http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/
Look at some of the comments.
Like this one, I can't believe they allowed...
Jack Meyhoffer
kin...@yahoo.com
I hope someone puts a bullet in your head very soon.
And if Mahmood wasn't scary enough of a boogyman, check out his post
Message to the American People
While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer together.
Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking, and both seek dignity, respect and perfection.
Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies.
We are all inclined towards the good, and towards extending a helping hand to one another, particularly to those in need.
We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples' rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings.
We all detest darkness, deceit, lies and distortion, and seek and admire salvation, enlightenment, sincerity and honesty.
The pure human essence of the two great nations of Iran and the United States testify to the veracity of these statements.
Noble Americans,
Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world.
QUICK! SOMEONE BOMB THAT EVIL MAN!
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
BUSTED! Undercover Cops At G20.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrJ7aU-n1L8
The clip would be hilarious if it was not so disturbing. Protesters walking behind what are obviously badly disguised cops claim they broke cameras and acted aggressively towards genuine protesters, as well as carrying gas canisters.
The clip would be hilarious if it was not so disturbing. Protesters walking behind what are obviously badly disguised cops claim they broke cameras and acted aggressively towards genuine protesters, as well as carrying gas canisters.
Even if Iran has a weapon of mass destruction...
(which we know they do not), and even if Iran has long range ICBMs to reach across the Atlantic with (which we know they do not), Iran would still not be a threat to the US because any attack with a weapon of mass destruction would be national suicide.
Is it a coincidence that Iran is dropping the dollar and the imperial American government is threatening Iran?
I think not.
If you want America to go to war with Iran, take this quiz first.
1. When was the last time Iran initiated a war with its neighbors
2. When was the last time Israel initiated a war with its neighbors?
3. Which nation is a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel or Iran
4. Which nation allows IAEA inspections, Israel or Iran?
5. Which nation actually has nuclear weapons, Israel or Iran?
6. Which nation just refused a request by the United Nations to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel or Iran?
7. Which nation just refused a request by the IAEA to allow inspections, Israel or Iran?
8. Name the one nation that has actually used nuclear weapons of mass destruction on another country.
Is it a coincidence that Iran is dropping the dollar and the imperial American government is threatening Iran?
I think not.
If you want America to go to war with Iran, take this quiz first.
1. When was the last time Iran initiated a war with its neighbors
2. When was the last time Israel initiated a war with its neighbors?
3. Which nation is a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel or Iran
4. Which nation allows IAEA inspections, Israel or Iran?
5. Which nation actually has nuclear weapons, Israel or Iran?
6. Which nation just refused a request by the United Nations to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel or Iran?
7. Which nation just refused a request by the IAEA to allow inspections, Israel or Iran?
8. Name the one nation that has actually used nuclear weapons of mass destruction on another country.
Report: US-Initiated WTO Rules Could Undermine Regulatory Overhaul of Global Finance
www.democracynow.org
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lori, I’d like to ask you about the role of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Here in the United States, he’s supposed—he’s leading the efforts now to increase regulation over the financial sector. But he played a previous role under the Clinton administration in what was happening at the WTO in terms of financial deregulation. Could you talk about that?
LORI WALLACH: Yeah. This is actually a serious problem. So, most people don’t even realize that the World Trade Organization has an agreement called the Financial Services Agreement that explicitly applies to over a hundred countries and mandates major deregulation.
Just for instance, it has a rule that you cannot have a domestic law, even if it applies equally to foreign and domestic companies, that limits the size of a financial service firm—insurance, banking, securities. So when everyone talks about putting into place rules about “too big to fail,” there’s a WTO dictate that says you can’t do that. A lot of other really extreme deregulation rules. That agreement was never brought to a vote in Congress, so a lot of members of Congress have no idea it’s there.
One interesting fact we found was, although Daddy Bush started negotiation, Clinton is the one who locked it up. And it was actually Geithner, when he was in the Treasury Department working for Robert Rubin during the Clinton administration, who was the lead Clinton administration Treasury Department negotiator. So he is, in a way, the guy who closed the deal. And so, he knows about it. He has to know about the existing agreements. And so, theoretically, he should be the guy who’s most aware of the perils, in the sense that he was part of the whole Clinton-era deregulation, including domestically.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lori, I’d like to ask you about the role of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Here in the United States, he’s supposed—he’s leading the efforts now to increase regulation over the financial sector. But he played a previous role under the Clinton administration in what was happening at the WTO in terms of financial deregulation. Could you talk about that?
LORI WALLACH: Yeah. This is actually a serious problem. So, most people don’t even realize that the World Trade Organization has an agreement called the Financial Services Agreement that explicitly applies to over a hundred countries and mandates major deregulation.
Just for instance, it has a rule that you cannot have a domestic law, even if it applies equally to foreign and domestic companies, that limits the size of a financial service firm—insurance, banking, securities. So when everyone talks about putting into place rules about “too big to fail,” there’s a WTO dictate that says you can’t do that. A lot of other really extreme deregulation rules. That agreement was never brought to a vote in Congress, so a lot of members of Congress have no idea it’s there.
One interesting fact we found was, although Daddy Bush started negotiation, Clinton is the one who locked it up. And it was actually Geithner, when he was in the Treasury Department working for Robert Rubin during the Clinton administration, who was the lead Clinton administration Treasury Department negotiator. So he is, in a way, the guy who closed the deal. And so, he knows about it. He has to know about the existing agreements. And so, theoretically, he should be the guy who’s most aware of the perils, in the sense that he was part of the whole Clinton-era deregulation, including domestically.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Israel's Dimona Reactor In 3D
Israel's heavy water nuclear reactor.
This reactor produces 40kg of plutonium a year, enough to build 10 atomic bombs.
"Only in space can you take pictures of Israel's top secret site"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbjgDERSuiI
Israel is screaming about Iran's backup fuel rod processing plant, denouncing it as a secret facility even though Iran openly declared it to the IAEA.
But if you want to see an ACTUAL secret nuclear weapons facility, one that the IAEA has never been formally informed of, nor inspected, one need look no further than Israel itself.
This reactor produces 40kg of plutonium a year, enough to build 10 atomic bombs.
"Only in space can you take pictures of Israel's top secret site"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbjgDERSuiI
Israel is screaming about Iran's backup fuel rod processing plant, denouncing it as a secret facility even though Iran openly declared it to the IAEA.
But if you want to see an ACTUAL secret nuclear weapons facility, one that the IAEA has never been formally informed of, nor inspected, one need look no further than Israel itself.
The Lie About Ahmadinejad's 'Israel' Quote
Look it up for yourself, there are many links.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&num=50&q=israel+wiped+off+earth+lie&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=7960896364bf1ed8
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=5866
Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications.
According to legend, Iran's President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map".
Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made.
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini)
ghoft (said)
een (this)
rezhim-e (regime)
ishghalgar-e (occupying)
qods (Jerusalem)
bayad (must)
az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time)
mahv shavad (vanish from).
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&num=50&q=israel+wiped+off+earth+lie&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=7960896364bf1ed8
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=5866
Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications.
According to legend, Iran's President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map".
Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made.
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini)
ghoft (said)
een (this)
rezhim-e (regime)
ishghalgar-e (occupying)
qods (Jerusalem)
bayad (must)
az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time)
mahv shavad (vanish from).
Constitution-free Zones In America
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/areyoulivinginaconstitutionfreezone.html
Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.
The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This " Constitution-Free Zone" includes most of the nation's largest metropolitan areas.
Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.
The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This " Constitution-Free Zone" includes most of the nation's largest metropolitan areas.
Nuclear Watchdog Voices 'Concern' On Israel
Keep in mind, Iran is a signatory to the NPT.
Israel is not.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jDwMakaoF_bMvmjRoPqGBODh4sUg
VIENNA — The UN atomic watchdog's 150 member countries expressed concern Friday about Israel's nuclear capabilities and called on the Jewish state to foreswear atomic weapons.
Israel is widely considered to be the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power.
At the International Atomic Energy Agency's general conference here, Arab states tabled a symbolic, non-binding resolution expressing "concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities and (calling upon) Israel to accede to the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards."
Initially, Western states tried to stop the resolution from going to a vote, arguing it would be counterproductive to single out Israel, particularly after a resolution had been passed the day before calling on all states in the Middle East to foreswear nuclear weapons.
But the adjournment motion was defeated and voting went ahead, with a total 49 countries in favour, 45 against and 16 abstentions.
It is the first time since 1991 that such a resolution has been adopted.
The Israeli delegation said it "deplored" the resolution and would "not cooperate" with it.
Its sole aim was to "reinforce political hostilities and division lines in the Middle East region," said the deputy chief of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, David Danieli.
Israel's arch-enemy Iran had spoken in favour of the resolution, describing Israel's nuclear capabilities as "a potential threat to the peace and security of the world."
It also undermined the integrity and credibility of the non-proliferation regime and the NPT, argued Tehran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh.
