Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old September 19th, 2009 #41
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
You're still not explaining the inconvenient fact that under the old (moderate to me) regulatory regime, the financial sector was far more stable than under deregulation.
What you don't like you call deregulation, but there has never been deregulation in the last 100 years. Anytime you have the feds backing up banks and individual accounts you have regulation. You're using words loosely, in order to attack people you don't like, which is the regular practics of the jewsmedia. Any failure they attribute to not enough regulation. That's what you're doing.
 
Old September 19th, 2009 #42
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

Originally Posted by Mike Parker
"You're still not explaining the inconvenient fact that under the old (moderate to me) regulatory regime, the financial sector was far more stable than under deregulation."

I don't favor deregulation- I favor no regulation. The entire banking setup is a series of cartels, established by legislation, mainly the Federal Reserve Act. Under real deregulation, all the banking privileges would have been stripped away. There would be NO banking laws at all- no Federal Reserve. There would be enforcement of contracts.

When they "deregulated" electricity in California a few years ago, price controls were left in place. This goes against econ 1A. And who was in charge of the "deregulation"? The Public Utilities Commission, which is the head regulatory agency!
 
Old September 20th, 2009 #43
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
N.B. Forrest
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Yeah, he's good.

You can say that "the jews running the government printed a trillion dollars and used it to bail out a bunch of their superrich banker jew friends. The meaning to you is that your money is going to lose a lot of purchasing power due to inflation."

But if there is no inflation or obvious, felt negative to the actions, no matter how theoretically odious, it's hard to get people fired up.
Yep. I mentioned politics in general with a female cousin a few weeks ago, trying to instill a little kike-savvy resentment. She said "Whenever people start talking politics, I don't want to hear it. There ain't a damn thing I can do about anything, so why bother? It's hard enough for me to work these 12-hour shifts....."

That's the evil beauty of this system: as kids, make 'em ignorant with jew-jiggered skools; as adults, keep 'em hustling for just enough zogbux to keep their heads above water; when they collapse exhausted onto the couch in the evening, pacify 'em with Flava o' Love jootoob poison .
 
Old September 20th, 2009 #44
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
What you don't like you call deregulation, but there has never been deregulation in the last 100 years. Anytime you have the feds backing up banks and individual accounts you have regulation. You're using words loosely, in order to attack people you don't like, which is the regular practics of the jewsmedia. Any failure they attribute to not enough regulation. That's what you're doing.
I'm using the word in its common meaning. You're right that deregulation is itself a regulatory regime--call it less regulation. The fact remains that this crisis happened under the regime of less regulation, not more regulation, and therefore the crisis itself isn't attributable to regulation per se. I think it shows there's better regulation and worse regulation.
 
Old September 20th, 2009 #45
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsaville View Post
Under real deregulation, all the banking privileges would have been stripped away. There would be NO banking laws at all- no Federal Reserve. There would be enforcement of contracts.
That's the banker's biggest privilege. Why should the banker get the benefit of government (sheriff) when it comes time to foreclose? Privatize that.
 
Old September 20th, 2009 #46
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
I'm using the word in its common meaning. You're right that deregulation is itself a regulatory regime--call it less regulation. The fact remains that this crisis happened under the regime of less regulation, not more regulation, and therefore the crisis itself isn't attributable to regulation per se. I think it shows there's better regulation and worse regulation.
Here's the way I look at it.

There are three basic problems:

- counterfeiting
- self-serving, self-dealing corrupt Tribesters
- regulators tying deadbeats and deadbanks to the solid and upstanding

Always through America, as the government exands, we see the same pattern: self-interested jew-heavy corrupt elite using socialist bullshit words to weigh down the sober, responsible and trustworthy with the bills of the defective.

Even with no jews in society, and no muds, there would be whites trying to do this. The only way around it, since the corrupt and immoral have a much stronger interest in working together than the good guys, is to take government out of the picture altogether. That means NO regulation of banking. Let different banks and monies flourish as private people see fit, and if they go bad, let the people who used them pay price rather than the entire country. That is a better way of doing things than what we have now, where the CRA muds and the kosher superbankers are protected and normal whites get screwed.
 
Old September 20th, 2009 #47
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

Many folks want to use the state for selfish purposes. What would have happened if they openly admitted to being pigs? It wouldn't fly. Legislation HAD to be asserted as being "for the people"- to get the people to accede.

