"Others [terrorists] are engaging even in an eco--type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanos remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves... So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations...It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our [counterterrorism] efforts." --Secretary of Defense William Cohen at an April 1997 counterterrorism conference sponsored by former Senator Sam Nunn
http://phoenixrisingfromthegulf.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-gulf-of-mexico-is-dying/
Nintendo has issued a warning that kids under six shouldn't use the 3DS's 3D mode because their vision is still "in the development stage," and the way that stereoscopic 3D works, delivering different images to each eyeball, "has a potential impact on the growth of children's eyes.
Wish you were here? President spends $1.5m on his holiday in Hawaii... while the rest of America faces a bleak New Year
By: malterwitty
Tags: ECONOMY POLITICS/ELECTIONS/CORRUPTION
According to the Hawaii Reporter, the bill for the trip included:
$63,000 on an early flight bringing Mrs Obama and the children to Hawaii ahead of the president.
$1,000,000 on Mr Obama’s return trip from Washington on Air Force One.
$38,000 for the ‘Winter White House’ the president has rented for his family on the beach.
$16,000 to rent beachfront homes for Secret Service and Navy Seals.
$134,000 for 24 White House staff to stay at the Moana Hotel.
$251,000 in police overtime.
$10,000 for an ambulance to be on hand at all times
Predictions for 2011 in no particular order
Michael Rivero
Sarah Palin will remember that it is South Korea we have a treaty with, and North Korea that are the bad guys.
Jon Stewart will have an epiphany and realize that blaming Israel’s attack on the aid flotilla on the dead aid workers, was not really funny after all.
Those $100,000 wristwatches all the rage on Wall Street will be exposed as cheap counterfeits from Taiwan.
Convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard will be granted a Presidential pardon only to be beaten to death in a fit of jealous rage by Bernie Madoff. Abe Foxman has heart attack trying to figure out which one to call an anti-Semite.
The United Nations, responding to Charles Manson’s support of a global government, will voluntarily disband.
Al Gore will disappear. 5000 years from now his body will be found frozen in a glacier in the San Bernardino mountains, showing signs of having been shot in the back.
Mike Gravel will declare for President in 2012. Nobody will notice.
The dollar will collapse and old burned-out ipods will become the new hard currency.
Paul Allen will finally realize that you really can’t be on more than one yacht at a time, no matter how much money you have.
FOX News, unable to convince the public of anything any longer, will go all porno all the time, becoming profitable for the first time in a decade.
The Large Hadron collider at CERN will finally find the God Particle. The God Particle will be pissed! "For this you woke me up?!?"
The International Space Station will be sold to Virgin Galactic as an orbital hotel whose clientele will consist entirely of winners of the publishers clearing house sweepstakes. Richard Branson, disgusted, crashes the space station into the Moon and names the resulting crater "Virgin Hole."
The Longshoreman will walk off of the docks. Rescue efforts fail. Dozens drown.
The US hands Iraq back to the Iraqis. They refuse, ask for Cleveland instead.
Adam Pearlman quits pretending to be a fake Al Qaeda terrorist and tries for a spot on "Dancing With The Stars." Turns out he can’t dance, either!
Three ghosts will visit Wall Street on Christmas eve. Wall Street will wake up the next morning, apologize for its errant ways, and give Americans back their homes. The $150 hamburger is marked down to $25.
War with China will commence in March. A dismal box office flop, it is canceled mid-season.
Bowing to public pressure, the Federal Government agrees to relocate Washington DC. Antarctica is briefly considered.
Paul Watson will be eaten by a whale.
Alex Jones and Abe Foxman will be discovered to have been twins separated at birth.
Goldman Sachs will start the next big financial bubble by stealing underwear from your bedroom dresser.
Struggling to save the church from the latest money laundering scandal, Pope Benny will convert the Vatican into the world’s largest male strip club, trademarking it as Sodom II.
Bill Gates will finally apologize for Windows.
The US Olympic Synchronized Swimming Team will drown.
The IRS, fed up with those pesky citizen questions, finally checks the paperwork and finds that the 16 th Amendment really wasn’t ratified after all! Millions of tax collectors throw themselves off the top of the Washington Monument … and miss.
Having run out of Israel’s enemies to murder the US military starts converting assets to civilian use. Aircraft carriers are converted to floating drag racing tracks for underprivileged coastal communities, but disaster strikes when several drivers are drowned in a catapult malfunction.
Panic grips the EU when the French finally admit that the Eiffel Tower doesn’t actually do anything!
A moratorium on genetically modified crops is declared after thousands of shoppers are mauled to death by broccoli. One survivor reports, "I always hated broccoli." USDA recommends carrying cheese sauce until the danger is over.
The North American union is formed. Mexico moves into the US. Americans move into Canada. The Earth tips over. Australia declares war.
The Mythbusters will finally allow 9-11 to be discussed on their blog!
Amelia Earhart will be found by Dr. Zahi Hawass!
A recount of the 2008 Presidential election will be requested … by Barack Obama.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Brave New Design 2011
The two greatest visions of a future dystopia were George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. The debate, between those who watched our descent towards corporate totalitarianism, was who was right. Would we be, as Orwell wrote, dominated by a repressive surveillance and security state that used crude and violent forms of control? Or would we be, as Huxley envisioned, entranced by entertainment and spectacle, captivated by technology and seduced by profligate consumption to embrace our own oppression? It turns out Orwell and Huxley were both right. Huxley saw the first stage of our enslavement. Orwell saw the second.
We have been gradually disempowered by a corporate state that, as Huxley foresaw, seduced and manipulated us through sensual gratification, cheap mass-produced goods, boundless credit, political theater and amusement. While we were entertained, the regulations that once kept predatory corporate power in check were dismantled, the laws that once protected us were rewritten and we were impoverished. Now that credit is drying up, good jobs for the working class are gone forever and mass-produced goods are unaffordable, we find ourselves transported from Brave New World to 1984. The state, crippled by massive deficits, endless war and corporate malfeasance, is sliding toward bankruptcy. It is time for Big Brother to take over from Huxley's feelies, the orgy-porgy and the centrifugal bumble-puppy. We are moving from a society where we are skillfully manipulated by lies and illusions to one where we are overtly controlled.
Orwell warned of a world where books were banned. Huxley warned of a world where no one wanted to read books. Orwell warned of a state of permanent war and fear. Huxley warned of a culture diverted by mindless pleasure. Orwell warned of a state where every conversation and thought was monitored and dissent was brutally punished. Huxley warned of a state where a population, preoccupied by trivia and gossip, no longer cared about truth or information. Orwell saw us frightened into submission. Huxley saw us seduced into submission. But Huxley, we are discovering, was merely the prelude to Orwell. Huxley understood the process by which we would be complicit in our own enslavement. Orwell understood the enslavement. Now that the corporate coup is over, we stand naked and defenseless. We are beginning to understand, as Karl Marx knew, that unfettered and unregulated capitalism is a brutal and revolutionary force that exploits human beings and the natural world until exhaustion or collapse.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake," Orwell wrote in 1984. "We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
The political philosopher Sheldon Wolin uses the term "inverted totalitarianism" in his book Democracy Incorporated to describe our political system. It is a term that would make sense to Huxley. In inverted totalitarianism, the sophisticated technologies of corporate control, intimidation and mass manipulation, which far surpass those employed by previous totalitarian states, are effectively masked by the glitter, noise and abundance of a consumer society. Political participation and civil liberties are gradually surrendered. The corporation state, hiding behind the smokescreen of the public relations industry, the entertainment industry and the tawdry materialism of a consumer society, devours us from the inside out. It owes no allegiance to us or the nation. It feasts upon our carcass.
The corporate state does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader. It is defined by the anonymity and facelessness of the corporation. Corporations, who hire attractive spokespeople like Barack Obama, control the uses of science, technology, education and mass communication. They control the messages in movies and television. And, as in Brave New World, they use these tools of communication to bolster tyranny. Our systems of mass communication, as Wolin writes, "block out, eliminate whatever might introduce qualification, ambiguity, or dialogue, anything that might weaken or complicate the holistic force of their creation, to its total impression."
The result is a monochromatic system of information. Celebrity courtiers, masquerading as journalists, experts and specialists, identify our problems and patiently explain the parameters. All those who argue outside the imposed parameters are dismissed as irrelevant cranks, extremists or members of a radical left. Prescient social critics, from Ralph Nader to Noam Chomsky, are banished. Acceptable opinions have a range of A to B. The culture, under the tutelage of these corporate courtiers, becomes, as Huxley noted, a world of cheerful conformity, as well as an endless and finally fatal optimism. We busy ourselves buying products that promise to change our lives, make us more beautiful, confident or successful as we are steadily stripped of rights, money and influence. All messages we receive through these systems of communication, whether on the nightly news or talk shows like "Oprah," promise a brighter, happier tomorrow. And this, as Wolin points out, is "the same ideology that invites corporate executives to exaggerate profits and conceal losses, but always with a sunny face." We have been entranced, as Wolin writes, by "continuous technological advances" that "encourage elaborate fantasies of individual prowess, eternal youthfulness, beauty through surgery, actions measured in nanoseconds: a dream-laden culture of ever-expanding control and possibility, whose denizens are prone to fantasies because the vast majority have imagination but little scientific knowledge."
Our manufacturing base has been dismantled. Speculators and swindlers have looted the U.S. Treasury and stolen billions from small shareholders who had set aside money for retirement or college. Civil liberties, including habeas corpus and protection from warrantless wiretapping, have been taken away. Basic services, including public education and health care, have been handed over to the corporations to exploit for profit. The few who raise voices of dissent, who refuse to engage in the corporate happy talk, are derided by the corporate establishment as freaks.
Attitudes and temperament have been cleverly engineered by the corporate state, as with Huxley's pliant characters in Brave New World. The book's protagonist, Bernard Marx, turns in frustration to his girlfriend Lenina:
We increasingly live in Orwell's Oceania, not Huxley's The World State. Osama bin Laden plays the role assumed by Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984. Goldstein, in the novel, is the public face of terror. His evil machinations and clandestine acts of violence dominate the nightly news. Goldstein's image appears each day on Oceania's television screens as part of the nation's "Two Minutes of Hate" daily ritual. And without the intervention of the state, Goldstein, like bin Laden, will kill you. All excesses are justified in the titanic fight against evil personified.
The psychological torture of Pvt. Bradley Manning - who has now been imprisoned for seven months without being convicted of any crime - mirrors the breaking of the dissident Winston Smith at the end of 1984. Manning is being held as a "maximum custody detainee" in the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Virginia. He spends 23 of every 24 hours alone. He is denied exercise. He cannot have a pillow or sheets for his bed. Army doctors have been plying him with antidepressants. The cruder forms of torture of the Gestapo have been replaced with refined Orwellian techniques, largely developed by government psychologists, to turn dissidents like Manning into vegetables. We break souls as well as bodies. It is more effective. Now we can all be taken to Orwell's dreaded Room 101 to become compliant and harmless. These "special administrative measures" are regularly imposed on our dissidents, including Syed Fahad Hashmi, who was imprisoned under similar conditions for three years before going to trial. The techniques have psychologically maimed thousands of detainees in our black sites around the globe. They are the staple form of control in our maximum security prisons where the corporate state makes war on our most politically astute underclass - African-Americans. It all presages the shift from Huxley to Orwell.
"Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling," Winston Smith's torturer tells him in 1984. "Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves."
The noose is tightening. The era of amusement is being replaced by the era of repression. Tens of millions of citizens have had their e-mails and phone records turned over to the government. We are the most monitored and spied-on citizenry in human history. Many of us have our daily routine caught on dozens of security cameras. Our proclivities and habits are recorded on the Internet. Our profiles are electronically generated. Our bodies are patted down at airports and filmed by scanners. And public service announcements, car inspection stickers, and public transportation posters constantly urge us to report suspicious activity. The enemy is everywhere.
Those who do not comply with the dictates of the war on terror, a war which, as Orwell noted, is endless, are brutally silenced. The draconian security measures used to cripple protests at the G-20 gatherings in Pittsburgh and Toronto were wildly disproportionate for the level of street activity. But they sent a clear message - DO NOT TRY THIS. The FBI's targeting of antiwar and Palestinian activists, which in late September saw agents raid homes in Minneapolis and Chicago, is a harbinger of what is to come for all who dare defy the state's official Newspeak. The agents - our Thought Police - seized phones, computers, documents and other personal belongings. Subpoenas to appear before a grand jury have since been served on 26 people. The subpoenas cite federal law prohibiting "providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations." Terror, even for those who have nothing to do with terror, becomes the blunt instrument used by Big Brother to protect us from ourselves.
"Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?" Orwell wrote. "It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself."
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/220523-2011-A-Brave-New-Dystopia
We have been gradually disempowered by a corporate state that, as Huxley foresaw, seduced and manipulated us through sensual gratification, cheap mass-produced goods, boundless credit, political theater and amusement. While we were entertained, the regulations that once kept predatory corporate power in check were dismantled, the laws that once protected us were rewritten and we were impoverished. Now that credit is drying up, good jobs for the working class are gone forever and mass-produced goods are unaffordable, we find ourselves transported from Brave New World to 1984. The state, crippled by massive deficits, endless war and corporate malfeasance, is sliding toward bankruptcy. It is time for Big Brother to take over from Huxley's feelies, the orgy-porgy and the centrifugal bumble-puppy. We are moving from a society where we are skillfully manipulated by lies and illusions to one where we are overtly controlled.
Orwell warned of a world where books were banned. Huxley warned of a world where no one wanted to read books. Orwell warned of a state of permanent war and fear. Huxley warned of a culture diverted by mindless pleasure. Orwell warned of a state where every conversation and thought was monitored and dissent was brutally punished. Huxley warned of a state where a population, preoccupied by trivia and gossip, no longer cared about truth or information. Orwell saw us frightened into submission. Huxley saw us seduced into submission. But Huxley, we are discovering, was merely the prelude to Orwell. Huxley understood the process by which we would be complicit in our own enslavement. Orwell understood the enslavement. Now that the corporate coup is over, we stand naked and defenseless. We are beginning to understand, as Karl Marx knew, that unfettered and unregulated capitalism is a brutal and revolutionary force that exploits human beings and the natural world until exhaustion or collapse.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake," Orwell wrote in 1984. "We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
The political philosopher Sheldon Wolin uses the term "inverted totalitarianism" in his book Democracy Incorporated to describe our political system. It is a term that would make sense to Huxley. In inverted totalitarianism, the sophisticated technologies of corporate control, intimidation and mass manipulation, which far surpass those employed by previous totalitarian states, are effectively masked by the glitter, noise and abundance of a consumer society. Political participation and civil liberties are gradually surrendered. The corporation state, hiding behind the smokescreen of the public relations industry, the entertainment industry and the tawdry materialism of a consumer society, devours us from the inside out. It owes no allegiance to us or the nation. It feasts upon our carcass.
