More Sovereign Defaults Loom?

Tuesday, March 09, 2010 - by Staff Report

Inter-dealer broker Tullett Prebon expects worries of a second crisis caused by sovereign debt defaults to boost volumes in its industry this year, although revenue from trading is down 5% so far. Terry Smith, the company's chief executive, said the company would benefit from greater volatility causing more trades, after profits rose slightly and revenue remained flat in 2009. "I would be shocked if there was not another crisis at some point during the course of this year," Mr Smith said. "Banks have de-leveraged, but governments have leveraged up." The company's revenue was flat at £948m and pre-tax profits grew 14% to £156.5m on cost reductions. – UK Telegraph

Dominant Social Theme: If it's not one thing, it's another.

Free-Market Analysis: In keeping with the Bell's analysis of dominant social themes for investment purposes, we draw the reader's attention to perhaps the most important point of the above article: "Banks have de-leveraged, but governments have leveraged up." This is an innocent sentence, perhaps, but to us its eight words manage to purvey radical confusion. They are in fact symptomatic of an economic confusion that has expanded drastically over the past century.

You, dear reader of the Bell, are a super-sophisticated economic maven and not apt to be confused. But many people reading this sentence might be quite upset by it and for the wrong reasons. They would think, perhaps, that the private sector was starting to behave responsibly –finally – but that government still hadn't caught on to the necessary cost cutting. Government, these observers might believe, still doesn't understand that moderation and fiscal probity are key.

They would be wrong, of course, for reasons we are about to explain – ones having to do with economic inter-connectedness. What we are getting at of course is that in the central banking/fiat money era, there is no real private sector left. The public sector, thanks to mercantilist money printing, is everywhere and in a sense controls everything.

How does it work? First governments print too much money, causing a mania, and then the private sector implodes into ruin. Again, the government and those standing behind government print more money. Gradually the private sector, especially big banks and big corporations, are stabilized. But in doing so, government has turned the danger of a deflationary depression into a potential hyper-inflationary crisis.

Today, we would argue, we are in the center of the eye of the hurricane. On the other side lie the raging, gale-force winds of massive inflation, government (sovereign) defaults and repudiations. Yes, global "private sector" bankruptcy has been averted for the time being by direct and indirect applications of massive public funds. But there is no science here. No delicate calibration of what is necessary. Literally trillions have been printed and given away without care, without thought, in a blind panic to ensure that the system does not collapse. These give-aways are not free. They are not without consequence.

Now, as a result, government is "leveraged." Private deleveraging and public leveraging are part of the same dysfunctional mechanism. That's how the mercantilist fiat-based business cycle works. But in this case, because the ruin was so evident and the system was so desperately close to falling apart, we can only assume that what lies on the other side is going to be equally deadly. Why shouldn't it be? For every action there is a reaction.

On the other side, to be sure, lie more defaults – "public" rather than "private." But there is another issue, too, that we want to raise, and which the article excerpted above does not examine. It is the larger issue of Western (and global) economic viability. Governments must cut costs, pay down debts and raise revenue to survive. But from a larger economic standpoint, there is likely only one way to deal with tomorrow's challenges. And that is to do what Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker did in the late 1970s in the United States – drain the swamp of excess money by printing less of it and raising interest rates to double digits.

The trouble with this solution is that the business cycle this time around has been so excessive and so obviously destructive that it might take much HIGHER interest rates to do the trick. Rates of thirty or forty percent, anyone? A truly drastic reduction in the money supply driving the US and the larger Western world into depression? This is a most grave scenario. People may not stand for an economic environment that is two or three times more punitive than it was the in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The other problem is that Paul Volcker worked his magic in a pre-Internet era. People didn't really understand what was going on and Volcker was presented as a hero in America for "saving" the system. He didn't save it, of course, he merely SALVAGED it for the same crowd of power elite players that have driven it into the ground once more.

And so we find ourselves (as is the Bell's unique investment mission) once again trying to ascertain the potential success or failure of the elite's dominant social themes – their ability to sustain their promotions. In this case, as in many others, we must confess that we are not in a position to make a definitive prediction, not yet anyway. Even so, we would urge readers to grapple with these issues as best they can, for they are most important. You see, if you believe that the elite is going to be able to navigate the second leg of this financial hurricane and come out with an intact financial system, then you will make certain financial decisions and live and work a certain way.

But If you believe the next leg of the economic crisis presents the harder test – draining money rather than printing it – and if you believe that people simply won't stand for what may be an ongoing jobless depression or severe inflation verging on hyperinflation, then you will conduct your affairs in a much different manner. And to make it even more complex, your analysis, if you choose to approach the world this way, will be complicated by the advent of the Internet.

It is the Bell's contention that the success or failure of elite promotional themes (global warming, peak oil, the necessity of green industry, the efficacy of central banking, etc.) constitute the most important elements of investing in the 21st century – but that the prospects for continued success (and acceptance) of these memes has been complicated immeasurably by the Internet, which has exposed many of them and continues to do so today. One must certainly analyze the prospects of elite memes, but in today's world that analysis must take the Internet truth-telling and ongoing reporting into consideration.

Conclusion: As more begin to understand the reality of power-elite promotions – that they are a kind of fear-based propaganda aimed at gathering additional wealth and power for only a few (at the expense of the many) – the task of those supporting such promotions grows increasingly more difficult. To be a successful investor in the 21st century, one will continually have to monitor the success or failure of the power elite as they grapple with the other side of the global economic hurricane. Upcoming sovereign defaults may be grave indeed, but there are other difficulties that lie ahead – and savvy investors will have to calibrate each and every one.

Foreign versions of our coming crisis

Bill Fleckenstein

Greece and the United Kingdom are suffering a dire funding problem that is headed for US shores.

Regrettably, these days it seems that ferreting out the right investment decisions is sort of all macro, all the time. The top-down economic overview is far more important, I think, than the bottom-up fundamental view of any company or stock.

Important pieces to that macro jigsaw puzzle are Greece and the United Kingdom, as the U.S. is headed for a variation of the funding crisis, though how severe ours will be remains to be seen. Without a money-printing press -- because it uses the euro, not a currency of its own -- Greece is forced to consider austerity measures to deal with its debt woes. The U.K., on the other hand, is not as bad off as Greece, and it does have a press.

For America: A Greco-Anglo scenario?

A crisis of confidence has invaded Greek and U.K. shores, and we can all learn a bit about what our future might look like as we watch developments there. (The U.K. may be the most useful example for us, since we also have a printing press.)

We will soon find out whether Bank of England Gov. Mervyn King will extend quantitative easing and, if he does, how the bond market will respond to a renewed effort to pump money directly into that economy. (The pound is already under a good deal of downward pressure.)

I would say that the U.K.'s funding crisis -- to use my ballgame analogy -- is probably in the third inning or so, even if we are still taking batting practice over here. (Read "Economy sinks as we save bankers" and "The next crisis has already begun" to brush up on that analogy.)

Back to Greece for a second: The sort of straitjacket that it's being placed in by its inability to print money is what's forcing the country to consider making tough decisions.

Only in a funding crisis where you have no other options are the Western world's "soft" social democracies willing to -- or rather, are forced to -- make hard decisions. So, the upside of the crisis is potentially coming out the other side in a more sane, sustainable fashion. That's what we all have to hope for.

Inflation ahoy?

But before facing our own debt and currency crisis, the U.S. is liable to experience a period of stagflation and inflation. Regular readers know my view about the strong connectivity between money printing and inflation. (Read "Why all roads lead to inflation" for more on this.)

What's difficult is trying to describe in advance the exact path whose destination is inflation. That's because government money printing infects certain markets or niches sooner, with some affected more than others. But one thing is knowable: Money printing always ends up raising prices.