In 1963, a jew marxist named Gabriel Kolko wrote The Triumph of Conservatism. Here is Kolko's partial introduction:

"Assuming that the burden of proof is ultimately on the writer, I contend that the period from approximately 1900 until the United States' intervention in the war, labeled the "progressive" era by virtually all historians, was really an era of conservatism. Moreover, the triumph of conservatism that I will describe in detail throughout this book was the result not of any impersonal, mechanistic necessity but of the conscious needs and decisions of specific men and institutions.

There were any number of options involving government and economics abstractly available to national political leaders during the period 1900-1916, and in virtually every case they chose those solutions to problems advocated by the representatives of concerned business and financial interests. Such proposals were usually motivated by the needs of the interested businesses, and political intervention into the economy was frequently merely a response to the demands of particular businessmen. In brief, conservative solutions to the emerging problems of an industrial society were almost uniformly applied. The result was a conservative triumph in the sense that there was an effort to preserve the basic social and economic relations essential to a capitalist society, an effort that was frequently consciously as well as functionally conservative.

I use the attempt to preserve existing power and social relationships as the criterion for conservatism because none other has any practical meaning. Only if we mechanistically assume that government intervention in the economy, and a departure from orthodox laissez faire, automatically benefits the general welfare can we say that government economic regulation by its very nature is also progressive in the common meaning of that term. Each measure must be investigated for its intentions and consequences in altering the existing power arrangements, a task historians have largely neglected.

I shall state my basic proposition as baldly as possible so that my essential theme can be kept in mind, and reservations and intricacies will be developed in the course of the book. For the sake of communication I will use the term progressive and progressivism, but not, as have most historians, in their commonsense meanings.

Progressivism was initially a movement for the political rationalization of business and industrial conditions, a movement that operated on the assumption that the general welfare of the community could be best served by satisfying the concrete needs of business. But the regulation itself was invariably controlled by leaders of the regulated industry, and directed toward ends they deemed acceptable or desirable. In part this came about because the regulatory movements were usually initiated by the dominant businesses to be regulated, but it also resulted from the nearly universal belief among political leaders in the basic justice of private property relations as they essentially existed, a belief that set the ultimate limits on the leaders' possible actions.

It is business control over politics (and by "business" I mean the major economic interests ) rather than political regulation of the economy that is the significant phenomenon of the Progressive Era. Such domination was direct and indirect, but significant only insofar as it provided means for achieving a greater end-political capitalism. Political capitalism is the utilization of political outlets to attain conditions of stability, predictability, and security-to attain rationalization �in the economy. Stability is the elimination of internecine tion and erratic fluctuations in the economy. Predictability is the ability, on the basis of politically stabilized and secured means, to plan future economic action on the basis of fairly calculable expectations. By security I mean protection from the political attacks latent in any formally democratic political structure. I do not give to rationalization its frequent definition as the improvement of efficiency, output, or intemal organization of a company; I mean by the term, rather, the organization of the economy and the larger political and social spheres in a manner that will allow corporations to function in a predictable and secure environment permitting reasonable profits over the long run. My contention in this volume is not that all of these objectives were attained by World War I, but that important and significant legislative steps in these directions were taken, and that these steps include most of the distinctive legislative measures of what has commonly been called the Progressive Period.

Political capitalism, as I have defined it, was a term unheard of in the Progressive Period. Big business did not always have a coherent theory of economic goals and their relationship to immediate actions, although certain individuals did think through explicit ideas in this connection. The advocacy of specific measures was frequently opportunistic, but many individuals with similar interests tended to prescribe roughly the same solution to each concrete problem, and to operationally construct an economic program. It was never a question of regulation or no regulation, of state control or laissez faire; there were, rather, the questions of what kind of regulation and by whom. The fundamental proposition that political solutions were to be applied freely, if not for some other industry's problems then at least for one's own, was never seriously questioned in practice. My focus is on the dominant trends, and on the assumptions behind these trends as to the desirable distribution of power and the type of social relations one wished to create or preserve. And I am concerned with the implementation and administration of a political capitalism, and with the political and economic context in which it flourished."

The pro-regulation folks need to learn that special interests hide under "public legislation." The FDA was not created by Ralph Nader types- it was created by drug companies (and other buddies).

