Panama Papers

[juiceciuj]

politicians

[goDel]

Could be election changing ;-)

[prdctvsm]

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

 

 

http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/index.shtml

[ignatius]

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

 

 

 

http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/index.shtml

 

strange. i find that a thought provoking read but as an american a lot of those things associated to neoliberalism sound like classic conservative ideas. .. so this means i probably have no clue wtf neoliberalism from a euro perspective.

 

a lot of things they give credit to neoliberalism for.. here in the states.. was largely the result of long time undermining from political parties not always one or the other but often both.. though often the right.. and depending how far into tinfoil hat territory one wants to venture it could be linked to some overarching conspiracy of the wealthy to privatize everything from education to medicare to whatever.. which to me seems like what's been happening.. privatization through elected officials beholden to corporate interests... if that's neoliberalism then i'm not sure why it's not called something else since it's more or less a neoconservative thing as well and perhaps it's just corporitism or whatever we're calling it.

[goDel]

Nice article! Not sure whether I agree with everything, but it was effective in staying clear from confusing 'capitalism' for a political movement/filosophy. Imoooo

[goDel]

 

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

 

http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/index.shtml

 

strange. i find that a thought provoking read but as an american a lot of those things associated to neoliberalism sound like classic conservative ideas. .. so this means i probably have no clue wtf neoliberalism from a euro perspective.

 

a lot of things they give credit to neoliberalism for.. here in the states.. was largely the result of long time undermining from political parties not always one or the other but often both.. though often the right.. and depending how far into tinfoil hat territory one wants to venture it could be linked to some overarching conspiracy of the wealthy to privatize everything from education to medicare to whatever.. which to me seems like what's been happening.. privatization through elected officials beholden to corporate interests... if that's neoliberalism then i'm not sure why it's not called something else since it's more or less a neoconservative thing as well and perhaps it's just corporitism or whatever we're calling it.

Interesting. I do believe the use of neoliberalism is consistent with what is talked about in The Trap, for instance. And is the actual term, instead of neoconservatism.

 

What makes it interesting is the stuff what is currently happening within the GOP. In my eyes it's completely unclear what they stand for (besides the interests of a handful of superpac donors). Regardless of wether it's consistent with what should have been the core principles of republicanism, and/or conservatism.

 

I'd argue that neoconservatists seem to have neoliberal ideas wrt economy, conservative ideas wrt social issues and totalitarian ideas wrt foreign affairs. ;-p

[ignatius]

I'd argue that neoconservatists seem to have neoliberal ideas wrt economy, conservative ideas wrt social issues and totalitarian ideas wrt foreign affairs. ;-p

 

 

that's pretty much my take it on. there's no one size fits all 'ism' for american politics since they're all in bed with overlapping interests and it's fractured. many tribes.

 

it's still interesting to think about what the world would be like if Gore had been elected instead of Bush. perhaps a shade less shitty..

[goDel]

it's still interesting to think about what the world would be like if Gore had been elected instead of Bush. perhaps a shade less shitty..

1. the financial crash still would have happened. reps and dems have been bought by wallstr. since looooong.

2. 9/11? dunno. were the intelligence agencies underfunded/badly run under bush? moreso then under other presidents?

 

the whole 9/11 thing, and everything that followed since, might have played out differently. for better or not much worse. don't think worse scenario's would have happened under gore. much depends on possibility to prevent 9/11. if 9/11 happened, i don't think gore would have responded less aggressive/hawkish than bush. but preventing it would be an entirely different story.

[ignatius]

 

it's still interesting to think about what the world would be like if Gore had been elected instead of Bush. perhaps a shade less shitty..

1. the financial crash still would have happened. reps and dems have been bought by wallstr. since looooong.

2. 9/11? dunno. were the intelligence agencies underfunded/badly run under bush? moreso then under other presidents?