Thus far here in America, we've witnessed a lot of taxes and user fees raised by the government, and businesses that have seen competitors fall away have increased prices. That's a variation of inflation, which will be exacerbated by more money printing.

But a really fine example -- and one that's liable to shock most people, as it actually did me -- is what's happening in China. For that, we can look to a recent New York Times story headlined "Defying global slump, China has labor shortage" (registration required):

"Just a year after laying off millions of factory workers, China is facing an increasingly acute labor shortage. (Meanwhile), as American workers struggle with near double-digit unemployment, unskilled factory workers here in China's industrial heartland are being offered signing bonuses. Factory wages have risen as much as 20% in recent months. . . .

"Some manufacturers, already weeks behind schedule because they can't find enough workers, are closing down production lines and considering raising prices. Such increases would most likely drive up the prices American consumers pay for all sorts of Chinese-made goods. . . .

"The immediate cause of the shortage is that millions of migrant workers who traveled home for the long Lunar New Year earlier this month are not returning to the coast. Thanks to a half-trillion-dollar government stimulus program, jobs are being created in the interior."

So there you have it: Massive amounts of monetary and fiscal stimuli are leading, as they always do, to inflation.

Warning Of A Gold Super Spike

Janet Tavakoli

"Congress Must Act Immediately To Abolish Credit Default Swaps On The United States"

Congress should act immediately to abolish credit default swaps on the United States, because these derivatives will foment distortions in global currencies and gold. Failure to act now will only mean the U.S. will be forced to act after these "financial weapons of mass destruction" levy heavy casualties. These obligations now settle in euros, but the end game is to settle them in gold. This is so ripe for speculative manipulation that you might as well cover the U.S. map with a bull's-eye.

Credit default swaps are not insurance. If you buy fire insurance on your home, you must own the house. If you buy credit protection on the United States, however, you do not need to own U.S. Treasury bonds. If your protection gains value after you buy it -- not because the U.S. defaults, but because of market mood changes -- you can resell that protection and make a profit.

Lower credit risk means a lower price for protection. Zero implies zero risk. The higher the basis points, the higher the implied risk. When U.S. credit default swaps were first introduced, the price of protection was around two basis points. According to Bloomberg, the price for five-year protection was around 38 basis points (per annum) on Friday. But the price in the over-the-counter market -- where this stuff actually trades -- was almost double or around 75 basis points.

Since most traders in U.S. credit default swaps don't think the U.S. will default any time soon, why are they trading U.S. credit default swaps? They are speculating on price movements the way a day trader buys and sells stocks to speculate on stock price movements.

Volume in U.S. credit default swaps is relatively small, but it can explode rapidly, just as volume expanded rapidly for credit default swaps on mortgage debt in 2006 and 2007.

Speculators Want U.S. CDS Payoffs in Gold

Remember AIG? When prices moved against AIG on its credit default swap contracts, AIG owed cash (collateral) to its trading partners. AIG paid billions of dollars and owed billions more when U.S. taxpayers bailed it out in September 2008.

U.S. credit default swaps currently trade in euros. After all, if the U.S. defaults, who will want payment in devalued U.S. dollars? The euro recently weakened relative to the dollar, and market participants are calling for contracts that require payment in gold. If they get their way, speculators on the winning side of a price move will demand collateral paid in gold.

The market can create an unlimited number of these contracts very rapidly. The U.S. wouldn't have to ever default to trigger a major disruption in the gold market. Spreads (or prices) on the credit default swaps could simply move based on "news," and demand for gold would soar.

If this speculation drives up the price of gold, and the available gold supply becomes limited, are you willing to post your children as collateral? I am pushing the point so that we put a stop to this before it is too late.

Global Disaster in the Making

More than a year has passed since former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson went to Congress in September 2008 to plead for special powers and TARP money to bail out U.S. financial institutions. Yet there has been no meaningful financial reform.*

The European Union has its own challenges. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently called for limits on credit derivatives on Greece, since the European Union is concerned about misuse of credit derivatives for speculation. Chancellor Merkel did not go far enough.

World leaders shouldn't merely ask for limits on sovereign credit derivatives. They should demand a ban on all sovereign credit default swaps.

*This video explains how cheap money, wide-spread bad (often predatory) lending, phony securities, credit derivatives, and Wall Street banks' massive over-borrowing led to our current financial crisis. Yet there is still no meaningful reform. Explanation of credit derivatives begins at 8:00.

www.tavakolistructuredfinance.com

Jamming The Accelerator

Martin Hutchinson

With the retirement of Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn, President Obama now has the right to appoint three Fed governors. Together with the reappointed Bernanke and Daniel Tarullo, whom he appointed last year, that will create a Fed Board of Governors on which five of the seven members are extreme soft-money advocates, and make it almost impossible, even in a crisis situation, for the 12-member Federal Open Market Committee to pull together a majority for anything but the most modest increase in interest rates. Essentially, the throttle will have been jammed open until at least January 2013. It's worth examining the implications of this for the U.S. and global economies.

The FOMC consists of seven Fed governors, five of whom after the Obama appointments will be committed soft moniers Of the other two holdovers, Elizabeth Duke (whose term expires in January 2012) is a community banking specialist without apparent strong views on interest rate policy, while Kevin Warsh, appointed in 2006, has recently indicated support for monetary tightening and has said that at some point tightening may be harsh. The other five places are reserved for regional Fed presidents, of which William Dudley, president of the New York Fed and a fairly soft money man, is a permanent member, the other four places being filled by the other 11 regional bank presidents in rotation. Of these, Kansas City Fed president Thomas Hoenig, Philadelphia Fed president Charles Plosser and Richmond Fed president Jeffrey Lacker have all recently expressed support for near-term monetary tightening. However the three presidents will be FOMC members in different years, Hoenig this year, Plosser in 2011 and Lacker (if reappointed Richmond Fed president next year) in 2012.

You can do the arithmetic. There will always be a nexus of five members, including Bernanke and the Obama appointees, supporting soft money, with Dudley joining them much of the time and San Francisco's Janet Yellen (unless appointed a governor) reinforcing the soft money forces when on the FOMC in 2012. On the other side, there will never be more than two firm votes for tightening. Thus until the end of 2012 (assuming Obama appoints a soft money governor as Elizabeth Duke's successor), there will always be an almost impregnable majority for monetary ease. Things may change from 2013 - for one thing we may have a new president from January 20, 2013 - but until the end of December 2012, the monetary throttle will almost certainly be wedged at full open.

In writing about monetary policy over the past year, I have suggested that if Bernanke himself did not resort to monetary tightening, then either a resurgence in inflation or a crisis in the government bond market would force tightening to take place. However, with such an extreme Fed set in place, that comforting thought may be wrong. With the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) doing everything it can to suppress reported inflation and the Fed doing everything it can to put the best possible face on the matter, we may before late 2012 go through progressive stages of inflation, none of which may produce monetary tightening.

In the first stage, perhaps for the rest of this year, the rate of inflation may rise only slowly, in which case its rise will be suppressed altogether by the BLS though aggressive "hedonic pricing" - seasonal adjustment and manipulation of the housing component of the index, which represents over a third of the total and represents no real-world price.

In the second stage, during 2011, moderately accelerating inflation will finally appear in the statistics, but will be explained away as a temporary phenomenon, as was the 5% plus inflation of early 2008. Later in the year, as the "temporary" explanation becomes less credible, the Fed will doubtless discover a strange interest in the recent paper by International Monetary Fund Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard, who has announced that monetary authorities should aim at 4% inflation rather than 2%, because it makes hyper-low real interest rates easier to create. Typical French socialist rubbish, to be expected from the IMF - 4% inflation over a long period halves the value of money every 17 years, and represents outright robbery of savers.

