You can say many of the same things about MBS, CDO's, SIV's, and other great 'innovations' of Wall Street. They are not pro-social. They're magic tricks for Wall St. magicians. They do not deliver broadly-distributed benefits for all of society, like a true innovation does.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Innovations?
So many things that are actually no good at all are disguised as 'innovations'. Derivatives were celebrated as innovations, but they're only useful for investors at the highest level, who use gigantic levels of capital and leverage and supercompu
You can say many of the same things about MBS, CDO's, SIV's, and other great 'innovations' of Wall Street. They are not pro-social. They're magic tricks for Wall St. magicians. They do not deliver broadly-distributed benefits for all of society, like a true innovation does.
You can say many of the same things about MBS, CDO's, SIV's, and other great 'innovations' of Wall Street. They are not pro-social. They're magic tricks for Wall St. magicians. They do not deliver broadly-distributed benefits for all of society, like a true innovation does.
Clogged Arteries
Even the honest politicians who know that obedience to the central banking corporation has placed us on an unsustainable fiscal course are nervous about what comes next if we cut our losses and go back to constitutional money, because they recognize that not only is the Fed's grip secured by the debt obligations they have charged against us, their grip is secured by the inevitable turmoil they will cause if we try to transition away from the Fed.
At this point, I hope most people have caught on that the Fed is in this for the Fed ( ignore the media trying to cast Bernanke as the savior ), but people struggle to describe an America without the Fed, or explain what it will take to get there.
We need politicians to get past that fear, and we need to throw out the ones who are obvious agents of Wall Street. If we don't, every trend of the past century accelerates. We can jump out of the bus when it's going 60 mph and probably live, but when we're hurtling into default at 200 mph, we won't even have the chance to jump out of the bus. Unless we want to borrow and borrow and pay compound interest until we have a massive fiscal heart attack, we better change our diet. All these interest charges are clogging our arteries.
At this point, I hope most people have caught on that the Fed is in this for the Fed ( ignore the media trying to cast Bernanke as the savior ), but people struggle to describe an America without the Fed, or explain what it will take to get there.
We need politicians to get past that fear, and we need to throw out the ones who are obvious agents of Wall Street. If we don't, every trend of the past century accelerates. We can jump out of the bus when it's going 60 mph and probably live, but when we're hurtling into default at 200 mph, we won't even have the chance to jump out of the bus. Unless we want to borrow and borrow and pay compound interest until we have a massive fiscal heart attack, we better change our diet. All these interest charges are clogging our arteries.
Mismanagement Of Money
I think that debt and taxes are more like their engines of control. They don't really need the interest payments as much as they need for people to have obligations to their system. They have 1000 times more money than anyone can use already, but lending it out and making people follow a schedule of payments is still an essential population management tool. When people are on a hamster wheel of debt service, they behave predictably, and if they don't, the 'debt and taxes' system will swiftly crack the whip on them to remind them.
The elites are a tiny minority, so it is critically important that all money flow through their hands at one point or another- otherwise, the masses would recognize how useless and debilitating they are, and throw them off their backs. For the elites to hold their status, the masses must remain convinced that money requires management and that there must be a designated class placed in charge of money.
Money does not require management- it requires protection from mismanagement. The quantity of money and the price paid to rent it will find appropriate levels faster if humans ( who will always act in their own narrow self-interest ) are prevented from managing the money supply. No one would even bother managing the money supply unless they saw a way to manipulate it to their own advantage, and clearly, that is what motivates those who do manage it.
The elites are a tiny minority, so it is critically important that all money flow through their hands at one point or another- otherwise, the masses would recognize how useless and debilitating they are, and throw them off their backs. For the elites to hold their status, the masses must remain convinced that money requires management and that there must be a designated class placed in charge of money.
Money does not require management- it requires protection from mismanagement. The quantity of money and the price paid to rent it will find appropriate levels faster if humans ( who will always act in their own narrow self-interest ) are prevented from managing the money supply. No one would even bother managing the money supply unless they saw a way to manipulate it to their own advantage, and clearly, that is what motivates those who do manage it.
Wall Street's Top Ten Lies, 2009
Posted in reply to this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/wall-streets-10-biggest-l_b_399759.html
Shouldn't the first lie listed be the same lie that we've been told every year for 96 years? That lie being this:
"The Federal Reserve is not a private corporation, does not operate the monetary system for the profit of its owners, does not purposely create boom and bust cycles, does not act against the best interests of the American wage earners."
That lie should be at the top of any list like this, every year.
Everything else on your list is useful for explaining why we trudge through Wall Street's elephant dung year in and year out, but you can't talk about the dung without describing the biggest elephant dropping it.
Shouldn't the first lie listed be the same lie that we've been told every year for 96 years? That lie being this:
"The Federal Reserve is not a private corporation, does not operate the monetary system for the profit of its owners, does not purposely create boom and bust cycles, does not act against the best interests of the American wage earners."
That lie should be at the top of any list like this, every year.
Everything else on your list is useful for explaining why we trudge through Wall Street's elephant dung year in and year out, but you can't talk about the dung without describing the biggest elephant dropping it.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Prices and Value
People were warning that 'the reality was the unreal' when they looked at the wreckage of the fiat/speculation system in the 1930's, too. And then they herded together and marched right back into the same house of mirrors and voodoo.
That's the amazing power of the fictional wealth matrix- the mechanism can, in its early stages, add painless zeros onto the ends of incomes and assets, and that makes the public happy and complacent ( and forgetful about what lies on the other side of the mountain, even when the history books show it ). It works like magic. When you first borrow your 'new wealth', you don't even feel the burden. It's nearly weightless. In the beginning, it feels like the fountain of youth rejuvenating the economy.
People need to wake up and stop counting prices as a measure of wealth. When you're adding zeros to your income or to your home price, what you're really doing is acting as a thermometer for how much debt is entering the system. Price and value are two different things. In a fiat system, something's price is 'value' X 'the amount of paper money prepared to pay for it'. The same loaf of bread can be 25 cents in a sane money system and $100 in a money system spinning out of control. The bread has the same value in both cases, but the prices are night and day.
That's the amazing power of the fictional wealth matrix- the mechanism can, in its early stages, add painless zeros onto the ends of incomes and assets, and that makes the public happy and complacent ( and forgetful about what lies on the other side of the mountain, even when the history books show it ). It works like magic. When you first borrow your 'new wealth', you don't even feel the burden. It's nearly weightless. In the beginning, it feels like the fountain of youth rejuvenating the economy.
People need to wake up and stop counting prices as a measure of wealth. When you're adding zeros to your income or to your home price, what you're really doing is acting as a thermometer for how much debt is entering the system. Price and value are two different things. In a fiat system, something's price is 'value' X 'the amount of paper money prepared to pay for it'. The same loaf of bread can be 25 cents in a sane money system and $100 in a money system spinning out of control. The bread has the same value in both cases, but the prices are night and day.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Central Bank Is Anti-Free Market
A huge fear of any central bank is that the people will lend their profits to each other- thus eliminating demand for the debt offered by the central bank. That would create a true free market, as you point out- the central bank is anti-free market. Their ambition is to establish monopolistic control over the supply of credit, centralized in one money center: NYC.
Why Not Default?
To escape the march of death we're on, we would have to begin paying off the principal of our debt. Not only can we not make any headway against the principal, we can't even keep up with the *interest payments* on the principal out of what we generate ourselves. We have to take on new debt just to keep up with the interest. This is like starting a new credit card to pay the interest payments on your other credit cards.
We're trapped. To break out of the prison described in your quote, we would have to smash through one ( or possibly both ) of the walls.
