Now that everybody in the USA, from the janitors in their man-caves to the president addressing congress, has declared the "recession" over, is exactly the moment when what’s left of the so-called economy is most likely to implode. If there were still shoeshine boys on Wall Street, they’d be starting their own hedge funds now, and CNBC’s Larry Kudlow would be toasting them in the Grill Room of The Four Seasons. What we’ve seen in the vaunted rally for the last six months is the triumph of wishing over facts, combined with the most arrant market manipulation by floundering banks backstopped by a panicked government — all pounding sand down a rat-hole of hopeless non-performing debt, while pretending that the machinery of capital finance still grinds on.
Despite what a few elderly Mr. Naturals may say about abolishing "capitalism," we’re not going to have an advanced economy without a coherent banking system, and by advanced economy I mean one in which the lights stay on. By coherent I mean a system that is able to deploy accumulated wealth for productive purposes, in the service of continuing civilization. (And, yes, I know that the followers of Daniel Quinn are not so sure that civilization is worth the trouble, but unless you support the killing-off of about six billion humans right away, things on Earth are not favorably disposed just now for a return to hunting-and-gathering.)
I would hasten to cut through the fog of despair to reassert — for the thousandth time — that a true American perestroika is possible, if the public could overcome the plague of cognitive dissonance sweeping the land and form a consensus for action that comports with reality’s agenda. But that is looking less and less likely. Instead, what we see is a rush into delusion, seasoned with grievance and gall. Spectacles like last weekend’s march on Washington don’t happen for no reason, of course. From where I sit, the uproar can be attributed to comprehensively bad American leadership, a crisis in authority and legitimacy that has left a functional vacuum in every executive office throughout the land — from the White House to the state houses, to the lairs of the CEOs, to the towers of the deans and department chairs, to
Revolutionizing House Monetary Policy; Balanced Budget Amendment Wins Backers; Plea to Republicans; Case for Compromise; Irony of Bernanke’s QEII
by ilene - November 8th, 2010 1:22 pm
Revolutionizing House Monetary Policy; Balanced Budget Amendment Wins Backers; Plea to Republicans; Case for Compromise; Irony of Bernanke’s QEII
Courtesy of Mish
With Republicans taking control of the House, Ron Paul becomes the senior member on the Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee.
Paul looks to raise hell judging from his plans.
Those looking for good news amidst the insanity of QEII can find it here: Ron Paul Is About to Totally Revolutionize the House Monetary Policy Panel
“I will approach that committee like no one has ever approached it because we’re living in times like no one has ever seen,” Paul said in an interview with NetNet Thursday.
Paul said his first priority will be to open up the books of the Federal Reserve to the American people. “We need to create transparency there. To see what it is they are buying and lending, and who it is they are dealing with,” Paul said.
Paul mentioned that he hoped to use subcommittee hearings to educate the public about the causes of business cycles—which he believes are mainly attributable to monetary manipulation by central bankers.
Monetary reform is also on the agenda. Paul is a noted advocate of the gold standard.
“We will have to have monetary reform,” Paul said. “I think those on the other side of this issue are already planning. They are going to try to replace a bad system with an equally bad system.”
Rubio Supports Balanced Budget Amendment
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, Tea Party backed candidates, both won and both back a balanced budget amendment.
Please consider Rubio On A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment
RUBIO: “Growing our economy is essential. We need new jobs in America. New jobs means new prosperity. New prosperity, by the way, leads to more revenue for government. But what would they use this new revenue for?
“Well, I think that unless there are specific provisions in law preventing it from doing it, government, no matter who’s in charge – Republicans or Democrats, will use it to grow government. That’s why it’s so important that spending constraints be put into law and, specifically in today’s topic, in the Constitution.