Israel is not.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jDwMakaoF_bMvmjRoPqGBODh4sUg
VIENNA — The UN atomic watchdog's 150 member countries expressed concern Friday about Israel's nuclear capabilities and called on the Jewish state to foreswear atomic weapons.
Israel is widely considered to be the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power.
At the International Atomic Energy Agency's general conference here, Arab states tabled a symbolic, non-binding resolution expressing "concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities and (calling upon) Israel to accede to the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards."
Initially, Western states tried to stop the resolution from going to a vote, arguing it would be counterproductive to single out Israel, particularly after a resolution had been passed the day before calling on all states in the Middle East to foreswear nuclear weapons.
But the adjournment motion was defeated and voting went ahead, with a total 49 countries in favour, 45 against and 16 abstentions.
It is the first time since 1991 that such a resolution has been adopted.
The Israeli delegation said it "deplored" the resolution and would "not cooperate" with it.
Its sole aim was to "reinforce political hostilities and division lines in the Middle East region," said the deputy chief of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, David Danieli.
Israel's arch-enemy Iran had spoken in favour of the resolution, describing Israel's nuclear capabilities as "a potential threat to the peace and security of the world."
It also undermined the integrity and credibility of the non-proliferation regime and the NPT, argued Tehran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh.
What Is Murdoch's Motive Behind The 9/12 Movement?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8671
The most corrupt and debased groups involved in the 9/11 coverup are being actively recruited by the press as a patriotic resistance.
The tone for the coverup is being set by Australian media mogul, Rupert Murdoch, who controls much of the press in the US and United Kingdom. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see Murdoch's role in covering up 9/11. His networks created the "9/12ers" who are continuing the coverup and Murdoch employees like Fox funnyman, Glenn Beck, are still a major part of the effort to protect those in government who lied to the commission and may have aided the conspirators.
One thing can't be explained. Why are lies, known lies, still being broadcast daily, lies orchestrated from one source, meant to suppress an honest accounting of what may have been a series of mistakes?
Why go so far to cover up mistakes if they were only mistakes? With no 9/11 Commission standing behind the report that was meant to clear the Bush administration of responsibility, why is the Murdoch propaganda machine, the Wall Street Journal, Fox, Hannity, Beck and gang so busy burying something that doesn't exist?
Murdoch's media has held to "party line" on 9/11 and the Iraq/Afghanistan war since day one, suppressing facts any time they threatened an agenda of broad regional war. Murdoch acted, every step of the way, in concert with groups hiding facts on 9/11 while promoting continual phony terrorism alerts whenever political allies became subject to scrutiny.
Conspiracy theorists, largely proven correct thus far, refer to Murdoch's position as leader of the Israeli ultra-right wing Zionist movement as a rationale for his continued involvement in the cover up. No proof of Isreali involvement in the planning and execution of 9/11 has been offered except for Murdoch's relentless disinformation campaign.
The most corrupt and debased groups involved in the 9/11 coverup are being actively recruited by the press as a patriotic resistance.
The tone for the coverup is being set by Australian media mogul, Rupert Murdoch, who controls much of the press in the US and United Kingdom. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see Murdoch's role in covering up 9/11. His networks created the "9/12ers" who are continuing the coverup and Murdoch employees like Fox funnyman, Glenn Beck, are still a major part of the effort to protect those in government who lied to the commission and may have aided the conspirators.
One thing can't be explained. Why are lies, known lies, still being broadcast daily, lies orchestrated from one source, meant to suppress an honest accounting of what may have been a series of mistakes?
Why go so far to cover up mistakes if they were only mistakes? With no 9/11 Commission standing behind the report that was meant to clear the Bush administration of responsibility, why is the Murdoch propaganda machine, the Wall Street Journal, Fox, Hannity, Beck and gang so busy burying something that doesn't exist?
Murdoch's media has held to "party line" on 9/11 and the Iraq/Afghanistan war since day one, suppressing facts any time they threatened an agenda of broad regional war. Murdoch acted, every step of the way, in concert with groups hiding facts on 9/11 while promoting continual phony terrorism alerts whenever political allies became subject to scrutiny.
Conspiracy theorists, largely proven correct thus far, refer to Murdoch's position as leader of the Israeli ultra-right wing Zionist movement as a rationale for his continued involvement in the cover up. No proof of Isreali involvement in the planning and execution of 9/11 has been offered except for Murdoch's relentless disinformation campaign.
Glenn Beck Is A Tool, Not A Libertarian
It’s not enough that Fox News’ resident COINTELPRO operative Glen Beck led the charge and sabotaged the election campaign of Ron Paul — calling him a kook and his supporters dangerous terrorists — now he is determined to sabotage and take down libertarians.
On Beck’s radio show last week, the great actor and PSYOP chameleon apologized to the libertarians for dissing them in the past.
He now claims that he is one of them and says he’d like to re-examine the issues he used to criticize and sabotage Ron Paul’s election campaign.
Beck says the imperialism of the U.S. government and the Democrat and Republican parties “has caused a lot of problems.”
He wants to bring the troops home from Korea, Japan, Europe, etc. He initially includes Afghanistan in that list but then seems to recant in standard Beck wishy-washy fashion (because the illegal occupation of Afghanistan is central in the phony war on manufactured terrorism).
Glenn Beck is not a libertarian. He is an operative working for the Pentagon and probably takes his orders from the Army’s Psychological Operations Command.
His assignment is to destroy the libertarian, constitutional, and patriot movements.
Beck’s so-called 912 Project was designed to discredit the Tea Party demonstration in D.C. earlier this month — a movement already substantially co-opted by establishment Republicans — and give so-called “progressives” a chance to malign and denounce the movement and characterize it as a Republican attempt to undermine Obama and the Democrats.
In other words, steer it back into the safe zone of the false right-left paradigm and prevent it from actually accomplishing anything.
On Beck’s radio show last week, the great actor and PSYOP chameleon apologized to the libertarians for dissing them in the past.
He now claims that he is one of them and says he’d like to re-examine the issues he used to criticize and sabotage Ron Paul’s election campaign.
Beck says the imperialism of the U.S. government and the Democrat and Republican parties “has caused a lot of problems.”
He wants to bring the troops home from Korea, Japan, Europe, etc. He initially includes Afghanistan in that list but then seems to recant in standard Beck wishy-washy fashion (because the illegal occupation of Afghanistan is central in the phony war on manufactured terrorism).
Glenn Beck is not a libertarian. He is an operative working for the Pentagon and probably takes his orders from the Army’s Psychological Operations Command.
His assignment is to destroy the libertarian, constitutional, and patriot movements.
Beck’s so-called 912 Project was designed to discredit the Tea Party demonstration in D.C. earlier this month — a movement already substantially co-opted by establishment Republicans — and give so-called “progressives” a chance to malign and denounce the movement and characterize it as a Republican attempt to undermine Obama and the Democrats.
In other words, steer it back into the safe zone of the false right-left paradigm and prevent it from actually accomplishing anything.
9/11 Commission Rejects Own Report As Based Lies
http://www.salem-news.com
(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...
The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.
Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.
Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes.
Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No.
Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes.
Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.
Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”
The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . "
When Bush's own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done?
9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, "No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again."
(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...
The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.
Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.
Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes.
Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No.
Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes.
Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.
Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”
The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . "
When Bush's own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done?
9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, "No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again."
The Fall Of The Republic
The US dollar is on the same trajectory as Obama's approval rating.
The evil genius campaigned on a platform of changing the status quo, but after taking office only proved that he is the special interest defender of the status quo that many of us knew he was.
I'm sorry, my lefty friends...Bush was bad, Obama is worse.
Under Obama, the dollar remains in free fall thanks to the fucked up Keynesian philosophy of astronomical spending.
Any of the actual black people who ran for President last year would be better than this piece of shit.
Clinton picked out the plot, Bush picked out the coffin and Obama started digging the grave.
I fear that the next President, regardless of political affiliation, will be the one to throw the lifeless corpse of our beloved country into the pit.
The evil genius campaigned on a platform of changing the status quo, but after taking office only proved that he is the special interest defender of the status quo that many of us knew he was.
I'm sorry, my lefty friends...Bush was bad, Obama is worse.
Under Obama, the dollar remains in free fall thanks to the fucked up Keynesian philosophy of astronomical spending.
Any of the actual black people who ran for President last year would be better than this piece of shit.
Clinton picked out the plot, Bush picked out the coffin and Obama started digging the grave.
I fear that the next President, regardless of political affiliation, will be the one to throw the lifeless corpse of our beloved country into the pit.
National Intelligence Estimate: Iran Has No Nukes.
Intelligence Agencies Say No New Nukes in Iran
Secret updates to White House challenge European and Israeli assessments.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/215529
The U.S. intelligence community is reporting to the White House that Iran has not restarted its nuclear-weapons development program, two counterproliferation officials tell NEWSWEEK. U.S. agencies had previously said that Tehran halted the program in 2003.
The officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, said that U.S. intelligence agencies have informed policymakers at the White House and other agencies that the status of Iranian work on development and production of a nuclear bomb has not changed since the formal National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's "Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities" in November 2007. Public portions of that report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies had "high confidence" that, as of early 2003, Iranian military units were pursuing development of a nuclear bomb, but that in the fall of that year Iran "halted its nuclear weapons program." The document said that while U.S. agencies believed the Iranian government "at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons," U.S. intelligence as of mid-2007 still had "moderate confidence" that it had not restarted weapons-development efforts.
One of the two officials said that the Obama administration has now worked out a system in which intelligence agencies provide top policymakers, including the president, with regular updates on intelligence judgments like the conclusions in the 2007 Iran NIE. According to the two officials, the latest update to policymakers has been that as of now—two years after the period covered by the 2007 NIE—U.S. intelligence agencies still believe Iran has not resumed nuclear-weapons development work.
Are You Concerned About Iran's Nukes? You Shouldn't Be...
Under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, America should be helping Iran build power stations.
What better way to make sure that Iran is not trying to create nuclear weapons, than to help them develop their civilian nuclear energy programs?
And it's funny...
So stop the demonizing and fearmongering regarding Iran, because if our government walked the walk instead of talking the talk then Iran would probably be an ally instead at the top of the list of sovereign nations that the American empire wants to control.
What better way to make sure that Iran is not trying to create nuclear weapons, than to help them develop their civilian nuclear energy programs?
And it's funny...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88353,00.html
Monday, June 02, 2003
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran invited the United States on Monday to take part in building its nuclear program, aiming to allay Washington's fears that Tehran is developing a nuclear bomb.
Russia's atomic minister said last week that Washington should join Moscow in building Iran's first plant, due to come on line at Bushehr by the end of this year. Iran's foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, proposed Friday that Western countries help build the country's next plants.
Asefi took that offer a step further Monday, specifically inviting the United States.
"If the United States is really concerned, it can participate in the construction of nuclear power plants in our country," Asefi told a news conference.
So stop the demonizing and fearmongering regarding Iran, because if our government walked the walk instead of talking the talk then Iran would probably be an ally instead at the top of the list of sovereign nations that the American empire wants to control.
Obama Is Dead Wrong About Iran's Nukes
http://www.guardian.co.uk
It wasn't until Monday that the IAEA found out about its existence, based not on any intelligence "scoop" provided by the US, but rather Iran's own voluntary declaration. Iran's actions forced the hand of the US, leading to Obama's hurried press conference Friday morning.
Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama's dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.
This agreement was signed by Iran in December 2004. However, since the "additional protocol" has not been ratified by the Iranian parliament, and as such is not legally binding, Iran had viewed its implementation as being voluntary, and as such agreed to comply with these new measures as a confidence building measure more so than a mandated obligation.
In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material.
While this action is understandably vexing for the IAEA and those member states who are desirous of full transparency on the part of Iran, one cannot speak in absolute terms about Iran violating its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
So when Obama announced that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow", he is technically and legally wrong.
It wasn't until Monday that the IAEA found out about its existence, based not on any intelligence "scoop" provided by the US, but rather Iran's own voluntary declaration. Iran's actions forced the hand of the US, leading to Obama's hurried press conference Friday morning.
Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama's dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.
This agreement was signed by Iran in December 2004. However, since the "additional protocol" has not been ratified by the Iranian parliament, and as such is not legally binding, Iran had viewed its implementation as being voluntary, and as such agreed to comply with these new measures as a confidence building measure more so than a mandated obligation.
In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material.
While this action is understandably vexing for the IAEA and those member states who are desirous of full transparency on the part of Iran, one cannot speak in absolute terms about Iran violating its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
So when Obama announced that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow", he is technically and legally wrong.
FLASHBACK: US Is Funding Destabilizing Groups In Iran
What a wonderful use of taxpayer money!
Sy Hersh: Congress Is Funding Major Escalation in Secret Operations Against Iran
http://www.alternet.org/world/89963
Congressional leaders agreed to a request from President Bush last year to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing Iran's leadership. This according to a new article by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker magazine.
The operations were set out in a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush which, by law, must be made known to Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders and ranking members of the intelligence committees. The plan allowed up to $400 million in covert spending for activities ranging from supporting dissident groups to spying on Iran's nuclear program.
According to Hersh, US Special Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq since last year. These have included seizing members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of so-called "high-value targets" who may be captured or killed.
While covert operations against Iran are not new, Hersh writes that the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command, have now been significantly expanded.
Sy Hersh: Congress Is Funding Major Escalation in Secret Operations Against Iran
http://www.alternet.org/world/89963
Congressional leaders agreed to a request from President Bush last year to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing Iran's leadership. This according to a new article by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker magazine.
The operations were set out in a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush which, by law, must be made known to Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders and ranking members of the intelligence committees. The plan allowed up to $400 million in covert spending for activities ranging from supporting dissident groups to spying on Iran's nuclear program.
According to Hersh, US Special Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq since last year. These have included seizing members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of so-called "high-value targets" who may be captured or killed.
While covert operations against Iran are not new, Hersh writes that the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command, have now been significantly expanded.
Dennis Blair: "Iran Has Not Re-Started Nuclear Weapons Program"
Dennis Blair: Iran Has Not Re-Started Its Nuclear Weapons Program
Earlier this month, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen made headlines when he was asked by CNN whether Iran had enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. “We think they do, quite frankly,” Mullen said. This morning, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) asked Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair to address the “confusion” about what the intelligence says about Iran’s weapons capacity. Blair said the intelligence community has assessed that Iran does not possess any highly-enriched uranium, and clarified that Mullen had been referring only to low-enriched uranium.
Don't allow the imperialist criminals start more wars!!
Earlier this month, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen made headlines when he was asked by CNN whether Iran had enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. “We think they do, quite frankly,” Mullen said. This morning, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) asked Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair to address the “confusion” about what the intelligence says about Iran’s weapons capacity. Blair said the intelligence community has assessed that Iran does not possess any highly-enriched uranium, and clarified that Mullen had been referring only to low-enriched uranium.
Moreover, Blair said that the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which judged that “in the fall of 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program,” still stands:
DO NOT FALL FOR THE WAR HYPE PROPAGANDA!!LEVIN: In 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran said that “the intelligence community judges with high confidence that in the fall of 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” Is the position of the intelligence community the same as it was back in October of ‘07? Has that changed?
BLAIR: Mr. Chairman, the nuclear weapons program is one of the three components required for deliverable system, including the delivery system and the uranium. But as for the nuclear weapons program, the current position is the same, that Iran has stopped its nuclear weapons design and weaponization activities in 2003 and did not — has not started them again, at least as of mid-2007.
Don't allow the imperialist criminals start more wars!!
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Obamacare Is "A Gift" To Big Insurance
Those who are pushing for this have obscured the real issues of the 'universal health care' debate. So when you Obamadrones see people opposing Obamacare, it's because of shit like this...not because they don't care about poor people.
This BS doesn't solve the problem, it just exacerbates it and directs MORE profit into the pockets of special interests.
And if you don't know who Wendell Potter is, you really need to watch this:
DemocracyNow!.org - “They Dump the Sick to Satisfy Investors”: Insurance Exec Turned Whistleblower Wendell Potter Speaks Out Against Healthcare Industry
RawStory.com
Pharma group that made deal with Obama now backing Baucus health bill
The health care reform plan proposed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus is an “absolute gift” to health care insurance companies, says an industry whistleblower.
Wendell Potter, a former executive at Cigna, said the Baucus plan “would not provide affordable coverage … gives the industry too much latitude to charge higher premiums based on age and geographic location, fails to mandate employer coverage, and pushes consumers into plans with limited benefits,” Politico reports.
Potter’s claims come at a time when it looks increasingly likely that the White House will back health care reforms that will be very similar to Baucus’ proposal.
On Friday, the New York Times reported that the pharmaceutical trade group that struck a deal with President Barack Obama to support health care reform is backing Baucus’ bill — an indication that Baucus’ plan may be the one that the president will eventually support.
As RAW STORY reported last week, the version of health care reform supported by Sen. Baucus (D-MT) would cost $850 billion to $900 billion over 10 years, but would not include a public health option.
This BS doesn't solve the problem, it just exacerbates it and directs MORE profit into the pockets of special interests.
And if you don't know who Wendell Potter is, you really need to watch this:
DemocracyNow!.org - “They Dump the Sick to Satisfy Investors”: Insurance Exec Turned Whistleblower Wendell Potter Speaks Out Against Healthcare Industry
RawStory.com
Pharma group that made deal with Obama now backing Baucus health bill
The health care reform plan proposed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus is an “absolute gift” to health care insurance companies, says an industry whistleblower.
