The International Monetary Fund does not help the people of countries which have financial problems, but instead helps those to whom those countries owe money.
I've read enough about the IMF to realize that it's too complicated for me to understand without a lot more study than I'm willing to devote to it, but I believe I've had a valid insight.
My impression had been that the IMF "helped" countries which had fallen into financial trouble because they had spent much more than they could squeeze from their citizens in taxes. The IMF stepped in, imposed spending disciplines on the politicians in exchange for IMF loans to the country, and thereby in some way benefitted the people of the country.
Wrong. The IMF is not helping the country, but instead is helping those from whom the country has borrowed money. . . by demanding measures which actually hurt the people of the country.
The scenario:
1. Politicians in so-called "democracies" buy votes from the people by giving pleasing benefits which might include roads, parks, housing, medical care, retirement, education, unemployment benefits, even money paid to parents for having a child.
2. The people are happy to have more "free" benefits and reward the most lavish politicians by voting for them.
3. In order to finance their largesse, the politicians borrow more and more money from outside the country by selling bonds (IOU's) to foreigners -- banks, large institutions, etc.
4. Eventually the borrowing country owes more to foreigners than it can ever pay back, and faces national bankruptcy -- the dreaded "default."
5. Enter the IMF, willing to lend the debtor country enough money to stave off default, but at the expense of drastically cutting the benefits which the politicians of that country have given their voters. "Cutting the deficit."
Does this help the citizens of the country? No. It helps those who have loaned money to the country. The IMF loans, together with the cutting of government spending, assist the country to stay afloat sufficiently to repay debts. Meanwhile, the people of the country suffer as the IMF forces the country's economy to shrink, especially during a period of international recession such as we are experiencing.
So, as usual, what is masked as help for "the people" is actually help for the international banks and other big investors. Basically, IMF money is funneled through the debtor country to the lenders.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Friday, September 18, 2009
"SINS OF OMISSION"
From its beginning this blog's major aim has been to reveal important events and facts which have been omitted from the “news”. Here is a relevant statement from an interesting book I've been reading, “All The News Unfit to Print” by Eric Burns (John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 2009):
'[I]t is possible for a journalist to lie without actually misrepresenting the facts . . . by simply turning one's back on the truth. Actually, the latter is an easier way to lie than misstating the facts; it does not require any energy or special storytelling skills, nor does it require that one remember the details of the falsehood so that he can recall them later. One can be passive rather than active. For this reason, ignoring the truth has been an attractive alternative to many dishonest journalists over the years for many different reasons, from ideological bias to financial gain to sheer indolence.' p. 141
'Some years earlier, the Wall Street Journal had demonstrated that it was possible to tell a lie not by omitting the truth, but by hiding it away in the interior pages of the paper. In other words, a publication does not have to ignore reality to provide a disservice to its customers; it needs only to report it in a context that makes it seem less significant than it really is. Burying the lead, this is called in the news business.'
'[I]t is possible for a journalist to lie without actually misrepresenting the facts . . . by simply turning one's back on the truth. Actually, the latter is an easier way to lie than misstating the facts; it does not require any energy or special storytelling skills, nor does it require that one remember the details of the falsehood so that he can recall them later. One can be passive rather than active. For this reason, ignoring the truth has been an attractive alternative to many dishonest journalists over the years for many different reasons, from ideological bias to financial gain to sheer indolence.' p. 141
'Some years earlier, the Wall Street Journal had demonstrated that it was possible to tell a lie not by omitting the truth, but by hiding it away in the interior pages of the paper. In other words, a publication does not have to ignore reality to provide a disservice to its customers; it needs only to report it in a context that makes it seem less significant than it really is. Burying the lead, this is called in the news business.'
Monday, September 14, 2009
US SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL WAS CAUSE OF 9/11
ISRAEL IN PALESTINE
I have repeatedly emphasized an obvious fact which has been kept from the American people's attention. The cause of the attack on the Twin Towers was the United States' support of Israel's aggressions and illegal occupation and theft of land in Palestine. The attack was not for such stupid "reasons" as "They hate freedom" or "They don't like our way of life." It was plain and simple a war on the Israel/US coalition which has brought poverty, torment, and captivity upon the Palestinian people.
The painstaking ignoring of the obvious has been achieved by refusal to report numerous statements by Arabs that the cause of Muslim hostility to America is Israel. Now Bin Laden himself, the planner of 9/11, has issued a statement which makes the cause specifically clear. But will you hear these important words on television? I doubt it.
'(AGI)[Italian News Agency] - Washington, 14 Sept - Three days after the eighth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden has once again made himself heard. In an audio message the al Qaeda leader warned the American populace over the close ties between its government and Israel,"which induced me to plot the attacks on the Twin Towers." The message was broadcast on an Islamic site used in the past by the terrorist network. "The time has come for you to break free from the fear and ideological terror of neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby which wanted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Bin Laden in the message, called "Declaration to the American Populace".
[He] then explained the "reasons for the dispute" with the American populace: "your support for Israel, which occupies our territory in Palestine". In the message Bin Laden said that there had not been a true change in US policy, since Obama has kept representatives of the Bush administration in the government -such as Defence Secretary Robert Gates. "The White House is under the control of pressure groups. Instead of fighting to free Iraq as Bush wanted, the White House is what needs to be freed. The bitter truth is that neoconservatives continue to cast a heavy shadow over all of you."'
(Neoconservatives is a sugarcoated word for Jews who moved into the Republican Party, primarily to exert their support of Israel there.)
ISRAEL IN PALESTINE
ISRAEL OVER PALESTINE
THE RESULT IN NEW YORK
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
A FLY ON THE NEWSROOM WALL
Writer 1: “Here's the Henry Gates story.”
Editor: “Hm. 'Black Professor Arrested Breaking into Own Home.'
Nope. Get rid of everything after 'Arrested.' And build him up some.”
“Famous Black Professor Arrested. . . “
“Can't you do better than 'famous'?”
“Uh. Very Famous Black. . . “
“Jesus! Do I have to think for you!”
Writer 1: "Prominent?"
(Sounds of mixed approval.)
Writer 2, inspired: “Eminent!”
Writer 1: "Great! Eminent Black. . . “
Editor: “It's okay, but 'Eminent' doesn't sound much better than famous to me. Is there something stronger?”
(Writers consult thesaurus.) “Preeminent!”
“What does that mean?”
“More than eminent. The greatest of the eminent.”
(Reading) “Greatest in importance or degree or significance or achievement. With superiority or distinction above others.”
“Now that's more like it! Better than anybody else.”
Writer 2: “What makes him preeminent?”
“I have no idea. Jesus! Don't you know how things work? And spice up “Professor.”
“Scholar?”
“Yes! Preeminent Black Professor and Scholar Henry Gates. . . “
Keep it coming.”
“Distinguished!”
“Good. Preeminent Black Professor and Distinguished Scholar Henry Gates. . ."
“Henry Louis Gates.”
“Junior.”
“Okay: 'Preeminent Black Professor and Distinguished Scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Arrested Entering Own Home.'”
“Let's fly with that.”
(A few minutes later. . .)
Writer 2: "Chief, something doesn't make sense to me. Last week you told us to take 'Black' out of 'Black Youth Arrested on Seven Rape Charges' but today you told us to say 'Black Professor'. I don't get it. They both got arrested."
"Christ. Who let you in here?"
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The Case of the Missing Rabbis
“The Washington Post, NEW YORK, July 23 -- A two-year federal probe into a money laundering operation taking place between the New York area and Israel ballooned into one of the biggest bribery and corruption sweeps in New Jersey history, netting three northern New Jersey mayors, two members of the New Jersey Legislature, a raft of local officials, five rabbis, and a Brooklyn man accused of trafficking in human kidneys, U.S. prosecutors said today.