A- Stop handing over native assets to our creditors.
B- Stop finding new creditors to supply the funds we need to service our existing creditors.
If we don't default on our paper, the paper will bury us.No other way out of this boa constrictor of debt.
We're trapped. To break out of the prison described in your quote, we would have to smash through one ( or possibly both ) of the walls.
A- Stop handing over native assets to our creditors.
B- Stop finding new creditors to supply the funds we need to service our existing creditors.
If we don't default on our paper, the paper will bury us.No other way out of this boa constrictor of debt.
Emphasis
The emphasis on stabilizing the banks has, unsurprisingly, stabilized the banks.
The emphasis on re-capitalizing the banks has, unsurprisingly, resulted in zero interest money going from the Fed into the front doors of the banks and then out the back doors of the banks into the bond market and the stock market, where it boils away, doing nothing for the real economy.
The other 99% of the country continues to watch the jobs dry up and the dollar stumble towards the edge of the cliff.
The emphasis on re-capitalizing the banks has, unsurprisingly, resulted in zero interest money going from the Fed into the front doors of the banks and then out the back doors of the banks into the bond market and the stock market, where it boils away, doing nothing for the real economy.
The other 99% of the country continues to watch the jobs dry up and the dollar stumble towards the edge of the cliff.
Rules
If banks can't abide by accounting rules, then what does that tell us? It tells me that they can't be trusted with any more money. I mean seriously- the banks are granted the right to lend on fractional reserves, and even with this power to counterfeit at their disposal, they still cry 'help us!'??
Rat In A Snake
There's trillions in new money in the system, but it's in suspended animation or it's churning the speculative markets, because if it is released into the world of goods and services, it will ignite even more inflation.
I'm reminded of a picture of a snake with a digesting rat bulging out of the midpoint of its tract.
I'm reminded of a picture of a snake with a digesting rat bulging out of the midpoint of its tract.
States Going Broke
Let all 50 states establish their own 'Federal Reserve'-style bank, and they'll print endless fiat currency to cover every bill and benefit... the states can just stack up state-issued bonds, and point to those when anyone asks what backs their money. What a brilliant idea!
Oh, wait... we can't let the states do that. That system is ridiculous. You can't just make money up out of nothing. That's absurd.
Right?
Oh, wait... we can't let the states do that. That system is ridiculous. You can't just make money up out of nothing. That's absurd.
Right?
Hunter-Gatherer
The banking regulators have always been in partnership with the vultures. Who else are they going to sell the distressed properties back to, except for the vultures who engineered the crisis, capitalized themselves, and then laid in wait for the government fire sale?
The government serves as the 'hunter-gatherer' of the assets that are redistributed into the peak of the pyramid.
The government serves as the 'hunter-gatherer' of the assets that are redistributed into the peak of the pyramid.
1929!
Fall 1929 can't be examined separately from 1913-1929 and 1930-1941. People talk about the October Crash like it was a surprise event, when it was the most anticipated and predictable event of its time for those inside the financial establishment- just like dot com, just like sub prime. The aftermaths of all three 'crash's ( more like terrorist bombings... ) were all planned out when the respective fuses were lit.
Too Big To Flush
Changing 'mark to market' permitted the banks to present fantasy books, and the government overpaid for some of the worst assets on their ledgers ( corpses, really ). This let the Wall Street crew pump their share prices back up ( BOA, CITI ) and then these banks promptly issued new offerings of secondary shares at the inflated prices built on phony accounting. The market sucked in a lot more money out of pension funds, etc., to buy these new shares. Now the credit default swaps have adjusted to what is supposed to be a lower risk of failure for these banks, but this is just phony derivatives responding to phony share prices.
The whole house of cards has a weaker foundation than ever.Everything that was rotting in 2007 and 2008 and 2009 will continue to rot in 2010 and the government will keep papering over the rot. Except now the commercial real estate is joining the bonfire of rotting assets.
The whole house of cards has a weaker foundation than ever.Everything that was rotting in 2007 and 2008 and 2009 will continue to rot in 2010 and the government will keep papering over the rot. Except now the commercial real estate is joining the bonfire of rotting assets.
Vortex
Even if the government were to raise taxes to their maximum and seize 100% of all wages, salaries and corporate profits, it still would be showing an annual deficit, using generally accepted accounting practices.
If the government stopped spending every penny (including defense and homeland security) other than for Social Security and Medicare obligations, the government still would be showing an annual deficit.
The retirement and medical care benefits promised to future retirees will become part of the greatest bait and switch of all time. A Ponzi scheme that Madoff would be proud of. That future is not far off.
If the government stopped spending every penny (including defense and homeland security) other than for Social Security and Medicare obligations, the government still would be showing an annual deficit.
The retirement and medical care benefits promised to future retirees will become part of the greatest bait and switch of all time. A Ponzi scheme that Madoff would be proud of. That future is not far off.
Malinvestment
Speculation on securitized debt-backed assets qualifies as malinvestment. These 'financial innovations' attract malinvestment. That's capital that is absent from the real economy. Wall Street built a shadow economy that progressively siphoned off money that would traditionally be reinvested into actual production.
Kill The Zombies
Why even bother nationalizing these zombie companies- unless you want to move deeper into a corporate/state economy ( fascism )? The time to walk away from bad investments is early, and our investments in banks and insurers are bad investments. We're propping up zombie companies that actually deplete economic energy even when they're quote unquote 'healthy'- all they do is repackage debt and resell it at a higher cost. Why are we saving them? Their contributions are negative in the best of times.
If government spending makes up a greater and greater share of your GDP, that's a signal that your economy is in decay. It's also a signal that our 'experiment with capitalism' has been in retreat for a long time. Government spending cannot drive the economy in anything other than a communist state. Government has no money of its own. Everything they spend is either borrowed ( using the people as collateral ) or collected through taxes.
If government spending makes up a greater and greater share of your GDP, that's a signal that your economy is in decay. It's also a signal that our 'experiment with capitalism' has been in retreat for a long time. Government spending cannot drive the economy in anything other than a communist state. Government has no money of its own. Everything they spend is either borrowed ( using the people as collateral ) or collected through taxes.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Cold Water
We have reached a tipping point already regarding our future creditworthiness. USA, Inc.'s financial statement looks worse than any zombie bank's I've seen. But because it takes so long for a behemoth the size of the US to sink below the waterline once the irreversible final act begins, most people just aren't conscious of how much water is already in the hull. ( Or most people are just brainwashed, drugged out, dumbed down, and purposely ignoring the alarms going off...there's always that explanation. )
I'm not looking forward to the hyperinflationary phase ahead, when all these people are shocked out of their stupors and forced to learn the 100 years of monetary reality they've been ignoring their whole lives... in a week.
"Wake up, kids! Time to take that red pill. Lesson One: In 1913, an illegal central bank was established, and real money began to disappear from the American landscape.
People hit with that much cold water in the face all at once are bound to be disoriented, irrational and unpredictable.
I'm not looking forward to the hyperinflationary phase ahead, when all these people are shocked out of their stupors and forced to learn the 100 years of monetary reality they've been ignoring their whole lives... in a week.
"Wake up, kids! Time to take that red pill. Lesson One: In 1913, an illegal central bank was established, and real money began to disappear from the American landscape.
People hit with that much cold water in the face all at once are bound to be disoriented, irrational and unpredictable.
More Bourbon, Anyone?
Deflation is necessary to flush malinvestment and credit bubbles out of the system. The rationale given for this 'stimulus' policy is like an alcoholic insisting that the road to his recovery starts with him tripling his intake of bourbon. America has a credit-soaked liver but it doesn't want to hear that it's last call- addicts never do.