“Here’s the deal: history teaches us that no matter who’s in charge of government – Republicans, Democrats, conservatives or liberals – eventually, they will use it to grow government. And
…
 Email This Post
|
 Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
 del.icio.us
|
Google+ |
Did 9/11 Really “Change Everything”?
by ilene - September 26th, 2010 2:50 pm
Did 9/11 Really "Change Everything"?
Courtes of Washington’s Blog
[And see also Washington's 9-11 post if you missed it, here.]
We’ve been told that 9/11 changed everything.
Is it true?
Let’s look:
- The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before9/11, and inserted "crap" in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before9/11. And top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change one month after Bush took office
- Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11
- The Patriot Act was planned before 9/11
- Cheney dreamed of giving the White House the powers of a monarch long before 9/11
- Cheney and Rumsfeld actively generated fake intelligence which exaggerated the threat from an enemy in order to justify huge amounts of military spending long before 9/11. And see this
- Cheney and the rest of the neocons lamented - before 9/11 - that America could not truly project its power globally without the justification of a "new Pearl Harbor"
- The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here andhere. And see this)
- The decision to threaten to bomb Iran was made before 9/11
- The government knew that terrorists could use planes as weapons — and had even run its own drills of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, using REAL airplanes — all before 9/11
- The government heard the 9/11 plans from the hijackers’ own mouths before 9/11
- Cheney was in charge of all counter-terrorism programs for the United States before (and on) 9/11. See this Department of State announcement, this CNN article andthis essay
- It was known long before 9/11 that torture doesn’t work to produce accurate intelligence, but is an effective way to terrorize people
So did 9/11 really "change everything"? Or was it simply an excuse to implement existing plans?
| Email This Post
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
Google+ |
Labor Day Insanity from Clinton’s Secretary of Labor
by ilene - September 6th, 2010 4:10 pm
Mish disagrees with Robert Reich’s lessons of Labor Day… – Ilene
Labor Day Insanity from Clinton’s Secretary of Labor
Courtesy of Mish
It’s Labor Day. The markets are closed. Those working for government, banks, schools etc have the day off. All totaled, 17.3 million citizens do not have a job today nor a job they can return to on Tuesday. Another 8.9 million will not work as many hours as they would like, this week, next week, or the week after that.
How NOT to End the Great Recession
In a New York Times Op-Ed, Robert B. Reich, a secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, and professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley comes to all the wrong conclusions about where we are, how we got here, and what to do about it. (Robert Reich’s "The Real Lesson of Labor Day" here.)
Please consider How to End the Great Recession
Reich: THIS promises to be the worst Labor Day in the memory of most Americans. Organized labor is down to about 7 percent of the private work force. Members of non-organized labor — most of the rest of us — are unemployed, underemployed or underwater.
Mish Comment: When organized labor is at 0%, both public and private, we will be on our way to prosperity. Organized labor in conjunction with piss poor management bankrupted GM and countless other manufacturing companies. Now, public unions, in cooperation with corrupt politicians have bankrupted countless cities and states.
Reich: The Labor Department reported on Friday that just 67,000 new private-sector jobs were created in August, while at least 125,000 are needed to keep up with the growth of the potential work force.
The national economy isn’t escaping the gravitational pull of the Great Recession. None of the standard booster rockets are working: near-zero short-term interest rates from the Fed, almost record-low borrowing costs in the bond market, a giant stimulus package and tax credits for small businesses that hire the long-term unemployed have all failed to do enough.
That’s because the real problem has to do with the structure of the economy, not the business cycle. No booster rocket can work unless consumers are able, at some point, to keep the economy moving on their own. But consumers no longer have the purchasing power to buy the goods
…
| Email This Post
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
Google+ |
Death By Globalism
by ilene - September 1st, 2010 5:48 pm
Interesting article discussing the failings of economists on both sides of the "Great Stimulus Debate," who a stimulus will really benefit (not us), inflation and deflation, and how globalization has proven ruinous for the U.S. – Ilene
Death By Globalism
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS writing at CounterPunch
Have economists made themselves irrelevant? If you have any doubts, have a look at the current issue of the magazine, International Economy, a slick publication endorsed by former Federal Reserve chairmen Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan, by Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank, by former Secretary of State George Shultz, and by the New York Times and Washington Post, both of which declare the magazine to be “ahead of the curve.”
