The Mainstream Says The Worst Is Behind Us: Are They Right?
 | ||
 | ||
| By Nico Isaac Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:15:00 ET |  Email |  Print |  RSS |  My Updates | Bookmark and share It!
 |
| ||
| ||
The Mainstream Says The Worst Is Behind Us: Are They Right? | Elliott Wave International
The Mainstream Says The Worst Is Behind Us: Are They Right? | Elliott Wave International
The Mainstream Says The Worst Is Behind Us: Are They Right?
| ||
| ||
| By Nico Isaac Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:15:00 ET | Email | Print | RSS | My Updates | Bookmark and share It!
|
| ||
| ||
Tags: S&P 500, earnings, bob prechter, Dow, bears, bulls
IL GRANDE BLUFF (ex La Grande Crisi): Lo cerco ma non lo trovo....
Lo cerco ma non lo trovo....
Un DATO positivo o sopra le attese.
LO CERCO MA NON LO TROVO....
Mentre le borse IMPERMEABILI continuano a salire a stecca.
QUI c'è da farsi male.....
Magari mi è sfuggito qualcosa.
Ditemi voi.....
Mercato auto: ancora in calo a maggio in Europa
How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love the Currency Collapse
How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love the Currency Collapse Jesse's Café Américain
The title is a reference to the culturally significant film, Dr. Strangelove, a satire on the fear of nuclear war that was so integral to the post war generation in the US.
If one reads this carefully, the BIS is really referencing a devaluation of about 22% which is hardly 'a collapse.' Here are some examples of post WW II currency collapses.
It depends on the timeframe, specifically the rate and extent with which the devaluation occurs. Also, it matters about what the devaluation has been against. Is it a relationship primarily to a reference point like the US dollar, largely affecting a narrow band of imports, or is it a true and general devaluation marked by soaring prices and monetary inflation domestically.
As I recall, China devalued the yuan by about 33% in the 1990's, and then pegged to the dollar, while 'persuading' first Bill Clinton (remember the Chinese campaign contributions scandal) and then George W. (whose family has a long history of supporting tyrannies for personal economic preferences) to allow them to maintain favored nation status, with the dispensation of 44% import tariffs, even while maintaining an artificially devalued currency, under full currency controls, and that fixed in a peg to the dollar.
"I am moving, therefore, to de-link human rights from the annual extension of Most Favored Nation trading status for China." --President Bill Clinton, announcing MFN status for China, White House, 5-26-94.
1994, Jan. 1 – China unifies its dual exchange rates by bringing the official and swap centre rates into line, officially devaluing the yuan by 33 percent overnight to 8.7 to the dollar as part of reforms to embrace a “socialist market economy”.As you may recall, in 1994 Bill Clinton also pushed through the NAFTA agreement which, in his words, would 'level the playing field' for American, Canadian, and Mexican workers. Only a few really understood the inherent danger in leveling the field without a thorough integration. The current Greek dilemma is a good example of a halfway done scheme in which monetary policy does not match up well with fiscal policy and national temperament. When one uses globalization of trade to 'knock down barriers,' among the barriers that are placed at risk are things like the Constitutional safeguards which a free people enjoy in their own domestic method of organization, such as healthcare, the right to organize, freedom from indentured servitude, child labor, individual rights, and so forth. These are the very barriers against the tyranny and despotism of the few on which the country was founded in a dramatically historical rebellion of the common people against the injustice of autocrats and empires. This was the rationale for the great Wars. Well, the one world government types play the long game, and if at first you do not succeed... So yes, in this case China was able to export their structural employment problems largely to the US, which gutted its manufacturing sector primarily for the benefit of the Banks, who were able to cash in on the 'strong dollar' and the decline of government protection for its citizens from criminal control fraud. Personally I think that high tariffs on Chinese goods would work much better for the US than a general currency devaluation per se given its position as a net importer, The downside would be that in the short term there would be less of a market for the export driven debts incurred by supporting the development of a non-democratic country engaged in blatant currency manipulation and mercantilism.
But do not fear, enough palms have been crossed so that one would never expect a simple solution to occur. Political and financial fraud dwells in the realms of artificial complexity. And the competitive but managed devaluations of currencies will serve to transfer more wealth from the many to the few quite well, a sort of hidden tax on the mob, while the wealthy continue to benefit.
