HotStockMarket › Groups › stonerangers forum › Discussions › Politics, society, and why everything is going to hell.

Politics, society, and why everything is going to hell. - Page 12

post #221 of 1310
Thread Starter 

Turkey Claims Syria Fired On Second Turkish Jet, Says "Act Won't Go Unpunished", Has Invoked NATO Articles 4 And 5

 

At this point even those who have never heard of the Gulf of Tonkin know where this is headed:

 

  • SYRIAN ACT 'WON'T GO UNPUNISHED,' TURKEY'S ARINC SAYS
  •  
  • SYRIAN ACT 'HOSTILE,' 'COLD-BLOODED,' ARINC SAYS
  •  
  • SYRIA SHOT DOWN TURKISH JET WITHOUT WARNING, NULAND SAYS
  •  
  • TURKEY INVOKED ARTICLES 4 & 5 FOR NATO MEETING, ARINC SAYS
  •  
  • TURKEY TO PROCEED AGAINST SYRIA USING LEGAL RIGHTS, ARINC SAYS
  • TURKISH JET SHOT DOWN IN INTERNATIONAL AIRSPACE, ARINC SAYS

 

 

And yet:

  • TURKISH JET 'MISTAKENLY' ENTERED SYRIAN AIRSPACE, ARINC SAYS
  •  
  • TURKISH JET WAS IN SYRIAN AIRSPACE ONLY 5 MINUTES, ARINC SAYS
  •  

Just the tip, eh?

post #222 of 1310
Thread Starter 

Prudens Speculari
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:03:42 +0000


Global Cess Pool of Serial Liars & Banking Stooges


  In a remake of an Abbott and Costello movie, Wednesday last week you had Spanish Finance Minister Cristobal Montoro "saying Spain won't need assistance "because it does not need to be rescued". Today you get Economy Minister Luis de Guindos on bended knee asking for a bailout. But wait, it gets better. According to Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo:


"The question of whether the money will go directly to the banks or to the state is still open," 
Re-read that line again. I'll wait for you.


Lovely, send the money directly to the financial terrorists who created the mess. Banker stooge extraordinaire Garcia-Margallo indicated:


"Spain would seek the longest period possible for repayment and the lowest interest rate".
Really now. Nice move. Thy master commands and thy errand boy responds. Pathetic.


Remember when Portugal didn't need a bailout and PM Socrates denied over and over again they didn't until finally one day he did.


Or how about Luxembourg PM Jean-Claude Juncker's famous line;


 "When it becomes serious, you have to lie," 


Sure you do. So who after all this bullshit who would believe an assembled cast of characters like this, yet alone trade on anything they say? Why, the products of prestigious MBA schools the world over that's who course! Yes that smart money, 2+2=6 crowd that brought you Enron, MCI Worldcom, repo 105. SIV's (structured investment vehicles) toxic, Liar/NINJA, roboclosures, heck the list is endless. Loans that not only were foisted upon pension plans in every corner of the planet but were, still love this one, re-hypothecated over and over again. If it all weren't so tragically sad I would be rolling on the floor laughing right now.


You just gotta hand those Ivy league genius' credit, when they create a scam they do it thorough. Sell you toxic shit. borrow it, claiming it is in such demand, pledge it as collateral to yet another imbecile, use proceeds to seed yet ever more toxic paper. Rinse repeat. I mean, who comes up with this shit, not some bucket shop operators from JT Marlin out of Jersey or Bernie Madoff who was content to simply run your basic Ponzi 101 racket but rather those sought after graduates of the worlds most prestigious universities, that's who!


Might I suggest the time has come for global banking crime syndicate, along with their representative stooges in government, to simply drop all pretences and simply to walk in and take the money and dare anyone to stop them. My guess is their grovelling, bought and paid for stooges in government would carry the heavy suitcases full of cash out for them.  I know this sounds defeatist and apathetic but the vast majority of the population is so Prozac'd, Ambien'd, Khardashian'd & Idol'd up they wouldn't know the difference.

post #223 of 1310
Thread Starter 

Government Debt: The Price We Pay

post #224 of 1310
Thread Starter 

Once again, I believe that no one has any idea of what is coming down the road. There are (more or less) sound opinions covering every conceiveable outcome. Deflation? Inflation?/  War? Peace?/  Recession? Depression?/  Europe, China, Iran, Syria, Japan, N. Korea,  world debt, manipulated markets, crooked politicians...the list goes on and on. Nothing is safe, everything is chaos...welcome to the show.

post #225 of 1310

From another..

 

This rather brilliantly cuts thru all the political doublespeak and puts things in perspective.

 
 
 
* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
 
Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
 
* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $3.85
post #226 of 1310

Jimmy Carter Accuses U.S. of 'Widespread Abuse of Human Rights'

 

A former U.S. president is accusing the current president of sanctioning the "widespread abuse of human rights" by authorizing drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists.

Jimmy Carter, America's 39 th president, denounced the Obama administration for "clearly violating" 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, writing in a New York Times op-ed on Monday that the "United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights."

"Instead of making the world safer, America's violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends," Carter wrote.

While the total number of attacks from unmanned aircraft, or drones, and the resulting casualties are murky, the New America Foundation estimates that in Pakistan alone 265 drone strikes have been executed since January 2009 . Those strikes have killed at least 1,488 people, at least 1,343 of them considered militants, the foundation estimates based on news reports and other sources.

In addition to the drone strikes, Carter criticized the current president for keeping the Guantanamo Bay detention center open, where prisoners "have been tortured by waterboarding more than 100 times or intimidated with semiautomatic weapons, power drills or threats to sexually assault their mothers."

The former president blasted the government for allowing "unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications."

He also condemned recent legislation that gives the president the power to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely, although a federal judge blocked the law from taking effect for any suspects not affiliated with the September 11 terrorist attacks.

"This law violates the right to freedom of expression and to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, two other rights enshrined in the declaration," Carter said.

While Carter never mentioned Obama by name, he called out "our government" and "the highest authorities in Washington," and urged "concerned citizens" to "persuade Washington to reverse course and regain moral leadership."

post #227 of 1310
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by split710 View Post

Jimmy Carter Accuses U.S. of 'Widespread Abuse of Human Rights'

Probably the only thing I ever agreed with Carter about!

post #228 of 1310
Thread Starter 

Bill Buckler On Keynesian Religion As World War... And The One "Good" Thing About It

 
 
 

If It Doesn’t Work - Keep Trying It Until It Does:

Those running the big investment banks and trading floors today bear an uncanny resemblance to the generals on both sides of the conflict in WWI. There is an old military saying about the folly of fighting the “next” war by the methods of the last war. In modern times, the best illustration of the truth of that adage is what happened on the Western Front between 1914 and 1918.