Let's say a meat packer wants to inject a marginal (dangerous) hormone. They get an edict from the USDA, allowing, or even mandating the hormone. If a researcher blows the whistle, the meat packer can say the government made us use the hormone! It was the tobacco companies who demanded the warnings on labels.
 
Old September 20th, 2009 #48
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The article points out the irony:

- the folks who favor regulation think regulators are drawn from the ranks of angels rather than the industries they fear
 
Old September 20th, 2009 #49
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

By pretending that certain practices were "forced" upon them by the government, they become immune to lawsuits.
 
Old September 20th, 2009 #50
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
By pretending that certain practices were "forced" upon them by the government, they become immune to lawsuits.
There's no pretense if the laws exist, regardless of who argued for them in the first place.

The introduction of jews to America led to their taking over the law schools, which in turn led to ridiculous distortions of tort law, from which the business community, as the medical community, naturally seeks to protect itself.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #51
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Maybe this South Park episode can explain the bailout:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/220760
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #52
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Maybe this South Park episode can explain the bailout:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/220760
Nope. The courtier satirists take the government party line, which is that the way out of our economic problems, and unprecedented personal debt, is to...

...go out and buy things.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #53
Bassanio
Hath not a Goy eyes?
 
Bassanio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Venice
Posts: 4,287
Blog Entries: 6
Bassanio
Default

Quote:
Nope. The courtier satirists take the government party line, which is that the way out of our economic problems, and unprecedented personal debt, is to...

...go out and buy things.
They're also sure to ridicule those who blame the kikes.
__________________
The Goy cries out in ecstasy as the Jew strikes him.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #54
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

You can watch the hearings on Ron Paul's bill to audit the fed, this friday (sept. 25) at 9am here:

H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009

9 a.m., Friday, September 25, 2009, 2128 Rayburn House Office Building
Full Committee

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/heari...r_092509.shtml
 
Old October 26th, 2009 #55
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The Federal Reserve System Repays the Treasury Most of the Interest It Collects From the Treasury

by Gary North
]
Most critics of the Federal Reserve believe that the central bank earns enormous profits as a result of its legal authority to create money. I have tried to correct this misconception for almost 40 years. I keep trying.

The Federal Reserve System does create money to buy U.S. Treasury debt. The Treasury does pay interest to the Federal Reserve on this debt. But the FED does not keep most of this money. It repays the Treasury, after deducting operating expenses: a few billion dollars per year. In 2008, this was a little over $4 billion, or 13% of revenues.

Here is the latest document from the FED: The Federal Reserve Banks: Combined Financial Statements as of and for the Years Ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 and Report of Independent Auditors. The columns appear on page 2. The 2008 figures are in the left-hand column. The 2007 figures are in the right-hand column. According to this audited report, the FED paid the Treasury over $31 billion in 2008.

Yes, the FED is audited. It is audited each year by a large accounting firm. This job rotates each year to another firm. The FED determines what the firms are shown and what they are not shown, e.g., the actual gold held by the FED on behalf of the U.S. government. (The firms are not shown the gold. No agency is ever shown the gold, including Congress.)

The author of the typical anti-FED article does not know this. He assumes that the FED pockets all the money. It doesn't.

Some of the articles insist that the Rothschilds own the FED. They don't. Member banks do.

Almost none of the authors analyze the FED as (1) the enforcing arm of a huge cartel and (2) lender of last resort to the largest banks. Yet this is the heart of the Federal Reserve System's function. It protects the largest banks. It always has.

It restricts entry into the field. This is another feature of every cartel: government-restricted entry. This protects above-market returns for members of the cartel.

This means that the Federal Reserve System is a government agency. Anyhow, the Board of Governors is. Look at its site. Its suffix is .gov. The regional banks are all .org.

Turn to any first-year college textbook in economics. Read the chapter on the economics of cartels. Then read the chapter on the Federal Reserve System. There is a total disconnect. The chapter on cartels describes the cartel as benefiting the members by reducing competition. The more free market–oriented textbooks will describe the cartel as reducing efficiency by reducing consumer choice. It may even dispute the claim of every cartel, that it furthers the public good.

The chapter on the FED describes it as an agency favoring the public good. It does not mention the analysis on the chapter on cartels. Yet the analysis of the chapter on cartels fits the FED quite well.