But then again, the BIS may just be priming us for a crisis to come, which is consistent with the steady but quiet migration into gold by the wealthy, despite the propaganda they might put out for the masses to hear. As Pliny the Elder observed, "Ruinis inminentibus musculi praemigrant:" When collapse is imminent, the little rodents flee.
As an aside, here is a fairly good example of a man's thinking. Notice how Keynes changed his views of globalization from the euphoria of the British empire expressed the famous passage in "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" in 1920 which sounds like an Ode to the British Empire:
"What an extraordinary episode in the economic progress of man that age was which came to an end in August, 1914! The greater part of the population, it is true, worked hard and lived at a low standard of comfort, yet were, to all appearances, reasonably contented with this lot. But escape was possible, for any man of capacity or character at all exceeding the average, into the middle and upper classes, for whom life offered, at a low cost and with the least trouble, conveniences, comforts, and amenities beyond the compass of the richest and most powerful monarchs of other ages. The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep; he could at the same moment and by the same means adventure his wealth in the natural resources and new enterprises of any quarter of the world, and share, without exertion or even trouble, in their prospective fruits and advantages; or he could decide to couple the security of his fortunes with the good faith of the townspeople of any substantial municipality in any continent that fancy or information might recommend. He could secure forthwith, if he wished it, cheap and comfortable means of transit to any country or climate without passport or other formality, could despatch his servant to the neighboring office of a bank for such supply of the precious metals as might seem convenient, and could then proceed abroad to foreign quarters, without knowledge of their religion, language, or customs, bearing coined wealth upon his person, and would consider himself greatly aggrieved and much surprised at the least interference. But, most important of all, he regarded this state of affairs as normal, certain, and permanent, except in the direction of further improvement, and any deviation from it as aberrant, scandalous, and avoidable. The projects and politics of militarism and imperialism, of racial and cultural rivalries, of monopolies, restrictions, and exclusion, which were to play the serpent to this paradise, were little more than the amusements of his daily newspaper, and appeared to exercise almost no influence at all on the ordinary course of social and economic life, the internationalization of which was nearly complete in practice."After a period of years we can see his shift in thinking, albeit reluctantly and with many caveats, towards practical National Self-sufficiency in 1933.
"I was brought up, like most Englishmen, to respect free trade not only as an economic doctrine which a rational and instructed person could not doubt, but almost as a part of the moral law. I regarded ordinary departures from it as being at the same time an imbecility and an outrage. I thought England's unshakable free trade convictions, maintained for nearly a hundred years, to be both the explanation before man and the justification before Heaven of her economic supremacy. As lately as 1923 I was writing that free trade was based on fundamental "truths" which, stated with their due qualifications, no one can dispute who is capable of understanding the meaning of the words...It is a long business to shuffle out of the mental habits of the prewar nineteenth-century world. It is astonishing what a bundle of obsolete habiliments one's mind drags round even after the centre of consciousness has been shifted. But to-day at last, one-third of the way through the twentieth century, we are most of us escaping from the nineteenth; and by the time we reach its mid point, it may be that our habits of mind and what we care about will be as different from nineteenth-century methods and values as each other century's has been from its predecessor's...For these strong reasons, therefore, I am inclined to the belief that, after the transition is accomplished, a greater measure of national self-sufficiency and economic isolation among countries than existed in 1914 may tend to serve the cause of peace, rather than otherwise. At any rate, the age of economic internationalism was not particularly successful in avoiding war; and if its friends retort, that the imperfection of its success never gave it a fair chance, it is reasonable to point out that a greater success is scarcely probable in the coming years...I sympathize, therefore, with those who would minimize, rather than with those who would maximize, economic entanglement among nations. Ideas, knowledge, science, hospitality, travel--these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible, and, above all, let finance be primarily national. Yet, at the same time, those who seek to disembarrass a country of its entanglements should be very slow and wary. It should not be a matter of tearing up roots but of slowly training a plant to grow in a different direction."
I wonder if he lived today Keyens would agree that globalization leads inevitably towards restraints among nations, and a bias towards one world government. I think he would, and he would not be favorable towards it. Make no mistake, some view this favorably as the final solution to managing the unruly masses, and preventing the wastefulness of war and sub-optimization of individual choice by those who they consider and portray as unfit to rule themselves. The shift in Keynes thought is unmistakable, and I admire the self-knowledge he portrays in analyzing, examining, and understanding his own prejudices. It takes a great mind to rise above oneself and their own age.