The corporate state does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader. It is defined by the anonymity and facelessness of the corporation. Corporations, who hire attractive spokespeople like Barack Obama, control the uses of science, technology, education and mass communication. They control the messages in movies and television. And, as in Brave New World, they use these tools of communication to bolster tyranny. Our systems of mass communication, as Wolin writes, "block out, eliminate whatever might introduce qualification, ambiguity, or dialogue, anything that might weaken or complicate the holistic force of their creation, to its total impression."
The result is a monochromatic system of information. Celebrity courtiers, masquerading as journalists, experts and specialists, identify our problems and patiently explain the parameters. All those who argue outside the imposed parameters are dismissed as irrelevant cranks, extremists or members of a radical left. Prescient social critics, from Ralph Nader to Noam Chomsky, are banished. Acceptable opinions have a range of A to B. The culture, under the tutelage of these corporate courtiers, becomes, as Huxley noted, a world of cheerful conformity, as well as an endless and finally fatal optimism. We busy ourselves buying products that promise to change our lives, make us more beautiful, confident or successful as we are steadily stripped of rights, money and influence. All messages we receive through these systems of communication, whether on the nightly news or talk shows like "Oprah," promise a brighter, happier tomorrow. And this, as Wolin points out, is "the same ideology that invites corporate executives to exaggerate profits and conceal losses, but always with a sunny face." We have been entranced, as Wolin writes, by "continuous technological advances" that "encourage elaborate fantasies of individual prowess, eternal youthfulness, beauty through surgery, actions measured in nanoseconds: a dream-laden culture of ever-expanding control and possibility, whose denizens are prone to fantasies because the vast majority have imagination but little scientific knowledge."
Our manufacturing base has been dismantled. Speculators and swindlers have looted the U.S. Treasury and stolen billions from small shareholders who had set aside money for retirement or college. Civil liberties, including habeas corpus and protection from warrantless wiretapping, have been taken away. Basic services, including public education and health care, have been handed over to the corporations to exploit for profit. The few who raise voices of dissent, who refuse to engage in the corporate happy talk, are derided by the corporate establishment as freaks.
Attitudes and temperament have been cleverly engineered by the corporate state, as with Huxley's pliant characters in Brave New World. The book's protagonist, Bernard Marx, turns in frustration to his girlfriend Lenina:
"Don't you wish you were free, Lenina?" he asks.The façade is crumbling. And as more and more people realize that they have been used and robbed, we will move swiftly from Huxley's Brave New World to Orwell's 1984. The public, at some point, will have to face some very unpleasant truths. The good-paying jobs are not coming back. The largest deficits in human history mean that we are trapped in a debt peonage system that will be used by the corporate state to eradicate the last vestiges of social protection for citizens, including Social Security. The state has devolved from a capitalist democracy to neo-feudalism. And when these truths become apparent, anger will replace the corporate-imposed cheerful conformity. The bleakness of our post-industrial pockets, where some 40 million Americans live in a state of poverty and tens of millions in a category called "near poverty," coupled with the lack of credit to save families from foreclosures, bank repossessions and bankruptcy from medical bills, means that inverted totalitarianism will no longer work.
"I don't know that you mean. I am free, free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody's happy nowadays."
He laughed, "Yes, 'Everybody's happy nowadays.' We have been giving the children that at five. But wouldn't you like to be free to be happy in some other way, Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else's way."
"I don't know what you mean," she repeated.
We increasingly live in Orwell's Oceania, not Huxley's The World State. Osama bin Laden plays the role assumed by Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984. Goldstein, in the novel, is the public face of terror. His evil machinations and clandestine acts of violence dominate the nightly news. Goldstein's image appears each day on Oceania's television screens as part of the nation's "Two Minutes of Hate" daily ritual. And without the intervention of the state, Goldstein, like bin Laden, will kill you. All excesses are justified in the titanic fight against evil personified.
The psychological torture of Pvt. Bradley Manning - who has now been imprisoned for seven months without being convicted of any crime - mirrors the breaking of the dissident Winston Smith at the end of 1984. Manning is being held as a "maximum custody detainee" in the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Virginia. He spends 23 of every 24 hours alone. He is denied exercise. He cannot have a pillow or sheets for his bed. Army doctors have been plying him with antidepressants. The cruder forms of torture of the Gestapo have been replaced with refined Orwellian techniques, largely developed by government psychologists, to turn dissidents like Manning into vegetables. We break souls as well as bodies. It is more effective. Now we can all be taken to Orwell's dreaded Room 101 to become compliant and harmless. These "special administrative measures" are regularly imposed on our dissidents, including Syed Fahad Hashmi, who was imprisoned under similar conditions for three years before going to trial. The techniques have psychologically maimed thousands of detainees in our black sites around the globe. They are the staple form of control in our maximum security prisons where the corporate state makes war on our most politically astute underclass - African-Americans. It all presages the shift from Huxley to Orwell.
"Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling," Winston Smith's torturer tells him in 1984. "Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves."
The noose is tightening. The era of amusement is being replaced by the era of repression. Tens of millions of citizens have had their e-mails and phone records turned over to the government. We are the most monitored and spied-on citizenry in human history. Many of us have our daily routine caught on dozens of security cameras. Our proclivities and habits are recorded on the Internet. Our profiles are electronically generated. Our bodies are patted down at airports and filmed by scanners. And public service announcements, car inspection stickers, and public transportation posters constantly urge us to report suspicious activity. The enemy is everywhere.
Those who do not comply with the dictates of the war on terror, a war which, as Orwell noted, is endless, are brutally silenced. The draconian security measures used to cripple protests at the G-20 gatherings in Pittsburgh and Toronto were wildly disproportionate for the level of street activity. But they sent a clear message - DO NOT TRY THIS. The FBI's targeting of antiwar and Palestinian activists, which in late September saw agents raid homes in Minneapolis and Chicago, is a harbinger of what is to come for all who dare defy the state's official Newspeak. The agents - our Thought Police - seized phones, computers, documents and other personal belongings. Subpoenas to appear before a grand jury have since been served on 26 people. The subpoenas cite federal law prohibiting "providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations." Terror, even for those who have nothing to do with terror, becomes the blunt instrument used by Big Brother to protect us from ourselves.
"Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?" Orwell wrote. "It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself."
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/220523-2011-A-Brave-New-Dystopia
Oil To Skyrocket
Don't forget that the main reason oil will get more expensive in the U.S. is cause the dollar goes down.
So best way [to make money] is buying Silver now or Gold but silver is going up even more.
Gold hit a record high earlier this year and is up 28% for the year.
Silver — a cheaper alternative to gold — has skyrocketed nearly 77%.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gold-tops-1400-other-metals-follow-higher-2010-12-28
GOLD 20 YEAR GRAPH
SILVER 20 YEAR GRAPH
See Also these posts:
SILVER: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=191915.0
GOLD: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=159655.0
So best way [to make money] is buying Silver now or Gold but silver is going up even more.
Gold hit a record high earlier this year and is up 28% for the year.
Silver — a cheaper alternative to gold — has skyrocketed nearly 77%.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gold-tops-1400-other-metals-follow-higher-2010-12-28
GOLD 20 YEAR GRAPH
SILVER 20 YEAR GRAPH
See Also these posts:
SILVER: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=191915.0
GOLD: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=159655.0
Buy Silver Today
James Turk - Gold & Silver Shorts are Losing Control
29 December 2010, by Eric King (King World News)
http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2010/12/29_James_Turk_-_Gold_%26_Silver_Shorts_are_Losing_Control.html
With silver hitting new 30 year highs and gold assaulting all-time highs, King World News interviewed James Turk out of Spain. When asked about the action in both gold and silver Turk stated, “Just like last year, the metal prices are going to continue higher. It really doesn’t surprise me that both of the metals are in the process of taking out their previous highs, both gold and silver remain relatively undervalued. Gold and silver are the pinnacle of money and this is becoming increasingly apparent to investors around the world.”
Turk continues:
“The fact that we are starting to see the metals go higher before the end of the year just goes to show that the shorts are losing control. The year end window-dressing is the most important, and they can’t keep the prices down to minimize the losses they are already carrying on their books. So it looks to me like we are getting ready to blast off on the upside.
There are really two factors that are driving the precious metals markets higher:
First, quantitative easing is having its expected effect. QE is debasing the purchasing power of the dollar, and that is causing gold and metals prices to rise. The second factor is the ongoing demand for physical metals in preference to any paper substitutes. I think what is likely to unfold in the first half of 2011 is another Lehman type of event, but the net effect will be somewhat different. Instead of a rush for liquidity, the primary objective will be a rush to safety and that means avoiding counter-party risk. The best way to do that is to own physical metal.
I think the key point Eric is that the serial bailouts of banks and governments that we have been seeing for the past couple of years is going to come to a head in the first half of 2011. To me that means serious financial repercussions, and King World News readers and listeners should be focusing on safety. Therefore we need gold and silver now more than ever.
Whether gold breaks out this week or next is irrelevant, it will happen soon enough. Silver has already achieved the $30 target I had predicted on your network. The $1,500 target I set on gold should be achieved in short order.”
Turk has been calling these markets with remarkable precision. This breakout was inevitable, the fact that it is taking place before the end of the year just illustrates the strength of both the gold and silver markets. Remember, bull markets always surprise on the upside. The fact that end of the year strength has taken some market participants by surprise, this is just textbook action inside of a secular bull market. Enjoy the ride.
The entire in-depth King World News audio interview with James Turk will be released shortly.
29 December 2010, by Eric King (King World News)
http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2010/12/29_James_Turk_-_Gold_%26_Silver_Shorts_are_Losing_Control.html
With silver hitting new 30 year highs and gold assaulting all-time highs, King World News interviewed James Turk out of Spain. When asked about the action in both gold and silver Turk stated, “Just like last year, the metal prices are going to continue higher. It really doesn’t surprise me that both of the metals are in the process of taking out their previous highs, both gold and silver remain relatively undervalued. Gold and silver are the pinnacle of money and this is becoming increasingly apparent to investors around the world.”
Turk continues:
“The fact that we are starting to see the metals go higher before the end of the year just goes to show that the shorts are losing control. The year end window-dressing is the most important, and they can’t keep the prices down to minimize the losses they are already carrying on their books. So it looks to me like we are getting ready to blast off on the upside.
There are really two factors that are driving the precious metals markets higher:
First, quantitative easing is having its expected effect. QE is debasing the purchasing power of the dollar, and that is causing gold and metals prices to rise. The second factor is the ongoing demand for physical metals in preference to any paper substitutes. I think what is likely to unfold in the first half of 2011 is another Lehman type of event, but the net effect will be somewhat different. Instead of a rush for liquidity, the primary objective will be a rush to safety and that means avoiding counter-party risk. The best way to do that is to own physical metal.
I think the key point Eric is that the serial bailouts of banks and governments that we have been seeing for the past couple of years is going to come to a head in the first half of 2011. To me that means serious financial repercussions, and King World News readers and listeners should be focusing on safety. Therefore we need gold and silver now more than ever.
Whether gold breaks out this week or next is irrelevant, it will happen soon enough. Silver has already achieved the $30 target I had predicted on your network. The $1,500 target I set on gold should be achieved in short order.”
Turk has been calling these markets with remarkable precision. This breakout was inevitable, the fact that it is taking place before the end of the year just illustrates the strength of both the gold and silver markets. Remember, bull markets always surprise on the upside. The fact that end of the year strength has taken some market participants by surprise, this is just textbook action inside of a secular bull market. Enjoy the ride.
The entire in-depth King World News audio interview with James Turk will be released shortly.
(1970-1981) The case for 1,000 dollar Silver?
29 December 2010, (Market Shorter)
http://marketshorter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=142:the-758000-dollar-trade-20k-in-silver-1971-appreciated-to-770000-by-1980&catid=10:metals-and-currencies&Itemid=87
29 December 2010, (Market Shorter)
http://marketshorter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=142:the-758000-dollar-trade-20k-in-silver-1971-appreciated-to-770000-by-1980&catid=10:metals-and-currencies&Itemid=87
Secret Space CropCircles
Secret Space Crop Circles ~ 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmT6t29TkAQ
Secret Space Crop Circles ~ 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1shNnVR8Po
Secret Space Crop Circles ~ 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXX04nC3ZCs
Secret Space Crop Circles ~ 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3xSOchejk
Secret Space Crop Circles ~ 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg-7NuxNH88
Secret Space Crop Circles ~ 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1OhPPKeB-M
Secret Space Crop Circles ~ 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PojXvMEV9h0
Secret Space Crop Circles ~ 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_qamMFNYTE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmT6t29TkAQ
Secret Space Crop Circles ~ 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1shNnVR8Po
Secret Space Crop Circles ~ 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXX04nC3ZCs
Secret Space Crop Circles ~ 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3xSOchejk
Secret Space Crop Circles ~ 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg-7NuxNH88
Secret Space Crop Circles ~ 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1OhPPKeB-M
Secret Space Crop Circles ~ 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PojXvMEV9h0
Secret Space Crop Circles ~ 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_qamMFNYTE
EndOf December2010 News
Illinois Governor Wants to Borrow $15 Billion to "Balance" the Budget; Illinois Total Unfunded Liabilities Exceed $200 Billion Already
28 December 2010, by Mike Shedlock (MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis)
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/illinois-governor-wants-to-borrow-15.html
Excerpt:
The state of Illinois elected a Keynesian nutcase of epic magnitude in Governor Quinn.
Quinn's latest brainstorm is to borrow $15 billion to "stabilize things".
Quinn has not said how he will pay back the loans.
Then again, he does want to raise taxes like mad and probably will do so.
Regardless of what he does, Quinn is so beholden to unions, Illinois will need to borrow again 12 months from now.
Almost Everything Is A Crime In America Now: 14 Of The Most Ridiculous Things That Americans Are Being Arrested For
28 December 2010, (The Economic Collapse)
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/almost-everything-is-a-crime-in-america-now-14-of-the-most-ridiculous-things-that-americans-are-being-arrested-for
Excerpt:
#1 A Michigan man has been charged with a felony and could face up to 5 years in prison for reading his wife's email.
#2 A 49-year-old Queens woman had bruises all over her body after she was handcuffed, arrested and brutally beaten by NYPD officers. So what was her offense? The officers thought that her little dog had left some poop that she didn't clean up.
