The United States on Wednesday opened its banking market to ICBC, China’s biggest bank, for the first time clearing a takeover of a US bank by a Chinese state-controlled company.

Just days after high-level US-China economic talks in Beijing, the Federal Reserve approved an application from Industrial and Commercial Bank of China to buy a majority stake in the US subsidiary of Bank of East Asia.

The transaction will make ICBC the first Chinese state-controlled bank to acquire retail bank branches in the United States.

ICBC has been the most aggressive of China’s “big four” banks in expanding overseas.

According to the Fed the bank has total assets of roughly $2.5 trillion.

It will buy up to 80 percent of the US unit of the Hong Kong-based Bank of East Asia, which operates 13 branches in New York and California.

As part of the deal ICBC and two state-backed financial firms — China’s sovereign wealth fund the China Investment Corporation (CIC), and Central Huijin Investment — will be recognized as bank holding companies, regulated as commercial US banks.

The broad expansion of China’s footprint in the US market comes amid a series of financial reforms in China that could begin to open the lucrative market to US firms.

After the May 3-4 meeting, the US Treasury noted China had made “encouraging progress” on a number of issues sought by the Obama administration, including taking steps toward a more open and market-oriented financial system.

The Fed said Wednesday that the ICBC proposed acquisition, which is “relatively small,” would not have much of an impact on the banking market.

“The combined deposits of the relevant institutions in the Metropolitan New York banking market represent less than one percent of market deposits,” the central bank noted.

The competition includes Bank of China branches in the New York metropolitan area, and CIC, which has a noncontrolling stake in Morgan Stanley.

ICBC will pay $140 million to buy an 80 percent interest in Bank of East Asia USA, China’s state news agency Xinhua reported in January 2011, at the time the deal was signed.

“This unprecedented acquisition of a controlling stake in a US commercial bank by a mainland bank is strategically significant,” Xinhua quoted ICBC chairman Jiang Jianqing as saying.

The Fed said its Board also consulted with the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the country’s main banking regulator, and pointed to steady improvement in regulation since its founding in 2003.

“For a number of years, authorities in China have continued to enhance the standards of consolidated supervision to which banks in China are subject, including through additional or refined statutory authority, regulations, and guidance,” it said.

In other Fed board decisions, Bank of China, the third-largest bank, won approval for a branch in Chicago. Bank of China operates two insured federal branches in New York City and an uninsured branch in Los Angeles.

Agricultural Bank of China, the fourth-largest bank, was set to establish a branch in New York City, where it already operates a representative office.

Source: Yahoo News Canada.

BEIJING—China has made a sharp shift away from purchases of U.S. securities, slashing the dollar’s share of the country’s foreign reserves in what may signal a change in strategy for managing the massive cash pile, Dow Jones calculations indicate.

The portion of China’s reserves parked in the U.S. appears to have sunk to a decade-low 54% as of end-June from 65% in 2010 and 74% in 2006, according to the Dow Jones calculations. The calculations are based on data on China’s holdings of U.S. securities from an annual U.S. Treasury survey, and China’s own …

CONTINUED at the Wall Street Journal.

Stocks hovered around the flatline Wednesday as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke dashed hopes for further monetary stimulus in his testimony to Congress.

Meanwhile, traders seemed to shrug off the Fed’s Beige Book report that said the economy grew at a “modest to moderate” pace in January and February.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average struggled to move back into positive territory, after finishing above the psychologically-important 13,000 level in the previous session for the first time since May 2008.

Coca-Cola [KO  69.89    1.04  (+1.51%)   ] gained, while H-P [HPQ  25.61    -0.57  (-2.18%)   ] slipped on the Dow.

“We’re seeing a more optimistic mood about the economy but there are still potential potholes,” said John Prestbo, editor and executive director of the Dow Jones Indexes. “The market takes two steps forward, one step back, so people will soon start to notice the progress and will be back in the frame of mind that things are getting better, which will translate into optimism.”

The S&P 500 and the Nasdaq also struggled for direction. The Nasdaq earlier crossed the 3,000 milestone for the first time since December 2000. The CBOE Volatility Index, widely considered the best gauge of fear in the market, traded below 18.

CONTINUED at CNBC.