Quite frankly I do not expect the Fed and Treasury to ever let go willingly of the reins of the economy, or reigns of power if you will, through their aggressive financial engineering in partnership with the Banks. A return to normal will not be achieved without a significant amount of effort, conflict and most likely, pain. It appears to be unavoidable now. As you may recall, Dr. Strangelove was insane, and his dark vision affected the politicians around him. One has to wonder if Barack, Ben, Tim and Larry have their reservations made for a place in the mineshafts.
The customary price of freedom will be paid, as always. The light of freedom may be extinguished for a time, but like a spark that is cherished in thoughts and hearts of the true, will remain to be revived again on some future day.
Bloomberg Currency Collapse May Stimulate Economic Expansion, BIS Says By Matthew Brown June 14 (Bloomberg) -- Currency collapses tend to spur a resumption of economic growth rather than fueling a decline in gross domestic product, according to the Bank for International Settlements. Currency collapses are associated with permanent output losses of about 6 percent of GDP, on average, though the drop tends to appear beforehand, the Basel, Switzerland-based BIS said in its quarterly review yesterday. “This suggests that it may not be the currency collapse that reduces output, but rather the factors that led to the depreciation,” Camilo E. Tovar wrote in the study. “To gain a full understanding of the implications of currency collapses on economic activity it is important to carefully examine the full circle of events surrounding the episode.” (How about the utter destruction of savings and the impoverishment of millions? That has a dampening effect as I recall from the stories that my grandparents told. - Jesse) The positive effects of a weaker currency on GDP, including making local products cheaper than imported goods, may outweigh the negative ones, such as rising inflation. Currency collapses occur when the annual exchange rate drops by about 22 percent, according to the BIS, which identified 79 such episodes, “more commonly in Africa than in Asia or Latin America,” since 1960, Tovar said. “They also occurred under all types of currency regimes, except possible floating-exchange-rate regimes, where there are simply too few observations to obtain meaningful estimates,” the BIS said. Economic Contraction The euro tumbled about 20 percent against the dollar between Nov. 25, 2009, and last week as investor concern over record budget deficits in countries including Greece spurred speculation the 16-nation currency union may split. The European Union in May crafted a 750 billion-euro ($908 billion) rescue package to stem the crisis. Greece's economy will contract 3.9 percent this year and 1.2 percent in 2011, after shrinking 2 percent in 2009, according to the median of eight economist estimates compiled by Bloomberg. The euro-region will expand by 1.1 percent this year and 1.5 percent in 2011, after falling 4.1 percent last year, median forecasts show. Hans-Werner Sinn, president of Germany's Ifo economic institute, said on June 3 that it would be best for Greece to leave the euro instead of implementing an austerity program to reduce its deficit. Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou pledged budget cuts worth almost 14 percent of GDP to bring the deficit within the EU limit of 3 percent by the end of 2014. “The real solution for Greece would be to leave the euro followed by a depreciation” of the new currency, Sinn said in an interview at a conference in Interlaken, Switzerland. Growth May 'Dominate' European Central Bank Executive Board member Lorenzo Bini Smaghi said on May 28 that there are “no alternatives” for Greece beyond following the austerity program. “Before drawing policy conclusions we should emphasise that these results are subject to a number of caveats,” the BIS said in the report. “Most importantly, the analysis does not address the reasons why currency collapses occur in the first place. Our analysis also has little to say about the mechanisms involved after the currency collapse takes place. While we cannot disentangle the various factors, our results do suggest that expansionary mechanisms tend to dominate.”
Freedom's Real Enemies
Chuck Baldwin
Politicians in Washington, D.C., love to manufacture a crisis. The crisis generates fear within the citizenry, thereby allowing the federal government to centralize more and more power. During a crisis, the citizenry becomes much more forgiving of federal abuses and accommodating of federal encroachments than it otherwise would be without a crisis. Hence, we have a federal "war on drugs," and a "war on poverty," and a "war on terror," and an "oil crisis," and an "energy crisis," and a "domestic terrorism crisis," and an "education crisis," and a "border crisis," and an "economic crisis" - Blah! Blah! Blah!