#3 A 56-year-old woman who was once a rape victim refused to let airport security officials feel her breasts so she was thrown to the floor, put in handcuffs and arrested.
#4 In Milwaukee, one man was recently fined $500 for swearing on a public bus.
#5 Several years ago a 12-year-old boy in South Carolina was actually arrested by police for opening up a Christmas present early against his family's wishes.
#6 In some areas of the country, it is now a crime to not recycle properly. For example, the city of Cleveland has announced plans to sort through trash cans to ensure that people are actually recycling according to city guidelines.
#7 A 12-year-old girl from Queens was arrested earlier this year and taken out of her school in handcuffs for writing “Lex was here. 2/1/10" and “I love my friends Abby and Faith" on her desk.
#8 Back in 2008, a 13-year-old boy in Florida was actually arrested by police for farting in class.
#9 The feds recently raided an Amish farmer at 5 AM in the morning because they claimed that he was was engaged in the interstate sale of raw milk in violation of federal law.
#10 A few years ago a 10-year-old girl was arrested and charged with a felony for bringing a small steak knife to school. It turns out that all she wanted to do was to cut up her lunch so that she could eat it.
#11 On June 18th, two Christians decided that they would peacefully pass out copies of the gospel of John on a public sidewalk outside a public Islamic festival in Dearborn, Michigan and within three minutes 8 policemen surrounded them and placed them under arrest.
#12 A U.S. District Court judge slapped a 5oo dollar fine on Massachusetts fisherman Robert J. Eldridge for untangling a giant whale from his nets and setting it free. So what was his crime? Well, according to the court, Eldridge was supposed to call state authorities and wait for them do it.
#13 Once upon a time, a food fight in the cafeteria may have gotten you a detention. Now it may get you locked up. About a year ago, 25 students between the ages of 11 and 15 at a school in Chicago were taken into custody by police for being involved in a huge food fight in the school cafeteria.
#14 A few years ago a 70 year old grandmother was actually put in handcuffs and hauled off to jail for having a brown lawn.
28 December 2010, by Mike Shedlock (MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis)
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/illinois-governor-wants-to-borrow-15.html
Excerpt:
The state of Illinois elected a Keynesian nutcase of epic magnitude in Governor Quinn.
Quinn's latest brainstorm is to borrow $15 billion to "stabilize things".
Quinn has not said how he will pay back the loans.
Then again, he does want to raise taxes like mad and probably will do so.
Regardless of what he does, Quinn is so beholden to unions, Illinois will need to borrow again 12 months from now.
Almost Everything Is A Crime In America Now: 14 Of The Most Ridiculous Things That Americans Are Being Arrested For
28 December 2010, (The Economic Collapse)
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/almost-everything-is-a-crime-in-america-now-14-of-the-most-ridiculous-things-that-americans-are-being-arrested-for
Excerpt:
#1 A Michigan man has been charged with a felony and could face up to 5 years in prison for reading his wife's email.
#2 A 49-year-old Queens woman had bruises all over her body after she was handcuffed, arrested and brutally beaten by NYPD officers. So what was her offense? The officers thought that her little dog had left some poop that she didn't clean up.
#3 A 56-year-old woman who was once a rape victim refused to let airport security officials feel her breasts so she was thrown to the floor, put in handcuffs and arrested.
#4 In Milwaukee, one man was recently fined $500 for swearing on a public bus.
#5 Several years ago a 12-year-old boy in South Carolina was actually arrested by police for opening up a Christmas present early against his family's wishes.
#6 In some areas of the country, it is now a crime to not recycle properly. For example, the city of Cleveland has announced plans to sort through trash cans to ensure that people are actually recycling according to city guidelines.
#7 A 12-year-old girl from Queens was arrested earlier this year and taken out of her school in handcuffs for writing “Lex was here. 2/1/10" and “I love my friends Abby and Faith" on her desk.
#8 Back in 2008, a 13-year-old boy in Florida was actually arrested by police for farting in class.
#9 The feds recently raided an Amish farmer at 5 AM in the morning because they claimed that he was was engaged in the interstate sale of raw milk in violation of federal law.
#10 A few years ago a 10-year-old girl was arrested and charged with a felony for bringing a small steak knife to school. It turns out that all she wanted to do was to cut up her lunch so that she could eat it.
#11 On June 18th, two Christians decided that they would peacefully pass out copies of the gospel of John on a public sidewalk outside a public Islamic festival in Dearborn, Michigan and within three minutes 8 policemen surrounded them and placed them under arrest.
#12 A U.S. District Court judge slapped a 5oo dollar fine on Massachusetts fisherman Robert J. Eldridge for untangling a giant whale from his nets and setting it free. So what was his crime? Well, according to the court, Eldridge was supposed to call state authorities and wait for them do it.
#13 Once upon a time, a food fight in the cafeteria may have gotten you a detention. Now it may get you locked up. About a year ago, 25 students between the ages of 11 and 15 at a school in Chicago were taken into custody by police for being involved in a huge food fight in the school cafeteria.
#14 A few years ago a 70 year old grandmother was actually put in handcuffs and hauled off to jail for having a brown lawn.
Crude-oil futures close in on $90 a barrel - API says crude-oil inventories fell 5.8 million barrels last week
21 December 2010, by Laura Mandaro and Steve Gelsi, MarketWatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/crude-oil-futures-hold-steady-at-89-2010-12-21
Lindsey Willams on AJS 15 December 2010
“Oil will go to $150 – $200 a barrel”, says Lindsey Willams from his high up sources.
“EU will have a major problem”, “The Euro will collapse first before the American Dollar” (No Timeframe)
Buzz Words 1 - from Lindsey Willams on IMF:
15 major devolpement countries have to raise $10.2 trillion on interest alone. That's 27% of their total economical output.
Buzz Word 2 - from Lindsey Willams on Silver:
"Comex Silver Exchange have only $107 miljoen ounces on hand but have gave out obligations in Silver paper to the amount of $720 miljoen ounces of Silver."
Silver & Gold gonna explode in price says the elite.
About the FED:
The FED is buying $140 Billion in treasuries every 40 days!
Keep an eye on the Insider Trading ratio!
Lindsey Williams Returns: Confessions of an Elitist - Alex Jones Tv 1/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YYTa075NJg
Lindsey Williams Returns: Confessions of an Elitist - Alex Jones Tv 2/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=638nMiYoUuU
[Lindsey Williams Returns: Confessions of an Elitist - Alex Jones Tv 3/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CXi1C6v7Gw
Lindsey Williams Returns: Confessions of an Elitist - Alex Jones Tv 4/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aw8-3J2t6Q
Home Prices Probably Fell, Showing U.S. Economy's Weak Link
28 December 2010, by Bob Willis (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-28/home-prices-probably-fell-showing-u-s-economy-s-weak-link.html
Excerpt:
Home prices probably dropped in October, a sign housing will remain a weak link as the U.S. recovery accelerates into the new year, economists said before reports today.
Property values in 20 cities were down 0.25 from October 2009, the first year-over-year decline since January, according to the median forecast of 17 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. Other data may show consumer confidence rose to a seven-month high this month.
A wave of foreclosures waiting to reach the market means home prices will remain under pressure in 2011, representing a risk to household finances. Rising stock values and an improving job market will probably help offset the damage, ensuring that confidence and spending continue to strengthen.
“It’s going to take a long time for this excess inventory to clear and that means further downward pressure on prices,” said Neil Dutta, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Research in New York. “Consumer confidence has recovered, but it’s not predicting a boom in the economy.”
S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index is due at 9 a.m. New York time.
Economists surveyed projected the gauge declined 0.6% in October from the prior month, when it fell 0.8%. The index was down 29% in September from its July 2006 peak.
21 December 2010, by Laura Mandaro and Steve Gelsi, MarketWatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/crude-oil-futures-hold-steady-at-89-2010-12-21
Lindsey Willams on AJS 15 December 2010
“Oil will go to $150 – $200 a barrel”, says Lindsey Willams from his high up sources.
“EU will have a major problem”, “The Euro will collapse first before the American Dollar” (No Timeframe)
Buzz Words 1 - from Lindsey Willams on IMF:
15 major devolpement countries have to raise $10.2 trillion on interest alone. That's 27% of their total economical output.
Buzz Word 2 - from Lindsey Willams on Silver:
"Comex Silver Exchange have only $107 miljoen ounces on hand but have gave out obligations in Silver paper to the amount of $720 miljoen ounces of Silver."
Silver & Gold gonna explode in price says the elite.
About the FED:
The FED is buying $140 Billion in treasuries every 40 days!
Keep an eye on the Insider Trading ratio!
Lindsey Williams Returns: Confessions of an Elitist - Alex Jones Tv 1/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YYTa075NJg
Lindsey Williams Returns: Confessions of an Elitist - Alex Jones Tv 2/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=638nMiYoUuU
[Lindsey Williams Returns: Confessions of an Elitist - Alex Jones Tv 3/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CXi1C6v7Gw
Lindsey Williams Returns: Confessions of an Elitist - Alex Jones Tv 4/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aw8-3J2t6Q
Furthermore, as we suggest earlier, now that $90 is in the history books, $100 is coming, and may be here within a few weeks.
22 December 2010, by Tyler Durden (Zero Hedge)
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/larger-expected-boe-drawdown-sends-crude-100barrel-races
22 December 2010, by Tyler Durden (Zero Hedge)
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/larger-expected-boe-drawdown-sends-crude-100barrel-races
Gaidamaka Says Oil at $80-$95 a Barrel `Quite Likely'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuU2E-AaI2A
Kuwait's Sabah says $85-90/bl oil price acceptable
23 December 2010, by Sherine El Madany - Cairo (Reuters)
https://research.tdwaterhouse.ca/research/public/Markets/NewsArticle/1314-LDE6BM1OT-1
5 hours ago - An oil price of $85-90 per barrel is fair and there are no plans to raise output in response to rising crude prices, Kuwait's oil minister said on Thursday.
"Current oil prices are fair and acceptable," Minister Sheikh Ahmad al-Abdullah al-Sabah told Reuters in Cairo ahead of a meeting of Arab oil exporting countries. "$85 to $90 -- that is the acceptable level," he said.
There was no plan to raise production, which was also at a "fair and acceptable" level, al-Sabah added.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuU2E-AaI2A
Kuwait's Sabah says $85-90/bl oil price acceptable
23 December 2010, by Sherine El Madany - Cairo (Reuters)
https://research.tdwaterhouse.ca/research/public/Markets/NewsArticle/1314-LDE6BM1OT-1
5 hours ago - An oil price of $85-90 per barrel is fair and there are no plans to raise output in response to rising crude prices, Kuwait's oil minister said on Thursday.
"Current oil prices are fair and acceptable," Minister Sheikh Ahmad al-Abdullah al-Sabah told Reuters in Cairo ahead of a meeting of Arab oil exporting countries. "$85 to $90 -- that is the acceptable level," he said.
There was no plan to raise production, which was also at a "fair and acceptable" level, al-Sabah added.
Oil pushes closer to $100 as cold snap stokes demand
24 December 2010, (The Telegraph)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/8223574/Oil-pushes-closer-to-100-as-cold-snap-stokes-demand.html
Happ X-Maz Y'all!
Oil (Light Crude)
Feb. 2011 contract
$ / barrel Floor 91.51 s +1.03 +1.14% 1:29pm ET
Electronic 91.41 -0.10 -0.11% 5:14pm ET
Unleaded Gas
Feb. 2011 contract
$ / gallon Floor 2.43 s +0.0193 +0.80% 1:34pm ET
Electronic 2.43 -0.0011 -0.05% 5:14pm ET
http://money.cnn.com/data/commodities/
24 December 2010, (The Telegraph)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/8223574/Oil-pushes-closer-to-100-as-cold-snap-stokes-demand.html
Happ X-Maz Y'all!
Oil (Light Crude)
Feb. 2011 contract
$ / barrel Floor 91.51 s +1.03 +1.14% 1:29pm ET
Electronic 91.41 -0.10 -0.11% 5:14pm ET
Unleaded Gas
Feb. 2011 contract
$ / gallon Floor 2.43 s +0.0193 +0.80% 1:34pm ET
Electronic 2.43 -0.0011 -0.05% 5:14pm ET
http://money.cnn.com/data/commodities/
World markets fall as oil price hits 26-month high after Chinese rate rise
27 December 2010, by Garry White (The Telegraph)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/8227117/World-markets-fall-as-oil-price-hits-26-month-high-after-Chinese-rate-rise.html
Excerpt:
Soaring oil prices, which hit a 26-month high, also unsettled investors, with losses seen from Shanghai to Wall Street.
It came amid mounting fears that China’s unexpected rise in interest rates could derail growth in Asia and damage an upturn for the world’s major exporters.
----
The oil price, which has jumped 27% since May, weighed heavily on market sentiment. The severe blizzard across the eastern seaboard of the US and continued cold temperatures in Europe are expected to push prices still higher as demand for heating oil grows.
Brent crude for February delivery hit $94.52 in morning trading – its highest level since the height of the banking crisis in October 2008 – before profit takers moved in. Although UK markets were closed, Brent crude contracts can still be traded electronically.
Oil prices are expected to rise steadily next year, with many analysts forecasting the price could cross the psychologically important $100 a barrel mark.
Analysts from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan Chase have all said they expect oil to move above $100 in 2011, with some raising the possibility that it could happen earlier in the year than many feared.
“The key risk is that we are being too cautious and that the threat of $100 per barrel oil that is implicit in our fourth quarter 2011 oil forecast arrives sooner than we expect – driven by not only a weak dollar, but also by rampant Chinese and emerging market demand,” Lawrence Eagles, an energy analyst at JP Morgan, said in a recent report.
“High oil prices were one of the contributors to the last global crisis,” according to analysts at JBC Energy. “The largest effect of an oil price shock on the economy occurs around three to four quarters after the price spike.” In July 2008, the oil price hit $147 a barrel before the financial crisis caused it to fall below $40.
Opec, the cartel which accounts for around 40% of global crude production, said that it does not intend to raise its production any time soon. Opec’s output quotas have remains steady since December 2008, when it curbed production to cope with the effects of the global recession.
Qatar’s oil minister, Abdullah al-Attiyah, said on Saturday that he did not expect the cartel to meet before its scheduled gathering in June 2011.
“I do not expect an OPEC meeting before June because oil prices are stable,” Mr al-Attiyah said on the sidelines of a meeting of Arab oil exporting countries in Cairo.
Mr al-Attiyah also said that he did not expect Opec would increase production at all during 2011, despite the prospect of rising demand if the recovery continues.