“FBI agents arrested 44 people in a series of morning raids, creating a dramatic scene of politicians and rabbis in traditional outfits handcuffed and being marched into the federal building in Newark, and then boarded onto a bus for the drive to the federal courthouse.”
“The arrested rabbis included Saul Kassin, the chief rabbi for the tight-knit Syrian Jewish community in the United States, and the chief rabbis of synagogues in Brooklyn and Deal, N.J. “
Doesn't that seem like a story that would be relished by American television? Dozens of prominent politicians paraded in front of cameras on their way to jail, juicy eye-catching pictures of handcuffed rabbis sporting black hats, long coats, and pigtails? I expected it to be the featured story on the evening news, but I looked in vain.
Now, class, can anyone tell me why the tale was overlooked, or dare we suggest suppressed, by the usually scandal-hungry media? Hint: Note the words “Israel” and “rabbis”.
I laughed when I learned that some published accounts referred only to “religious leaders”. You can be sure that if the “religious leaders” were Christian evangelists or Roman Catholic priests we would have seen them identified as such and pilloried on every evening news program in the United States.
Courtesy of Google, we can see how journalistic excitement over this story grew!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Obama versus Israel
This blog began in November 2006 with the question,“What is being omitted from the U.S. news reports that logically should be there?” What information is being omitted or distorted? It turns out that the purpose of most such censorship and misrepresentation was to protect Israel and further of the goals of the Zionist/Israel lobby. A particularly egregious example is occurring at present.
The president of the United States is directly confronting Israel with vigorous demands – demands, not coy suggestions – that the self-proclaimed Jewish state cease certain activities which are preventing a resolution of the “Palestinian issue” and are preventing a successful conclusion of the "peace process". These activities primarily involve the Jewish “settlements” beyond the Palestinian land already stolen in the name of Israel, as well as activities within Jerusalem. The activities are illegal, and break promises made to Bush administration.
In response to the unequivocal presidential demands, the Israeli government simply says, “No.” This brings to mind the image of a petulant little child balking at a direct parental order – but is the winner so easily predictable?
Have you noticed headlines or lead-ins to television news programs which trumpet this head-on conflict? I have not seen even a mention of it on TV or in the major news services – with this exception “Israel Rejects U.S. Call to Halt Jerusalem Project”. Other reports have appeared in relatively obscure places. . . even though President Obama has made his demands in interviews and public speeches. From the 'Jerusalem Post' I classify Israel's 'Jerusalem Post" as "obscure" because it is probably unknown to 99% of Americans.
It would appear that in this serious conflict the United States holds all the cards financially, diplomatically, and militarily, and yet the Israel lobby wields tremendous power over Congress and American politicians generally. Jewish pressure groups like AIPAC openly boast (more openly within Israel than in the U.S.) that they can get anything they want from Congress. A recent demonstration was the line-up of obedient senators and representatives who parroted support for Israel's barbaric invasion of Gaza in the exact same words conveniently supplied to them by their Zionist masters.
The question is, will Obama's determination be undermined by Congress, whose hand essentially controls the flow of money to Israel? What powers can a president exercise in such an international situation? Can Obama influence his own party more than a foreign nation's pressure groups can? This is a fascinating situation which would almost monopolize television news except for the Zionist desire for a blackout.
I predict that in American public commentary Obama will now be depicted – with never a reference to his confrontation of Israel –less and less as a knight in shining armor and more and more as a questionable adventurer in tarnished tin. Such a fate befell George Bush, Sr., when he tried to pressure Israel; almost overnight George the First tumbled from the bright star of the first Iraq war into the mud and lost his chance for the reelection that had seemed certain a few days before – while probably not one in a million Americans knew why he was suddenly demoted from darling to dodo.
The president of the United States is directly confronting Israel with vigorous demands – demands, not coy suggestions – that the self-proclaimed Jewish state cease certain activities which are preventing a resolution of the “Palestinian issue” and are preventing a successful conclusion of the "peace process". These activities primarily involve the Jewish “settlements” beyond the Palestinian land already stolen in the name of Israel, as well as activities within Jerusalem. The activities are illegal, and break promises made to Bush administration.
In response to the unequivocal presidential demands, the Israeli government simply says, “No.” This brings to mind the image of a petulant little child balking at a direct parental order – but is the winner so easily predictable?
Have you noticed headlines or lead-ins to television news programs which trumpet this head-on conflict? I have not seen even a mention of it on TV or in the major news services – with this exception “Israel Rejects U.S. Call to Halt Jerusalem Project”. Other reports have appeared in relatively obscure places. . . even though President Obama has made his demands in interviews and public speeches. From the 'Jerusalem Post' I classify Israel's 'Jerusalem Post" as "obscure" because it is probably unknown to 99% of Americans.
It would appear that in this serious conflict the United States holds all the cards financially, diplomatically, and militarily, and yet the Israel lobby wields tremendous power over Congress and American politicians generally. Jewish pressure groups like AIPAC openly boast (more openly within Israel than in the U.S.) that they can get anything they want from Congress. A recent demonstration was the line-up of obedient senators and representatives who parroted support for Israel's barbaric invasion of Gaza in the exact same words conveniently supplied to them by their Zionist masters.
The question is, will Obama's determination be undermined by Congress, whose hand essentially controls the flow of money to Israel? What powers can a president exercise in such an international situation? Can Obama influence his own party more than a foreign nation's pressure groups can? This is a fascinating situation which would almost monopolize television news except for the Zionist desire for a blackout.
I predict that in American public commentary Obama will now be depicted – with never a reference to his confrontation of Israel –less and less as a knight in shining armor and more and more as a questionable adventurer in tarnished tin. Such a fate befell George Bush, Sr., when he tried to pressure Israel; almost overnight George the First tumbled from the bright star of the first Iraq war into the mud and lost his chance for the reelection that had seemed certain a few days before – while probably not one in a million Americans knew why he was suddenly demoted from darling to dodo.
Friday, January 9, 2009
THE ULTIMATE DISGRACE OF THE U.S. SENATE
On the same day that the International Red Cross and the United Nations condemned Israel for violations of international law, including deliberate murder of UN aid workers, the United States Senate enthusiastically passed a resolution supporting Israel's invasion of Gaza in every way. While the Red Cross presented detailed stories of Israeli forces deliberately causing the deaths of wounded civilians and small children through neglect, even though Israel's military had posts within a few yards of such horrific scenes, U.S. senators cheered Israel on by voting in favor of a resolution written by Israel's chief American lobby AIPAC ('American Israel Public Affairs Committee'). The resolution unreservedly endorses and supports the murderous Israeli invasion and the lie that Israel is “retaliating” for unprovoked Gaza aggression.
Every senator who voted for the resolution put before him by Israel has branded “murderer” and “coward” on his soul. Those people have no moral or ethical principles, or regard for truth, which can stand up against their fear of not being reelected. They know that in the United States a politician's fate is determined by the good will or ill will of the Zionists who work here to support Israel, and the Jews who support the more active Zionists. And Israel knows that it can do anything, no matter how despicable or illegal or disapproved by the rest of the world, because it can count on the obedient support of American politicians and administrations.
The passive American public's perception of Israel is based on lies, and so it is necessary to repeat once again that Israel in Palestine is an invader, an occupier, and a thief of other people's land and water, as documented throughout VIEW FROM THE MOON. It is also important to remember that Hamas, reviled in the US and Israel with the phony “terrorist” label, was driven into Gaza by violence after its candidates were freely elected as the legitimate government of Palestine.