When 1914 dawned, Europe had not seen a continental war for a century. Most of the generals and the vast majority of their political masters on both sides had not noticed that the years since the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 had seen what was and remains the greatest technological revolution in the history of the world. Both sides had seen the US Civil War of 1861-65, a war which proved beyond all shadow of a doubt that a frontal assault on an established defensive position was almost guaranteed to fail. Both sides completely ignored the lesson. The literal “cannon fodder” on both sides paid a gruesome price.

 

The result of this stubborn ignorance, as the history books so voluminously recount, was the antithesis of “bliss”. It was mass carnage. When an attack by 50,000 men proved impotent to the task, the numbers were raised to 100,000 and then 250,000. When an hour of preliminary shelling of the target proved insufficient, it was raised to an entire morning and then to a day and then to the best part of a week. The “big” battalions got bigger and Bigger and BIGGER. The trenches proliferated. The barbed wire proliferated. The casualties proliferated. The destruction proliferated.

The men on the firing line on both sides quickly realised the futility of what those who commanded them were attempting to do. But there was no escape for them. They died in their millions while the generals and the politicians clung tenaciously to the goal of trying to make the unworkable “work”. Any suggestion of a deviation from the frontal assault was fiercely resisted. On the few occasions when it was actually tried, such as the Cambrai offensive with its use of tanks and no preliminary bombardment, it was done over protest and the means supplied were intentionally insufficient to the task. The end came as it was always going to come, with exhaustion.

 

Four Years Of False Dawns

WWI lasted 51 months, from August 1914 until November 1918. If we go back 51 months from the present, we reach late March 2008 - six months before the Lehman crisis hit. From that day to this, has there been ANY more deviation from the “approved” method of extracting the world from its financial morass than was shown by the WWI commanders in extracting themselves from their military morass?

The answer is crystal clear. There has been NO such deviation. There has simply been more of the same. When half a $US TRILLION in annual deficits proved insufficient to the task, the number was raised to $US 1 TRILLION and then the best part of $US 2 TRILLION. When central bank interest rates equalling the lowest in history didn’t work, interest rates were eradicated altogether. When existing methods of bailing out insolvent banks proved insufficient to the task, new methods were invented in an ever increasing stream. When the results of the inevitable financial carnage became too big to ignore, the figures which reported it were adulterated or simply suppressed completely.

 

With every new year that has dawned since 2008, the powers that be everywhere have announced that THIS TIME, the recovery is “real”. In March 2012, French President Sarkozy was announcing that: “Today, the problem is solved!” Christine Lagarde over at the IMF proclaimed that: “Economic spring is in the air.” Not to be outdone, President Obama was telling his fellow Americans that: “The recovery is accelerating, America is coming back!” The same songbook was followed in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

It was followed in WWI too, long after the contrast with the REAL situation had gone far beyond the grotesque. Today, there is only ONE place left in the world which still clings to its long-fostered stubborn ignorance. That place is the financial markets. They STILL believe in the BIGGER batallions.

 

The One “Good” Thing About A Big War:

A “big” war becomes the almost exclusive centre of attention to all those engaged in it, whether on the front or keeping the “home fires burning”. It is impossible to pretend that it is not happening and equally impossible to cover up the devastation in lives and property which it causes. Many people don’t come home from BIG wars, leaving those left behind with agonising and very REAL losses. War causes destruction which is immediate and visible. It is not something that can be swept under the carpet.

Today, we are in the midst of a financial debacle which is more truly global than any world war. There are no lines of trenches, no shattered towns and cities, no casualty lists in the papers and no “we regret to inform you” telegrams being delivered. The carnage is real but it is invisible. No lives have been lost. All that has happened is that the living of life has become more difficult and the ability to rely on the fruits of past efforts for future comfort and “security” has been all but extinguished. The vast majority of the people are cannon fodder in this financial debacle. Like the real thing in the trenches of the Western Front, they have long since realised the futility of the efforts of their “generals”. They know that the “recession” is not over. They are starting to realise that it will never be over as long as the same methods which produced it are being used to get out from under it. But most see no escape, having become used to looking to those same “generals” to tell them what to do.

 

To an extent which goes far beyond even the politicians and the bankers, the “market makers” want to fight this new financial war with the methods of the old ones. In WWI, the generals held to the end that if your shelling made a big enough noise, the danger of an attack would go away. The “market makers” figure that if they stuff enough new freshly-printed money in their ears, they won’t have to hear the sound of the economy falling away from underneath them. “Less Talk - More Stimulus?” That is a message that the generals of WWI would have understood very well. It didn’t work then. It won’t work now.

post #229 of 1310
Thread Starter 

A Political Glossary

 

June 26, 2012

 

by Thomas Sowell

 

 

 

Since this is an election year, we can expect to hear a lot of words -- and the meaning of those words is not always clear. So it may be helpful to have a glossary of political terms.

 

One of the most versatile terms in the political vocabulary is "fairness." It has been used over a vast range of issues, from "fair trade" laws to the Fair Labor Standards Act. And recently we have heard that the rich don't pay their "fair share" of taxes.

Some of us may want to see a definition of what is "fair." But a concrete definition would destroy the versatility of the word, which is what makes it so useful politically.

If you said, for example, that 46.7 percent of their income -- or any other number -- is the "fair share" of their income that the rich should have to pay in taxes, then once they paid that amount, there would be no basis for politicians to come back to them for more -- and "more" is what "fair share" means in practice.

Life in general has never been even close to fair, so the pretense that the government can make it fair is a valuable and inexhaustible asset to politicians who want to expand government.

 

"Racism" is another term we can expect to hear a lot this election year, especially if the public opinion polls are going against President Barack Obama.

Former big-time TV journalist Sam Donaldson and current fledgling CNN host Don Lemon have already proclaimed racism to be the reason for criticisms of Obama, and we can expect more and more other talking heads to say the same thing as the election campaign goes on. The word "racism" is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything -- and demanding evidence makes you a "racist."

A more positive term that is likely to be heard a lot, during election years especially, is "compassion." But what does it mean concretely? More often than not, in practice it means a willingness to spend the taxpayers' money in ways that will increase the spender's chances of getting reelected.

If you are skeptical -- or, worse yet, critical -- of this practice, then you qualify for a different political label: "mean-spirited." A related political label is "greedy."