In the final stage in 2012, when even the BLS's reported inflation nears 10%, the Fed will resort to three further tactics. It will begin raising interest rates as it did in 2003-06, by ¼% at each FOMC meeting, leaving them below 2% even at the end of 2012. It will cite the still fragile economic recovery and continuing high unemployment as reasons why it cannot impose the costs of higher interest rates on the fragile U.S. economy. Finally, it will buy government bonds in large quantities, following the 1919-23 Weimar Republic's approach to monetary management, thus (probably with the tacit help of the People's Bank of China, which will be bought off by concessions in other areas) preventing the Treasury bond market from staging the collapse which would otherwise be so richly merited.

By the end of 2012, true U.S. consumer price inflation will be running at 20% or more, though it is likely that the BLS will still be reporting figures below 1% per month.

There are a number of corollaries to this. For one thing, if there is to be no significant monetary tightening before the end of 2012, then the current commodities bubble will have full rein for another three years. It is certainly possible that it will burst spontaneously, in which case we will get a financial crash similar to that of 2008, but with the major hedge funds and those banks that have foolishly lent to them as the nexus. If no crash occurs, then by the end of 2012, we will have gold at $5,000, oil at $200 and other commodities at correspondingly nose-bleed prices.

That's the bad news. The good news is that a period of inflationary finance of this length would solve the U.S. housing problem, as did the equivalent period of inflationary finance in Britain in the mid-1970s. In Britain, consumer prices roughly doubled between 1973 and 1978, so house prices that had been grossly excessive in 1973 had become once again perfectly reasonable by 1978. There was thus no great mortgage meltdown in Britain in the middle 1970s. The damage this caused only became obvious with financial deregulation a decade later; the inflation of the 1970s had effectively de-capitalized the British financial system, so that the merchant banks in particular but also the market-making "jobbers" were woefully unprepared for the piranha pool into which they were hurled by the Thatcher government's economically suicidal "leveling the playing field" in 1986.

This prolonged period of inflation would also be good for the federal budget, which is why it is unlikely to meet serious opposition in today's Washington. The deficit itself would be significantly exacerbated, as many spending items are inflation-linked, as are most income tax brackets. However the outstanding debt, including the $5 trillion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac obligations that the government doesn't want you to think about, would be sharply reduced in terms of either purchasing power or the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. Thus, even though the path of deficits during the Obama administration would have been horrendous, the raw increase in the federal debt-to-GDP ratio would be substantially mitigated by this inflationary phase.

The losers from this avalanche of inflationary finance, apart from any misguided conservative souls foolish enough to put their money in Treasurys, would be the People's Bank of China and the other central banks that have invested their reserves in Treasury bonds and federal agency securities. It's unclear what China would get in return for continuing to immolate its national wealth in this obviously misguided manner, but we can be fairly sure that it would get something. Needless to say, by the fourth year of ultra-loose monetary policy, in 2012, it's likely that China would be getting antsy about the losses it was sustaining, and would reduce its support for the Treasury bond market. This in turn would finally begin the process of pushing up long-term interest rates to a point at which investors got a positive real return.

There is no question that by 2012 the wheels would be falling off this financial contraption, but it's likely that Bernanke, a stubborn man, would continue in his soft money convictions for as long as he could, at least through the 2012 election. To keep the Treasury bond market under control in that last year he would resort to yet further swelling of the Fed balance sheet, buying Treasurys in as large quantities as was necessary to fund the yawning federal deficit, thereby monetizing it. Until the end of 2012, it's likely that this policy would not yet have fully exhibited its obvious downside, so it would be feasible to continue it.

In this scenario, the prospect facing the new president or the re-elected President Obama in early 2013 would be grim indeed. Inflation would be over 10% even on official figures, around 20% in reality. The federal deficit would still be around 10% of GDP, and the Treasury bond market would only be sustained at a yield of perhaps 6-7% on the long bond by massive money printing. Consequently, inflation would be in a mode of rapid acceleration. At the same time, Bernanke would still have a year to run in his second term, so there would be little prospect of an immediate clean-out at the Fed, replacing the errant governors with grownups who could clean up the mess. The financial system would either have crashed or be imminently about to while economically the United States would have been pushed into renewed recession by the high inflation and massive drain of increased energy and commodity imports. Globally, only the oil and commodity exporters would be riding high, while protectionism would be rampant as China, the European Union and other countries sought to gain assured sources of raw materials in a world where prices were exploding. Needless to say, the cleanup would take most of the next decade, and would leave the United States very much weaker at the end of it.

It is always possible to imagine an even worse monetary policy; even in the Weimar Republic they were lucky to avoid the fate of 1946 Hungary, where inflation reached 1 quintillion percent. Ben Bernanke and his new Fed cohorts are about to give Americans, hitherto spared, a painful new object lesson in the wilder forms of soft monetary policy. It is to be hoped that they remember its folly for several generations to come.

The Bears Lair is a weekly column that is intended to appear each Monday, an appropriately gloomy day of the week. Its rationale is that, in the long '90s boom, the proportion of "sell" recommendations put out by Wall Street houses declined from 9 percent of all research reports to 1 percent and has only modestly rebounded since. Accordingly, investors have an excess of positive information and very little negative information. The column thus takes the ursine view of life and the market, in the hope that it may be usefully different from what investors see elsewhere.

Martin Hutchinson is the author of "Great Conservatives" (Academica Press, 2005). Details can be found on the Web site www.greatconservatives.com

Views are as of March 8, 2010, and are subject to change based on market conditions and other factors. These views should not be construed as a recommendation for any specific security.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a broad gauge of the economy that measures the retail value of goods and services produced in a country.

Federated Equity Management Company of Pennsylvania

www.greatconservatives.com

Building A Future Without The New World Order

Giordano Bruno

I have heard it said in the past that attempting to articulate the concept of freedom for a man who was born a slave is much the same as attempting to explain the concept of language to a man who was born deaf. Without a psychological point of reference, the task is arduous, or nearly impossible. And yet, it happens all the time. Some people are born deaf and blind, yet within them lay dormant the ability to understand concepts such as speech and form.

Just as methods of expression and sense perception are inherent, so too are the desire and the comprehension of free will; the aptitude for choice, along with the intuitive conscience to help effectively direct such choice. Regardless of how oppressive our surroundings may be, this ability to choose can never be taken away. It is inked upon our very psyches. However, there are some in this world that would have us believe otherwise. That would tell us we are blank and faceless dolls waiting to be told who we are and what we should do. That we are cast amongst the dust and the dark. That we are forever lost without their "guidance."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

We have our own internal guidance, and if we quiet our minds and remove the distractions these men have placed in front of us, we might listen, and hear what it has to say.

Many in the Liberty Movement speak of dethroning the Global Elites who pull the strings of government and finance, but what happens when we are successful? We have lived under the systems they designed for so long that to have them torn away suddenly could have a dramatic and frightening effect on the public consciousness. Some might assert that we are not capable of starting from scratch, that it would be a disaster. I would have to disagree. Once again, those inborn qualities that compel us to fight for our freedoms will also help us in building a society that maintains them. In this article, we will examine just a few of the places where such a society could begin...

True Economic Freedom Realized

There has been a concerted effort in the mainstream media, not to mention certain protest movements, to blame the financial stress of our country and the world entirely on the "excesses of free-market capitalism." All I can say to these people in response is that they have no idea what free-market capitalism actually is. Few people alive today have lived in an America without the subversive influence of central bankers, and massive corporations, on the economy at large. Since the inception of the private Federal Reserve in 1913, we have lived under economic tyranny. To say that "free-market excesses" are to blame is a response driven by ignorance to the wider picture, because true free markets do not exist today.

