Beyond Money

Food, population and climate change: Where are we headed and what can we do?

Thomas H. Greco — Thu, 10 May 2012 22:31:53 +0000

Here’s an excellent video that packs a lot of information into six short minutes, and does it in a way that is clear and comprehensible. It’s a good example of effective communication that I hope we can emulate to describe the problem of money, banking, finance and debt. — t.h.g.

Big Brother is watching you…and groping, and detaining, and…

Thomas H. Greco — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:46:50 +0000

What’s next?

This article by Naomi Wolff describes just how far advanced tyranny is in the United States today. With few exceptions, our national leaders who have sworn to uphold the Constitution have trampled it into the dirt. Isn’t there a name for that?–t.h.g.

How the US Uses Sexual Humiliation as a Political Tool to Control the Masses

By Naomi Wolff, Guardian, April 5, 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/05/us-sexual-humiliation-political-control/print

In a five-four ruling this week, the supreme court decided that anyone can be strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time. This horror show ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time, and HR 347, the “trespass bill”, which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection. These criminalizations of being human follow, of course, the mini-uprising of the Occupy movement.

Is American strip-searching benign? The man who had brought the initial suit, Albert Florence, described having been told to “turn around. Squat and cough. Spread your cheeks.” He said he felt humiliated: “It made me feel like less of a man.”

In surreal reasoning, justice Anthony Kennedy explained that this ruling is necessary because the 9/11 bomber could have been stopped for speeding. How would strip searching him have prevented the attack? Did justice Kennedy imagine that plans to blow up the twin towers had been concealed in a body cavity? In still more bizarre non-logic, his and the other justices’ decision rests on concerns about weapons and contraband in prison systems. But people under arrest – that is, who are not yet convicted – haven’t been introduced into a prison population.

Our surveillance state shown considerable determination to intrude on citizens sexually. There’s the sexual abuse of prisoners at Bagram – der Spiegel reports that “former inmates report incidents of … various forms of sexual humiliation. In some cases, an interrogator would place his penis along the face of the detainee while he was being questioned. Other inmates were raped with sticks or threatened with anal sex”. There was the stripping of Bradley Manning is solitary confinement. And there’s the policy set up after the story of the “underwear bomber” to grope US travelers genitally or else force them to go through a machine – made by a company, Rapiscan, owned by terror profiteer and former DHA czar Michael Chertoff – with images so vivid that it has been called the “pornoscanner”.

Believe me: you don’t want the state having the power to strip your clothes off. History shows that the use of forced nudity by a state that is descending into fascism is powerfully effective in controlling and subduing populations.

The political use of forced nudity by anti-democratic regimes is long established. Forcing people to undress is the first step in breaking down their sense of individuality and dignity and reinforcing their powerlessness. Enslaved women were sold naked on the blocks in the American south, and adolescent male slaves served young white ladies at table in the south, while they themselves were naked: their invisible humiliation was a trope for their emasculation. Jewish prisoners herded into concentration camps were stripped of clothing and photographed naked, as iconic images of that Holocaust reiterated.

One of the most terrifying moments for me when I visited Guantanamo prison in 2009 was seeing the way the architecture of the building positioned glass-fronted shower cubicles facing intentionally right into the central atrium – where young female guards stood watch over the forced nakedness of Muslim prisoners, who had no way to conceal themselves. Laws and rulings such as this are clearly designed to bring the conditions of Guantanamo, and abusive detention, home.

I have watched male police and TSA members standing by side by side salaciously observing women as they have been “patted down” in airports. I have experienced the weirdly phrased, sexually perverse intrusiveness of the state during an airport “pat-down”, which is always phrased in the words of a steamy paperback (“do you have any sensitive areas? … I will use the back of my hands under your breasts …”). One of my Facebook commentators suggested, I think plausibly, that more women are about to be found liable for arrest for petty reasons (scarily enough, the TSA is advertising for more female officers).

I interviewed the equivalent of TSA workers in Britain and found that the genital groping that is obligatory in the US is illegal in Britain. I believe that the genital groping policy in America, too, is designed to psychologically habituate US citizens to a condition in which they are demeaned and sexually intruded upon by the state – at any moment.

