth and finances.

 

[Michael]

Follow up on the EPA:

EPA Land Grab - Couple Fights To Build On Their Own Property

Get this, there are houses on both sides of this couple lot they purchased (The Sackett's). One of these neighbors doesn't want the Sackett's to build there so they call up their mate who works for the EPA - this person then, without ANY oversight from the PUBLIC, uses FORCE against the Sackett's so that they not only stop building but have to replant all the trees and return the land to just as it was. Just one asshole in the EPA says it's a wetland - thus it is. No evidence, nothing. Just the word of some unelected douche trumps the US Constitution. In order to even take the EPA to court the Sackett's need a permit which costs $200,000. Can you believe this bullshit? How can a small lot in between two houses be a "Wetland Reserve"? Answer: It can't be and it isn't.

See, we do NOT need nor want the EPA at the Federal Level. And, this couple should have their day in court tried by a jury of their peers. That one asshole in the EPA, an unelected nobody, could get away with this abuse of private property rights is beyond reasonable. ANY American citizen with ANY sense of property rights should be totally against this.

The Constitution allows for the government to claim land. BUT the government must pay the owner of the land fair value. Here we have one douche in the EPA effectively stealing this couples land. Outrageous.

I bet no one at the EPA gets in trouble over this either. Someone should loose their job, but they won't. They'll probably get a raise if anything.

The ONLY person that's going to defend them: Ron Paul
Ron Paul ∞ Outrageous Overreach of EPA 1/16/12

 

[Billy T]

Is private (non-US) money illegal? When I was young living in West Virginia, most of the small coal mine companies paid at least half of the miner's salary in "company script" - they could buy items with script only in the company store. Later, a top song on the hit parade for several weeks had these lines:

I loaded 16 tons of number 9 coal and the big boss said: "Well bless my soul - you done loaded 16 tons of number 9 coal and what do you get? - Another day older and deeper in debt. ...

St. Peter don't you call me cause I can't go - I owe my soul to the company store. "

Company script, effectively legalized debt slavery in the US. Children of miners went into the mines to try to pay the father's debts but the debt just grew.

Thus a problem with privately backed money is that lacking the "legal tender for all debts, public and private" force of US law, it can easily be abused.

 

[adoucette]

Then these CEOs are not like a Steve Jobs then are they?

Yes they are.

He might not know every little day to day detail, but, I don't seem to hear about Apple purchasing a company that was illegally importing tons of cocaine into Mexico and laundrying the money.

And Wachovia wasn't importing any cocaine either.

Indeed, the fine was for "failing to run an effective Money Laundering program", no criminal charges were filed against anyone because there was no evidence that anyone at Wachovia was aiding the ML.

The fact is moving money is a bank's business.
Determining that the money being moved is from illegal activities is NOT easy since the crooks go to great pains to hide that fact.

Indeed, Wells spent $42 million dollars, after acquiring Wachovia to improve it's ability to attempt to detect possible money laundering. It's a very difficult and complex part of banking using complex transactional and behavioral analysis.

But the fact is we know it's still going on even though every bank in the country is trying to identify it because drugs are bought with cash and so invariably all that drug money does get washed. Every year.

Yet, big surprise, a big bank like WF (just the sort of institution that has ruined our economy).... they just so happen to also buy a company that only made ends meet by dealing drugs in Mexico. Yep, just one big coincidence that one - here we have a story of yet ANOTHER bank that is involved with the dirtiest sleaziest businesses on earth.

BS, no evidence that Wachovia was involved in anything improper.
Certainly no evidence that Wells was, and more to the point, the amount of money that a bank makes by moving money is a tiny percent, not nearly enough to affect the actual worth of the Bank, which WF bought for about 15 Billion dollars.

Like I said, it doesn't matter where you look in History or which culture you are looking at, sooner or later the general public WILL get pissed off enough and either kill off these parasitic bankers or regulate them down to the tiniest aspect of the economy (akin to a utility) or both.

More BS.
Without the banks our economy would STOP.

BUT, hey, it's not like the BANKS had ANYTHING to do with the financial crises, right?
Come on....

Some did, some didn't. The ones that went under or were acquired, like Countrywide and Wachovia and Bear Stearns did and the ones that are left, like WF generally didn't have much to do with it.
We've been over this before, your memory is just very short.

You go on ahead and think of banking CEOs as your heroes (Dimon makes over 30 MILLION a year - what a joke) and I'll keep thinking of people like Albert Einstein, Mark Twain and Thomas Jefferson (who never made anywhere NEAR that amount of money) as my heroes.

BS, Jefferson was quite wealthy for his time and owned HUNDREDS of slaves.

Nice.

