I don’t know if you woke up as horribly depressed today as I did, but I spent a long time looking for a single nugget of good news; that someone, somewhere still believed in Justice and The Rule of Law.

JP Morgan Hit by Ripple Effects of Rakoff Decisions Nixing SEC No Admission Settlements

Yves Smith, Naked Capitalism

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Alison Frankel at Reuters highlights a new New York appellate court decision where JP Morgan is being hoist on the Rakoff petard. Bear Stearns, which is now owned by JP Morgan, entered into a $250 million settlement in 2006 over allegations that it cheated customers by engaging in impermissible market timing. The agreement contained standard SEC “without admitting wrongdoing or denying” language. The payment broke down into $160 million of disgorgement and $90 million of penalties.

What may surprise many readers is that the $160 million disgorgment was covered by insurance, or at least JP Morgan thought it was.

…

The insurers said no dice, and JP Morgan took them to court to try to force them to pay. The lower court decided in favor of JP Morgan, but the appeals court reversed.

…

Putting on a public policy, rather than a legal hat, insurance that has the effect of letting companies and boards buy their way out of the economic consequences of bad conduct is a terrible idea. Even though it is widely accepted that no one would become a director of a public company ex directors and officers insurance, the consequences are detrimental. Why should, for instance, the directors of Lehman not be sued into penury? If we didn’t have D&O insurance, companies would have to pay directors a prince’s ransom to do the job, and a director would have to work really really hard at oversight. That would mean he could probably only sit on one board (ending the board as high level social club phenomenon, another plus) and would do a vastly better job. You’d also see an end to directors who serve as mere decoration (nice enough people, say college presidents or heads of heavyweight not for profits) but add bupkis in terms of monitoring management.

Now I’ll admit we have not seen all the implications of the Rakoff decision, but this first one seems entirely salutary. I suspect on balance, the effect will be to give companies fewer “get out of jail free” cards, which is something that everyone but the SEC and public company executive should welcome.

Immigration Officials Picking Up US Citizens for Deportation

By: David Dayen, Firedog Lake

Wednesday December 14, 2011 7:00 am

The Obama Administration swears that their deportation program has only captured criminals and sent them back to their home countries. Recently acquired data shows that to be false. Now we’re learning that not only non-criminals have been caught up in the immigration net. So have American citizens.

…

There are few hard statistics on the number of American citizens held for deportation, but obviously when you get more aggressive about deporting people – as the Obama Administration has, with a record 1.1 million deportations during his tenure – you’re going to get a higher number of incidents like this. And these are wrongful arrests, illegal actions being taken by immigration authorities. It’s far more than just the cost of doing business.

The cases profiled here involved individuals charged on misdemeanors. But we know that represents a minority of those deported. So the likelihood is high that there have been cases of American citizens not convicted of a crime somehow falling into the immigration net and getting scheduled for deportation. In fact, a few of them probably were deported, though ICE claims that they cancel any deportation orders if the individual claims citizenship.

And this, from an ACLU lawyer, is correct: “It’s sort of like the canary in the mine. If those who have the full due process rights of U.S. citizens are being detained, it tells us a lot about potentially unlawful people who do not have those protections.” Exactly.

Florida’s Politicians (But Not Its Residents) Love Private Prisons

By: WhyIHateCCA, Firedog Lake

Wednesday December 14, 2011 10:45 am

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz represents Southwest Ranches, Florida, which has been at the epicenter of a debate over a proposed immigration detention facility. Residents of the town have consistently demonstrated their opposition to the facility, which they feel was designed and planned without much public knowledge of the proceedings.

Basically, they think they have been fleeced by CCA, who hopes to build the facility on land it already owns, into having a detention center that they fear will lower property values and present a risk to public safety.

Unfortunately, they’ve got a pretty poor representative in Ms. Wasserman, who’s basically taking a “lesser of available evils” approach. She initially called a town hall meeting to allow residents to voice their opposition and learn more about the project. After more than 250 people showed up to let CCA and the town council know they didn’t want a private prison, Wasserman, who had called the meeting, decided she would support the project. She now thinks it’s a good idea and that the town should move forward, saying she thinks “it is going to be far better to have that ICE detention center there than to have any other facility that would have a much more negative impact on residents there.” Other than a lead paint producing puppy mill, I can’t really imagine what would be worse for a community than a privately operated, for-profit human rights violations incubator. But there’s no chance she could have been partially swayed by the nearly $20 million CCA has spent lobbying the federal government over the past decade. Right?

Unfortunately for the residents of Southwest Ranches, Wasserman isn’t alone in ignoring her constituents interests and supporting a company with a long track record of failing to live up to its contracts. The mayor of Southwest Ranches just basically told his constituents to pound sand, because the deal is done. CCA owns the land, and has for a decade, so he says there’s really nothing residents can do to stop the construction at this point.

After FBI Director Testimony, Veto of Defense Authorization Bill Appears Likely

By: David Dayen, Firedog Lake

Wednesday December 14, 2011 11:32 am

Mueller made the comments despite changes to the bill that attempted to give the Administration several loopholes to bypass indefinite military detention on a case-by-case basis. So coming after the conference committee report, it looks like the White House counter-terrorism advisers will recommend a veto. It’s highly unlikely to believe that Mueller was freelancing here.

As we’ve discussed, this does not reflect a White House uncomfortable with statutory indefinite military detention. The Administration opposes the bill because it would put too MANY constraints on their counter-terrorism activities. They would prefer to exist in a legal gray area, without binding rules on indefinite detention. In this case, Mueller appears upset that the military would get first crack at these terrorist suspects rather than the FBI. So there is no nobility here. But the result could be the one civil liberties defenders advocate: a veto of the NDAA.

Let’s just review where we’re at, then. The government could shut down on Friday. The parties are far apart on a bill to avoid the expiration of a payroll tax reduction and extended unemployment benefits, both of which would create a fiscal drag of up to 1% of GDP. Doctors will see a 27% cut in their reimbursement rate for Medicare on January 1 if nothing is done. And the one area where the parties agree, this defense authorization bill, is likely to draw a Presidential veto.

It’s such a wonder why Americans hold no faith in their government.

Record High Anti-Incumbent Sentiment Toward Congress

by Frank Newport, Gallup

December 9, 2011

PRINCETON, NJ — About three-quarters of registered voters (76%) say most members of Congress do not deserve re-election, the highest such percentage Gallup has measured in its 19-year history of asking this question. The 20% who say most members deserve to be re-elected is also a record low, by one percentage point.