Extra Zero, Anyone?
Inflation punishes the people who didn't gorge themselves on credit for the past decade. The people who wisely lived within their means and saved money for a rainy day are having their savings destroyed if they keep them in dollars. Savings accounts are paying less than 1%, true inflation is over 5%, and taxes take another cut. The purported 'healing powers' of inflation are phony, but because people are susceptible to any 'quick fix' snake oil offered, people can't see the consequences of inflating the money supply...they read Page 1, "MORE MONEY!", and then they stop. "Yay! I'm saved!".
Sure you are. It's like drawing an extra zero on your ten dollar bill and telling yourself you just made ninety dollars.
Sure you are. It's like drawing an extra zero on your ten dollar bill and telling yourself you just made ninety dollars.
A or B or Both?
"There's a limit to how long we can live off past wealth generated by our ancestors and foreign borrowing against our remaining assets."
That's a good way of putting it. Unfortunately, we're trapped. To escape the march of death we're on, we would have to begin paying off the principal of our debt. Not only can we not make any headway against the principal, we can't even keep up with the *interest payments* on the principal out of what we generate ourselves. We have to take on new debt just to keep up with the interest. This is like starting a new credit card to pay the interest payments on your other credit cards.
We're trapped. To break out of the prison described in your quote, we would have to smash through one ( or possibly both ) of the walls.
A- Stop handing over native assets to our creditors.
B- Stop finding new creditors to supply the funds we need to service our existing creditors.
If we don't default on our paper, the paper will bury us.No other way out of this boa constrictor of debt.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Interlocked
The corporations are interlocked at the next level above. There is a government, but it is top down vertical integration in its purest form. All power flows from the peak of the pyramid, through the corporations and then through the visible governments. It's certainly important to emphasize that corporations have overpowered the visible governments, but no one should ever forget that there is another government above the corporate level. The world IS governed, very strictly.
Obviously, it's a hugely naive mistake to believe that corporations answer to the visible governments or to believe in the relevance of the major political parties, but it is also a huge mistake to believe that world events are the product of a corporate free-for-all. The corporations move the visible governments but the hidden ruling bodies move the corporations.
Obviously, it's a hugely naive mistake to believe that corporations answer to the visible governments or to believe in the relevance of the major political parties, but it is also a huge mistake to believe that world events are the product of a corporate free-for-all. The corporations move the visible governments but the hidden ruling bodies move the corporations.
The Phony Panic Of 2008
We would not be seeing a 'real' depression if the banks didn't extort those trilions- this is demonstrated by the fact that the banks hoarded the money or poured it back into the speculative markets, and the depression didn't follow. The real economy hit a ledge all on its own. The TARP didn't provide a parachute at all.
We will be seeing a real depression for one primary reason- the bankers installed an unconstitutional fiat money system, and they always implode when the debt can no longer be serviced. No rescue of the banks makes sense, because the banks and their corrupt monetary system are the tumors themselves. Bailing them out is like bailing out cancer.
In the near term, the revitalized monster of Wall Street is prepping right now to shear off the top off their phony pump and dump markets again and give the poor defenseless propagandized cattle another push off the ledge and down the hillside. And then they'll have the gall to extort another ransom payment.
The idea that Wall Street is a domino that takes out the whole economy if it falls is a myth. Of course Wall Street tells you that they're indispensable to the general economy- they want you to rush to their rescue when they indulge in excessive gambling and fraud and burn their greasy fingers on their own smoldering waste products- but the reality is that Wall Street consumes more out of the economy than it provides. Think 'tape worm'
We will be seeing a real depression for one primary reason- the bankers installed an unconstitutional fiat money system, and they always implode when the debt can no longer be serviced. No rescue of the banks makes sense, because the banks and their corrupt monetary system are the tumors themselves. Bailing them out is like bailing out cancer.
In the near term, the revitalized monster of Wall Street is prepping right now to shear off the top off their phony pump and dump markets again and give the poor defenseless propagandized cattle another push off the ledge and down the hillside. And then they'll have the gall to extort another ransom payment.
The idea that Wall Street is a domino that takes out the whole economy if it falls is a myth. Of course Wall Street tells you that they're indispensable to the general economy- they want you to rush to their rescue when they indulge in excessive gambling and fraud and burn their greasy fingers on their own smoldering waste products- but the reality is that Wall Street consumes more out of the economy than it provides. Think 'tape worm'
Keynes Was A Globalist And Probably A Communist
Keynesian economics doesn't work. The government doesn't earn anything, so it can only spend borrowed money. Or money seized through taxes.
Have you ever met anyone you considered successful who only spent money he borrowed from someone else?? That person isn't contributing anything meaningful into the economy.
If the private sector scales back spending, it's for a very good reason: demand is saturated. It's foolish to try and defy the law of supply and demand by pumping a bunch of government debt into the economy.
Keynes was a globalist. His ideas are as discredited as globalization.
Have you ever met anyone you considered successful who only spent money he borrowed from someone else?? That person isn't contributing anything meaningful into the economy.
If the private sector scales back spending, it's for a very good reason: demand is saturated. It's foolish to try and defy the law of supply and demand by pumping a bunch of government debt into the economy.
Keynes was a globalist. His ideas are as discredited as globalization.
Instant Debt Consolidation
You cannot pay down a debt that is increasing because of compound interest with taxes. There is no ceiling on compound interest charges. They are in effect infinite. The reservoir of tax revenue is finite.
Taxes can never be raised enough to keep up with the compound interest generated by a fiat money supply. You will choke off all incentive to earn if you even try it.
You cannot cancel out compound interest charges by reducing current spending. The interest is compounding on old spending that is on the books forever.
You must end the Fed and exile or imprison all the owners of the Fed.
Then you default on all debts charged to the American citizens by our unconstitutional central bank.
Then you promise war on any creditor that seeks to take American assets or soil in return for some phony paper crap issued by the illegal, parasitical, predatory central bank.
Once you do all that, you de-globalize America and vow to never repeat the mistakes made during the century we were enslaved by money changers.
Taxes can never be raised enough to keep up with the compound interest generated by a fiat money supply. You will choke off all incentive to earn if you even try it.
You cannot cancel out compound interest charges by reducing current spending. The interest is compounding on old spending that is on the books forever.
You must end the Fed and exile or imprison all the owners of the Fed.
Then you default on all debts charged to the American citizens by our unconstitutional central bank.
Then you promise war on any creditor that seeks to take American assets or soil in return for some phony paper crap issued by the illegal, parasitical, predatory central bank.
Once you do all that, you de-globalize America and vow to never repeat the mistakes made during the century we were enslaved by money changers.
Fiat
Stupidest system ever, the fiat and fractional reserve system. Stupidest and most criminal. The introduction of new money ( backed by debt and nothing else ) continually wipes out the value of the money that preceded it, and penalizes those who save and rewards those who live on debt. Production of any product is supposed to generate wealth. Production of fiat money does the opposite.
Adding zeros does not increase value. When a house that once cost $20,000 now costs $200,000, that's not a sign of a healthy economy, that's a sign of a failing currency.
Every mechanism of a fiat monetary system benefits freeloaders, usurers, and those who are the most reckless with money- those who produce in this economy are used as collateral to arrange loans for those who waste.
Adding zeros does not increase value. When a house that once cost $20,000 now costs $200,000, that's not a sign of a healthy economy, that's a sign of a failing currency.
Every mechanism of a fiat monetary system benefits freeloaders, usurers, and those who are the most reckless with money- those who produce in this economy are used as collateral to arrange loans for those who waste.