The most terrifying phrase of all in the decision is justice Kennedy’s striking use of the term “detainees” for “United States citizens under arrest”. Some members of Occupy who were arrested in Los Angeles also reported having been referred to by police as such. Justice Kennedy’s new use of what looks like a deliberate activation of that phrase is illuminating.

Ten years of association have given “detainee” the synonymous meaning in America as those to whom no rights apply – especially in prison. It has been long in use in America, habituating us to link it with a condition in which random Muslims far away may be stripped by the American state of any rights. Now the term – with its associations of “those to whom anything may be done” – is being deployed systematically in the direction of … any old American citizen.

Where are we headed? Why? These recent laws criminalizing protest, and giving local police – who, recall, are now infused with DHS money, military hardware and personnel – powers to terrify and traumatise people who have not gone through due process or trial, are being set up to work in concert with a see-all-all-the-time surveillance state. A facility is being set up in Utah by the NSA to monitor everything all the time: James Bamford wrote in Wired magazine that the new facility in Bluffdale, Utah, is being built, where the NSA will look at billions of emails, texts and phone calls. Similar legislation is being pushed forward in the UK.

With that Big Brother eye in place, working alongside these strip-search laws, – between the all-seeing data-mining technology and the terrifying police powers to sexually abuse and humiliate you at will – no one will need a formal coup to have a cowed and compliant citizenry. If you say anything controversial online or on the phone, will you face arrest and sexual humiliation?

Remember, you don’t need to have done anything wrong to be arrested in America any longer. You can be arrested for walking your dog without a leash. The man who was forced to spread his buttocks was stopped for a driving infraction. I was told by an NYPD sergeant that “safety” issues allow the NYPD to make arrests at will. So nothing prevents thousands of Occupy protesters – if there will be any left after these laws start to bite – from being rounded up and stripped naked under intimidating conditions.

Why is this happening? I used to think the push was just led by those who profited from endless war and surveillance – but now I see the struggle as larger. As one internet advocate said to me: “There is a race against time: they realise the internet is a tool of empowerment that will work against their interests, and they need to race to turn it into a tool of control.”

As Chris Hedges wrote in his riveting account of the NDAA: “There are now 1,271 government agencies and 1,931 private companies that work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States, the Washington Post reported in a 2010 series by Dana Priest and William M Arken. There are 854,000 people with top-secret security clearances, the reporters wrote, and in Washington, DC, and the surrounding area 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2011.”

This enormous new sector of the economy has a multi-billion-dollar vested interest in setting up a system to surveil, physically intimidate and prey upon the rest of American society.

Now they can do so by threatening to demean you sexually – a potent tool in the hands of any bully.

Iceland takes a more rational approach to the finacial crisis

Thomas H. Greco — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:47:46 +0000

A Bloomberg report of February 28, 2012 describes the steps that Iceland has been taking to deal with their banking crisis. A basic feature of their policy has been debt relief for homeowners. Here’s are some excerpts:

“Once it became clear back in October 2008 that the island’s banks were beyond saving, the government stepped in, ring-fenced the domestic accounts, and left international creditors in the lurch. The central bank imposed capital controls to halt the ensuing sell-off of the krona and new state-controlled banks were created from the remnants of the lenders that failed.

Legal Aftermath

Iceland’s special prosecutor has said it may indict as many as 90 people, while more than 200, including the former chief executives at the three biggest banks, face criminal charges.

Larus Welding, the former CEO of Glitnir Bank hf, once Iceland’s second biggest, was indicted in December for granting illegal loans and is now waiting to stand trial. The former CEO of Landsbanki Islands hf, Sigurjon Arnason, has endured stints of solitary confinement as his criminal investigation continues.

That compares with the U.S., where no top bank executives have faced criminal prosecution for their roles in the subprime mortgage meltdown. The Securities and Exchange Commission said last year it had sanctioned 39 senior officers for conduct related to the housing market meltdown.”

You can read the entire report at Icelandic Anger Brings Debt Forgiveness in Best Recovery Story

One wonders, why the same approach was not taken in the U.S.? I would venture to say that it all boils down to political power–who controls the government? Iceland is a small country, which probably accounts for the ability of the people to influence the government to an extent that seems impossible in a country like the U.S., where, instead of relieving the people, the government chose to relieve (reward) the banks that created the problem in the first place. It did that by shifting the excessive and unserviceable debts from the banks’ balance sheets to that of the government.