You can mark it down: every major crisis that America has faced over the last several decades has been either manufactured or facilitated by policies and activities originating in Washington, D.C. But at the same time that DC is creating these crises, it categorizes any ideological group it finds distasteful as a convenient scapegoat. These convenient scapegoats can include "angry white guys," "tea party extremists," "a vast right - wing conspiracy," Constitution Party or Libertarian Party "extremists," "Second Amendment extremists" (gun owners), "pro - life extremists," ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Yet, while DC's elitists are plotting America's next crisis and figuring out whom to categorize as America's next "extremist," some real enemies are waging war against the freedoms and liberties of our once - great republic. And, ladies and gentlemen, these enemies are much more subtle, a lot closer, and much more dangerous than almost anything you are being told about.
Here are some of freedom's real enemies:
Big Cities
When the United States was a much smaller - much more agricultural - nation, our freedoms were mostly intact. The mass exodus out of rural America into urban America has been a bane of freedom - and it will continue to be so.
Thomas Jefferson addressed this issue astutely when he wrote in a letter to James Madison, "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe." (Source: The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson)
Jefferson spoke again of this danger in a letter to Benjamin Rush. He wrote, "I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man. True, they nourish some of the elegant arts, but the useful ones can thrive elsewhere, and less perfection in the others, with more health, virtue and freedom, would be my choice." (Source: Ibid.)
Big cities are most always more liberal, more socialistic, more utopian, and more centralist. Citizens living in big cities readily submit to the machinations and designs of Big Government with much greater regularity than do their rural counterparts. In states where a handful of big cities dominate State politics, Big - Government policies almost always take over the politics of the entire State. If you doubt that, just speak with freedom - loving citizens in New York, Illinois, or Maryland.
Consider, specifically, the freedom most necessary to preserve our liberties: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. People in states that are less populated enjoy much greater liberty than do people in heavily populated states. For example, Boston's Gun Bible
Here is BGB's breakdown of the most and least free gun ownership states:
Most Free States:
-
Vermont
-
Idaho and Kentucky (tie)
-
Louisiana and Alaska (tie)
-
Wyoming
-
Montana
Least Free States:
-
New Jersey
-
Illinois
-
Hawaii
-
Massachusetts
-
New York
Population density in the "most free" states is less than 50 persons per square mile, while in the "least free" states it is more than 460 persons per square mile. Case closed!
While big cities will typically tolerate much more in the way of licentiousness and sexual perversion, they are also the first to tolerate Big - Government socialism. Without a doubt, Thomas Jefferson was right: big cities are "pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man."
If you want to live free in the future, you will probably need to leave the big city - and perhaps the states that are dominated by big cities.
The National News Media
For the most part, the national news media is no friend of freedom. About all most of them know of the US Constitution is the part about the "freedom of the press" (from the First Amendment, of course). Watch any of the Big Three television network newscasts on any weekday evening, and what will you see? You will see the exact same stories regurgitated over and over again - even with the exact same spin! And that spin is most always tilted toward bigger and bigger government. This goes on night after night, week after week, month after month, and year after year. But this is all just coincidental, right? Get real!
The cable news networks are not much better. About the only difference between cable networks is that CNN will provide cover for Big Government Democrats while viciously attacking all things Republican, and FOX NEWS will provide cover for Big Government Republicans while viciously attacking all things Democrat.
Face it: the national news media is intoxicated with Two Party Politics. They really don't care nearly as much about the fundamental tenets and principles of liberty as they do about whether a Democrat or Republican wins office. Washington's media elite are wined and dined by the same party politicians that they cover on television or in the newspaper. (What a racket!) Do you really think any major media news personality is going to risk losing his or her job (which is exactly what would happen) by asking too many questions, or boring too deeply, or straying too far off the reservation? Once again, get real! All of these guys and gals know exactly where the line - and the "third rail" - is located. And they all will stay clear of both! It's not about reporting the news, or defending liberty, or anything of the sort. It is about pleasing their big corporate sponsors - corporate sponsors who are in bed with the elites from both major political parties, by the way!
As long as the American people continue to allow the national news media to manipulate and spin the news, our liberties will continue to erode.
Big Business
In fact, Big Anything can be freedom's enemy: Big Business, Big Labor, Big Media, Big Cities, and Big Religion. Big Anything!
However, the rate and degree to which Big Business has been able to advance during the last half of the twentieth century - and now into the twenty - first century - is especially problematic for the survival of liberty. Dear friend, it is a mistake to equate Big Business with freedom. Big Business has little to do with capitalism and free enterprise and much to do with monopolism and globalism. Big Business does not want to compete with private enterprise; it wants to crush it! Big Business sees Big Government as a friend and partner. In fact, Big Business and Big Government are conjoined twins. They grow and live as one.