In the political language of today, people who want to keep what they have earned are said to be "greedy," while those who wish to take their earnings from them and give it to others (who will vote for them in return) show "compassion."

 

A political term that had me baffled for a long time was "the hungry." Since we all get hungry, it was not obvious to me how you single out some particular segment of the population to refer to as "the hungry."

Eventually, over the years, it finally dawned on me what the distinction was. People who make no provision to feed themselves, but expect others to provide food for them, are those whom politicians and the media refer to as "the hungry."

Those who meet this definition may have money for alcohol, drugs or even various electronic devices. And many of them are overweight. But, if they look to voluntary donations, or money taken from the taxpayers, to provide them with something to eat, then they are "the hungry."

I can remember a time, long ago, when I was hungry in the old-fashioned sense. I was a young fellow out of work, couldn't find work, fell behind in my room rent -- and, when I finally found a job, I had to walk miles to get there, because I couldn't afford both subway fare and food.

But this was back in those "earlier and simpler times" we hear about. I was so naive that I thought it was up to me to go find a job, and to save some money when I did. Even though I knew that Joe DiMaggio was making $100,000 a year -- a staggering sum in the money of that time -- it never occurred to me that it was up to him to see that I got fed.

 

So, even though I was hungry, I never qualified for the political definition of "the hungry." Moreover, I never thereafter spent all the money I made, whether that was a little or a lot, because being hungry back then was a lot worse than being one of "the hungry" today.

As a result, I was never of any use to politicians looking for dependents who would vote for them. Nor have I ever had much use for such politicians.

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
post #230 of 1310
Thread Starter 

Has the Day of the Islamist Arrived?

By Pat Buchanan

6/26/2012

 

Sixteen months after the United States abandoned its loyal satrap of 30 years, President Hosni Mubarak, to champion democracy in Egypt, the returns are in.

 

Mohammed Morsi, candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood, is president of Egypt, while the military has dissolved the elected parliament that was dominated by the Brotherhood, and curbed his powers.

The military and the mullahs will fight for the future of a country that is home to one in four Arabs. The soldiers who have dominated Egypt since the ouster of King Farouk in 1952 show no willingness to surrender what they have long controlled of the state and economy.

 

Yet in the long run, the Brotherhood -- whose claim to guide the nation's destiny is rooted in a faith 1,400 years old -- is likely to prevail.

In Syria, the uprising against Bashar Assad appears headed for civil war, with atrocities on both sides. Some 10,000 are estimated to have died, a far bloodier affair than Egypt. And here, too, the day of the Brotherhood, massacred in the thousands by Bashar's father in Hama, seems not far off.

Witnessing what is happening in these critical Arab countries and across the region, one is tempted to ask: What are the fruits of three decades of compulsive U.S. intervention in the Islamic world?

 

Ronald Reagan put Marines in Lebanon to support an embattled Beirut regime and saw 241 of them massacred in their barracks.

In 1986, he ordered air strikes on Libya in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin nightclub frequented by GIs. Reagan was paid back in his final days in office when Moammar Gadhafi's killers blew up Pan Am 103, scattering the bodies of U.S. school kids over the Lockerbie landscape.

George H.W. Bush launched Desert Storm to rescue Kuwait from Saddam Hussein and restore the emir. After five weeks of air war and 100 hours of ground combat, Bush triumphed. He then imposed an embargo-blockade on Iraq and transferred thousands of U.S. troops onto Saudi soil that is home to Mecca and Medina.

 

Two of the causes of his attack on 9/11, said Osama bin Laden, were the U.S. strangulation of Iraq and the defiling of Islam's sacred soil by infidel U.S. troops.

George W. Bush answered 9/11 by invading Afghanistan, driving out the Taliban and al-Qaida, and staying on to build a more secular, democratic and pluralistic nation. He then invaded Iraq to overthrow Saddam and convert that country into a model Arab democracy and strategic base camp for the United States in the Middle East.

What did those wars cost? What did they accomplish?

Some 6,500 U.S. dead, 40,000 wounded, $1 to $2 trillion sunk. Tens of thousands of Afghan and 100,000 Iraqi dead, with widows and orphans numbering over 500,000. Half the Christians of Iraq have fled their homes, and half of these have fled the country in which their ancestors had lived almost since the time of Christ.

 

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq can be regarded as a loyal ally or defender of U.S. interests. Pakistan, a country of 170 million with atomic weapons and an ally through 40 years of Cold War, has been converted into an embittered and even hostile nation.

The U.S.-NATO intervention in Libya brought about the dethroning and death of Gadhafi. It also resulted in the expulsion of Tuareg tribesmen who had served Gadhafi as mercenaries. Back in Mali, they have joined rebels to effect the secession of a slice of Mali the size of France, which is now becoming a haven for al-Qaida.

When one considers the investment America has made in the Middle East -- the dead and wounded from our wars, the trillions lost in fighting and foreign aid, the endless time and attention of our leaders, scholars, journalists -- what do we have to show for it?

 

From the Maghreb to the Middle East to Afghanistan, Christians are as isolated and imperiled as they have been in centuries.

The Israelis now have as neighbors: Hezbollah to the north, an embittered, segregated Palestinian population of 2 million to the east, Hamas to the south and to the west an Egypt of 80 million that has just passed into the custody of the Muslim Brotherhood.

And among those seeking to bring down Assad are not only Americans, Turks, Saudis and Qatari, but al-Qaida, the principal suspect in the terror bombings of Aleppo and Damascus, and the Muslim Brotherhood, which owes the Assad family a blood debt.

 

If Assad falls and Sunnis seize power and pursue their slogan -- "Christians to Beirut and Alawites to the tomb" -- a prediction: A return of the Golan Heights taken by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War will top the agenda of the new Damascus regime.

And now John McCain is calling for air strikes on Damascus and Bibi Netanyahu and his neocon allies have Tehran in their gun sights.

What exactly have we gained from 30 years of interventions in the Middle East -- that China lost out on by staying out?

post #231 of 1310
Thread Starter 

Don Coxe - Get Ready, Banks to Collapse In Europe

 

June 26, 2012

 

Today 40 year veteran, Don Coxe, told King World News “...the amounts involved are at mind-boggling levels,” in terms of what is

 

needed for Europe’s governments and banks. Coxe, who is Global Strategy Advisor to BMO ($538 billion in assets), also said that European banks,

 

“...have borrowed huge amounts of money, in dollars, under currency swap arrangements,” and “if banks start to go down, we

know from 2008, when banks start to crumble, then the whole system falls.” Here is what Coxe had to say about the ongoing

crisis: “Well, first of all we’ve got to stop using ‘billions’ because if there is going to be a fund that works, it’s going to have a ‘T’ (for trillions) on it. We are dealing with some very big numbers in the sense that Italy, although it’s not that big of an economy, it’s got the third largest amount of bond debt outstanding.