The current Israeli massacres in Gaza – like the many more limited ones in the past – are obviously timed to inflict the maximum possible damage on Palestine's government and people while the docile Bush administration is still in power. If Israel does not “trust” Obama, we can only hope they are right, and that Obama's pre-election bows to the Zionists were no more than an essential part of getting elected. For me, the great test of Obama will be whether or not he casts off the yoke of Israel.
Here is what the United States Senate supports:
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 January 2009 11.38 GMT
'At least 30 people were killed in the Zeitoun district of Gaza after Israeli troops repeatedly shelled a house to which more than 100 Palestinians had been evacuated by the Israeli military. According to testimonies gathered by the UN, Israeli soldiers evacuated around 110 Palestinians to a single-storey house in Zeitoun, south-east Gaza. The evacuees were instructed to stay indoors for their own safety but 24 hours later the Israeli army shelled the house with rockets. Around half the Palestinians sheltering in the house were children.'
Every senator who voted for the resolution put before him by Israel has branded “murderer” and “coward” on his soul. Those people have no moral or ethical principles, or regard for truth, which can stand up against their fear of not being reelected. They know that in the United States a politician's fate is determined by the good will or ill will of the Zionists who work here to support Israel, and the Jews who support the more active Zionists. And Israel knows that it can do anything, no matter how despicable or illegal or disapproved by the rest of the world, because it can count on the obedient support of American politicians and administrations.
The passive American public's perception of Israel is based on lies, and so it is necessary to repeat once again that Israel in Palestine is an invader, an occupier, and a thief of other people's land and water, as documented throughout VIEW FROM THE MOON. It is also important to remember that Hamas, reviled in the US and Israel with the phony “terrorist” label, was driven into Gaza by violence after its candidates were freely elected as the legitimate government of Palestine.
The current Israeli massacres in Gaza – like the many more limited ones in the past – are obviously timed to inflict the maximum possible damage on Palestine's government and people while the docile Bush administration is still in power. If Israel does not “trust” Obama, we can only hope they are right, and that Obama's pre-election bows to the Zionists were no more than an essential part of getting elected. For me, the great test of Obama will be whether or not he casts off the yoke of Israel.
Here is what the United States Senate supports:
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 January 2009 11.38 GMT
'At least 30 people were killed in the Zeitoun district of Gaza after Israeli troops repeatedly shelled a house to which more than 100 Palestinians had been evacuated by the Israeli military. According to testimonies gathered by the UN, Israeli soldiers evacuated around 110 Palestinians to a single-storey house in Zeitoun, south-east Gaza. The evacuees were instructed to stay indoors for their own safety but 24 hours later the Israeli army shelled the house with rockets. Around half the Palestinians sheltering in the house were children.'
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
INCREDIBLY HONEST ARTICLE
Coming from the Washington Post, this is astonishing. It mentions many significant facts about Palestine, Gaza, and Israel which are studiously kept buried by our nightly television news toadies. I've noticed that some of those TV "personalities" are looking noticeably uncomfortable about the Israeli slaughter in Gaza, and the lies used to justify it, and yet restrict their personal protest to squirming and changing the subject. Their body language reveals their true feelings but isn't revealing enough to get them fired through Jewish pressure.
Israel's Gaza Gamble
By Mahmoud Sabit
This has been a particularly brutal two weeks in the tragic saga of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. It's not very clear as to what precisely all this death and destruction is supposed to accomplish from an Israeli perspective. The utter defeat of Hamas? There's no consensus that this can accomplished by military means; Hamas is an ideological organization with strong support in Gaza, and their structure is woven into the very fabric of the refugee camps. To cow the civilian population of Gaza into withdrawing their support of Hamas? This is not very likely, especially after the sheer quantity of explosives showered on Gaza like confetti, and their resultant toll on the civilian population. Civilians tend to harden their determination when subjected to a constant diet of explosives, as the Germans learned during the London Blitz in WWII. As an election 'gimmick' to show how 'tough' Israel's leaders can be? Perhaps Israel's leaders have lost all sense of moral and ethical proportion if they believe that bombing an oppressed civilian population and its choice of leadership into a state of total submission following two years of virtual siege is a measure of toughness or lack of 'squeamishness.' To present President-elect Barack Obama with a fait accompli when he is sworn in later this month? A crisis that will force the new administration's hand upon taking office? It would not be the first time an Israeli government has attempted to impose its narrow agenda on an incoming U.S. administration.
Whatever the reason, it is a serious gamble, and a gamble without any likely long-term benefits. On the contrary, the long term implications do not benefit the interests of arriving at a final and just settlement to all parties in this dispute, whether Israeli, or Palestinian or Arab. It's certainly a gamble that may change the perspective of Arab governments in their interests in a rapprochement with Israel. There has been for the past few years an offer of peace to Israel by the Arab countries formulated in the Beirut Declaration of March 2002. This offer has so far been gathering dust, unaddressed by Israel, and it could be withdrawn (though this is not really likely.) The pressure from Arab public opinion as a result of this situation may well force the hand of some Arab governments to withdraw their support of this Declaration. To so dramatically reveal the Arab governments' inability to influence anyone at all on the conduct of Israel in Gaza would strengthen the position of Iran and its allies in the region. These are potentially serious consequences. For Israel to gamble with such possibilities is to engage in a serious disservice to their Israeli constituency as well as to their Arab neighbors.
Any and all civilian deaths and casualties should be deplored, be they Palestinian or Israeli. Firing homemade rockets into Israeli territory and bombing civilians in Gaza with modern ordinance are both acts that do not advance the cause of peace. Neither will tormenting a quite helpless refugee Palestinian population in Gaza with an economic embargo, nor denying its basic right to some sort of compensation through an overall peace settlement, nor attempting to coerce them into an abject capitulation to Israel's demands.
As for Hamas, they exist solely as a result of over 40 years of brutal Israeli occupation over the Palestinians without any recourse to a just settlement that would allow these people to have some sort of choice for their own future. At first the PLO/Fatah represented their interests, but Fatah was not able to deliver, thanks to Israeli intransigence and U.S. complicity. Thanks to a compliant U.S., Israel has an effective Security Council veto on any inconvenient resolution that this international body considers that might in any way restrict actions Israel considers 'appropriate' - which may or may not be abhorrent to the international community.
So when a free and open election took place in 2005, Hamas was elected to lead the Palestinian people, not just in Gaza but also in the West Bank. Hamas was brought into power because they are an element just as intransigent, just as doctrinaire and just as hard headed as past Israeli governments have proven to be. The reaction by Israel, the U.S. and Western Europe to this election was, as expected, vociferous. Even the right of the Palestinian people to choose their own leaders, however odious they may be considered, has been denied them. In a cynical display of moral outrage, Israel and the U.S. conspired with Fatah to topple Hamas, through violent means. The end result was that Gaza remained under Hamas control, whereas the West Bank effectively came under Fatah control. In addition Gaza has been under an economic embargo for several years now, causing immeasurable hardship to the Palestinian civilian population, in effect reinforcing a brutal occupation with a state of siege, actions more reminiscent of the excesses of the Middle Ages rather than the 21st century. If Hamas is considered so unsuitable today, 60 years after these Palestinians became refugees, perhaps Israel and its allies should have entered into a sincere and just settlement with more acceptable Palestinian partners decades ago.
Possibly one of the more sinister aspects of this tragedy is the clumsy attempt through media 'spin' to portray Israeli civilians as victims in this crisis. When we see on our TV screens and computer monitors the effects of Hamas 'rockets' on Israeli communities, compared to the sheer havoc wreaked by Israeli high explosives on the Gaza urban landscape and its civilian population, the educated and informed can safely put this fiction aside. As of a couple of days ago, in an TV interview with the BBC, Dr. Mars Gilbert at Dar el Shifa hospital in Gaza informed us that the overwhelming majority of casualties he had treated were civilians and that of the 900 casualties that they had so far cared for at Dar el Shifa, 25% of the fatalities and fully 45% of the wounded were women and children.