The Bureaucratic System Is Un-Democratic
Globalism is the antithesis of free market capitalism, they're oil and water. Globalists build order out of chaos- 'order' being a euphemism for 'a completely managed global state'.
Disasters like the toxic securities are thoroughly planned financial terrorism- in the ensuing chaos, the ruling class capitalizes on the demands for order that arise in the aftermath of these completely unsurprising 'surprise' events, by offering its business partner, Big Government, as the only solution. And so the cycle continues.
Ludwig Von Mises
Disasters like the toxic securities are thoroughly planned financial terrorism- in the ensuing chaos, the ruling class capitalizes on the demands for order that arise in the aftermath of these completely unsurprising 'surprise' events, by offering its business partner, Big Government, as the only solution. And so the cycle continues.
"There cannot be any doubt that this bureaucratic system is essentially anti-liberal, undemocratic, and un‑American, that it is contrary to the spirit and to the letter of the Constitution, and that it is a replica of the totalitarian methods of Stalin and Hitler. It is imbued with a fanatical hostility to free enterprise and private property. It paralyzes the conduct of business and lowers the productivity of labor. By heedless spending it squanders the nation’s wealth. It is inefficient and wasteful. Although it styles what it does planning, it has no definite plans and aims. It lacks unity and uniformity; the various bureaus and agencies work at cross‑purposes. The outcome is a disintegration of the whole social apparatus of production and distribution. Poverty and distress are bound to follow."
Ludwig Von Mises
Liberals In Fantasy World Continue To Insist That Clinton 'Got America Out Of Debt'
No, Bill Clinton did not 'get America out of debt'.
Fiscal Year Ending National Debt
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion
There are two major components to the federal debt- the public debt and the intergovernmental debt. Clinton reduced the public debt and increased the intergovernmental debt. When combined together, the total debt grew 1993-2001.
Fiscal Year Ending National Debt
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion
There are two major components to the federal debt- the public debt and the intergovernmental debt. Clinton reduced the public debt and increased the intergovernmental debt. When combined together, the total debt grew 1993-2001.
Let The Skies Open Up
I hope the gangsters who own the Fed do try and take revenge for the potential audit and sabotage the economy. That will be more proof of what traitors they are. Let this be the beginning of the end for their unconstitutional deathlock on our monetary system. About time that this country woke up to the real distribution of power in America. We can build a new honest money system from the ground up in about a month.
Two huge immediate benefits from a dead Federal Reserve Note:
It will end our reliance on imports, and it will retire us as the world's military police force.
The biggest threat we face from an end to the Fed is this: they may try and harness the US to an even more secretive and predatory global bank.
Two huge immediate benefits from a dead Federal Reserve Note:
It will end our reliance on imports, and it will retire us as the world's military police force.
The biggest threat we face from an end to the Fed is this: they may try and harness the US to an even more secretive and predatory global bank.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Cold > Flu? No.
The biggest lie of 2008 was the lie that 'If Wall Street catches a cold, the general economy catches the flu'. Not true. The domino effect is hugely exaggerated. The private banks produce nothing. They sell debt. The whole process is adding digits to computer entries. They're not supplying a crop, or timber, or energy, or even something like software code. They expand the money supply with loans. That's all. In the event of a collapse of every private lender, the treasury could take over the task of adding new money into the system.
Sure, the casino would crash, but even that wouldn't topple over the general economy. In fact, that would be the first step towards ending the emphasis on speculative profits that distorts the media's coverage of business in America. The DOW and NASDAQ are not the real economy. They're measurements of a layer of gambling that rides on top of the general economy. This distorted picture of the real economy has infected the general public and led many of them to repeated shearings inside a series of designed bubbles.
Sure, the casino would crash, but even that wouldn't topple over the general economy. In fact, that would be the first step towards ending the emphasis on speculative profits that distorts the media's coverage of business in America. The DOW and NASDAQ are not the real economy. They're measurements of a layer of gambling that rides on top of the general economy. This distorted picture of the real economy has infected the general public and led many of them to repeated shearings inside a series of designed bubbles.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Virus and Cannibals
The commercial banks and mortgage hustlers collaborated to infect the financial system with a virus, and then the investment banks and hedge funds gambled on the success of the virus to extract interest from the initial prey ( the homeowners who were unqualified credit risks ) for a period of time before the hosts keeled over. The inevitable happened to the subprime market and eventually spread to better grade mortgages, dragging down the government backstops of Fannie and Freddie with them. ( Obviously, everyone involved knew that this would be a con game with a predictable life span- the appetite for credit default swaps proves that. )
Then, when the fraud was exposed, it all boomeranged back against the share prices of the top tier banks ( the 'too big to fails' ). The cannibalistic system turned against itself, and the shorts swarmed all over the financial sector stocks, causing them to sink fast, and forcing huge banks to be merged into even bigger banks.These bigger banks panicked because now the waste paper was on their books, so they ran to the government for 'profit protection' insurance, in the form of an emergency bailout. This bailout ( handout ) was sold to the people as 'market stabilization', but it actually did nothing to rescue the foreclosed or to free up lending- instead, shares in the crooked banks were purchased, to keep the shareholders from suffering.
This whole bailout has been an exercise in insulating the super-wealthy owners of the banks and the wealthy speculators on banking stocks from exposure to the losses generated by what was essentially widespread securities fraud.
Then, when the fraud was exposed, it all boomeranged back against the share prices of the top tier banks ( the 'too big to fails' ). The cannibalistic system turned against itself, and the shorts swarmed all over the financial sector stocks, causing them to sink fast, and forcing huge banks to be merged into even bigger banks.These bigger banks panicked because now the waste paper was on their books, so they ran to the government for 'profit protection' insurance, in the form of an emergency bailout. This bailout ( handout ) was sold to the people as 'market stabilization', but it actually did nothing to rescue the foreclosed or to free up lending- instead, shares in the crooked banks were purchased, to keep the shareholders from suffering.
This whole bailout has been an exercise in insulating the super-wealthy owners of the banks and the wealthy speculators on banking stocks from exposure to the losses generated by what was essentially widespread securities fraud.
Republic
The framers saw a republic as the strongest barricade *against* a democracy. Modern politicians from both parties have deliberately removed the word 'republic' from their vocabulary because they want Americans to forget that they ever had a republic.
Market Manipulations
"Making these trades transparent would tell all of Wall Street exactly what security the Fed is buying."
The idea that a Fed audit would make these market manipulations an open book throughout the year in real time is ridiculous. A Fed audit would be an annual event. It would not mean that the Fed's daily chicanery would be conducted in full view of any interested party.
Besides, a select group of primary dealers already knows what securities the Fed is buying- they're the ones assigned with the task of executing the market manipulations. The Fed farms all this out to various brokers and hedge funds. The Fed's hand is evident in the futures markets every day. There's no real mysterious voodoo to how they rig the markets, or any mystery about who they rig them for. It's a bonanza of insider trading info and endless opportunities to front run the market for the privileged kingpins. This is why private control over monetary policy is the Holy Grail for the banking cartel- you get to make the market your servant. If you are making the market, you reduce your risk exposure dramatically.
The Fed has relentlessly debased the currency , presided over a roller coaster of bubbles and crashes, and enabled politicians to bury us in red ink funding wars all around the globe. How anyone could think that the Fed has earned the right to continue on with business as usual amazes me.
The Fed Puts Global Interests Above National Interests
The Fed is constantly making moves for the benefit of the *global* economy, which may or may not be the best moves for the sovereign economy of the United States ( which hardly is sovereign any more, thanks in large part to the Fed ).
