Group items tagged

"Doug Casey on American Socialism"  .  Awesome interview, especially the discussion on Liberalism and how the socialist Norman Thomas decided to co-opt the term as an effective replacement for the disreputable socialism.  Links to the Thomas 1932 socialist platform that Casey points out has pretty much been put into place.   Good discussion.  Focus on an article published by socialist apologist and idiot, Allan Colmes.

I agree that Colmes is far from the sharpest knife in the drawer. In my opinion, he was largely a Fox News invention to give Shawn Hannity a far weaker opponent to argue against that Hannity's idiocy could still overcome. There are in reality liberals that Hannity could never have gone toe-to-toe with. (That's not an endorsement of liberalism; it's commentary on the quality of Hannity's arguments.) The show was mostly a variant of the straw man logical fallacy; the fact that Colmes lacked the ability to think critically or communicate effectively made Hannity "win" the pseudo-debate in the eyes of those unable to think critically themselves. I have some criticism of Casey's remarks that apply more generally to my experience of strict Libertarians and perhaps even farther to strict adherents to any "ism." My criticism boils down to a couple of examples of hard issues usually avoided by strict Libertarians. -- The Disabled: When discussing Social Security disability benefits, Casey changes the subject from the genuinely disabled to a short rant about those whose disability claims are bogus and the "ambulance chasing" lawyers who pursue their claims. But if pressed to the wall and forced to answer, I strongly suspect that Casey would admit that there are people, likely the majority of Social Security disability benefits, whose claims are genuine. The net effect of his relevant argument: an impression that he has a Darwinian view that he would leave the disabled dying in the streets without sustenance or medical care. That kind of society is unacceptable to me. Perhaps it is to Casey too, but if so I think it was incumbent on him to offer a solution for the genuinely disabled. (In fairness, I'll note that at one point Casey hinted but did not forthrightly say that he would favor financial assistance for single mothers in Harlem.) -- Medical Care: I agree that our health care system is badly broken. But again Casey is long on criticism but short on realistic idea

Interview with Hoppe where he once again pushes libertarian thinking forward.  Hoppe puts most of the blame on "democracy" itself, caling it "an insidious form of communism".  Good stuff.  Highlighted parts. excerpt: "That the whole democratic house of cards has not yet completely collapsed speaks volumes about the still tremendous creative power of capitalism, even in the face of ever-increasing governmental strangulation. And this fact also allows us to conjecture about what economic 'miracles' would be possible if we had unimpeded capitalism liberated from such parasitism. If, and when, this insight finally bears fruit will depend upon the class consciousness of the population. There is a Marxist myth, eagerly promoted by the state, of an irreconcilable clash of interests between employers (capitalists) and employees (workers), or between the rich and the poor. As long as this myth prevails in public opinion, nothing at all will change and disaster is inevitable. A fundamental change can only occur if, instead of this, the correct realization becomes generally accepted that the only antagonistic conflict of interest in society is the one between tax-payers, i.e. the exploited, and tax-consumers, i.e. the exploiters.: In other words, between the class of people on the one hand who earn their income and assets by producing something that is bought voluntarily and valued accordingly by others; and the class of those on the other hand who produce nothing considered to be of value, but who live instead by living off and enriching themselves from the incomes and assets of other, productive people, forcibly taken via taxation - that is to say all government employees and all recipients of government "welfare assistance", subsidies and monopolistic privileges. Only when the producer class clearly recognises this, and publicly speaks out; when the producers are finally confident to take the moral high ground and reject the insolent admonitions from the po

They say California is a harbinger of the future. If so, we should all be thinking about possible safe havens. The article begins with a description of loan modification seminars attended by the same mortgage brokers whose predatory lending practices got us into this fix. At the seminars, these predators learn how to make even more money off of the exact same clients they pushed off the ledge. It's all about fees and high pressure churning techniques. With one very big difference: Obama is banking on tax payer funded "loan modifications" to help struggling homeowners. The ugly truth is that mortgage brokers are the real winners. Just like mortgage brokers, loan mod companies are under no obligation to act in borrowers' financial interests, short- or long-term. Under California's model contract, which brokers are encouraged to emulate in their dealings with borrowers, almost any change to a mortgage is an acceptable result, whether or not it saves a borrower money. And while the client has to accept the proposed deal in order for the company to get paid in full, the sales forces at these firms are veterans of pressure pitches to people in tough financial situations. Both Carlson and a spokesman for Mortgage Bailout Assistance indicate that their clients almost invariably take the offers they are given. The proverbial fox is helping the hens hold on to their coops, and not just in California. Seventeen states now have laws on the books effectively banning "foreclosure consultants," but most make an exception for mortgage brokers. As consumer complaints about fraudulent loan mod operations proliferate across the country, other government officials, including New York's City Council, are now following California's lead and exploring the creation of an official registry of mod brokers.