 

the whole 9/11 thing, and everything that followed since, might have played out differently. for better or not much worse. don't think worse scenario's would have happened under gore. much depends on possibility to prevent 9/11. if 9/11 happened, i don't think gore would have responded less aggressive/hawkish than bush. but preventing it would be an entirely different story.

 

 

yeah.. totally bought by banks/wallstreet.. but i wonder how the wars would've played out? i doubt we'd have invaded iraq based on manufactured evidence. no powell, no rumsfield, no cheney.. things would've been different just by their absence.

 

but what ifs are a losing game to play.

[juiceciuj]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/delaware-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton

 

not really pp related but in the same vein. clinton and trump both have registered businesses operating at the same address as many of the countries top companies in nowhere delaware.

 

"Officially, 1209 North Orange is home to Apple, American Airlines, Coca-Cola, Walmart and dozens of other companies in the Fortune 500 list of America’s biggest companies. "

[Guest]

Found this. Considered it a nice read.

 

 

The Panama Papers provide a compelling answer to these questions: massive, pervasive corruption. And it's not a coincidence that the answer comes from a law firm. More than just a cog in the machine of "wealth management," Mossack Fonseca used its influence to write and bend laws worldwide to favour the interests of criminals over a period of decades. In the case of the island of Niue, the firm essentially ran a tax haven from start to finish. Ramón Fonseca and Jürgen Mossack would have us believe that their firm's shell companies, sometimes called "special purpose vehicles," are just like cars. But used car salesmen don't write laws. And the only "special purpose" of the vehicles they produced was too often fraud, on a grand scale.

Shell companies are often associated with the crime of tax evasion, but the Panama Papers show beyond a shadow of a doubt that although shell companies are not illegal by definition, they are used to carry out a wide array of serious crimes that go beyond evading taxes. I decided to expose Mossack Fonseca because I thought its founders, employees and clients should have to answer for their roles in these crimes, only some of which have come to light thus far. It will take years, possibly decades, for the full extent of the firm's sordid acts to become known.

In the meantime, a new global debate has started, which is encouraging. Unlike the polite rhetoric of yesteryear that carefully omitted any suggestion of wrongdoing by the elite, this debate focuses directly on what matters.

In that regard, I have a few thoughts.

For the record, I do not work for any government or intelligence agency, directly or as a contractor, and I never have. My viewpoint is entirely my own, as was my decision to share the documents with Süddeutsche Zeitung and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), not for any specific political purpose, but simply because I understood enough about their contents to realize the scale of the injustices they described.

The prevailing media narrative thus far has focused on the scandal of what is legal and allowed in this system. What is allowed is indeed scandalous and must be changed. But we must not lose sight of another important fact: the law firm, its founders, and employees actually did knowingly violate myriad laws worldwide, repeatedly. Publicly they plead ignorance, but the documents show detailed knowledge and deliberate wrongdoing. At the very least we already know that Mossack personally perjured himself before a federal court in Nevada, and we also know that his information technology staff attempted to cover up the underlying lies. They should all be prosecuted accordingly with no special treatment.

In the end, thousands of prosecutions could stem from the Panama Papers, if only law enforcement could access and evaluate the actual documents. ICIJ and its partner publications have rightly stated that they will not provide them to law enforcement agencies. I, however, would be willing to cooperate with law enforcement to the extent that I am able.

That being said, I have watched as one after another, whistleblowers and activists in the United States and Europe have had their lives destroyed by the circumstances they find themselves in after shining a light on obvious wrongdoing. Edward Snowden is stranded in Moscow, exiled due to the Obama administration's decision to prosecute him under the Espionage Act. For his revelations about the NSA, he deserves a hero's welcome and a substantial prize, not banishment. Bradley Birkenfeld was awarded millions for his information concerning Swiss bank UBS-and was still given a prison sentence by the Justice Department. Antoine Deltour is presently on trial for providing journalists with information about how Luxembourg granted secret "sweetheart" tax deals to multi-national corporations, effectively stealing billions in tax revenues from its neighbour countries. And there are plenty more examples.