…

A substantial majority of Republican (75%), independent (82%), and Democratic (68%) voters agree that most members of Congress do not deserve re-election — a sign of rare consensus about the legislative body in which both parties currently hold a leadership stake.

…

How this antipathy toward Congress plays out in next year’s congressional elections remains to be seen. Americans were not as negative last October, before the 2010 midterm elections, yet voters flipped 63 seats from Democratic to Republican control and gave the House to the GOP in the process. This was the largest seat gain by any party since 1948.

More evidence that "independents" don’t "swing"

thereisnospoon, Hullabaloo

Monday, December 12, 2011

“(I)ndependent” voters don’t shift party allegiance from election to election, so much as stay home out of apathy and to punish their preferred party for not doing its job.

…

Pollsters looking to see how to “win back” so-called “independent” voters will often do focus groups with people who crossed party lines from one election to another–say, those who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 but then voted for Republicans in 2010. They then analyze the data they get from those people to tell Dem politicians like President Obama what they must do to “win back” those independents.

But this is the wrong way of going about it. Sure, those “switcher” voters are out there. But they’re dwarfed in number by the people who hold an allegiance to the Democratic Party and progressive principles in general, and may have voted in the big presidential election of 2008, but failed to turn out to vote in 2010. That’s a much bigger cohort–and not only is it bigger in size, it’s more winnable and courting it doesn’t create resentment and anger within the Party base.

…

Smart Democratic consultants would do well to do focus groups with Dem voters from 2008 who stayed home in the midterms, and aren’t sure whether they’re likely to come out in 2012. See what is driving their anger and apathy, and what they want in terms of policy and message. And then insofar as decisions are made based on focus groups and polls, tailor the message to those people. My suspicion? You’ll find a lot of those very sorts of people at Occupy protests around the country.

Update:

President Will Not Veto Defense Authorization Bill, Despite Detention Provisions

By: David Dayen, Firedog Lake

Wednesday December 14, 2011 1:32 pm

After its FBI Director told Congress that the revisions to the defense authorization bill did not satisfy his concerns with the bill, the White House issued a statement of Administration policy saying that they would not veto the bill, despite an earlier threat.

…

(T)he changes do offer a variety of possible loopholes for the executive branch to carry out counter-terrorism policy as they see fit. Military custody is no longer “required” in the bill, and FBI policies are nominally preserved, though in a strange way that would seem to be impossible to implement. The President has a few extra pieces of discretion to take terrorist suspects out of military custody and into an interrogation process outside military purview. In addition, federal courts could still be used for terrorism cases.

Remember that the White House has little problem with indefinite military detention. They just want to be able to dictate when it gets used and on whom. So they obviously see enough flexibility here to carry out unconstrained intelligence gathering and detention policies.

That I told you so?

Holiday Sales Appear to Stall: Are Big Discounts Next?

By: John Melloy, CNBC

Published: Monday, 12 Dec 2011 3:57 PM ET

After early bird discounts fueled a Black Friday buying boom, retailers are seeing sales dry up halfway through the holiday sales period, a consumer survey completed Sunday showed. The trend may force discounts as deep as 70 percent on coats and flat panel TVs as Christmas Eve approaches.

…

“While Black Friday sales appeared to give the retailers an early leg up in the season, I believe that continued high unemployment and economic uncertainty will keep spending muted for the vast majority of American consumers,” said Patty Edwards of Trutina Financial.

“Retailers will announce a number of unplanned sales and discounts, hoping to surprise and delight customers into opening their wallets. The big question is how much is left in those wallets that isn’t pledged to the light bill.”

(h/t Chris in Paris @ Americablog)

I wonder how many ‘the Emperor has no clothes’ moments we’re going to have to go through before Mr. Market finally realizes he’s nude?  The big news about the Euro is that nothing has changed at all, except to get worse.

What the pieces I’ve selected make clear is that goverments in the Euro Zone can’t afford to pay off the banksters crap assets at anything near their notional balance sheet value.  The European Central Bank (ECB) is the only one who can print Euros and impose investor haircuts through asset inflation and they can’t lend directly to governments, only to banks.  Any country that follows the Irish example of paying off their vampire bank failures is committing economic suicide.

What they don’t highlight, but which is none the less true, is that the ECB balance sheet is running out of room without a looser monitary policy (i.e. ‘printing’) AND that the assets it’s accepting as collateral are, even under the relaxed standards, made acceptable only through Credit Default Swap ‘Insurance’ issued by the self same banks that don’t have the reserves to cover their primary obligations.

Like AIG these ‘counter parties’ have absolutely no intention of paying off and no ability to do so even if they did.

‘House of Cards’ hardly begins to describe the tissue thin fictional fig leaf these insolvent banksters are trying to hide their behinds behind.

How the ECB could be forced to print money

Felix Salmon, Reuters

Dec 6, 2011 10:52 EST

The line to concentrate on, here, is the solid one in blue. It shows a key part of the Bundesbank’s assets – its loans to other institutions – falling perilously low to zero, even as its loans to other European central banks – the maroon dotted line – continue to rise inexorably. (These loans from one national central bank to another are known as the TARGET system.)

Up until now, the Bundesbank has managed to fund the latter by means of selling off the former: when it’s asked to lend money to PIIGS central banks, it just sells off some other loans and advances the cash to the Irish or Portuguese central bank instead.

But it can’t do that any more, because the Bundesbank is down to its last €21 billion in private loans. And when that hits zero, the only things left to sell are the Bundesbank’s gold and reserves. Which, it’s pretty safe to say, the Bundesbank is not going to sell.

…

Basically, there’s a constant flow of money out of the European periphery and towards the center. Up until now, that flow has been matched by an equal and opposite flow of central bank lending from the Bundesbank to the PIIGS central banks. And when the Bundesbank runs out of money to lend those central banks? The ECB will have no choice but to step in and print all the money necessary to stop those banks from going bust. And that, I think, is how we’re going to see the ECB finally take on the lender-of-last-resort role it has been so reluctant to adopt until now.

Eurozone Crisis, Act Two: Has the Bundesbank Reached its Limit?