Panic is in the air as gasoline prices move above $4.00 per gallon. Politicians and pundits are rounding up the usual suspects, looking for someone or something to blame for this latest outrage to middle class family budgets. In a rare display of bipartisanship, President Obama and Speaker of the HouseJohn Boehner are both wringing their hands over the prospect of seeing their newly extended Social Security tax cut gobbled up by rising gasoline costs.

Unfortunately, the talking heads that are trying to explain the reasons for high oil prices are missing one tiny detail. Oil prices aren’t high right now. In fact, they are unusually low. Gasoline prices would have to rise by another $0.65 to $0.75 per gallon from where they are now just to be “normal”. And, because gasoline prices are low right now, it is very likely that they are going to go up more—perhaps a lot more.

CONTINUED at Forbes.

The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level.

An increase in the price level of 2% in any one year is barely noticeable. Under a gold standard, such an increase was uncommon, but not unknown. The difference is that when the dollar was as good as gold, the years of modest inflation would be followed, in time, by declining prices. As a consequence, over longer periods of time, the price level was unchanged. A dollar 20 years hence was still worth a dollar.

But, an increase of 2% a year over a period of 20 years will lead to a 50% increase in the price level. It will take 150 (2032) dollars to purchase the same basket of goods 100 (2012) dollars can buy today. What will be called the “dollar” in 2032 will be worth one-third less (100/150) than what we call a dollar today.

The Fed’s zero interest rate policy accentuates the negative consequences of this steady erosion in the dollar’s buying power by imposing a negative return on short-term bonds and bank deposits. In effect, the Fed has announced a course of action that will steal — there is no better word for it — nearly 10 percent of the value of Americans’ hard earned savings over the next 4 years.

Why target an annual 2 percent decline in the dollar’s value instead of price stability? Here is the Fed’s answer:

CONTINUED at Business Insider.

The Federal Reserve’s explicit goal is to devalue the dollar by 33%.

As Forbes’ Charles Kadlec notes:

The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level.

***

The Fed has announced a course of action that will steal — there is no better word for it — nearly 10 percent of the value of American’s hard earned savings over the next 4 years.

While that is stunning, it is actually par for the course for the Fed:

Here’s a chart of the trade weighted US Dollar from 1973-2009.

CONTINUED at Washington’s Blog.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

I’m finally back home and have enough time to actually sit down and write. The drive back from Orlando last night, immediately after the debate was insane! Drivers on Interstate 4 are beyond awful and they have no regard for the written and unwritten rules of the road. I nearly died a few times and by the time I got home, I just needed to chill out with some rum and watch ‘Firefly’ on Netflix. I intended to write this immediately after the debate but it just wasn’t possible. Between the lack of sleep the night before, the traveling and the two days of heavy discussions and debate, I was a vegetable. Thank God for my own bed and a bottle of Cruzan Black Strap rum as I feel much more alive this morning.

To start the day, I rolled out of bed at 7:30, which was pretty hard considering I was up late writing and drinking the night before and I just couldn’t get to sleep in a strange bed. I’ve always had trouble sleeping on the road. In fact, the only hotel that I’m comfortable in is the Hampton Inn across the street from the New Orleans Convention Center. Hell, I even have a hard time sleeping in Vegas without a ton of alcohol as a sedative, which is still partially ineffective, as that oxygen they pump through the vents has me wide awake pretty quickly.

So I woke up, got ready and suited up for my day, packed my suitcase and took a few minutes to watch part of the first half of the Liverpool v. Manchester United game before I had to check out. I went downstairs about twenty minutes into the game and ate breakfast with my friends from the Libertarian Party of Collier County. Shortly after this, we headed into the banquet room for the Libertarian Party of Florida’s business meeting. I’m not going to discuss the details but the meeting was informative and entertaining. Like one would expect, peering behind the scenes of politics at any level, the meeting had it’s fair share of heated debates between different factions all vying for control of the Party. Don’t take this the wrong way, this isn’t a bad thing, it is a very healthy way of addressing issues and concerns. All in all, it was a cool experience to see how the Libertarian Party operates in Florida.

At around 11:30, we split for lunch and I took that time to go upstairs and meet with Gary Johnson one last time before the debate. It was your typical meet and greet but there were more people present at this one than the two that I went to on the previous day. I listened in for awhile but I didn’t really interject myself this round. I asked a lot of questions the day before and I felt it was only fair for those who missed out on the earlier meet and greets to have their chance at asking Governor Johnson whatever it was they wanted to know.