Legitimate whistleblowers who expose unquestionable wrongdoing, whether insiders or outsiders, deserve immunity from government retribution, full stop. Until governments codify legal protections for whistleblowers into law, enforcement agencies will simply have to depend on their own resources or on-going global media coverage for documents.

In the meantime, I call on the European Commission, the British Parliament, the United States Congress, and all nations to take swift action not only to protect whistleblowers, but to put an end to the global abuse of corporate registers. In the European Union, every member state's corporate register should be freely accessible, with detailed data plainly available on ultimate beneficial owners. The United Kingdom can be proud of its domestic initiatives thus far, but it still has a vital role to play by ending financial secrecy on its various island territories, which are unquestionably the cornerstone of institutional corruption worldwide. And the United States can clearly no longer trust its fifty states to make sound decisions about their own corporate data. It is long past time for Congress to step in and force transparency by setting standards for disclosure and public access.

And while it's one thing to extol the virtues of government transparency at summits and in sound bites, it's quite another to actually implement it. It is an open secret that in the United States, elected representatives spend the majority of their time fundraising. Tax evasion cannot possibly be fixed while elected officials are pleading for money from the very elites who have the strongest incentives to avoid taxes relative to any other segment of the population. These unsavoury political practices have come full circle and they are irreconcilable. Reform of America's broken campaign finance system cannot wait.

Of course, those are hardly the only issues that need fixing. Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand has been curiously quiet about his country's role in enabling the financial fraud Mecca that is the Cook Islands. In Britain, the Tories have been shameless about concealing their own practices involving offshore companies, while Jennifer Shasky Calvery, the director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the United States Treasury, just announced her resignation to work instead for HSBC, one of the most notorious banks on the planet (not coincidentally headquartered in London). And so the familiar swish of America's revolving door echoes amidst deafening global silence from thousands of yet-to-be-discovered ultimate beneficial owners who are likely praying that her replacement is equally spineless. In the face of political cowardice, it's tempting to yield to defeatism, to argue that the status quo remains fundamentally unchanged, while the Panama Papers are, if nothing else, a glaring symptom of our society's progressively diseased and decaying moral fabric.

But the issue is finally on the table, and that change takes time is no surprise. For fifty years, executive, legislative, and judicial branches around the globe have utterly failed to address the metastasizing tax havens spotting Earth's surface. Even today, Panama says it wants to be known for more than papers, but its government has conveniently examined only one of the horses on its offshore merry-go-round.

Banks, financial regulators and tax authorities have failed. Decisions have been made that have spared the wealthy while focusing instead on reining in middle- and low-income citizens.

Hopelessly backward and inefficient courts have failed. Judges have too often acquiesced to the arguments of the rich, whose lawyers-and not just Mossack Fonseca-are well trained in honouring the letter of the law, while simultaneously doing everything in their power to desecrate its spirit.

The media has failed. Many news networks are cartoonish parodies of their former selves, individual billionaires appear to have taken up newspaper ownership as a hobby, limiting coverage of serious matters concerning the wealthy, and serious investigative journalists lack funding. The impact is real: in addition to Süddeutsche Zeitung and ICIJ, and despite explicit claims to the contrary, several major media outlets did have editors review documents from the Panama Papers. They chose not to cover them. The sad truth is that among the most prominent and capable media organizations in the world there was not a single one interested in reporting on the story. Even Wikileaks didn't answer its tip line repeatedly.

But most of all, the legal profession has failed. Democratic governance depends upon responsible individuals throughout the entire system who understand and uphold the law, not who understand and exploit it. On average, lawyers have become so deeply corrupt that it is imperative for major changes in the profession to take place, far beyond the meek proposals already on the table. To start, the term "legal ethics," upon which codes of conduct and licensure are nominally based, has become an oxymoron. Mossack Fonseca did not work in a vacuum - despite repeated fines and documented regulatory violations, it found allies and clients at major law firms in virtually every nation. If the industry's shattered economics were not already evidence enough, there is now no denying that lawyers can no longer be permitted to regulate one another. It simply doesn't work. Those able to pay the most can always find a lawyer to serve their ends, whether that lawyer is at Mossack Fonseca or another firm of which we remain unaware. What about the rest of society?