Authors: Aaron Tornell & Frank Westermann, EconoMonitor

December 7th, 2011

In the wake of the 2008 crisis, some national central banks, especially those in Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain (the GIIPS), have dramatically increased their loans to financial institutions. To fund these loans, GIIPS central banks borrowed mainly – via the ECB – from other central banks, in particular the Bundesbank.

…

In principle, the limit on the amount of claims on the Eurosystem that the Bundesbank can accumulate equals the assets in its balance sheet plus the amount it can borrow in capital markets. Pressure from the German public, however, might prevent the Bundesbank from reaching the theoretical limit. There are several political thresholds. The first is when the stock of Bunds in the Bundesbank hits zero. As Table 2 shows, this threshold has been reached. Even before the 2008 crisis the stock of Bunds in the Bundesbank was practically zero. The second threshold will be reached when the stock of loans from the Bundesbank to the private sector is depleted. As we described above, the stock of loans to private credit institutions has fallen to almost zero. At the end of October 2011, it stood at €21 billion.

…

As we have described, in the European monetary union, the stock of securities held by a central bank can increase in a member country even though the ECB might not pursue an expansionary policy for the Eurozone as a whole. This creation of base money is not done via the printing press as in old times, but electronically. To illustrate the mechanism consider the following example. An owner of Greek government bonds uses them as collateral to borrow from his commercial bank, which in turn borrows from the Bank of Greece. The Greek central bank wires the funds via the ECB to the Bundesbank, which in turn deposits them in the Frankfurt bank account of the Greek resident. As a consequence, the Bundesbank gets a ‘TARGET claim’ on the ECB and the Bank of Greece gets a ‘TARGET liability’ at the ECB. This TARGET claim is secured by collateral – the Greek government bonds – deposited at the ECB that were previously in the possession of the Greek resident. Through this operation, the increase in the stock of securities at the Bank of Greece is matched by a reduction of securities in the Bundesbanks’ balance sheet. The Bundesbank sells some of its assets to be able to deposit the funds into the Greek residents’ private Frankfurt bank account. As a result, German assets are replaced by ECB collateral (TARGET claims) in the balance sheet of the Bundesbank.

…

How long can the central banks of the GIIPS accumulate TARGET liabilities at the ECB? In theory, as long as they have collateral that is acceptable to the ECB, which is the total stock of government debt plus other marketable assets (such as mortgage-backed securities) recognised by the ECB. However, running out of collateral won’t necessarily stop the borrowing. Should central banks run out of government bonds, the national governments could issue more bonds, and sell them to private banks. Banks in turn could use them as collateral to borrow from their central banks. Thus, practically, there is no limit to the amount of domestic government bonds the national central banks could use as collateral to accumulate TARGET claims at the ECB.

…

Up to now, Bundesbank loans have allowed GIIPS central banks to buy government bonds without a corresponding increase in the monetary base of the Eurozone as a whole – ie, without the ECB printing more money (after an expansion in 2008, the monetary base returned to trend growth). Before long, however, the Bundesbank’s stock of domestic assets is going to hit zero, and it is highly unlikely that it will agree to sell its gold or borrow more in private capital markets. At that point, the Bundesbank will not be able to lend more funds to the Eurozone TARGET mechanism. As a result we are heading towards the multiple equilibria zone in which beliefs of a breakdown of the Eurozone are self-fulfilling. In such a situation, market participants may transfer funds from financial institutions in fiscally weak countries to other ‘safe’ countries like Germany. In tranquil times, such transfers can be done seamlessly through the TARGET mechanism of the ECB. However, if a critical mass of agents were to engage in such capital flight away from fiscally weak countries, the TARGET system would be overwhelmed. In principle, a speculative attack could occur within a day, and the ECB would have to assume all of the marketable securities from countries that suffer the speculative attack. Since the ECB has a relatively small capital base, it would not be able to purchase a large amount of assets from countries that suffer the attack.

EU Banks Must Raise $153B of Extra Capital: EBA

By Ben Moshinsky and Jim Brunsden, Bloomberg News

Dec 8, 2011 8:01 PM ET

German banks need to raise an additional 13.1 billion euros, Italian banks 15.4 billion euros, and Spanish lenders 26.2 billion euros in core tier 1 capital, the European Banking Authority in London said yesterday. The capital shortfalls include 15.3 billion euros for Spain’s Banco Santander SA (SAN) and 7.97 billion euros for Italy’s UniCredit SpA. (UCG)

…

Other lenders needing to bolster their reserves include Deutsche Bank AG, with a shortfall of 3.2 billion euros, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (BBVA), which missed the target by 6.33 billion euros, BNP Paribas (BNP) SA, with a shortfall of 1.5 billion euros, and Societe Generale SA (GLE), which needs 2.1 billion euros. Commerzbank AG (CBK) needs 5.3 billion euros to meet the target, German regulator Bafin said. France’s Groupe BPCE, the owner of Natixis SA, had a 3.7 billion euro shortfall, and Italy’s Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (BMPS) needs to raise 3.27 billion euros.

…

Regulators more than doubled the amount of capital German lenders need to raise from the original 5.2 billion-euro estimate for the country’s banks in October.

…

French banks will have to raise 7.3 billion euros, 1.5 billion euros less than previously estimated.

German Funds to Sell $3.6 Billion of Best Properties as Liquidation Looms

By Simon Packard, Bloomberg News

Dec 11, 2011 7:00 PM ET

Three German funds facing a May deadline to avoid liquidation aim to raise about 2.7 billion euros ($3.6 billion) selling trophy real estate including Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz and the European Bank of Reconstruction & Development’s London headquarters.

…

Raising cash from real estate sales became more difficult after Europe’s growing sovereign-debt crisis led buyers to favor properties in prime locations occupied by tenants on long leases. Selling most-prized assets risks making more investors withdraw money from the funds when they re-open.

…

Germany’s 85 billion-euro real-estate mutual fund industry may be facing the biggest crisis in its 50-year history. A dozen of the 44 funds, which own 28 percent of the industry’s assets, are liquidating or have suspended redemptions, according to Frankfurt-based BVI Bundesverband Investment & Asset Management.

…

The German government stepped in to shore up an investment product favored by savers because of the reliable income returns it generates and the country’s lack of a developed real estate investment trust market. Legislation adopted in May and taking effect in 2013 will introduce notification periods, caps on withdrawals and staggered repayments to free funds from a potential liquidity trap.

