Olduvaiblog: Musings on the coming collapse

Home » Posts tagged 'Canada News'

Tag Archives: Canada News

Ebola Virus Outbreak Spreads To Canada | Zero Hedge

Ebola Virus Outbreak Spreads To Canada | Zero Hedge.

The last few days has seen a sudden jump in the news headlines about one of the deadliest viruses known to man. Ebola haemorrhagic fever has prung up in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone but now, as BBC reports, a man is in hospital in Canada with symptoms of a haemorrhagic fever resembling the Ebola virus, a health official has said.

“Ebola” is in the news again…

  • *GUINEA CONFIRMS EBOLA AS SOURCE OF EPIDEMIC, AFP REPORTS
  • *LIBERIA SAYS FIVE DIE OF EBOLA IN NORTH OF COUNTRY
  • *TWO SUSPECTED CASES OF EBOLA IN SIERRA LEONE, AFP SAYS

 

 

And that is definitley not a good thing…

As The BBC reports, Canada is now the latest nation to have a potential case…

The man had recently returned from Liberia in the west African region, currently suffering a deadly outbreak of an unidentified haemorrhagic fever.

He is in isolation in critical condition in Saskatoon, the largest city in Saskatchewan province.

Dr Denise Werker, the province’s deputy chief medical officer, declined to say how long the man had been in Africa but said he only fell ill after returning to Canada.

She said that was in line with the profile of common deadly haemorrhagic fever viruses Lassa fever and Ebola, which have an incubation period of up to 21 days.

She said the people most at risk were healthcare workers who do not protect themselves from contact with the patient’s bodily secretions.

“There is no risk to the general public,” she said. “We recognise that there is going to be a fair amount of concern and that is why we wanted to go public with this as soon as possible.”

A virus resembling Ebola has struck in Guinea, with cases also reported in Liberia.

As many as 61 people have died of the disease in the remote forests of southern Guinea.

Canada’s Finance Minister Flaherty Resigns Unexpectedly | Zero Hedge

Canada’s Finance Minister Flaherty Resigns Unexpectedly | Zero Hedge.

In a surprising development out of Canada’s cabinet, moments ago the finance minister, Jim Flaherty, a noted deficit hawk and proponent of paying down government debt, just announced his resignation.

  • CANADA FINANCE MINISTER FLAHERTY RESIGNS FROM CABINET
  • FLAHERTY SAYS DECISION TO LEAVE POLITICS WAS NOT RELATED IN ANY WAY TO HIS HEALTH

As Bloomberg and Globe and Mail add, Flaherty said he’s stepping down to pursue work in the private sector. “Yesterday, I informed the Prime Minister that I am resigning from Cabinet,” Flaherty said today in a statement e-mailed by his office. “This was a decision I made with my family earlier this year, as I will be returning to the private sector.”

“As I begin another chapter in my life, I leave feeling fulfilled with what we have accomplished as a government and a country during one of the most challenging economic periods in our country’s history,” he said.

Flaherty said there’s “no doubt” Canada will balance its budget as promised in the year starting April 2015, and said the decision isn’t related to his health issues

Still, there is rife speculation that it was indeed his health that was the reason for this unexpected resignation. Either way, Canada’s housing mess will now be someone else’s problem.

Canada's Finance Minister Flaherty Resigns Unexpectedly | Zero Hedge

Canada’s Finance Minister Flaherty Resigns Unexpectedly | Zero Hedge.

In a surprising development out of Canada’s cabinet, moments ago the finance minister, Jim Flaherty, a noted deficit hawk and proponent of paying down government debt, just announced his resignation.

  • CANADA FINANCE MINISTER FLAHERTY RESIGNS FROM CABINET
  • FLAHERTY SAYS DECISION TO LEAVE POLITICS WAS NOT RELATED IN ANY WAY TO HIS HEALTH

As Bloomberg and Globe and Mail add, Flaherty said he’s stepping down to pursue work in the private sector. “Yesterday, I informed the Prime Minister that I am resigning from Cabinet,” Flaherty said today in a statement e-mailed by his office. “This was a decision I made with my family earlier this year, as I will be returning to the private sector.”