Lindsey Willams on AJS 15 December 2010: “Oil will go to $150 – $200 a barrel”, says Lindsey Willams from his high up sources.
Ex-Shell president sees $5 gas in 2012
27 December 2010, by Laurie Segall (CNN Money)
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/27/markets/oil_commodities/index.htm
The former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, says Americans could be paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline by 2012.
Oil Trades Above $91 as U.S. Retail Sales Gain, Crude Stockpiles May Drop
29 December 2010, by Margot Habiby and Ben Sharples (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-28/oil-trades-above-91-as-u-s-retail-sales-gain-crude-stockpiles-may-drop.html
Excerpt:
Oil traded above $91 a barrel in New York after a report showed U.S. retailers had their best holiday sales in five years and crude supplies were forecast to extend their biggest monthly decline since December 2006.
27 December 2010, by Garry White (The Telegraph)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/8227117/World-markets-fall-as-oil-price-hits-26-month-high-after-Chinese-rate-rise.html
Excerpt:
Soaring oil prices, which hit a 26-month high, also unsettled investors, with losses seen from Shanghai to Wall Street.
It came amid mounting fears that China’s unexpected rise in interest rates could derail growth in Asia and damage an upturn for the world’s major exporters.
----
The oil price, which has jumped 27% since May, weighed heavily on market sentiment. The severe blizzard across the eastern seaboard of the US and continued cold temperatures in Europe are expected to push prices still higher as demand for heating oil grows.
Brent crude for February delivery hit $94.52 in morning trading – its highest level since the height of the banking crisis in October 2008 – before profit takers moved in. Although UK markets were closed, Brent crude contracts can still be traded electronically.
Oil prices are expected to rise steadily next year, with many analysts forecasting the price could cross the psychologically important $100 a barrel mark.
Analysts from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan Chase have all said they expect oil to move above $100 in 2011, with some raising the possibility that it could happen earlier in the year than many feared.
“The key risk is that we are being too cautious and that the threat of $100 per barrel oil that is implicit in our fourth quarter 2011 oil forecast arrives sooner than we expect – driven by not only a weak dollar, but also by rampant Chinese and emerging market demand,” Lawrence Eagles, an energy analyst at JP Morgan, said in a recent report.
“High oil prices were one of the contributors to the last global crisis,” according to analysts at JBC Energy. “The largest effect of an oil price shock on the economy occurs around three to four quarters after the price spike.” In July 2008, the oil price hit $147 a barrel before the financial crisis caused it to fall below $40.
Opec, the cartel which accounts for around 40% of global crude production, said that it does not intend to raise its production any time soon. Opec’s output quotas have remains steady since December 2008, when it curbed production to cope with the effects of the global recession.
Qatar’s oil minister, Abdullah al-Attiyah, said on Saturday that he did not expect the cartel to meet before its scheduled gathering in June 2011.
“I do not expect an OPEC meeting before June because oil prices are stable,” Mr al-Attiyah said on the sidelines of a meeting of Arab oil exporting countries in Cairo.
Mr al-Attiyah also said that he did not expect Opec would increase production at all during 2011, despite the prospect of rising demand if the recovery continues.
Lindsey Willams on AJS 15 December 2010: “Oil will go to $150 – $200 a barrel”, says Lindsey Willams from his high up sources.
Ex-Shell president sees $5 gas in 2012
27 December 2010, by Laurie Segall (CNN Money)
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/27/markets/oil_commodities/index.htm
The former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, says Americans could be paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline by 2012.
Oil Trades Above $91 as U.S. Retail Sales Gain, Crude Stockpiles May Drop
29 December 2010, by Margot Habiby and Ben Sharples (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-28/oil-trades-above-91-as-u-s-retail-sales-gain-crude-stockpiles-may-drop.html
Excerpt:
Oil traded above $91 a barrel in New York after a report showed U.S. retailers had their best holiday sales in five years and crude supplies were forecast to extend their biggest monthly decline since December 2006.
9 Signs That The Price Of Oil Is About To Soar Beyond $100 A Barrel
28 December 2010, by Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse (Business Insider)
http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-prices-rising-in-2011-2010-12
Excerpt:
Will we see the price of oil rise significantly in 2011? Unfortunately, that appears to be precisely where we are headed.
Lindsey Willams on AJS 15 December 2010: “Oil will go to $150 – $200 a barrel”, says Lindsey Willams from his high up sources.
28 December 2010, by Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse (Business Insider)
http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-prices-rising-in-2011-2010-12
Excerpt:
Will we see the price of oil rise significantly in 2011? Unfortunately, that appears to be precisely where we are headed.
Lindsey Willams on AJS 15 December 2010: “Oil will go to $150 – $200 a barrel”, says Lindsey Willams from his high up sources.
Home Prices Probably Fell, Showing U.S. Economy's Weak Link
28 December 2010, by Bob Willis (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-28/home-prices-probably-fell-showing-u-s-economy-s-weak-link.html
Excerpt:
Home prices probably dropped in October, a sign housing will remain a weak link as the U.S. recovery accelerates into the new year, economists said before reports today.
Property values in 20 cities were down 0.25 from October 2009, the first year-over-year decline since January, according to the median forecast of 17 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. Other data may show consumer confidence rose to a seven-month high this month.
A wave of foreclosures waiting to reach the market means home prices will remain under pressure in 2011, representing a risk to household finances. Rising stock values and an improving job market will probably help offset the damage, ensuring that confidence and spending continue to strengthen.
“It’s going to take a long time for this excess inventory to clear and that means further downward pressure on prices,” said Neil Dutta, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Research in New York. “Consumer confidence has recovered, but it’s not predicting a boom in the economy.”
S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index is due at 9 a.m. New York time.
Economists surveyed projected the gauge declined 0.6% in October from the prior month, when it fell 0.8%. The index was down 29% in September from its July 2006 peak.
Case Shiller Misses Consensus As Home Price Decline Continues For 4th Month
28 December 2010, by Tyler Durden (Zero Hedge)
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/case-shiller-misses-consensus-home-price-decline-continues-4th-month
Excerpt:
From the October print: the October SA Composite 20 came at 143.52%, a decline of 0.99% from September, and just down from a year earlier.
There was a sequential decline in 18 of the 20 MSAs, with just Denver and DC posting an increase.
The biggest drops were in Atlanta (-2.13%), Chicago (-1.80%), and Minneapolis (-1.76%).
The decline was even worse on a non-seasonally adjusted basis, where the sequential decline in the Composite 20 was -1.32%.
As the attached chart demonstrates, the double dip is accelerating, as the sequential drops are increasing in magnitude.
This data flatly continues to refute claims that there is any economic recovery going on, as the primary source of middle class wealth continues to decline in value.
U.S. Property Values Decline More Than Forecast in S&P/Case-Shiller Index
28 December 2010, by Bob Willis (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-28/u-s-property-values-decline-more-than-forecast-in-s-p-case-shiller-index.html
Excerpt:
Home prices dropped more than forecast in October, a sign housing will remain a weak link as the U.S. recovery accelerates into the new year.
The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values fell 0.8% from October 2009, the biggest year-over-year decline since December 2009, the group said today in New York. The decrease exceeded the 0.2% drop projected by the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.
A wave of foreclosures waiting to reach the market means home prices will remain under pressure in 2011, representing a risk to household finances. Federal Reserve policy makers this month said “depressed” housing and high unemployment remained constraints on consumer spending, reasons why they reiterated a plan to expand record monetary stimulus.
“We’ll remain in negative territory for several more months,” said Dean Maki, chief U.S. economist at Barclays Capital Inc. in New York, who forecast a year-on-year drop of 1.3%. “The housing market does remain weak and none of the recent data suggest a substantial pickup.”
After retreating briefly, stock-index futures remained higher after the report as a jump in holiday sales boosted the outlook for consumer spending. The contract on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index maturing in March rose 0.2% to 1,255.5 at 9:23 a.m. in New York. The yield on the benchmark 10-year note rose to 3.36% from 3.33% late yesterday.
Survey Results
The median forecast was based on projections of 17 economists surveyed. Estimates ranged from an increase of 1.4% to a decline of 1.3%. Year-over-year records began in 2001. Prices rose 0.4% in the year ended September.
The gauge fell 1% in October from the prior month after adjusting for seasonal variations, matching September’s drop which was larger than previously estimated. Unadjusted prices decreased 1.3% from the prior month.
Eighteen of 20 cities showed a decrease in prices in October, led by a 2.1% drop in Atlanta, and decreases of 1.8% in Chicago and Minneapolis. Denver and Washington were the only two that posted gains.
Six markets, including Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Seattle, Tampa and Portland, Oregon, reached their lowest levels in October since prices started to retreat.
“The double-dip is almost here,” said David Blitzer, chairman of the index committee at S&P. Sales aren’t “giving any sense of optimism.”
U.S. house prices tumble in October - Prices in six cities move to lowest levels since housing bus
28 December 2010, by Steve Goldstein (MarketWatch)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-house-prices-tumble-in-october-2010-12-28
Excerpt:
Home prices tumbled in October, according to data released Tuesday, with six cities setting new lows as the housing market remains divorced from the upturn seen in other parts of the U.S. economy.
The non-seasonally-adjusted S&P/Case-Shiller 20-city composite home-price index fell 1.3% on a monthly basis and 0.8% on an annual basis in October. Economists polled by Dow Jones Newswires had expected a 0.6% decline in the annual figure.
Prices hadn’t dropped on an annual basis since January and are 29.6% below their peak.
“The double dip is almost here, as six cities set new lows for the period since the 2006 peaks,” said David M. Blitzer, chairman of the index committee at Standard & Poor’s. “There is no good news in October’s report. Home prices across the country continue to fall.”
Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Portland, Seattle and Tampa hit their lowest levels since home prices started to fall in 2006 and 2007.
“The tax incentives are over, and the national economy remained lackluster in October, the month covered by these data. Existing-home sales and housing starts have been reported for both October and November, and neither is giving any sense of optimism,” Blitzer added.
The Case-Shiller report is based on prices over a three-month period, so this report included prices from August, September and October.
Michelle Meyer, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said prices will continue to slide until “reaching a fragile bottom next year.”
Including homes that are in or close to foreclosure, there’s inventory of 7.2 million homes, or roughly 21 months of supply, she said.
Roubini: "It's Pretty Clear The Housing Market Has Already Double Dipped"
29 December 2010, by Tyler Durden (Zero Hedge)
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/roubini-its-pretty-clear-housing-market-has-already-double-dipped
Excerpt:
Hopefully today's 4th consecutive decline in home prices, as per the earlier noted Case Shiller October data (and with both mortgage rates and foreclosure inventory surging, we are willing to bet that following the reported November and December CS data, the decline will be for half a year straight), makes it sufficiently clear that housing has double dipped, and that the primary goal of Bernanke, which is not to pad banker bonuses, but to reflate home prices and recreate that mythical HELOC "fake wealth effect" piggybank, has been a complete failure (he sure is succeeding in getting WTI about to soon hit $100/barrel).
Just in case there are any doubters left, Nouriel Roubini sat down with CNBC's netnet to confirm what virtually everyone else already knows: "It's pretty clear the housing market has already double dipped," per Nouriel, who recently took advantage of the NYC housing downturn and bought a $5.5MM pad.
"And the rate of decline is stronger than in previous months" - precisely what we pointed out a few hours back. In other words, the double dip is accelerating. Today's jump in 10 and 30 Y rates will not help.
Furthermore, another rather obvious observation by Roubini demonstrates precisely why the drop in home prices is just starting to be felt: "The shadow inventory of not-yet-foreclosed homes—due to the moratorium—will surge in the next year." In other words, "Supply will increase, demand will drop."
Also, keeping in mind that there are tens of millions of Americans who are underwater on their mortgages, and thus not incentivized to pay their bills, any ongoing price drops will create a vicious loop whereby more and more people walk away from mortgages, and otherwise stop paying, as a result of which, banks will be forced to REO at least some of these properties (it is well known that banks allow squatters to live under payment delinquency for up to 24 months: where else does America get the money for that 4th Kindle and 2nd iPad?), causing prices to drop even more, and make the Catch 22 even worse.
28 December 2010, by Tyler Durden (Zero Hedge)
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/case-shiller-misses-consensus-home-price-decline-continues-4th-month
Excerpt:
From the October print: the October SA Composite 20 came at 143.52%, a decline of 0.99% from September, and just down from a year earlier.
There was a sequential decline in 18 of the 20 MSAs, with just Denver and DC posting an increase.
The biggest drops were in Atlanta (-2.13%), Chicago (-1.80%), and Minneapolis (-1.76%).
The decline was even worse on a non-seasonally adjusted basis, where the sequential decline in the Composite 20 was -1.32%.
As the attached chart demonstrates, the double dip is accelerating, as the sequential drops are increasing in magnitude.
This data flatly continues to refute claims that there is any economic recovery going on, as the primary source of middle class wealth continues to decline in value.
U.S. Property Values Decline More Than Forecast in S&P/Case-Shiller Index
28 December 2010, by Bob Willis (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-28/u-s-property-values-decline-more-than-forecast-in-s-p-case-shiller-index.html
Excerpt:
Home prices dropped more than forecast in October, a sign housing will remain a weak link as the U.S. recovery accelerates into the new year.
The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values fell 0.8% from October 2009, the biggest year-over-year decline since December 2009, the group said today in New York. The decrease exceeded the 0.2% drop projected by the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.
A wave of foreclosures waiting to reach the market means home prices will remain under pressure in 2011, representing a risk to household finances. Federal Reserve policy makers this month said “depressed” housing and high unemployment remained constraints on consumer spending, reasons why they reiterated a plan to expand record monetary stimulus.
“We’ll remain in negative territory for several more months,” said Dean Maki, chief U.S. economist at Barclays Capital Inc. in New York, who forecast a year-on-year drop of 1.3%. “The housing market does remain weak and none of the recent data suggest a substantial pickup.”
After retreating briefly, stock-index futures remained higher after the report as a jump in holiday sales boosted the outlook for consumer spending. The contract on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index maturing in March rose 0.2% to 1,255.5 at 9:23 a.m. in New York. The yield on the benchmark 10-year note rose to 3.36% from 3.33% late yesterday.
Survey Results
The median forecast was based on projections of 17 economists surveyed. Estimates ranged from an increase of 1.4% to a decline of 1.3%. Year-over-year records began in 2001. Prices rose 0.4% in the year ended September.
The gauge fell 1% in October from the prior month after adjusting for seasonal variations, matching September’s drop which was larger than previously estimated. Unadjusted prices decreased 1.3% from the prior month.
Eighteen of 20 cities showed a decrease in prices in October, led by a 2.1% drop in Atlanta, and decreases of 1.8% in Chicago and Minneapolis. Denver and Washington were the only two that posted gains.