That, in turn, required a huge expansion in the national debt, but that will not and cannot solve the problem. It will only make matters worse because the world is losing its appetite for U.S. government bonds. When the Federal Reserve steps in as “buyer of last resort” we get a further debasement of the dollar and ultimately price inflation, which causes the savings of the middle-class to be wiped out.

The debt-money system has inherent in it a growth imperative. Banks create money on the basis of interest-bearing loans. The interest burden requires the creation of additional debts so that the interest can be paid. That cannot continue forever; debts must ultimately be forgiven.

But even that, by itself, is not sufficient to prevent a recurrence of the bubble-and-bust cycle. Money must be created interest-free. The best way to achieve that is by creating competing means of exchange like mutual credit clearing and private cooperative currencies.–t.h.g.

Who buys US bonds when foreign countries and investors won’t?

Thomas H. Greco — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:00:58 +0000

Answer: The Federal Reserve

Question: Where does the Fed get the money to buy the bonds?

Answer: It creates it.

That’s right, the Fed has no money, but the Congress long ago empowered the Federal Reserve Bank to create money by buying government (and other) securities. This is known as “monetizing the debt,” which amounts to nothing more than “legalized” counterfeiting of dollars, and it has the same results as the injection of any other form of counterfeit money—the dilution of purchasing power of all the dollars already in circulation and the erosion of the value of all dollar-denominated assets.

Currency inflation must ultimately result in price inflation as those empty dollars (based on empty promises) work their way through the economy. Further, as those Fed-created dollars get deposited in banks, the banks are able to multiply their lending on the basis of these new “reserves.”

In an opinion article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal last Wednesday, a former Treasury official says that:

“The recently released Federal Reserve Flow of Funds report for all of 2011 reveals that Federal Reserve purchases of Treasury debt mask reduced demand for U.S. sovereign obligations. Last year the Fed purchased a stunning 61% of the total net Treasury issuance, up from negligible amounts prior to the 2008 financial crisis.”

You might consider that to be a stealthy form of “quantitative easing.”

You can find out more about that, along with some pretty good analysis in an article that appears on the Money News website.

European Quality of Life: Is that really Socialism?

Thomas H. Greco — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:08:23 +0000

Watch this CBS report on the Greanville Post website:

The inexorable march toward tyranny and the end of the American Republic

Thomas H. Greco — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:11:19 +0000

It did not begin with Obama, and it will not end with him, it is a course that has been maintained by all administrations, Democrat and Republican, over many decades, but it is now approaching a climax. It’s all about control—centralized control, which leaves no room for popular participation or democratic government. The oligarchs who control the United States government (along with most of the global power structure) will do whatever it takes to assure “full-spectrum dominance” in their own hands.

Now, as they beat the drums for a war against Iran which they seem determined to have, a war which the majority of Americans are opposed to, they are putting us on notice that everything we think we own belongs to them and will be used to further their agenda. Through a series of legislative acts and executive orders, they have given themselves the “legal” cover for increasingly intrusive and heavy-handed actions to deal with public opposition. The article below from the Washington Times describes the latest of these. Although the author seems confused in his characterization of the kind of government we now have (National Socialism, ala Hitler’s Germany, seems to be most apt), his basic argument is compelling.

I also recommend that everyone read Naomi Klein’s book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.—t.h.g.

Obama’s power grab

Executive order expands presidential prerogative

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner - The Washington Times Thursday, March 22, 2012

President Obama has given himself the powers to declare martial law – especially in the event of a war with Iran. It is a sweeping power grab that should worry every American.

On March 16, the White House released an executive order, “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” The document is stunning in its audacity and a flagrant violation of the Constitution. It states that, in case of a war or national emergency, the federal government has the authority to take over almost every aspect of American society. Food, livestock, farming equipment, manufacturing, industry, energy, transportation, hospitals, health care facilities, water resources, defense and construction – all of it could fall under the full control of Mr. Obama. The order empowers the president to dispense these vast resources as he sees fit during a national crisis.

“The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency,” the order says. “The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.”