“As I begin another chapter in my life, I leave feeling fulfilled with what we have accomplished as a government and a country during one of the most challenging economic periods in our country’s history,” he said.

Flaherty said there’s “no doubt” Canada will balance its budget as promised in the year starting April 2015, and said the decision isn’t related to his health issues

Still, there is rife speculation that it was indeed his health that was the reason for this unexpected resignation. Either way, Canada’s housing mess will now be someone else’s problem.

Civilisation Is Doomed Warns Safa Motesharri’s Nasa-Funded Study

Civilisation Is Doomed Warns Safa Motesharri’s Nasa-Funded Study.

Huffington Post UK  |  Posted: 17/03/2014 08:30 GMT  |  Updated: 17/03/2014 08:59 GMT

civilisation doomed

Civilisation is almost inevitably doomed, a Nasa-funded study has found.

Human society is founded on a level of economic and environmental stability which almost certainly cannot be sustained, it said.

The study used simplified models of civilisation designed to experiment with the balance of resources and climate that creates stability – or not – in our world.

These theoretical models – designed to extrapolate from simple principles the future of our industrialised world – ran into almost intractable problems.

Almost any model “closely reflecting the reality of the world today… we find that collapse is difficult to avoid”, the report said.

Mathematician Safa Motesharri begins his report by stating that “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history” and that this is borne out by maths, as well as historiography.

“The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent.”

roman ruins

Above: civilisations have risen and fallen throughout history
His research – funded by Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Center and published int he Ecological Economics journal – explored the pressures that can lead to a collapse in civilisation.

These criteria include changes in population, climate change and natural disasters. Access to water, agriculture, and energy are also factors.

Motesharri found that problems with each of these is far more damaging when experienced in combination with another. When this occurs the result is often an “economic stratification” and “stretching of resources” which drags at society’s foundations.

Under this highly simplified model, our society appears to be doomed.

In one of his simulations:

“[Ours] appears to be on a sustainable path for quite a long time, but even using an optimal depletion rate and starting with a very small number of Elites, the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society. It is important to note that this Type-L collapse is due to an inequality-induced famine that causes a loss of workers, rather than a collapse of Nature”

He added that elites tend to have a vested interest in sustaining the current model – however doomed – for as long as possible, regardless of the eventual negative outcome:

“While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory ‘so far’ in support of doing nothing.”

There are caveats, of course. The study is a simplified model of society, not a perfect simulation, and it isn’t able to make solid predictions of the future. It’s also worth noting that Motesharri does allow for the possibility that “collapse can be avoided” – though he thinks it will be exceptionally difficult.

Indeed, as the Guardian reports, other studies by the UK Government and KPMG have also warned of a “perfect storm” of energy scarcity and economy fragility coming within a few decades, which lends weight to his conclusion.

Oh, and then there are the robots.

Civilisation Is Doomed Warns Safa Motesharri's Nasa-Funded Study

Civilisation Is Doomed Warns Safa Motesharri’s Nasa-Funded Study.

Huffington Post UK  |  Posted: 17/03/2014 08:30 GMT  |  Updated: 17/03/2014 08:59 GMT

civilisation doomed

Civilisation is almost inevitably doomed, a Nasa-funded study has found.

Human society is founded on a level of economic and environmental stability which almost certainly cannot be sustained, it said.

The study used simplified models of civilisation designed to experiment with the balance of resources and climate that creates stability – or not – in our world.

These theoretical models – designed to extrapolate from simple principles the future of our industrialised world – ran into almost intractable problems.

Almost any model “closely reflecting the reality of the world today… we find that collapse is difficult to avoid”, the report said.

Mathematician Safa Motesharri begins his report by stating that “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history” and that this is borne out by maths, as well as historiography.

“The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent.”

roman ruins

Above: civilisations have risen and fallen throughout history
His research – funded by Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Center and published int he Ecological Economics journal – explored the pressures that can lead to a collapse in civilisation.

These criteria include changes in population, climate change and natural disasters. Access to water, agriculture, and energy are also factors.