Wendell Potter, a former executive at Cigna, said the Baucus plan “would not provide affordable coverage … gives the industry too much latitude to charge higher premiums based on age and geographic location, fails to mandate employer coverage, and pushes consumers into plans with limited benefits,” Politico reports.
Potter’s claims come at a time when it looks increasingly likely that the White House will back health care reforms that will be very similar to Baucus’ proposal.
On Friday, the New York Times reported that the pharmaceutical trade group that struck a deal with President Barack Obama to support health care reform is backing Baucus’ bill — an indication that Baucus’ plan may be the one that the president will eventually support.
As RAW STORY reported last week, the version of health care reform supported by Sen. Baucus (D-MT) would cost $850 billion to $900 billion over 10 years, but would not include a public health option.
Support For Obama's War Evaporating; Delegate Regrets Obama Vote
DemocracyNow!.org
As Obama Escalates War in Afghanistan, US Peace Activists Call for Near-Term Withdrawal of Foreign Troops
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Norman Solomon, you were an Obama delegate. Are you disappointed now?
NORMAN SOLOMON: Well, you know, I haven’t met a progressive yet who would just as soon have John McCain as president. That said, we always choose from the choices that we’re facing at a particular time.
And while, as I said a year ago, the best way not to become disillusioned is to not have illusions in the first place, my somewhat low expectations from President Obama have not been met.
This guy has rushed into the arms of what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex.
As Obama Escalates War in Afghanistan, US Peace Activists Call for Near-Term Withdrawal of Foreign Troops
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Norman Solomon, you were an Obama delegate. Are you disappointed now?
NORMAN SOLOMON: Well, you know, I haven’t met a progressive yet who would just as soon have John McCain as president. That said, we always choose from the choices that we’re facing at a particular time.
And while, as I said a year ago, the best way not to become disillusioned is to not have illusions in the first place, my somewhat low expectations from President Obama have not been met.
This guy has rushed into the arms of what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex.
Obama Sends 3,000 "Combat Enabler" To Afghanistan
AntiWar.com
Top US defense officials say that roughly 3,000 additional troops, which are classified not as combat troops but rather “combat enablers,” will be deployed to Afghanistan in the coming days.
Top US defense officials say that roughly 3,000 additional troops, which are classified not as combat troops but rather “combat enablers,” will be deployed to Afghanistan in the coming days.
Officials say the decision was made roughly two weeks ago, which puts it at about the same time that the Pentagon was publicly announcing that it was pulling 14,000 support troops from the nation to add 14,000 more “trigger pullers” to the conflict.<
Rather, it now seems that the non-combat troops are being replaced by the combat troops, and then new non-combat troops are being added as well, effectively an escalation of the number of troops involved in the conflict under the guise of adding “non-combat” troops. This escalation comes in addition to the expected request of another 20,000 troops from Gen. McChrystal.
The US escalation on the ground comes amid growing evidence that the war is being lost, both in real terms and popular terms. But though the Obama Administration has made much of a promised “civilian surge” to bring stability to the war zone, it is now being conceded that little is going to result from it. The focus seems pretty much entirely on combat at this point, whether enabling it or engaging in it.
The Ghost Of Osama Bin Laden Is A Propaganda Tool
The latest Osama bin Laden tape arrives following the deadliest month for US forces since the invasion.
Support for the military effort in Afghanistan was evaporating and Obama was sinking in the polls at a record pace.
Bin Laden’s talking points once again stoke strong suspicions that this is merely another propaganda stunt manufactured by the U.S. military-industrial complex, because they mirror some of the valid criticisms that many of us have of his administration.
Bin Laden’s audio tape will do nothing to harm Obama’s agenda in Afghanistan and indeed it will be cited by the White House as a reason for keeping and expanding America’s occupation of Afghanistan – which is what makes the alleged tape all the more suspicious.
I believe bin Laden has been dead for a long time.
In a tape released in 2007, bin Laden supposedly claims responsibility for the attacks of 9/11.
The FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist list claims that Osama bin Laden is wanted:
No mention of 9/11.
Why?
The Pentagon released a video tape they claimed was found in a house in Jalalabad. (Supposedly created on Nov. 9)
In the video, Osama bin Laden claims responsibility for the attacks on September 11.
The video was very effective in diverting media attention away from the deportation of five Israelis who danced as the twin towers burned.
Responding to critics of the video, Bush said:
Videos 1, 2 and 4 show the real bin Laden, video 3 shows the "lucky find" bin Laden.
Support for the military effort in Afghanistan was evaporating and Obama was sinking in the polls at a record pace.
Bin Laden’s talking points once again stoke strong suspicions that this is merely another propaganda stunt manufactured by the U.S. military-industrial complex, because they mirror some of the valid criticisms that many of us have of his administration.
Bin Laden’s audio tape will do nothing to harm Obama’s agenda in Afghanistan and indeed it will be cited by the White House as a reason for keeping and expanding America’s occupation of Afghanistan – which is what makes the alleged tape all the more suspicious.
I believe bin Laden has been dead for a long time.
In a tape released in 2007, bin Laden supposedly claims responsibility for the attacks of 9/11.
"I am the one responsible... The Afghan people and government knew nothing whatsoever about these events,"
The FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist list claims that Osama bin Laden is wanted:
in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.
No mention of 9/11.
Why?
The Pentagon released a video tape they claimed was found in a house in Jalalabad. (Supposedly created on Nov. 9)
In the video, Osama bin Laden claims responsibility for the attacks on September 11.
"I am the one responsible... The Afghan people and government knew nothing whatsoever about these events,"
The video was very effective in diverting media attention away from the deportation of five Israelis who danced as the twin towers burned.
Responding to critics of the video, Bush said:
"It is preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctored. That's just a feeble excuse to provide weak support for an incredibly evil man."
Videos 1, 2 and 4 show the real bin Laden, video 3 shows the "lucky find" bin Laden.
Lawsuit To Add Seats To The House
New York Times.com
WASHINGTON — In America, democracy follows the simple principle of one person, one vote, right?
Unless, that is, you live in Montana, where your vote carries a little more than half as much weight in the House of Representatives as that of someone living in Rhode Island. Or if you live in Utah, where your vote counts about two-thirds as much as it would in Iowa.
With the 2010 Census around the corner, Washington and the various state capitals will soon turn their attention to carving out congressional districts across the nation. And once again, political leaders are preparing to cobble together a patchwork quilt of districts that will leave some Americans underrepresented.
Redrawing the lines will address some of the population shifts over the last decade, but much of the disparity will remain, because it is built into the system. In theory, every member of the House represents roughly the same number of people. But because each state gets at least one seat, no matter how small its population, and because the overall size of the House has not changed in a century, the number of people represented by a single congressman can vary widely.
The most populous district in America right now, according to the latest Census data, is Nevada’s 3rd District, where 960,000 people are represented in the House by just one member. All of Montana’s 958,000 people likewise have just one vote in the House. By contrast, 523,000 in Wyoming get the same voting power, as do the 527,000 in one of Rhode Island’s two districts and the 531,000 in the other.
That 400,000-person disparity between top and bottom has generated a federal court challenge that is set to be filed Thursday in Mississippi, charging that the system effectively disenfranchises people in certain states. The lawsuit asks the courts to order the House to fix the problem by increasing its size from 435 seats to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761. That way, the plaintiffs argue, every state can have districts that are close to parity.
This is a step in the right direction, I like the idea of 30,000 Representatives better.
http://www.thirty-thousand.org
WASHINGTON — In America, democracy follows the simple principle of one person, one vote, right?
Unless, that is, you live in Montana, where your vote carries a little more than half as much weight in the House of Representatives as that of someone living in Rhode Island. Or if you live in Utah, where your vote counts about two-thirds as much as it would in Iowa.
With the 2010 Census around the corner, Washington and the various state capitals will soon turn their attention to carving out congressional districts across the nation. And once again, political leaders are preparing to cobble together a patchwork quilt of districts that will leave some Americans underrepresented.
Redrawing the lines will address some of the population shifts over the last decade, but much of the disparity will remain, because it is built into the system. In theory, every member of the House represents roughly the same number of people. But because each state gets at least one seat, no matter how small its population, and because the overall size of the House has not changed in a century, the number of people represented by a single congressman can vary widely.
The most populous district in America right now, according to the latest Census data, is Nevada’s 3rd District, where 960,000 people are represented in the House by just one member. All of Montana’s 958,000 people likewise have just one vote in the House. By contrast, 523,000 in Wyoming get the same voting power, as do the 527,000 in one of Rhode Island’s two districts and the 531,000 in the other.
That 400,000-person disparity between top and bottom has generated a federal court challenge that is set to be filed Thursday in Mississippi, charging that the system effectively disenfranchises people in certain states. The lawsuit asks the courts to order the House to fix the problem by increasing its size from 435 seats to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761. That way, the plaintiffs argue, every state can have districts that are close to parity.