As to Twain, he made a small fortune, indeed he spent over $7 million (at today's value) on an invention he was interested in.

Small community banks, the ones that turn over next to zero profit and work FOR the people IN the community, these are the sorts of banks we need. I suggest to everyone, if it's possible, put your savings into a small credit union or a local banks with a few local branches. The only way to deal with these large parasitic banks is simply NOT to do business with them. That's a start.

Not a bad suggestion for people and small businesses, but large companies and international companies need large banks.

Another thing we should do, is introduce monetary competition in the USA. Why should someone in MI have to live under the monopoly and oppression of the New York Federal Reserve? They shouldn't. Support changing the monetary system so that each State has the ability to print it's own currency with it's own interest rates completely independent of the New York Federal Reserve. We don't tolerate monopolies in other "products" (which is how the banks want everyone to think of their role - as providing financial products). Well, good, lets introduce competition into the monetary system.

Which would be one of the worst ideas you can imagine.

 

[adoucette]

Follow up on the EPA:

EPA Land Grab - Couple Fights To Build On Their Own Property

Get this, there are houses on both sides of this couple lot they purchased (The Sackett's). One of these neighbors doesn't want the Sackett's to build there so they call up their mate who works for the EPA - this person then, without ANY oversight from the PUBLIC, uses FORCE against the Sackett's so that they not only stop building but have to replant all the trees and return the land to just as it was. Just one asshole in the EPA says it's a wetland - thus it is. No evidence, nothing. Just the word of some unelected douche trumps the US Constitution. In order to even take the EPA to court the Sackett's need a permit which costs $200,000. Can you believe this bullshit? How can a small lot in between two houses be a "Wetland Reserve"? Answer: It can't be and it isn't.

See, we do NOT need nor want the EPA at the Federal Level. And, this couple should have their day in court tried by a jury of their peers. That one asshole in the EPA, an unelected nobody, could get away with this abuse of private property rights is beyond reasonable. ANY American citizen with ANY sense of property rights should be totally against this.

The Constitution allows for the government to claim land. BUT the government must pay the owner of the land fair value. Here we have one douche in the EPA effectively stealing this couples land. Outrageous.

I bet no one at the EPA gets in trouble over this either. Someone should loose their job, but they won't. They'll probably get a raise if anything.

The ONLY person that's going to defend them: Ron Paul
Ron Paul ∞ Outrageous Overreach of EPA 1/16/12

Your argument is against the EPA, but this is really about a Congressionally passed "Clean Water Act" (passed by the 92nd Congress). This was first passed in 1948 and subsequently revised extensively (to much like it is today) in 1972, and the EPA (established in 1970) was given the job of enforcement.

And I agree with you, that Congress over-stepped its bounds on the CWA and particularly since it didn't create a reasonable independent review method for people to challenge rulings under the CWA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act

The case is going to the Supreme Court and I think they will side with the plaintiffs.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...f_Updates/10-1062_petitioner.authcheckdam.pdf

But throwing out the EPA because they have to enforce a poorly written congressionally passed law is silly.

 

[Billy T]

... drugs are bought with cash and so invariably all that drug money does get washed. ...

Yes, US's paper money, especially the larger bills only serve the drug trade and tax evasion. Long ago I posted some of the many benefits of ending this stupidity:

...
(1)Banks to have mainly electronic money (except some coins - see point 2). The Fed continues to regulate quantity of credit, money, etc. as now. All bank records up dated daily and available to anyone on line, but identity of account owners is available only to law enforcement, with court warrant, after "good cause" to suspect crime.

(2)New small $1 coins circulate, and typical man's pants pocket can hold $50 worth.

(3)Existing paper money to become void on fixed schedule as follows:
All bills (not bonds and treasury notes, etc.) greater than $1000 in 3 months and all printing of new paper money terminates immediately.
All $1000 bills in 6 months.
All bills <$1000 & >$100 in 1 year
$100 bills in 2 years
$50 bills in 3 years
$20 bills in 4 years
$10 bills in 5 years
$5 bills in 10 years
$2 bills in 15 years
$1 bills in 20 years

The "under ground economy" (cash payments) is huge but totally untaxed. The tax bill of honest tax payers could be reduced by approximately 1/3 if it were taxed, as it would be if all transactions left an electronic record. Those records, like IRS records, should not be available to the public only the IRS. We don't want wives to know how much the mistress is collecting in cash, etc.

There are many more dollars in circulation (or in coffee cans etc.) outside of US than inside of US. Time must be provided for their holders to spend them, or perhaps convert to other currencies, but as no one wants to just hold dollars, this option will disappear prior to “voiding date.”

This plan will greatly boost US exports, help get US out of debt, and may even prevent the collapse of US economically.