There is widespread ignorance regarding the FED. If you want to understand how the FED works, and what the economic implications are, read these free books on the FED, written by Murray Rothbard, a free market economist who really did understand the FED. Begin here: The Case Against the FED. Then read his textbook on money and banking, The Mystery of Banking. Then read his history of the origins of the FED. See Part 2 of his History of Money and Banking in the U.S.

Finally, read the booklet published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Modern Money Mechanics. The booklet shows how the fractional reserve process works. It's straight from the horse's mouth! (It has been out of print for many years. Hooray for the Web!)

October 26, 2009

Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com. He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north775.html
 
Old November 25th, 2009 #56
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Debt
November 12, 2009

The well known economist John Williams, told World Net Daily recently, "The Fed is monetizing U.S. Treasury debt in order to debase the dollar, to create inflation, in hopes of avoiding deflation. This move also sets the precedent for the Fed acting as a lender of last resort to the US Treasury, if foreign and other investors in US Treasuries balk at upcoming auctions or look to dump existing holdings. The record federal deficits ahead, mean record Treasury borrowings. Fed monetization of debt eventually means surging money supply growth and much higher inflation." In other words, suppose they had an auction, and no one bid?


Not as dense as Sir Alan would have put it, but in plain words, the government has been unable to sell its debt in sufficient quantities to China, India, and sucker John Q. public, and in order to keep on spending, they have bought their own debt. Nice trick, huh? Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Not quite. How about robbing the populace (Peter) to pay for all the crud, earmarks, welfare, warfare, handouts, bureaucracy, regulations, et al (Paul) in order to stay in office? How much debt do you, the reader have? I'll bet not much. If you have debts, you have to budget your income and expenses to pay that debt. Not so in D.C. All they have to do is vote to raise the national debt, which currently, and 'officially' is over $12 trillion, and will soon be 'officially' at $13 trillion. I use the quotes around 'officially,' because it's a damned lie as is most figures emanating from D.C. are. Do you actually believe that the unemployment rate is 10.2%? Do you really and truly believe the inflation rate is 2%? I don't. Throughout history, all governments have lied to their citizenry to cover up their mistakes. The Obama gang is no different.


The debt which Uncle Sam is committed to pay in the form of Social Security, Medicare, and the like over the years, was $65.5 trillion in 2008, and with the Obama gang in residence, it will soon be $100,000,000,000,000. That's twelve zeros, an amount incomprehensible to me.


Williams continued, "Because of the U.S. government's effective insolvency with $65.5 trillion in obligations, even before the Obama administration deficits, the higher inflation caused by the Fed buying Treasury debt has the early potential of evolving into an uncontrolled hyperinflation, in which the US dollar becomes totally worthless." The $65.5 trillion in debt is accounted for by "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles," (GAAP) which all businesses use, and it means that by GAAP rules, the U.S. Government has a negative net worth of $65.5 trillion as of a year ago, and climbing.


Of course, no one in their right mind would buy anything from, use a bank, or trust a business that was trillions in the hole or which had a negative net worth. Why do China and India still buy any US debt? They almost have to, in order to keep the whole thing from collapsing and crashing like Humpty Dumpty. They own so much of our debt, that they have to play it safe to preserve their wealth. They buy ever less and less, and sell more and more, till they are rid of it, while at the same time continuing to sell their stuff to the remaining US citizens who can afford to buy anything at all. China has hundreds of thousands of unemployed also, thanks to reduced buying all over the world from them.


The entire world's economy is hanging by a thread! It would take but a few little glitches to take the whole thing down. The UK is in terrible shape, as is France, Italy, Germany, and even Russia. Everyone in government is scared to death, but they keep on spending. Is Congress that stupid? Are they so dumb, that they can't stop spending? It appears to be so, or they would cease and desist. Shouldn't they all be ousted, with the exception of Ron Paul?