In short, the order gives Mr. Obama the ability to impose martial law. He now possesses the potential powers of a dictator. The order is a direct assault on individual liberties, private property rights and the rule of law. It is blatantly unconstitutional. The executive branch is arrogating responsibilities precluded by the Constitution without even asking the permission of Congress. The order gives Mr. Obama a blank check to erect a centralized authoritarian state. This is a law one would expect to find in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela or Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

The backdrop to the executive order is the looming showdown with Iran. The administration says the “window for diplomacy is closing.” Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta warned Tehran’s mullahs that “all options are on the table” – including military intervention. Mr. Obama stresses that his patience is running out. He vows that Iran will not acquire the bomb. Mr. Obama wants several more months for sanctions and international isolation to bring the ayatollahs to heel. Yet the signals are clear: Mr. Obama may be ready to launch devastating airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

If that should happen, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has promised massive retaliation. American troops will be targeted by Iranian proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan. American embassies will be struck across the Middle East and North Africa. Most ominously, Iranian-backed Hezbollah cells could launch devastating terrorist attacks in major U.S. cities, killing numerous citizens. The war may well come home, triggering domestic chaos. These are the very real risks of a major conflict with Iran.

Which begs the question: Would that tempt Mr. Obama to claim a state of emergency and thereby implement his executive order? No one knows the answer. And we shouldn’t have to find out. The president does not – and should not – have the authority to subordinate the entire private economy to the government, especially without the consent of Congress and the American people. It is national socialism masquerading as military security.

This is why conservatives – those who are serious about defending our constitutional republic – should demand that the executive order be repealed immediately. Liberals argue that President Clinton issued a nearly identical mandate. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the first national defense resources preparedness order, which has been amended by successive presidents, including George W. Bush. Hence, according to the progressive left, if it was good enough for FDR, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush, why not Mr. Obama?

The answer is simple: Because the Constitution matters – or at least it should. For more than 70 years, liberal Democrats and corporatist Republicans have been slowly dismantling the old republic, imposing a creeping social democracy. The Founding Fathers’ vision of limited government and federalism has been replaced by a new ruling class. FDR, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush – all of them were militarists expanding the size and scope of government. They were Wilsonian globalists, and they shamelessly violated civil liberties. FDR was the worst, by forcing Japanese-Americans into internment camps.

Mr. Obama’s executive order represents the culmination of the welfare-warfare state. He is walking in the footsteps of his predecessors, those who enabled the rise of the imperial presidency. And it leads to only one tragic end: the gradual deterioration of our democracy.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

Small entrepreneurs differ from Big Business

Thomas H. Greco — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:38:29 +0000

We should not confuse capitalism and corporatism with “free markets,” which I hope will always be with us, nor should we believe that mega-corporations are the same as “Mom and Pop” enterprises. The corporate “wolves” that are intent on centralizing power like to masquerade as entrepreneurial “sheep” so that they can dominate markets and eliminate competition. We must not be deceived by that, nor should we perpetuate that illusion. A recent poll shows that small business owners do not have the same attitudes toward regulation and taxation as big business executives. Here is a report from the Greenville News.–t.h.g.

Poll: Small business owners’ opinions differ from big business concerns

By Jenny Munro
Greenville News (SC), February 9, 2012

Columbia, SC—A national poll shows the opinions of small business owners differ dramatically from the advocacy of big businesses and multinational corporations. The results of the national scientific poll were released over the past four weeks by the American Sustainable Business Council, Main Street Alliance and Small Business Majority. The poll was conducted by Lake Research Partners between December 8, 2011 and January 4, 2012.

”Many of the real opinions of small business owners are far different than what are portrayed by big business interests,” said Frank Knapp, Jr., Vice Chair of the American Sustainable Business Council and President/CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce.

“There are some real ‘man-bites-dog’ stories here that are particularly amazing since half of the respondents self-identified as either Republican or leaning Republican,” said Knapp.

“Small business owners do not hate regulations,” said Knapp. “They support regulations ensuring clean air and water and those moving the country toward energy efficiency and clean energy. And regulations are not stopping hiring as we’ve been hearing—lack of consumer demand is doing that. In fact, small business owners view regulations as protecting them from big business.”