Six markets, including Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Seattle, Tampa and Portland, Oregon, reached their lowest levels in October since prices started to retreat.
“The double-dip is almost here,” said David Blitzer, chairman of the index committee at S&P. Sales aren’t “giving any sense of optimism.”
U.S. house prices tumble in October - Prices in six cities move to lowest levels since housing bus
28 December 2010, by Steve Goldstein (MarketWatch)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-house-prices-tumble-in-october-2010-12-28
Excerpt:
Home prices tumbled in October, according to data released Tuesday, with six cities setting new lows as the housing market remains divorced from the upturn seen in other parts of the U.S. economy.
The non-seasonally-adjusted S&P/Case-Shiller 20-city composite home-price index fell 1.3% on a monthly basis and 0.8% on an annual basis in October. Economists polled by Dow Jones Newswires had expected a 0.6% decline in the annual figure.
Prices hadn’t dropped on an annual basis since January and are 29.6% below their peak.
“The double dip is almost here, as six cities set new lows for the period since the 2006 peaks,” said David M. Blitzer, chairman of the index committee at Standard & Poor’s. “There is no good news in October’s report. Home prices across the country continue to fall.”
Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Portland, Seattle and Tampa hit their lowest levels since home prices started to fall in 2006 and 2007.
“The tax incentives are over, and the national economy remained lackluster in October, the month covered by these data. Existing-home sales and housing starts have been reported for both October and November, and neither is giving any sense of optimism,” Blitzer added.
The Case-Shiller report is based on prices over a three-month period, so this report included prices from August, September and October.
Michelle Meyer, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said prices will continue to slide until “reaching a fragile bottom next year.”
Including homes that are in or close to foreclosure, there’s inventory of 7.2 million homes, or roughly 21 months of supply, she said.
Roubini: "It's Pretty Clear The Housing Market Has Already Double Dipped"
29 December 2010, by Tyler Durden (Zero Hedge)
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/roubini-its-pretty-clear-housing-market-has-already-double-dipped
Excerpt:
Hopefully today's 4th consecutive decline in home prices, as per the earlier noted Case Shiller October data (and with both mortgage rates and foreclosure inventory surging, we are willing to bet that following the reported November and December CS data, the decline will be for half a year straight), makes it sufficiently clear that housing has double dipped, and that the primary goal of Bernanke, which is not to pad banker bonuses, but to reflate home prices and recreate that mythical HELOC "fake wealth effect" piggybank, has been a complete failure (he sure is succeeding in getting WTI about to soon hit $100/barrel).
Just in case there are any doubters left, Nouriel Roubini sat down with CNBC's netnet to confirm what virtually everyone else already knows: "It's pretty clear the housing market has already double dipped," per Nouriel, who recently took advantage of the NYC housing downturn and bought a $5.5MM pad.
"And the rate of decline is stronger than in previous months" - precisely what we pointed out a few hours back. In other words, the double dip is accelerating. Today's jump in 10 and 30 Y rates will not help.
Furthermore, another rather obvious observation by Roubini demonstrates precisely why the drop in home prices is just starting to be felt: "The shadow inventory of not-yet-foreclosed homes—due to the moratorium—will surge in the next year." In other words, "Supply will increase, demand will drop."
Also, keeping in mind that there are tens of millions of Americans who are underwater on their mortgages, and thus not incentivized to pay their bills, any ongoing price drops will create a vicious loop whereby more and more people walk away from mortgages, and otherwise stop paying, as a result of which, banks will be forced to REO at least some of these properties (it is well known that banks allow squatters to live under payment delinquency for up to 24 months: where else does America get the money for that 4th Kindle and 2nd iPad?), causing prices to drop even more, and make the Catch 22 even worse.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Buy Gold Now
Gold hits 3-week high, leads metals higher - Weaker dollar gets factored into move higher for precious metal
28 December 2010, by Deborah Levine (MarketWatch)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gold-tops-1400-other-metals-follow-higher-2010-12-28
Gold futures jumped as much as 1.7% on Tuesday, reclaiming the $1,400-an-ounce level, as the dollar fell against a broad range of currencies.
Copper also touched a new record high.
Gold for February delivery closed at $1,405.60 an ounce, gaining $22.70 — its biggest one-day rise since early November. It touched $1,407.20 on an intraday basis.
Copper for March delivery ended at $4.33 a pound, up 5 cents from Monday.
Also Tuesday, silver for March delivery gained $1.07 to $30.27 an ounce.
Palladium for March delivery added $20.10 to $787.20 an ounce.
The January contract for Platinum rose to $1,751.70 an ounce, up $16.20.
----
Gold hit a record high earlier this year and is up 28% for the year.
Silver — a cheaper alternative to gold — has skyrocketed nearly 77%.
Copper also has appeal as an industrial metal that tends to benefit from global economic growth. It’s gained 29% this year.
28 December 2010, by Deborah Levine (MarketWatch)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gold-tops-1400-other-metals-follow-higher-2010-12-28
Gold futures jumped as much as 1.7% on Tuesday, reclaiming the $1,400-an-ounce level, as the dollar fell against a broad range of currencies.
Copper also touched a new record high.
Gold for February delivery closed at $1,405.60 an ounce, gaining $22.70 — its biggest one-day rise since early November. It touched $1,407.20 on an intraday basis.
Copper for March delivery ended at $4.33 a pound, up 5 cents from Monday.
Also Tuesday, silver for March delivery gained $1.07 to $30.27 an ounce.
Palladium for March delivery added $20.10 to $787.20 an ounce.
The January contract for Platinum rose to $1,751.70 an ounce, up $16.20.
----
Gold hit a record high earlier this year and is up 28% for the year.
Silver — a cheaper alternative to gold — has skyrocketed nearly 77%.
Copper also has appeal as an industrial metal that tends to benefit from global economic growth. It’s gained 29% this year.
Blame The Poor
Blame The Poor For The Crimes Of The Rich
http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/
Subprime Suspects
The right blames the credit crisis on poor minority homeowners. This is not merely offensive, but entirely wrong.
By Daniel Gross
Slate Magazine
Oct. 7, 2008
We've now entered a new stage of the financial crisis: the ritual assigning of blame. It began in earnest with Monday's congressional roasting of Lehman Bros. CEO Richard Fuld and continued on Tuesday with Capitol Hill solons delving into the failure of AIG. On the Republican side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the financial media), and in certain parts of the op-ed-o-sphere, there's a consensus emerging that the whole mess should be laid at the feet of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the failed mortgage giants, and the Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed during the Carter administration. The CRA, which was amended in the 1990s and this decade, requires banks—which had a long, distinguished history of not making loans to minorities—to make more efforts to do so.
The thesis is laid out almost daily on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, in the National Review, and on the campaign trail. John McCain said yesterday, "Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread." Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer provides an excellent example, writing that "much of this crisis was brought upon us by the good intentions of good people." He continues: "For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—which in turn pressured banks and other lenders—to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity." The subtext: If only Congress didn't force banks to lend money to poor minorities, the Dow would be well on its way to 36,000. Or, as Fox Business Channel's Neil Cavuto put it, "I don't remember a clarion call that said: Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster."
Let me get this straight. Investment banks and insurance companies run by centimillionaires blow up, and it's the fault of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and poor minorities?
These arguments are generally made by people who read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and ignore the rest of the paper—economic know-nothings whose opinions are informed mostly by ideology and, occasionally, by prejudice. Let's be honest. Fannie and Freddie, which didn't make subprime loans but did buy subprime loans made by others, were part of the problem. Poor Congressional oversight was part of the problem. Banks that sought to meet CRA requirements by indiscriminately doling out loans to minorities may have been part of the problem. But none of these issues is the cause of the problem. Not by a long shot. From the beginning, subprime has been a symptom, not a cause. And the notion that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for poor lending decisions is absurd.
Here's why.
[Continued…]
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Blaming-The-Poor-For-Wall-by-Bob-Ryley-090523-321.html
Blaming The Poor For Wall Street's Mess: The Game Continues
By Bob Ryley
OpEdNews.com
May 25, 2009
Being a political junkie I'm on a lot of mailing lists. A day hardly passes when my mailbox doesn't contain something "political" from one or more advocacy groups. A recent arrival provides a good example of how the right has a problem sorting out facts from fiction when it comes to factors that caused the current financial crisis.
I received the Spring 2009 issue of Cato's Letter published by the nonprofit organization bearing the same name. Of course, this is a "non-profit" that many "for-profit" capitalists like to support because of their unfettered advocacy of free-market economics, limited to no government intervention in the markets, and some civil liberty advocacy thrown in for window dressing.
The current issue of the newsletter contained an article titled "In Defense of Doing Nothing" by Jeffrey Miron. Jeffrey's Widipedia page tells us that he is an outspoken libertarian, former chairman of the Economics Department at Boston University, and currently a professor at Harvard. Quite impressive.
In his Cato Letter article Jeffrey claims that among many factors leading to the current banking and financial crisis, the primary cause was government programs to encourage new home ownership. Miron discusses what he calls "mild interventions" by government to create more first-time homeowners. Then he delivers the kicker. Here are his own words:
"Over time howerver, these mild interventions began to focus on increased home ownership for lower income households. In the 1990s the Department of Housing and Urban Development ramped up pressure on lenders to support affordable housing. In 2003, accounting scandals at Fannie and Freddie allowed key members of Congress to pressure these institutions into substantial risky mortgage lending.. By 2003-2004, therefore, federal policies were generating strong incentives to extend mortgages to borrowers with poor credit characteristics. Financial institutions responded and created huge quantities of assets based on risky mortgage debt."
This exact quote from Miron's article is a text book example of how the right wing invents a distorted reality and gives it credibility by using a non-profit think tank and the presumed expertise of a professor to make it the commentary of a "expert" in the field. If a Harvard professor said it, it must be true. Harvard professor or not, I think we need to look at some facts.
In his new book "The 86 Biggest Lies on Wall Street" author John Talbott described the 2003 versions of Fannie and Freddie as "over-extended and poorly managed." The worst part of the housing bubble, the part that was created by those "huge quantities of assets based on risky mortgage debt" occurred between 2003 and 2006. Fannie and Freddie were largely on the sidelines during this period. Think about that. During the period when most of the questionable loans were made, Fannie and Freddie were on the sidelines.
Further, those "newly created assets" were actually pieces of paper known as Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs). This is a fancy name for a bundle of sub-prime and other loans packaged up and sold to hungry (some might say greedy) investors looking to rake in big profits. Here's the kicker. According to Talbott, loans backed by Fannie and Freddie were, by definition, not sub-prime because they were basically insured.
More importantly, CDOs were Wall Street's invention pure and simple. No government agency pushed the financial industry to create this tool for speculation. Further, no government institution pressued private bond rating agencies to blindly give their seal of approval to such investments. In this case, Wall Street did it to itself. Unfortunately, they were able to use their influence to send the taxpayers the bill for bailing them out.
When you realize this it becomes clear that Miron's whole thesis is claptrap. The big joke in all this is the notion that Fannie, Freddie and other government institutions were pushed by liberal politicians to make risky loans. In fact, almost the exact opposite was true. Both institutions engaged in heavy lobbying, and made over $150 million in campaign contributions to members of Congress to, as John Talbott suggests, get less, not more, regulation and oversight from the government. The government didn't push Fannie and Freddie to do anything. But the execs of these two private "for profit" companies did use their enormous financial power to keep regulators at bay.
This explains how myths and distortions work their way into daily discourse among pundits and politicians and then work they way down and often become part of the public's perception of "conventional wisdom."
[Continued…]
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25430.htm
Finance 101: Blame the Poor
(While Taking Their Money)
By Gordon Arnaut
Information Clearing House
May 12, 2010
Did you know that the poor (and mostly black) people in the US caused the global financial crisis that threw the world economy into its worst slump since the Great Depression of the 1930’s?
I didn’t know that either, until I heard this news from the US media and popular broadcasters like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
This is how it all happened: Special interest groups representing poor people, minorities, and “socialist” elements in the US government “pressured banks to make loans to people who could not afford them, and then the whole thing melted down…” explains Beck, who has a radio and TV audience of several million viewers and listeners.
Thomas Sowell, a right-wing economist for the Hoover Institution and a writer for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes magazine, says that anti-poverty activists “blocked drive-up lanes and made business impossible for banks until they surrendered to demands that they make billions in loans that they wouldn’t otherwise have made.”
God Bless America. The land where truth and freedom prevails.
The only thing I don’t understand is how these poor, black and Hispanic Americans, whose combined share of the national wealth is less than the personal fortune of a few wealthy individuals at the top of the Forbes list, could possibly have exerted such a disproportionate influence on the nation’s economy.
Statistics from the United Nations tell us that the bottom 40 percent of the population of the United States own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. That is about 120 million people. If each and every one of these individuals “forced” the banks to give them mortgages and loans, and then failed to pay them back, the worst that could happen would be a total national loss of 1 percent of wealth.
Is this what happened? That 120 million poor Americans all simultaneously defaulted on their mortgage and loan payments and the economy collapsed because of a 1 percent decline?
Or perhaps the collapse had more to do with the top 1 percent of Americans who own 38 percent of the national wealth? If we do a bit of simple math we see that a member of that top 1 percent—about 3 million wealthy Americans—owns, on average, about 1,500 times as much as a member of the bottom 120 million Americans. Put another way, about 1,500 poor people share a single piece of pie that one wealthy American has all to himself.
Also curious are numbers on who actually lost the most in this Great Recession. According to a study by a professor at the University of California, the average American household lost an astounding 36 percent of their total wealth. But the top 1 percent households lost only 11 percent. So the net result is that the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was it was before the financial crisis. Maybe the top 1 percent should be thanking the poor black folks for “causing” the financial meltdown.
What we do know for sure is that the US government has given more than a trillion taxpayer dollars to big banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, to prevent them from going under. This has led to huge deficits, which has brought demands from the wealthy that the government cut back on social security and Medicare. So while the bank executives continue to reward themselves with multimillion dollar bonuses at the taxpayer’s expense, poor pensioners—who you will see at the grocery store buying marked-down, half-rotten fruit and vegetables—are asked do get by without their medicines and live on bread and water.
Of course the plight of the poor, the sick and the old is of no concern to the slick business media, with their glossy spreads of the “good life” and fawning write-ups of the business elite whose lifestyles would make Marie Antoinette blush—an army of servants, chauffeurs, pilots, prostitutes, maids, cooks, valets, butlers, masseuses, caddies, surgeons…at their beck and call.