 

“So Italy’s situation is truly serious because they also have a short duration on their debt. If you were holding a three-year Italian bond, but it’s only got three months to maturity, you are probably not going to sell it now because you want to get your money out. But you are not likely to roll it over, unless you are an Italian bank.

So what’s happened is we’ve gradually narrowed down the range of those who, even when the bonds are maturing, want to buy more. We’ve converted the entire European banking system into a funding for the government deficits.

Therefore, we have this situation of two drunks, at night, leaning up against each other, bad governments and bad banks, but the amounts involved are at mind-boggling levels....

“If they had started doing this a year ago, I could see how they could have managed it all. As it is now, they are still talking about reducing their deficits in they year ahead. This is preposterous. This is like the French trying to decide which wine to serve as they saw the German tanks assembling on the other side of the Maginot Line.

It used to be that the number that would solve things was $500 billion, then it got to $1 trillion, and now I’m reading responsible people who say, ‘We will really need about $2 trillion over the next twelve months because of debts maturing.’

I just don’t see where that’s going to come from because the European Central Bank doesn’t have money. The IMF has lined up $450 billion, including about $34 billion from China, but that’s not going to be dispensed if you realize that it would be swallowed up in a matter of weeks, and they would be back for more.

She (Christine Lagard) is not going to drain the IMF’s money. So they are going to say, ‘We don’t want the IMF to become purely a eurozone financing bureau.’ It was set up to handle emerging economies, not submerging, old European economies.

 

As for the European Stability Fund, that’s about $400 billion, and it’s pretty much spoken for. So I don’t know where this money is going to come from.

 

Meanwhile, within the banking system there is a more immediate problem, and that’s where the $2 trillion (figure) comes from. The $2 trillion includes the money that’s needed, within the European banking system, to cover the fact that they have borrowed huge amounts of money, in dollars, under currency swap arrangements.

 

The Fed has been supplying a lot of these. A lot of this stuff is not being rolled over. As soon as it matures, they take the money out. So the European banking system is short hundreds of billions in dollar liabilities. That’s something that is of more immediate concern because you’ve got dozens and dozens and dozens of banks that are having to come to the well every other week.

So it could actually be a banking thing that does it, before the governments do. And the governments aren’t really in a position to subsidize their banks when they are desperately coming to central authorities to fund themselves.

 

If I had to say what will burst the thing, it will be banks that do it. And if banks start to go down, we know from 2008, when banks start to crumble, then the whole system falls. You can postpone the collapse of a government, but you can’t postpone the collapse of a bank if the people are lined up outside and saying, ‘Give me my money.’”

Coxe also added: “Gold’s problem, why it has maxed-out at and pulled back to $1,500, is people say, ‘Well, it had a big move, going from $250 to that ($1,900) level, but it’s still just a theoretical asset, it isn’t doing anything.’ So the moment gold comes into the system and starts doing things, I suspect that’s when we are going to get a significant up-move in gold.”

 

post #232 of 1310
Thread Starter 

Who Destroyed the Middle Class, Part 3

post #233 of 1310

How Cuba Became a 'Happy' Country

Citizens flee on rafts. But environmentalists know better.

 

In what league does Iraq beat Britain, Haiti beat the United States, and Afghanistan beat Denmark? Political corruption? Violent crime? Temperature? No, welcome to the weird and wonderful world of the Happy Planet Index. It is a little window into the way many environmentalists think.

The Happy Planet Index (HPI) purports to "measure what matters: the extent to which countries deliver long, happy, sustainable lives for the people that live in them." It beautifully illustrates the two great vices of environmentalist thought: fetishizing resource efficiency above everything else and treating happiness economics with far too much respect.

Countries with high living standards tend to use more natural resources. That's why instead of being praised as having a dynamic economy and being the least corrupt country in Africa, Botswana comes at the bottom of the Happy Planet Index. It scores a pitiful 22.6, way below the Democratic Republic of the Congo (30.5) and Zimbabwe (35.3). Botswana's people might enjoy a much higher standard of living, but that means a larger ecological footprint.

Of course I will use less oil if I walk to work instead of driving or even getting the bus, or if I bring in crops by hand instead of using a combine harvester. The price you pay for that is normally taking a lot more time and therefore being a lot less productive: That's why we have to balance resource efficiency against other priorities. You might be able to consume fewer resources (and create lots of green jobs) by having people run in giant hamster wheels, but that doesn't make it a sensible way to power a city.

Happiness economics has similar problems. It works by asking people how satisfied they are with their lives. To assess "experienced well-being," the Happy Planet Index uses a question called the "Ladder of Life" from the Gallup World Poll. It asks respondents to imagine a ladder, where zero is the worst possible life and 10 is the best possible life, and report the step of the ladder on which they feel they currently stand.

The problem with a question like that is that your horizons might be a little more limited if you've grown up in a war-torn village in Afghanistan instead of prosperous, stable and connected Denmark. The average inhabitant of Copenhagen can probably imagine a more impressive life than the average inhabitant of Kabul, and that means a much higher bar for the real lives to meet.

It's even worse if you've grown up on the American dream. Do we really want to give countries high marks because the people living there treat just scraping by as a real achievement?

The Happy Planet Index hasn't been composed by some lonely obsessive living with his mother and boring a very small number of readers in a rarely visited corner of the Internet. No, the Happy Planet Index has been produced by the New Economics Foundation, a think tank with an annual budget of more than $3.9 million and a staff of more than 50. They may be as mad as a box of frogs, but these people are well-funded and influential.

They are also playing with taxpayers' money. One of the New Economics Foundation's biggest donors in 2010-11—giving them more than $155,000—was the British government's Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs paid more than $90,000 for another project in 2009 in which the New Economics Foundation produced a report—"Moments of change as opportunities for influencing behaviour"—which looked to Communist Cuba for an example of "mass efficiency improvement."

Cuba, by the way, ranks 12th on the Happy Planet scale.

Reports like the Happy Planet Index claim to show us a different way of measuring success that "puts current and future well-being at the heart of measurement." But there's a reason Cubans regularly risk (and lose) their lives trying to escape their home country and make it to America, and there's no waves of humanity flowing in the opposite direction. That the Happy Planet Index can't capture those realities, or chooses to ignore them, suggests, well, that its authors are living on another planet.