Motesharri found that problems with each of these is far more damaging when experienced in combination with another. When this occurs the result is often an “economic stratification” and “stretching of resources” which drags at society’s foundations.

Under this highly simplified model, our society appears to be doomed.

In one of his simulations:

“[Ours] appears to be on a sustainable path for quite a long time, but even using an optimal depletion rate and starting with a very small number of Elites, the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society. It is important to note that this Type-L collapse is due to an inequality-induced famine that causes a loss of workers, rather than a collapse of Nature”

He added that elites tend to have a vested interest in sustaining the current model – however doomed – for as long as possible, regardless of the eventual negative outcome:

“While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory ‘so far’ in support of doing nothing.”

There are caveats, of course. The study is a simplified model of society, not a perfect simulation, and it isn’t able to make solid predictions of the future. It’s also worth noting that Motesharri does allow for the possibility that “collapse can be avoided” – though he thinks it will be exceptionally difficult.

Indeed, as the Guardian reports, other studies by the UK Government and KPMG have also warned of a “perfect storm” of energy scarcity and economy fragility coming within a few decades, which lends weight to his conclusion.

Oh, and then there are the robots.

Are We Fully Understanding the Consequences of Oil Transit Accidents? | Nick Martyn

Are We Fully Understanding the Consequences of Oil Transit Accidents? | Nick Martyn.

Recent events in Canada’s rail transport network have prompted a much-needed national debate about the risks of energy transport and rail safety. No matter our personal stance regarding climate change, we all live in an oil dependant society and until we find another way to power the global economy and our civil society, oil and gas will have to move from where it is found to where it is used. In Canada that largely means it will move either via pipeline or rail. But when a pipeline leaks or oil tankers derail, the risks of oil transit are thrown into stark relief; especially for the residents of communities in the immediate vicinity and the ecosystems affected.

Broadly speaking, risk is thought of as the “possibility of loss.” It is generally viewed as the combination of the likelihood of loss and the consequences of that loss. Likelihood, otherwise known as the “probability of occurrence”, is the foundation of actuarial science; which underpins the insurance industry. Probability suggests that if historical trends continue and the future cooperates with the past, then the likelihood of something occurring can be calculated to a sufficient degree that insurance against the event could be issued with a reasonable chance that it would not have to be paid. In essence a bet is laid against the event. If the event occurs then the insurer has to pay out. If it does not then the insurer makes money.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada declared 2013 the worst year on record for insurance related payouts, meaning that insurers will pay out a lot of money because the future did not cooperate with the past and the unlikely happened. The object lesson here is that while likelihood is interesting, consequences are costly.

As we seek export markets for Canadian energy products, so the volume of those products in transit increases. Eric Sprott, the renowned Canadian resource investor notes in his January 27, 2014 newsletter that by the end of 2013 Canada’s rail industry was shipping 375,000 barrels of oil per day and that figure is expected to each 900,000 barrels per day by the end of 2014. As for a pipeline, Sprott believes the Energy East pipeline will get the go-ahead and will increase Canada’s export capacity by 800,000 barrels. Since Canada has not added significantly to its pipeline infrastructure in decades, there is little choice but to ship it via the rail network, which coincidentally has not been significantly increased in decades. When both the nature and the volume of rail traffic increases on a network that has not appreciably increased in size or capability the “likelihood” of failure events also increases, as do the consequences.

To date consequence has been considered somewhat subjective and therefore less quantifiable than likelihood, partly because each stakeholder sees consequence differently. For instance the Mayor of a community thinks of the consequence of a train derailment and spill in the community in a much different way than the CEO of the rail company or the owner of the shipment. The cold hard reality is that no matter how small the statistical likelihood that derailments will happen, the consequences when derailments happen are significant. As events increase in frequency and it seems severity, it is clearly time to rethink our evaluation of risk in rail transport.