This is a step in the right direction, I like the idea of 30,000 Representatives better.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Which Flation Will We Get? by Gary North
LewRockwell.com
DEFLATION
Most of those who forecast deflation have in mind price deflation. A few think monetary deflation will take place because of bankrupt banks, but the position is difficult to defend. The FDIC can keep bank doors open. There are no runs on banks involving currency withdrawal. There are only runs involving the transfer of digital money to other banks. This does not affect the money supply.
Price deflation can come through the free market. It results from steady increases in economic output in an economy with stable money. Here is my slogan: "More goods chasing the same amount of money." A gold coin standard economy provides such a world, as long as central banks do not protect insolvent banks. So does 100% reserve banking, which we have never had. This is not the scenario offered by deflationists.
Here is their scenario. Banks create credit. Fiat money lowers interest rates. People borrow. This is consistent with Austrian economics. This credit structure cannot be sustained indefinitely. Austrianism also teaches this.
Here is where the schools of opinion depart. The deflationist says that people in general cannot pay their debts. They default. So, prices fall. Not just prices of market sectors that were bubbles, but all prices.
There is a problem with this argument. If you find that half of the things you regularly buy cost less, you buy the same amount, or maybe a little more, and then buy more of something else. This includes the purchase of capital goods.
You don't put currency in a mattress. You buy something with the money that falling prices allows you to keep. You buy more of B when the price of A falls . . . or more of A.
Simple, isn't it? But those who call themselves deflationists do not understand it or believe it.
The same money supply is out there. Someone owns each portion of it. You own some. I own some. We both would like to own more . . . at some price. But the credit contraction of a popped market bubble does not affect the money supply if the central bank or the Treasury or the FDIC intervenes and prevents a fractional reserve bank from going bust and taking all of the digital money with it.
This is economic logic. If the logic is incorrect, then there should be detailed theoretical criticisms of it. Or, given the weaknesses of human thought, maybe logic does not correspond to reality. Economists are famous for constructing detailed theories that do not conform to reality. But the free market theory of price changes as the result of the supply and demand for money in relation to the supply and demand for products and services is straightforward. It undergirds all of economic theory. Throw it out, and what remains of economic theory?
If a central bank creates a boom with fiat money, and then ceases to inflate, it can create deflation. How? By refusing to bail out busted banks. It allows the money supply to contract as bankrupt commercial bank deposits disappear. Fractional reserve banking implodes. That will create a deflationary depression. We have not seen anything like this since 1934: the creation of the FDIC.
Don't bank on this just yet.
INFLATION
Monetary inflation produces price inflation. On this, Chicago School monetarists and Austrian school economists agree.
If the central bank expands the money supply, prices will rise. This takes time. Economists debate about the lag time: 6 months, a year, 18 months. But monetary expansion will raise prices. The new money has to go somewhere. It has to wind up in someone's bank account.
If the central bank expands the monetary base by buying assets of any kind, it creates money to buy them. The recipients of those assets spend the money. If the Treasury gets it, Congress spends it. (In both theory and practice, if Congress gets its collective hands on money, it spends it. All economists are agreed on this point.)
The expansion of money by the central bank is the source of economic booms and specific asset bubbles. The expansion of money temporarily lowers the interest rate. Someone borrows this newly created money.
America suffered from monetary inflation from 1914 to 1930. Then, with a 3-year hiatus of collapsing banks, we have suffered from 1934 until today. The dollar has fallen by 95% since 1914. No, I don't believe the CPI tells us this exactly. But I can follow the trend. The trend is up for prices and down for purchasing power.
For as long as the Federal Reserve creates money, we will have price inflation. The only thing that can retard this is if the FED raises reserve requirements or commercial banks send excess reserves to the FED. The monetary effects are the same: increased reserves are the result. This reduces the multiplier of fractional reserve banking.
Price inflation of under 10% per annum is what I call inflation. But before we get to this, we will suffer from stagflation.
STAGFLATION
This was the burden of the 1970's. There was monetary expansion and massive Federal deficits. Why, the Federal deficit was a staggering $25 billion in 1970, and as bad the next year. Unthinkable!
The dominant Keynesian theory was that Federal deficits would overcome recessions. The central bank need only inflate enough to cover part of the Federal deficit. But there were two major recessions in the 1970's. Unemployment rose, and prices rose. That combination of events was dubbed stagflation.
That we can have economic stagnation in today's world is obvious. Just about every mainstream economist and forecaster is predicting slow economic growth next year. The familiar V-shaped recovery is not a popular forecast these days. More typical is the forecast of Muhammed El-Erian, the CEO of PIMCO, the largest bond fund in the world. He calls this "the new normal."
Global growth will be subdued for a while and unemployment high; a heavy hand of government will be evident in several sectors; the core of the global system will be less cohesive and, with the magnet of the Anglo-Saxon model in retreat, finance will no longer be accorded a preeminent role in post-industrial economies. Moreover, the balance of risk will tilt over time toward higher sovereign risk, growing inflationary expectations and stagflation.
This scenario is a combination of slow growth and rising prices. Today, we have no growth and flat prices. So, slow growth and rising prices is not much of a stretch conceptually.
I think stagflation is likely, once the recovery comes. But we are seeing a gigantic Federal deficit. Ross Perot in 1992 spoke of a giant sucking sound. He said that was the sound of jobs lost to Mexico. I think it is the sound of the Federal government sucking up all excess capital in the United States and much of the world. This money will not be going into the private sector.
What is the basis of a sustained economic recovery? Increased capital formation. We are seeing capital destruction.
For a time, we will suffer from stagflation. It will not be stagdeflation. It will be staginflation.
What do I envision? Economic growth under 2% per annum, coupled with price increases of 5% per annum or more.
MASS INFLATION
This phenomenon will appear when the Federal deficit cannot be covered by private investment and purchases by foreign central banks. This seems certain within a decade. I think it is likely before the end of the next President's term. I think the Social Security trust fund will cease to provide a surplus that is used to purchase nonmarketable Treasury debt, as it is today. The trustees will have to sell some of these nonmarketable Treasury debt certificates back to the Treasury. The Treasury in turn will have to sell conventional Treasury debt to cover the redemptions by the trust fund.
This stage will be the indicator that the present borrow-and-spend model has failed. The FED will be called upon to supply the difference between purchases of T-debt by the public and borrowing by the government. When the FED complies, the rate of monetary inflation will rise. Prices will also rise.
I define mass inflation as double-digit price inflation above 20% but below 40%. Americans have not seen this. No industrial nation has seen this except after a major military defeat.
The disruption of the capital markets will be extreme. The government will absorb virtually all capital formation. There will be no net capital formation. There will be capital consumption.
The international value of the dollar will fall. But other Western nations will be pursuing comparable policies. It is not clear how far the dollar will fall. It depends on the competitive race to national self-destruction. Every Western nation faces the day of reckoning: the bankruptcy of Social Security/Medicare.
At this point, the FED will have to make a choice: put on the brakes or destroy the dollar.
HYPERINFLATION
The worst-case scenario is hyperinflation. Ludwig von Mises called this the crack-up boom. It leads to the destruction of the currency. The economy will move to barter or to alternative currencies. The division of labor will collapse.
No modern industrial economy has suffered this since the recovery after World War II. The West is not Zimbabwe. The West is not a backward agricultural nation that still has functional tribal organizations to help their members.
Think about the implications of your money not buying anything of value. How would you live? You are urban. You are dependent on a complex system of computerized production and distribution. It is all governed by profit and loss. The profit-and-loss system will cease to function at some point. That is when the economy shifts to a new monetary system.
This would be the destruction of wealth on the scale of a war. It would create a new social order.
I do not think the Federal Reserve will allow this. This would destroy the banking system. The FED's unofficial but primary job is to preserve the biggest banks in the banking system. If it's a question of providing fiat money for the government's debt vs. destroying the dollar, the FED will cease buying Treasury debt.
That will be the turning point.
DEFLATION
Then we will get the crash. The FED will protect the biggest banks, which will swallow the assets of smaller banks. A lot of smaller banks will go under. They will take deposits with them.
We will get bank runs. People will demand currency. The FDIC will be busted. These banks will go under. So will depositors' money. It will be "It's a Wonderful Life" without the 6 o'clock escape hatch in the script.
You had better have your money in Potter's Bank, not the Bedford Falls Building & Loan.
The contraction of digital money will be matched by a truly serious recession. Bankruptcies will be widespread. Unemployment may not rise, but only because the final phase of mass inflation had created so much unemployment.
This will be a period of restoration. The cost of the restoration will depend on how bad the dislocations of the mass inflation had been. If they are very serious, which I would expect, the time of recession will be tolerable if you have currency and a job. But the investment strategies of hedging against mass inflation will produce losses. An opposite set of strategies will appear. Be a debtor in mass inflation. Be a creditor in the post-inflation recovery.
If the Federal Reserve intervenes again, repeat the cycle from the top. But the numbers will be much larger.