[Continued…]
----------------------------------
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Stewart_ignites_populism_against_CNBC_0305.html
'I find cheap populism oddly arousing' Stewart mocks CNBC
by David Edwards and Rachel Oswald
The Raw Story
March 5, 2009
Daily Show host Jon Stewart took aim Wednesday at newly minted populist and former derivatives trader Rick Santelli, after he abruptly canceled a guest appearance on his show.
Stewart delighted his audience by running through a stream of bad business predictions by Santelli’s own network, CNBC.
Santelli recently garnered conservative applause for a televised rant against President Obama’s proposal to help homeowners in danger of loosing their homes through foreclosure.
“Yea, man, Wall Street is mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore, unless by it you mean $2 trillion dollars in their own bailout money. That they will take,” Stewart sarcastically opined.
Stewart then got his audience riled up over calls for Santelli to come on his show.
“How many people would have liked to see Santelli come on this program?,” called Stewart to rousing cheers from the audience. “Are you listening Rick Santelli?"
Joked Stewart, “I have to say I find cheap populism oddly arousing.”
“So to all you dumb-ass homeowners out there who let your optimism and bad judgment blind you to accepting money that was offered to you by banks – educate yourselves,” Stewart said, in a mockery of comments made by Santelli.
Stewart followed this statement with scenes of some choice reporting by CNBC where commentators and reporters were shown to be heralding the strength of banks like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch not long before they went under and predicting the rebounding of the financial markets last year, though they continued to steadily decline.
“It’s not rocket science homeowners. It’s apparently alchemy,” Stewart said. “You just had to tune into CNBC shows.”
[Continued...]
---------------------------------------
Santelli's "televised rant" was quite revealing, and not just for what it said, but for what it conveniently omitted. This becomes obvious when one considers a few basic facts.
Take the issue of subprime mortgages. How large was the subprime mortgage bubble before the financial meltdown of 2008?
While searching for the answer to that question, I consistently found information such as the following:
"Total subprime mortgage debt outstanding is about $1.3 trillion." -- http://www.cavinessfinancial.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=1
"Although subprime and other risky mortgages were relatively rare before the mid-1990s, their use increased dramatically during the subsequent decade. In 2001, newly originated subprime, Alt-A, and home equity lines (second mortgages or "seconds") totaled $330 billion and amounted to 15 percent of all new residential mortgages. Just three years later, in 2004, these mortgages accounted for almost $1.1 trillion in new loans and 37 percent of residential mortgages. Their volume peaked in 2006 when they reached $1.4 trillion and 48 percent of new residential mortgages." -- http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/bg2127.cfm
Now, if, as some keep insisisting, the financial crisis is entirely (or at least primarily) the fault of subprime mortgages, then how does one explain this?
---------------------------------------
http://www.infowars.com/cost-of-bailout-hits-a-whopping-24-trillion-dollars/
Cost Of Bailout Hits A Whopping $24 Trillion Dollars
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, July 20, 2009
According to the watchdog overseeing the federal government’s financial bailout program, the full exposure since 2007 amounts to a whopping $23.7 trillion dollars, or $80,000 for every American citizen.
The last time we were able to get a measure of the total cost of the bailout, it stood at around $8.5 trillion dollars. Eight months down the line and that figure has almost tripled.
The $23.7 trillion figure comprises “about 50 initiatives and programs set up by the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve,” according to the Associated Press.
[Continued...]
---------------------------------------
If the subprime mortgage bubble was never any higher than $1.4 trillion, then why is the cost of the "bailout" so much higher?
Could it be that certain people don't want us asking that question, since an honest search for the true answer inevitably brings one face-to-face with the derivatives bubble?
And could it also be that the reason these same people consistently refuse to even mention the word "derivatives" is that derivatives are entirely the creation of Wall Street casino gamblers, and so cannot be attributed to any of the unwise borrowing decisions that cash-strapped wage-earners may have made -- and are thus of no public relations value to those intent on scapegoating the poor for the crimes of the rich?
Read the following and decide for yourself:
---------------------------------------
IT’S THE DERIVATIVES, STUPID!
WHY FANNIE, FREDDIE AND AIG ALL HAD TO BE BAILED OUT
Ellen Brown, September 18, 2008
www.webofdebt.com/articles/its_the_derivatives.php
“I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men.”
– Sir Isaac Newton, after losing a fortune in the South Sea bubble
Something extraordinary is going on with these government bailouts. In March 2008, the Federal Reserve extended a $55 billion loan to JPMorgan to “rescue” investment bank Bear Stearns from bankruptcy, a highly controversial move that tested the limits of the Federal Reserve Act. On September 7, 2008, the U.S. government seized private mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and imposed a conservatorship, a form of bankruptcy; but rather than let the bankruptcy court sort out the assets among the claimants, the Treasury extended an unlimited credit line to the insolvent corporations and said it would exercise its authority to buy their stock, effectively nationalizing them. Now the Federal Reserve has announced that it is giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG), the world’s largest insurance company, in exchange for a nearly 80% stake in the insurer . . . .
The Fed is buying an insurance company? Where exactly is that covered in the Federal Reserve Act? The Associated Press calls it a “government takeover,” but this is not your ordinary “nationalization” like the purchase of Fannie/Freddie stock by the U.S. Treasury. The Federal Reserve has the power to print the national money supply, but it is not actually a part of the U.S. government. It is a private banking corporation owned by a consortium of private banks. The banking industry just bought the world’s largest insurance company, and they used federal money to do it. Yahoo Finance reported on September 17:
Treasury bills are the I.O.U.s of the federal government. We the taxpayers are on the hook for the Fed’s “enhanced liquidity facilities,” meaning the loans it has been making to everyone in sight, bank or non-bank, exercising obscure provisions in the Federal Reserve Act that may or may not say they can do it. What’s going on here? Why not let the free market work? Bankruptcy courts know how to sort out assets and reorganize companies so they can operate again. Why the extraordinary measures for Fannie, Freddie and AIG?
The answer may have less to do with saving the insurance business, the housing market, or the Chinese investors clamoring for a bailout than with the greatest Ponzi scheme in history, one that is holding up the entire private global banking system. What had to be saved at all costs was not housing or the dollar but the financial derivatives industry; and the precipice from which it had to be saved was an “event of default” that could have collapsed a quadrillion dollar derivatives bubble, a collapse that could take the entire global banking system down with it.
The Anatomy of a Bubble
Until recently, most people had never even heard of derivatives; but in terms of money traded, these investments represent the biggest financial market in the world. Derivatives are financial instruments that have no intrinsic value but derive their value from something else. Basically, they are just bets. You can “hedge your bet” that something you own will go up by placing a side bet that it will go down. “Hedge funds” hedge bets in the derivatives market. Bets can be placed on anything, from the price of tea in China to the movements of specific markets.
“The point everyone misses,” wrote economist Robert Chapman a decade ago, “is that buying derivatives is not investing. It is gambling, insurance and high stakes bookmaking. Derivatives create nothing.” They not only create nothing, but they serve to enrich non-producers at the expense of the people who do create real goods and services. In congressional hearings in the early 1990s, derivatives trading was challenged as being an illegal form of gambling. But the practice was legitimized by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who not only lent legal and regulatory support to the trade but actively promoted derivatives as a way to improve “risk management.” Partly, this was to boost the flagging profits of the banks; and at the larger banks and dealers, it worked. But the cost was an increase in risk to the financial system as a whole.
Since then, derivative trades have grown exponentially, until now they are larger than the entire global economy. The Bank for International Settlements recently reported that total derivatives trades exceeded one quadrillion dollars – that’s 1,000 trillion dollars. How is that figure even possible? The gross domestic product of all the countries in the world is only about 60 trillion dollars. The answer is that gamblers can bet as much as they want. They can bet money they don’t have, and that is where the huge increase in risk comes in.
Credit default swaps (CDS) are the most widely traded form of credit derivative. CDS are bets between two parties on whether or not a company will default on its bonds. In a typical default swap, the “protection buyer” gets a large payoff from the “protection seller” if the company defaults within a certain period of time, while the “protection seller” collects periodic payments from the “protection buyer” for assuming the risk of default. CDS thus resemble insurance policies, but there is no requirement to actually hold any asset or suffer any loss, so CDS are widely used just to increase profits by gambling on market changes. In one blogger’s example, a hedge fund could sit back and collect $320,000 a year in premiums just for selling “protection” on a risky BBB junk bond. The premiums are “free” money – free until the bond actually goes into default, when the hedge fund could be on the hook for $100 million in claims.
And there’s the catch: what if the hedge fund doesn’t have the $100 million? The fund’s corporate shell or limited partnership is put into bankruptcy; but both parties are claiming the derivative as an asset on their books, which they now have to write down. Players who have “hedged their bets” by betting both ways cannot collect on their winning bets; and that means they cannot afford to pay their losing bets, causing other players to also default on their bets.
The dominos go down in a cascade of cross-defaults that infects the whole banking industry and jeopardizes the global pyramid scheme. The potential for this sort of nuclear reaction was what prompted billionaire investor Warren Buffett to call derivatives “weapons of financial mass destruction.” It is also why the banking system cannot let a major derivatives player go down, and it is the banking system that calls the shots. The Federal Reserve is literally owned by a conglomerate of banks; and Hank Paulson, who heads the U.S. Treasury, entered that position through the revolving door of investment bank Goldman Sachs, where he was formerly CEO.
[Continued...]
---------------------------------------
http://www.thestate.com/2010/02/23/1170297/bauer-not-only-american-blaming.html
Bauer not only American blaming the poor
Economic downturn makes middle class less generous
By ALFRED LUBRANO
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Feb. 23, 2010
Last month, S.C. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said that when the government helps the poor, it's like people feeding stray animals that continually "breed."
And this month, Colorado state legislator Spencer Swalm said poor people in single-family homes are "dysfunctional."
Both statements riled some Americans from the Piedmont to the Rockies and underscored a widely held belief: In tough times, people are tough on the poor.
In an April 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center in Washington, 72 percent agreed with the statement that "poor people have become too dependent on government assistance programs." That's up from 69 percent in 2007.
"It's easier to send money to Haiti because you don't have to relate to them directly," said Mariana Chilton, a professor of public health at Drexel University.
The economic downturn has made the middle class less generous, said Guy Molyneux, a partner at Hart Research Associates, a Washington firm that researches attitudes toward the poor.
"People are less supportive of the government helping the poor, because they feel they're not getting enough help themselves," he said.
Matt Wray, a sociologist at Temple University, said these feelings stem from a new vulnerability: "Hatred of the poor is fueled by the middle class's fear of falling during hard times."
Americans don't understand how the poor are victimized by a lack of jobs, inefficient schools and unsafe neighborhoods, experts say.
"People ignore the structural issues - jobs leaving, industry becoming more mechanized," said Yale sociologist Elijah Anderson. "Then they point to the poor and ask, 'Why aren't you making it?'"
[Continued...]
As I've explained elsewhere, one of the key reasons why ruling-class parasites are having such a ridiculously easy time economically ass-raping the masses is that We the People have yet to unite politically against them.
And one of the key reasons a critical mass of us have yet to unite is that far too many of our fellow citizens are too busy looking down their snooty little noses at whoever happens to be further down the economic ladder than they are at the moment.
For instance, how many times have you heard some blame-the-victim-firster wax self-righteous about what "lazy deadbeats" welfare recipients are -- as if to say that, contrary to reality, there are not far fewer job openings than there are people in need of employment?
Until enough of us stop looking for excuses to blame the victims of economic terrorism instead of the terrorists themselves, it will be business as usual for the parasitic ruling elite, and will consequently be just a matter of time before practically all of us are in a bitter, demoralizing struggle for mere survival, not just the bottom 40%.
-------------------------------
“That’s the way the ruling class operates in any society: they try to divide the rest of the people. They keep the lower and the middle classes fighting with each other, so that they, the rich, can run off with all the f**king money.
"Fairly simple thing; happens to work.
"You know, anything different, that’s what they’re gonna talk about: race, religion, ethic and national backgrounds, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality -- anything they can do [to] keep us fighting with each other, so that they can keep going to the bank."
-------------------------------
If they are the "minority," then the majority are virtually silent by comparison, because in my experience the majority of self-styled "conservatives" and "libertarians" (particularly those who subscribe to the Austrian School of economics) tend to exude just that sort of snooty, aristocratic attitude whenever the issue of poverty amid plenty is brought up.
And here's why:
------------------------------
"In a society where unjust division of wealth gives the fruits of labor to those who do not labor, the classes who control the organs of public education and opinion—the classes to whom the many are accustomed to look for light and leading, must be loath to challenge the primary wrong, whatever it may be. This is inevitable, from the fact that the class of wealth and leisure, and consequently of culture and influence, must be, not the class which loses by the unjust distribution of wealth, but the class which (at least relatively) gains by it.
"Wealth means power and ‘responsibility,’ while poverty means weakness and disrepute. So in such a society the class that leads and is looked up to, while it may be willing to tolerate vague generalities and impracticable proposals, must frown on any attempt to trace social evils to their real cause, since that is the cause that gives their class superiority. On the other hand, the class that suffers by these evils is, on that account, the ignorant and uninfluential class, the class that, from its own consciousness of inferiority, is prone to accept the teachings and imbibe the prejudices of the one above it; while the men of superior ability that arise within it and elbow their way to the front are constantly received into the ranks of the superior class and interested in its service, for this is the class that has rewards to give. Thus it is that social injustice so long endures and is so difficult to make head against.
"Thus it was that in our Southern States while slavery prevailed, the influence, not only of the slaveholders themselves, but of churches and colleges, the professions and the press, condemned so effectually any questioning of slavery, that men who never owned and never expected to own a slave were ready to persecute and ostracize any one who breathed a word against property in flesh and blood—ready, even, when the time came, to go themselves and be shot in defense of the ‘peculiar institution.’
"Thus it was that even slaves believed abolitionists the worst of humankind, and were ready to join in the sport of tarring and feathering one."
------------------------------
"I prefer to be true to myself, even at the
hazard of incurring the ridicule of others,
rather than to be false, and to incur my
own abhorrence." ~Frederick Douglass
http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/
Subprime Suspects
The right blames the credit crisis on poor minority homeowners. This is not merely offensive, but entirely wrong.
By Daniel Gross
Slate Magazine
Oct. 7, 2008
We've now entered a new stage of the financial crisis: the ritual assigning of blame. It began in earnest with Monday's congressional roasting of Lehman Bros. CEO Richard Fuld and continued on Tuesday with Capitol Hill solons delving into the failure of AIG. On the Republican side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the financial media), and in certain parts of the op-ed-o-sphere, there's a consensus emerging that the whole mess should be laid at the feet of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the failed mortgage giants, and the Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed during the Carter administration. The CRA, which was amended in the 1990s and this decade, requires banks—which had a long, distinguished history of not making loans to minorities—to make more efforts to do so.