Mr. Sinclair is director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, a London-based think-tank

post #234 of 1310
Thread Starter 

Germany's finance minister is rejecting U.S. President Barack Obama's calls on Europe to move faster in fighting its debt crisis, telling him to get the American deficit under control instead.


Wolfgang Schaeuble told public broadcaster ZDF in an interview late Sunday that "people are always very quick at giving others advice."


He says: "Mr. Obama should first of all take care of reducing the American deficit, which is higher than in the eurozone."


Touché, Mr. President...the pot calling the kettle black, one would think.

post #235 of 1310
Thread Starter 

A Political Glossary: Part II

By Thomas Sowell

6/27/2012

 

Editor's Note: This is part II in a series. Part I can be found here.

 

Politicians seem to have a special fondness for words that have two very different meanings, so we are likely to hear a lot of these kinds of words this election year.

"Access" is one of those words. Politicians seem to be forever coming to the rescue of people who have been denied "access" to credit, college or whatever.

But what does that mean, concretely?

It could mean that some external force is blocking you from whatever your goal might be. Or it could mean that you just don't have whatever it takes to reach that goal.

 

To take a personal example, Michael Jordan became a basketball star -- and a very rich man. I did neither. Was that because I was denied "access" to professional basketball?

Anyone who saw me as a teenager trying to play basketball could tell you that I was lucky to hit the back board, much less the basket.

By the first definition, I had as much "access" to the NBA as Michael Jordan had. Nobody was blocking me. They didn't have to block, because I was not going to make the basket -- or the NBA -- anyway.

 

Making a distinction between external and internal reasons for failing to reach one's goal would clarify the meaning of the word "access." But clarification would destroy the political usefulness of the word, along with the government programs that this word is used to justify.

For years, politicians and the media went ballistic over the fact that different groups had different approval rates for mortgage loans. This was supposed to show that some racial groups were denied "access" to mortgage loans, and especially access to the most desired loans with the lowest interest rates.

No one even asked the question: Denied access by which definition of "access"?

 

Political crusaders don't pause to define words. Their shrill rhetoric suggested that external barriers were the problem. And that meant government intervention was the solution, to smite the wicked and deliver "social justice" (another undefined term).

When statistics showed that blacks were turned down for conventional mortgage loans at twice the rate of whites, that was the clincher for those saying that "access" was the problem and that racial discrimination was the reason. Since this fit the existing preconceptions in many quarters, what more could you want?

 

Other statistics, however, showed that whites were turned down for conventional mortgage loans at nearly double the rate for Asian Americans. By the very same reasoning, that would suggest that whites were being racially discriminated against by banks that were mostly run by whites.

But this unlikely conclusion never surfaced, because the second set of statistics seldom saw the light of day in the mainstream media, even though both sets of statistics were available from the same sources.

 

To publish the second set of statistics would undermine the whole moral melodrama in the media, and the political crusade based on it.

Statistics on the average credit ratings of people in different racial groups likewise seldom saw the light of day. The average credit ratings of whites were higher than the average credit ratings of blacks, and the average credit ratings of Asian Americans were higher than the average credit ratings of whites.

But to lay all these facts before the public and say, "We report, you decide" might well result in the public's deciding that banks and other financial institutions prefer lending to individuals who were more likely to pay them back.

 

Also lost in media stories was the fact that many, if not most, of the financial officials who actually made loan approval decisions never laid eyes on the people who applied, but based their decisions on the paperwork sent by those who dealt directly with the applicants.

 

Equal "access" does not automatically lead to equal outcomes, either in lending institutions or in basketball, or anywhere else. But words like "access" have led to much political success and much economic disaster, the housing market being just one example.

post #236 of 1310
Thread Starter 

Syria's chemical weapons: How secure are they from jihadists?

By Nicholas Blanford

 

June 27, 2012

 

 
 
 

 


 

Syria has been amassing chemical weapons since the 1980s and is believed to have a larger stockpile than any other country that has faced ethnic civil war

 


 

 

 


BEIRUT — (TCSM) As Syria slides into ever worsening violence and parts of the country begin to slip out of control of the state, Syria's chemical and biological weapons arsenal, air defense systems, and ballistic missiles could be up for grabs — a potential bonanza for radical militant groups and a massive challenge for the West in attempting to check proliferation.

Hard data on Syria's chemical and biological warfare capabilities is scarce, but the country is believed to have one of the largest chemical agents stockpiles in the world, including VX and Sarin nerve agents. It also has an impressive number of surface-to-surface missiles, such as Scud-Ds which can be fitted with chemical warheads, and modern Russian anti-aircraft missile batteries, including portable shoulder-fired systems.

 

"This is unknown territory," says Charles Blair, senior fellow for State and Non-State Threats at the Washington-based Federation of American Scientists. "We have never been through the potential collapse via a very bloody ethnic civil war of a country that is likely armed with a very large stockpile of chemical weapons."

Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention and denies having a chemical or biological weapons programs. But Western intelligence agencies believe Syria began developing a nonconventional arsenal in the 1980s with the assistance of the Soviet Union.

 

 


   
 

 

 

 

They believe Syria has amassed sizable quantities of blistering agents, such as mustard gas — widely used in World War I and in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war — as well as Sarin and VX. The chemical agents are designed to be fitted to an array of delivery systems, from Scud-D short-range ballistic missiles to a projectile as small as an artillery shell. Syria also is suspected of having a biological warfare program, possibly involving anthrax, although few details are known and the scale is thought to be small.

According to a recent report by the US-based James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, there are five identifiable chemical agent manufacturing plants in Syria. They are located in the following areas: Al Safir, southeast of Aleppo; Latakia, on the Mediterranean coast; near Dumayr, 16 miles northeast of Damascus; Khan Abu Shamat, 22 miles east of Damascus; and Al Furqlus in Homs province.

 

Diplomats and analysts interviewed for this article estimate that there are several dozen additional storage sites scattered across the country, some of them in hardened underground bunkers dug into the sides of hills, complicating efforts by Western intelligence agencies to identify the facilities and draw up plans to secure or destroy them.

"There are a significant number [of sites] large enough to make it a significant problem," says a Western diplomat with access to intelligence data. "[But] Some who are a little closer to the problem with a more urgent interest have a very good idea where they are," the diplomat added, in a veiled reference to Israel.