The existing audit is not an audit at all. The Fed holds all the cards. It would be like if an individual faced an IRS audit and escaped any questions about sources of income or distribution of write-offs and expenses. The Fed delivers a 'black box' financial report just like the 'black box' financial reports that enabled Enron to hide what they were up to for years.
The existing audit is not an audit at all. The Fed holds all the cards. It would be like if an individual faced an IRS audit and escaped any questions about sources of income or distribution of write-offs and expenses. The Fed delivers a 'black box' financial report just like the 'black box' financial reports that enabled Enron to hide what they were up to for years.
Nothing Amiss?
“"The audit will find nothing amiss."
Why doesn't Ben Bernanke have the same relaxed attitude about HR1207 as you do?
The only thing that will cause economic uncertainty will be retaliatory action by the Fed's owners. Because the Fed's owners are equivalent to a gang of hijackers, they are likely to harm their hostages if their sanctuary is stormed. They already proved that they will terrorize the public to get what they want. In September 2008, the Plunge Protection Team turned into the Plunge Creation Team and drilled big holes in the markets when the first vote on TARP denied their bailout of corporate welfare.
Principles Of Sound Money
The principles of sound money are the same in any era, so I don't buy the argument that the founders' warnings about private banks and fiat money do not still resonate today . The lines between good money and bad money and good banking and bad banking are the same in 2009 or in 1789.
Money is a representation of other wealth that is compact, difficult to counterfeit, and enduring enough to serve as a medium of exchange. A unit of money is a stand in for an hour of labor or a gallon of gas or a loaf of bread, the interface that allows producer and consumer and laborer to all conduct commerce using a mutually-agreed upon form of money.
An honest money supply looks identical in 2009 or 1789 or 1089. The problem is that the Fed is not managing an honest modern money supply.
The Fed has transplanted a completely fiat monetary supply which is debt-backed. Honest money is supposed to be backed by a commodity that holds value and has a supply that is limited by human labor or production.
Debt frequently loses value ( sometimes totally ), and the debt load can be increased endlessly until a complete bankruptcy occurs.Debt-backed money is completely unhinged from the restraints of honest money.
The only thing gluing the money supply together is trust ( and fear of abandoning the FRN ). 'trust' and 'fear' are not commodities, they're states of mind.
Money is a representation of other wealth that is compact, difficult to counterfeit, and enduring enough to serve as a medium of exchange. A unit of money is a stand in for an hour of labor or a gallon of gas or a loaf of bread, the interface that allows producer and consumer and laborer to all conduct commerce using a mutually-agreed upon form of money.
An honest money supply looks identical in 2009 or 1789 or 1089. The problem is that the Fed is not managing an honest modern money supply.
The Fed has transplanted a completely fiat monetary supply which is debt-backed. Honest money is supposed to be backed by a commodity that holds value and has a supply that is limited by human labor or production.
Debt frequently loses value ( sometimes totally ), and the debt load can be increased endlessly until a complete bankruptcy occurs.Debt-backed money is completely unhinged from the restraints of honest money.
The only thing gluing the money supply together is trust ( and fear of abandoning the FRN ). 'trust' and 'fear' are not commodities, they're states of mind.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Borrow More To Grow?
It still comes back to this: if our GDP genuinely was growing, our borrowing wouldn't be. Our borrowing is growing. More borrowing will aggravate that trend. I've never heard of an alcoholic saying that he needs to increase his drinking to get off the booze, but that seems to the advice given here: 'Borrow more, so we can grow faster!' Doesn't compute for me.
Origins Of The Internet
The origins of the internet happen to be in government because it was spawned by the military-industrial complex and the university research community, but the commercial internet that we all use did not need government to create it. The commercial internet evolved the same as other communications industries like telephone and television and radio: once the internet was opened for public use, consumer demand generated private investment in products and services for the internet.
The government did not 'create' the commercial internet sector any more than the government created the automobile industry by building the highway system. If the government had tried to create both the highway system and the auto industry, we would certainly have had a worse auto industry. The auto industry blossomed into one of the greatest engines of employment ever in this country because it was not centrally managed from Washington.
The government did not 'create' the commercial internet sector any more than the government created the automobile industry by building the highway system. If the government had tried to create both the highway system and the auto industry, we would certainly have had a worse auto industry. The auto industry blossomed into one of the greatest engines of employment ever in this country because it was not centrally managed from Washington.
Globalization's Failure for America
The only countries that need global trade are the countries that lack resources of their own- they sell themselves as cheap labor because they need to import much of what they use. Those countries needed to go begging for investment.
Before globalization, the US had both resources *and* a well-paid labor force. Thanks to globalization, the US imports more of what it already had the capacity to make for itself and has less of what every country needs: a well-paid labor force.
Great job, America. Really great.
Before globalization, the US had both resources *and* a well-paid labor force. Thanks to globalization, the US imports more of what it already had the capacity to make for itself and has less of what every country needs: a well-paid labor force.
Great job, America. Really great.
Reckless Overspending
tangoparisienne: "how do you propose we stimulate the economy without spending?"
The problems we have with the economy come from reckless overspending. Overspending with borrowed money put us in this hole. We foolishly thought we could replace wealth earned through internal production with wealth borrowed from the speculative/casino economy, and then we spent ourselves silly on imported goods. That's not real money, it's paper bubble money, and it's not real prosperity, it's debt peonage.
We need to immediately take control of the monetary system away from the illegal Federal Reserve, end our overseas military presence, dedicate our defense spending to the defense of the 50 states, period, and then slap giant tariffs on every import until we end trade deficits and make what we consume. This will dry up fictional capital and redistribute wealth back into the hands of the people willing to earn an honest living.
Globalization is a scam. We need to unwind it all and disconnect ourselves from all institutions that facilitated the transfer of America's productive capacity overseas.
Better Idea: Stop Debt Payments
Borosage: "Pay off the public debt now and drive the economy into a deeper recession"
Why pay it off? America's constitution specifically prohibits the management of the monetary system by a privately-owned banking cartel. I fail to see why we should make another interest payment on a bond, note or bill auctioned by the corporation that hijacked our monetary system in 1913. How did the US finish on the victorious side of two world wars in the twentieth century and end up owing 12 trillion dollars?? I thought that victors got the spoils of war.
Obviously, the monetary system has been run in a manner contrary to the best interests of US citizens. The 97 year reign of the federal reserve has hung a dozen trillion in debt around our necks. The problem of collecting on that debt belongs to the corporation that created it, not to the American people.
The Federal Reserve has presided over a completely unlawful robbery of the American people to fund globalist wars. Time to cut that anchor loose.
We should default on the debt and re-establish a constitutional monetary system. Clearly, the debt is worth more to our creditors than their paper is worth to us. The time is ripe to ignore that debt, not service it.
Two Kinds Of Money- Neither Is Free
Robert Borosage: "borrowing money and spending it, puts money into the economy, it doesn't take it out."
It certainly does take money out of the economy. Where do the payments on the compounding interest come from, but from the economy? Just because they are amortized does not mean that the payments don't exist- immediately.
There are two kinds of money. The first kind is earned, the second is borrowed. The government spends taxes and borrowed money, which is the more expensive of the two.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Government Is Not An Investor, Part 2
The origins of the internet happen to be in government because it was spawned by the military-industrial complex and the university research community, but the commercial internet that we all use did not need government to create it. The commercial internet evolved the same as other communications industries like telephone and television and radio: once the internet was opened for public use, consumer demand generated private investment in products and services for the internet.