The main feature of the current issue is “The Great Stimulus Debate.” Is the Obama fiscal stimulus helping the economy or hindering it?
Princeton economics professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi represent the Keynesian view that government deficit spending is needed to lift the economy out of recession. Zandi declares that thanks to the fiscal stimulus, “The economy has made enormous progress since early 2009,” an opinion shared by the President’s Council of Economic Advisors and the Congressional Budget Office.
The opposite view, associated with Harvard economics professor Robert Barro and with European economists, such as Francesco Giavazzi and Marco Pagano and the European Central Bank, is that government budget surpluses achieved by cutting government spending spur the economy by reducing the ratio of debt to Gross Domestic Product. This is the “let them eat cake school of economics.”
Barro says that fiscal stimulus has no effect, because people anticipate the future tax increases implied by government deficits and increase their personal savings to offset the added government debt. Giavazzi and Pagano reason that since fiscal stimulus does not expand the economy, fiscal austerity consisting of higher taxes and reduced government spending could be the cure for unemployment.
If one overlooks the real world and the need of life for sustenance, one can become engrossed in this debate. However, the minute one looks out the window upon the world, one realizes that cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and housing subsidies when 15 million Americans have lost jobs, medical coverage, and homes is a certain path to death by starvation, curable diseases, and…
| Email This Post
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
Google+ |
China Calls Our Bluff: “The US is Insolvent and Faces Bankruptcy as a Pure Debtor Nation but [U.S.] Rating Agencies Still Give it High Rankings”
by ilene - July 25th, 2010 3:45 pm
China Calls Our Bluff: "The US is Insolvent and Faces Bankruptcy as a Pure Debtor Nation but [U.S.] Rating Agencies Still Give it High Rankings"
Courtesy of Washington’s Blog
America’s biggest creditor – China – has called our bluff.
As the Financial Times notes, the head of China’s biggest credit rating agency has said America is insolvent and that U.S. credit ratings are a joke:
The head of China’s largest credit rating agency has slammed his western counterparts for causing the global financial crisis and said that as the world’s largest creditor nation China should have a bigger say in how governments and their debt are rated.
“The western rating agencies are politicised and highly ideological and they do not adhere to objective standards,” Guan Jianzhong, chairman of Dagong Global Credit Rating, told the Financial Times in an interview.
***
He specifically criticised the practice of “rating shopping” by companies who offer their business to the agency that provides the most favourable rating.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis “rating shopping” has been one of the key complaints from western regulators , who have heavily criticised the big three agencies for handing top ratings to mortgage-linked securities that turned toxic when the US housing market collapsed in 2007.
“The financial crisis was caused because rating agencies didn’t properly disclose risk and this brought the entire US financial system to the verge of collapse, causing huge damage to the US and its strategic interests,” Mr Guan said.
Recently, the rating agencies have been criticised for being too slow to downgrade some of the heavily indebted peripheral eurozone economies, most notably Spain, which still holds triple A ratings from Moody’s.
There is also a view among many investors that the agencies would shy away from withdrawing triple A ratings to countries such as the US and UK because of the political pressure that would bear down on them in the event of such actions.
Last week, privately-owned Dagong published its own sovereign credit ranking in what it said was a first for a non-western credit rating agency.