DEFLATION
Most of those who forecast deflation have in mind price deflation. A few think monetary deflation will take place because of bankrupt banks, but the position is difficult to defend. The FDIC can keep bank doors open. There are no runs on banks involving currency withdrawal. There are only runs involving the transfer of digital money to other banks. This does not affect the money supply.
Price deflation can come through the free market. It results from steady increases in economic output in an economy with stable money. Here is my slogan: "More goods chasing the same amount of money." A gold coin standard economy provides such a world, as long as central banks do not protect insolvent banks. So does 100% reserve banking, which we have never had. This is not the scenario offered by deflationists.
Here is their scenario. Banks create credit. Fiat money lowers interest rates. People borrow. This is consistent with Austrian economics. This credit structure cannot be sustained indefinitely. Austrianism also teaches this.
Here is where the schools of opinion depart. The deflationist says that people in general cannot pay their debts. They default. So, prices fall. Not just prices of market sectors that were bubbles, but all prices.
There is a problem with this argument. If you find that half of the things you regularly buy cost less, you buy the same amount, or maybe a little more, and then buy more of something else. This includes the purchase of capital goods.
You don't put currency in a mattress. You buy something with the money that falling prices allows you to keep. You buy more of B when the price of A falls . . . or more of A.
Simple, isn't it? But those who call themselves deflationists do not understand it or believe it.
The same money supply is out there. Someone owns each portion of it. You own some. I own some. We both would like to own more . . . at some price. But the credit contraction of a popped market bubble does not affect the money supply if the central bank or the Treasury or the FDIC intervenes and prevents a fractional reserve bank from going bust and taking all of the digital money with it.
This is economic logic. If the logic is incorrect, then there should be detailed theoretical criticisms of it. Or, given the weaknesses of human thought, maybe logic does not correspond to reality. Economists are famous for constructing detailed theories that do not conform to reality. But the free market theory of price changes as the result of the supply and demand for money in relation to the supply and demand for products and services is straightforward. It undergirds all of economic theory. Throw it out, and what remains of economic theory?
If a central bank creates a boom with fiat money, and then ceases to inflate, it can create deflation. How? By refusing to bail out busted banks. It allows the money supply to contract as bankrupt commercial bank deposits disappear. Fractional reserve banking implodes. That will create a deflationary depression. We have not seen anything like this since 1934: the creation of the FDIC.
Don't bank on this just yet.
INFLATION
Monetary inflation produces price inflation. On this, Chicago School monetarists and Austrian school economists agree.
If the central bank expands the money supply, prices will rise. This takes time. Economists debate about the lag time: 6 months, a year, 18 months. But monetary expansion will raise prices. The new money has to go somewhere. It has to wind up in someone's bank account.
If the central bank expands the monetary base by buying assets of any kind, it creates money to buy them. The recipients of those assets spend the money. If the Treasury gets it, Congress spends it. (In both theory and practice, if Congress gets its collective hands on money, it spends it. All economists are agreed on this point.)
The expansion of money by the central bank is the source of economic booms and specific asset bubbles. The expansion of money temporarily lowers the interest rate. Someone borrows this newly created money.
America suffered from monetary inflation from 1914 to 1930. Then, with a 3-year hiatus of collapsing banks, we have suffered from 1934 until today. The dollar has fallen by 95% since 1914. No, I don't believe the CPI tells us this exactly. But I can follow the trend. The trend is up for prices and down for purchasing power.
For as long as the Federal Reserve creates money, we will have price inflation. The only thing that can retard this is if the FED raises reserve requirements or commercial banks send excess reserves to the FED. The monetary effects are the same: increased reserves are the result. This reduces the multiplier of fractional reserve banking.
Price inflation of under 10% per annum is what I call inflation. But before we get to this, we will suffer from stagflation.
STAGFLATION
This was the burden of the 1970's. There was monetary expansion and massive Federal deficits. Why, the Federal deficit was a staggering $25 billion in 1970, and as bad the next year. Unthinkable!
The dominant Keynesian theory was that Federal deficits would overcome recessions. The central bank need only inflate enough to cover part of the Federal deficit. But there were two major recessions in the 1970's. Unemployment rose, and prices rose. That combination of events was dubbed stagflation.
That we can have economic stagnation in today's world is obvious. Just about every mainstream economist and forecaster is predicting slow economic growth next year. The familiar V-shaped recovery is not a popular forecast these days. More typical is the forecast of Muhammed El-Erian, the CEO of PIMCO, the largest bond fund in the world. He calls this "the new normal."
Global growth will be subdued for a while and unemployment high; a heavy hand of government will be evident in several sectors; the core of the global system will be less cohesive and, with the magnet of the Anglo-Saxon model in retreat, finance will no longer be accorded a preeminent role in post-industrial economies. Moreover, the balance of risk will tilt over time toward higher sovereign risk, growing inflationary expectations and stagflation.
This scenario is a combination of slow growth and rising prices. Today, we have no growth and flat prices. So, slow growth and rising prices is not much of a stretch conceptually.
I think stagflation is likely, once the recovery comes. But we are seeing a gigantic Federal deficit. Ross Perot in 1992 spoke of a giant sucking sound. He said that was the sound of jobs lost to Mexico. I think it is the sound of the Federal government sucking up all excess capital in the United States and much of the world. This money will not be going into the private sector.
What is the basis of a sustained economic recovery? Increased capital formation. We are seeing capital destruction.
For a time, we will suffer from stagflation. It will not be stagdeflation. It will be staginflation.
What do I envision? Economic growth under 2% per annum, coupled with price increases of 5% per annum or more.
MASS INFLATION
This phenomenon will appear when the Federal deficit cannot be covered by private investment and purchases by foreign central banks. This seems certain within a decade. I think it is likely before the end of the next President's term. I think the Social Security trust fund will cease to provide a surplus that is used to purchase nonmarketable Treasury debt, as it is today. The trustees will have to sell some of these nonmarketable Treasury debt certificates back to the Treasury. The Treasury in turn will have to sell conventional Treasury debt to cover the redemptions by the trust fund.
This stage will be the indicator that the present borrow-and-spend model has failed. The FED will be called upon to supply the difference between purchases of T-debt by the public and borrowing by the government. When the FED complies, the rate of monetary inflation will rise. Prices will also rise.
I define mass inflation as double-digit price inflation above 20% but below 40%. Americans have not seen this. No industrial nation has seen this except after a major military defeat.
The disruption of the capital markets will be extreme. The government will absorb virtually all capital formation. There will be no net capital formation. There will be capital consumption.
The international value of the dollar will fall. But other Western nations will be pursuing comparable policies. It is not clear how far the dollar will fall. It depends on the competitive race to national self-destruction. Every Western nation faces the day of reckoning: the bankruptcy of Social Security/Medicare.
At this point, the FED will have to make a choice: put on the brakes or destroy the dollar.
HYPERINFLATION
The worst-case scenario is hyperinflation. Ludwig von Mises called this the crack-up boom. It leads to the destruction of the currency. The economy will move to barter or to alternative currencies. The division of labor will collapse.
No modern industrial economy has suffered this since the recovery after World War II. The West is not Zimbabwe. The West is not a backward agricultural nation that still has functional tribal organizations to help their members.
Think about the implications of your money not buying anything of value. How would you live? You are urban. You are dependent on a complex system of computerized production and distribution. It is all governed by profit and loss. The profit-and-loss system will cease to function at some point. That is when the economy shifts to a new monetary system.
This would be the destruction of wealth on the scale of a war. It would create a new social order.
I do not think the Federal Reserve will allow this. This would destroy the banking system. The FED's unofficial but primary job is to preserve the biggest banks in the banking system. If it's a question of providing fiat money for the government's debt vs. destroying the dollar, the FED will cease buying Treasury debt.
That will be the turning point.
DEFLATION
Then we will get the crash. The FED will protect the biggest banks, which will swallow the assets of smaller banks. A lot of smaller banks will go under. They will take deposits with them.
We will get bank runs. People will demand currency. The FDIC will be busted. These banks will go under. So will depositors' money. It will be "It's a Wonderful Life" without the 6 o'clock escape hatch in the script.
You had better have your money in Potter's Bank, not the Bedford Falls Building & Loan.
The contraction of digital money will be matched by a truly serious recession. Bankruptcies will be widespread. Unemployment may not rise, but only because the final phase of mass inflation had created so much unemployment.
This will be a period of restoration. The cost of the restoration will depend on how bad the dislocations of the mass inflation had been. If they are very serious, which I would expect, the time of recession will be tolerable if you have currency and a job. But the investment strategies of hedging against mass inflation will produce losses. An opposite set of strategies will appear. Be a debtor in mass inflation. Be a creditor in the post-inflation recovery.
If the Federal Reserve intervenes again, repeat the cycle from the top. But the numbers will be much larger.
How The Federal Reserve Scam Works
From the book "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin.
Although national monetary events may appear mysterious and chaotic, they are governed by well-established rules which bankers and politicians rigidly follow. The central fact to understanding these events is that all the money in the banking system has been created out of nothing through the process of making loans.