The government did not 'create' the private sector internet sector any more than the government created the automobile industry by building the highway system. If the government had tried to create both the highway system and the auto industry, we would certainly have had a worse auto industry. The auto industry blossomed into one of the greatest engines of employment ever in this country because it was not centrally managed from Washington.
The government did not 'create' the private sector internet sector any more than the government created the automobile industry by building the highway system. If the government had tried to create both the highway system and the auto industry, we would certainly have had a worse auto industry. The auto industry blossomed into one of the greatest engines of employment ever in this country because it was not centrally managed from Washington.
Government Is Not An Investor
A centralized government is never better at recognizing profitable investments than the private sector. Government is not an investor. Investment is defined as 'taking money that you EARNED and then using that money to create more money'. Government does not earn money. Government can only redistribute money that it takes from citizens.
Government cannot amplify the power of wealth in an economy by taking it from one citizen and giving it to another, because government must support the costs of its own existence. Wealth shrinks in the hands of government. Government intervention slows down the real economy and misallocates funds because a central government can never anticipate the needs of an economy better than the people who are living in that economy can.
Government cannot amplify the power of wealth in an economy by taking it from one citizen and giving it to another, because government must support the costs of its own existence. Wealth shrinks in the hands of government. Government intervention slows down the real economy and misallocates funds because a central government can never anticipate the needs of an economy better than the people who are living in that economy can.
The Myth Of Government As Private Sector Job Creator
The myth of the government as 'job creator' is nonsense. Government can only consume wealth, not create it, and government should only consume the wealth necessary to fund services that the private sector has no incentive to perform, nothing more.
If governments could create wealth, they wouldn't need taxes. Governments need taxes because governments are a net drain on the economy. After all, what does government have to contribute to the economy, other than *money that was already in the hands of the people to begin with*??
Government cannot take taxes from the people and then return that money into the economy in a more potent state. Think about it. If you had a corn farm and your neighbor was hungry for corn, would you hire a government worker to take a bushel of your corn to Washington in taxes and then bring the corn back to your neighbor? Of course not. That would be a completely inefficient way to create the relationships between corn farmer/farm worker/corn consumer. You would hire your neighbor to help pick your corn to feed his family. How does government contribute anything to that relationship but waste?
The only way government has ever helped private sector job creation is by tax cuts and tax rebates. This was proven by the immediate surges in market energy produced by 'cash for clunkers' and the homeowner tax credit. When people are keeping more of their money, they put more of their money into the economy.
There are only three roles for a human being in an economy. We all occupy two of the roles, and some of us occupy three of the roles. Those roles are:
Employer
Employee
Consumer
Most of us serve as both consumer and employee, a smaller number serve as employer and consumer. Unless the government is serving as the employer for work that can only be organized by the government ( military, police, infrastructure, etc. ), government has no role in the economy. Government jobs are a socialist sector of the economy that exist alongside the market economy. You don't strengthen a market economy by giving government a greater role, because government can only act in a socialist manner.
If there is a genuine need for employees in the market, the market will put them to work. If there is a product that is genuinely worth buying, the consumers will buy it. In all sectors of the economy other than the sector covering work that is traditionally and exclusively organized by the government, government intervention is a hindrance, not a help. There is never a need for a government to broker work between employer and employee in the private sector. If the need for workers and the need for work are genuine, the arrangements between worker and employer will form naturally. No government intervention is required.
If governments could create wealth, they wouldn't need taxes. Governments need taxes because governments are a net drain on the economy. After all, what does government have to contribute to the economy, other than *money that was already in the hands of the people to begin with*??
Government cannot take taxes from the people and then return that money into the economy in a more potent state. Think about it. If you had a corn farm and your neighbor was hungry for corn, would you hire a government worker to take a bushel of your corn to Washington in taxes and then bring the corn back to your neighbor? Of course not. That would be a completely inefficient way to create the relationships between corn farmer/farm worker/corn consumer. You would hire your neighbor to help pick your corn to feed his family. How does government contribute anything to that relationship but waste?
The only way government has ever helped private sector job creation is by tax cuts and tax rebates. This was proven by the immediate surges in market energy produced by 'cash for clunkers' and the homeowner tax credit. When people are keeping more of their money, they put more of their money into the economy.
There are only three roles for a human being in an economy. We all occupy two of the roles, and some of us occupy three of the roles. Those roles are:
Employer
Employee
Consumer
Most of us serve as both consumer and employee, a smaller number serve as employer and consumer. Unless the government is serving as the employer for work that can only be organized by the government ( military, police, infrastructure, etc. ), government has no role in the economy. Government jobs are a socialist sector of the economy that exist alongside the market economy. You don't strengthen a market economy by giving government a greater role, because government can only act in a socialist manner.
If there is a genuine need for employees in the market, the market will put them to work. If there is a product that is genuinely worth buying, the consumers will buy it. In all sectors of the economy other than the sector covering work that is traditionally and exclusively organized by the government, government intervention is a hindrance, not a help. There is never a need for a government to broker work between employer and employee in the private sector. If the need for workers and the need for work are genuine, the arrangements between worker and employer will form naturally. No government intervention is required.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
No Such Thing As A 'Climate Denier'
There is no such thing as a climate change denier. Everyone knows that the climate changes. The debate is over how much is under our control.
There are many Americans who oppose expensive and bloody wars against an enemy that is not geographically based, because it is an exaggerated response to an exaggerated threat. Do you call such people 'terrorism deniers', just because they think that occupying Iraq for twenty years doesn't solve anything?
A 'War on CO2' is as misguided as a War on Terror, for the exact same reason. It's an exaggerated response against an exaggerated threat. ( But, like the War on Terror, the war on CO2 can keep a lot of well-connected people and corporations lots and lots of money. )
There are many Americans who oppose expensive and bloody wars against an enemy that is not geographically based, because it is an exaggerated response to an exaggerated threat. Do you call such people 'terrorism deniers', just because they think that occupying Iraq for twenty years doesn't solve anything?
A 'War on CO2' is as misguided as a War on Terror, for the exact same reason. It's an exaggerated response against an exaggerated threat. ( But, like the War on Terror, the war on CO2 can keep a lot of well-connected people and corporations lots and lots of money. )
Medieval
Johann Hari: "Every single year since 1917 has been hotter than 1917. Every single year since 1956 has been hotter than 1956. Every single year since 1992 has been hotter than 1992. "
During the first century of the Medieval Warm Period, someone could have written this: "Every single year since 1000 has been hotter than 1000. Every single year since 1056 has been hotter than 1056. Every single year since 1092 has been hotter than 1092."
The Earth warmed for about two centuries, until around 1200. Then a decline began, and around 1350, the Little Ice Age started.
I wonder if people guessed correctly in the 11th century that the Sun was causing that warming trend?
'New Ice Age' Fearmongering From The 1970's
'New Ice Age' fearmongering was everywhere in the 1970's. It proved to be as fantastical as their sea level predictions from the 1990's.
Phony Leftist Environmentalists Silent About Environmental Damage Caused By Globalization That They Promoted
If the Left was serious about cutting carbon emissions, they would be supporting immediate emergency protectionist measures for the US economy that sharply cut how many imported goods we buy from the other side of the globe. Transporting goods from Chinese factories to US stores is completely environmentally reckless. This won't happen, because the environmental ramifications of global 'free' trade are shielded from criticism by the corporate media, and the phony Left only repeats back what the corporate media pumps into them.
Interlocked
The latest recession had nothing to with unfettered capitalism- it was produced by an alliance of crony capitalists who operate an interlocked network of cartels and trusts under the protection of a dominant central government. A con game enabled by a government that ran interference for the con artists.