I left after about a half hour, as the subjects being covered were already addressed at the previous meetings. Plus, my claustrophobia was kicking in as ten to fifteen people in a small hotel room is too many. I went downstairs, had some killer buffalo wings and spoke to congressional candidate Calen Fretts. If you live in the Florida panhandle, you should vote for Mr. Fretts. He’s got a good head on his shoulders and is a true representative of liberty. I think that may have been an endorsement. Anyway, we all headed back into the banquet hall at 1:00 for the second part of the business meeting. At 3:00 the debate officially started.

Contrary to what I wrote before, Roger Gary was not a part of the debate. Also, Leroy Saunders, a candidate from the State of New York joined the debate. I don’t know much about Mr. Saunders but his involvement added some energy to the event. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have a Facebook page or anything else on the social networking level and that can only hurt his campaign, in my opinion. He does have a decent website however. The other candidates were mentioned in an earlier article, they are Gary Johnson, R.J. Harris, R. Lee Wrights, Bill Still and Carl Persons.

Before the debate, those of us who are members of the Libertarian Party of Florida were asked to write down any questions they had for the candidates. Two of my three questions were used in the debate and in fact, they were the first two questions used after the moderators were done asking theirs. The first question, which I asked in an effort to give a boost to Bill Still, went directly to Mr. Still first – how’s that for luck? The question was “What’s your plan to bring about economic recovery? Is it as simple as abolishing the Federal Reserve, returning to a gold standard and significantly cutting spending?” The reason I wanted this question to go to Still is that he takes the stance that a gold standard isn’t the answer. I wanted to give him the opportunity to explain his position, which he did by stating that the majority of the gold is held by the elite, so it isn’t a good way to give control of money back to the people and that throughout history, the gold standard hasn’t been as great as many economists claim.

The second question I asked that was used was “Is there ever a time when U.S. military intervention is necessary?” Most of the candidates said “no”. Gary Johnson however pointed to the Afghan War and said that he was for us going over there and wiping out Al-Qaeda but that we should have come back six months after going to war, as we sent the “evildoers” running for the hills. Leroy Saunders pretty much agreed with Johnson and added that if we are attacked, we have the right to go after the attacker and seek justice but other than that, we need to stay out of the business of all these other countries, except for trade – which should be free.

My third question “How would you curb the Supreme Court from making unconstitutional decisions?”, wasn’t asked. In fact, there was nothing asked about how they would work with the judicial branch, which was unfortunate. This is a subject I don’t hear libertarians discuss very often.

While watching the debate, I noticed that there weren’t a lot of philosophical differences between the candidates. They had different ways to achieve certain goals but for the most part, everything they said, I found to be correct and pretty on point. It’s hard to do a proper critique of the content, as these men know their stuff and were all pretty damn effective at expressing it and hammering their points. It’s really different when you have a debate where the candidates aren’t idiots and they don’t have to constantly explain their stance to an idiot crowd. Libertarians are cut from a different cloth and they typically educate themselves on a variety of topics. They are a group that is constantly in the know and on top of things. I’m not trying to toot my own libertarian horn here but those who truly represent our beliefs, don’t need to have everything explained to them. They are the self-educated minority and have reached a higher plane in their political philosophy that one can’t get to by blindly following mainstream ideas and not questioning what they’ve always been taught.

In the end, I felt that Gary Johnson did a solid job and articulated himself well. Bill Still did really good when the questions were economic based but needed to say more on some of the other subjects. R. Lee Wrights was great and really won me over. Even though I hope Johnson gets the nomination, I’d love Mr. Wrights as VP. R.J. Harris did alright but I was expecting a little more thunder, especially after hearing all the positive things my friends and colleagues have said about him. I wasn’t disappointed by my expectations of him but I wasn’t really impressed either. Leroy Saunders did a pretty good job but often times went on some tangents. He needs to get his talking points down and sharpen his skills. He’s a young guy though and he has a lot of time to get it right, just not in this race. Carl Persons had some sharp insight but he just didn’t bring the fire. I honestly can’t see him as a leader, which is unfortunate, as I did like the things he had to say. Truth be told though, I would take anyone of these guys over Barack Obama or the GOP contenders minus Ron Paul.