The thesis is laid out almost daily on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, in the National Review, and on the campaign trail. John McCain said yesterday, "Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread." Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer provides an excellent example, writing that "much of this crisis was brought upon us by the good intentions of good people." He continues: "For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—which in turn pressured banks and other lenders—to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity." The subtext: If only Congress didn't force banks to lend money to poor minorities, the Dow would be well on its way to 36,000. Or, as Fox Business Channel's Neil Cavuto put it, "I don't remember a clarion call that said: Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster."
Let me get this straight. Investment banks and insurance companies run by centimillionaires blow up, and it's the fault of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and poor minorities?
These arguments are generally made by people who read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and ignore the rest of the paper—economic know-nothings whose opinions are informed mostly by ideology and, occasionally, by prejudice. Let's be honest. Fannie and Freddie, which didn't make subprime loans but did buy subprime loans made by others, were part of the problem. Poor Congressional oversight was part of the problem. Banks that sought to meet CRA requirements by indiscriminately doling out loans to minorities may have been part of the problem. But none of these issues is the cause of the problem. Not by a long shot. From the beginning, subprime has been a symptom, not a cause. And the notion that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for poor lending decisions is absurd.
Here's why.
[Continued…]
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Blaming-The-Poor-For-Wall-by-Bob-Ryley-090523-321.html
Blaming The Poor For Wall Street's Mess: The Game Continues
By Bob Ryley
OpEdNews.com
May 25, 2009
Being a political junkie I'm on a lot of mailing lists. A day hardly passes when my mailbox doesn't contain something "political" from one or more advocacy groups. A recent arrival provides a good example of how the right has a problem sorting out facts from fiction when it comes to factors that caused the current financial crisis.
I received the Spring 2009 issue of Cato's Letter published by the nonprofit organization bearing the same name. Of course, this is a "non-profit" that many "for-profit" capitalists like to support because of their unfettered advocacy of free-market economics, limited to no government intervention in the markets, and some civil liberty advocacy thrown in for window dressing.
The current issue of the newsletter contained an article titled "In Defense of Doing Nothing" by Jeffrey Miron. Jeffrey's Widipedia page tells us that he is an outspoken libertarian, former chairman of the Economics Department at Boston University, and currently a professor at Harvard. Quite impressive.
In his Cato Letter article Jeffrey claims that among many factors leading to the current banking and financial crisis, the primary cause was government programs to encourage new home ownership. Miron discusses what he calls "mild interventions" by government to create more first-time homeowners. Then he delivers the kicker. Here are his own words:
"Over time howerver, these mild interventions began to focus on increased home ownership for lower income households. In the 1990s the Department of Housing and Urban Development ramped up pressure on lenders to support affordable housing. In 2003, accounting scandals at Fannie and Freddie allowed key members of Congress to pressure these institutions into substantial risky mortgage lending.. By 2003-2004, therefore, federal policies were generating strong incentives to extend mortgages to borrowers with poor credit characteristics. Financial institutions responded and created huge quantities of assets based on risky mortgage debt."
This exact quote from Miron's article is a text book example of how the right wing invents a distorted reality and gives it credibility by using a non-profit think tank and the presumed expertise of a professor to make it the commentary of a "expert" in the field. If a Harvard professor said it, it must be true. Harvard professor or not, I think we need to look at some facts.
In his new book "The 86 Biggest Lies on Wall Street" author John Talbott described the 2003 versions of Fannie and Freddie as "over-extended and poorly managed." The worst part of the housing bubble, the part that was created by those "huge quantities of assets based on risky mortgage debt" occurred between 2003 and 2006. Fannie and Freddie were largely on the sidelines during this period. Think about that. During the period when most of the questionable loans were made, Fannie and Freddie were on the sidelines.
Further, those "newly created assets" were actually pieces of paper known as Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs). This is a fancy name for a bundle of sub-prime and other loans packaged up and sold to hungry (some might say greedy) investors looking to rake in big profits. Here's the kicker. According to Talbott, loans backed by Fannie and Freddie were, by definition, not sub-prime because they were basically insured.
More importantly, CDOs were Wall Street's invention pure and simple. No government agency pushed the financial industry to create this tool for speculation. Further, no government institution pressued private bond rating agencies to blindly give their seal of approval to such investments. In this case, Wall Street did it to itself. Unfortunately, they were able to use their influence to send the taxpayers the bill for bailing them out.
When you realize this it becomes clear that Miron's whole thesis is claptrap. The big joke in all this is the notion that Fannie, Freddie and other government institutions were pushed by liberal politicians to make risky loans. In fact, almost the exact opposite was true. Both institutions engaged in heavy lobbying, and made over $150 million in campaign contributions to members of Congress to, as John Talbott suggests, get less, not more, regulation and oversight from the government. The government didn't push Fannie and Freddie to do anything. But the execs of these two private "for profit" companies did use their enormous financial power to keep regulators at bay.
This explains how myths and distortions work their way into daily discourse among pundits and politicians and then work they way down and often become part of the public's perception of "conventional wisdom."
[Continued…]
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25430.htm
Finance 101: Blame the Poor
(While Taking Their Money)
By Gordon Arnaut
Information Clearing House
May 12, 2010
Did you know that the poor (and mostly black) people in the US caused the global financial crisis that threw the world economy into its worst slump since the Great Depression of the 1930’s?
I didn’t know that either, until I heard this news from the US media and popular broadcasters like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
This is how it all happened: Special interest groups representing poor people, minorities, and “socialist” elements in the US government “pressured banks to make loans to people who could not afford them, and then the whole thing melted down…” explains Beck, who has a radio and TV audience of several million viewers and listeners.
Thomas Sowell, a right-wing economist for the Hoover Institution and a writer for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes magazine, says that anti-poverty activists “blocked drive-up lanes and made business impossible for banks until they surrendered to demands that they make billions in loans that they wouldn’t otherwise have made.”
God Bless America. The land where truth and freedom prevails.
The only thing I don’t understand is how these poor, black and Hispanic Americans, whose combined share of the national wealth is less than the personal fortune of a few wealthy individuals at the top of the Forbes list, could possibly have exerted such a disproportionate influence on the nation’s economy.
Statistics from the United Nations tell us that the bottom 40 percent of the population of the United States own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. That is about 120 million people. If each and every one of these individuals “forced” the banks to give them mortgages and loans, and then failed to pay them back, the worst that could happen would be a total national loss of 1 percent of wealth.
Is this what happened? That 120 million poor Americans all simultaneously defaulted on their mortgage and loan payments and the economy collapsed because of a 1 percent decline?
Or perhaps the collapse had more to do with the top 1 percent of Americans who own 38 percent of the national wealth? If we do a bit of simple math we see that a member of that top 1 percent—about 3 million wealthy Americans—owns, on average, about 1,500 times as much as a member of the bottom 120 million Americans. Put another way, about 1,500 poor people share a single piece of pie that one wealthy American has all to himself.
Also curious are numbers on who actually lost the most in this Great Recession. According to a study by a professor at the University of California, the average American household lost an astounding 36 percent of their total wealth. But the top 1 percent households lost only 11 percent. So the net result is that the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was it was before the financial crisis. Maybe the top 1 percent should be thanking the poor black folks for “causing” the financial meltdown.
What we do know for sure is that the US government has given more than a trillion taxpayer dollars to big banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, to prevent them from going under. This has led to huge deficits, which has brought demands from the wealthy that the government cut back on social security and Medicare. So while the bank executives continue to reward themselves with multimillion dollar bonuses at the taxpayer’s expense, poor pensioners—who you will see at the grocery store buying marked-down, half-rotten fruit and vegetables—are asked do get by without their medicines and live on bread and water.
Of course the plight of the poor, the sick and the old is of no concern to the slick business media, with their glossy spreads of the “good life” and fawning write-ups of the business elite whose lifestyles would make Marie Antoinette blush—an army of servants, chauffeurs, pilots, prostitutes, maids, cooks, valets, butlers, masseuses, caddies, surgeons…at their beck and call.
[Continued…]
----------------------------------
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Stewart_ignites_populism_against_CNBC_0305.html
'I find cheap populism oddly arousing' Stewart mocks CNBC
by David Edwards and Rachel Oswald
The Raw Story
March 5, 2009
Daily Show host Jon Stewart took aim Wednesday at newly minted populist and former derivatives trader Rick Santelli, after he abruptly canceled a guest appearance on his show.
Stewart delighted his audience by running through a stream of bad business predictions by Santelli’s own network, CNBC.
Santelli recently garnered conservative applause for a televised rant against President Obama’s proposal to help homeowners in danger of loosing their homes through foreclosure.
“Yea, man, Wall Street is mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore, unless by it you mean $2 trillion dollars in their own bailout money. That they will take,” Stewart sarcastically opined.
Stewart then got his audience riled up over calls for Santelli to come on his show.
“How many people would have liked to see Santelli come on this program?,” called Stewart to rousing cheers from the audience. “Are you listening Rick Santelli?"
Joked Stewart, “I have to say I find cheap populism oddly arousing.”
“So to all you dumb-ass homeowners out there who let your optimism and bad judgment blind you to accepting money that was offered to you by banks – educate yourselves,” Stewart said, in a mockery of comments made by Santelli.
Stewart followed this statement with scenes of some choice reporting by CNBC where commentators and reporters were shown to be heralding the strength of banks like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch not long before they went under and predicting the rebounding of the financial markets last year, though they continued to steadily decline.
“It’s not rocket science homeowners. It’s apparently alchemy,” Stewart said. “You just had to tune into CNBC shows.”
[Continued...]
---------------------------------------
Santelli's "televised rant" was quite revealing, and not just for what it said, but for what it conveniently omitted. This becomes obvious when one considers a few basic facts.
Take the issue of subprime mortgages. How large was the subprime mortgage bubble before the financial meltdown of 2008?
While searching for the answer to that question, I consistently found information such as the following:
"Total subprime mortgage debt outstanding is about $1.3 trillion." -- http://www.cavinessfinancial.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=1
"Although subprime and other risky mortgages were relatively rare before the mid-1990s, their use increased dramatically during the subsequent decade. In 2001, newly originated subprime, Alt-A, and home equity lines (second mortgages or "seconds") totaled $330 billion and amounted to 15 percent of all new residential mortgages. Just three years later, in 2004, these mortgages accounted for almost $1.1 trillion in new loans and 37 percent of residential mortgages. Their volume peaked in 2006 when they reached $1.4 trillion and 48 percent of new residential mortgages." -- http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/bg2127.cfm
Now, if, as some keep insisisting, the financial crisis is entirely (or at least primarily) the fault of subprime mortgages, then how does one explain this?
---------------------------------------
http://www.infowars.com/cost-of-bailout-hits-a-whopping-24-trillion-dollars/
Cost Of Bailout Hits A Whopping $24 Trillion Dollars
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, July 20, 2009
According to the watchdog overseeing the federal government’s financial bailout program, the full exposure since 2007 amounts to a whopping $23.7 trillion dollars, or $80,000 for every American citizen.
The last time we were able to get a measure of the total cost of the bailout, it stood at around $8.5 trillion dollars. Eight months down the line and that figure has almost tripled.
The $23.7 trillion figure comprises “about 50 initiatives and programs set up by the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve,” according to the Associated Press.
[Continued...]
---------------------------------------
If the subprime mortgage bubble was never any higher than $1.4 trillion, then why is the cost of the "bailout" so much higher?
Could it be that certain people don't want us asking that question, since an honest search for the true answer inevitably brings one face-to-face with the derivatives bubble?
And could it also be that the reason these same people consistently refuse to even mention the word "derivatives" is that derivatives are entirely the creation of Wall Street casino gamblers, and so cannot be attributed to any of the unwise borrowing decisions that cash-strapped wage-earners may have made -- and are thus of no public relations value to those intent on scapegoating the poor for the crimes of the rich?
Read the following and decide for yourself:
---------------------------------------
IT’S THE DERIVATIVES, STUPID!
WHY FANNIE, FREDDIE AND AIG ALL HAD TO BE BAILED OUT
Ellen Brown, September 18, 2008
www.webofdebt.com/articles/its_the_derivatives.php
“I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men.”
– Sir Isaac Newton, after losing a fortune in the South Sea bubble
Something extraordinary is going on with these government bailouts. In March 2008, the Federal Reserve extended a $55 billion loan to JPMorgan to “rescue” investment bank Bear Stearns from bankruptcy, a highly controversial move that tested the limits of the Federal Reserve Act. On September 7, 2008, the U.S. government seized private mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and imposed a conservatorship, a form of bankruptcy; but rather than let the bankruptcy court sort out the assets among the claimants, the Treasury extended an unlimited credit line to the insolvent corporations and said it would exercise its authority to buy their stock, effectively nationalizing them. Now the Federal Reserve has announced that it is giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG), the world’s largest insurance company, in exchange for a nearly 80% stake in the insurer . . . .
The Fed is buying an insurance company? Where exactly is that covered in the Federal Reserve Act? The Associated Press calls it a “government takeover,” but this is not your ordinary “nationalization” like the purchase of Fannie/Freddie stock by the U.S. Treasury. The Federal Reserve has the power to print the national money supply, but it is not actually a part of the U.S. government. It is a private banking corporation owned by a consortium of private banks. The banking industry just bought the world’s largest insurance company, and they used federal money to do it. Yahoo Finance reported on September 17:
- “The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed’s request. The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed’s use. The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters.”
Treasury bills are the I.O.U.s of the federal government. We the taxpayers are on the hook for the Fed’s “enhanced liquidity facilities,” meaning the loans it has been making to everyone in sight, bank or non-bank, exercising obscure provisions in the Federal Reserve Act that may or may not say they can do it. What’s going on here? Why not let the free market work? Bankruptcy courts know how to sort out assets and reorganize companies so they can operate again. Why the extraordinary measures for Fannie, Freddie and AIG?
The answer may have less to do with saving the insurance business, the housing market, or the Chinese investors clamoring for a bailout than with the greatest Ponzi scheme in history, one that is holding up the entire private global banking system. What had to be saved at all costs was not housing or the dollar but the financial derivatives industry; and the precipice from which it had to be saved was an “event of default” that could have collapsed a quadrillion dollar derivatives bubble, a collapse that could take the entire global banking system down with it.