When Adam Smith wrote his original treatise on capitalism and free markets, The Wealth of Nations, he did so in response to the organized cartels of rich merchant elites and monarchy who dominated all trade and commerce with vicious efficiency. Those people not lucky enough to be a part of the inner circle, or those not willing to pander to the aristocracy, were left to struggle in vain against unjust trade laws meant to keep the common man, no matter how brilliant or industrious, down in the gutters, begging for scraps from the tables of men born to fortune. "Trickle-Down Economics" is not a Reagan era idea; it has always existed in one form or another in one society or another. Its real designation, its real name, is feudalism, and it is designed to subvert the natural flow of commerce in order to create an unnatural two tiered class structure consisting only of the very rich, and the very poor.

For a short period, the American dynamic opened a door by which this unnatural class system could be dissolved, making way for the birth of the middle-class, a substantial and politically powerful cultural variant which until then did not exist, and in many countries never has existed. In America, the combination of free and open society, along with free-trade open to the masses created incredible wealth and innovation. However, the Elites were not yet to be undone.

Adam Smith was highly suspicious of the formation of corporations, or "joint-stock companies" as they were called in his day. Corporations (as opposed to "partnerships") are designed to devour competition using methods outside of the free-market ideology. They manipulate trade, and even law, by influencing government in their favor, sometimes buying governments outright. Their legal structure is such that they are rarely held accountable for any wrongdoing, because corporations are protected by "limited liability." Meaning, the corporation is treated as a legal person, and is thus punished as a "single entity," usually with non-threatening fines. The men who actually run the corporation, and make the decisions that lead to the breaking of law, are rarely if ever brought to task. Through this political wrangling, corporate elitists set themselves outside the reach of justice and social balance. The development of corporate culture in America paralleled almost exactly the ascension of the Federal Reserve and heralded the end of capitalism as it was meant to be. The Elites had returned, instituting the same old system of feudalism, but with brighter, shinier, more hypnotic packaging.

Central Banking directs the corporate pillaging of economies by blazing the political trails necessary for elites to stride above accountability. Before the Federal Reserve, the U.S. had suffered numerous economic downturns, but most of them were very short lived. The free market, left to operate without exploitation by governments or ultra-rich minorities, has an uncanny ability to right itself in due course. After the Federal Reserve was born, though, this natural ebb and flow ended. Within 20 years, the Great Depression arrived, lasting over a decade, after which, the U.S. dollar lost its gold backing, as well as most of its original strength and value.

The Fed has now created the potential for a hyper-inflationary collapse the likes of which could very well dwarf the Great Depression in destruction as well as duration. First, by artificially lowering interest rates to absurd levels and creating an atmosphere of intense credit creation, fueling the accrual of massive debt at every echelon of society. This ill advised (and likely deliberate) policy lead to the housing and mortgage bubble, and the default crisis that triggered the greater collapse. Second, after creating this catastrophe, they then offered up the worst possible solution; even more market manipulation and even more debt. Most Americans are only aware of the 700-plus billion dollar bailouts touted in the media, but what is not reported widely in the news is that this number is meaningless. The REAL bailouts have accumulated now to trillions, perhaps tens-of-trillions! All of this fiat money has been facilitated by the Federal Reserve on taxpayer dime.

Foreign countries holding U.S. Treasuries have almost frozen all further investment in our debt, and some, like China, have begun dumping treasuries they already have en masse. Eventually, this dual threat of deficit spending and spiraling treasuries will result in the disintegration of the dollar, and the end of our economy as we know it.

When Global Elites talk in the MSN of the "New World Order," or a "New Economic Order," what they are really referring to is the reinstatement of centralized control of all trade and finance, but this time on a planetary scale, with a new global currency. The snowballing economic collapse is meant to make the populace so desperate, that they will have no choice but to accept the reformation of complete financial autocracy.

In a future without the New World Order, Americans will be forced to rediscover what an economy based on truly free markets is like. The legal framework that allows for the existence of corporations must be overturned and the re-establishment of partnerships must be enacted. Central banking must be abolished. In fact, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution should be repealed entirely and a new amendment should be drafted which outlaws any establishment of a central bank, ever. This would leave little doubt in the minds of future generations as to the danger of allowing private banking cartels to control our nation’s economy.

In the event of a hyper-inflationary collapse, which now appears very likely, those who rebuild will find it difficult to form a new nationally accepted currency. Citizens will respond to any paper currency with extreme skepticism, especially after being reduced to traditional trade and barter. A new currency system would have to be grounded in tangible commodities, meaning gold and silver, and it would have to be absolutely redeemable in said precious metals. This new system would have to be introduced not on the macro-level, but the micro-level; small communities adapting at their own pace to a gold backed monetary policy until these towns and cities grow together into a solid economic network, much like a shattered bone in the process of being mended.

The income tax must be abolished and greater state sovereignty in financial and legal matters should be returned. The personal finances of citizens are private and should remain so. Constitutionally, government has no right to invade that privacy.

Community based business must be pushed to the forefront as opposed to the corporate stranglehold we have today. Business and trade should be an intimate part of community with roots in local culture. Businesses must have a stake in the health of the locality they operate, instead of the cold and impersonal strategy of globalization, in which businesses become phantom-like and faceless entities. People must be given the right to fully participate in economy once again, instead of being forced to passively observe. The greater and more elaborate the interaction of society to economy, the greater the health of the entire system.

Sovereign Government Reborn

Through centralization of economy and law, Globalists try to force nations to become interdependent; what they call "harmonization. However, the New World Order will be anything but harmonious, as individual liberty is quashed, and self sufficiency is dissolved. Independence, freedom, is archetypal. It is inborn. Regardless of what environment we are placed in, man will always be driven, consciously or unconsciously, to break outside any unnatural barriers of society that restrict his inherent ability to learn, discover, and grow. It is a law of the universe that supersedes any wishes of governments or Globalists. It cannot be broken. But that never stops despots from making the attempt...

State sovereignty will be first on the agenda in a post-globalist era. The origins of American law revolved around state sovereignty, and for good reason. The draftees of the Constitution knew full well that the more political power was centralized, the greater the risk of corruption. The Federal Government was meant to be the SERVANT of the states, not the other way around. Every nuance of the Constitution was dedicated to decentralization of power in order to prevent tyranny. The more sovereign governments and organizations there are in the world, the harder it is for a single group of elitists to take total control.

Globalists commonly suggest that allowing the existence of sovereign nations risks the fomentation of war, and that they must be absorbed into a single world government to prevent such catastrophe from occurring over and over again. This argument is much like the argument against free-market capitalism; most people have never lived in a world of sovereign states without the manipulations of elitists. Almost every war of the past century at least, including both World Wars, has been triggered by elitist organizations and families. A prominent example would be the Rockefeller Family’s funding of the Nazi Party as well as their re-supply of special aviation fuels through their company Standard Oil, without which, Hitler’s entire air force would have been grounded.

These wars have been engineered to drive humanity towards the concept of world government, and away from sovereignty. In a future without the New World Order, it is likely there would still be conflict, but the opportunity for peace would be far improved.

With the influence of Globalists diminished or removed, I believe we will find that global governance is absolutely unnecessary, and that independent nations are fully capable of finding common ground without relinquishing self-governance, simply because their intentions will be more open, and their governments distanced from the secrecy and subterfuge of the elite.

The two party system (which is actually a one party system) as it stands today will have to be tossed to the proverbial political scrap heap. Republicans and Democrats no longer have any clue what their respective parties even stand for anymore. The entire process has become a wild farce, a horse race in which the bets are rigged and nobody wins. This is because the leadership of both major parties follows the same globalist agenda. Republican presidents like George W. Bush claim to be conservative while at the same time implementing enormous government expansion projects, and instituting laws that can lead to police state conditions, such as the Patriot Act, or the FISA domestic spying bill. Democratic presidents like Barack Obama claim to be humanitarian "defenders of personal liberty" while supporting the same exact "Big Brother" bills as Bush, and expanding government even further, leading to historical deficits.