That's what everyone seems to miss. There was no 'absence of government'. Government has been purchased, fortified, and used to enforce markets in favor of an elite club of insiders.
Now this same network of crony capitalists has vastly exaggerated the threat of greenhouse gases ( nearly all of which are produced by sources other than human industry ) in order to impose even greater centralized ( globalized ) command over world commerce.
That's what everyone seems to miss. There was no 'absence of government'. Government has been purchased, fortified, and used to enforce markets in favor of an elite club of insiders.
Now this same network of crony capitalists has vastly exaggerated the threat of greenhouse gases ( nearly all of which are produced by sources other than human industry ) in order to impose even greater centralized ( globalized ) command over world commerce.
Friday, December 4, 2009
The Sweat Did Not Warm The Horse
The AGW disciples have it all backwards. if you take a thoroughbred horse and run it full out for a mile and a quarter, the horse's body temperature will rise, and sweat will shine on his torso. The AGW disciples would look at the horse's sweat and say, "Ah hah! I have detected sweat on this warm horse. This has convinced me that the sweat has caused this horse's body temperature to rise!"
The horse's sweat is an aftereffect of his exertion. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is an aftereffect of a warmed earth, not the engine of earth warmth. It is expelled in greater quantities from the oceans after the sun warms the oceans. The next biggest contributors of CO2 are volcanoes. Man's contribution is minor. Remove man from the equation, CO2 still rises and falls due to other greater forces. Remove CO2 from the equation, and earth temps still rise and fall due to other greater forces.
The horse's sweat is an aftereffect of his exertion. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is an aftereffect of a warmed earth, not the engine of earth warmth. It is expelled in greater quantities from the oceans after the sun warms the oceans. The next biggest contributors of CO2 are volcanoes. Man's contribution is minor. Remove man from the equation, CO2 still rises and falls due to other greater forces. Remove CO2 from the equation, and earth temps still rise and fall due to other greater forces.
Row Your Earth
The statement that 'Climate change is fueled by human activity' does not equal this statement, 'the course of climate change can be reversed or substantially redirected by human action'.
A human can row a paddle off the side of a 60 foot sailboat and state that, technically, he is 'fueling the boat's movements', but that doesn't mean that he has made an appreciable difference to the propulsion provided by the sails.
A human can row a paddle off the side of a 60 foot sailboat and state that, technically, he is 'fueling the boat's movements', but that doesn't mean that he has made an appreciable difference to the propulsion provided by the sails.
Bernie Sanders On Bernanke
Sanders: "The American people overwhelmingly voted last year for a change in our national priorities to put the interests of ordinary people ahead of the greed of Wall Street and the wealthy few. "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/where-was-the-fed_b_380239.htmlI really do wish the American people had cast that vote, but they didn't. After Congress caved in and voted through TARP after the first vote failed ( despite the public polls showing opposition to TARP at 10-1 against ), the American people should have marched to the polls in November and voted out every single incumbent who voted for TARP. Americans failed to do that. Did the American people vote against the candidate for President with the most Wall Street funding? No. They chose Obama.
Until Americans actually learn to use the power of the ballot box for someone outside the two-party system, they're not going to see much change in national priorities.
Extreme Is The New Mainstream?
Responding to his column: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-levin-jd/sarahs-dance-with-conspir_b_379831.html
It is impossible for extremism to also be mainstream. How can unpopular ( extreme ) views also be popular ( mainstream ) views?
Conspiracy theories flourish when people suspect that the media have abandoned their responsibility to thoroughly investigate the halls of power. I can almost guarantee that shrieking 'You're an EXTREMIST!' at anyone who holds skeptical views about some officially-sanctioned history is probably not how the dominant media are going to win back the trust of the masses, not after their gross failures to uncover both the fraudulent intelligence that put us in Iraq and the organized looting of the housing bubble before it imploded.
Message to the dominant media: do your jobs better, and the conspiracy theories will lose favor. Demonizing the public for asking questions about things that smell funny will only reinforce the suspicion that the media has traded in its sword for a rubber stamp.
No one has said that government 'always lies'. That would be an extremist view, and it's not my view.
Whenever people start dividing skeptics up into 'healthy' and 'unhealthy', they're headed right down the same path with those who think that free speech can be divided up into 'healthy' and 'unhealthy'. Except for very specific examples ( fire in a theater ), free speech and skepticism share equal boundaries, and that would be 'none'. Any attempts to grade free speech or skepticism are efforts to restrict free speech and skepticism. There can be no objective arbitration of either. All who would attempt to ration skepticism have self-serving motives- most especially anyone carrying the weight of the government or the dominant media.
The public square cannot be cleansed of offensive speech or misguided skepticism by anything other than a police state and organized media censorship. If Americans are so feeble of mind that we require any portion of a police state or a censoring media to rescue us from the thoughts of a Sarah Palin, then we have really lost sight of the big picture.
Sarah Palin is scary?? Really? She's about one one thousandth as scary as a country where people are reluctant to speak their minds for fear of being called 'extremists' or 'unhealthy'.
"extreme is the new mainstream"
It is impossible for extremism to also be mainstream. How can unpopular ( extreme ) views also be popular ( mainstream ) views?
Conspiracy theories flourish when people suspect that the media have abandoned their responsibility to thoroughly investigate the halls of power. I can almost guarantee that shrieking 'You're an EXTREMIST!' at anyone who holds skeptical views about some officially-sanctioned history is probably not how the dominant media are going to win back the trust of the masses, not after their gross failures to uncover both the fraudulent intelligence that put us in Iraq and the organized looting of the housing bubble before it imploded.
Message to the dominant media: do your jobs better, and the conspiracy theories will lose favor. Demonizing the public for asking questions about things that smell funny will only reinforce the suspicion that the media has traded in its sword for a rubber stamp.
quoting comment from J G H:
Their is healthy skepticism which asks questions, but will accept good answers. There is also unhealthy skepticism which assumes that since the government has lied in specific instances in the past, that it always lies. These unhealthy skeptics then turn around and place unwavering faith in non-government sources which have their own flaws. The government does not always lie, and opponents to the government are often wrong, indeed often lie because they want to become the government.
No one has said that government 'always lies'. That would be an extremist view, and it's not my view.
Whenever people start dividing skeptics up into 'healthy' and 'unhealthy', they're headed right down the same path with those who think that free speech can be divided up into 'healthy' and 'unhealthy'. Except for very specific examples ( fire in a theater ), free speech and skepticism share equal boundaries, and that would be 'none'. Any attempts to grade free speech or skepticism are efforts to restrict free speech and skepticism. There can be no objective arbitration of either. All who would attempt to ration skepticism have self-serving motives- most especially anyone carrying the weight of the government or the dominant media.
The public square cannot be cleansed of offensive speech or misguided skepticism by anything other than a police state and organized media censorship. If Americans are so feeble of mind that we require any portion of a police state or a censoring media to rescue us from the thoughts of a Sarah Palin, then we have really lost sight of the big picture.
Sarah Palin is scary?? Really? She's about one one thousandth as scary as a country where people are reluctant to speak their minds for fear of being called 'extremists' or 'unhealthy'.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Goldman Is Arming
Wait, according to what I read in the MSM, I thought that only crazy survivalists bought handguns, in preparation for economic meltdown and a breakdown of law and order??
What is GS trying to tell us?
What is GS trying to tell us?
Carbon Offsets
It's a stroke of genius by the oil companies to get involved in the market for carbon offsets. Not only do they get to continue to sell their product, they get to punish consumers with a tax for buying it- then they take the proceeds from the tax and use it to subsidize the expansion of their own alternative energy companies.