A defaulted loan, therefore, costs the bank little of tangible value, but it shows up on the ledger as a reduction in assets without a corresponding reduction in liabilities. If the bad loans exceed the assets, the bank becomes technically insolvent and must close its doors.
The first rule of survival is therefore to avoid writing off large, bad loans and if possible to at least continue receiving interest payments on them.
To accomplish that, the endangered loans are rolled over and increased in size. This provides the borrower with money to continue paying interest plus fresh funds for new spending. The basic problem is not solved, it is postponed for a while and made worse.
The final solution on behalf of the banking cartel is to have the federal government guarantee payment of the loan should the borrower default in the future.
This is accomplished by convincing Congress that not to do so would result in great damage to the economy and hardship for the people. From that point forward, the burden of the loan is removed from the banks ledger and transferred to the taxpayer.
Should this effort fail and the bank be forced into insolvency, the last resort is to use the FDIC to pay off the depositors. The FDIC is not insurance because the presence of "moral hazard" makes the thing it supposedly protects against more likely to happen.
When FDIC funds run out it is provided by the Federal Reserve system in the form of freshly created new money. This floods the economy causing the appearance of rising prices but which, in reality, is the lowering of the value of the dollar.
The final cost of the bailout is passed on to the public in the form of a hidden tax called inflation.
The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle
It should be called the Austrian Explanation of the Business Cycle, because it's spot on.
The theory proposes that a sustained period of low interest rates and excessive credit creation results in a volatile and unstable imbalance between saving and investment.
According to the theory, the business cycle unfolds in the following way.
Low interest rates tend to stimulate borrowing from the banking system.
This expansion of credit causes an expansion of the supply of money, through the money creation process in a fractional reserve banking system.
This in turn leads to an unsustainable credit-sourced boom during which the artificially stimulated borrowing seeks out diminishing investment opportunities.
This credit-sourced boom results in widespread malinvestments, causing capital resources to be misallocated into areas that would not attract investment if the money supply remained stable.
A correction or "credit crunch" – commonly called a "recession" or "bust" – occurs when exponential credit creation cannot be sustained.
Then the money supply suddenly and sharply contracts when markets finally "clear", causing resources to be reallocated back towards more efficient uses.
The bankers know that this is what happens, and they do it on purpose.
That is why they've bought off politicians to create the Federal Reserve, to abolish a gold standard, and more recently...to "deregulate" banks to allow them to do what they did to our economy.
Although national monetary events may appear mysterious and chaotic, they are governed by well-established rules which bankers and politicians rigidly follow. The central fact to understanding these events is that all the money in the banking system has been created out of nothing through the process of making loans.
A defaulted loan, therefore, costs the bank little of tangible value, but it shows up on the ledger as a reduction in assets without a corresponding reduction in liabilities. If the bad loans exceed the assets, the bank becomes technically insolvent and must close its doors.
The first rule of survival is therefore to avoid writing off large, bad loans and if possible to at least continue receiving interest payments on them.
To accomplish that, the endangered loans are rolled over and increased in size. This provides the borrower with money to continue paying interest plus fresh funds for new spending. The basic problem is not solved, it is postponed for a while and made worse.
The final solution on behalf of the banking cartel is to have the federal government guarantee payment of the loan should the borrower default in the future.
This is accomplished by convincing Congress that not to do so would result in great damage to the economy and hardship for the people. From that point forward, the burden of the loan is removed from the banks ledger and transferred to the taxpayer.
Should this effort fail and the bank be forced into insolvency, the last resort is to use the FDIC to pay off the depositors. The FDIC is not insurance because the presence of "moral hazard" makes the thing it supposedly protects against more likely to happen.
When FDIC funds run out it is provided by the Federal Reserve system in the form of freshly created new money. This floods the economy causing the appearance of rising prices but which, in reality, is the lowering of the value of the dollar.
The final cost of the bailout is passed on to the public in the form of a hidden tax called inflation.
The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle
It should be called the Austrian Explanation of the Business Cycle, because it's spot on.
The theory proposes that a sustained period of low interest rates and excessive credit creation results in a volatile and unstable imbalance between saving and investment.
According to the theory, the business cycle unfolds in the following way.
Low interest rates tend to stimulate borrowing from the banking system.
This expansion of credit causes an expansion of the supply of money, through the money creation process in a fractional reserve banking system.
This in turn leads to an unsustainable credit-sourced boom during which the artificially stimulated borrowing seeks out diminishing investment opportunities.
This credit-sourced boom results in widespread malinvestments, causing capital resources to be misallocated into areas that would not attract investment if the money supply remained stable.
A correction or "credit crunch" – commonly called a "recession" or "bust" – occurs when exponential credit creation cannot be sustained.
Then the money supply suddenly and sharply contracts when markets finally "clear", causing resources to be reallocated back towards more efficient uses.
The bankers know that this is what happens, and they do it on purpose.
That is why they've bought off politicians to create the Federal Reserve, to abolish a gold standard, and more recently...to "deregulate" banks to allow them to do what they did to our economy.
Bernanke Created An Economy Recovery Illusion
Fed chair Ben Bernanke's low interest rates and monetization programs have flooded the markets and created the illusion of economic recovery.
But investors and consumers remain skeptical. In fact, (according to zero hedge) less than $400 billion has moved from Money Markets into stocks in the last 6 months even though the index value has increased by more than $2.7 trillion.
So, where did the money come from? The Fed has taken trillions in toxic securities onto its balance sheet, thus, providing financial institutions with the liquidity they need to goose the stock market. With securitization in a shambles, the banks have fewer opportunities to meet earnings expectations.
Lending is down, but speculation is up.
Way up.
Bernanke knows that neither stimulus nor liquidity will fix the economy. That's because many of the financial institutions that took out loans from the Fed are technically insolvent. (Borrowing more money won't help if you're already drowning in red ink.)
Even so, he is committed to keeping the big banks afloat and patching together the flawed wholesale credit system any way he can. This is why Bernanke should never have been reappointed.
True, he demonstrated impressive imagination and skill in pumping liquidity into the financial system, but he's done nothing to role up insolvent institutions or to purge toxic assets and non-performing loans from the system. The Fed has merely provided enough taxpayer-funded scaffolding to keep a rotten system propped up a little longer.
What good does that do?
But investors and consumers remain skeptical. In fact, (according to zero hedge) less than $400 billion has moved from Money Markets into stocks in the last 6 months even though the index value has increased by more than $2.7 trillion.
So, where did the money come from? The Fed has taken trillions in toxic securities onto its balance sheet, thus, providing financial institutions with the liquidity they need to goose the stock market. With securitization in a shambles, the banks have fewer opportunities to meet earnings expectations.
Lending is down, but speculation is up.
Way up.
Bernanke knows that neither stimulus nor liquidity will fix the economy. That's because many of the financial institutions that took out loans from the Fed are technically insolvent. (Borrowing more money won't help if you're already drowning in red ink.)
Even so, he is committed to keeping the big banks afloat and patching together the flawed wholesale credit system any way he can. This is why Bernanke should never have been reappointed.
True, he demonstrated impressive imagination and skill in pumping liquidity into the financial system, but he's done nothing to role up insolvent institutions or to purge toxic assets and non-performing loans from the system. The Fed has merely provided enough taxpayer-funded scaffolding to keep a rotten system propped up a little longer.
What good does that do?
The IMF Destroys Iceland and Latvia
Huffington Post
The government of Iceland may not actually have the money to pay this off. They would have to borrow it. When the IMF makes a "rescue loan" to a government, the money spends no time in Iceland or Latvia. It goes directly to the foreign creditors, in places like New York and London.
The International Monetary Fund operates primarily as a banker bailout machine. They cajole and tempt and confuse and threaten the leaders of governments worldwide to pay off the failed bets of the big bankers using the taxpayer funds of their countries. This has been going on a long time, at least since the early 1980s.
Thus, I am not in the teeniest bit surprised that the same thing is happening today in Iceland and Latvia.
This article by Michael Hudson has some of the details:
The European Union and International Monetary Fund have told them to replace private debts with public obligations, and to pay by raising taxes, slashing public spending and obliging citizens to deplete their savings.Resentment is growing not only toward those who ran up these debts -- Iceland's bankrupt Kaupthing and Landsbanki with its Icesave accounts, and heavily debt-leveraged property owners and privatizers in the Baltics and Central Europe -- but also toward the neoliberal foreign advisors and creditors who pressured these governments to sell off the banks and public infrastructure to insiders.
The government of Iceland may not actually have the money to pay this off. They would have to borrow it. When the IMF makes a "rescue loan" to a government, the money spends no time in Iceland or Latvia. It goes directly to the foreign creditors, in places like New York and London.
However, the debts remain, to be paid off by the taxpayers of Iceland. Taxes rise, which just makes a bad economic situation worse. Valuable and important services are cut -- precisely when they are most needed. Then, the IMF "advisors" come in and start to make a lot of demands.