Voting should be based on choice, not the lack of choice. Why should we as Americans be limited to the "lesser of two evils"? This is our country, and politics should serve our needs. A multi-party system is absolutely essential to this end. Candidates, regardless of philosophical or financial standing, should be given equal opportunity to be heard by the people, as well as to debate the issues. Proponents of the globalist system argue that this will cause too much confusion and that too many conflicting points of view obstruct social progress. On the contrary, it is often in environments rich with differing views that brilliance is born. Conflicting philosophies are important in generating the ‘great new idea’, a way of looking at a problem that has never been thought of before. By filtering political and philosophical debate down to two neatly produced but intellectually and emotionally bankrupt sides, Globalists impede the creation of new ideas.

In the end, voting in terms of individual candidates and their potential is far more important than voting for any one party, though a complex texture of parties would be exceedingly preferable to what we have now. Focusing on the personal attributes and beliefs of each man and woman given the opportunity to serve in government would produce much better results overall, and also allow any citizen, regardless of class origin, a chance to represent the people.

Spiritual Expression Encouraged

Every man lives two lives; internal and external, rational and intuitive, logical and emotional, tactile and metaphysical. With a lot of effort, and a little luck, we can balance these two lives in a symbiotic relationship which enriches our character and our individual experience. Whether you are Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, etc, religion offers an outlet by which we can express these two sides of our being.

Societies dominated by elitism and collectivism however, seek to either co-opt spiritual expression as a means to control the masses, or, they attempt to destroy it altogether, as was the case in communist Russia and China. Spiritual expression is a threat to centralization of power because its genesis is rooted in the unconscious, the world of archetypes, giving it tremendous psychological force. Any cultural focal point that stands outside Globalization becomes a possible foundation for rallying opposition. This is why elites are so keen on promoting the ideas of existentialism and moral relativism; because these philosophies run counter-current to intuitive archetypal conscience. They use faulty rationalizations to subvert natural emotional structures intrinsic to the human psyche from the moment of birth, as were discovered by the psychologist Carl Gustav Jung, among others. Mysticism, the individual and essential expression of spiritual contents, is under severe threat in the event that the New World Order is successfully established.

In the end, almost all spirituality, regardless of cultural background, is driven by the human search for internal understanding. By exploring and coming to terms with our inner selves, we hope to clear our vision, so that we may see the outer world much better. In an elitist society, dogma is used to impede the quest for understanding by placing fabricated limits on thought. Religious dogma should never be allowed to obstruct man’s search for knowledge in the environment around him, nor should scientific dogma be allowed to deny man the means to understand himself.

In a civilization striving to remove elitist influence, the pursuit of empirical knowledge as well as spiritual knowledge must be placed on equal terms, because they are indeed equally important to the progress of human-kind.

Individualism Venerated

All systems are an abstraction of either man or nature made tangible by individual elements. Without these individual elements, the system cannot function, and in some cases, it would not exist at all. A collective society is only as strong as its unique participants, meaning, the group is dependent, even subservient to the strength of the individual. But, in the concept of the New World Order, this fact is veiled and supplanted by a "hive mentality."

One might point to the structure of an ant hill and claim that such a methodology is highly effective in nature, and might well be for man. Look at how efficient they are, an entire mass of creatures operating around a singular goal without a solitary concern except for the survival of the whole. But one might ask; if these millions of ants function around a single mind, will they ever progress beyond their current genetic and social imperative? Will they ever increase their chances for survival by thinking outside their current parameters? Is their collectivist structure really "superior," or are they actually weaker because they have no individual "anomalies" of thought that might improve their condition? Are they not entirely dependent on the mechanizations of evolution to produce any advancement, and only after numerous purges of entire subspecies? Is this really what humanity should aspire to?

Human beings are not ants, and could never function in the same way. Without strong willed people struggling to achieve individualism, we would have died out long ago. The Globalist promotion of collectivism is not meant to help humanity. It is designed to stifle the individual, and thus the strength of the whole, making us weak and utterly dependent on the hive mind, or in this case, a centralized minority of elites.

In a future without the New World Order, individualism should be prized above all things. Government, schools, business, and other infrastructure would operate with the primary purpose of nurturing the individuation of every man, woman, and child. Unique thinking should be encouraged, not punished. New ideas should be welcomed and considered, not immediately ignored or ridiculed. Children should be taught the strength to be as they truly are long before they are thrust into arithmetic or science.

This, though, is not the way of our "modern" culture. In today’s system, we are punished for questioning the immediate standards. We are rewarded if we conform. Our lives are made difficult if we refuse to pander to those in authority, or if we choose to survive by honest means. Our lives are made extraordinarily easy if we bow to authority and use dishonorable means against others to "get ahead." If we strive to fit in, to dress, talk, think, and feel like others, we are adored and accepted by the collective. If we stray even a little from the mainstream, we are attacked viciously, or even feared, as if we are a time bomb on the doorstep of the establishment. Even some so called "counterculture" movements behave in this fashion, often, in a completely unconscious manner.

Every person is born with an inimitable and distinct "self," outside the influences of environment. We might call it genetic imperative, or we might call it the soul, but in either case it is a precious gift. Until the defense of this gift is given social precedence, until we become champions of its cause, our cultures will continue to devolve and our nations will continue to crumble, with or without the help of the Globalists.

In a future without the New World Order, we become fully responsible for all our ills, all our failings. In their brutal grasping for total domination, I believe the elites will fall inexorably short. The kind of power they seek does not exist. It cannot be conjured or engineered, because it is not real. Free minds always find a way, and because of this, the Globalists will inevitably meet their match. Perhaps it is time now to consider how we will reconstruct from the ashes left behind, when they are finally gone.

www.neithercorp.us

L'imperialismo dei banchieri

di Carmelo R. Viola - 09/03/2010 Fonte: Arianna Editrice [scheda fonte]

La predonomia capitalista alla stretta terminale...