EU Banks Taking Government Cash Seen Sparking ‘Vicious Cycle’

By Yalman Onaran, Bloomberg

Dec 11, 2011 7:01 PM ET

Ireland’s effort to back its banks brought the country to the verge of collapse last year. After issuing a blanket guarantee on all bank debt in 2008, the government was compelled to keep plugging holes as losses mounted. Sovereign debt doubled to more than 100 percent of GDP after about 60 billion euros were put into the nation’s lenders. Ireland sought a rescue package from the EU and the IMF in November 2010.

“The European banks (BEBANKS) can’t get fresh capital, so governments are going to have to cough up the money,” said Barbara Matthews, managing director of BCM International Regulatory Analytics LLC, a Washington-based consulting firm. “Germany is re-establishing its bank rescue fund, and it has the money to put in its banks. But when you look at public sources, you run into a problem. Do the other sovereigns have the cash to do it?”

…

“The EFSF doesn’t have enough money to support Italian and Spanish sovereign debt as well as put money into the European banks,” said Desmond Lachman, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. “It just can’t do all of that.”

The EU banks’ capital holes are bigger than the EBA’s latest estimate, Lachman said, citing a September IMF estimate of a 300 billion-euro risk based on more favorable prices for government bonds at the time.

Because banks can’t raise capital from the market and some governments can’t afford to provide cash, compliance most likely will be through asset sales and reduced lending in the region, said Lannoo of the Centre for European Policy Studies. The EBA has told banks not to meet the new capital requirements through such measures, instead asking them to refrain from paying dividends.

…

The size of potential losses at European banks has scared away short-term creditors, squeezing the region’s lenders. The European Central Bank has stepped in to replace funds being withdrawn, providing unlimited cash and lowering requirements on the quality of collateral it will accept.

“We’re in a death spiral,” said Andy Brough, a fund manager at Schroders Plc in London. “As the yields on the peripheral bonds increase, value of the bonds decreases and the amount of capital the bank has to raise increases.”

A Profile in Fracking: How One Tiny Hamlet Could Be Devastated by Gas

By Molly Oswaks, The Atlantic

Dec 7 2011, 10:02 AM ET

Hancock is home to four bait-and-tackle shops, three beauty salons, six churches, ever more vacant and dilapidated-looking homes, one video rental thrift store hyphenate, and one funeral parlor. The stateliest establishment in this otherwise decidedly unstately community is the Hancock House Hotel; here you will find Honest Eddie’s Tap Room, a dimly lighted wood-paneled bar named for the major league baseball player John Edward “Honest Eddie” Murphy, who was born in Hancock in 1891. The food menu at Honest Eddie’s includes items like “They’re Smothered!” (thick-cut fries blanketed in a melty cheese sauce) and “The Deep-fried Pickle” (which is exactly what it sounds like). There is also an off-menu rice pudding, which they serve in a tall bevelled glass sundae cup and garnish with a dollop of whipped cream. The pudding has no spice.

…

Here, some 9,000 feet below traversable ground, lies a particularly profitable piece of the Marcellus Shale, a 400-million year old formation of marine sedimentary rock rich with reserves of untapped natural gas. Shale gas reserves are extracted by means of a multi-step process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Chemical fracking fluid is pumped into a targeted borehole drilled deep into the ground; sand is then introduced into the fluid to maintain the integrity of the fracture. The pressure and depth at which this is executed produces a subterranean climate porous and permeable enough for shale gas to be recovered profitably: this is a “frack job.”

For a cash-strapped community like Hancock, fracking would seem a high-yield stimulus plan millennia in the making: there is, of course, the economic appeal of home-sourced natural gas, but there are also land royalties to be reaped by residents and money to be made from all the supplies and sandwiches sold in town to the fracking crew itself. Not to mention jobs.

…

It’s difficult to predict whether Hancock’s soil and water will, in fact, be poisoned once the drilling begins. Various assessments of the environmental impact of fracking have been conducted, at both state and national levels. The second-hand damage is much easier to forecast.

The roads and highways that run through town will experience a significant surge in traffic, with large trucks and heavy machinery traveling to and from the drill sites, and all the accompanying noise pollution. The bucolic natural landscape, which has long drawn lucrative hunting and camping tourism at peak season, will be cut up and and cordoned off for pipes and drills and gas collection.

It’s a paradox: The town needs money to survive, but the money being offered comes at the expense of the town itself. It would seem, then, however ironic, that capitalism is killing the company town.

Actually, it’s not at all difficult to predict that “Hancock’s soil and water will, in fact, be poisoned once the drilling begins.”

EPA Finds Fracking Contaminated Drinking Water in Wyoming

By: David Dayen, Firedog Lake

Friday December 9, 2011 6:23 am

Independent reports have previously shown contaminants in water due to fracking, but this is the first time the EPA has come out and said so. And while they cite Pavillion as a special case, it calls into question the surge in fracking across the country. From the Marcellus Shale to the Rocky Mountains, thousands of natural gas drilling sites have sprung up, and questions about air and water quality have persisted. Multiple examples of residents lighting the water out of their faucets on fire, and incidents of sickness in areas around the natural gas wells (many of which are in the backyards of people paid handsomely by the fracking companies for the privilege), abound.

…

The samples in Wyoming came from two deep water monitoring wells, as well as private and public wells in the area. EPA found synthetic chemicals consistent with fracking fluids, as well as high levels of benzene and methane. They said that the chemicals could move through the aquifer over time and only worsen the water quality. The chemicals in the private and public water wells showed evidence of migration from drilling sites.

Independent reports?  Oh my, yes.  Tons of them.

Chemicals Were Injected Into Wells, Report Says

By IAN URBINA, The New York Times

Published: April 16, 2011

WASHINGTON – Oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of gallons of hazardous or carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than 13 states from 2005 to 2009, according to an investigation by Congressional Democrats.

…

Companies injected large amounts of other hazardous chemicals, including 11.4 million gallons of fluids containing at least one of the toxic or carcinogenic B.T.E.X. chemicals – benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. The companies used the highest volume of fluids containing one or more carcinogens in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.

The report comes two and a half months after an initial report by the same three lawmakers that found that 32.2 millions of gallons of fluids containing diesel, considered an especially hazardous pollutant because it contains benzene, were injected into the ground during hydrofracking by a dozen companies from 2005 to 2009, in possible violation of the drinking water act.