While the probability that a train-load of inappropriately classified oil products would careen down a hill in rural Quebec and explode, killing 47 people and contaminating a fragile lake ecosystem was so infinitesimally small as to be almost incalculable, the consequences were devastating and will be felt for generations. The policies that drive rail system regulation (or any system for that matter) are driven by the likelihood of a failure not the consequences. In part this is because it is difficult to foresee every event and frame a regulation to prevent it, but also because the risk analysis techniques to quantify consequence in a useful way, to date, have not existed.

Risk analysis techniques have improved markedly in recent years, to the point that networked risk analysis tools can fathom the pathways of exposure to risk in models containing thousands of entities. Given the complexity and importance of the energy transport question in Canada and the severe and sometimes tragic consequences of failure, it seems time to revisit the question of energy transport risk with modern tools so that no matter which side of the energy debate we stand on, we have a safer, cleaner Canada to live in and to pass on to our children.

Are We Fully Understanding the Consequences of Oil Transit Accidents? | Nick Martyn

Are We Fully Understanding the Consequences of Oil Transit Accidents? | Nick Martyn.

Recent events in Canada’s rail transport network have prompted a much-needed national debate about the risks of energy transport and rail safety. No matter our personal stance regarding climate change, we all live in an oil dependant society and until we find another way to power the global economy and our civil society, oil and gas will have to move from where it is found to where it is used. In Canada that largely means it will move either via pipeline or rail. But when a pipeline leaks or oil tankers derail, the risks of oil transit are thrown into stark relief; especially for the residents of communities in the immediate vicinity and the ecosystems affected.

Broadly speaking, risk is thought of as the “possibility of loss.” It is generally viewed as the combination of the likelihood of loss and the consequences of that loss. Likelihood, otherwise known as the “probability of occurrence”, is the foundation of actuarial science; which underpins the insurance industry. Probability suggests that if historical trends continue and the future cooperates with the past, then the likelihood of something occurring can be calculated to a sufficient degree that insurance against the event could be issued with a reasonable chance that it would not have to be paid. In essence a bet is laid against the event. If the event occurs then the insurer has to pay out. If it does not then the insurer makes money.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada declared 2013 the worst year on record for insurance related payouts, meaning that insurers will pay out a lot of money because the future did not cooperate with the past and the unlikely happened. The object lesson here is that while likelihood is interesting, consequences are costly.

As we seek export markets for Canadian energy products, so the volume of those products in transit increases. Eric Sprott, the renowned Canadian resource investor notes in his January 27, 2014 newsletter that by the end of 2013 Canada’s rail industry was shipping 375,000 barrels of oil per day and that figure is expected to each 900,000 barrels per day by the end of 2014. As for a pipeline, Sprott believes the Energy East pipeline will get the go-ahead and will increase Canada’s export capacity by 800,000 barrels. Since Canada has not added significantly to its pipeline infrastructure in decades, there is little choice but to ship it via the rail network, which coincidentally has not been significantly increased in decades. When both the nature and the volume of rail traffic increases on a network that has not appreciably increased in size or capability the “likelihood” of failure events also increases, as do the consequences.

To date consequence has been considered somewhat subjective and therefore less quantifiable than likelihood, partly because each stakeholder sees consequence differently. For instance the Mayor of a community thinks of the consequence of a train derailment and spill in the community in a much different way than the CEO of the rail company or the owner of the shipment. The cold hard reality is that no matter how small the statistical likelihood that derailments will happen, the consequences when derailments happen are significant. As events increase in frequency and it seems severity, it is clearly time to rethink our evaluation of risk in rail transport.

While the probability that a train-load of inappropriately classified oil products would careen down a hill in rural Quebec and explode, killing 47 people and contaminating a fragile lake ecosystem was so infinitesimally small as to be almost incalculable, the consequences were devastating and will be felt for generations. The policies that drive rail system regulation (or any system for that matter) are driven by the likelihood of a failure not the consequences. In part this is because it is difficult to foresee every event and frame a regulation to prevent it, but also because the risk analysis techniques to quantify consequence in a useful way, to date, have not existed.

Risk analysis techniques have improved markedly in recent years, to the point that networked risk analysis tools can fathom the pathways of exposure to risk in models containing thousands of entities. Given the complexity and importance of the energy transport question in Canada and the severe and sometimes tragic consequences of failure, it seems time to revisit the question of energy transport risk with modern tools so that no matter which side of the energy debate we stand on, we have a safer, cleaner Canada to live in and to pass on to our children.