The Anatomy of a Bubble
Until recently, most people had never even heard of derivatives; but in terms of money traded, these investments represent the biggest financial market in the world. Derivatives are financial instruments that have no intrinsic value but derive their value from something else. Basically, they are just bets. You can “hedge your bet” that something you own will go up by placing a side bet that it will go down. “Hedge funds” hedge bets in the derivatives market. Bets can be placed on anything, from the price of tea in China to the movements of specific markets.
“The point everyone misses,” wrote economist Robert Chapman a decade ago, “is that buying derivatives is not investing. It is gambling, insurance and high stakes bookmaking. Derivatives create nothing.” They not only create nothing, but they serve to enrich non-producers at the expense of the people who do create real goods and services. In congressional hearings in the early 1990s, derivatives trading was challenged as being an illegal form of gambling. But the practice was legitimized by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who not only lent legal and regulatory support to the trade but actively promoted derivatives as a way to improve “risk management.” Partly, this was to boost the flagging profits of the banks; and at the larger banks and dealers, it worked. But the cost was an increase in risk to the financial system as a whole.
Since then, derivative trades have grown exponentially, until now they are larger than the entire global economy. The Bank for International Settlements recently reported that total derivatives trades exceeded one quadrillion dollars – that’s 1,000 trillion dollars. How is that figure even possible? The gross domestic product of all the countries in the world is only about 60 trillion dollars. The answer is that gamblers can bet as much as they want. They can bet money they don’t have, and that is where the huge increase in risk comes in.
Credit default swaps (CDS) are the most widely traded form of credit derivative. CDS are bets between two parties on whether or not a company will default on its bonds. In a typical default swap, the “protection buyer” gets a large payoff from the “protection seller” if the company defaults within a certain period of time, while the “protection seller” collects periodic payments from the “protection buyer” for assuming the risk of default. CDS thus resemble insurance policies, but there is no requirement to actually hold any asset or suffer any loss, so CDS are widely used just to increase profits by gambling on market changes. In one blogger’s example, a hedge fund could sit back and collect $320,000 a year in premiums just for selling “protection” on a risky BBB junk bond. The premiums are “free” money – free until the bond actually goes into default, when the hedge fund could be on the hook for $100 million in claims.
And there’s the catch: what if the hedge fund doesn’t have the $100 million? The fund’s corporate shell or limited partnership is put into bankruptcy; but both parties are claiming the derivative as an asset on their books, which they now have to write down. Players who have “hedged their bets” by betting both ways cannot collect on their winning bets; and that means they cannot afford to pay their losing bets, causing other players to also default on their bets.
The dominos go down in a cascade of cross-defaults that infects the whole banking industry and jeopardizes the global pyramid scheme. The potential for this sort of nuclear reaction was what prompted billionaire investor Warren Buffett to call derivatives “weapons of financial mass destruction.” It is also why the banking system cannot let a major derivatives player go down, and it is the banking system that calls the shots. The Federal Reserve is literally owned by a conglomerate of banks; and Hank Paulson, who heads the U.S. Treasury, entered that position through the revolving door of investment bank Goldman Sachs, where he was formerly CEO.
[Continued...]
---------------------------------------
http://www.thestate.com/2010/02/23/1170297/bauer-not-only-american-blaming.html
Bauer not only American blaming the poor
Economic downturn makes middle class less generous
By ALFRED LUBRANO
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Feb. 23, 2010
Last month, S.C. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said that when the government helps the poor, it's like people feeding stray animals that continually "breed."
And this month, Colorado state legislator Spencer Swalm said poor people in single-family homes are "dysfunctional."
Both statements riled some Americans from the Piedmont to the Rockies and underscored a widely held belief: In tough times, people are tough on the poor.
In an April 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center in Washington, 72 percent agreed with the statement that "poor people have become too dependent on government assistance programs." That's up from 69 percent in 2007.
"It's easier to send money to Haiti because you don't have to relate to them directly," said Mariana Chilton, a professor of public health at Drexel University.
The economic downturn has made the middle class less generous, said Guy Molyneux, a partner at Hart Research Associates, a Washington firm that researches attitudes toward the poor.
"People are less supportive of the government helping the poor, because they feel they're not getting enough help themselves," he said.
Matt Wray, a sociologist at Temple University, said these feelings stem from a new vulnerability: "Hatred of the poor is fueled by the middle class's fear of falling during hard times."
Americans don't understand how the poor are victimized by a lack of jobs, inefficient schools and unsafe neighborhoods, experts say.
"People ignore the structural issues - jobs leaving, industry becoming more mechanized," said Yale sociologist Elijah Anderson. "Then they point to the poor and ask, 'Why aren't you making it?'"
[Continued...]
And so the fight between the middle class and the poor over what little crumbs the bankers left now begins.
As I've explained elsewhere, one of the key reasons why ruling-class parasites are having such a ridiculously easy time economically ass-raping the masses is that We the People have yet to unite politically against them.
And one of the key reasons a critical mass of us have yet to unite is that far too many of our fellow citizens are too busy looking down their snooty little noses at whoever happens to be further down the economic ladder than they are at the moment.
For instance, how many times have you heard some blame-the-victim-firster wax self-righteous about what "lazy deadbeats" welfare recipients are -- as if to say that, contrary to reality, there are not far fewer job openings than there are people in need of employment?
Until enough of us stop looking for excuses to blame the victims of economic terrorism instead of the terrorists themselves, it will be business as usual for the parasitic ruling elite, and will consequently be just a matter of time before practically all of us are in a bitter, demoralizing struggle for mere survival, not just the bottom 40%.
-------------------------------
“That’s the way the ruling class operates in any society: they try to divide the rest of the people. They keep the lower and the middle classes fighting with each other, so that they, the rich, can run off with all the f**king money.
"Fairly simple thing; happens to work.
"You know, anything different, that’s what they’re gonna talk about: race, religion, ethic and national backgrounds, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality -- anything they can do [to] keep us fighting with each other, so that they can keep going to the bank."
-------------------------------
Yeah, I am a libertarian, always have been. And I hear it all the time from those who really do not truly understand the philosophy. This kind of stuff and even modern eugenics arguments. They do not realize they are playing right into the divide and conquer pysops. I am hoping that they remain a minority within those who think they are on the right.
If they are the "minority," then the majority are virtually silent by comparison, because in my experience the majority of self-styled "conservatives" and "libertarians" (particularly those who subscribe to the Austrian School of economics) tend to exude just that sort of snooty, aristocratic attitude whenever the issue of poverty amid plenty is brought up.
And here's why:
------------------------------
"In a society where unjust division of wealth gives the fruits of labor to those who do not labor, the classes who control the organs of public education and opinion—the classes to whom the many are accustomed to look for light and leading, must be loath to challenge the primary wrong, whatever it may be. This is inevitable, from the fact that the class of wealth and leisure, and consequently of culture and influence, must be, not the class which loses by the unjust distribution of wealth, but the class which (at least relatively) gains by it.
"Wealth means power and ‘responsibility,’ while poverty means weakness and disrepute. So in such a society the class that leads and is looked up to, while it may be willing to tolerate vague generalities and impracticable proposals, must frown on any attempt to trace social evils to their real cause, since that is the cause that gives their class superiority. On the other hand, the class that suffers by these evils is, on that account, the ignorant and uninfluential class, the class that, from its own consciousness of inferiority, is prone to accept the teachings and imbibe the prejudices of the one above it; while the men of superior ability that arise within it and elbow their way to the front are constantly received into the ranks of the superior class and interested in its service, for this is the class that has rewards to give. Thus it is that social injustice so long endures and is so difficult to make head against.
"Thus it was that in our Southern States while slavery prevailed, the influence, not only of the slaveholders themselves, but of churches and colleges, the professions and the press, condemned so effectually any questioning of slavery, that men who never owned and never expected to own a slave were ready to persecute and ostracize any one who breathed a word against property in flesh and blood—ready, even, when the time came, to go themselves and be shot in defense of the ‘peculiar institution.’
"Thus it was that even slaves believed abolitionists the worst of humankind, and were ready to join in the sport of tarring and feathering one."
-- Henry George, Protection or Free Trade, pp. 294-6
------------------------------
"I prefer to be true to myself, even at the
hazard of incurring the ridicule of others,
rather than to be false, and to incur my
own abhorrence." ~Frederick Douglass
NYC Councilman Wants Flouride Removed From Water
Vallone may have other aspirations (mayor?) as he chooses this as a platform, but it is a challenging one and I am glad that at least one of the local politicians initiated this, now it will proliferate and gain momentum.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/12/28/2010-12-28_city_pol_wants_remove_fluoride_from_new_yorks_drinking_water_citing_safety_conce.html?r=ny_local
Four decades after New York started adding fluoride to its water, a city councilman armed with new research is launching a campaign to stop the practice.
"This amounts to forced medication by the government," said Councilman Peter Vallone (D-Queens), who plans to introduce fluoride-removal legislation at the next Council meeting. "What's next? They decide we're depressed and add Prozac to our drinking water?"
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hails the addition of fluoride to drinking water as one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century - helping to drastically reduce tooth decay, especially in people with limited access to a dentist.
The CDC touts research showing fluoride is safe at the low levels added to city water systems.
A full 72% of Americans drink water fortified with the natural mineral.
"The bottom line is that we don't have any concern [about fluoride's safety]," said Linda Orgain, a CDC specialist.
But critics are troubled by new studies that suggest consuming too much fluoride can weaken teeth and bones. A recent study in China even suggested that exposure to high levels of fluoride can diminish children's intelligence.
Such studies prompted a panel of scientists convened by the National Academy of Sciences to recommend in 2006 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lower the amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water from the currently permitted level of 4 milligrams per liter.
New York's water has about 1 milligram per liter - a level most scientists consider safe.
"There is broad scientific consensus that the addition of fluoride to drinking water at optimal levels has significant oral health benefits and has no adverse health impacts," a Health Department spokeswoman said.
The city spends roughly $7 million a year adding fluoride to its water, but the Health Department believes taxpayers save millions more with improved dental health.
Safety isn't the only factor the city should consider, said John Doull, the University of Kansas emeritus professor of toxicology who was chairman of the National Academy of Sciences panel.
More people have access to fluoride from toothpaste and other sources today than they did in 1965, when the city started adding the mineral to our water, he said.
"It's been a long time since we've looked with scientific accuracy at whether this is still a public health benefit," Doull said. "There's no great evidence that it's producing harm [at low levels], but the question is: Does it really improve public health?"
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/12/28/2010-12-28_city_pol_wants_remove_fluoride_from_new_yorks_drinking_water_citing_safety_conce.html?r=ny_local
Four decades after New York started adding fluoride to its water, a city councilman armed with new research is launching a campaign to stop the practice.
"This amounts to forced medication by the government," said Councilman Peter Vallone (D-Queens), who plans to introduce fluoride-removal legislation at the next Council meeting. "What's next? They decide we're depressed and add Prozac to our drinking water?"
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hails the addition of fluoride to drinking water as one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century - helping to drastically reduce tooth decay, especially in people with limited access to a dentist.
The CDC touts research showing fluoride is safe at the low levels added to city water systems.
A full 72% of Americans drink water fortified with the natural mineral.
"The bottom line is that we don't have any concern [about fluoride's safety]," said Linda Orgain, a CDC specialist.
But critics are troubled by new studies that suggest consuming too much fluoride can weaken teeth and bones. A recent study in China even suggested that exposure to high levels of fluoride can diminish children's intelligence.
Such studies prompted a panel of scientists convened by the National Academy of Sciences to recommend in 2006 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lower the amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water from the currently permitted level of 4 milligrams per liter.
New York's water has about 1 milligram per liter - a level most scientists consider safe.
"There is broad scientific consensus that the addition of fluoride to drinking water at optimal levels has significant oral health benefits and has no adverse health impacts," a Health Department spokeswoman said.
The city spends roughly $7 million a year adding fluoride to its water, but the Health Department believes taxpayers save millions more with improved dental health.
Safety isn't the only factor the city should consider, said John Doull, the University of Kansas emeritus professor of toxicology who was chairman of the National Academy of Sciences panel.
More people have access to fluoride from toothpaste and other sources today than they did in 1965, when the city started adding the mineral to our water, he said.
"It's been a long time since we've looked with scientific accuracy at whether this is still a public health benefit," Doull said. "There's no great evidence that it's producing harm [at low levels], but the question is: Does it really improve public health?"
Wikileaks Reporters Assassanated
Wikileaks reporters investigating Obama's birthplace of Kenya were assassinated
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-people-affiliated-organization-assassinated/
By David Edwards
Tuesday, December 21st, 2010 -- 1:04 pm
Update (12/28/2010): Assange may have been referring to two WikiLeaks writers that were assassinated in Kenya last year. In early March 2009, WikiLeaks reported that two of their writers had been killed while doing research in Kenya. "On Thursday afternoon March 5, Oscar Kamau Kingara, director of the Kenyan based Oscar legal aid Foundation, and its programme coordinator, John Paul Oulo, were shot at close range in their car less than a mile from President Kibaki's residence," a statement from WikiLeaks said. The Oscar foundation had documented 6,452 "enforced disappearances" by Kenyan police and 1,721 extrajudicial killings. "The Oscar Foundation vehicle was blocked by a minibus and a Mitsubishi Pajero vehicle, both of which had been following them along State house road. Several men were in the two vehicles," according to the statement. "Two men got out, approached the vehicle of Oscar Kamau Kingara and John Paul Oulu, and shot them through the windows at close range. According to eyewitnesses, the driver of the minibus was in police uniform whilst the other men were wearing suits. The closest eyewitness to the incident was shot in the leg and later taken away by policemen."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-people-affiliated-organization-assassinated/
By David Edwards
Tuesday, December 21st, 2010 -- 1:04 pm
Update (12/28/2010): Assange may have been referring to two WikiLeaks writers that were assassinated in Kenya last year. In early March 2009, WikiLeaks reported that two of their writers had been killed while doing research in Kenya. "On Thursday afternoon March 5, Oscar Kamau Kingara, director of the Kenyan based Oscar legal aid Foundation, and its programme coordinator, John Paul Oulo, were shot at close range in their car less than a mile from President Kibaki's residence," a statement from WikiLeaks said. The Oscar foundation had documented 6,452 "enforced disappearances" by Kenyan police and 1,721 extrajudicial killings. "The Oscar Foundation vehicle was blocked by a minibus and a Mitsubishi Pajero vehicle, both of which had been following them along State house road. Several men were in the two vehicles," according to the statement. "Two men got out, approached the vehicle of Oscar Kamau Kingara and John Paul Oulu, and shot them through the windows at close range. According to eyewitnesses, the driver of the minibus was in police uniform whilst the other men were wearing suits. The closest eyewitness to the incident was shot in the leg and later taken away by policemen."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)