“Small business owners also don’t agree with the big business mantra on taxation,” said Knapp. “They say that big businesses and multinational corporations use loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes which harms small businesses. A majority of these owners also support higher tax rates on individual income over $1 million, even $250,000.”

“These opinions fly in the face of the rhetoric about not raising taxes on the wealthiest because they are the ‘job creators’”, said Knapp. “Small businesses are leading the job recovery in this country and they believe the wealthiest corporations and individuals are not paying their fair share of taxes.”

“On other issues small business owners share the public’s disgust with money in politics and disapprove of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision,” said Knapp. “Citizens United has unleashed massive amount of money from big corporations and millionaires and billionaires into political campaigns. Small businesses believed they have been harmed because of this.”

Below are details of the poll results:

Small business owners see their top problem as weak customer demand, not regulations: 34 percent cited weak customer demand as the most important problem for their business, while only 14 percent named government regulations.
On the question of what would do the most to create jobs, cutting regulations came in low on the list: the top response was eliminating incentives to move jobs overseas at 24 percent; reducing regulation was fifth at 10 percent.
Small business owners see an important role for standards and safeguards: 78 percent believe some standards are important to protect small businesses from unfair competition, and 76 percent believe regulations on the books should be enforced.
Small business owners see regulations as necessary for a modern economy: 93 percent agree their business can live with some regulation if it is fair, manageable and reasonable.
Small business owners express strong support for specific rules and standards: 78 percent support rules to prevent health insurance companies from increasing rates excessively, 84 percent support food safety standards, 80 percent support product safety standards and 80 percent support disclosure and regulation of toxic materials.
Small business owners support clean energy policies: 79 percent support ensuring clean air and water, and 61 percent support moving the country towards energy efficiency and clean energy.
Small businesses believe in streamlining government processes: 73 percent of respondents believe we should allow for one-stop electronic filing of government paperwork.
Nine out of ten small business owners say big corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes that small businesses have to pay: 92 percent say big corporations’ use of such loopholes is a problem. Three-quarters of owners say their small business is harmed when loopholes allow big corporations to avoid taxes.
Nine out of ten small business owners say that U.S. multinational corporations’ use of accounting loopholes to shift their U.S. profits to their offshore subsidiaries to avoid taxes is a problem: 91 percent agree it is a problem, with 55 percent saying it’s a very serious problem. When asked what would do the most to create jobs, small business owners chose eliminating incentives to move jobs overseas.
Small business owners say big corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes: 67 percent believe big corporations pay less than their fair share. An even bigger majority, 73 percent, says multinational corporations pay less than their fair share.
Small business owners say millionaires pay less than their fair share in taxes: 58 percent say households whose annual income exceeds $1 million pay less than their fair share.
Small business owners support a higher tax rate for individuals earning more than $1 million: 57 percent agree that individuals earning more than $1 million a year should pay a higher tax rate on the income over $1 million.
Small business owners want to eliminate the “carried interest” loophole that gives hedge fund managers a big break on their taxes: 81 percent favor hedge fund managers paying taxes at the ordinary income tax rate, which currently tops out at 35 percent, rather than the 15 percent capital gains rate they pay now.
Small business owners support ending upper-income tax cuts: 51 percent say Congress should let tax cuts on taxable household income over $250,000 a year expire (only 40 percent believe they should be extended).
Respondents in this scientific national survey were politically diverse, with a majority Republican or independent-leaning Republican: 50 percent identified as Republican (27 percent) or independent-leaning Republican (23 percent); 32 percent as Democrat (14 percent) or independent-leaning Democratic (18 percent); and 15 percent as independent.
Small business owners say Citizens United decision hurts small businesses: 66 percent of small business owners view Citizens United v. FEC decision as bad for small businesses; 88 percent hold negative view of money in politics overall.

Read the full poll reports at these links:

http://www.asbcouncil.org/poll_regulations.html

http://www.asbcouncil.org/uploads/Taxes_Poll_Report_FINAL.pdf

http://www.asbcouncil.org/poll_money_in_politics.html

http://www.asbcouncil.org/poll_access_to_credit.html

Toward a sane economics

Thomas H. Greco — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:00:03 +0000

This TEDx video by Peter Joseph, creator of the Zeitgeist movies series, contrasts two opposing economic frameworks that need to be considered in transcending our present global predicament. He shows that the entire incentive structure of the dominant paradigm of political economy is all wrong, and outlines some of the necessary attributes of a sustainable earth-friendly economy.