Accordingly, it is no accident that when the Bilderbergers got together a few days ago at the Hotel Dolce in Sitges, Spain, for their super - secret meeting, the list of attendees included the cabal of super - elites from Big Government, Big Business, Big Academia, and Big Media. People such as Bill Gates (Microsoft), Roger Altman (former Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury), Martin Feldstein (Harvard University), Niall Ferguson (Harvard University), Philip Gordon (Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs), Donald Graham (The Washington Post), Richard Holbrooke (Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan), Robert Hormats (Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs), Henry Kissinger (former Secretary of State), Klaus Kleinfeld (Chairman and CEO, Alcoa), Craig Mundie (Microsoft), Peter Orszag (Director, Office of Management and Budget), Charlie Rose (Producer, Rose Communications), Robert Rubin (Co - Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations; former Secretary of the Treasury), Eric Schmidt (CEO and Chairman of the Board, Google), James Steinberg (Deputy Secretary of State), Lawrence Summers (Director, National Economic Council), Christine Varney (Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust), and Paul Volcker (Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board). And please remember that these are only the names of those that were published. The complete list of attendees is top secret and never released. For example, was Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner there? He is a Bilderberg (and CFR) member.
But of course, this meeting - complete with the tightest security and secrecy possible - is only for the purpose of social fellowship and clubmanship, right? That the world's most interconnected business, governmental, and media elites would meet outside the viewing and listening of everyone is supposed to be dismissed as irrelevant and insignificant, right? Well, if you get your news from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or FOX NEWS, that is exactly what you are being led to believe.
Yet, Big Business has been conspiring with Big Government for the purpose of personal aggrandizement (at the cost of liberty, of course) for decades - probably centuries. Remember, it took an act of Congress to stop old Prescott Bush (George H.W. Bush's father and G.W. Bush's grandfather) from sending financial assistance to Nazi Germany. Know, too, that international bankers today are supporting governments (some that are openly hostile to the United States) in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Again, Big Business and Big Government are conjoined twins - an interconnected body that grows in unison at the expense of our liberties.
Freedom has many more real enemies that could be added to this list, of course; and maybe in the future we can talk more about them. For now, recognize that our liberties are hanging by a thread in this country. And the next time you hear someone in Washington, D.C., or the national news media railing against the latest "crisis" that requires Big Government to fix, please remember who the real enemy is.
Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He hosts a weekly radio show. His website is here.
Last Train for the Coast
Last Train for the Coast Howard S. Katz
All aboard, dear gold bugs. The train is slowly picking up speed and is leaving the station. It is your last chance to get aboard at a price reasonably close to $1,000/oz. Now you may not agree that $1,250 is reasonably close to $1,000, but when you see gold at $3,000, then you will agree. From the vantage of $3,000, then $1,000, $1,250 no big deal. The point is to be long of gold.
You have undoubtedly heard the expression, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Well people, (some of) you ought to be ashamed. The paper aristocracy has fooled you again and again and again and is fooling you in the exact same way today. Let us take 3 examples.
In 1982, an economist named Henry Kaufman, and nicknamed "Dr. Doom" by the media, was suddenly on the front page of pretty much every newspaper in the country. He was predicting higher interest rates, lower stock prices and a possible depression. All over the country people rushed to take Dr. Doom's advice. They had stubbornly held onto their stocks for 16 years, while (from 1966 to 1982) the real value of the DJI dropped by 74%. The selling was so great that, by 1982, the DJI was forced down to a P:E ratio of 6:1. Its price was 780. What a place to sell. Over the next 25 years, the DJI went from 780 to 14,200.
First, let us ask, why did the media select the most wrong economist in the country and tell people that he was a brilliant genius? To understand this, you must understand the paper aristocracy.
The paper aristocracy, as the name indicates, are a group of people who benefit from the Government's issue of paper money (and easing of credit). However, they do more than just benefit. They help to bring it about. They exert a major influence over the government (as the medieval aristocracy did for many centuries).
The issue of paper money and the easing of credit bring benefits to debtors (who get away with paying below free market rates of interest) and harm to savers (who receive below free market rates of interest). They also bring benefits to employers at the expense of lower wages to their employees.
The paper aristocracy first got power in the early part of the 20th century when they created the concept of a depression. If the word had any meaning, a depression would have to be a period when a large majority of the country got poorer. Was this what happened during the period 1929-1933? Not by a long shot.