A 2010 report by Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy organization, found that benzene levels in other hydrofracking ingredients were as much as 93 times higher than those found in diesel.

The use of these chemicals has been a source of concern to regulators and environmentalists who worry that some of them could find their way out of a well bore – because of above-ground spills, underground failures of well casing or migration through layers of rock – and into nearby sources of drinking water.

These contaminants also remain in the fluid that returns to the surface after a well is hydrofracked. A recent investigation by The New York Times found high levels of contaminants, including benzene and radioactive materials, in wastewater that is being sent to treatment plants not designed to fully treat the waste before it is discharged into rivers. At one plant in Pennsylvania, documents from the Environmental Protection Agency revealed levels of benzene roughly 28 times the federal drinking water standard in wastewater as it was discharged, after treatment, into the Allegheny River in May 2008.

If you’re looking for Oil Company compassion, look somewhere else.

Driller to stop water to families in Dimock, Pa.

By MICHAEL RUBINKAM, Associated Press

Nov 30, 2011

ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) – Families in a northeastern Pennsylvania village with tainted water wells will have to procure their own water for the first time in nearly three years as a natural-gas driller blamed for polluting the aquifer moves ahead with its plan to stop paying for daily deliveries.

Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. ended delivery of bulk and bottled water to 11 families in Dimock on Wednesday. Cabot asserts Dimock’s water is safe to drink and won permission from state environmental regulators last month to stop paying for water for the residents.

(h/t dday)

And, you know, it’s a proven, predictable, fact that it also causes earthquakes.

Method predicts size of fracking earthquakes

Scientists develop way to forecast worst-case tremor scenario.

Zoë Corbyn, Nature

09 December 2011

Small earthquakes are a recognized risk of hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, a procedure in which companies unlock energy reserves by pumping millions of litres of water underground to fracture shale rock and release the natural gas trapped inside. Researchers now say that they can calculate the highest magnitude earthquake that such an operation could induce – though it won’t determine the likelihood of a quake occurring.

…

McGarr and his team studied seven cases of quakes induced by fluid injection. They included the Oklahoma fracking site where 8,900 cubic metres were injected; a scientific bore hole in Germany, where an injection of 200 cubic metres of salt water caused a magnitude 1.4 earthquake; a geothermal-energy project on the outskirts of Basel, Switzerland, that was terminated after an injection of 11,600 cubic metres of water triggered a series of quakes of magnitude up to 3.4; another in Cooper Basin, Australia, where a 20,000-cubic-metre injection resulted in a magnitude 3.7 quake; and a liquid-waste-disposal project in Colorado in the 1960s, where an injection of 631,000 cubic metres triggered earthquakes of magnitude up to 5, the largest yet seen as a result of fluid injection.

The researchers found a proportional relationship between the volume of fluid injected and the magnitude of the earthquake.

“If you inject about 10,000 cubic metres, then the maximum sized earthquake would be about a magnitude 3.3,” says McGarr. Every time the volume of water doubles, the maximum magnitude of any quake rises by roughly 0.4. “The earthquakes may end up being much smaller, but you want to be prepared for the worst-case scenario,” says McGarr. The relationship is straightforward, but it is the first time that anyone has quantified it, he adds.

Shale Pioneers Plan Next English Wells After Fracking Causes Earthquake

By Kari Lundgren, Bloomberg News

Dec 2, 2011 9:17 AM ET

The sound that woke Caroline Murphy after midnight on April 1 was so loud she thought a car had crashed into her house. She doesn’t feel any better knowing it was the U.K.’s first recorded earthquake caused by natural-gas exploration.

…

Murphy’s home is within three miles of a drill site belonging to Cuadrilla Resources Ltd., an explorer that says it’s found more natural gas trapped in the local shale rock than Iraq has in its entire reserves. The magnitude 2.3 tremor that shook Murphy, and a second weaker quake on May 27, forced Cuadrilla to suspend hydraulic fracturing, the process of blasting sand, water and chemicals into shale that’s made the U.S. the world’s largest natural-gas producer.

…

“They say they’ve been fracking for years and years and it hasn’t caused any problems,” Murphy, an artist and designer, said in an interview. “I say: ‘You caused an earthquake. To me, that’s a big issue.'”

And for what?  For money of course-

Supporters of shale gas say the U.K. can’t afford to overlook the potential. The North Sea fields discovered in the 1970s that made the U.K. self-sufficient are running dry and the country will import more than half its gas supplies this year. The prospect of plentiful, cheap gas — prices have fallen about 75 percent since shale drilling took off in the U.S. — could help the economy, said Tim Yeo, who chairs parliament’s energy and climate change committee.

“It is likely the U.K. has quite substantial shale gas reserves and there may be sufficient resources to replace a significant amount of reserves,” Yeo, a member of the governing Conservative Party, said in a telephone interview. “Shale is good from a security point of view. It gives us some degree of protection from international gas prices.”

…

Cuadrilla, backed by Riverstone Holdings LLC, a private equity investor that includes former BP Plc Chief Executive Officer John Browne among its directors, wants to start fracking again. The company said its first wells showed the shale rock it’s exploring may hold 200 trillion cubic feet of gas. While only a fraction will ever get drilled, 10 percent of that amount is enough to supply the U.K. for about six years.

Protection from international gas prices?  Folks, there’s a glut of natural gas and the prices are falling through the floor.

Fracking for Gas in a Field of Cabbages

By Kari Lundgren, Bloomberg News

Dec 6, 2011 10:18 AM ET

Earthquakes aside, shale may struggle to get a foothold in Europe, according to Deutsche Bank AG analysts. It’s more expensive to drill in Europe, where a well may cost between $6.5 million and $14 million, compared with $4 million for a Marcellus Shale well in Pennsylvania. Then there’s the issue of mineral rights. In the U.K., the government owns the nation’s oil and gas resources, so there are few prospects to entice landowners to become “shale-ionaires.”

If Cuadrilla’s shale-gas dream doesn’t pan out, the site will go back to being a world-class cabbage field.

It won’t be the first natural gas well in the neighborhood that’s been left to fade away. There’s one that belonged to BG Group just a few miles down the road.

EPA: ‘Fracking’ likely polluted town’s water

MSNBC

12/8/11

Development of the new shale deposits over the last few years has provided the United States with a century’s worth of natural gas supply.