The stock market is doing almost an exact repeat of the 1929 crash. The stock market didn't actually reach the bottom till July 8,1932, when the Dow sunk to 41.22 "Black Thursday," occurred on October 29, 1929, when a record 16.3 million shares were sold. After the crash, many businesses and factories went broke and fired their employees. The unemployment figures grew and grew, just like they are growing now, till the unemployment rate reached 23.6% in 1932. Ours, is "officially" at 10.2% and rising. You decide if it will hit the 1932 level. When Roosevelt took office, like Obama, rather than reducing taxes, he raised them, thereby exacerbating the situation. Obama is in lock step with FDR...doing everything wrong. FDR got America out by getting us into WW II. Will Obama do the same in Afghanistan, Iran, or who knows where? The markets went up and down erratically until FDR took office, and then the Great Depression really began. George Bush preceded Obama with stupid moves, such as TARP, which the Republicans and Democrats grabbed on to with a great enthusiasm, even though 95% of the American citizens begged, wrote, and called their representatives, telling them a big NO. They voted for it anyway, and I can still hear John McCain telling voters that he had to rush back to DC to vote "yes.'


Are there any Republicans who might just be smart enough, forceful enough, young enough, and appealing enough to the voters, to capture the White House in 2012? So far, I'd take Texas Governor Perry and Sarah Palin. If Republicans are smart enough to change their voting habits and reform themselves, it is possible that both Houses could be re-captured in 2010. Will it happen, or should we just forget about politics, and concentrate on protecting ourselves? I'm ever an optimist maybe, but I am ordering "Perry/Palin in '12" bumper strips and will send out one with each order till the thousand run out, and then maybe I'll order more. Perry is a young, handsome guy, deep voice, excellent speaker, a conservative who has threatened to take Texas out of the union if they don't behave, and Sara is just great. There simply has to be a light at the end of this dark, Democratic tunnel.


P.S. to show the utter ignorance of the general public, a client sent me a you-tube of a fellow trying to sell an $1100 one ounce, gold Maple Leaf to people for $50. He tried over and over again, and no one would buy a one ounce gold coin for $50. He tried to sell it for $5 several times, and there were no takers. The economic ignorance is appalling.

http://www.coloradogold.com/archive/Debt-906.html
 
Old November 25th, 2009 #57
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Debt
November 12, 2009

The well known economist John Williams, told World Net Daily recently, "The Fed is monetizing U.S. Treasury debt in order to debase the dollar, to create inflation, in hopes of avoiding deflation. This move also sets the precedent for the Fed acting as a lender of last resort to the US Treasury, if foreign and other investors in US Treasuries balk at upcoming auctions or look to dump existing holdings. The record federal deficits ahead, mean record Treasury borrowings. Fed monetization of debt eventually means surging money supply growth and much higher inflation." In other words, suppose they had an auction, and no one bid?


Not as dense as Sir Alan would have put it, but in plain words, the government has been unable to sell its debt in sufficient quantities to China, India, and sucker John Q. public, and in order to keep on spending, they have bought their own debt. Nice trick, huh? Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Not quite. How about robbing the populace (Peter) to pay for all the crud, earmarks, welfare, warfare, handouts, bureaucracy, regulations, et al (Paul) in order to stay in office? How much debt do you, the reader have? I'll bet not much. If you have debts, you have to budget your income and expenses to pay that debt. Not so in D.C. All they have to do is vote to raise the national debt, which currently, and 'officially' is over $12 trillion, and will soon be 'officially' at $13 trillion. I use the quotes around 'officially,' because it's a damned lie as is most figures emanating from D.C. are. Do you actually believe that the unemployment rate is 10.2%? Do you really and truly believe the inflation rate is 2%? I don't. Throughout history, all governments have lied to their citizenry to cover up their mistakes. The Obama gang is no different.


The debt which Uncle Sam is committed to pay in the form of Social Security, Medicare, and the like over the years, was $65.5 trillion in 2008, and with the Obama gang in residence, it will soon be $100,000,000,000,000. That's twelve zeros, an amount incomprehensible to me.


Williams continued, "Because of the U.S. government's effective insolvency with $65.5 trillion in obligations, even before the Obama administration deficits, the higher inflation caused by the Fed buying Treasury debt has the early potential of evolving into an uncontrolled hyperinflation, in which the US dollar becomes totally worthless." The $65.5 trillion in debt is accounted for by "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles," (GAAP) which all businesses use, and it means that by GAAP rules, the U.S. Government has a negative net worth of $65.5 trillion as of a year ago, and climbing.