The results were very different from those published by Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, with China ranking higher than the United States, Britain, Japan, France and most other major economies, reflecting Dagong’s belief that
…
| Email This Post
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
Google+ |
A Point Not Forgotten
by ilene - May 22nd, 2010 12:52 am
A Point Not Forgotten
Courtesy of Michael Panzner, When Giants Fall
When I discuss America’s accelerating descent into a fiscal abyss, I occasionally fail to mention the role that gargantuan military spending has played in getting us to this point. However, when I read reports like the following from the Inter Press Service, "Bill for Afghan War Could Run Into the Trillions," it quickly brings to mind the reason most often cited for the fall of so many great powers before us: imperial overstretch.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Senate is moving forward with a 59-billion-dollar spending bill, of which 33.5 billion dollars would be allocated for the war in Afghanistan.
However, some experts here in Washington are raising concerns that the war may be unwinnable and that the money being spent on military operations in Afghanistan could be better spent.
"We’re making all of the same mistakes the Soviets made during their time in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, and they left in defeat having accomplished none of their purposes," Michael Intriligator, a senior fellow at the Milken Institute, said Monday at a half-day conference hosted by the New America Foundation and Economists for Peace and Security.
"I think we’re repeating that and it’s a history we’re condemned to repeat," he said.
Intriligator also argued that the real, long-term cost of the war in Afghanistan may completely overshadow the current spending bill.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda Bilmes estimated that the long-term costs – taking into account the costs of taking care of wounded soldiers and rebuilding the military – of the war in Iraq will ultimately cost three trillion dollars.
Intriligator suggested that a similar calculation for the costs of the war in Afghanistan would indicate a long-term cost of 1.5 to 2.0 trillion dollars.
"Why are we putting money into Afghanistan to fight a losing war and following the Soviet example rather than putting money into [our] local communities?" he asked.
I’ll tell you why: Because that’s what fading empires do.
| Email This Post
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
Google+ |
Defense Contractor Employee Chimes in on Boeing and the Need for C-17s
by ilene - May 14th, 2010 3:24 pm
Defense Contractor Employee Chimes in on Boeing and the Need for C-17s
Courtesy of Mish
In response to Inside the Self-Destructive Minds of a Group of Idiots, an article about Boeing C-17s and failed union negotiations, I received an email from "TT" a defense contractor employee who has some thoughts to share.
"TT" Writes
Mish,
You are so right on the Boeing strike. What makes it even more stupid is that the same union pulled the same stunt in Washington a couple years ago. We now have a brand new 787 plant under construction here in non union Charleston, SC because of it.
These guys just don’t have a clue. I was at Boeing in Seattle when the last strike took place, and I can tell you that a lot of the rank and file knew better, but they had to follow the union’s marching orders.
As for Gate’s comment about airlift, I’d like to see him come the Charleston Air Force base and say it, while the US government leased Russian AN-124s taxi past loaded with equipment headed for the middle east.
The truth is that we don’t have enough airlift capacity or tanker capacity, or fighter capacity… to be the world’s big brother.
The better solution is to quit being the self appointed nanny to the world.
And yes, I work for a defense contractor.
Best regards,
"TT"
Thanks "TT".
Yes, it is perfectly clear the US absolutely needs to "quit being the self appointed nanny to the world" even as the union apologists cry about the loss of jobs. The US simply cannot afford to be the world’s policeman.
I would cut military spending in half, and call that "a start". I am sick and tired of blowing up the world because it supposedly creates jobs. Moreover, those jobs are an illusion in the first place, as the rest of the economy suffers mightily.
To pay for military spending, taxes have to go up or the dollar has to sink.
That’s a piss poor tradeoff for everyone not in on the scam, especially the poor soldiers who needlessly get their heads blown off so defense contractor CEOs can make hundreds of millions of dollars, some of which are used to buy votes of war-mongers in Congress wanting still more guns and ammo, every day of the year.
Enough is enough.
| Email This Post
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
Google+ |
Deficit Hawk Logic: Hummers, howitzers, and helicopters, yes. Health care, no.
by ilene - February 1st, 2010 1:12 pm
Deficit Hawk Logic: Hummers, howitzers, and helicopters, yes. Health care, no.