It certainly will end the hard drug problem, {suitcases full of $100 bills don’t exist – truck loads of one dollar coins or electronic records of drug payment for the police} as the risk of large scale buying from Columbia, Afghanistan, etc will be too great, if done via "electronic money" and physically impractical if the drugs lords are to be paid in the new $1 coins.

Crime will not end, but less people will be killed. Only the more intelligent criminals will get very rich via computer crimes, but most will get caught eventually, especially if the try to spend beyond their legal incomes. …

From thread OP at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=937774&postcount=1 but in that old post I failed to mention that lobbyist bribing Congress would greatly decrease too. That is why nothing more intelligent will ever change the current system.

 

[adoucette]

Bank Transfer Day saw a billion dollars moved out of large commercial banks. In one of the most visible actions against Bank of America, a San Jose church divested $3 million, closed its accounts, and moved to a local credit union. care2.com

LOL

The top 4 banks in the US have over 4 TRILLION dollars in deposits.

1 Billion is a rounding error.

 

[adoucette]

Yes, US's paper money, especially the larger bills only serve the drug trade and tax evasion. Long ago I posted some of the many benefits of ending this stupidity:

No, they don't "Only serve the drug trade"

It is a key method for consumer payments (28%).

Which is why every large country uses paper money Billy.

Maybe there is a reason for that?

 

[Billy T]

The government of the rich, by their lobbyist, and for their corporations was strengthened by the removal of all limits on campaign contributions:

“… a 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, super PACs provide what may be the most devious way yet around 40-year-old campaign finance laws designed to prevent unlimited fundraising. … In a super PAC, individual donations of $500,000 to a $1 million or more are not uncommon. …”

From: http://moneymorning.com/2012/01/17/how-super-pacs-are-choosing-your-next-president/

Voting for RP may be hard on the country but probably is the only way to return to "Government of the people, by the people and for the people."

 

[Billy T]

No, they don't "Only serve the drug trade" ... Which is why every large country uses paper money Billy.

Maybe there is a reason for that?

You are again using mis quotes. I said: "US's paper money, especially the larger bills only serve the drug trade and tax evasion. "

And further more said that there should be a smaller $1 coin so $50 would fit in a man's pants pocket.

I.e. I want there to be some physical cash for small purchases like payment to parking garage, minor shopping etc.

"Maybe the is a reason for that" - Yes. Paper money replaced gold so that fiat debt financing would be possible for governments. That is why every large country has it. - It happened long (> 300 years) before electronic payments were possible. Large bill paper money is also very useful for bribes. Congress will not end it but RP might.

Now most larger purchases BY HONEST TAXPAYERS are via credit cards, etc. not cash. Carrying several hundred dollars on your person is stupid and dangerous, most of the time. At the very least you are losing the interest it could be earning. At the worst, it can get you killed when it becomes known that is you policy.

Fact that 18.4 % of purchases is via cash would probably be reduced some by more checks and credit card use but still be > 10%. Certainly there has been a trend for decades to less use of cash and more use of checks and credit cards.

SUMMARY: My suggestion to phase out paper money over a two decades period* would have essentially zero negative effect on HONEST TAXPAYERS but when the currently underground economy** is taxed their tax bills would be at least 1/3 lower (not even counting the cost of imported hard drugs to society).

* But many of the benefits would start after only two years when $100 dollar bills have no value. I.e. No longer will there be suitcases (or backpacks at non-border patrolled points) full of $100 bills going to Mexico to pay for hard drug shipments to major US drug dealers.

** No one know how large the underground economy is. My dentist in Maryland gave 25% discount for cash payment as his marginal tax rate was higher. It is not just whores and truck drivers that live in a "cash only" economy.

 

[adoucette]

You are again using mis quotes. I said: "US's paper money, especially the larger bills only serve the drug trade and tax evasion. "

BS Billy, I posted that entire quote.

The point is that 28%, not 18% as you wrote, of US consumer payments are in cash, and yes, a lot of them are over $100.

And yes, a lot of us carry more than $100 on them.
I'm rarely with less than $500 cash on me, more if I'm travelling.
(the interest cost is about $1 a month, so to me it is worth it)

And further more said that there should be a smaller $1 coin so $50 would fit in a man's pants pocket.

I don't carry coins, except as change made during the day.

Now most larger purchases BY HONEST TAXPAYERS are via credit cards, etc. not cash.

So? I'm an honest taxpayer and I make a number of large cash transactions.
Indeed, so many posters on this forum are worried about "big brother watching" and the one type of transaction that the govt can't easily watch is cash.

And you want to do away with it.

Interesting.

Carrying several hundred dollars on your person is stupid and dangerous, most of the time. At the very least you are losing the interest it could be earning. At the worst, it can get you killed when it becomes known that is you policy.