The collective impact of these failures has been a complete erosion of ethical standards, ultimately leading to a novel system we still call Capitalism, but which is tantamount to economic slavery. In this system-our system-the slaves are unaware both of their status and of their masters, who exist in a world apart where the intangible shackles are carefully hidden amongst reams of unreachable legalese. The horrific magnitude of detriment to the world should shock us all awake. But when it takes a whistleblower to sound the alarm, it is cause for even greater concern. It signals that democracy's checks and balances have all failed, that the breakdown is systemic, and that severe instability could be just around the corner. So now is the time for real action, and that starts with asking questions.

Historians can easily recount how issues involving taxation and imbalances of power have led to revolutions in ages past. Then, military might was necessary to subjugate peoples, whereas now, curtailing information access is just as effective or more so, since the act is often invisible. Yet we live in a time of inexpensive, limitless digital storage and fast internet connections that transcend national boundaries. It doesn't take much to connect the dots: from start to finish, inception to global media distribution, the next revolution will be digitized.

Or perhaps it has already begun.

 

I wonder when we will see the harvest of this finding.

[juiceciuj]

Jennifer Shasky Calvery, the director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the United States Treasury, just announced her resignation to work instead for HSBC, one of the most notorious banks on the planet (not coincidentally headquartered in London).

 

 

lo fucking l

 

*edit* wtf ever. no idea why this post got formatted so weird

[goDel]

The source of the leak published a manifesto of sorts. Apparently, it's a well written piece. Haven't had the time to read it though. But for the peeps interested to read about his/her motivations:

https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160506-john-doe-statement.html

 

In a statement issued to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the so-called “John Doe” behind the biggest information leak in history cites the need for better whistleblower protection and has hinted at even more revelations to come.

 

Titled “The Revolution Will Be Digitized” the 1800-word statement gives justification for the leak, saying that “income inequality is one of the defining issues of our time” and says that government authorities need to do more to address it.

[juiceciuj]

is it not what was quoted on the last page?

[goDel]

dunno. tend to ignore walls of text without source

[Hail Sagan]

 

The collective impact of these failures has been a complete erosion of ethical standards, ultimately leading to a novel system we still call Capitalism, but which is tantamount to economic slavery. In this system-our system-the slaves are unaware both of their status and of their masters, who exist in a world apart where the intangible shackles are carefully hidden amongst reams of unreachable legalese. The horrific magnitude of detriment to the world should shock us all awake. But when it takes a whistleblower to sound the alarm, it is cause for even greater concern. It signals that democracy's checks and balances have all failed, that the breakdown is systemic, and that severe instability could be just around the corner.

 

 

[Hail Sagan]

I agree completely

[chenGOD]

He's got it backwards though. The ethical breakdown didn't lead to capitalism.

The ideology of an unregulated free-market capitalism led to an ethical breakdown where greed is good, and fuck your neighbour. Adam Smith would be rolling over in his grave if he could see how people have misapplied his ideas.

We can't pretend we haven't all benefited from capitalism, every single person in this community has done so. But the aforementioned ideology has really pushed the idea of the individual above society, which is obviously not conducive to maintaining a good society in which to live.

[chenGOD]

https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/

 

More coming today.

[triachus]

Emma Watson as well

 

 

masturbate to that, HP fans

[usagi]

that's just her UN Speaking Tours fund.

[Milwaukeeeee]

I'm going to keep jerking thinking of Emma because I know that despite she is very rich, she is not evil. She must have been fooled by her nefarious economical advicers.

 

And all these Panama paper deception smells of Rotschilds manouvers to get prominence on their own inside US tax heavens

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-s-favorite-new-tax-haven-is-the-united-states