 

ISRAEL'S CONCERN: SCUD MISSILES TIPPED WITH WARHEADS ON ITS BORDER
Israel has been watching the escalating violence in Syria with growing alarm. Even though the Assad regime is a close ally of Iran and the militant Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah, Syria's border with Israel in the Golan Heights has been dormant for almost 40 years under the Assads. Israel, already worried at a deteriorating security situation along its southern border with Egypt, now also faces the possibility of its enemies in the north acquiring chemical weapons or ballistic missiles.

"Syria today is the largest chemical-weapons stockpile in our region," Maj. Gen. Yair Naveh, deputy chief of staff of the Israeli army, told Israel's Hayom newspaper two weeks ago. "These missiles can reach every point in Israel, so we must not relax our vigilance."

Israel worries that Hezbollah in Lebanon may acquire Scud missiles perhaps tipped with chemical warheads to enhance its deterrence posture against Israel.

 

In April 2010, Israel claimed that Syria had transferred control of some Scuds to Hezbollah at military depots near Damascus, although there were conflicting reports as to whether any of the missiles had been smuggled across the border into Lebanon.

Recent reports in the Israeli media have addressed the threat again. Israel says it regards Hezbollah's acquisition of Scuds as a "red line" requiring a response.

Hezbollah's leadership regularly boasts that nowhere in Israel is beyond the reach of its rocket arsenal, which certainly would be true if the Shiite movement had acquired Scud-D missiles, which have a range of about 435 miles.

But while Hezbollah's rocket arsenal is widely believed to have expanded in quantity and quality since the month-long 2006 war with Israel, some analysts question whether Hezbollah would seek Scud missiles because of the logistical complexities involved.

 

Smuggling the 37-foot missiles into Lebanon along with their even larger dedicated mobile launcher and storing them safely and in secret would be a formidable undertaking. Furthermore, unlike Hezbollah's arsenal of solid-fueled artillery rockets, which can be quickly set up and fired, Scuds are liquid-fueled which entails a complicated and lengthy launch preparation procedure leaving the batteries vulnerable to being spotted and attacked

 

INCREASED ACTIVITY AT KNOWN MISSILE STORAGE SITES IN SYRIA
Western diplomatic sources contacted for this story say that increased activity has been detected at Syrian military bases where Scud missiles are stored, including the movement of rockets, the construction of new underground bunkers and the expansion of existing facilities. The diplomatic sources assess that the activity is a sign that the Assad regime is attempting to safeguard its ballistic missiles to prevent them falling into the hands of the armed opposition.

The hills on either side of the highway linking Damascus to Homs contain numerous underground military bases. Some of them, such as those near Adra, Dumayr, and between Al Qastal and An Nasrriyah, are widely believed by military analysts to be missile storage and launch sites. The protected entrances to the underground tunnels are clearly visible on satellite images carried by the Google Earth portal. Another underground facility appears to be under construction six miles south west of Al Qastal, with at least six new tunnel entrances.

Still, even if Hezbollah has acquired Scud missiles, the organization has not fired a shot at Israel in six years and analysts believe it does not seek a renewed confrontation at the present time. That restraint does not necessarily apply to Al Qaeda, however.

 

HOW LIKELY THAT AL QAEDA WILL OBTAIN CHEMICAL WEAPONS?
The main concern in the West is that Al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting in Syria will attempt to obtain chemical agents from Syrian stockpiles.

Al Qaeda has been seeking chemical and biological weapons since at least the late 1990s. Documents seized by US troops in Afghanistan in 2001 indicated that Al Qaeda was working on acquiring weapons of mass destruction, possibly attempting to weaponize biological agents. In 2009, a British tabloid reported that an Al Qaeda group in Algeria was forced to abandon a training camp after experiments to weaponize bubonic plague led to the deaths of 40 militants.

Anwar al-Awlaki, a prominent Al Qaeda ideologue who was killed last September in a drone missile strike in Yemen, was posthumously quoted in a recent edition of Al Qaeda's English-language Inspire magazine as condoning the use of chemical and biological weapons.

 

"The use of poisons or chemical and biological weapons against population centers is allowed and strongly recommended due to its great effect on the enemy," Mr. Awlaki was quoted as saying.

The extent of Al Qaeda penetration into Syria is unclear, although there are indications that elements of the armed opposition — Arab volunteers and Sunni Syrians alike — are becoming radicalized and adopting distinct religious and Islamist rhetoric, with many hailing the campaign to unseat the Assad regime as a "jihad."

Analysts say that some chemical agents, such as mustard gas, or biological agents, such as the causative agent for anthrax, are relatively robust and therefore potentially easier to weaponize by nonspecialist militants.

"Violent nonstate actors could come across weaponized artillery shells and through trial and error, and probably some unnecessary deaths through handling the agents, they could figure out enough to be able to use certain agents in ways that could cause great harm," says Mr. Blair of FAS. He added that a "wild card" in such a scenario is a Syrian military chemical/biological warfare expert selling his expertise to militants to facilitate exploiting the agents for attacks against civilian targets.

 

FEW GOOD OPTIONS FOR WEST
There are few good options facing the West in preventing chemical weapons falling into the hands of Al Qaeda-linked groups. In February, CNN cited a Pentagon report as estimating that it could take 75,000 troops to secure Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, an undertaking that meets with little enthusiasm in the West. Assuming that all the storage facilities can be identified in the first place, an alternative option of preemptive air strikes also carries dangers given Syria's extensive array of anti-aircraft missile systems.

 

"Air strikes against chemical weapons facilities means you first have to take out the Syrian air defense network. It would require a full coalition for something of this scale and will be very difficult," says a senior European military officer.

The proliferation threat is not limited to chemical and biological agents and ballistic missiles. The US mounted an intensive program in Libya last year to prevent the spread of MANPADS — portable shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile systems which could be used by militants to shoot down passenger jets. Syria has a large number of Russian MANPADs that are equally vulnerable to proliferation.

 

"If the Syrian government collapses, there is a risk that Syrian weapons would flow into volatile regions like Lebanon, Turkey, and Kurdistan," says Pieter Wezeman, senior researcher of the arms transfers program at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in Sweden. "The situation in these countries is very different from North Africa [and the Libya case]... Still it would be good if the international community prepares itself in advance and not afterward as in the case of Libya."

Ultimately, however, given Western reluctance to mount a full-scale invasion of Syria to secure WMDs and prevent weapons proliferation, it is almost certain that some armaments including chemical or biological agents will be lost, analysts say.

"Even in the most spectacular definitions of success, I would find it very hard to believe that when an inventory is finally able to take place that some of the agents had not gone missing," says Mr. Blair.