After the debate, I immediately left and drove home. I wish I could’ve mingled some more and gone to the Libertarian Party dinner but I really needed to get back. All in all it was a great weekend, I got to spend a lot of time picking Gary Johnson’s brain and I met a lot of like minded people from all over the country. It’s not everyday that an average joe can sit down with a presidential candidate and ask them questions face-to-face. I got to do it twice in one day.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

*The picture is of Libertarian Party presidential candidates Gary Johnson and RJ Harris.

Sitting in my hotel room at the Orlando Airport Embassy Suites, I am trying to write about what has happened today, since I last left you. I’m currently distracted by Erin Burnett and her guests pontificating about taxes on my large hotel room flatscreen. Also, I am on my eleventh straight glass of cheap Canadian whiskey and sour mix. Technically it is a whiskey sour but it doesn’t really taste like one. Then again, I’m not used to having them made with rye-based whiskey. It could be that all the Labatt Blues I drank affected my taste buds. It’s all good – I’m not complaining, I’m just probably sharing too much of my inner dialogue right now. While I’m at it though, the steak I had at the bar was phenomenal! Okay.. okay, let me get to the point of this post, as I light up a Padrón 1964 and hope that the hotel staff doesn’t notice that I’m smoking out my non-smoking room. Crap, that reptile man James Carville is on T.V. now, I’ve got to hit the ‘power’ button and focus.

So I took a shower and threw on a three piece suit and made my way out to attend the small meet and greet with Gary Johnson that I was invited to. As soon as I opened my hotel room door, Gary Johnson was there pacing on his cell phone. I then realized that the room that the meet and greet was in was just a few doors down but the magical appearance of my second favorite candidate right outside my door caught me off guard. I had a million questions prepared in my head and I’ve never talked face-to-face with a presidential candidate before. Well, I did talk to Herman Cain in October of 2010 but that was way before he announced that he was running for the highest office in the land. Also, I didn’t really know much about him at the time.

Johnson put his phone away, said “hello” and reached out to shake my hand. I gave him a solid shake and immediately asked him how the Libertarian Party primary process worked. I kind of knew the answer but this just immediately popped into my head. He explained that all the states have their own votes and that the final vote and selection would happen in May at the Libertarian Party National Convention in Las Vegas. Johnson explained that the selection process was essentially like that of a brokered convention. The host of the get-together then led Gary and I inside the room and we were soon followed by a few others who were also invited.

The discussion started with Johnson talking about economics with one of the other people there. They discussed interest rates, housing and all sorts of stuff. I was distracted because I was trying to think of things to ask, as my million or so questions I had in my head on the drive up to Orlando, were seemingly nowhere to be found in my memory banks. In any event, I had four drinks at this point and they were really starting to set in, making me less nervous and causing me to start throwing questions around.

First, I asked Mr. Johnson if he had a strategy to bring in the Ron Paul supporters after Dr. Paul was eliminated from the race, assuming he doesn’t win the Republican primary – which isn’t looking good at this point. Gary said that he is a Ron Paul supporter and that he knows that Paul supporters are smart people that are already aware of him and the fact that his message is pretty much the same as Ron Paul’s. He doesn’t feel that he needs to do anything, as that support will shift towards him. Honestly, I disagree with this, as I know how most of us Paul supporters are feeling right now. We’re disenfranchised and so sick of the political system that if Paul isn’t on the ballot in November, many of us either won’t vote or we’ll write “Ron Paul” on the ballot. In fact, I know that a lot of people are planning to give Paul a write-in vote come November and because of that, Johnson will have lost people that he could’ve attracted if there were a real effort to grab those people and give them a second chance of hope. I think that rounding up the Paul supporters is essential if Johnson wants to come close to winning. I’m already on board and will give Johnson my vote, if Paul doesn’t get the Republican nomination.

I also asked Johnson if he was a Libertarian Party member for life or if there was the possibility of him running as a Republican candidate again, somewhere down the line, if he were to not win the presidential election in November. Johnson told us a story that he had bought a Libertarian Party shirt earlier in the day and that he was proud to wear it. He said that he never bought a Republican shirt but was given thousands of them for various groups and organizations over the years. He said that, regardless of owning many, he has never once worn a shirt promoting the Republican Party. He said that the reason was because he was never comfortable doing so because people typically have hostile reactions towards Republicans. He says that he feels it is due to their stance on most social issues, I agree. He said that as a Republican he was always expected to make excuses for the GOP in defense of many common criticisms of the party on social issues. He admitted that he was never able to wholeheartedly do this, as he more often than not agreed with the criticisms of the Republican Party on social issues. He finished by saying that he has never been more comfortable in his life at wearing a party’s banner. He said that he was always a libertarian and that he is focused on bringing the party to the next level.

