Update no.669

Update from the Heartland

No.669

6.10.14 – 12.10.14

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

The Ebola outbreak in the West African countries of Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone has been just beyond my comment horizon until Sunday morning when the Texas Department of Health Services announced that a health care provider at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital involved in the treatment of Thomas Eric Duncan of Liberia has tested positive for the Ebola virus.  This was the first infection outside West Africa.  What makes the Texas announcement far more serious and concerning is the fact that the unnamed health care worker reportedly followed all of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) containment procedures during the quarantine phase of Duncan’s treatment.  The details have not yet been made publicly available.  Clearly, something either failed procedurally or was not understood about the virus.  The dimensions of this outbreak have now changed dramatically.

The gears of justice continue to turn inexorably toward freedom and justice for all.  The U.S. Supreme Court issued a short statement that the Court declined to hear the appeals of circuit court decisions brought by five states – Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin – regarding non-heterosexual marriage state laws.  The Court’s refusal to hear these appeals essentially confirms the unconstitutionality of those affected state laws.  The question of applicability to other states within the three involved circuit court of appeals jurisdictions should not be an issue, but apparently it is.  Kansas is in the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals district with Oklahoma and Utah.  The Kansas Attorney General filed a request for an emergency injunction to prevent Johnson County from issuing marriage licenses to two, female couples.  The Kansas Supreme Court issued that injunction for reasons not yet known, and scheduled a hearing of the facts in the case in early November.  Kansas Governor Brownback publicly stated his administration’s intention to defend the state’s constitutional amendment prohibition by all means available to the state.  Progress by jerks, as the physicists say.

Just because a citizen has dark skin pigmentation does NOT give him the right to defy or insult law enforcement, or disobey the law.  Nor does skin pigmentation give a citizen a right to riot, incite to riot, mob justice or any other form of violence.  No reasonable, informed citizen can ignore the concerns of citizens with dark skin pigmentation; they have endured centuries of oppression, abuse, and discrimination simply due to the genetic pigmentation in their skin.  Yet, if someone acts like a criminal, they will and should be treated like a criminal – appearance is our first and sometimes only clue.  If someone feels police or anyone else is discriminating against them, they should use the legal system to seek remedy or redress, not the streets.  Endangering the lives and property of other citizens is not the answer and will only exacerbate the schism in race relations. 

News from the economic front:

-- The U.S. Federal Reserve will continue to hold short-term interest rates near zero, even as the U.S. economy improves, due to concerns about disappointing growth in Europe, Japan and China, and the impact on U.S. exports.  On the plus side, the stronger U.S. dollar could hold U.S. inflation below the Fed's 2% objective by reducing the cost of imported goods and services.

London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) Debacle [552]:

-- The Wall Street Journal reported “a senior banker” from a “leading British bank” pleaded guilty to attempted manipulation of the LIBOR benchmark interest rates, as a consequence of the UK’s Serious Fraud Office multi-year investigation.  The British court refused to allow publication of the banker's identity.  According to the Journal, this is the first defendant in the UK's LIBOR investigation to plead guilty.  His punishment is not yet known.

-- So we don’t lose focus . . . the infamous 16, involved, international banks are:

• ·      Barclays [UK] – US$454M fine [550]; Singapore sanctions [600]; three charged {Johnson, Mathew, Contogoulas} [636]
• ·      Bank of America [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      BTMU [Japan] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Citigroup [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Credit Suisse [Switzerland] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Deutsche Bank [Germany] – US$654M LIBOR profit [578]; set aside €500M (US$641M) for LIBOR liability [589]; Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Lloyds TSB [UK] – fined US$370M [659]
• ·      HSBC [UK] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      HBOS [UK]
• ·      JPMorgan Chase [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Norinchuckin [Japan]
• ·      Rabobank [Netherlands] – fined €774M (£663M, US$1.06B); CEO resigned; 30 others censured [620]; three charged {Robson, Thompson, Motomura} [631]
• ·      RBC [Canada]
• ·      RBS [UK] – £390M (US$612.6M) in fines, 21 employees involved [582]; Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      UBS [Switzerland] – US$1.5B fine, two charged {Hayes, Darin} [575]; Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      West LB [Germany]

Added to the list by the Monetary Authority of Singapore [600]:

• ·      ING [Netherlands] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      BNP Paribas [France] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Crédit Agricole [France] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      DBS [Singapore] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation [Singapore] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Standard Chartered [UK] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      United Overseas Bank [Singapore] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. [Australia] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Macquarie [Australia] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Commerzbank [Germany] – Singapore sanctions [600]

Others involved:

• ·      R.P. Martin Holdings Ltd. [UK] – two charged {Farr, Gilmour} [583]
• ·      ICAP [UK] – fined US$87M + three executives charged {Read, Wilkinson, Goodman} [615]

I trust none of us will lose sight of what these banks have done.  Lest we forget!

Comments and contributions from Update no.668:

Comment to the Blog:

“I want to express my agreement with your position on the Texas law restricting women's access to reproductive health care. The underhanded spirit of attacking others to gain power has not abated since the Inquisition.

“The unemployment rate appears to be dropping at last. Of course, real wages in those jobs have dropped rather far. Perhaps if Walmart and many others paid their workers a living wage, those workers could buy enough things to make the economy begin to work again. Of course, those employers do not pay living wages, and I am one of those who resents having to support those workers with food stamps, Medicaid, etc.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: intrusive laws.  Agreed.  Yet, it is not just Texas that has demonstrated a penchant to pass laws intruding deeply into our private lives and affairs.  Our method of change is public debate and our votes.

            Re: living wage.  As always, we return to definitions.  What exactly is a living wage?  How is it determined?  Who establishes what that threshold should be?

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)