Faccio riferimento all’accorato appello lanciato da Ugo Gaudenzi con il suo editoriale “La Grecia strangolata dai banksters” apparso sulla copertina del n. 43 del quotidiano Rinascita. Tale testo si riallaccia perfettamente al mio recente articolo sui terrificanti antropozoi, soggetti antropomorfi, possibilmente dotati d’intelligenza geniale e carichi di scienza d’avanguardia ma totalmente privi di quel sentimento bioempatico (o sintonia bioaffettiva) che fa dell’animale-uomo un Uomo. Gli antropozoi sono totalmente indifferenti al dolore dei loro simili (fatta qualche rara eccezione per congiunti e amici) anzi, se utile ai loro profitti, lo producono perfino ad arte. Per poterlo curare a pagamento! Sappiamo che terapie alternative alle neoplasie vengono escluse dal protocollo di uno Stato capitalista perché lesive degli interessi di mercato degli industriali farmaceutici. Ma questa verità va nascosta. Sappiamo che patologie vengono indotte (procurate) artificialmente perché sopra di esse i grandi affaristi – i big (o pigs: porci!) del business! - costruiscono delle speculazioni di grandi dimensioni e di largo respiro (sic). Qual è la realtà denunciata da Ugo Gaudenzi? Semplicemente quella degli antropozoi dell’industria del credito e dell’usura, divenuti, come giustamente informa lo stesso, “poteri occulti che dominano il mondo”. Solo che occulti lo sono soltanto per coloro che o vivono chiusi nel loro piccolo mondo del quotidiano e ai margini della sfera sociale, o fingono di non vederli. Fra questi, purtroppo, ci sono molti di coloro che fino a qualche decennio fa, volevano fare la rivoluzione, soprattutto in nome di Marx e di Che Guevara! Desolantemente pentiti di avere osato tanto, costoro li ritroviamo perfino nella veste miserabile di scagnozzi servili e del grande padronato e degli Usa, antesignani della peggiore civiltà antropozoica, insomma del suicidio della nostra specie. Ma anche come donchisciotte, fustigatori di mulini a vento mentre di fatto sostengono i veri oppressori. Nomi? Qualcuno, famoso “migliorista” (sic!), officia quasi quotidianamente la liturgia del servilismo al sistema clerico-liberista con tanto di turibolo. Ultimamente ha firmato, con una velocità supersonica, il decreto salva-liste di un tale, che sta facendo tirocinio per dittatore alla faccia di un’opposizione, che non ha nemmeno consapevolezza della propria identità! Non ritengo di dire cose esagerate per esprimere più una forte emozione che una vera convinzione. La realtà, stigmatizzata molto saggiamente da Ugo Gaudenzi, è semplicemente vera e con essa bisogna fare i conti. Le banche coprono l’intero Pianeta, posizionate strategicamente come una “ragnatela maligna” e si vanno moltiplicando (ovviamente fagocitandosi fra di loro come monetìvori di tutto rispetto). E dire che il cosiddetto istituto di credito – un’impresa che non produce alcunché e che presta ad usura e a nodo scorsoio il danaro altrui ricevuto in custodia – è un ente non solo inutile ma addirittura nocivo! Ma era nell’ordine (a)logico del capitalismo senile che la società predonomica, trasposizione della giungla, finisse nelle mani – o grinfie – dei predatori più feroci e più crudeli, che sono appunto i banchieri-usurai, gli “antropo-banchieri”: gli imperialisti dell’ultima èra, le cui vere guerre di conquista le realizzano a tavolino con la sola gestione dei giochi monetari. Era, quindi, fatalmente inevitabile. Il meccanismo di ciò che sta accadendo in Grecia è semplice quanto diabolico e allucinante: una grande bottega monetaria – che il Gaudenzi conferma essere la famigerata Goldman & Sachs – vicepresidente il nostro connazionale dalla faccia pulita e abilitato a dettare regole (dei giochi suddetti), signor Mario Draghi – ha servito onestamente lo Stato greco, bisognoso, come tutti i poteri capitalisti che si rispettano, di quello strumento “distributivo”, che si chiama moneta, che ogni pubblica amministrazione nazionale dovrebbe potere produrre in proprio e ormai senz’altro “controvalore” – nell’èra postaurea - che non sia il fabbisogno. Tale facoltà è la “sovranità monetaria”. Ma non lo fa perché i “padroni di seconda istanza” (i primi restando i banchieri) preferiscono privarsi di questa facoltà in cambio di un àlibi eccellente: quello di potere dire che il debito (pubblico) non dipende da loro ma da norme e leggi che stanno al di sopra di loro. In tal modo – è questa la ragione inconfessabile! – possono diventare più ricchi e potenti mentre il popolo, “democraticamente sovrano”, subisce la riduzione delle spese sociali (istruzione e sanità in primis) e la crescente pressione fiscale (sempre più tasse con crescente rincaro – o deprezzamento – della moneta) cui lo Stato debitore è costretto a ricorrere per far fronte almeno alla copertura dei crescenti interessi. Si riducono i consumi mentre aumenta la difficoltà delle piccole imprese assieme alla povertà e alla disoccupazione. Anche la grande industria può risentirne ma, con la “mobilità globale” del neoliberismo, può trasferire la produzione laddove ha meno costi e più profitti di mercato, indifferente al terremoto esistenziale che possa produrre in migliaia di famiglie, buttate sul lastrico. E’ quanto sta facendo – legittimamente! – la grande Fiat a scorno di quanti hanno ancora una volta creduto nel sindacato, nella protesta pacifica e nella manifestazione di piazza e che resteranno comunque senza lavoro, proprio come succede nel “terzo mondo endogeno” degli Usa. La verità sconvolgente è che sulle rovine di un sistema nazionale (organismo sui generis), finito a pezzi con il danno maggiore a carico delle masse, che vivono di solo lavoro (quando ce l’hanno), svettano felici pochi mostruosi antropozoi: i proto-banchieri, i quali – bontà loro – sono sempre lì, pronti a dare il loro contributo – voglio dire i loro crediti, insomma i loro soldi (o meglio dei “depositanti”) in cambio di altro ladrocinio, di altri sacrifici, di altre lagrime e di altri sommovimenti di esasperati, di poveri cristi o di generosi, con arresti ovvero con un supplemento di pena, quando non anche di sangue. Tutto questo avviene perché alla suddetta sovranità monetaria dello Stato si contrappone il “signoraggio monetario” delle banche - trasposizione moderna dei primitivi ricettatori di pepite d’oro e convertitori delle stesse in valori cartacei convenzionali - estraneo a qualsiasi scienza degna di questo nome. Oggi il commercio del credito è una piovra universale policefala con capacità inimmaginabili come il conio della moneta, la determinazione del valore della stessa o la compravendita dei debiti a carico dei vari Stati-clienti, vittime di uno strozzinaggio, che ci ricorda molto davvicino la predazione della giungla e conferma in pieno la teoria della predonomia. La desocializzazione liberista-antropozoica dello Stato capitalista ha raggiunto un “fondo”, laddove a contendersi il dominio del mondo sono proprio i giganti dell’usura, che colpiscono comunque “anche in tempo di pace”, se così si può dire. La gente se ne accorge solo quando i loro mercati infuriano impoverendo milioni di… già poveri, come è successo tempo fa con l’Argentina, come sta succedendo in questi giorni nella Grecia, come potrebbe succedere a casa nostra.. Condivido pienamente la preoccupazione dell’amico Ugo Gaudenzi e mentalmente realizzo quella “manifesta contestazione”, che i nostri sedicenti “Stati di diritto” – che il diritto non conoscono – chiamano sovversione (sottinteso: contro i loro interessi di casta e personali). Che sarà?

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

L'economia in due paragrafi

L'economia è molto semplice, in fondo. ___________________________

La libertà generale di acquistare e di vendere è quindi l'unico modo di assicurare, da un lato, al venditore, un prezzo sufficiente per incoraggiare la produzione e, dall'altro, al consumatore, le migliori mercanzie al prezzo più basso. Questo non vuol dire che in particolari casi non troveremo un commerciante disonesto e un consumatore truffato; ma il consumatore truffato imparerà dall'esperienza e cesserà di frequentare il commerciante disonesto, che cadrà in discredito e sarà così punito per la sua disonestà; e questo non accadrà mai troppo spesso, perché generalmente gli uomini saranno illuminati dal loro evidente interesse personale. Attendersi che il governo impedisca tali truffe in ogni caso sarebbe come voler fornire dei cuscini ad ogni bambino che potrebbe cadere. Assumere che sia possibile impedire con successo, con delle regolamentazioni, tutti i possibili atti illeciti di questo genere, è sacrificare ad una perfezione chimerica qualsiasi progresso dell'industria; è limitare l'immaginazione degli artigiani negli stretti confini dell'abituale; è vietare qualsiasi nuovo esperimento; è rinunciare persino alla semplice speranza di competere con gli stranieri nella fabbricazione di nuovi prodotti che essi inventano quotidianamente, dal momento che, poiché essi non si conformano alle nostre regolamentazioni, i nostri operai non possono imitare questi articoli senza in primo luogo ottenere un permesso dal governo, ovvero, spesso dopo che le fabbriche estere, avendo tratto profitto dal primo entusiasmo dei consumatori per questa novità, l'hanno già sostituita con qualcos'altro. Significa dimenticare che l'esecuzione di queste regole è affidata sempre a uomini che possono avere molto più interesse nella frode o nella connivenza alla frode poiché la frode che potrebbero commettere sarebbe poi coperta in qualche modo dal sigillo dell'autorità pubblica e dalla fiducia che questo sigillo ispira ai consumatori. Significa inoltre dimenticare che queste regolamentazioni, questi ispettori, questi uffici per il controllo e la marcatura, impongono sempre delle spese e che queste spese sono sempre una tassa sulle mercanzie che, di conseguenza, si carica sul consumatore interno e scoraggia il compratore estero. Quindi, con evidente ingiustizia, il commercio e conseguentemente la nazione, sono caricati di un pesante fardello per risparmiare a pochi individui oziosi il disturbo di istruire sé stessi o di fare delle ricerche per evitare di essere truffati. Supporre che tutti i consumatori siano babbei e tutti i commercianti e produttori siano truffatori, ha l'effetto di autorizzarli ad esserlo, e di degradare tutti i membri produttivi della comunità. Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, “Éloge de Gournay” (1759)