…

At the last hearing last month, protesters gathered in downtown Manhattan to express concern about the safety of water supplies, holding signs saying “Governor Cuomo, don’t frack it up” and “Don’t frack with New York.”

“We have to be literally insane to contemplate fracking,” state Sen. Tony Avella told reporters outside the hearings. “Wake up Governor Cuomo, this is not going to provide jobs or revenue, but what it will do is poison the water supply for 17 million New Yorkers.”

In fact it’s so fracking cheap that Oil Companies are desperately seeking export markets.

Shale gas opens door to U.S. LNG exports

Energy companies step up effort to ship surplus gas overseas

By Steve Gelsi, MarketWatch

Dec. 5, 2011, 6:52 p.m. EST

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — A decade ago, a global glut of clean, cheap natural gas bred big plans to import liquefied natural gas to the energy-hungry United States.

That’s all changed.

Nowadays, energy companies are tapping into previously untouched North American gas reserves, prompting them to take a hard look at ways to sell their new-found gas to the rest of the world.

This sudden shift from gas importer to possible exporter is the result of innovative drilling technology that frees gas trapped in vast shale rock formations that until recently had been dismissed as non-commercial.

For the U.S. to become a serious natural gas exporter requires building a costly infrastructure, which will only happen if the right market conditions exist in coming years. Read about the booming U.S. shale gas sector.

Nevertheless, several companies already have plans to build liquefied natural gas, or LNG, export terminals while others are well into the evaluation process, raising the prospects of a billion-dollar construction boom for these highly specialized facilities.

…

This is quickly boosting output at home. The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s short-term energy outlook sees a 6.1% increase in domestic natural gas production in 2011, rising another 2% in 2012. All of the gains are from onshore drilling operations in the lower 48 states.

“The projected U.S. demand is not sufficient to absorb the supply from these fields,” Gordon said in an interview.

That leaves producers two obvious outlets to absorb future production: transportation fuel and LNG exports, he said.

And the US and the UK are not the only games in town, it’s a world-wide glut.

The Southern Gas Corridor Gets a Kick-Start

Author: Robert M. Cutler, EconoMonitor

December 8th, 2011

Azerbaijan and Turkey have announced plans to construct a pipeline from the South Caucasus across Turkey to carry natural gas from Azerbaijan’s offshore Shah Deniz Two deposit to Southeastern Europe. At first glance, this would seem to leave Nabucco and two other candidate pipeline projects that have already submitted bids, out in the cold. However, what is involved is the creation of a format for bargaining where Azerbaijan can assert its strategic interests more convincingly against the pipeline consortia, which by their project-oriented nature have not been inclined to take a broader view.

…

The announcement of the SEEP and TAGP projects thus signifies Azerbaijan’s growing autonomy in the setting of its natural gas export policy. The outcome of the current process will point the way towards methods for the disposition of future quantities of natural gas from Azerbaijan’s offshore. Two wholly undeveloped deposits, Absheron and Umid, have been undergoing exploration and are credibly estimated to contain 350 bcm of natural gas each. Azerbaijan expects to produce just over 25 bcm of natural gas this year from existing deposits and looks for that figure to increase to 50 bcm/y by 2025.

Why all the hurry to drill into shale? It’s not going anywhere

This is an open letter to U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

Dr. Cate Matisi

Wednesday, December 7,2011

I live in southeastern Ohio and have been watching with alarm as fracking has been marching toward my home over the past several years. I have major concerns about how quickly people have convinced themselves that this will be a viable solution for both the financial difficulties we are facing in Ohio and the energy shortages we face as a nation, while ignoring potentially devastating environmental consequences. The industry touts the patriotic theme of U.S. energy independence, even though a number of these oil and gas companies have partnerships with Korean, Chinese, British and Norwegian companies that certainly don’t have our energy or economic interests forefront in their minds.

The oil and gas industry is calling natural gas a cleaner energy alternative on the face, without including the climate cost of diesel fuel-powered equipment transporting, setting up and developing the site, the amount of methane, a much dirtier pollutant that is accidentally leaked during well construction, production and transport, during processing and storage of this natural gas and that’s often intentionally “flared off.” If there were no environmental issues negatively impacted by horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing, why doesn’t the industry insist on following the provisions of the Clean Air, the Clean Water Act and the Superfund mandate.

The oil and gas industry has also used employment statistics in an industry-sponsored study in Pennsylvania that gives industry employment figures almost 10 times higher than the Pennsylvania state employment bureau has noted.

…

There are alternative, sustainable sources of energy that could see incredible growth in development if they were to receive the tax exemptions and grants that the oil and gas industry now receives.

…

I am not a fringe environmentalist. I am a responsible Ohio landowner who realizes that the fresh air we breathe, the water we need for ourselves, our children and our land are not limitless, and should not be jeopardized by this practice, which has not been in use for the past 60 years, but in reality, less than eight years. The natural gas has been in the Marcellus/Utica shale formations for 4 billion years. Waiting until regulations can be developed to ensure the safest, most environmentally practical policies to handle and manage natural gas production makes the most sense all the way around.

That’s a very good question.  Could it be because Wall Street speculators and banksters are demanding double digit growth even though the Main Street economy is in a severe Depression?

New York fracking proposal roundly condemned at public hearing

Karen McVeigh, The Guardian

Wednesday 30 November 2011 19.25 EST

At the first of two public hearings in New York City over the plan to end the ban on fracking, the state authorities were left in little doubt about the scale of the opposition. Speakers at the packed and often unruly meeting in the 900-seat Tribeca performing arts centre were overwhelmingly against the technique, which involves blasting chemical-laden water and sand into shale rock to release gas.

Many of the speakers condemned the hearings themselves as a sham, because they said they were set up to allow public comment about draft regulations, before any environmental assessment had been carried out.

…

Addressing a crowd of residents, activists and others outside the hearing, Senator Tony Avella, the Democrat author of a bill which would prohibit fracking in New York state, said: “I urge the Department of Conservation and the governor to pause in their deliberations and take full measure of the risks versus the ‘gold rush industry’ and make the right decision for this state for generations to come.”

He added: “The risk of catastrophic danger to the environment, the health of New York residents and adverse economic impacts that result from hydraulic fracturing far outweigh the potential for job creation and promotion of a natural gas alternative for oil.”