In an article that appeared January 7, 2009 in the UK, Avi Shlaim, a respected Israeli historian and Oxford University scholar, wrote that Israel had become a 'rogue' state, by definition a state that ignores and violates international law at will, has an arsenal of nuclear weapons, and practices terrorism (the use of violence against civilians for political purposes.)
In another BBC World interview with another noted Israeli historian, Tom Segev, when posed the question, "After the fighting is over, what should then happen?" answered, "We shall have to talk to Hamas - they may be a terrorist organization, but they are also a political party, a social welfare movement and the elected representatives of the Palestinian people."
These educated and informed Israelis are well aware of the fundamental truth of this situation, which is that Israel's long term security, its very survival, relies on making a just and equitable peace with the Palestinians, making peace with the rest of the Arab World, and making the Arabs their best friends as quickly as possible.
From an Egyptian perspective, the government is not thrilled that Hamas is in this leadership position with the Palestinian people. They are after all the 'little' brother of Egypt's own Muslim Brotherhood, opponents today of the Egyptian government. Egypt also realizes that Hamas will probably survive this onslaught; their survival will be considered a victory and may well have serious repercussions in the Arab World. In short this Israeli gamble, ill-timed, ill-conceived and ill-advised, may well reinforce and encourage political Islamist ideologues and their extremist elements in the moderate Arab World. If Hamas does not survive, even more extremist elements may replace them in Gaza - elements that have been waiting on the sidelines for just such an opportunity, including al-Qaeda.'
Israel's Gaza Gamble
By Mahmoud Sabit
This has been a particularly brutal two weeks in the tragic saga of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. It's not very clear as to what precisely all this death and destruction is supposed to accomplish from an Israeli perspective. The utter defeat of Hamas? There's no consensus that this can accomplished by military means; Hamas is an ideological organization with strong support in Gaza, and their structure is woven into the very fabric of the refugee camps. To cow the civilian population of Gaza into withdrawing their support of Hamas? This is not very likely, especially after the sheer quantity of explosives showered on Gaza like confetti, and their resultant toll on the civilian population. Civilians tend to harden their determination when subjected to a constant diet of explosives, as the Germans learned during the London Blitz in WWII. As an election 'gimmick' to show how 'tough' Israel's leaders can be? Perhaps Israel's leaders have lost all sense of moral and ethical proportion if they believe that bombing an oppressed civilian population and its choice of leadership into a state of total submission following two years of virtual siege is a measure of toughness or lack of 'squeamishness.' To present President-elect Barack Obama with a fait accompli when he is sworn in later this month? A crisis that will force the new administration's hand upon taking office? It would not be the first time an Israeli government has attempted to impose its narrow agenda on an incoming U.S. administration.
Whatever the reason, it is a serious gamble, and a gamble without any likely long-term benefits. On the contrary, the long term implications do not benefit the interests of arriving at a final and just settlement to all parties in this dispute, whether Israeli, or Palestinian or Arab. It's certainly a gamble that may change the perspective of Arab governments in their interests in a rapprochement with Israel. There has been for the past few years an offer of peace to Israel by the Arab countries formulated in the Beirut Declaration of March 2002. This offer has so far been gathering dust, unaddressed by Israel, and it could be withdrawn (though this is not really likely.) The pressure from Arab public opinion as a result of this situation may well force the hand of some Arab governments to withdraw their support of this Declaration. To so dramatically reveal the Arab governments' inability to influence anyone at all on the conduct of Israel in Gaza would strengthen the position of Iran and its allies in the region. These are potentially serious consequences. For Israel to gamble with such possibilities is to engage in a serious disservice to their Israeli constituency as well as to their Arab neighbors.
Any and all civilian deaths and casualties should be deplored, be they Palestinian or Israeli. Firing homemade rockets into Israeli territory and bombing civilians in Gaza with modern ordinance are both acts that do not advance the cause of peace. Neither will tormenting a quite helpless refugee Palestinian population in Gaza with an economic embargo, nor denying its basic right to some sort of compensation through an overall peace settlement, nor attempting to coerce them into an abject capitulation to Israel's demands.
As for Hamas, they exist solely as a result of over 40 years of brutal Israeli occupation over the Palestinians without any recourse to a just settlement that would allow these people to have some sort of choice for their own future. At first the PLO/Fatah represented their interests, but Fatah was not able to deliver, thanks to Israeli intransigence and U.S. complicity. Thanks to a compliant U.S., Israel has an effective Security Council veto on any inconvenient resolution that this international body considers that might in any way restrict actions Israel considers 'appropriate' - which may or may not be abhorrent to the international community.
So when a free and open election took place in 2005, Hamas was elected to lead the Palestinian people, not just in Gaza but also in the West Bank. Hamas was brought into power because they are an element just as intransigent, just as doctrinaire and just as hard headed as past Israeli governments have proven to be. The reaction by Israel, the U.S. and Western Europe to this election was, as expected, vociferous. Even the right of the Palestinian people to choose their own leaders, however odious they may be considered, has been denied them. In a cynical display of moral outrage, Israel and the U.S. conspired with Fatah to topple Hamas, through violent means. The end result was that Gaza remained under Hamas control, whereas the West Bank effectively came under Fatah control. In addition Gaza has been under an economic embargo for several years now, causing immeasurable hardship to the Palestinian civilian population, in effect reinforcing a brutal occupation with a state of siege, actions more reminiscent of the excesses of the Middle Ages rather than the 21st century. If Hamas is considered so unsuitable today, 60 years after these Palestinians became refugees, perhaps Israel and its allies should have entered into a sincere and just settlement with more acceptable Palestinian partners decades ago.
Possibly one of the more sinister aspects of this tragedy is the clumsy attempt through media 'spin' to portray Israeli civilians as victims in this crisis. When we see on our TV screens and computer monitors the effects of Hamas 'rockets' on Israeli communities, compared to the sheer havoc wreaked by Israeli high explosives on the Gaza urban landscape and its civilian population, the educated and informed can safely put this fiction aside. As of a couple of days ago, in an TV interview with the BBC, Dr. Mars Gilbert at Dar el Shifa hospital in Gaza informed us that the overwhelming majority of casualties he had treated were civilians and that of the 900 casualties that they had so far cared for at Dar el Shifa, 25% of the fatalities and fully 45% of the wounded were women and children.
In an article that appeared January 7, 2009 in the UK, Avi Shlaim, a respected Israeli historian and Oxford University scholar, wrote that Israel had become a 'rogue' state, by definition a state that ignores and violates international law at will, has an arsenal of nuclear weapons, and practices terrorism (the use of violence against civilians for political purposes.)
In another BBC World interview with another noted Israeli historian, Tom Segev, when posed the question, "After the fighting is over, what should then happen?" answered, "We shall have to talk to Hamas - they may be a terrorist organization, but they are also a political party, a social welfare movement and the elected representatives of the Palestinian people."
These educated and informed Israelis are well aware of the fundamental truth of this situation, which is that Israel's long term security, its very survival, relies on making a just and equitable peace with the Palestinians, making peace with the rest of the Arab World, and making the Arabs their best friends as quickly as possible.
From an Egyptian perspective, the government is not thrilled that Hamas is in this leadership position with the Palestinian people. They are after all the 'little' brother of Egypt's own Muslim Brotherhood, opponents today of the Egyptian government. Egypt also realizes that Hamas will probably survive this onslaught; their survival will be considered a victory and may well have serious repercussions in the Arab World. In short this Israeli gamble, ill-timed, ill-conceived and ill-advised, may well reinforce and encourage political Islamist ideologues and their extremist elements in the moderate Arab World. If Hamas does not survive, even more extremist elements may replace them in Gaza - elements that have been waiting on the sidelines for just such an opportunity, including al-Qaeda.'