Pubblicato da Paxtibi a 3/09/2010 12:37:00 AM 1 commenti http://gongoro.blogspot.com/2010/03/leconomia-in-due-paragrafi.html

Per una breve storia del capitalismo nelle campagne italiane

Scritto da Giordano Masini

martedì 09 marzo 2010

... Parlando dell’opportunità di liberalizzare il mercato agricolo e liberarlo dalle insopportabili pastoie della Pac, una delle obiezioni che mi sento più spesso rivolgere è quella secondo la quale il mercato non si adatta all’agricoltura. All’agricoltura europea, e in particolare a quella italiana, fatta di aziende poco estese e poco competitive, sarebbe estranea la mentalità capitalistica, e la sussistenza garantita dalla Pac è il “meno peggio” a cui il settore può ambire, soprattutto nel mondo globalizzato contemporaneo. Ora, io ritengo questa idea profondamente sbagliata, per molte ragioni. La prima delle quali è il fatto che il capitalismo non solo non è estraneo alle campagne, ma addirittura nelle campagne è nato e si è sviluppato, molto tempo prima della rivoluzione industriale. E proprio nelle campagne dell’Italia centrale e settentrionale, in particolare, tra il XV e il XVI secolo. Dato che questo era il tema della mia tesi di laurea (purtroppo mai presentata) in storia moderna, provo, quindici anni dopo, a tornare sull’argomento, sperando che la memoria non si sia troppo arrugginita, e scusandomi se non offro riferimenti bibliografici adeguati: i testi a cui faccio riferimento sono finiti sugli scaffali più alti della libreria, e nelle file posteriori… Partiamo da una premessa. Il sistema feudale del basso medioevo è stato destrutturato da molti fattori: il primo politico, con le città che hanno preso progressivamente il posto dei borghi feudali nel controllo (e nel possesso) del territorio. Nelle guerre tra fazioni che portavano un signore a prevalere sugli altri la popolazione aveva il suo ruolo e veniva per lo più ripagata con l’affrancamento dal servaggio. La servitù personale era già un fenomeno in estinzione al tempo delle signorie. Un altro socio-economico, costituito dal processo, abbastanza frequente nel corso di tutto il Medio Evo, ma aggravato dalle grandi guerre europee, di “carestia-epidemia-carestia”. Alla fine del ‘300 l’Europa era in piena crisi demografica. Come apparivano le campagne italiane in questo momento? In molte zone d’Italia la carne di cervo costava meno di quella di bue, segno che le foreste ancora dominavano il paesaggio, così come le paludi nelle zone pianeggianti. Il pascolo era tornato ad essere predominante rispetto alla cerealicoltura, così come nel resto d’Europa, segno evidente dello spopolamento delle aree agricole. Allo stesso tempo la crisi monetaria che aveva portato al fallimento le banche fiorentine e l’interruzione di molte vie commerciali verso l’Oriente, a cominciare da quella Mongola, avevano sottratto opportunità ai nuovi ceti mercantili cittadini. La storiografia in genere individua questo momento come l’inizio di un declino, in cui l’investimento fondiario, divenuto l’unico possibile, sottrasse energia e dinamismo all’economia della penisola marginalizzandola progressivamente rispetto a quella del resto d’Europa. Secondo me la realtà fu un’altra. L’investimento fondiario da parte delle élites urbane ha innescato un processo che ha portato nuova linfa e nuovo vigore all’economia, senza la quale quel fenomeno rivoluzionario e tipicamente italiano conosciuto come Rinascimento non avrebbe potuto avere luogo. Oggi si considerano i terreni agricoli dei “beni rifugio”, ma lo stesso non si poteva dire all’epoca. L’agricoltura era (e ha continuato a essere per secoli) il motore dell’economia, e occupava la maggior parte della popolazione europea, molto più dell’artigianato e del commercio. Investire per la prima volta capitali veri nell’acquisto di terreni agricoli, investendo anche in fondi marginali da bonificare e deforestare, ridefinire i rapporti di produzione attraverso contratti individuali tra prestatori d’opera e datori di lavoro, portare innovazioni nelle modalità produttive e negli strumenti di produzione, quando fino a quel tempo il titolo di possesso era d’origine feudale e includeva la terra, i beni e le persone, è stato un passaggio di fondamentale importanza. Definire questo processo una “rifeudalizzazione”, come hanno fatto molti storici, non tiene conto della sostanza stessa del fenomeno. C’è un dipinto tardorinascimentale conservato a Palazzo Ricci a Montepulciano e riportato da Emilio Sereni nella sua Storia del paesaggio agrario italiano. Offre un panorama della città completamente diverso dai paesaggi toscani trecenteschi di Simone Martini, punteggiati di rocche e castelli separati da un paesaggio brullo. Qui si vedono campi ordinati, delimitati da confini di proprietà netti, che seguono le linee dei pendii secondo una sistemazione razionale, e soprattutto con un casale su ogni proprietà, segno della diffusione della mezzadria. Le coltivazioni sono quelle arboree e arbustive che hanno reso celebre Montepulciano, la vite e l’olivo. In realtà è un paesaggio molto più simile a quello attuale che a quello del secolo precedente. E’ un paesaggio frutto di un lavoro di sistemazione e bonifica (avvenne lo stesso e in misura maggiore nella Pianura Padana e in Veneto) volto a massimizzare le rese, e in cui si ricercano produzioni innovative (risale alla stessa epoca la piantata interfilare padana e il nuovo legame tra agricoltura e tessile). E’ un agricoltura in cui la mano d’opera lavora, e spesso risiede, sul fondo grazie a contratti stipulati tra persone libere (la mezzadria nell’Italia centrale, le soccite e le affittanze al nord). E’ un’agricoltura capitalistica, ed è stata, fino alla grande crisi del ‘600 e allo spostamento definitivo del baricentro europeo dal Mediterraneo all’Atlantico, il motore del Rinascimento e della modernità. Da:http://www.chicago-blog.it/

FINANZA/ Euro, oro e farmaci: ecco i nuovi obiettivi degli speculatori

Mauro Bottarelli

Economia e Finanza

martedì 9 marzo 2010

Qualche boatos, tanto per capire che aria tira in attesa che i dati macro tedeschi e quelli dell'eurozona, questi ultimi previsti per venerdì, diano una spiegazione al possibile tonfo che l’euro subirà in settimana. A Londra, dopo il lunedì nero della sterlina, girano strane voci, quasi tutte univoche: l'euro è spaventosamente sopravvalutato e, nonostante il debito britannico viaggi al 12% del Pil e le elezioni di maggio facciano virare il barometro verso una maggioranza alquanto risicata e instabile (timore che i mercati vedono concretizzarsi con un possibile downgrading del rating sovrano di AAA), la sterlina dovrebbe attestarsi come valore di cambio reale a 1,40 sulla moneta unica. Qualcun'altro azzarda meno e pone il limite a 1,20: comunque sia, un abisso rispetto alla parità tecnica attuale con possibilità di viaggiare, entro aprile, verso il cambio a 0,90-0,85.