Shell, BP and Rockefellers are big players in the carbon credit exchanges.
Shell, BP and Rockefellers are big players in the carbon credit exchanges.
Price Support
A significant part of the price support on global stock markets is laundered profits from the illegal drug trade. They're a great source of liquidity for the banks, also.
How Can You Declare Victory When The War Is Not A Real War?
Suppose this surge results in something that the administration calls 'victory' in Afghanistan- do you really think this will cause the US to declare victory in the 'War on Terror'? Highly unlikely. The War on Terror is the perfect war for defense contractors, because it has no definable end. They will continue to justify expense and death on the terror rationale for as long as our creditors keep buying our debt.
Drug Money
This is another reason why the dollar continues to hold the support it does- besides being the world's petro dollar, it is also the currency of choice when it comes to international organized crime and the drug cartels. Which of course intertwine with the international terrorist networks, state-sponsored and otherwise.
Linguistic Violence
'linguistic violence' is a good term for it. Using the term 'conspiracy theorist' as a pejorative is an attempt to shut down discussion, and it's pretty ridiculous, considering that in the last 10 years, we've observed elaborate conspiracies to concoct a rationale for war out of invented intelligence and to overrate and distribute corroding bundles of failing mortgages to unsuspecting investors.
Shock and Awe
Every effort to 'finish off' terrorism by unleashing shock and awe on a specific locale waters the tree of terrorism, which can sprout from any soil anywhere.
America Without A Middle Class
Trickle down economics and globalization are not the same thing. They really have very little to do with each other. We opened our borders and allowed capital that should have been working inside this country to flee and hunt for workers in cheaper labor markets. Subconsciously, most of us probably knew that stagnant wages could only be masked by the price breaks we got on cheap imports for so long, but we signed off on the concept of 'borrow from overseas to buy what they make'. We sold ourselves on the promise of a free lunch. There is no free lunch.
Globalization is the bigger villain. This country could have survived lower tax rates on the wealthy if their excess wasn't allowed to pursue so much investment overseas, or allowed to inflate so many speculative bubbles.
I hate to say this, but we went from a nation of people who built things to a nation of people who traded IOU's for the products of others. They worked, we partied.
Wall Street isn't the backbone of a real economy people, sorry. It does not redistribute wealth broadly, it concentrates it into a pyramidal caste system.
Globalization is the bigger villain. This country could have survived lower tax rates on the wealthy if their excess wasn't allowed to pursue so much investment overseas, or allowed to inflate so many speculative bubbles.
I hate to say this, but we went from a nation of people who built things to a nation of people who traded IOU's for the products of others. They worked, we partied.
Wall Street isn't the backbone of a real economy people, sorry. It does not redistribute wealth broadly, it concentrates it into a pyramidal caste system.
Sovereign Debt Crisis
Reply to an excellent column here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-harrison/on-the-sovereign-debt-cri_b_376642.html
a huffpo comment:
The writer seems to have little understanding of how the modern monetary system works. We have a fiat currency system with non-convertible currency. The debt is a reflection of the deficit only in the sense that deficit spending increases bank holdings and the government "borrows" those holdings, or more accurately clears excess reserves to reduce interbank competition and maintain the feds chosen interest rate. The government never "borrows" anything to pay for deficits (nor does it impose taxes to pay for deficits, another repeated fallacy). That's impossible when government owns the currency, which is non-convertible. This is why the debt grows AFTER deficit spending (i.e. the govt. isn't out there trying to drum up business before it spends). The govt. monetary system isn't analogous to you borrowing money and getting a mortgage. When "debt" or more accurately the Interest Rate Management Account becomes due, the government merely credits the account of the bond holder. It does not "print money" to service the debt. In reality, debt is not the issue when the government is managing its economy, its employment and inflation. Stimulus serves to drive down unemployment and taxation serves to stifle demand and lower inflation.
In the current situation of high levels of unemployment along with deflation, worrying about debt, which is of little concern to citizen's economic health, is criminal. I hope Mr. Harrison takes time to understand how the modern monetary system work before posting more pieces that misplace reader's concerns about the economy.
I found the column to be very accurate and your complaints based on inaccuracies.
"The government never "borrows" anything to pay for deficits "
The government does indeed borrow from future income to cover the current shortfall between taxes and expenses. That's what the auctioned Treasuries represent- constant borrowing to pay for budget gaps. Budget gaps are deficits
"government owns the currency, which is non-convertible"
The US government does not own the currency- the government grants the license to the private Federal Reserve that allows the Fed to call the federal reserve notes ( a debt instrument ) 'legal tender'.
"worrying about debt, which is of little concern to citizen's economic health, is criminal."
Sorry, but debt is debt, and it's just as dangerous for the government to ignore an accumulating debt as it is for an individual to do so. Just because adding debt does not produce corresponding, highly visible, and immediate changes in the appearance of the economy does not mean that it is not generating forces that are accelerating as the debt compounds.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-harrison/on-the-sovereign-debt-cri_b_376642.html
a huffpo comment:
The writer seems to have little understanding of how the modern monetary system works. We have a fiat currency system with non-convertible currency. The debt is a reflection of the deficit only in the sense that deficit spending increases bank holdings and the government "borrows" those holdings, or more accurately clears excess reserves to reduce interbank competition and maintain the feds chosen interest rate. The government never "borrows" anything to pay for deficits (nor does it impose taxes to pay for deficits, another repeated fallacy). That's impossible when government owns the currency, which is non-convertible. This is why the debt grows AFTER deficit spending (i.e. the govt. isn't out there trying to drum up business before it spends). The govt. monetary system isn't analogous to you borrowing money and getting a mortgage. When "debt" or more accurately the Interest Rate Management Account becomes due, the government merely credits the account of the bond holder. It does not "print money" to service the debt. In reality, debt is not the issue when the government is managing its economy, its employment and inflation. Stimulus serves to drive down unemployment and taxation serves to stifle demand and lower inflation.
In the current situation of high levels of unemployment along with deflation, worrying about debt, which is of little concern to citizen's economic health, is criminal. I hope Mr. Harrison takes time to understand how the modern monetary system work before posting more pieces that misplace reader's concerns about the economy.
I found the column to be very accurate and your complaints based on inaccuracies.
"The government never "borrows" anything to pay for deficits "
The government does indeed borrow from future income to cover the current shortfall between taxes and expenses. That's what the auctioned Treasuries represent- constant borrowing to pay for budget gaps. Budget gaps are deficits
"government owns the currency, which is non-convertible"
The US government does not own the currency- the government grants the license to the private Federal Reserve that allows the Fed to call the federal reserve notes ( a debt instrument ) 'legal tender'.
"worrying about debt, which is of little concern to citizen's economic health, is criminal."
Sorry, but debt is debt, and it's just as dangerous for the government to ignore an accumulating debt as it is for an individual to do so. Just because adding debt does not produce corresponding, highly visible, and immediate changes in the appearance of the economy does not mean that it is not generating forces that are accelerating as the debt compounds.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
ClimateGate's Phil Jones Resigns
I still intend to fight the dangerous pollutant known as carbon dioxide until my dying breath. If I defeat CO2, I'll succeed in ending all life on the planet, but like any good earth religion cultist, that's my ultimate dream.
:)
:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
This is the most government intervention into the credit and property and equity markets in our history, but despite that, you'll continue to hear the fictional 'free market' scapegoated as the cause of the next leg of this designed economic contraction. The concept of 'too big to fail' cannot exist in a free market, but it is the trademark of a centrally-planned oligarchical economy.