Monday, December 1, 2008
THE LOST ART OF SAVING
I am old enough to remember when there was not a single credit card in all of America. You don't believe me? I'm not surprised. With your government frantically doing everything possible to persuade you to go deeper in debt via credit cards and other loans, you might well ask if this country ever survived without massive debt on all levels.
The first credit cards went into general use with the American Express card and the Bankamericard (now Visa) in 1958. Credit cards freed “consumers” from having to pay for things at the time they bought them and to delay the day of reckoning indefinitely as long as they met the payment demand each month while the cost of their purchase was grossly inflated by hefty interest rates. Thus instant gratification was introduced into the American bloodstream with the approximate disastrous effect of the forcible introduction of opium into China by the British in the 19th Century.
Add to credit cards the wild promotion of borrowing money secured by a car or a house which the lender could take if you didn't pay, and the US was ripening for economic catastrophes.
BY 2007, BORROWING WAS AT NEW HIGH LEVELS
But, you ask, in the Dark Ages before 1960 did no one buy Christmas presents? Did no one own a car or go to college? Ho, ho, ho! Of course they did. There was something called “saving” in order to pay something later. There was even an atypical system, little used today, in which the bank would pay you interest to place money in a savings account – so that the bank could lend the money to others (maybe even you) at much higher interest.
Watch some old movies and you will see how your ancestors “saved up” to buy things – scrimping and putting coins in a jar until the day they could buy that fancy dress or that doll or that 40 acres. What terrible times, thankfully gone along with dentistry without anesthetics. Now you take home that dress or bicycle today and have the rest of your life to pay for it at double the cost compared to a cash purchase.
In those olden days before credit cards, when it was generally felt that borrowing money was something shameful or dangerous, there was a prominent feature of advertising during the weeks before Christmas called The Layaway Plan. The shopper gave the store a small downpayment on the merchandise, which was then held for the buyer, who made periodic payments until the great day when the bicycle or diamond ring was fully paid for and taken home. There was a small service charge, but it was nothing compared to compound interest on borrowed money. The worst that could happen if one failed to make the payments was that the money would be refunded minus the service charge and a cancellation fee.
So, why is our government not encouraging a debt-free population? Why is it not touting savings instead of the borrowing that has caused the financial collapse of the world? Who benefits from undisciplined borrowing? Who gets richer the more you go into debt?
Class, if anyone can't answer that question, please leave the room and max out all your credit cards in a Christmas shopping binge. No need to save up for that television set or Nintendo Wii that you can't afford. Just take it home today and worry about paying for it next year.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
NOBODY NOTICED THE ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM
INDIAN FORCES DESCEND ON JEWISH CENTER
When I began this blog two years ago I expressed its main purpose:
'What is missing from daily news coverage in the United States is often more important than what is in it, especially since the big news media are designed to be more opinion-forming than informative.
That is largely what this blog will be about: What is being omitted from the U.S. news reports that logically should be there? When you look at the jigsaw puzzle assembled for you by the TV news editors, why is there a piece conspicuously missing from the middle of the picture? What was the motive for leaving a hole in the picture? Who benefits from the omission? Who would have been displeased if the information had not been left out?'
As I've shown repeatedly since writing those words, the important subjects most often missing from American “news” are Israel, the Israel Lobby, and the influence of Jews in American society. I raise this again today because of reporting of the attack on the Jewish Chabad house in Mumbai.
Notice the puzzlement over why a Jewish establishment would have been chosen as target:
'On Wednesday, the Chabad house became an unlikely target of the terrorist gunmen who unleashed a series of bloody coordinated attacks at locations in and around Mumbai’s commercial center. It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.'
At least the Associated Press said outright, 'The attackers' main targets appeared to be Americans, Britons and Jews,' . . . of course without any explanation as to why Jews were included.
As often happens, reports specifically aimed at a Jewish audience were more open:
'Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, this afternoon denounced the terrorist assaults in Mumbai, India. . . Hier called terrorism "the plague of the 21st century" and said the attackers "were not just delivering a message to the Indian government. They were sending a message to America and London and Jews and the state of Israel."'
The ludicrous implication that the occupation of the Jewish center was 'unlikely' and might have been 'accidental' is a typical evasion of mentioning Israel as the root cause of anger and hatred in the Islamic world and the Middle East. And who in all the world is Israel's only support? The United States. And who faithfully trots at the heels of America? England. When the United States invaded Iraq because Israel wanted Iraq neutered, England provided the illusion of a 'coalition' – while Israel was carefully omitted from any discussion of the attack on Iraq which it instigated through its creatures in the Pentagon.
(Throughout VIEW FROM THE MOON you will find many detailed discussions and facts relating to the preceding paragraph.)
Endnote:
'In 2003, barely out of their teens and newly married, Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka, moved from Brooklyn to the coastal city of Mumbai, India, to manage a mix of educational center, synagogue and social hall known as a Chabad house, one of about 3,500 outposts around the world run by the Lubavitch Hasidic movement. Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg were born in Israel, though he and his siblings were brought to Crown Heights as children by their parents.
'Rabbi Holtzberg’s parents, Noah and Freida, spent most of Thursday holed up in their house in Crown Heights, but left for Israel late in the afternoon. Meanwhile, Rivka Holtzberg’s parents, Rabbi Shimon and Yehudit Rosenberg, who live in Israel, boarded a plane to Mumbai.'
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
URGENT: BORROW, BORROW, BORROW!
Yesterday we were bombarded with government plans for even more huge amounts of money to be given to banks. As I forced myself to listen to the television news – BBC, MSNBC, CNN -- I heard the same message again and again:
The government must do something to get the public to start borrowing again. More billions of dollars will be given to the banks in the hope that they will begin to lend money and stimulate Americans to borrow. The people must be motivated to start using their credit cards more. America's financial future depends on more borrowing.
'Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve's new $800 billion effort to combat the financial crisis is designed to make credit more accessible to shaken consumers who aren't sure they want more debt.'
Why? Why give $800 billion more to banks in order to encourage the populace to borrow more money and safari farther into Darkest Debt? What is the magic of borrowed money?
If the object is to encourage Americans to start buying more, in order to stimulate the economy with consumer purchases, why not just give the $800 billion (and all those earlier billions in handouts) directly to American citizens? There are about 306 million people in the US, and $800 billion would give every man, woman, and child about $2,600.00. This would mean about $8000 in cash for a family of three. Could you use that this Christmas?
Given the choice, would you prefer to have $8000 free and clear, or to borrow $8000 on which you'll be charged interest that will require you to repay not just $8000 but more like $12,000 and up?
We're told that it wouldn't be safe to give the $800 billion directly to the people, because they might not spend it. Horrors! Save money. Only direct donations to Al Qaeda could be more unpatriotic.
The system is insane. The thinking that supports the debt system might seem insane, but I'm sure it makes sense to the banks who not only get money directly from the U.S. government but also huge profits in interest payments from the people who will rent that money from them.
The government must do something to get the public to start borrowing again. More billions of dollars will be given to the banks in the hope that they will begin to lend money and stimulate Americans to borrow. The people must be motivated to start using their credit cards more. America's financial future depends on more borrowing.
'Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve's new $800 billion effort to combat the financial crisis is designed to make credit more accessible to shaken consumers who aren't sure they want more debt.'
Why? Why give $800 billion more to banks in order to encourage the populace to borrow more money and safari farther into Darkest Debt? What is the magic of borrowed money?