Of course, no one in their right mind would buy anything from, use a bank, or trust a business that was trillions in the hole or which had a negative net worth. Why do China and India still buy any US debt? They almost have to, in order to keep the whole thing from collapsing and crashing like Humpty Dumpty. They own so much of our debt, that they have to play it safe to preserve their wealth. They buy ever less and less, and sell more and more, till they are rid of it, while at the same time continuing to sell their stuff to the remaining US citizens who can afford to buy anything at all. China has hundreds of thousands of unemployed also, thanks to reduced buying all over the world from them.


The entire world's economy is hanging by a thread! It would take but a few little glitches to take the whole thing down. The UK is in terrible shape, as is France, Italy, Germany, and even Russia. Everyone in government is scared to death, but they keep on spending. Is Congress that stupid? Are they so dumb, that they can't stop spending? It appears to be so, or they would cease and desist. Shouldn't they all be ousted, with the exception of Ron Paul?


The stock market is doing almost an exact repeat of the 1929 crash. The stock market didn't actually reach the bottom till July 8,1932, when the Dow sunk to 41.22 "Black Thursday," occurred on October 29, 1929, when a record 16.3 million shares were sold. After the crash, many businesses and factories went broke and fired their employees. The unemployment figures grew and grew, just like they are growing now, till the unemployment rate reached 23.6% in 1932. Ours, is "officially" at 10.2% and rising. You decide if it will hit the 1932 level. When Roosevelt took office, like Obama, rather than reducing taxes, he raised them, thereby exacerbating the situation. Obama is in lock step with FDR...doing everything wrong. FDR got America out by getting us into WW II. Will Obama do the same in Afghanistan, Iran, or who knows where? The markets went up and down erratically until FDR took office, and then the Great Depression really began. George Bush preceded Obama with stupid moves, such as TARP, which the Republicans and Democrats grabbed on to with a great enthusiasm, even though 95% of the American citizens begged, wrote, and called their representatives, telling them a big NO. They voted for it anyway, and I can still hear John McCain telling voters that he had to rush back to DC to vote "yes.'


Are there any Republicans who might just be smart enough, forceful enough, young enough, and appealing enough to the voters, to capture the White House in 2012? So far, I'd take Texas Governor Perry and Sarah Palin. If Republicans are smart enough to change their voting habits and reform themselves, it is possible that both Houses could be re-captured in 2010. Will it happen, or should we just forget about politics, and concentrate on protecting ourselves? I'm ever an optimist maybe, but I am ordering "Perry/Palin in '12" bumper strips and will send out one with each order till the thousand run out, and then maybe I'll order more. Perry is a young, handsome guy, deep voice, excellent speaker, a conservative who has threatened to take Texas out of the union if they don't behave, and Sara is just great. There simply has to be a light at the end of this dark, Democratic tunnel.


P.S. to show the utter ignorance of the general public, a client sent me a you-tube of a fellow trying to sell an $1100 one ounce, gold Maple Leaf to people for $50. He tried over and over again, and no one would buy a one ounce gold coin for $50. He tried to sell it for $5 several times, and there were no takers. The economic ignorance is appalling.

http://www.coloradogold.com/archive/Debt-906.html
 
Old November 25th, 2009 #58
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[Gary North]

The Treasury will either renege on its debt or else the government will pass laws cutting expected benefits. Perhaps a combination of these will be the most politically acceptable approach.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north787.html
 
Old November 25th, 2009 #59
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[Gary North]

The Treasury will either renege on its debt or else the government will pass laws cutting expected benefits. Perhaps a combination of these will be the most politically acceptable approach.

There is no way that the Treasury's debt will be repaid. Everyone knows this, including Chinese central bankers and politicians. When Saturday Night Live opens with a skit on Obama's visit to China, where Obama keeps telling President Jintao that China will get its money back, and President Jintao asks him how, exactly, and Obama cannot say, we know that the world knows that America's debt is not going to be repaid. The live SNL audience gets it. The audience at home gets it. Everyone gets it. China is not going to get its money back. While the skit utilizes some crude humor, the message is clear. The economic data in the skit are factually accurate. When the details of America's foreign trade disaster can be turned into an SNL skit, the word is out.

Nothing changes. Nothing will change until China and other Asian nations cease playing kick the can.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north787.html
 
Old November 25th, 2009 #60
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Here's the SNL skit mocking US indebtedness, it's not bad actually.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-li...-open/1178451/
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:20 AM.
Page generated in 0.18360 seconds.