What is it with billionaires these days? Buffett suggesting we need to tax him more? Stop coddling the super-rich he says.  In other words, he's saying "I've done such a fine job with my money, now I want to give more to a government that hasn't."  Mr. Buffett, has someone changed your suppositions? It seems counter intuitive to your "invest in great management" philosophy.  Shouldn't you really be telling the government to cut costs? Just like you demanded of your Netjets, Clayton Homes, and Helzberg Diamond Shops executives.

Let's also not forget that what is now named "Verizon" used to be named Bell Atlantic, one of the seven Baby Bells that were spun off by AT&T by government order during antitrust proceedings.  In other words, this is one of the companies rate-payers financed through a heavily-regulated analog telephony absolute monopoly. But Verizon wants to spread its wings and escape the chains of regulation as a telecommunications carrier. While having its cake and eating it to, according to this article. The FCC has poised itself through a proposed rule with the flexibility to postpone a decision on net neutrality.  AT&T famously was allowed to keep its R&D arm while being freed of the expense of upgrading the U.S. telephony network from analog to digital and from copper wire to fibre optic.  And pay for those Baby Bells to make that transition we did. I remember monthly bills for a two person office running as high as $1,100 a month for calls all carried from Baby Bell to AT&T and back to another Baby Bell. All at state-regulated rates with FCC looking the other way. But now Verizon, Comcast (the originally munipally regulated cable television monopolies) and the few other "competing" survivors of that broadband rollout, having had their infrastructure paid for by the ratepayers, want to fly off and begin charging us at the other end of the pipe,via charges to content providers that will be passed on to us. Leading to the squeezing out of Mom and Pop internet businesses by the big content providers that can afford the charges and pass them on to us. This is looking more and more like another massive rip-off of the customers who already paid for that infrasture. Is that banksters I smell, privatizing a enormous public utility in the name of free markets?      

Incredible article about the behind-the-scenes story of the nanny murder of two small children in NYC.   First, it's a staged murder meant to send a clear message to ALL media.  The children were the offspring of Kevin Krim, CEO of CNBC digital.  His website had published a story about the Spire Law Group suing an entire class of bigshot BANKSTERS for the theft of $43 TRILLION dollars of tax payer money.  Second, this involves the US Government.  The Spire allegation is that the Feds actively helped and assisted the Bankster theft. Third, the story describes the historical background of these Bankster hits, assassination and threats.  Although not covered in the article, Presidential assassinations in particular have an unmistakable link to Executive Orders that the Treasury print Silver Certificates that would compete against Bankster notes.  In one way or another, it's all about control of the money system.  This list of Presidents includes Jackson, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy and Reagan. Original Press Release from the Spire Law Group:  ... http://goo.gl/ynV6O .... Wow! ................................... excerpt:: "On 10/25/2012 two corporate financial media bastions,  MarketWatch  (an affiliate of the Wall Street Journal) and CNBC, presented their readers with a bombshell.  In a too-good-to-be-true lawsuit, the top echelons of the USA's banking and civilian government had been sued for "racketeering and money laundering."  The suit requested "the return of $43 trillion to the United States Treasury."  Yes, you've read that right: 43 trillion-roughly 3 years worth of America's GDP or 3 times America's underestimate of its own national debt. The suit characterizes itself, according to these two corporate media tabloids, as the largest money laundering and racketeering lawsuit in United States History.  [It identifies] $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money by the 'Banksters' and their U.S. r

Amazing letter from Columbine survivor, Evan Todd, to Obama, explaining why Obama's gun control proposals are non sense. Evan Todd's open letter to Obama, below. - Mr. President, As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives: Universal Background Checks First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens. Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it. Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time. It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now - but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendmen

Written in June of 2012, before the national elections, this commentary remains the ringing truth.  Maybe more Americans are ready to listen this fourth of July? ........................... "Is America Ready For Revolution? I have always strongly believed that it's not possible to be a good Christian without standing up against social injustice and government corruption in all its forms. As I take a look around me today I find a lot of things wrong with our country. In fact, I have been a proponent for radical change for several years now, and I have written and published 2 books on this very topic. Where shall I begin? In God-blessed America, the land of the free where everyone is an economic slave, our founding fathers' sacred idea of a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" has become but a cruel joke. Former president George W. Bush has notoriously called our Constitution - our supreme law of the land - "that (expletive) piece of paper". The federal government is currently spending at least $60 billion per month on military excursions in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and northern and western Africa - including operating between 800 and 1,000 foreign military bases all over the world. Our country's over-used flying drone aircraft kills hundreds daily overseas, many of whom are only innocent bystanders. Meanwhile here on the home front, one in seven people are on food stamps, and at any given time one in four American children are going hungry today. Our country spends more money incarcerating people than it does on education. What's up with that? Our political system is openly rigged against the best interests of the American people. A massive market mechanism is securely entrenched in our political system where political influence is openly bought and sold. Tens of thousands of highly-paid middlemen called "lobbyists" facilitate the legal transfer of billions between moneyed special interests and our so-called "representatives" i