Mark Ruffalo, the actor, said: “The more we learn about fracking the more we see that natural gas is not a clean transition fuel, but a bridge to nowhere. The future of New York state depends on the action and resolve of the citizens of today – to reject this dangerous process and build a sustainable future for our children.”

Opponents of the drilling method criticised the Cuomo administration for exaggerating the economic benefits. They questioned the number of jobs that would be created, and said the administration had failed to consider the negative impacts on agriculture, tourism and other industries.

I couldn’t put it better myself-

There are alternative, sustainable sources of energy that could see incredible growth in development if they were to receive the tax exemptions and grants that the oil and gas industry now receives.

Personally?  I think it’s just exactly as Serious as the Very Serious People.

And twice as classy.

Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details…

by Mike Masnick, Tech Dirt

Thu, Dec 8th 2011 8:29am

Imagine if the US government, with no notice or warning, raided a small but popular magazine’s offices over a Thanksgiving weekend, seized the company’s printing presses, and told the world that the magazine was a criminal enterprise with a giant banner on their building. Then imagine that it never arrested anyone, never let a trial happen, and filed everything about the case under seal, not even letting the magazine’s lawyers talk to the judge presiding over the case. And it continued to deny any due process at all for over a year, before finally just handing everything back to the magazine and pretending nothing happened. I expect most people would be outraged. I expect that nearly all of you would say that’s a classic case of prior restraint, a massive First Amendment violation, and exactly the kind of thing that does not, or should not, happen in the United States.

…

The Dajaz1 case became particularly interesting to us, after we saw evidence showing that the songs that ICE used in its affidavit as “evidence” of criminal copyright infringement were songs sent by representatives of the copyright holder with the request that the site publicize the works — in one case, even coming from a VP at a major music label. Even worse, about the only evidence that ICE had that these songs were infringing was the word of the “VP of Anti-Piracy Legal Affairs for the RIAA,” Carlos Linares, who was simply not in a position to know if the songs were infringing or authorized. In fact, one of the songs involved an artist not even represented by an RIAA label, and Linares clearly had absolutely no right to speak on behalf of that artist.

Despite all of this, the government simply seized the domain, put up a big scary warning graphic on the site, suggesting its operators were criminals, and then refused to comment at all about the case. Defenders of the seizures insisted that this was all perfectly legal and nothing to be worried about. They promised us that the government had every right to do this and plenty of additional evidence to back up its claims. They promised us that the government would allow for plenty of due process within a reasonable amount of time. They also insisted that, after hearing nothing happening in the case for many months, it meant that no attempt to object to the seizure had occurred. Turns out… none of that was true.

…

Under the seizure laws, the government has 60 days from seizure to “notify” those whose property it seized (imagine having the government swoop in and take away your property, and not even being told why for two whole months). Once notified, the property owner has 35 days to file a claim to request the return of the property. If that doesn’t happen, the government can effectively just keep the property, so it tends to rely on intimidation and threats towards anyone who indicates plans to ask for their property back (usually in the form of threatening to file charges). However, if such a claim is filed, the government then has 90 days to start the full “forfeiture” process, which would allow the government to keep the seized property and never have to give it back. If the claim to return the property is filed and the government does not file for forfeiture, it is required to return the property. Thus seizures are supposedly used as a temporary part of the investigation, to stop criminal activity or to prevent the destruction of evidence. However, that’s not how things always play out in real life.

As we’d heard with a number of domain names that had been seized, the government began stalling like mad when contacted by representatives for domain holders seeking to get their domains back. ICE even flat out lied to the public, stating that no one was challenging the seizures, when it knew full well that some sites were, in fact, challenging. Out of that came the Rojadirecta case, but what of Dajaz1?

After continuing to stall and refusing to respond to Dajaz1’s filing requesting the domain be returned, the government told Dajaz1’s lawyer, Andrew P. Bridges, that it would begin forfeiture procedures (as required by law if it wanted to keep the domain). Bridges made clear that Dajaz1 would challenge the forfeiture procedure and seek to get the domain name back at that time. Then, the deadline for the government to file for forfeiture came and went and nothing apparently happened. Absolutely nothing. Bridges contacted the government to ask what was going on, and was told that the government had received an extension from the court. Bridges, quite reasonably, asked how that was possible without him, as counsel for the site, being informed of it or given a chance to make the case for why such an extension was improper.

He also asked for a copy of the the court’s order allowing the extension. The government told him no and that the extension was filed under seal and could not be released, even in redacted form.

He asked for the motion papers asking for the extension. The government told him no and that the papers were filed under seal and could not be released, even in redacted form.

He again asked whether he would be notified about further filings for extensions. The government told him no.

He then asked the US attorney to inform the court that, if the government made another request for an extension, the domain owner opposed the extension and would like the opportunity to be heard. The government would not agree.

And file further extensions the government did. Repeatedly. Or, at least that’s what Bridges was told. He sent someone to investigate the docket at the court, but the docket itself was secret, meaning there was no record of any of this available.

The government was required to file for forfeiture by May. The initial (supposed) secret extension was until July. Then it got another one that went until September. And then another one until November… or so the government said. When Bridges asked the government for some proof that it had actually obtained the extensions in question, the government attorney told Bridges that he would just have “trust” him.

Finally, the government decided that it would not file a forfeiture complaint — because there was no probable cause — and it let the last (supposed) extension expire. Only after Bridges asked again for the status of the domain did the government indicate that it would return the domain to its owner — something that finally happened today. Dajaz1.com is finally back in the hands of its rightful owner. This is really quite incredible, considering the “rush” with which it seized these domain names, claiming the urgency in stopping a crime in progress. But, of course, after realizing that it had no evidence to suggest a crime was ever in progress – there was absolutely no urgency to correct the error.

The level of secrecy in this case makes it sound like a terrorist investigation, not the censorship of a popular music blog. Normally, when there’s a lawsuit, the docket is available on PACER. Even in cases where things are filed under seal or everything is redacted, there’s at least a placeholder for them in PACER. This case does not exist anywhere that anyone can find. The docket was apparently kept hidden in a judge’s office in Los Angeles the whole time. No one knew this was going on, other than the US Attorney and the representatives of Dajaz1 (who still never saw the docket or the extension orders).