Expanding on that, I asked him how he could bring the party to that next level. He pointed out that if he could get just 5 percent of the vote in the November elections, that it would bring in $90 million for the Libertarian Party. He explained that the Democrats and Republicans set the system up to be a two-party dominated game, as the money given to parties, is based off of how they perform in the presidential elections and for a party to get a substantial amount of cash (that being $90 million), they need to get at least 5 percent in the general election. So if a third party can generate the difficult amount of 5 percent against the ultra-rich powerhouses, they are entitled to get paid. Now with a third party getting $90 million with just 5 percent of the vote, imagine how much the Democrats and Republicans get regardless of how they finish! This is how they stay in power and dominate politics and this is what Johnson wants to fight against by getting at least 5 percent of the vote. He pointed out that he is currently polling at around 9 percent head-to-head-to-head with Obama and Romney. Gary Johnson can truly alter business in Washington and throw a wrench in the machine of tyranny, as far as the two-party system goes.

Now if Johnson can get 15 percent, he will be invited to the national debates between Barack Obama and the Republican nominee. Since he is polling around 9 percent, an increase in 6 points isn’t impossible before the October debates. Truth is, this is very doable and if he was able to participate, Gary Johnson could serve up some hardcore truth to the Democrat and Republican establishment. Gary told me that the rule of having 15 percent was established by both Republicans and Democrats back when Ross Perot ran for president in 1992 as a member of the Reform Party. It is essentially another establishment tactic to try and keep the power consolidated within the boundaries of just the two major parties.

The meet and greet was then broken up and I went down to the hotel bar to meet my friends from the Libertarian Party of Collier County. While waiting for them, I spoke to many of the libertarian attendees over drinks. Nothing really exciting happened other than typical networking jargon and business card passing. I promoted TheSwash.com and most of them either promoted their blogs, their local organizations or whomever candidate they were there working for. My peeps from the LPCC finally arrived and shortly after that, Gary Johnson made his way down to the bar area to chit-chat, providing me with a second opportunity for some deep and insightful discussion.

Kicking off round two, I asked Gary Johnson how he differed from Ron Paul. He said that he didn’t want to build a border fence and didn’t understand why Paul was for the idea. I agree with Johnson on this one, as I always questioned Ron Paul’s reasoning on wanting a border fence, as it will cost a ton of money and it has been proven to be ineffective. Johnson also pointed out that he believes in a woman’s right to choose where Ron Paul is anti-abortion. Gary Johnson also believes in marriage equality for all people, which really isn’t far off from Paul’s stance, so let me clarify this. Ron Paul said that if he was in Congress in 1996, he would have voted for DOMA or the Defense of Marriage Act. The reason being is that he believes that states should have the rights to either allow or prohibit same sex marriage. In a nutshell, the bill’s purpose gave states the power of being able to refuse to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states or countries. I side with Johnson over Paul here, simply for the fact that the federal government needs to stay out of it and shouldn’t be bothered passing such a law to begin with. They should instead, honor the Constitution and especially the 10th Amendment, which gives the states the right to do whatever the hell they want in this case.

I brought up the issue of the gold standard and Johnson said that it was a step in the right direction but added that there were still horrible cases of inflation under the gold standard before. He believes that we need a dollar backed by commodities but that just incorporating gold wouldn’t generate the best results. He also wants to end the Federal Reserve but doesn’t believe that this will fully fix the problem either. He went on to be critical of people who say that the Fed is a private entity. He says that the government owns it and that it is like something that we all own stock in but can’t vote on, so we are essentially powerless to do anything about it.

I asked Johnson about his thoughts on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s ‘Freedom Watch’ being cancelled by Fox Business. Johnson said that it was unfortunate and a blow to liberty and that the movement needs to keep moving forward regardless of losing such an important and honest show for the libertarian faithful. He also added that he will appear on the last episode, as he was asked earlier in the day and said “yes”.