If the object is to encourage Americans to start buying more, in order to stimulate the economy with consumer purchases, why not just give the $800 billion (and all those earlier billions in handouts) directly to American citizens? There are about 306 million people in the US, and $800 billion would give every man, woman, and child about $2,600.00. This would mean about $8000 in cash for a family of three. Could you use that this Christmas?
Given the choice, would you prefer to have $8000 free and clear, or to borrow $8000 on which you'll be charged interest that will require you to repay not just $8000 but more like $12,000 and up?
We're told that it wouldn't be safe to give the $800 billion directly to the people, because they might not spend it. Horrors! Save money. Only direct donations to Al Qaeda could be more unpatriotic.
The system is insane. The thinking that supports the debt system might seem insane, but I'm sure it makes sense to the banks who not only get money directly from the U.S. government but also huge profits in interest payments from the people who will rent that money from them.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
'OUTCRY IN NETHERLANDS OVER NAZI LINK TO SHIP'S NAME'
'Dutch Outcry Over Naming Ship After Nazi' and 'Outcry in Netherlands over Nazi Link to Ship's Name' are headlines of the past 24 hours which imply that all Holland is in an uproar because of something equivalent to the discovery that a major dike was defectively engineered and is about to drown everybody in Amsterdam.
The published story begins, 'It ought to be a proud milestone in Netherlands seafaring heritage – the construction of a ship its owner claims will be the largest in the world. There's just one problem: the name.'
'Edwin Heerema, founder of the company that commissioned the vessel, wants to name it the “Pieter Schelte” after his late father, Pieter Schelte Heerema, who was renowned as a maritime engineer.'
Why is Holland in a state of collective outcry because a man wants to name a ship with his illustrious father's first two names? Note the picture which appears in the story.
PIETER SCHELTE HEEREMA
Next note the solitary source of the 'outcry': Ronny Naftaniel, director of Centre for Information and Documentation on Israel, who cried, 'For people who know his pitch-black history, this ship should not be named for him. Not now, not ever.'
'Pitch black?' A spokesman for the son explained that Pieter Schelte Heerema was widely appreciated during his life, that he joined the Nazis out of opposition to Stalin's soviet communism (as did a multitude of other non-German Europeans) rather than enthusiasm for national socialism, and by 1943 had changed his mind and worked against the Nazis. The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation says that he provided "very important" services to the resistance. There is no assertion that he ever did anything illegal or immoral in his life.
But his virtues or lack of them aren't the point here. The point is that the head of a small pro-Israel organization in the Netherlands has managed to have a minor event reported and exaggerated by news organizations all around the world.
I had never heard of the “CIDI” until this morning, but it took me about two seconds to realize its similarity to the major Jewish/Zionist pressure organizations in the U.S. which are plentifully discussed in this blog – the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith (ADL) and AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee).
By its own account, the Centre for Information and Documentation on Israel distributes propaganda about Israel and the Jewish people. 'Our publications on the relationship between the Netherlands and Israel, anti-Semitism . . . play a large role in defining public opinion in the Netherlands.'
Ronny Naftaniel, director and outcrier of the CIDI, son of a German Jew, expanded the CIDI to 'monitoring anti-Semitism in addition to challenging criticism on Israel.' The American ADL also describes itself as 'monitoring' 'anti-Semitism', when in fact it is a bruising and unscrupulous aggressor in trying to silence all criticism of Israel or Jews.
The fictitious 'outcry' over the name of a ship which will lay pipes in offshore oil fields is typical of the ludicrous extremes to which such groups as the CIDI, the ADL, AIPAC and the Simon Wiesenthal Center will go – not least in order to stir up unease among Jews who may donate and pay their leaders' salaries.
The published story begins, 'It ought to be a proud milestone in Netherlands seafaring heritage – the construction of a ship its owner claims will be the largest in the world. There's just one problem: the name.'
'Edwin Heerema, founder of the company that commissioned the vessel, wants to name it the “Pieter Schelte” after his late father, Pieter Schelte Heerema, who was renowned as a maritime engineer.'
Why is Holland in a state of collective outcry because a man wants to name a ship with his illustrious father's first two names? Note the picture which appears in the story.
PIETER SCHELTE HEEREMA
Next note the solitary source of the 'outcry': Ronny Naftaniel, director of Centre for Information and Documentation on Israel, who cried, 'For people who know his pitch-black history, this ship should not be named for him. Not now, not ever.'
'Pitch black?' A spokesman for the son explained that Pieter Schelte Heerema was widely appreciated during his life, that he joined the Nazis out of opposition to Stalin's soviet communism (as did a multitude of other non-German Europeans) rather than enthusiasm for national socialism, and by 1943 had changed his mind and worked against the Nazis. The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation says that he provided "very important" services to the resistance. There is no assertion that he ever did anything illegal or immoral in his life.
But his virtues or lack of them aren't the point here. The point is that the head of a small pro-Israel organization in the Netherlands has managed to have a minor event reported and exaggerated by news organizations all around the world.
I had never heard of the “CIDI” until this morning, but it took me about two seconds to realize its similarity to the major Jewish/Zionist pressure organizations in the U.S. which are plentifully discussed in this blog – the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith (ADL) and AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee).
By its own account, the Centre for Information and Documentation on Israel distributes propaganda about Israel and the Jewish people. 'Our publications on the relationship between the Netherlands and Israel, anti-Semitism . . . play a large role in defining public opinion in the Netherlands.'
Ronny Naftaniel, director and outcrier of the CIDI, son of a German Jew, expanded the CIDI to 'monitoring anti-Semitism in addition to challenging criticism on Israel.' The American ADL also describes itself as 'monitoring' 'anti-Semitism', when in fact it is a bruising and unscrupulous aggressor in trying to silence all criticism of Israel or Jews.
The fictitious 'outcry' over the name of a ship which will lay pipes in offshore oil fields is typical of the ludicrous extremes to which such groups as the CIDI, the ADL, AIPAC and the Simon Wiesenthal Center will go – not least in order to stir up unease among Jews who may donate and pay their leaders' salaries.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
CONFIDENCE BRINGS FOLLOWERS
The election just ended reinforced my belief that the most important characteristic of a leader is confidence. Even a would-be leader who is equipped with the intellect and experience to lead people through a challenge will not attract as many followers as a would-be leader who exudes a superior imperturbable confidence.
Most people, whether soldiers or voters, are unsure of themselves. In a difficult or dangerous situation they hope that somebody is better able than they are to guide them to a successful outcome. When pressure is on, emotions make the uneasy herd more likely to flock after a supremely confident leader than after a person who makes good arguments but doesn't appear as sure of himself.
Ironically, it doesn't matter whether the confidence of the strongest leader is based on superior ability or not, as long as the crowd believes that it is. 'He wouldn't be so confident if he didn't know what he's doing.' On the other hand, the confidence that brings power to a leader must be completely convincing in every way.
Words alone won't do the trick. In the recent election one candidate constantly repeated, “I can do this! I'm prepared! I know how to do this!”, but beyond the words a large number of voters intuitively felt that the man lacked complete, unshakable confidence. Tone of voice, tempo, body language, along with a kind of instability when making decisions under pressure were at least as important as words in communicating true confidence or lack thereof. From that candidate, the herd sniffed uncertainty and nervousness.
The other candidate conveyed confidence with an impressively steady demeanor under pressure, with certainty, and with a sense that his daily decision-making was thoughtful and firmly controlled. He didn't boast as much about his leadership ability as the other candidate did, but his carriage, his voice, the calm and measured movement of his body, aroused in those looking for a leader to trust a sense of steadiness, sureness, and unshakable confidence that they concluded must rest on a solid foundation.