For example, they may demand that the government sell off "public infrastructure" and the assets of failed banks (which still have considerable value) to pay off the loans which were used to bail out the bankers in New York and London. Who buys this "public infrastructure"?
Typically, it's the bankers in New York and London!
Normally, at very, very good prices.
Hudson calls this "neoliberal free-market ideology." Of course, it has nothing to do with the principles of capitalism. You could call it a form of fascist imperialism. I think John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and The History of the American Empire, would agree with this terminology.
It is hard to tempt and cajole and confuse world leaders when you use unpleasant terms like "fascist imperialism." That's why these proposals are camouflaged with labels like "neoliberal free-market principles," when they have nothing to do with free-market principles.
It's not about "conservative" and "liberal." It's about us against the banker imperialists.
You know that recession Obama ended?
http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSTRE5815X020090902
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bankruptcy filings by U.S. consumers rose 24 percent in August compared with a year earlier and could reach 1.4 million this year, according to an American Bankruptcy Institute and National Bankruptcy Research Center report released on Wednesday.
Despite the spike, consumer bankruptcy filings last month were down 5 percent from July.
The August bankruptcies brought the 2009 number to 922,000.
In 2008, a total of 1.1 million consumers filed for bankruptcy, according to ABI.
They saved the ultra-rich elite bankers and CEOs from a recession, but not America.
They tell you that things would be worse if we didn't save them...that is obviously a crock of shit.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bankruptcy filings by U.S. consumers rose 24 percent in August compared with a year earlier and could reach 1.4 million this year, according to an American Bankruptcy Institute and National Bankruptcy Research Center report released on Wednesday.
Despite the spike, consumer bankruptcy filings last month were down 5 percent from July.
The August bankruptcies brought the 2009 number to 922,000.
In 2008, a total of 1.1 million consumers filed for bankruptcy, according to ABI.
They saved the ultra-rich elite bankers and CEOs from a recession, but not America.
They tell you that things would be worse if we didn't save them...that is obviously a crock of shit.
Most people are "truthers"
http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=855
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To Act;
66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York's Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469
- Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News.
53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.
Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To Act;
66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York's Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469
- Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News.
53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.
Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.
Do you want to know who runs our government?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder
Sociopath/Psychopath
Antisocial Personality disorder is diagnosed in approximately three percent of all males and one percent of all females. (Some of this 1-3% make their way into positions of power)
Critera and Symptoms
Tendency to violate the boundaries and rights of others.
Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying.Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
Reckless disregard for safety of others.
Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
Superficial charm.
Narcissism, elevated self-appraisal or a sense of extreme entitlement.
Lack of realistic, long-term goals.
Recurring difficulties with the law.
Substance abuse.
Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
Sociopath/Psychopath
Antisocial Personality disorder is diagnosed in approximately three percent of all males and one percent of all females. (Some of this 1-3% make their way into positions of power)
Critera and Symptoms
Tendency to violate the boundaries and rights of others.
Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying.Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
Reckless disregard for safety of others.
Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
Superficial charm.
Narcissism, elevated self-appraisal or a sense of extreme entitlement.
Lack of realistic, long-term goals.
Recurring difficulties with the law.
Substance abuse.
Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
What would America look like without a Fed?
http://www.americanbankingnews.com/2009/09/02/what-would-the-united-states-look-like-without-the-federal-reserve/
Apologists for the Fed would note that the United States was in recession half of the time between the Civil War and 1914 and only 21% of the time since the Fed came into force.
However, the frequent down-turns before 1914 weren’t the result of a lack of a central bank, but more-so because of poorly thought government regulations, such as bans on branch banking making it so that banks could not survive localized economic trouble. The Federal Government also forced banks to trade notes at a discount whenever the bank offering the note was from another area.
After the adoption of a system similar to Canada’s failed, only then did reformers consider the establishment of a central reserve bank.
As a result, the Federal Reserve Act allowed for the creation of 12 new banks to do what other banks were prevented from doing themselves, establishing branch networks and issuing currency backed by commercial assets.
Apologists for the Fed would note that the United States was in recession half of the time between the Civil War and 1914 and only 21% of the time since the Fed came into force.
However, the frequent down-turns before 1914 weren’t the result of a lack of a central bank, but more-so because of poorly thought government regulations, such as bans on branch banking making it so that banks could not survive localized economic trouble. The Federal Government also forced banks to trade notes at a discount whenever the bank offering the note was from another area.
After the adoption of a system similar to Canada’s failed, only then did reformers consider the establishment of a central reserve bank.
As a result, the Federal Reserve Act allowed for the creation of 12 new banks to do what other banks were prevented from doing themselves, establishing branch networks and issuing currency backed by commercial assets.
You and everyone you know is stupid.
Why doesn't anyone care about bringing to justice the people responsible for the credit crisis?
Look what the derivatives market has done.
People were lured into subprime mortgages, criminals gambled with peoples lives, and many have been ruined.
And maybe 5% of people are paying attention to this stuff.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/2/american_casino_doc_investigates_roots_of
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Dr. Greenspan, you had an ideology, you had a belief, that free, competitive—and this is your statement: “I do have an ideology. My judgment is that free, competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies. We’ve tried regulation. None meaningfully worked.” That was your quote.
You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others. And now our whole economy is paying its price. Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?
ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, remember that what an ideology is is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to. To exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not. And what I’m saying to you is, yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is, but I’ve been very distressed by that fact.
Look what the derivatives market has done.
People were lured into subprime mortgages, criminals gambled with peoples lives, and many have been ruined.
And maybe 5% of people are paying attention to this stuff.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/2/american_casino_doc_investigates_roots_of
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Dr. Greenspan, you had an ideology, you had a belief, that free, competitive—and this is your statement: “I do have an ideology. My judgment is that free, competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies. We’ve tried regulation. None meaningfully worked.” That was your quote.
You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others. And now our whole economy is paying its price. Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?
ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, remember that what an ideology is is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to. To exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not. And what I’m saying to you is, yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is, but I’ve been very distressed by that fact.
But if I may, may I just finish an answer to the question previously posed?
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: You found a flaw in the reality—
ALAN GREENSPAN: Flaw in the model that I perceived as the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right. It was not working.
ALAN GREENSPAN: That it had a—precisely. No, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I’ve been going for forty years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.
The Federal Reserve was a poor substitute for deregulation. Since the Fed had monopoly privileges in issuing currency, it allowed them to cause unchecked inflation.
By 1919, the US Inflation rate jumped to nearly 20%. Since the Federal Reserve had a monopoly on currency, it also had to make sure that there was enough currency in the market to avert a crisis. Soon after, two of the worst monetary contractions in history, the first in 1921, and the second between 1929 and 1933 took place.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The IMF Destroys Iceland and Latvia
Huffington Post
The International Monetary Fund operates primarily as a banker bailout machine. They cajole and tempt and confuse and threaten the leaders of governments worldwide to pay off the failed bets of the big bankers using the taxpayer funds of their countries. This has been going on a long time, at least since the early 1980s.
Thus, I am not in the teeniest bit surprised that the same thing is happening today in Iceland and Latvia.
This article by Michael Hudson has some of the details:
The European Union and International Monetary Fund have told them to replace private debts with public obligations, and to pay by raising taxes, slashing public spending and obliging citizens to deplete their savings.Resentment is growing not only toward those who ran up these debts -- Iceland's bankrupt Kaupthing and Landsbanki with its Icesave accounts, and heavily debt-leveraged property owners and privatizers in the Baltics and Central Europe -- but also toward the neoliberal foreign advisors and creditors who pressured these governments to sell off the banks and public infrastructure to insiders.
The government of Iceland may not actually have the money to pay this off. They would have to borrow it. When the IMF makes a "rescue loan" to a government, the money spends no time in Iceland or Latvia. It goes directly to the foreign creditors, in places like New York and London.
However, the debts remain, to be paid off by the taxpayers of Iceland. Taxes rise, which just makes a bad economic situation worse. Valuable and important services are cut -- precisely when they are most needed. Then, the IMF "advisors" come in and start to make a lot of demands.
For example, they may demand that the government sell off "public infrastructure" and the assets of failed banks (which still have considerable value) to pay off the loans which were used to bail out the bankers in New York and London. Who buys this "public infrastructure"?
Typically, it's the bankers in New York and London! Normally, at very, very good prices.
Hudson calls this "neoliberal free-market ideology." Of course, it has nothing to do with the principles of capitalism. You could call it a form of fascist imperialism. I think John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and The History of the American Empire, would agree with this terminology.It is hard to tempt and cajole and confuse world leaders when you use unpleasant terms like "fascist imperialism." That's why these proposals are camouflaged with labels like "neoliberal free-market principles," when they have nothing to do with free-market principles.
It's not about "conservative" and "liberal." It's about us against the banker imperialists.
The IMF should be abolished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)