 

 

 

post #237 of 1310
Thread Starter 

ZOMBIES AND WHEN YOUR CREDIT CARD STOPS WORKING

 

26th June 2012

 

Nice little article. The productive people are being eaten alive by the zombie sector. The zombies in this case are all the people out there trying to get your money. How much time and effort do spend just trying to keep what you earn? If you earn anything, that is, if you’re not one of the 50% of our population that is getting government money.

 

null

 

When Your Credit Card Stops Working

By Bill Bonner

Florida; Nobody knows anything in Florida. They’re all retired down there. They don’t have to think anymore.

And one of the things they don’t think about very much is the zombie wars. You know what’s happening. The productive sector of our economy is being eaten alive by the unproductive, zombie sector — including many of those retirees in Florida.

Which is probably a good point to make a distinction. There are honest retirees…and zombies. The honest ones worked hard, saved their money…and now they live off the fruits of their own labor.

 

The dishonest ones live on disability…Social Security…bailouts and government contracts. That is, they live off the fruits of someone else’s labor.

“Hold on, Bill,” we hear you saying. “You can’t condemn a person for living on Social Security. After all, we all pay into the system. It’s not free. You have to earn it.”

Right! And we’re not condemning Social Security recipients. We’re just pointing out that many of them are zombies. They take. They don’t give. Maybe they gave enough already; maybe they didn’t. We don’t know. Down in Florida, it’s hard to tell the zombies from the rest of the population. They shuffle…they drool…they appear to be brain dead. Who knows? A zombie? Or a Republican?

“Isn’t this a strange world we live in,” said our tax accountant last week. “We have six people around a table…spending hours doing something that doesn’t make anyone any better off.”

 

He was wrong about that. But we know what he meant. We were zombie fighting. What a waste of time. At least for the productive economy and the general wellbeing of the people in it. But it is a very valuable way to spend your time if you’re being attacked by zombies! You have to fight back.

We were fighting back by using subsection 16 b, part 5, paragraphs g-l…against rule number 1,456 as applied to foregone earnings of a limited partnership that invests in unallocated, unamortized, unappealing properties subject to section 3612, as amended in the Tax Act of 1997 and re-amended in subsequent acts and deeds of which we have either lost tract or were totally ignorant all along.

Or something like that.

The zombies want more of our money. So, we use the zombies’ own weapon — the tax code — to protect ourselves. Instead of creating wealth…we are just trying to keep it away from the zombies. Neither zombie nor zombie fighter adds to the overall wealth or prosperity of the world or its people. But heck, you gotta look out for yourself.

 

There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man’s needs and desires can be satisfied: One is the production and exchange of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is the political means…

— Alfred J. Nock

 

In a late, degenerate system — whether it is socialism, capitalism, or whatever — half the population tries to live at the expense of the other half. In America today, they succeed. More than half the people get money from the government.

The other half is forced to spend much of its time trying to keep the zombies at bay. They hire tax accountants to help them avoid taxes. They hire estate lawyers to try to get their wealth to their heirs rather than to the zombies’ heirs. They move from a high tax state to a low-tax state. They dodge. They duck.

But the zombies are everywhere. When they send their children to college they pay a tax to the zombies — the whole educational establishment is subsidized by the feds. Even private schools are excessively expensive thanks to the federal money pumped into the industry.

 

Same for health care. Every part of it is regulated, prohibited, or supported by the government. A doctor who doesn’t take federal money is practically out of business. One who dares to give the best advice he can — without padding his derriere with insurance…and covering it with over-testing and excessive precautions — runs the risk of bankruptcy. The tort lawyers who control congress have made sure of that. Sooner or later a patient is bound to see an ad on a cross-town bus: “Does Your Doctor Owe You Money? Call 1-800-SHY-STER.”

And don’t forget the financial industry. Bailed out by the feds…subsidized by cheap credit…heavily regulated — as much as a third of every dollar you send to Wall Street is consumed by the zombies…rather than put to work in a productive industry.

 

And then, in a class of its own, is the “defense” industry. The rest of the zombies are causing the economy to go to hell. The defense industry is likely to get us all sent to hell.

In addition to signing death warrants for people who have never been charged with a crime, much less ever convicted…the Obama administration is now taking credit for starting what industry insiders are calling “cybergeddon.”

The US feds got together with the Israeli feds to create a computer virus which, apparently, completely disables a software system. Then, it put it out to work against as country with which neither nation is at war.

 

What gives? Is it now okay for groups of hackers to attack whomever they please…when they please? Is Internet vandalism now US policy?

If so, you could hardly fault a collection of clever Iranians…perhaps with the help of Russians, Iraqis, Chinese…who knows…for getting together to launch a counter-attack, could you? And you wouldn’t be surprised to find that they have taken key elements of the US bug, re-engineered it, and sent it right back where it came from, would you?

 

A Financial Times headline tells us that “the US will rue the day” it started a cyberwar. Here’s why:

One of the enduring characteristics of superpowers is that they always find some way to destroy themselves. Hitler and Bonaparte could have remained masters of all of Europe — perhaps indefinitely. Instead, they found Russia! Japan found Pearl Harbor. And now, Barack Obama has found a new area of warfare where America is most vulnerable and where its historic advantages count for almost nothing.

As to the first point, here is a question: what would happen to you if your credit card stopped working? The ATMs don’t work. You can’t buy anything with a credit card; what do you do? Go to the bank? Forget it. Within hours the banks would be out of cash. You would have no means to buy food.

But so what? There wouldn’t be any food to buy anyway.

 

America’s dependence on computer systems…and its vulnerability to disruption…was well researched and documented in the run-up to the year 2000. The “Y2K” problem might have brought the whole country to a dead stop.

 

It didn’t. And now the economy is more vulnerable than it was then. If the computers stop working, the whole system breaks down. Transportation…shipping…shopping — the whole supply chain that keeps us going — stops.

 

What a great idea, to encourage innovation…and deployment…of computer viruses! It is as if a person who lived in a glass house handed out rocks!

But it is worse. Because the US has huge military advantages. It is able to spend much more money than its rivals. It is able to produce more weapons. It is able to put more firepower into the field…and to blow up more buildings and kill more people.

 

But on the Internet its advantages are minimal. Money is important. But it is not nearly as important in computer warfare as it is in conventional warfare. This new battlefield gives America’s enemies an advantage. They don’t have to spend $700 billion (most of it wasted on zombie bureaucracy and expensive, but useless, weapons…after all, we are in a late, degenerate period) to compete. Instead, they can put together a small, talented, focused and motivated team.