Courtesy of Lynn Parramore at New Deal 2.0
So is the government running out of money? Not when it goes on a military spending spree…
A recent Bloomberg report reveals that the Pentagon is seeking $14 billion to train forces in Iraq:
The U.S. military next week will request about $14.2 billion more to train and equip Afghanistan’s forces, according to two Obama administration officials. The Defense Department’s proposed budget for fiscal 2011, which begins Oct. 1, will include $159 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That includes $11.6 billion to accelerate the growth of the Afghan military and police. The Pentagon separately will seek about $2.6 billion more for Afghan forces in fiscal 2010 over the $6.6 billion already approved by Congress, according to the officials, who requested anonymity.
This is where the myth and reality of federal deficits collide. The most cynical interpretation of deficit hawk warnings about improved health care and other things we can’t “afford” is that they know perfectly well that that their logic is faulty — they are simply using scare tactics to undermine social programs that our most vulnerable citizens depend on.
This agenda becomes apparent when the hawks go strangely silent on military expenditures tied to questionable missions. Hummers, howitzers, and helicopters, we can afford, apparently. Decent health care for our citizens, we can’t.
Question to hawks: Is the threat posed by Afghanistan more significant than that posed by a broken health care system that leaves our citizens sick and dying? Inquiring minds want to know.
*****
See also: Op-Toons Review: Democrats Announce Bold Plan to Get Debt Limit to Neptune by 2016
Washington, D.C.--Since President Obama came into office, he and a Democrat-controlled Congress increased the public debt by $3 trillion in one year, which is as much as the previous administration increased it in eight years. Continue here. >>
Path to Neptune photo by Op-Toons Review.
| Email This Post
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
Google+ |
“War ALWAYS Causes Recession”
by ilene - November 16th, 2009 12:06 am
I believe Washington is arguing that the U.S. simply has no credibility left to start a war for any good reason, nor is a war a cure for a recession. Thus a war is not a good idea. Not to say that economic reasons are moral and ethical justifications for starting wars, regardless. – Ilene
"War ALWAYS Causes Recession"
Courtesy of Washington’s Blog
PhD economist Marc Faber predicts that the U.S. will launch a war to distract people from the bad economy.
China’s largest media outlets – Sohu.com – wrote in October 2008 that the Rand corporation, a leading U.S. military advisor, lobbied the Pentagon for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy:
According to French media, well-known U.S. think tank RAND Corporation … has submitted [to the Pentagon] an evaluation report assessing the wage a war to shift the feasibility of the current economic crisis…
Continued deepening of the U.S. sub-prime mortgage crisis and economic downturn, developed to a certain extent, is likely to trigger a war in order to achieve the purpose of the crisis passed.
(Google’s translation services are crude approximations, but Yihan Dai confirmed the translation of the original).
Is Faber right? Is the Sohu.com report accurate?
I don’t know.
However, "military Keynesianism" – using military spending to stimulate the economy – has been U.S. policy for half a century. And the economist who coined that term said that such a policy always and "inexorably" leads to "an actual war" in order to justify all of the military spending.
Therefore, any studies which disprove the efficacy of war as an economic stimulus -see this and this – are important for balance.
In addition, contrary to popular belief, some writers say that the reason that WWII actually stimulated the U.S. economy was not because of America fighting the war. Specifically, they argue that America’s ramped-up production of armaments for the British before the U.S. entered the war was the thing which stimulated our economy.
To try to sort some of this out, I spoke with a PhD professor of economics with a background in international conflict in July 2008 to find out whether war…
| Email This Post
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
Google+ |
Reality Receding
by ilene - September 15th, 2009 3:24 am
…
| Email This Post
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
Google+ |
German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
Chinese
Philip R. Davis is a founder Phil's Stock World, a stock and options trading site that teaches the art of options trading to newcomers and devises advanced strategies for expert traders...
Ilene is editor and affiliate program
coordinator for PSW. She manages the Favorites backup site
(