From 1929-1933, prices in the country fell by about 30%. This made most goods cheaper (because prices were falling more rapidly than wages). As a result, Americans could afford more. For example, from 1930 to 1934 per capita meat consumption rose from 129 lbs. per person to 144 lbs. per person. (At the time, eating meat every day was just changing from a luxury good to one within the means of the average person, and the Republicans bragged in 1928 that they had put "a chicken in every pot." At the same time, people switched from margarine to butter and also gave more to charity. These are not the behaviors of people who are getting poorer. They are the behaviors of people who are getting richer.
"But Mr. Katz, what about unemployment? Weren't a lot of people unemployed in the early 1930s?" This is true, but it is hardly a measure of economic hardship. As prices declined, wages also fell but more slowly. The real buying power of the average man's wage rose, and he could afford to buy more goods. Since at the height, unemployment hit 25%, then 75% of the nation remained employed and was getting those high real wages.
But even the minority who was unemployed were doing quite well. In those days, Americans were able to save for retirement (not like today when they desperately try to take their retirement out of their house). An average person in the early 1930s received a wage of 40 oz. of gold per year (not quite as much as today). He saved about 15% per year (6 oz. of gold) for a working lifetime of 49 years, giving him a total savings of 294 oz. of gold. Since interest rates averaged 5% over this period, his savings at 5% would multiply by 4.25 over a 49 year working lifetime, giving him a retirement stake of 1249 oz. of gold, enough for a comfortable retirement in any age.
During WWI, the Democrats reduced the value of the dollar in half (a program which Obama is imitating today) The average American working man thus saw his retirement stake fall from 625 oz. of gold to 312.5 oz. during WWI. In 1919, the Republicans adopted a policy of raising the working man back to his original condition by restoring the currency to its pre-WWI value. This policy was called "a good 5¢ cigar" because the idea was that not only cigars but average goods would return to their pre-war level. (5¢ had been the price of a cigar in 1914.) This policy was successful and in 1921 and again in 1929-33, prices in the U.S. fell sharply, reaching their 1914 level in 1933.
This fall in prices doubled the value of the savings of the average person. The average American saw his savings double from 312.5 oz. of gold to 625 oz. So even the minority of Americans who lost their jobs made close to 8 years wages (in a 3 year period) in the form of a more valuable retirement account.
No, the people who were hurt in 1921 and 1929-33 were the employers (who were paying high wages) and the debtors (which are generally the big corporations). The average American was not hurt in (what is falsely called) the Depression. It was only the rich who were hurt, but they could not come out and say this openly. Hence they hired (fraudulent) economists to tell the country that the whole society was getting poor. These fraudulent economists compounded the insanity by telling us that the period of the early 1940s was an economic boom. But the early 1940s was a time when 10 million men were pulled out of the labor force and could not produce wealth. No one could buy a new house or car. (They were not being made.) Food items were rationed, and gasoline was limited to 3 gallons per person. In short, the early 1940s were a depression, but you could not get one of these "economists" to admit this if you put him on a torture rack (which might be a good idea on general principles).
Very well, if the average person benefited in the early 1930s, where did the wealth come from? The answer is simple. As noted, from 1914-1919 the paper aristocracy got richer at the expense of the average person. In a 2-step process (1921 and 1929-33) wealth flowed back from the paper aristocracy to the average American. The decline in the stock market from 380 to 40 dramatically illustrated this flow. In reality, the Republicans were the party of the working man, and the Democrats were the party of big business and Wall Street. In words of one syllable, most of what you have been taught is a lie.
In 1933, the Federal Reserve was given the power to counterfeit money. They used this power to steal from the working people and the savers of the country and give to the paper aristocracy. This was called "getting us out of the Depression." And that same confidence game went on in 1982 and has been going on ever since.
The second example I want to discuss of the paper aristocracy's tactic of shouting "depression" occurred in the late 1980s when Ravi Batra wrote a book entitled, "The Great Depression of 1990." Mr. Batra was not a member of the paper aristocracy, just a simple man who was in way over his head. A member of the paper aristocracy came across the book and saw how useful it could be to them. He invested in it and gave it enormous publicity. As 1990 approached, the fear of a Great Depression swept across the land. Alan Greenspan lowered interest rates from 10% in 1989 to 3% in 1993 to avert this "depression." The DJI went from 2,500 in 1990 to 11,500 by the end of the decade.