I do.
I don't think it's either stupid or dangerous.

And Cash remains the dominant consumer payment vehicle in most of the world.

While the US it's 28%, in the UK its 66%

http://www.ukpayments.org.uk/media_centre/press_releases/-/page/660/

 

[Billy T]

BS Billy, I posted that entire quote. ...

No you posted only the last part of one sentence, omitting the immediate four words which were "especially the larger bills" to distort what I had said. - Making it look like I though $1 & $5 dollar bills were used to pay for the importation of hard drug by the "US's major drug dealers." It is mainly the $100 dollar bills they use and most people in this day of electronic money can live very well without $100 dollar bills.

If I can end most hard drug importation and cut my tax bill by ~30% I don't mind in the least if lack of $100 bills is inconvenient for you. I think most (> 80%) will agree with me on this.

Also your own data shows that there are more only debit card (not including credit card or checks) purchases each month (19.0) than cash purchases (18.4). When one considers the relative amount of typical cash purchases is much smaller, like for news paper, magazine or canned soft drink, etc. than electronic or check payments and adds in the check and credit card payments to the already larger debit card payments, a huge fraction of US economic activity has already ceased to use cash, especially the $100 dollar bills (except those avoiding taxes by living in the underground economy. I admit they need the $100 bill.).

Again I want to keep some fraction (perhaps 10% of all transactions) in coins with new smaller* dollar coins as I don't think we need electronic records of these typically smaller purchases to catch drug dealers and tax cheats (close the "underground economy") so honest tax payers can pay something like 1/3 less in taxes.

---------
* About the size of a dime, which if it is pre 1964 is already nearly worth a dollar at current price of silver. 100 dimes fit in a standard coin roll as I recall. If true you could have $30 in you pocket for small value purchases, not made by wave of your cell phone over the sensor. Again note I keeping the paper one dollar bill for 20 years more. These sensor will be everywhere by then - on the bus etc.

 

[quadraphonics]

You are again using mis quotes. I said: "US's paper money, especially the larger bills only serve the drug trade and tax evasion. "

Well, that and old farts who haven't realized that you can pay for everything with a credit card now (see also: checks). Any time I see anyone under the age of 30 paying with cash, I assume they're either a drug dealer or waiter/bartender/whatever. I stopped carrying cash at all years ago - what's the point? Just makes my wallet bulky and risks getting lost. And I haven't held a $100 bill in years and years - you have to actually go inside a bank and wait in line to get those! Meanwhile, you don't even have to set foot inside a bank to get a mortgage these days...

 

[adoucette]

No you posted only the last part of one sentence, omitting the immediate four words which were "especially the larger bills" to distort what I had said. -

No Billy, learn to read.

It's right there in front of your eyes.

That post starts out with your entire sentence, with "especially the drug trade" included as a quote:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2891393&postcount=1091

 

[adoucette]

Well, that and old farts who haven't realized that you can pay for everything with a credit card now (see also: checks).

Pretty funny.

I was in South Philly (for the New Years) and had invited a number of people to dinner.

We went to a nice Italian Restaurant that one of the locals in the party recommended.

When the check came I put my credit card on the folder.

When the waiter came, he said, "that's nice, can I use it to go shopping with"

And then he said they only accepted cash.

The bill for 4 with two bottles of wine and tip was a bit over $200.

No problemo.

 

[Billy T]

Pretty funny.

I was in South Philly (for the New Years) and had invited a number of people to dinner.

We went to a nice Italian Restaurant that one of the locals in the party recommended.

When the check came I put my credit card on the folder.

When the waiter came, he said, "that's nice, can I use it to go shopping with"

And then he said they only accepted cash.

The bill for 4 with two bottles of wine and tip was a bit over $200.

No problemo.

What was the name of the restaurant? I get into S. Philly every July and don't believe there is any restaurant serving food costing more than $50 per person there that will not take some credit or debit card. (One daughter lives short distance from Penn Station's 30 Street station on the No 4 line.) I'd like to check your honesty.

I expect "YOU DON'T REMEMBER" but since you were with local friends, ask them.

 

[adoucette]

Ralphs

http://www.yelp.com/biz/ralphs-italian-restaurant-philadelphia

I was surprised myself, but I was told afterward that it isn't that uncommon in Italian restaurants in South Philly (I'm not from there but my parents and sister live nearby in MD and Wilmington, DE)

The next day we went to the open air market in South Philly and we wanted to get a Philly Cheese Steak at either Pat's or Genos, but both had formidable lines, so we ate at a place further up on Passyunk Avenue, and though the bill for lunch, desert and tip was only $30, they didn't take credit cards either (don't remember the name though)