The presentation does not get into the how-to-do-it, but provides a good starting point for working out the necessary transition to what I’ve been calling “The Butterfly Economy. My basic prescription for that involves radical sharing, collaboration, restructuring, and rebuilding our society from the bottom, on up, household to neighborhood, to community, to bioregion, including all of our non-geographic affinity groups. Begin with the people and businesses you already know and trust.

Please take ten minutes to view the video.

Money as Debt 3, now available on YouTube

Thomas H. Greco — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:57:56 +0000

Here is Paul Grignon’s latest video animation that explains the money and banking problem and it’s fundamental importance to the future of civilization. Please note the opening quote of E. C. Riegel,whom I have acknowledged as the most important source of my own understanding. You can find links to Riegel’s writings elsewhere on this site, or click here.

While I don’t fully agree with Grignon’s analysis of the effect of interest in the money creation process, I highly recommend this video, along with his shorter video, The Essence of Money.

Goldman’s “Toxic” culture documented.

Thomas H. Greco — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:58:23 +0000

This article documents what is probably merely the tip of the iceberg in the case against Goldman Sachs.–t.h.g.

13 Reasons Goldman’s Quitting Exec May Have a Point

By Cora Currier

An executive at Goldman Sachs left the firm today with a bang, penning a New York Times op-ed accusing the company of increasingly putting profits ahead of clients. Greg Smith started as an intern 12 years ago and last headed a derivatives department. Not surprisingly, Goldman quickly and strongly disagreed with his take.

There have obviously been plenty of unflattering headlines about Goldman in the past few years. We decided to look at just one aspect of their record: SEC charges levied against Goldman and its employees over the past decade.

April 2003: SEC charges Goldman Sachs over conflicts of interest among its research analysts. The company eventually settled for $110 million in fines and disgorgements.

November 2003: Former Goldman economist John Youngdahl pleads guilty to insider trading. The firm had to pay the SEC $4.2 million over profits it gained from the illegal dealings.

July 2004: Goldman settles with the SEC for $10 million over charges it improperly promoted a stock sale involving PetroChina.

January 2005: Goldman settles with the SEC for $40 million over charges that it violated securities law in promoting initial public offerings.

April 2006: Two former Goldman employees are charged with running an international insider-trading ring while they were at the firm. Eugene Plotkin and David Pajcin, both in their 20s, paid off insiders at other firms and stole early copies of Business Week to get an edge. They also tried (unsuccessfully) to use strippers to get information. Both eventually served jail time.

March 2007: A Goldman subsidiary, Goldman Execution and Clearing, settles with the SEC for $2 million over allegations that faulty oversight that allowed customers to make illegal trades.

March 2009: Goldman Execution and Clearing settles with the SEC for $1.2 million over improper proprietary trading by employees.

July 2009: The SEC charges a former Goldman Sachs trader Anthony Perez and his brother with insider trading based on information Anthony Perez obtained through his job at Goldman Sachs. He was fined $25,000 and his brother more than $150,000.

May 2010: The SEC hits Goldman Execution and Clearing with a $225,000 fine for violating a rule aimed at regulating short selling.

July 2010: Goldman settles with the SEC for $553 million over allegations that it misled investors about the collateralized debt obligation ABACUS 2007-AC1 by not disclosing the involvement of a hedge fund in its creation, or the fact that the hedge fund stood to benefit if the CDO failed. Goldman executive Fabrice Tourre was also charged.

March 2011: The SEC charges Goldman board member Rajat Gupta with insider trading. Gupta allegedly passed on information he learned as a board member to the hedge fund Galleon Group. In October, 2011, he was arrested and hit with criminal charges by the FBI. The case is pending.

September 2011: The SEC charges a Goldman employee, Spencer Midlin, and his father for insider trading based on information Spencer Midlin gained from his position at Goldman Sachs. The two men were ordered to pay $92,000.

February 2012: Goldman Sachs receives notice from the SEC that the agency may bring charges related to mortgage backed-securities.

This article was published at NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/13-reasons-goldman-s-quitting-exec-may-have-point-1331824190. All rights are reserved.