And, of course, the same game was played in 2008. The media started to scream about a depression (in this case they called it the "Great Recession"). Again they lowered interest rates (this time to virtually zero) and massively increased the money supply. The Fed has started lying about the nation's money supply redefining demand deposits as time deposits. However, we can get a good handle on the money supply by examining the monetary base. This has more than doubled in less than 2 years. What are you going to do when gasoline is $6 per gallon, coffee is $3 per cup and the average employee, making $60,000/year, can't buy as much as he buys today making $35,000?
Do you see the pattern? The paper aristocracy screams a number of cue words: "deflation," "depression," "recession." This provides the political cover for the Fed to print money and ease credit. The Fed's printing of money causes prices to rise so the original prediction of "deflation" has a snowball's chance in H___ of coming true. (In fact there has not been a single year of price decline in the U.S. since 1955.) But the average American is taken in by the prediction and rushes out to do the exact wrong thing. He sold stocks in 1982. He sold them again in 1990. He refused to buy gold in 1999-2001. But he did buy stocks in early 2000. And then in 2008 he sold stocks again. He believes the propaganda of the paper aristocracy, and he follows their advice. And then he losses his money. The paper aristocracy gets rich, and he gets poor, and he can't understand what is going on. He will not learn from his experience.
There is a cynical comment made about such people. "If God did not want them to be sheared, then he would not have made them into sheep?" Of course, we human beings have free will. We don't have to act like sheep. But that is the fundamental human choice: to think or not to think. Those who are thinking will make one or two mistakes, but they will not continue to make the same mistake over and over.
In the late 1940s, these big New York bankers built on the privilege given them by FDR to create money out of nothing. They collected a group of crackpot "economists" (the best known of which was John Kenneth Galbraith) and planted then into key positions in the country's top universities (via some well-placed bribes (excuse me, "donations"). As a result, today they control the teaching of economics through most of the country, and pretty much everyone writing about economics in almost every newspaper, news magazine or other media is a crackpot. When all of these crackpots agree, it is pretty certain to be a lie.
If you are truly interested in learning economics, I recommend Adam Smith, the classical economists of the 19th century (who followed in Smith's tradition) and the Austrian school of economics (particularly Ludwig von Mises) who advanced Smith's teaching by discovering that interest is the price we pay for time. (I studied von Mises in the 1960s and was able to put his time theory of interest to work in 1969 by predicting the bear market in stocks of 1969-70. Since that time, I have correctly predicted about 90% of all major term bull and bear markets in the common stock averages. (A major term move in stocks is about 2-4 years.)
So, to be blunt, "there ain't gonna be no 'deflation'" All the idiots out there selling gold are being taken to the cleaners. They are giving their wealth to the paper aristocracy. The money which the Fed has unleashed on the country over the past 2 years will cause a massive increase in prices. The paper aristocracy will win, and the people who believe their lies will lose.
Above is the chart of the monetary base (from the St. Louis Federal Reserve) which ran in the 6-11-10 issue of my newsletter, the One-handed Economist (published every other Friday with special bulletins when necessary, posted on my web site on Sat/Sun, password protected). If you wish to subscribe ($300/yr.), then visit my web site, www.thegoldspeculator.com and click on Pay Pal. Or you may send in $290 via check ($10 cash discount) to: The One-handed Economist, 614 Nashua St. #122, Milford, N.H. 03055. The last train is pulling out of the station (the $1,000 area) and heading for the coast (much higher levels), but you can catch it if you hustle. Don't commit the fallacy of the fair price. And remember that the trend is your friend. If you play this market right today, then you can invite me to visit your mansion a decade (or so) from now. Best of luck. All aboard, all aboard.
BP Oil Spill: A Slippery Slope to FEMA Detention Camps?
BP Oil Spill: A Slippery Slope to FEMA Detention Camps? Stephanie Mencimer
Is there a covert government plan to forcibly evacuate up to 50 million people from the Gulf Coast and move them into FEMA trailers somewhere in Missouri and elsewhere because of the oil spill? Some of the nation's survivalists are convinced that the Obama administration is plotting just such an operation. Last week, Greg Evensen, a former Kansas state trooper and a regular on the "Patriot" movement talk circuit, appeared on the Internet radio show "Shattering the Darkness" to warn listeners that government is moving to evacuate basically everyone from the coast of Texas to Cape Cod. Evensen says the move will come after these areas become uninhabitable due to an "oversaturation of benzene" from the chemical dispersants BP is using to try to clean up the oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico.