Charles takes a look at the sudden rise in the stock market, and comes up with a surprising conclusion; these are signs that the collapse of Greece is imminent.  His explanation of  options and derivatives (CDS) is delightful and easy to understand.  But the consequences of what the wizards of smart have done here is staggering.  Read this and you'll know the facts driving the frantic but clever manuevers behind the scenes. And what does Cahrles recommend for Greece?  Do us all a favor and do EXACTLY what the tax payers in Iceland did - shut the idiots down.  Do not allow the politicians to bail out their Bankser buddies with your money.  Do not take on more debt.  Defaut now, fully, totally and without compromise.  Capitalism works.  Maybe not for Banksters and their lady boi politicians.  But it works for the taxpaying citizens who had no idea what kind of a hole the criminal masterminds were digging for them.... excerpt: Greece, please do the world a favor and openly default--right now, today. Declare a default and pay nothing. Force the shadow banking system to recognize a default and bring down the entire rotten heap of worm-eaten corruption.  At that point, there will be no reason to buy equities.

Good summary of where we're at in the ObamaCare - Massive Debt debate. excerpt: "The DemoDebt showdown on September 30 and the implementation deadline for the next major phase of Obama's UNaffordable Care Act on October 1 are combining to create the "perfect storm," a formula for extended economic stagnation and, consequently, the greatest domestic threat to American Liberty and free enterprise since Franklin Roosevelt's despotic administration. To summarize, in 2010, under Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, Barack Hussein Obama obtained one of the Left's most coveted political prizes - a plan to nationalize health care. This had long been the "crown jewel" of socialist governments, having also been proposed by Hillary Clinton during her husband's regime. The stated rationale for the so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," now ubiquitously called "ObamaCare" (but perhaps more aptly called ObamaCareless"), was to "control health care costs" and "provide insurance coverage for the uninsured," approximately 15% of Americans with no medical coverage - which is not to say no medical care. Of course, the real rationale for ObamaCare is the implementation of a scheme that will ultimately give the central government authoritarian regulatory control over more than 20% of the U.S. economy. Obama and his NeoCom cadres of statists on the Left have effectively hijacked the once-noble Democrat Party and converted it into their own socialist party tool in their ongoing effort to pull the plug on our Constitution. Ultimately, the objective of ObamaCare is to implement a massive single-payer system, in effect, placing the management and rationing of health care services under the thumb of a bloated and inefficient central government, with the objective of using that "achievement" as a major political stepping stone to implement a much broader socialist agenda in the coming years. Our nation is about to take a great

Excellent break down of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill.  Core argument is that the bill is far more than a mere threat to future economic growth.  It puts tax payers on the hook for a future of never ending bailouts with the added specter of massive government bureaucratic bungling.  Obama and his band of merry statist will have their boot on the neck of economic activities for years to come.

We just passed the first anniversary of an important, if little noted, meeting where the plans for what would become the government's attempted bailout of the banking system were first hatched. One year ago, a group of venture capitalists, Silicon Valley executives and professors at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research met to discuss the looming crisis in finance and debate a possible bailout. It was early for such talk. Bear Stearns had not yet collapsed. Hank Paulson was still deriding the notion of a bailout and knotting his brow about moral hazard. But the group gathered at Stanford, which included Larry Summers and Long-Term Capital Management veteran and Nobel laureate Myron Scholes, saw what was coming: the government would eventually spend a lot of tax payer money in an attempt to clean up the credit mess.

How could one company be worth bailing out for $180 billion? That's how much the US has contributed to AIG so far. So what is it about an insurance company that makes AIG so central to the financial system that they can't be allowed to fail at any cost? Great comments on this issue. Basically, AIG credit default swaps were being used as gambling chips. Originally intended as a means of providing banks with "regulation arbitrage", the CDS artificially lowered risk by insuring sub-prime securities, which were themselves thought to be tax-payer guaranteed, coutesy of Fannie and Freddie. The CDS however were also offered to those who did not hold bonds or securitized notes! Non holders could purchase CDS as a means of gambling on the rise or fall of real estate values in the USA. This leveraging lead to near $500 Trillion in insured CDS, many of which were held by China and European banks.