That was pretty much it for round two. I took a step back and let all the other people ask questions, plus I was starving and tired of standing so I sat down at the bar and ordered a steak and whiskey. Bill Still, another Libertarian Party presidential candidate, came down to the lobby but quickly left before I even had the chance to approach him. A few minutes later, someone came over to me and announced that Mr. Still would be at the T.G.I. Friday’s down the street if anyone wanted to pick his brain. By the time I got and ate my steak, a lot of time and liquor had passed and I didn’t feel like drunkenly walking a third of a mile through the rain in the dark in an unfamiliar place was the best idea. I opted to go back to my room and write this article instead.

One thing I want to point out before I end this, is that no other candidate apart from Johnson and in the end, Mr. Still, even made an attempt to come down and mingle with the people who would ultimately be voting for them. Those who hold the fate of the candidates in their hands were only entertained by Gary Johnson and Bill Still, who weirdly took his show off-site. The fact that the lesser-known guys were M.I.A. was odd. You think they’d be out lobbying for support and in all honesty, I’m completely puzzled as to why they weren’t. Maybe they think that opposing Gary Johnson is a losing battle. If that’s the case, drop out, go home and let the big boys play the game.

What would happen if the Federal Reserve was shut down permanently?  That is a question that CNBC asked recently, but unfortunately most Americans don’t really think about the Fed much. Most Americans are content with believing that the Federal Reserve is just another stuffy government agency that sets our interest rates and that is watching out for the best interests of the American people.  But that is not the case at all.  The truth is that the Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel that has been designed to systematically destroy the value of our currency, drain the wealth of the American public and enslave the federal government to perpetually expanding debt.  During this election year, the economy is the number one issue that voters are concerned about.  But instead of endlessly blaming both political parties, the truth is that most of the blame should be placed at the feet of the Federal Reserve.  The Federal Reserve has more power over the performance of the U.S. economy than anyone else does.  The Federal Reserve controls the money supply, the Federal Reserve sets the interest rates and the Federal Reserve hands out bailouts to the big banks that absolutely dwarf anything that Congress ever did.  If the American people are ever going to learn what is really going on with our economy, then it is absolutely imperative that they get educated about the Federal Reserve.

The following are 10 things that every American should know about the Federal Reserve….

#1 The Federal Reserve System Is A Privately Owned Banking Cartel

The Federal Reserve is not a government agency.

The truth is that it is a privately owned central bank.  It is owned by the banks that are members of the Federal Reserve system.  We do not know how much of the system each bank owns, because that has never been disclosed to the American people.

The Federal Reserve openly admits that it is privately owned.  When it was defending itself against a Bloomberg request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Reserve stated unequivocally in court that it was“not an agency” of the federal government and therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

In fact, if you want to find out that the Federal Reserve system is owned by the member banks, all you have to do is go to the Federal Reserve website….

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations–possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

Foreign governments and foreign banks do own significant ownership interests in the member banks that own the Federal Reserve system.  So it would be accurate to say that the Federal Reserve is partially foreign-owned.

But until the exact ownership shares of the Federal Reserve are revealed, we will never know to what extent the Fed is foreign-owned.

CONTINUED at The Economic Collapse.

As Chinese take up a big position on gold, COMEX commodity speculator positions begin to surge.

The spot market price of buying Gold climbed to $1728 an ounce Monday morning London time – a slight drop from last week’s close – while stock markets, commodities and the Euro all fell and government bond prices rose as European leaders met for their latest summit in Brussels.

The cost of buying Silver fell to $33.08 at one point – a 2.6% drop from where it ended last week.

Gold fell as low as $1718 per ounce Monday morning, dropping steadily during Asian trading, though this represented a loss of only 1% on Friday’s closing price.

CHINA

“Everybody seemed to be expecting profit taking out of Shanghai after the two Chinese bourses came back online,” said one Hong Kong dealer.

“As far as we can see, there wasn’t much of that.”

During last week’s Lunar New Year holiday, China saw a “gold rush”, with consumers spending more on buying gold than during the 2011 festival, according to a China Daily report.

“People seem crazy about gold, snatching it up more like a cheap cabbage than such a precious metal,” it quotes Beijing resident Miao Miao.

The value of sales at two of Beijing’s top gold retailers, Caibai and Guohua, reportedly hit 600 million Yuan ($95.28 million) – a 49.7% rise on last year’s sales, almost 50% increase in purchases! The gold price in Dollars meantime rose around 25% over the same period.

The Yuan also appreciated against the Dollar over that time, gaining around 3.6%, which implies a rise in Chinese domestic gold prices of around 20%.

CONTINUED at Commodity Online.