Let’s just take stock here for a second. We have the government clearly censoring free speech in the form of a blog that discussed the music world and was widely recognized for its influence in promoting new acts. The government seized the blog with no adversarial hearing and no initial due process. Then, rather than actually provide some sort of belated due process in the form of an adversarial hearing, it continued to deny any and all due process by secretly (even to Dajaz1’s own lawyer) extending the seizure without any way to challenge those extensions. All in all, the government completely censored a popular web site for over a year, when it had no real evidence for probable cause of infringement, as it had falsely claimed in the original rubber stamped affidavit.

(h/t DCblogger @ Corrente)

The thoroughly discredited Chicago (Freshwater) School of Economics denies that these even exist.

It’s not just a river in Egypt, it’s also faith based not science in contradiction of actual factual evidence-

Wikipedia–

A deflationary spiral is a situation where decreases in price lead to lower production, which in turn leads to lower wages and demand, which leads to further decreases in price. Since reductions in general price level are called deflation, a deflationary spiral is when reductions in price lead to a vicious circle, where a problem exacerbates its own cause. The Great Depression was regarded by some as a deflationary spiral. A deflationary spiral is the modern macroeconomic version of the general glut controversy of the 19th century. Another related idea is Irving Fisher’s theory that excess debt can cause a continuing deflation. Whether deflationary spirals can actually occur is controversial, with its possibility being disputed by freshwater economists (including the Chicago school of economics) and Austrian School economists.

In Japan–

Systemic reasons for deflation in Japan can be said to include:

• Tight monetary conditions. The Bank of Japan kept monetary policy loose only when inflation was below zero, tightening whenever deflation ends.

…

• Fallen asset prices. In the case of Japan asset price deflation was a mean reversion or correction back to the price level that prevailed before the asset bubble. There was a rather large price bubble in equities and especially real estate in Japan in the 1980s (peaking in late 1989).

• Insolvent companies:  Banks lent to companies and individuals that invested in real estate. When real estate values dropped, these loans could not be paid. The banks could try to collect on the collateral (land), but this wouldn’t pay off the loan. Banks delayed that decision, hoping asset prices would improve. These delays were allowed by national banking regulators. Some banks made even more loans to these companies that are used to service the debt they already had. This continuing process is known as maintaining an “unrealized loss”, and until the assets are completely revalued and/or sold off (and the loss realized), it will continue to be a deflationary force in the economy. Improving bankruptcy law, land transfer law, and tax law have been suggested (by The Economist) as methods to speed this process and thus end the deflation.

• Insolvent banks:  Banks with a larger percentage of their loans which are “non-performing”, that is to say, they are not receiving payments on them, but have not yet written them off, cannot lend more money; they must increase their cash reserves to cover the bad loans.

• Fear of insolvent banks:  Japanese people are afraid that banks will collapse so they prefer to buy (United States or Japanese) Treasury bonds instead of saving their money in a bank account. This likewise means the money is not available for lending and therefore economic growth. This means that the savings rate depresses consumption, but does not appear in the economy in an efficient form to spur new investment. People also save by owning real estate, further slowing growth, since it inflates land prices.

Sound familiar?  It should.

Anxious Greeks Emptying Their Bank Accounts

Many Greeks are draining their savings accounts because they are out of work, face rising taxes or are afraid the country will be forced to leave the euro zone. By withdrawing money, they are forcing banks to scale back their lending — and are inadvertently making the recession even worse.

By Ferry Batzoglou in Athens, Der Spiegel

12/06/2011

(T)he outflow of funds from Greek bank accounts has been accelerating rapidly. At the start of 2010, savings and time deposits held by private households in Greece totalled €237.7 billion — by the end of 2011, they had fallen by €49 billion. Since then, the decline has been gaining momentum. Savings fell by a further €5.4 billion in September and by an estimated €8.5 billion in October — the biggest monthly outflow of funds since the start of the debt crisis in late 2009.

…

The hemorrhaging of bank savings has had a disastrous impact on the economy. Many companies have had to tap into their reserves during the recession because banks have become more reluctant to lend. More Greek families are now living off their savings because they have lost their jobs or have had their salaries or pensions cut.

In August, unemployment reached 18.4 percent. Many Greeks now hoard their savings in their homes because they are worried the banking system may collapse.

Those who can are trying to shift their funds abroad. The Greek central bank estimates that around a fifth of the deposits withdrawn have been moved out of the country. “There is a lot of uncertainty,” says Panagiotis Nikoloudis, president of the National Agency for Combating Money Laundering.

…

Nikoloudis has detected a further trend. At first, it was just a few people trying to withdraw large sums of money. Now it’s large numbers of people moving small sums. Ypatia K., a 55-year-old bank worker from Athens, can confirm that. “The customers, especially small savers, have recently been withdrawing sums of €3,000, €4,000 or €5,000. That was panic,” she said.

…

The shrinking Greek bank deposits compare with bank loans totalling €253 million. Analysts say the share of bad loans could rise to 20 percent next year, or €50 billion, as a result of the recession. This in turn will worsen the already pressing liquidity problems faced by Greek banks.

Did I mention thoroughly discredited?

Germany next.

Then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom.

I’ve been following what purports to be a conversation with a libertarian over at Naked Capitalism and I hardly know how to characterize it except as pathological.  It’s faith based and factually wrong in addition to being illegal, immoral, and selfish.

I’m not making the claim that it accurately represents libertarian doctrine or practice, or even the viewpoint of a real human being and not a fictional straw man construct.

Frankly I don’t know what to think.  I was appalled and horrified reading it and draw your attention because of those qualities.

By Andrew Dittmer, who recently finished his PhD in mathematics at Harvard and is currently continuing work on his thesis topic. He also taught mathematics at a local elementary school. Andrew enjoys explaining the recent history of the financial sector to a popular audience.

Simulposted at The Distributist Review

• Journey into a Libertarian Future: Part I -The Vision
  
  Tuesday, November 29, 2011
• Journey into a Libertarian Future: Part II – The Strategy
  
  Wednesday, November 30, 2011
• Journey into a Libertarian Future: Part III – Regulation
  
  Thursday, December 1, 2011
• Journey into a Libertarian Future: Part IV – The Journey into a Libertarian Past
  
  Friday, December 2, 2011
• Journey into a Libertarian Future: Part V – Dark Realities
  
  Monday, December 5, 2011
• Journey into a Libertarian Future: Part VI – Certainty
  
  Tuesday, December 6, 2011

(h/t Think Progress)