".....There's a lot of talk about how the bailouts are creating moral hazard and rewarding bad behavior. But those are pretty abstract ideas, the kind of things people wonder whether or not we can afford to worry about while the economy is tanking. Sure we'll pay a long run price  for screwing up the market's discipline but in the long run we're all dead. So forget "moral hazard" and just look at Warren Buffett's description of what is happening to his home construction business, Clayton Homes. Clayton, which makes pre-fab homes, also has a lending business. Surprisingly, Clayton hasn't been crushed by the markets because it maintained high lending standards and doesn't have a balance sheet overflowing with defaulting loans..." And the solution is? Buffett is/was a successful capitalist. Yet he fully supported a socialist takeover of the government. Obama's campaign rhetoric was that of a hard core socialist declaring war on constitutional capitalism. And there was Buffett, standing at Obama's side, arguing that all capitalist should be supporting the systemic change Obama socialism promised to deliver. And now Buffett's complaining? What is it about socialism that attracted Buffett in the first place? Did he really think the socialists he worked to elect would pour tax payer debt money into the capitalists hands, and let the markets go their merry way? The socialist seeks to control the means of production, limit the rights of property ownership, and redistribute the wealth created by capitalist. Socialism does not have a wealth creation model. Redistribution of wealth and control over the means of production is something Buffett supported with both his money and his personal assurances to constitutional capitalist everywhere. Yet here we are. Exactly where Buffetts advice and pleas intended us to be. And now he's complaining? Buffett didn't like the belief in big government programs, big government spending and crisis interventionism of Bush's compasionat

Ok, this goes into the must read category. I don't however agree with the proposed solution. There's no mention that governments must stop spending money they don't have. Stop the borrowing. Cut the spending. Cut payroll, pension and healthcare spending. Privatize. Return Federal assets to the States, and let them handle the leasing and privatization. Flatten the tax code. Eliminate corporate and unearned (investment) income taxes.  When this country came out of WWII, there was great apprehension that the great depression would simply pick up where it left off. These concerns led to a break with the Hoover-Roosevelt big and bigger government - tax and spend approach. Congress moved to cut taxes and level the margins. Depression over.  excerpt:  Today the Federal government is carrying an even bigger debt per GDP than the cost of WWII had left us with! The out of control spending has to stop. For just over half of all Americans today is Tax Day. But for the other half it is just another day on the calendar. That's because they pay no federal income taxes. The old saying goes "you can't get something for nothing." But these "non-payers" receive government services and benefits without chipping in.

Cut to the chase explanation of Austrian economics:  Banksters and their IMF collection arm want to roll over the sovereign debt of EU nations (PIIGS), subsidized by tax paying citizens.  The Banksters want the Sovereign debt of a few nations "nationalized" so that the loses are shared by the entire EU - and taken off the Bankster books. The Austrian economics handbook says that these Sovereign debters should go into default immediately, and declare bankruptcy.  The Banksters should take the hit for making the bad loans in the first place.  No bailouts. 75% of German tax payers support the Austrian plan!

Nice catch by Marbux.  A Bloomberg article explains how Bank of America is moving high risk derivatives into the coffers of a federally insured subsidiary.  Meaning, when (not if) the derivatives fail, the tax payers will get stuck with covering the losses and making the Banksters whole. The article also explains the recent GAO audit of the Federal Reserve where it was disclosed that through interlocking directories and shareholdings, the Bankster industry is in control of the Federal Reserve.  Awful, sickening stuff.  But a good catch nevertheless. excerpt: There are two things worth noting in this article. First, according to Bloomberg, "the transfers (of derivatives) are being requested by counterparties." Well, how do you like that? In other words, the investors on the other side of these contracts want Merrill to put them under an insurance umbrella provided by the FDIC. Now, why would that be? The only reason I can come up with, is that they know that a lot of these complex instruments are undercapitalized and ready to implode, so they want to make sure they get their money back any way possible. That means they need to latch on to Uncle Sam without anyone knowing about it. But, like we said, the cat is out of the bag. The other thing worth noting is that the Fed and the FDIC are at loggerheads over the matter. ("The Fed has signaled that it favors moving the derivatives to give relief to the bank holding company, while the FDIC, which would have to pay off depositors in the event of a bank failure, is objecting.") Now, that's not good at all, in fact, it's a big red flag that suggests the Fed trying to pull a fast one on the American people. One does not have to look too far for other examples of Fed misbehavior; the endless bailouts (TARP, QE1 and 2, Operation Twist, ZIRP, etc) In fact, the Fed's history is a tedious chronicle of one shifty deal after another. This is just more of the same; another gift to big finance at the public'

Paul Craig Roberts hit the nail on the head once again, this time on the nation's health care system.