Monday, November 3, 2008
ELECTION LINGUISTICS
You are “friends” of presidential candidates even if they've never met you.
Your dollars are always “hard earned”.
“I'm a maverick” means, “I've worked in the Republican Party for years, but now that they're in deep trouble I'm disowning them.” [“Maverick”: An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, considered the property of the first person who brands it. From Samuel Maverick, 1870 American pioneer who did not brand his calves.]
“Elitist”: One who speaks good English and is therefore ill-suited to be president.
“Just like us”: A candidate who speaks poor English and therefore qualifies for the presidency.
“Our heroes”: Everybody who has enlisted in the army.
“Support our troops” : Support continuing whatever wars the politicians have involved our troops in.
Regardless of what much of the world has thought for a century, in American politics “socialism” is the equivalent of “hell”, and “socialist” is the equivalent of “devil”.
(Exception: Socialist economic policies are not “socialism” if promulgated by Republicans.)
There are “real Americans”, and therefore “unreal Americans”. The difference can't be defined, but one clue is that the more an American favors wars and rude behavior toward foreign leaders, the more “real” he is.
Any criticism of American society is “un-American” and automatically makes the critic unfit for public office.
“Threats to our allies” means “Threats to Israel”.
“Our good, stalwart friend, Israel” means, “I want the Jewish vote”.
“It's time we get this country moving again” means, “I'm running for President.”
Friday, October 24, 2008
A METEORITE THROUGH THIN ICE?
As I write this early in the morning in Florida, world stock markets have plummeted overnight, and it looks as if it will be the same in the U.S. -- at least at the opening.
I am not an investment advisor, and anything I write about stock markets is strictly for my own amusement and the entertainment of my readers. I do not suggest that you act on what I say.
I rely on a “technical” approach involving charts based on price and volume, and on various technical indicators, especially the MACD and the William%R.
It looks as if the U.S. market will plunge in panic selling this morning, which could be so extreme that it will lead soon to a “reversal” day, followed by a strong bounce up in prices.
The most likely level for the Dow Jones Industrial Average to find temporary support is around its low point of 2001-2002 -- about 7100. It closed yesterday (October 23) at 8691.
For the S&P 500 the support level is around 770. It closed yesterday at 908.
The rebound will not necessarily mean that we've seen the bottom of this bear market, but it could mean a vigorous rise in prices for awhile – probably setting an even bigger bear trap than the one I pointed out a few days ago.
Of course stock prices could go straight on down through those support levels like a hot meteorite through thin ice, but if so, don't despair. No matter what happens to stocks and banks, we'll always have plenty of politicians!
Sunday, October 19, 2008
"YOU COULD BUY A CAR FOR $10, BUT NOBODY HAD $10"
Will prices go up or down as we head into a recession or depression?
Should we prepare for inflation or for deflation?
In deflationary times, cash is king. In inflationary times, we want to own things like gold whose price will rise. My mother told me that in the Great Depression of the 1930's, “You could buy a car for ten dollars, but nobody had ten dollars.” On the other hand, in hyperinflationary times, a gold coin may be worth a fortune.
German Children Play with Money During the Great Inflation of the 1920's. Employees were paid daily or several times daily so they and their families could rush out and buy things before the money lost most of its buying power as prices skyrocketed.
Having cursorily researched expert opinion on the relationship between recessions and inflation and deflation, I can summarize the results as follows:
A recession may see either inflation (rising prices), or deflation (decreasing prices). Brilliant! Wikipedia: 'Recessions are the result of falling demand and may be associated with falling prices (deflation), or sharply rising prices (inflation) or a combination of rising prices and stagnant economic growth (stagflation).'
Armed with this lack of knowledge, I predict that despite the example of deflation during the Great Depression, we are entering a period of increasing inflation.
Logically, the economic collapse the United States is experiencing will result in loss of jobs, loss of spending power, and a surplus of goods over demand, which will lead sellers to slash the prices of refrigerators and television sets and automobiles in order to find buyers. So, prices will go down, right?
Yes, right in the near term for some items, but wrong in the longer term. The increase in the supply of money (combined with eventual decrease in production of cars, refrigerators, etc.) is the giant fly in the ointment. During the Great Depression the government let the money supply go down, but at present the government is creating money by the ocean-full and pumping it into banks virtually without limit. To my amateur eyes, this certainly looks like an unprecedented increase in the money supply which will drown any deflationary tendencies of the recession/depression.
The government's panicky efforts to make us borrow our way out of a crisis caused by borrowing will most likely result in a long-term tsunami of inflation. If production is decreasing, as we hear every day, then how can the supply of goods keep up with the supply of money? And when money supply grows in proportion to things for sale, the prices of things for sale go up. Even with the current financial malaise, most grocery items are “on sale” for far more than they were a year ago.
I would really appreciate some comments on the issues raised here. I want to know whether to buy a new refrigerator or a new car now, while desperate sellers are offering price-cutting sales, especially leading into Christmas, or whether I can get even better deals next year. I want to know whether to prepare for inflation by buying gold or gold mining stocks, or whether to prepare for a deflation in which “cash is king” by putting cash under the mattress.
I am betting on inflation and will be closely watching those sale prices to see if they go down or up.
Should we prepare for inflation or for deflation?
In deflationary times, cash is king. In inflationary times, we want to own things like gold whose price will rise. My mother told me that in the Great Depression of the 1930's, “You could buy a car for ten dollars, but nobody had ten dollars.” On the other hand, in hyperinflationary times, a gold coin may be worth a fortune.
German Children Play with Money During the Great Inflation of the 1920's. Employees were paid daily or several times daily so they and their families could rush out and buy things before the money lost most of its buying power as prices skyrocketed.
Having cursorily researched expert opinion on the relationship between recessions and inflation and deflation, I can summarize the results as follows:
A recession may see either inflation (rising prices), or deflation (decreasing prices). Brilliant! Wikipedia: 'Recessions are the result of falling demand and may be associated with falling prices (deflation), or sharply rising prices (inflation) or a combination of rising prices and stagnant economic growth (stagflation).'
Armed with this lack of knowledge, I predict that despite the example of deflation during the Great Depression, we are entering a period of increasing inflation.
Logically, the economic collapse the United States is experiencing will result in loss of jobs, loss of spending power, and a surplus of goods over demand, which will lead sellers to slash the prices of refrigerators and television sets and automobiles in order to find buyers. So, prices will go down, right?
Yes, right in the near term for some items, but wrong in the longer term. The increase in the supply of money (combined with eventual decrease in production of cars, refrigerators, etc.) is the giant fly in the ointment. During the Great Depression the government let the money supply go down, but at present the government is creating money by the ocean-full and pumping it into banks virtually without limit. To my amateur eyes, this certainly looks like an unprecedented increase in the money supply which will drown any deflationary tendencies of the recession/depression.
The government's panicky efforts to make us borrow our way out of a crisis caused by borrowing will most likely result in a long-term tsunami of inflation. If production is decreasing, as we hear every day, then how can the supply of goods keep up with the supply of money? And when money supply grows in proportion to things for sale, the prices of things for sale go up. Even with the current financial malaise, most grocery items are “on sale” for far more than they were a year ago.
I would really appreciate some comments on the issues raised here. I want to know whether to buy a new refrigerator or a new car now, while desperate sellers are offering price-cutting sales, especially leading into Christmas, or whether I can get even better deals next year. I want to know whether to prepare for inflation by buying gold or gold mining stocks, or whether to prepare for a deflation in which “cash is king” by putting cash under the mattress.
I am betting on inflation and will be closely watching those sale prices to see if they go down or up.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
HORROR MOVIE 2008
Come, Igor. We must stop this financial Frankenstein monster before it destroys the world.