Yes, even an eco-tragedy can breed conspiracy theories.
Interviewed by a man known only as "the Hawk," Evensen predicted on May 27 that the evacuations would begin sometime around June 15, after the government brings together "people who can be engaged in combat" - possibly including foreign troops - and stations them at 500-mile intervals. He predicted that people as far north as Cape Cod might have to be evacuated, given that the oil is likely to end up "on beaches of England." These events, Evensen warned, would show the "rolling thunder effect of how it will bring America to its knees," to which the Hawk responded, "This could be larger than anything we could ever imagine."
In an interview with Mother Jones, Evensen explained that he had heard about this massive governmental operation from a "buffet meal of state and local law enforcement" sources, many of whom find him - rather than the other way around - thanks to his media appearances and Internet postings. (Evensen lives in Michigan.)
The podcast of this show soon made its way into the Tea Party world and was circulating on various listservs this week, with headlines like "Forced evacuations of 40 million begin in less than two weeks. Anyone within a thousand miles of the Gulf of Mexico needs to listen to every word of this." John Kaminiski, a "truther" who believes Jews blew up the World Trade Center, warned in an email that "If you don't leave now, you will never make it. You will either die on the road, or in a FEMA camp. The troops are already in place."
One wonders how many Tea Partiers listened all the way through to the end of the Hawk's show. Those who did might have questioned Evensen's claims after he started discussing "previously unseen ground units," possibly made up of "alien hybrids" masquerading as US troops, that were "emerging from areas in the Southwest and heading in an easterly direction." From the oil spill to FEMA camps to an alien invasion - it's the X Files gone green.
The giant spill has already inspired plenty of dubious speculation on the right. Early on, Rush Limbaugh suggested that "environmental whackos" had blown up the Deepwater Horizon oil rig to prevent more offshore drilling, a theme echoed by other conservative talkers.
Evensen has all but made a franchise out of predicting when and where government troops will round up the American people and pack them off to FEMA detention centers. Described by the New York Times as a militia leader, he makes the rounds of "Patriot" radio shows with such folks as Oath Keeper member "Sheriff" Richard Mack, and he features commentary by Larry Pratt on his website. Pratt, whom Evensen calls an acquaintance, is also a longtime militia hero and founder of Gun Owners of America.
Last year, Evensen repeatedly suggested that the government was planning to set up roadblocks to force people to get the H1N1 vaccine or tag them with a steel bracelet with a microchip that would indicate that they’d been vaccinated. Anyone who refused, according to Evensen, would be hauled off to a camp.
When none of that happened, Evensen had to make a retraction. But that didn't seem to dampen the demand for his survivalist seminars or radio appearances. And Evensen says that he doesn't claim to be 100 percent accurate. "We're watchmen, if you will," he says, explaining that he just puts information out there for people to assess for themselves. He doesn’t mention that doomsday predictions are good for business: He sells DVDs on "Castle Defense" and other "defensive planning" materials on his website (along with CDs of "Hymns from the Heartland," performed by Evenson himself) - all of which can be purchased with gold in lieu of currency. He says he also offers seminars and survivalist trainings across the country.
For the record, Larry Chambers, a Coast Guard petty officer at the DeepWater Horizon Incident unified area command in Robert, Louisiana, says that he’s never heard of any plans for the government to evacuate the entire Southeastern coast. "That's not going to happen," he says. (But isn't this what you’d expect him to say?)
Chambers explains that the government is making contingency plans to evacuate people in the event of a hurricane - which it has real concerns about because of how heavy winds might affect the clean-up effort, and because of the large numbers of extra personnel in the region working on disaster management. "I can understand why people may even start to think about conspiracies,” Chambers says. “It’s huge. We’ve never dealt with anything like this. People are upset."
As for FEMA, a spokesperson seemed rather perplexed by my questions about whether the agency plans to detain millions of Americans in trailers in Missouri after a mass evacuation. In an email, an agency press secretary named Rachel Racusen wrote, "FEMA continues to support the lead federal agencies for the response to the BP oil spill, the Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard and the Department of the Interior. To date that support has included help with staffing needs, as well as coordination and recovery expertise." Evensen might take that as a "yes."
Stephanie Mencimer is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. For more of her stories, click here. You can also follow her on twitter.