Insomma, la questione greca è tutt'altro che risolta e chi vive sul Forex è pronto a puntare su un euro in caduta: per carità, nulla di drammatico visto che comunque un 20% di sopravvalutazione è oggettivamente reale ma un segnale chiaro che andando avanti di questo passo non servirà guardare il numero crescente di scommesse short al Chicago Merchantile Exchangwe per capire che le politiche miopi di Francoforte fanno la gioia degli hedge funds.

Altra voce che circola: l’oro, moneta che tesaurizza le aspettative di crisi reale, salirà ancora. E non di poco. Per conferme chiedete a quel filantropo di George Soros il quale, tra una buona azione e l'altra, ha utilizzato il suo Soros Fund Management per incrementare le posizioni di investimento presso la SDPR Gold Trust del 152% nell'ultimo trimestre dello scorso anno. Lo si evince dai dati resi noti il 16 febbraio scorso dalla Sec. Ma c'è di più: Goldman Sachs prevede che il metallo prezioso, fino a ieri mattina trattato a circa 1,113 dollari l'oncia, schizzerà a 1,235 entro tre mesi e a 1,380 entro dodici mesi.

Ancora più ottimistica Hsbc, secondo cui toccherà quota 1,300 dollari l'oncia - con possibilità di rompere il muro di resistenza - già entro la fine di quest'anno. Lo stesso pensano a Bloomberg, dove 15 analisti su 22 interpellati confermano un aumento almeno del 15% con quota 1,300 dollari ampiamente raggiungibile già quest'anno. D'altronde, negli ultimi dodici mesi l'oro ha conosciuto una crescita del 22%, una percentuale che ha pareggiato nel terzo trimestre dello scorso anno: durante il quale George Soros ha accumulato qualcosa come 2,44 milioni di azioni della SDPR Gold Trust. Insomma, ci sono tutte le prospettive per un altro rally.

E per poter dire che la crisi - nonostante in America si cominci a riparlare di “marmellata a colazione”, ovvero di tempi meno grami visti gli ultimi indicatori macro - è tutt'altro che alle spalle. Domenica nella sua rubrica sull'inserto business del Sunday Times, Irwin Stilzer, eminenza grigia oltreoceano di Rupert Murdoch, parlava chiaramente di due anni di potenziale, falsa ripresa per gli Usa, il cui prezzo comincerà a essere pesantemente scontato a partire dall'inizio del 2012: e toccherà a Obama - o al suo successore, così scrive Stilzer - farsene carico e pagarne anche le responsabilità morali e politiche.

In meno di un mese e mezzo un altro richiamo al fatto che Barack Obama potrebbe non mangiare tutti i panettoni che il suo mandato dovrebbe costituzionalmente garantirgli: segnali, molto chiari, che dalle parti di Larry Summers e dei falchi della Fed quanto sta accadendo e quanto viene deciso alla Casa Bianca è decisamente poco gradito. Il presidente Usa è informato, anche perché gli indicatori del Treasury statunitense ci dicono che dall'estero si tornano a comprare azioni di società Usa, segnale che gli investitori hanno annusato una falsa ripresa che pomperà l'ennesimo “faked bull market” e un rischio di recessione molto lento, qualcosa che garantisce alti rendimenti sul breve-medio e facili scappatoie prima che il Titanic vada a picco.

Le stesse scappatoie che stanno prendendo le big del corporate, tra cui General Electric, Siemens e Philips, per sfuggire ai marosi dei mercati e della competizione diretta in tempi di recessione mascherata: sono, infatti, tutte in fila per accaparrarsi una fetta del nuovo piano sanitario da 125 miliardi di dollari deciso dal governo cinese, una sorta di piano Marshall triennale per migliorare il sistema nazionale che vede investitori privati occidentali pronti a qualsiasi cosa pur di sedersi al tavolo delle trattative: solo General Electric Healthcare ha 600 ingegneri che lavorano in Cina, molti dei quali impegnati in produzioni relativamente semplici come scanner e macchinari a ultrasuoni.

Altro che irritazione per la visita del Dalai Lama, gli affari vanno a gonfie vele all'ombra del Dragone: lasciate l'indignazione per la violazione dei diritti umani e per la pena di morte sistematica altrove, qui stiamo parlando di soldi. Tanti, tanti soldi. Astra-Zaneca, azienda con sede a Londra, ha creato un mega-impianto e sta investendo miliardi per essere capillarmente presente nelle zone rurali, quelle che hanno maggior bisogno di intervento sul sistema sanitario: bene, il business plan che ilsussidiario.net ha potuto scorgere parla di un aumento delle vendite del 20% all’anno per i prossimi cinque anni almeno. Cifre, certo, con possibile tendenza al rialzo. Soltanto il Betaloc, un medicinale contro l'ipertensione, rappresenta il 16% dei profitti di Astra-Zaneca in Cina.

Pensate soltanto che il mercato cinese di apparecchiature mediche cresce del 13,5% l'anno, qualcosa come 15,5 miliardi entro il 2012, mentre quelle dei medicinali toccheranno i 110 miliardi entro due anni contro i 44 miliardi del 2008: lo stima l'unità di brokeraggio di Credit Suisse, gente che di soldi e industrie farmaceutiche ne sa qualcosa. Reale necessità? Per i macchinari e gli ospedali, soprattutto nelle aree rurali, possiamo dire di sì, meno per il mercato farmaceutico in sé: i cinesi, in nome del mercato, stanno per essere occidentalizzati per volontà del governo che non vuole perdere i suoi preziosi partner-investitori.

Serviranno anti-depressivi a pioggia dove invece non sono necessari e così via fino a creare potenziali drogati di effetto placebo essenzialmente come in Occidente, un enorme - il più grande del mondo - mercato di potenziali consumatori-ipocondriaci, una vera manna, al pari della bufala della swine flu che ha fatto fare miliardi ai produttori di vaccini, con milioni di dosi stipate nei ministeri dei vari paesi e che mai verranno utilizzate: se volete una dritta per investire, andate sui farmaceutici. E sulle infrastrutture. Ma di questo parleremo in un'altra puntata.

http://www.ilsussidiario.net/News/Economia-e-Finanza/2010/3/9/FINANZA-Euro-oro-e-farmaci-ecco-i-nuovi-obiettivi-degli-speculatori/71601/

GB, requisiti di capitalizzazione: la FSA ci ripensa?

La Financial Services Authority inglese ha spiegato ieri di considerare prematuro un incremento della quantità di liquidità di riserva imposta alle banche...

La Financial Services Authority inglese ha spiegato ieri di considerare prematuro un incremento della quantità di liquidità di riserva imposta alle banche. Ciò che invece dovrebbe essere considerato più di ogni altra cosa, ritiene l’agenzia, è il supporto alla ripresa economica. La presa di posizione indica - riferisce il Wall Street Journal - come l’ente regolatore del Regno Unito consideri un’eventuale aumento dei requisiti minimi di capitalizzazione una zavorra per la crescita, già considerata fragile, del Paese.

Nell’ottobre del 2009 era stata invece la stessa FSA a proporre un giro di vite sul fronte della liquidità di riserva accantonata dagli istituti di credito (ma anche, ad esempio, dalle imprese edili), al fine di garantirne maggiore stabilità di fronte agli scossoni della crisi finanziaria globale. Quello di oggi, dunque, potrebbe essere letto come un mezzo passo indietro, che indica come le crescenti difficoltà riscontrate nel tentativo di risollevare le sorti dell’economia stiano spingendo a considerare l’opportunità di allentare un po’ le maglie della sicurezza, a vantaggio del recupero del prodotto interno lordo.

La FSA ha tuttavia specificato come non sia in discussione il lavoro effettuato insieme ai gruppi finanziari al fine di ridurre i rischi eccessivi assunti nei loro business. E che per quanto riguarda la liquidità ogni decisione è comunque rinviata alla fine del 2010.

http://www.valori.it/italian/finanza-globale.php?idnews=2123