Photo: Reuters (Candidates leaving debate, Oct 15.)
Caption: Fleming Lee
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
BEAR TRAP
I'm betting that the tremendous stock market gains of the past couple of days do not mark the bottom of this bear market, and that the current rally will turn into a “bear trap” for those who buy stocks and don't get out quickly.
I was shocked to read in interviews with several investment "experts" that they are as heavily into the market as ever (which means they must have lost 40% of their stake already), and are buying more now -- because stocks are "cheap." Well, $20 a share compared to $60 is cheap, but so will $8 a share be in comparison with $20.
As the market cliché goes, you can't turn an ocean liner around on a dime. Bear market rallies have a tendency to be swift and strong, but not to have staying power. I'm betting that the current hoorah of relief doesn't carry the Dow Jones Industrials up much past 11,000, if that. Then we shall see.
I was shocked to read in interviews with several investment "experts" that they are as heavily into the market as ever (which means they must have lost 40% of their stake already), and are buying more now -- because stocks are "cheap." Well, $20 a share compared to $60 is cheap, but so will $8 a share be in comparison with $20.
As the market cliché goes, you can't turn an ocean liner around on a dime. Bear market rallies have a tendency to be swift and strong, but not to have staying power. I'm betting that the current hoorah of relief doesn't carry the Dow Jones Industrials up much past 11,000, if that. Then we shall see.
MUST BORROWING MAKE THE WORLD GO ROUND?
'Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.'*
Revolutions bring revelations, and the first revelation which the current financial revolution brought to me was that the United States economic system is based on borrowing money.
As we've watched the economic system collapse, and heard of failing banks and panic selling of company shares, we've repeatedly been told that without a healthy banking system we, the people, could essentially do nothing: We could not go to college because we couldn't borrow the money to go. We couldn't buy a house because we couldn't borrow the money for a mortgage. We couldn't buy a car because we couldn't “finance” it. We might not even be able to buy clothes if things got so bad that banks wouldn't lend us money via our credit cards. And if business owners couldn't borrow payroll money, their employees would go unpaid.
I got the impression that few Americans have actual money and pay for things. All most people have are debts -- and their right to borrow money from “lending institutions” was equal to their right to life and liberty. The most drastic emergency actions were needed to preserve the right not to live within one's means!
I oversimplify, but simplicity is needed here. A secret of control of societies by huge financial institutions interwoven internationally is a camouflage of complexity which gives most people the helpless feeling that there is no possible way they can understand the system. For many intelligent people I've talked to, the mysteries of quantum physics are at least as fathomable as the workings of monetary and financial machinery.
Banks Hide Reality Not Only Behind Impressive Facades, but Also Behind a Smokescreen of Complexity
Here's one simple question: Is it really to the advantage of society to encourage everybody to live on borrowed money? Can the answer be anything but “no” in light of the crash brought on by U.S. banks lending mortgage money to “subprime” borrowers (people with such bad “credit histories” that the odds were against their paying the money back)?
Why did banks loan massive amounts of money to “subprime” people who predictably might not repay it? A major reason is that America was excitedly inflating a housing bubble in which real estate rose in price weekly, and a house bought for $120,000 in March would sell for $200,000 a year later. Thus the banks enabled a subprime person to “buy” a house which the bank could take and sell at a profit if the mortgage payments weren't made. Meanwhile the bank could collect fancy fees as well as interest payments.
If a society based on borrowing is bad for society, then who benefits from it? The banks, of course. Never forget that your local banks make their living from renting out money at “interest”, plus various “costs”. The picture of a lady saying gleefully, “I'm so lucky! I got the loan! The bank gave me a loan!” should instead be the banker saying gleefully, “I sold a loan! I sold a loan!”
-----
*Shakespeare, Hamlet. “Husbandry” in Shakespeare's time meant domestic management, thrift, or frugality.
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.'*
Revolutions bring revelations, and the first revelation which the current financial revolution brought to me was that the United States economic system is based on borrowing money.
As we've watched the economic system collapse, and heard of failing banks and panic selling of company shares, we've repeatedly been told that without a healthy banking system we, the people, could essentially do nothing: We could not go to college because we couldn't borrow the money to go. We couldn't buy a house because we couldn't borrow the money for a mortgage. We couldn't buy a car because we couldn't “finance” it. We might not even be able to buy clothes if things got so bad that banks wouldn't lend us money via our credit cards. And if business owners couldn't borrow payroll money, their employees would go unpaid.
I got the impression that few Americans have actual money and pay for things. All most people have are debts -- and their right to borrow money from “lending institutions” was equal to their right to life and liberty. The most drastic emergency actions were needed to preserve the right not to live within one's means!
I oversimplify, but simplicity is needed here. A secret of control of societies by huge financial institutions interwoven internationally is a camouflage of complexity which gives most people the helpless feeling that there is no possible way they can understand the system. For many intelligent people I've talked to, the mysteries of quantum physics are at least as fathomable as the workings of monetary and financial machinery.
Banks Hide Reality Not Only Behind Impressive Facades, but Also Behind a Smokescreen of Complexity
Here's one simple question: Is it really to the advantage of society to encourage everybody to live on borrowed money? Can the answer be anything but “no” in light of the crash brought on by U.S. banks lending mortgage money to “subprime” borrowers (people with such bad “credit histories” that the odds were against their paying the money back)?
Why did banks loan massive amounts of money to “subprime” people who predictably might not repay it? A major reason is that America was excitedly inflating a housing bubble in which real estate rose in price weekly, and a house bought for $120,000 in March would sell for $200,000 a year later. Thus the banks enabled a subprime person to “buy” a house which the bank could take and sell at a profit if the mortgage payments weren't made. Meanwhile the bank could collect fancy fees as well as interest payments.
If a society based on borrowing is bad for society, then who benefits from it? The banks, of course. Never forget that your local banks make their living from renting out money at “interest”, plus various “costs”. The picture of a lady saying gleefully, “I'm so lucky! I got the loan! The bank gave me a loan!” should instead be the banker saying gleefully, “I sold a loan! I sold a loan!”
-----
*Shakespeare, Hamlet. “Husbandry” in Shakespeare's time meant domestic management, thrift, or frugality.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
PAINFUL PALIN
TODAY'S PHOTO QUIZ: Can you find the brain in this picture?
The selection of Sarah Palin as candidate for what could well be the presidency of the United States was akin to entering a poodle in the Kentucky Derby, but her goofy ramblings when interviewed by Katie Couric leave me scrambling for more extravagant similes.
That interview is available in a million places, but I can't resist a choice quote which convinces me that no sane person would trust this bubblehead to be assistant manager of a backwater Burger King, much less President of the United States. In comparison with Palin's incoherent interview as a whole, the typical “I'm for world peace” mewings of a beauty pageant contestant sound like an address by Henry Kissinger.
"COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters-- [Finally breaks down and gives up groping for words.]
COURIC: Mock?
PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.
PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--
COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state."
After posting this I received such a witty comment that I decided to rescue it from Comment obscurity and post it here:
From Adriana in Romania
'I was as astonished after I read what "brilliant" Sarah said in the interview as I was when she said that the war in Iraq is a task of God. I had the feeling I was reading the geography homework written by a kid who lives on the border with Russia. And I'm asking myself the same question: Should I laugh or should I cry?
Poodle at Kentucky Derby?! Ohhh, no, you're too nice! I'm wondering who put these "single-neuron" heads to be candidates for leading a nation? Poor Sarah! Soon her single neuron will die because of too much loneliness.
I tried to make the picture bigger using Photoshop and I found a weird pixel there. I think it was Sarah's neuron!'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)