It Wouldn’t Be Canada Without Quebec | Cynthia Reyes

It Wouldn’t Be Canada Without Quebec | Cynthia Reyes.

If you’re not Canadian — and even if you are — you might wonder why some people are fretting about the potential break-up of our country — yet again.

You may be surprised to learn that some of the Canadians most concerned about this are immigrants. People like me.

I came here in the 1970’s. Went to university, launched an award-winning career, married a great guy, bought our first house and raised our children together — here, in Canada. I’ve worked in every province, and the Northwest Territories, of Canada. I have relatives and friends here.

Canada is home.

Most of the places and people I write about in my book, A Good Home, are right here in Canada.

Even now, when the winter has finally driven me crazy and I’ve been making up silly poems beginning with lines such as: “No ifs, ands or buts, This winter has driven me nuts…” Even now, I love this country. It’s not where I was born, but it’s where I will be buried.

My love affair with Canada ignited, not in Ontario, where I landed, but in the history of French Canada — particularly Quebec. I experienced it only in the books I studied at university. I’d never even been to Quebec.

“New France”, the French called their new outpost. Settled in the 1600′s by French soldiers, priests, woodcutters — and the destitute orphans, peasants and street women who came to the new colony to marry them (except for the priests!) and populate the colony.

In 1759-60, British forces defeated the French, formally taking over New France in 1763. But even in the 1980′s – when I worked as a journalist and producer for Canada’s public broadcaster — Quebec’s early history, and that historic loss, seemed present.

“Je me souviens”, Quebec license plates read, starting in 1978. “I remember.”

Fast-forward several years, and I’m now an executive producer/ head of journalism training for the CBC. On the international front, I’m also Secretary General of INPUT, a public television organization based in Italy and Canada.

Back home in Canada, the province of Quebec was threatening to separate from Canada. But it was in Italy — while having supper in a Florence restaurant with an international group of TV luminaries — that I was confronted with the real likelihood of it.

My favorite person at the table was Helene, a passionate and outspoken producer from Quebec.

An Irish colleague asked Helene: “Would Quebec really separate from Canada?”

Helene didn’t miss a beat. “We have to go,” she said.

Helene was my closest friend in INPUT. But realizing her dream of a new country meant tearing my country apart. I, who had felt the pain of the conquered Quebecois, was now solidly on the other side of this fight.

“My Canada includes Quebec,” I said, reduced by shock to talking in slogans. “I don’t want you to go.”

“I know, Cynthia,” she said, pronouncing my name Cyn-te-ah. “I’m really sorry. But we have to go.” The words flew from her mouth like bullets to my heart.

My Canada included Quebec. It also included the Aboriginal peoples, the original inhabitants of Quebec. They, too, had suffered historical losses. My Canada included English Canada and French Canada and the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.

On October 30, 1995, I was in downtown Montreal, where many of the shopkeepers are immigrants. Rue Ste Catherine; St. Dennis: I wandered these streets and others whose names I was too upset to notice. It was Referendum Day. Quebeckers were voting. By day’s end, Canadians would know if we were still a country.

The streets were almost deserted that day, the shopkeepers downcast. It was as if the mourning for Canada had already begun.

Surprisingly, the separatists were defeated. Narrowly. Some blamed Quebec’s immigrants for the loss. They’d voted overwhelmingly against separation.

I imagined Helene’s grief, her dream denied. But for the first time since I’d met her, I didn’t know how to console her. Because Canada, my adopted home, would stay together. At least for now.

There is separatist talk again in Quebec. And it scares me. Again.

It Wouldn't Be Canada Without Quebec | Cynthia Reyes

It Wouldn’t Be Canada Without Quebec | Cynthia Reyes.

If you’re not Canadian — and even if you are — you might wonder why some people are fretting about the potential break-up of our country — yet again.

You may be surprised to learn that some of the Canadians most concerned about this are immigrants. People like me.