And then, your credit card will stop working.

 

Bill Bonner

post #238 of 1310
Thread Starter 

Stay Out of Syria

June 27, 2012
 

The recent downing of a Turkish military aircraft by Syria is one indication that Turkey may now be more aggressively supporting the overthrow of the Assad regime. Although Turkey insists that its aircraft had accidentally entered Syrian airspace but was in international airspace when shot down, the Syrians claim that the aircraft was flying threateningly low and entering their airspace when it was downed. Either way, Turkey is tweaking the embattled Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad by buzzing its borders.

 

Turkey, a former friend of Syria, is clearly providing a sanctuary for Syrian opposition fighters on its soil and funneling weapons, communications equipment, and field hospitals across the border to rebels in Syria. Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are funding the weapons, including rocket-propelled grenades, assault rifles, ammunition, and anti-tank weapons. All of these supplies are making the disparate Syrian rebel militias more effective against Assad’s forces.

The United States, in a slick effort to help the insurgents without getting its hands dirty, is providing “non-lethal”equipment, such as communications equipment. Of course, the“non-lethal” designation is a joke because better communications between militias increases their combat power greatly by allowing them to coordinate attacks. Although you can’t kill directly with communications equipment, it allows a force to indirectly kill more Syrian military personnel. Nowadays, communication has become very important in warfare. In addition, the U.S. is providing intelligence on Syrian opposition fighters to the weapons exporters so arms recipients can get at least some vetting. The U.S. is also considering providing intelligence — including satellite imagery — to the rebels on the location and strength of Syrian military forces.

 

The United States tried a similar ruse during the long and bloody Iraq-Iran War from 1980 to 1988. Ostensibly, the United States had an arms embargo against both belligerents, but it secretly favored Saddam Hussein’s Iraq over Iran’s theocratic regime. The U.S. encouraged its European allies to sell arms to Saddam but not to Iran. Also, the United States sent Saddam civilian technology that had military applications, gave him much intelligence, and even helped his military plan attacks.

The United States sometimes likes to stay above the fray while secretly fueling conflicts indirectly and accusing rival countries of stoking the conflict by supporting the bad guys. For example, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently accused the Russians of providing offensive weapons to the Assad regime. The Pentagon immediately started backpedaling by saying that attack helicopters being sent from Russia to Syria were not new but were probably old ones being repaired. The Russians then stated that the only arms contracts they had with Syria were for defensive weapons, such as air defenses. The American media of course gave a pass to the deceptive pronouncement by Clinton.

 

Bashar al-Assad is a brutal ruler who has so far killed more than 10,000 civilians in his own country. And the United States may be generally correct in criticizing Russian support for him. But even that is hypocritical, because the U.S. has supported governments that killed far more people — for example, in the 1980s, the U.S.-backed government of El Salvador killed 65,000 of its own people, many execution-style.

Also, the United States has directly killed more innocents than Assad ever has. In Vietnam, U.S. carpet bombing and other types of attacks killed millions of civilians and rivaled the wanton Nazi destruction in the Balkans during World War II. In the Korean War, the United States targeted dams in North Korea to flood cropland, thus inducing starvation among the people in order to hamper the North Korean war effort.

 

Furthermore, U.S. criticism of Russia to divert attention from and justify its own meddling in the Syrian conflict is also hypocritical. Both outside powers should avoid fueling what is rapidly becoming a civil war that could overflow Syria’s borders and become a regional sectarian war.

Regardless of what the Russians do, the United States has no vital strategic interest in Syria and should quit stoking the conflict in any form. Although the Israelis may have such a strategic interest there, Islamists could hijack the rebellion as they have in Egypt — making Israel and the United States nostalgic for Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorial rule.

post #239 of 1310
Thread Starter 

One on One with John Williams

 

27 June 2012
 

One on One with John Williams of Shadowstats.com

 

By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com

Anyone who thinks the U.S. is in recovery should stop listening to the mainstream media and listen to John Williams. He heads up Shadowstats.com, and is one of the few economists who crunches the numbers to give unvarnished true statistics. Adjusted for real inflation of about 7%, Williams says, “GDP has plunged, and we have been bottom bouncing” ever since the financial crisis started. Williams says, “The next crash will be a lot worse (than 2008) because it will push us into the early stages of hyperinflation.” He predicts this will happen “by the end of 2014– at the latest.” Long before 2014, Shadowstats.com thinks there is a good chance of “panic selling of the U.S. dollar,” if the Federal Reserve starts another round of money printing (QE3) to save the system and the big banks.

 

No matter what Williams predicts, “There will eventually be a crisis to bring the system down as we know it. . . . We’re on the brink.” According to Williams, “at some point, you will see a new currency in the U.S.” The founder of Shadowstats.com sat down for a one on one interview with Greg Hunter to talk about the mathematical certainty of a systemic collapse in the not-so-distant future.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seBWlOMt2Tk

 

 
post #240 of 1310
Thread Starter 

Europe's "Monetary Twilight Zone" Neutron Bomb: NIRP

 
 


Twilight%20Zone_0.jpgJust because ZIRP is so 2009 (and will be until the end of central planning as the Fed can not afford to hike rates ever again), the ECB is now contemplating something far more drastic: charging depositors for the privilege of holding money. Enter NIRP, aka Negative Interest Rate Policy.

 

 

 

 

 

Bloomberg reports that "European Central Bank President Mario Draghi is contemplating taking interest rates into a twilight zone shunned by the Federal Reserve. while cutting ECB rates may boost confidence, stimulate lending and foster growth, it could also involve reducing the bank’s deposit rate to zero or even lower. Once an obstacle for policy makers because it risks hurting the money markets they’re trying to revive, cutting the deposit rate from 0.25 percent is no longer a taboo, two euro-area central bank officials said on June 15... “The European recession is worsening, the ECB has to do more,” said Julian Callow, chief European economist at Barclays Capital in London, who forecasts rates will be cut at the ECB’s next policy meeting on July 5. “A negative deposit rate is something they need to consider but taking it to zero as a first step is more likely.” Should Draghi elect to cut the deposit rate to zero or lower, he’ll be entering territory few policy makers have dared to venture. Sweden’s Riksbank in July 2009 became the world’s first central bank to charge financial institutions for the money they deposited with it overnight."

  Return Home
  Back to Forum: stonerangers forum
HotStockMarket › Groups › stonerangers forum › Discussions › Politics, society, and why everything is going to hell.