I came here in the 1970’s. Went to university, launched an award-winning career, married a great guy, bought our first house and raised our children together — here, in Canada. I’ve worked in every province, and the Northwest Territories, of Canada. I have relatives and friends here.

Canada is home.

Most of the places and people I write about in my book, A Good Home, are right here in Canada.

Even now, when the winter has finally driven me crazy and I’ve been making up silly poems beginning with lines such as: “No ifs, ands or buts, This winter has driven me nuts…” Even now, I love this country. It’s not where I was born, but it’s where I will be buried.

My love affair with Canada ignited, not in Ontario, where I landed, but in the history of French Canada — particularly Quebec. I experienced it only in the books I studied at university. I’d never even been to Quebec.

“New France”, the French called their new outpost. Settled in the 1600′s by French soldiers, priests, woodcutters — and the destitute orphans, peasants and street women who came to the new colony to marry them (except for the priests!) and populate the colony.

In 1759-60, British forces defeated the French, formally taking over New France in 1763. But even in the 1980′s – when I worked as a journalist and producer for Canada’s public broadcaster — Quebec’s early history, and that historic loss, seemed present.

“Je me souviens”, Quebec license plates read, starting in 1978. “I remember.”

Fast-forward several years, and I’m now an executive producer/ head of journalism training for the CBC. On the international front, I’m also Secretary General of INPUT, a public television organization based in Italy and Canada.

Back home in Canada, the province of Quebec was threatening to separate from Canada. But it was in Italy — while having supper in a Florence restaurant with an international group of TV luminaries — that I was confronted with the real likelihood of it.

My favorite person at the table was Helene, a passionate and outspoken producer from Quebec.

An Irish colleague asked Helene: “Would Quebec really separate from Canada?”

Helene didn’t miss a beat. “We have to go,” she said.

Helene was my closest friend in INPUT. But realizing her dream of a new country meant tearing my country apart. I, who had felt the pain of the conquered Quebecois, was now solidly on the other side of this fight.

“My Canada includes Quebec,” I said, reduced by shock to talking in slogans. “I don’t want you to go.”

“I know, Cynthia,” she said, pronouncing my name Cyn-te-ah. “I’m really sorry. But we have to go.” The words flew from her mouth like bullets to my heart.

My Canada included Quebec. It also included the Aboriginal peoples, the original inhabitants of Quebec. They, too, had suffered historical losses. My Canada included English Canada and French Canada and the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.

On October 30, 1995, I was in downtown Montreal, where many of the shopkeepers are immigrants. Rue Ste Catherine; St. Dennis: I wandered these streets and others whose names I was too upset to notice. It was Referendum Day. Quebeckers were voting. By day’s end, Canadians would know if we were still a country.

The streets were almost deserted that day, the shopkeepers downcast. It was as if the mourning for Canada had already begun.

Surprisingly, the separatists were defeated. Narrowly. Some blamed Quebec’s immigrants for the loss. They’d voted overwhelmingly against separation.

I imagined Helene’s grief, her dream denied. But for the first time since I’d met her, I didn’t know how to console her. Because Canada, my adopted home, would stay together. At least for now.

There is separatist talk again in Quebec. And it scares me. Again.

RBC Among 16 Banks Sued By U.S. Over Rigging Of Key Interest Rate

RBC Among 16 Banks Sued By U.S. Over Rigging Of Key Interest Rate.

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is suing 16 big banks, including the Royal Bank of Canada (TSX:RY), for alleged rigging of a key global interest rate.

The FDIC accuses them of fraud and conspiring to keep the rate low to enrich themselves.

The banks, which also include Bank of America, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase in the U.S., are among the world’s largest.

The FDIC says it is seeking to recover losses suffered from the rate manipulation by 10 U.S. banks that failed during the financial crisis and were taken over by the agency.

The civil lawsuit was filed Friday in federal court in Manhattan.

The banks rigged the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, from August 2007 to at least mid-2011, the FDIC alleged. The Libor affects trillions of dollars in contracts around the world, including mortgages, bonds and consumer loans.

%d bloggers like this: