That is where the Federal Reserve finds itself these days. It is a tightrope walk for sure. On the one side, they continue to inflate the money supply at an almost double-digit rate. On the other side, they continue to slowly increase short-term interest rates. Both of these actions work against each other. Increasing the money supply works through the economy and causes the price of goods and services to rise. Increasing interest rates makes borrowing more expensive and slows down business.
Here is their problem. They depend on Americans spending money to keep the economy moving forward. Our economy is powered right now by spending. The Fed's hope is that at some point American businesses will turn around and start contributing more to the economy allowing the consumer to catch their breath. American business is caught between a rock and a hard place. All of the things needed to conduct business are increasing in price, in some cases by double digits, but with the competition from overseas, it is nearly impossible to raise prices.
This puts a pinch on profits, which puts a pinch on earnings, and we all know what happens if earnings fall. Stock prices fall. So what is a company to do? They do what everyone else is doing, they outsource to low-cost countries such as India and China. This allows them to trim costs in one area, labor, while absorbing the increased costs of materials. It has worked but for how long?
As long as the world continues to have faith in the dollar, things will pretty much stay the present course. And faith is all there is to our dollar. There is nothing of value backing it. Not since 1971 when Nixon closed the gold window. Faith is an interesting thing. It can get you through tough times but it can also turn on a dime. The smallest slip can cause faith to falter and believe me, when it falters, it will come completely apart. It will not unravel here in the US. It will start overseas. Governments will start moving out of the dollar slowly so as to not cause alarm. After all, they want to get most of their money out of the dollar before it crashes. This move has already started.
It starts as a trickle and then some slight slip of the tongue by one of our leaders will crack the dam and the trickle will become a flood. Only then will Americans become aware of the problem. After all, we believe everything our news media tells us. The economy is strong, the recovery is stronger. It is only when the flood of dollars washes ashore that we will begin to wake up and realize that things are not as we were told. Don't try going to the bank. The Federal Reserve has lowered the bank's reserve requirements to below 2%. Not much chance that you or I will get our money out. It would be far better to have a little cash stashed around the house. Maybe some gold and silver coins, just in case.
Everything is moving in slow motion. It has to. Move too fast on the edge of a razor and you will slice yourself wide open. That is the Fed's fear.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Weapons of Mass Financial Destruction
As you recall, I discussed the first shot fired against Iran back in January. It was not a conventional blast. It was a weapon of mass financial destruction. It occurred when Swiss banks notified Iran that they would no longer do business with Iran. Even though it did not make a great deal of noise, it was powerful just the same. It forces Iran to take action. Action that could result in a conventional attack against Iran or Syria or both in the near future.
Now in the last week we read of more WOMFD going off around the world. These attacks however were fired against the US. In the last month China and Russia have diversified their reserves by purchasing Euros. Last week Venezuela and Cuba diversified their reserves into Euros. Last week Iran and Syria totally converted their reserves to Euros. For these two countries, this was not a diversification, but a total conversion to Euros.
This is exactly the same thing that Iraq did just before the US bombed Iraq. Now you may say that Iran and Syria would be stupid to do such a thing, but the reality is, they were forced into it by the previous bomb dropped by the Swiss, with Bush's blessing I'm sure. Don't think for a moment that Bush does not understand the ramifications of his actions. He knows full well what is happening.
This is a high-stakes, politically charged game we are playing now. It has the potential to draw many countries into the conflict. It also has the potential for devastating our fragile economy. Stay tuned, the year is just getting started.
Now in the last week we read of more WOMFD going off around the world. These attacks however were fired against the US. In the last month China and Russia have diversified their reserves by purchasing Euros. Last week Venezuela and Cuba diversified their reserves into Euros. Last week Iran and Syria totally converted their reserves to Euros. For these two countries, this was not a diversification, but a total conversion to Euros.
This is exactly the same thing that Iraq did just before the US bombed Iraq. Now you may say that Iran and Syria would be stupid to do such a thing, but the reality is, they were forced into it by the previous bomb dropped by the Swiss, with Bush's blessing I'm sure. Don't think for a moment that Bush does not understand the ramifications of his actions. He knows full well what is happening.
This is a high-stakes, politically charged game we are playing now. It has the potential to draw many countries into the conflict. It also has the potential for devastating our fragile economy. Stay tuned, the year is just getting started.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
The End of the Dollar
Yesterday on C-Span Representative Ron Paul from Texas spoke about the coming end of the domination of the U.S. dollar in world markets.
It was all about what we have been discussing here at the Armchair Economist. Basically, he told the congress that the wars we have been fighting are not so much about terrorism as they are about regime change. The US intends to maintain its position of supremacy in the world, both militarily as well as economically. In order to maintain that position, the rest of the world has to agree to take dollars in trade for natural resources. It is the only way we can continue to live beyond our means.
When a country threatens to switch to another currency, lets say Euros, it could weaken the dollar and cause major problems for the US. Iraq threatened to start accepting Euros for oil before Gulf War II and look what happened. We accused them of sponsoring terrorism. We somehow linked them to the events of 9/11. Something we now know was not true. We accused them of trying to purchase materials to build weapons of mass destruction. We now know that those documents were false. And we attacked Iraq and removed Saddam from power.
Fast forward to today. Iran is getting ready to open a world oil market where anyone can buy and sell oil in Euros. The propaganda machine is in full swing, making Iran out to be the next evil country that is in need of a regime change.
Mr. Paul then explains for all of us why this continues today. We have a military machine that is unmatched and we are not afraid to use it to get our way. These countries that have an abundance of natural resources do not dare to make us mad by accepting another currency. They know what we will do to them.
Ron Paul sees all of this military action as a way to keep the game going. Recent comments by Donald Rumsfeld about the "war on terror" being a long war would seem to support that viewpoint.
We have been a part of a grand experiment for the last 35 years. It started in 1971 when Richard Nixon closed the gold window and allowed the dollar to float. At that point in time, the dollar became nothing more than a piece of paper. It has no intrinsic value. Prior to 1971 any country in the world could present dollars to the US and demand gold in exchange. At the rate of $35 per ounce. When a country prints extra money and sends it around the world to pay for things like cars and oil, the gold supply can quickly be depleted. So we closed the window and the rest, as they say, is history.
At some point in the near future, this experiment will come to an end. It always has in the past and it will here in the US. When it does, the countries of the world will stop accepting dollars for the goods we buy. They will demand hard currency and we will be up to our chins in dollar bills and have no where to spend them.
Representative Paul hopes that this happens sooner rather than later because the longer it continues; the worse it will be for us. Just like a party, the longer the booze lasts, the worse the hangover the next morning.
We, my friends, are in for a whale of a hangover.
It was all about what we have been discussing here at the Armchair Economist. Basically, he told the congress that the wars we have been fighting are not so much about terrorism as they are about regime change. The US intends to maintain its position of supremacy in the world, both militarily as well as economically. In order to maintain that position, the rest of the world has to agree to take dollars in trade for natural resources. It is the only way we can continue to live beyond our means.
When a country threatens to switch to another currency, lets say Euros, it could weaken the dollar and cause major problems for the US. Iraq threatened to start accepting Euros for oil before Gulf War II and look what happened. We accused them of sponsoring terrorism. We somehow linked them to the events of 9/11. Something we now know was not true. We accused them of trying to purchase materials to build weapons of mass destruction. We now know that those documents were false. And we attacked Iraq and removed Saddam from power.
Fast forward to today. Iran is getting ready to open a world oil market where anyone can buy and sell oil in Euros. The propaganda machine is in full swing, making Iran out to be the next evil country that is in need of a regime change.
Mr. Paul then explains for all of us why this continues today. We have a military machine that is unmatched and we are not afraid to use it to get our way. These countries that have an abundance of natural resources do not dare to make us mad by accepting another currency. They know what we will do to them.
Ron Paul sees all of this military action as a way to keep the game going. Recent comments by Donald Rumsfeld about the "war on terror" being a long war would seem to support that viewpoint.
We have been a part of a grand experiment for the last 35 years. It started in 1971 when Richard Nixon closed the gold window and allowed the dollar to float. At that point in time, the dollar became nothing more than a piece of paper. It has no intrinsic value. Prior to 1971 any country in the world could present dollars to the US and demand gold in exchange. At the rate of $35 per ounce. When a country prints extra money and sends it around the world to pay for things like cars and oil, the gold supply can quickly be depleted. So we closed the window and the rest, as they say, is history.
At some point in the near future, this experiment will come to an end. It always has in the past and it will here in the US. When it does, the countries of the world will stop accepting dollars for the goods we buy. They will demand hard currency and we will be up to our chins in dollar bills and have no where to spend them.
Representative Paul hopes that this happens sooner rather than later because the longer it continues; the worse it will be for us. Just like a party, the longer the booze lasts, the worse the hangover the next morning.
We, my friends, are in for a whale of a hangover.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
The News Trickle Will Soon Become a Flood
Back at the end of January, I wrote about what I believed to be the first shot fired in the war with Iran. It was a little covered story about Swiss banks refusing to do business with Iran. While it seems a minor thing, it is major in how it impacts Iran's finances.
As I wrote back then, it could be the opening shot in a war that is just getting started and will no doubt grow. While the media is making a big deal about Iran lately, no one has mentioned too much about the military options. I of course mentioned that I believe Iran to be one of the possible tipping points of 2006.
Now today I read from no less than three newsletter writers that things are heating up over there and all three writers are concerned about impending military action. They must read my blog.
Here are the news items. Iran has announced that they have started their nuclear accelerators. These large pieces of equipment are used to enrich uranium. Enriched uranium is needed for fuel and bombs. Most of the media are announcing that it will take Iran ten years to build a bomb. As a result of this thoughtful analysis, they see no need to talk war just yet.
Let me ask the question, how long did it take the U.S. to build the bomb during WWII? Ten years? Nope, four years. And that from scratch, with no knowledge of how to build a bomb or if it was even possible. Iran not only has the nuclear engineers that have the knowledge and blueprints for such bombs, but they have the accelerators as well. Ten years? Try two months, tops.
When you factor in Iran's comments regarding Israel, you just add fuel to the fire. Israel is surrounded by millions of Arabs who would like nothing better than to destroy them. I can imagine that Israel feels backed into a corner, or more accurately the ocean. They will not allow Iran to build a bomb. Period.
Today, Syria, who by the way has a mutual defense treaty with Iran, has announced that they will begin using the Euro instead of the dollar for all international trade. Couple this with the much anticipated opening of the Euro denominated oil bourse in Iran and you now have our leaders stressing over the insolence of these renegade countries. How dare them openly defy the most powerful country on earth?
Get the picture? We are now nearing a point of no return. A point where negotiation will no longer be possible. Rumor has it that the U.S. has been planning for military action for several months now, just in case.
One writer predicts the bombs to start falling before the end of March. Another says the end of August. Me? I have no way of knowing. But I think that when it happens, it will wreak havoc on the world economy. This tipping points has now moved up to occupy the number one spot on my list. Get your financial house in order.
As I wrote back then, it could be the opening shot in a war that is just getting started and will no doubt grow. While the media is making a big deal about Iran lately, no one has mentioned too much about the military options. I of course mentioned that I believe Iran to be one of the possible tipping points of 2006.
Now today I read from no less than three newsletter writers that things are heating up over there and all three writers are concerned about impending military action. They must read my blog.
Here are the news items. Iran has announced that they have started their nuclear accelerators. These large pieces of equipment are used to enrich uranium. Enriched uranium is needed for fuel and bombs. Most of the media are announcing that it will take Iran ten years to build a bomb. As a result of this thoughtful analysis, they see no need to talk war just yet.
Let me ask the question, how long did it take the U.S. to build the bomb during WWII? Ten years? Nope, four years. And that from scratch, with no knowledge of how to build a bomb or if it was even possible. Iran not only has the nuclear engineers that have the knowledge and blueprints for such bombs, but they have the accelerators as well. Ten years? Try two months, tops.
When you factor in Iran's comments regarding Israel, you just add fuel to the fire. Israel is surrounded by millions of Arabs who would like nothing better than to destroy them. I can imagine that Israel feels backed into a corner, or more accurately the ocean. They will not allow Iran to build a bomb. Period.
Today, Syria, who by the way has a mutual defense treaty with Iran, has announced that they will begin using the Euro instead of the dollar for all international trade. Couple this with the much anticipated opening of the Euro denominated oil bourse in Iran and you now have our leaders stressing over the insolence of these renegade countries. How dare them openly defy the most powerful country on earth?
Get the picture? We are now nearing a point of no return. A point where negotiation will no longer be possible. Rumor has it that the U.S. has been planning for military action for several months now, just in case.
One writer predicts the bombs to start falling before the end of March. Another says the end of August. Me? I have no way of knowing. But I think that when it happens, it will wreak havoc on the world economy. This tipping points has now moved up to occupy the number one spot on my list. Get your financial house in order.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Not a Job to be Found
Unless you like flipping burgers.
You may remember my comments last Thursday regarding the president's remarks about our reduced number of scientists and mathematicians. If you recall, I suggested that we let the market determine our need for such individuals. Seems logical enough. Today I have posted an article written by Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan.
The bottom line, there are not enough jobs to employ our college grads. In fact he goes on to say the Bureau of Labor Statistics is massaging the numbers. Something that I have believed for a long time. Consider this, how can you have a decline in hiring and a decline in the unemployment rate? That is what happened last month. The answer is that the BLS does not count those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. These folks are still unemployed just not counted any longer. Get the picture? According to Roberts the unemployment rate may be as high as 8.5% right now. Read and enjoy.
Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics re-benchmarked the payroll jobs data back to 2000. Thanks to Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services, I have the adjusted data from January 2001 through January 2006. If you are worried about terrorists, you don't know what worry is.
Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. That's one good reason for controlling immigration. An economy that cannot keep up with population growth should not be boosting population with heavy rates of legal and illegal immigration.
Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities--primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.
US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.
The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy that is "the envy of the world." Communications equipment lost 43% of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its workforce. The workforce in computers and electronic products declined30%. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees. The workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%. Furniture and related products lost 17% of its jobs. Apparel manufacturers lost almost half of the work force. Employment in textile mills declined 43%. Paper and paper products lost one-fifth of its jobs. The work force in plastics and rubber products declined by 15%. Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.
The knowledge jobs that were supposed to take the place of lost manufacturing jobs in the globalized "new economy" never appeared. The information sector lost 17% of its jobs, with the telecommunications work force declining by 25%. Even wholesale and retail trade lost jobs. Despite massive new accounting burdens imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley, accounting and bookkeeping employment shrank by 4%. Computer systems design and related lost 9% of its jobs. Today there are 209,000 fewer managerial and supervisory jobs than 5 years ago.
In five years the US economy only created 70,000 jobs in architecture and engineering, many of which are clerical. Little wonder engineering enrollments are shrinking. There are no jobs for graduates. The talk about engineering shortages is absolute ignorance. There are several hundred thousand American engineers who are unemployed and have been for years. No student wants a degree that is nothing but a ticket to a soup line. Many engineers have written to me that they cannot even get Wal-Mart jobs because their education makes them over-qualified.
Offshore outsourcing and offshore production have left the US awash with unemployment among the highly educated. The low measured rate of unemployment does not include discouraged workers. Labor arbitrage has made the unemployment rate less and less a meaningful indicator. In the past unemployment resulted mainly from turnover in the labor force and recession. Recoveries pulled people back into jobs.
Unemployment benefits were intended to help people over the down time in the cycle when workers were laid off. Today the unemployment is permanent as entire occupations and industries are wiped out by labor arbitrage as corporations replace their American employees with foreign ones.
Economists who look beyond political press releases estimate the US unemployment rate to be between 7% and 8.5%. There are now hundreds of thousands of Americans who will never recover their investment in their university education.
Unless the BLS is falsifying the data or businesses are reporting the opposite of the facts, the US is experiencing a job depression. Most economists refuse to acknowledge the facts, because they endorsed globalization. It was a win-win situation, they said.
They were wrong.
At a time when America desperately needs the voices of educated people as a counterweight to the disinformation that emanates from the Bush administration and its supporters, economists have discredited themselves. This is especially true for "free market economists" whofoolishly assumed that international labor arbitrage was an example of free trade that was benefitting Americans. Where is the benefit when employment in US export industries and import-competitive industries is shrinking? After decades of struggle to regain credibility, free market economics is on the verge of another wipeout.
No sane economist can possibly maintain that a deplorable record of merely 1,054,000 net new private sector jobs over five years is an indication of a healthy economy. The total number of private sector jobs created over the five year period is 500,000 jobs less than one year's legal and illegal immigration! (In a December 2005 Center for Immigration Studies report based on the Census Bureau's March 2005 Current Population Survey, Steven Camarota writes that there were 7,9 million new immigrants between January 2000 and March 2005.)
The economics profession has failed America. It touts a meaningless number while joblessness soars. Lazy journalists at the New York Times simply rewrite the Bush administration's press releases.
On February 10 the Commerce Department released a record US trade deficit in goods and services for 2005--$726 billion. The US deficit in Advanced Technology Products reached a new high. Offshore production for home markets and jobs outsourcing has made the US highly dependent on foreign provided goods and services, while simultaneously reducing the export capability of the US economy. It is possible that there might be no exchange rate at which the US can balance its trade.
Polls indicate that the Bush administration is succeeding in whipping up fear and hysteria about Iran. The secretary of defense is promising Americans decades-long war. Is death in battle Bush's solution to the job depression? WillAsians finance a decades-long war for a bankrupt country?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
Now you may ask yourself. Why would the government lie to us? Well, they understand what you and I now understand, that the actions of people control the economy. Not some government agency manipulating the currency. When you and I decide that it makes more sense to stop spending, pay down debts, and save some money, the markets will roll over and die. Because the markets are made up of people, just like you and I.
You may remember my comments last Thursday regarding the president's remarks about our reduced number of scientists and mathematicians. If you recall, I suggested that we let the market determine our need for such individuals. Seems logical enough. Today I have posted an article written by Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan.
The bottom line, there are not enough jobs to employ our college grads. In fact he goes on to say the Bureau of Labor Statistics is massaging the numbers. Something that I have believed for a long time. Consider this, how can you have a decline in hiring and a decline in the unemployment rate? That is what happened last month. The answer is that the BLS does not count those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. These folks are still unemployed just not counted any longer. Get the picture? According to Roberts the unemployment rate may be as high as 8.5% right now. Read and enjoy.
Forget Iran, Americans Should Be Hysterical About This
By Paul Craig Roberts 2-12-6
By Paul Craig Roberts 2-12-6
Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics re-benchmarked the payroll jobs data back to 2000. Thanks to Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services, I have the adjusted data from January 2001 through January 2006. If you are worried about terrorists, you don't know what worry is.
Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. That's one good reason for controlling immigration. An economy that cannot keep up with population growth should not be boosting population with heavy rates of legal and illegal immigration.
Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities--primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.
US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.
The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy that is "the envy of the world." Communications equipment lost 43% of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its workforce. The workforce in computers and electronic products declined30%. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees. The workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%. Furniture and related products lost 17% of its jobs. Apparel manufacturers lost almost half of the work force. Employment in textile mills declined 43%. Paper and paper products lost one-fifth of its jobs. The work force in plastics and rubber products declined by 15%. Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.
The knowledge jobs that were supposed to take the place of lost manufacturing jobs in the globalized "new economy" never appeared. The information sector lost 17% of its jobs, with the telecommunications work force declining by 25%. Even wholesale and retail trade lost jobs. Despite massive new accounting burdens imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley, accounting and bookkeeping employment shrank by 4%. Computer systems design and related lost 9% of its jobs. Today there are 209,000 fewer managerial and supervisory jobs than 5 years ago.
In five years the US economy only created 70,000 jobs in architecture and engineering, many of which are clerical. Little wonder engineering enrollments are shrinking. There are no jobs for graduates. The talk about engineering shortages is absolute ignorance. There are several hundred thousand American engineers who are unemployed and have been for years. No student wants a degree that is nothing but a ticket to a soup line. Many engineers have written to me that they cannot even get Wal-Mart jobs because their education makes them over-qualified.
Offshore outsourcing and offshore production have left the US awash with unemployment among the highly educated. The low measured rate of unemployment does not include discouraged workers. Labor arbitrage has made the unemployment rate less and less a meaningful indicator. In the past unemployment resulted mainly from turnover in the labor force and recession. Recoveries pulled people back into jobs.
Unemployment benefits were intended to help people over the down time in the cycle when workers were laid off. Today the unemployment is permanent as entire occupations and industries are wiped out by labor arbitrage as corporations replace their American employees with foreign ones.
Economists who look beyond political press releases estimate the US unemployment rate to be between 7% and 8.5%. There are now hundreds of thousands of Americans who will never recover their investment in their university education.
Unless the BLS is falsifying the data or businesses are reporting the opposite of the facts, the US is experiencing a job depression. Most economists refuse to acknowledge the facts, because they endorsed globalization. It was a win-win situation, they said.
They were wrong.
At a time when America desperately needs the voices of educated people as a counterweight to the disinformation that emanates from the Bush administration and its supporters, economists have discredited themselves. This is especially true for "free market economists" whofoolishly assumed that international labor arbitrage was an example of free trade that was benefitting Americans. Where is the benefit when employment in US export industries and import-competitive industries is shrinking? After decades of struggle to regain credibility, free market economics is on the verge of another wipeout.
No sane economist can possibly maintain that a deplorable record of merely 1,054,000 net new private sector jobs over five years is an indication of a healthy economy. The total number of private sector jobs created over the five year period is 500,000 jobs less than one year's legal and illegal immigration! (In a December 2005 Center for Immigration Studies report based on the Census Bureau's March 2005 Current Population Survey, Steven Camarota writes that there were 7,9 million new immigrants between January 2000 and March 2005.)
The economics profession has failed America. It touts a meaningless number while joblessness soars. Lazy journalists at the New York Times simply rewrite the Bush administration's press releases.
On February 10 the Commerce Department released a record US trade deficit in goods and services for 2005--$726 billion. The US deficit in Advanced Technology Products reached a new high. Offshore production for home markets and jobs outsourcing has made the US highly dependent on foreign provided goods and services, while simultaneously reducing the export capability of the US economy. It is possible that there might be no exchange rate at which the US can balance its trade.
Polls indicate that the Bush administration is succeeding in whipping up fear and hysteria about Iran. The secretary of defense is promising Americans decades-long war. Is death in battle Bush's solution to the job depression? WillAsians finance a decades-long war for a bankrupt country?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
Now you may ask yourself. Why would the government lie to us? Well, they understand what you and I now understand, that the actions of people control the economy. Not some government agency manipulating the currency. When you and I decide that it makes more sense to stop spending, pay down debts, and save some money, the markets will roll over and die. Because the markets are made up of people, just like you and I.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
The One Big Thing in Economic Theory
It does not matter which economic theory you subscribe to, well actually in the long run it does, but that is another topic for another time. All economic theory rests on this one principle.
People, this includes you and I deliberately undertake specific actions with the goal of making their situations, at least as they see them, better than they were previously. Think about that for a minute. We go to work in the morning. Why? To make money so that we can improve our lot in life. We go back to school, not just for fun, but to get ahead.
The study of economics is the study of human nature. I bet you never learned that in school. By starting with this principle in mind, it becomes a little easier to see why people behave the way they do in various situations. It also allows us to understand a little better how certain economic actions bring about certain results.
Lets take for example a comment made by the president in his State of the Union Address. Bush said that we are falling behind in the areas of math and science. His plan calls for government funding to encourage more students to choose one of these two career paths. Once again we see that the government believes that they have the best answer to solve a problem that may or may not exist.
Lets apply the above principle to this problem. Our sons and daughters make decisions based on the idea that those decisions will in some way better their lives. It may only look better to them. Value after all is subjective not objective. One of the big motivators in choosing a career path is money. The better a career pays, the more students choose the career. After all, more money means a higher standard of living, right?
If we look at good paying jobs we can see where students are going: law, $109,478; business, $79,931; biological and biomedical sciences, $63,988; mathematics, $61,761. What determines those salaries? Market demand. Plain and simple. The more demand we have for lawyers, and believe me there is demand for more lawyers, then the higher they are paid. Why do doctors make so much? Our education system restricts the number of students allowed in the medical programs. In other words, our medical schools are creating the shortage of doctors in order to keep incomes high.
What kind of demand do we currently have for mathematicians and scientists? Not much. There just aren't that many openings in business and industry. Most people in these professions end up teaching. And why do we have such low salaries in the teaching fields? All together class, high supply of teachers. Very good.
So the president wants to spend money to encourage students to pursue a career in math or science so we will have even more people in these fields and no jobs for them. Salaries will drop even more and fewer students will choose those fields of study. A vicious circle it seems.
So what is a government to do? I have a simple suggestion. Why don't we let the free market determine the number of scientists and mathematicians we graduate? As demand rises, salaries will increase and the number of graduates will increase until we reach equilibrium. It is a wonder system if we would just let it work.
Isn't economics wonderful?
People, this includes you and I deliberately undertake specific actions with the goal of making their situations, at least as they see them, better than they were previously. Think about that for a minute. We go to work in the morning. Why? To make money so that we can improve our lot in life. We go back to school, not just for fun, but to get ahead.
The study of economics is the study of human nature. I bet you never learned that in school. By starting with this principle in mind, it becomes a little easier to see why people behave the way they do in various situations. It also allows us to understand a little better how certain economic actions bring about certain results.
Lets take for example a comment made by the president in his State of the Union Address. Bush said that we are falling behind in the areas of math and science. His plan calls for government funding to encourage more students to choose one of these two career paths. Once again we see that the government believes that they have the best answer to solve a problem that may or may not exist.
Lets apply the above principle to this problem. Our sons and daughters make decisions based on the idea that those decisions will in some way better their lives. It may only look better to them. Value after all is subjective not objective. One of the big motivators in choosing a career path is money. The better a career pays, the more students choose the career. After all, more money means a higher standard of living, right?
If we look at good paying jobs we can see where students are going: law, $109,478; business, $79,931; biological and biomedical sciences, $63,988; mathematics, $61,761. What determines those salaries? Market demand. Plain and simple. The more demand we have for lawyers, and believe me there is demand for more lawyers, then the higher they are paid. Why do doctors make so much? Our education system restricts the number of students allowed in the medical programs. In other words, our medical schools are creating the shortage of doctors in order to keep incomes high.
What kind of demand do we currently have for mathematicians and scientists? Not much. There just aren't that many openings in business and industry. Most people in these professions end up teaching. And why do we have such low salaries in the teaching fields? All together class, high supply of teachers. Very good.
So the president wants to spend money to encourage students to pursue a career in math or science so we will have even more people in these fields and no jobs for them. Salaries will drop even more and fewer students will choose those fields of study. A vicious circle it seems.
So what is a government to do? I have a simple suggestion. Why don't we let the free market determine the number of scientists and mathematicians we graduate? As demand rises, salaries will increase and the number of graduates will increase until we reach equilibrium. It is a wonder system if we would just let it work.
Isn't economics wonderful?
Monday, February 06, 2006
When the Optimists Become Pessimists
First, let me start off by saying if you are truly interested in managing your own money, and I believe you should be, you have to do some reading. I do tons of it, not only because it helps to create a better picture of what is going on In the investment world, but because I enjoy reading.
For me, reading is a way to learn, to increase knowledge. Since elementary school I have been an avid reader of mostly non-fiction books. In fact I remember one teacher made me select a fiction book as part of my book report assignment in an attempt to "broaden" my horizons.
Today I do enjoy reading an occasional fiction book, but the majority of my reading continues to be non-fiction.
For those of us who care deeply about our money and the protection of our assets, reading takes on an even greater role. It is how we discover trends and techniques to increase our returns while protecting our assets.
A key part in developing a list of resources to read involves reading material that you may not agree with. Writers who come from the other side of the investment fence still provide some interesting, thought provoking material. It is this material that allows us to maintain balance. If all we ever read focused on our narrow views of the world, we would never see the changes coming. We would believe our viewpoint to be the only view and thus lose some valuable insight into what others are seeing and doing.
With that said, I read from several authors who I do not always agree with and I believe that it results in a more rounded world view and better investment decisions. One such author is John Mauldin. Visit him here at Thoughts From the Frontline. John is decidedly optimistic in his opinions regarding the economy. About the most negative view his has ever taken when it comes to his predictions is his "Muddle Through Economy" comments. He believes that things will not be tremendous but that we will get by.
He has remarkably good insights and he reads even more than I do, so his newsletter is a must read every week. I am in good company as his newsletter boasts 1.5 million subscribers now.
I bring John up today, not for the shameless plug for his newsletter, as he is not even aware that I exist, but rather because last Friday John made what I believe to be an important statement in the second paragraph of his newsletter. He says "that it is high time for you to start thinking about taking a defensive posture on your stock market investments." That is about the most negative comment I have read in the six or seven years that I have been following him.
If you have read any of my past posts here, you will know that I have been recommending such a position for quite a while. My hope is that you will take my warnings a little more seriously. When a mainstream optimist becomes a pessimist, it begs consideration.
Using our Risk Adjusted Asset Management System (RAAMS) we have been positioned defensively with only minor adjustments since October of 2000. The results, 162% over the past five years, indicate that our system works and works quite well. If Mr. Mauldin's warning becomes reality, we are set to see wonderful gains this year, while protecting our investments. To receive a free report about our soon to be released RAAMS version 3.0, click the link below right now.
Click here and receive your free report immediately without any delay.
For me, reading is a way to learn, to increase knowledge. Since elementary school I have been an avid reader of mostly non-fiction books. In fact I remember one teacher made me select a fiction book as part of my book report assignment in an attempt to "broaden" my horizons.
Today I do enjoy reading an occasional fiction book, but the majority of my reading continues to be non-fiction.
For those of us who care deeply about our money and the protection of our assets, reading takes on an even greater role. It is how we discover trends and techniques to increase our returns while protecting our assets.
A key part in developing a list of resources to read involves reading material that you may not agree with. Writers who come from the other side of the investment fence still provide some interesting, thought provoking material. It is this material that allows us to maintain balance. If all we ever read focused on our narrow views of the world, we would never see the changes coming. We would believe our viewpoint to be the only view and thus lose some valuable insight into what others are seeing and doing.
With that said, I read from several authors who I do not always agree with and I believe that it results in a more rounded world view and better investment decisions. One such author is John Mauldin. Visit him here at Thoughts From the Frontline. John is decidedly optimistic in his opinions regarding the economy. About the most negative view his has ever taken when it comes to his predictions is his "Muddle Through Economy" comments. He believes that things will not be tremendous but that we will get by.
He has remarkably good insights and he reads even more than I do, so his newsletter is a must read every week. I am in good company as his newsletter boasts 1.5 million subscribers now.
I bring John up today, not for the shameless plug for his newsletter, as he is not even aware that I exist, but rather because last Friday John made what I believe to be an important statement in the second paragraph of his newsletter. He says "that it is high time for you to start thinking about taking a defensive posture on your stock market investments." That is about the most negative comment I have read in the six or seven years that I have been following him.
If you have read any of my past posts here, you will know that I have been recommending such a position for quite a while. My hope is that you will take my warnings a little more seriously. When a mainstream optimist becomes a pessimist, it begs consideration.
Using our Risk Adjusted Asset Management System (RAAMS) we have been positioned defensively with only minor adjustments since October of 2000. The results, 162% over the past five years, indicate that our system works and works quite well. If Mr. Mauldin's warning becomes reality, we are set to see wonderful gains this year, while protecting our investments. To receive a free report about our soon to be released RAAMS version 3.0, click the link below right now.
Click here and receive your free report immediately without any delay.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Bad News Friday
You may recall that I have written about concerns over the 9/11 terrorist attacks. One article asked about the passenger lists and how our government was able to identify the 19 hijackers even though none of the names appeared on any of the manifests.
Another article, a research paper, by a professor in Utah questioned the accepted theory that all three towers fell as a result of the two plane impacts. Of course, I questioned why none of this has made the major news. Today, I read two articles about questions being raised by well-known scientists about the validity of the findings by the 9/11 commission. Sorry to lay this heavy news on you on a Friday, but we do not make up the news, we only write about it as it shows up.
There is also a couple of books out that I have not read but apparently make very strong cases in support of the findings of these scientists. I post both articles here for you convenience.
My concern is similar to one of the authors. This new evidence points to a conclusion that is almost too horrible to even consider. That our government would either plan and carry out such an event, or allow it to happen is incomprehensible. In fact Mr. Strieber's article says that if this new information turns out to be true, the next terrorist attack could mark the end of our democracy and the beginning of a dictatorship. He concludes that we are headed down the same road as Rome and Germany. Both empires ended rather badly as you might recall from your high school history class. If this should come to pass, all bets are off with regard to managing your investments and planning for retirement.
Talk about a new possible tipping point. This one qualifies. Watch to see if these articles are picked up by the major news outlets in the days to come.
Was 911 a Hoax?02-Feb-2006
I have always been concerned about what really happened on September 11, 2001, but I have also always thought that the attacks were the result of a combination of determined action on the part of terrorists and official incompetence. I did not really believe that they might have actually been orchestrated by our own government. Indeed, such a thought, in itself, seemed almost treasonous to me. I am a political moderate, but I am also a strong patriot. I don't believe in condoning anti-government activity in time of war unless it is warranted by fact.
However, a story appeared on Yahoo News on January 30 that has shocked me deeply. (To read it click here. (See below) If you read this more than 6 months after January 30, 2006 and the link no longer works, please search the Yahoo News archive, or search on PR Web.)
I don't want to believe that our leaders did this to us, that they are responsible for killing thousands of Americans in the interest of restoring the president's then abysmal popularity ratings and enabling them to end many of our freedoms, but a growing number of distinguished academics and scientists do think so, and that has me deeply, deeply worried.
This worry does not end with 911. There is so much wrong that it staggers the mind. In fact, it looks very much like the United States of America is well on its way to becoming a dictatorship. By that I mean that its established institutions will no longer be robust enough to protect the rights they promise its citizens.
On Monday, the story I have linked to above was published on Yahoo News. It's easy to say that the academics involved are just a bunch of liberals, but that simply isn't the case. Some are lefties, but they are mostly political moderates. They have been radicalized by what they have discovered. They are not really promoting a political agenda, but rather demanding an investigation of what increasingly seems to have been not simply official incompetence that led to mass murder, but an actual offical locomotion behind this murder.
That there was official incompetence is now generally accepted. That was even the conclusion of the 911 Commission. But this goes beyond that.
My initial reaction was that the whole business of accusing government officials of orchestrating the attacks was conspiracy theory nonsense. Then I watched "911 in Plane Sight" and I wondered. I liked the way the author of the DVD, Dave von Kleist, asked questions without drawing what seemed to me to be unwarranted conclusions. Then David Ray Griffin came along. I saw him on C-Span, and he seemed quite rational and his research was careful.
I interviewed him on Dreamland. I must add here that the fact that I interview somebody on my radio program doesn't mean that I endorse them. A lot of people get that wrong. It means that I think they're interesting, nothing more. I'm always open and encouraging with them. I conceal my opinions. My program is not about my opinions, it is about my guests' information, and I am often the only interviewer they get who has read their books and/or thought about their work carefully enough to ask them questions that enable them to express their ideas.
Griffin was a very convincing interview. He had done his homework. His book is carefully annotated, with every claim supported by careful documentation.
Frankly, I was appalled at what I read and heard from this man. I found it difficult to believe that he wasn't right. The thought flickered into my mind that I might live in a country run by a bunch of mass murderers.
Which I rejected. Not on rational grounds, on emotional ones. I guess my feeling is that if the light goes out in the United States, maybe mankind is a failed species. It's that large an issue, and if our leaders did indeed cause this catastrophe in order to juice their popularity ratings and cement themselves in power, that is a tragedy of historic proportions. Along with the collapse of the Roman republic and the transformation of Weimar Germany into the Nazi dictatorship, it is one of the great subversions of an institutional republic.
Other media are just now reacting to the Yahoo article. They are as stunned as I am. Robert Steinback, writing in the Miami Herald, puts it very well:
"The reflexive first reaction is incredulity -- how, one asks, could anyone even contemplate, never mind actually do such a barbaric thing? But before you shut your mind, check the resumés -- these aren't Generation X geeks subsisting on potato chips and PlayStation. Then look at the case they present."
The case is indeed a powerful one. It is, largely, not a political case or a case based on conspiracy theories. It could best be described as an engineering-based case. This is what makes it so terrifyingly convincing. These men know how structures work, and they are becoming convinced that these structures--the World Trade Center and the Pentagon--were not destroyed and damged in the ways the government has claimed. They are making an argument that the World Trade Center was, in fact, demolished, and that this was done with thousands of living human beings inside, without regard for their lives.
Immediately after 911, I posted a journal entry complaining that the FBI had failed so profoundly to protect us in this case that its failure was indistinguishable from treason. Now I think that it may have BEEN treason. And this treason may not have involved only the FBI.
I base this not only on the well-publicized investigatory failures of that agency, but also on the way another matter was handled by the administration. This was the fact, that emerged during the 911 hearings, that Condoleeza Rice, in her role as National Security Adviser, had received no fewer than 11 specific warnings from the Federal Aviation Administration that terrorists might use aircraft to strike the World Trade Center.
The fact that she had received this information was held classified prior to the election--illegally classified, incidentally--and only released afterward. Ms. Rice sat before 911 Commission and said that she and her colleagues were completely surprised by the attack.
Frankly, if they were surprised, then there must be some other presence within the government that is able to project its power without the leadership knowing, and is willing to use mass muder as a means of doing so.
I don't believe that. I believe that we need further investigation of 911 and the possible official role in it. In a couple of weeks, Jim Marrs and I are going to interview Webster Tarpley, who wrote 911: Synthetic Terror. I am not going to say what my opinion is of Mr. Tarpley's book. As I stated before, that's not what Dreamland is about. What I am going to do, though, is give him a chance to really air his ideas. As radical as they once appeared, it now seems that they deserve careful attention.
Something that now worries me terribly--in fact, keeps me awake at night--is fear that has arisen from the most recent Osama Bin Laden tape. In it, he states that there is shortly going to be another attack on the United States. He also goes on to condone a book by a liberal author critical of the Bush Administration.
This tape was immediately "validated" by the CIA. Gone was the long period of investigation and the hedging that came from CIA when George Tenet was director. Now, under Porter Goss, confirmation is immediate.
And yet, serious and competent researchers have cast doubt on the authenticity of this tape. So much so that the president has even spoken out against them.
Given what is emerging about 911, what are we to believe? The administration has reached another nadir of unpopularity, one even deeper than the one it was in before 911. However, if there is another terrorist attack at this point, it is going to be blamed, not honored with the support of a shocked nation.
So what would motivate it to orchestrate another attack, if indeed it orchestrated the first one? It knows that what few supporters it has left would abandon it if this was done. Homeland Security would be painted as another FEMA-style farce. Beyond being impeached, the president might literally be run out of town on a rail.
However, it could be that the attack will be so appalling that the administration will, quite simply, end the republic altogether and commence frank dictatorial rule.
If such an attack happens, there seems a distinct possibility that it will have been either officially inspired, actually orchestrated by a government run amok, or allowed to happen. Even if the terrorists are real and they are indeed responsible for such an attack, it wll represent a failure of government so profound that we will need the administration to resign. There will have to be a special election, or a special convention of the Electoral College to choose new leadership.
However, that's not what will happen. If there is an attack, the country will be battened down tight by the administration. It will become a dictatorship, and will remain so until the terrorists are defeated.
But they will never be defeated.
And then:
Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
Mon Jan 30, 11:37 AM ET
Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.
They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."
They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.
They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.
If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.
They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expected from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.
Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.
They have found the government's own investigiation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.
They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.
Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:
*In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?
* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?
* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?
* Since the melting point of steel isabout 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
* Flight 77,which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?
* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?
* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?
* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?
* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?
Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.
These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."
# # #
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA James Fetzer 218 724-2706 E-mail Information
Another article, a research paper, by a professor in Utah questioned the accepted theory that all three towers fell as a result of the two plane impacts. Of course, I questioned why none of this has made the major news. Today, I read two articles about questions being raised by well-known scientists about the validity of the findings by the 9/11 commission. Sorry to lay this heavy news on you on a Friday, but we do not make up the news, we only write about it as it shows up.
There is also a couple of books out that I have not read but apparently make very strong cases in support of the findings of these scientists. I post both articles here for you convenience.
My concern is similar to one of the authors. This new evidence points to a conclusion that is almost too horrible to even consider. That our government would either plan and carry out such an event, or allow it to happen is incomprehensible. In fact Mr. Strieber's article says that if this new information turns out to be true, the next terrorist attack could mark the end of our democracy and the beginning of a dictatorship. He concludes that we are headed down the same road as Rome and Germany. Both empires ended rather badly as you might recall from your high school history class. If this should come to pass, all bets are off with regard to managing your investments and planning for retirement.
Talk about a new possible tipping point. This one qualifies. Watch to see if these articles are picked up by the major news outlets in the days to come.
Was 911 a Hoax?02-Feb-2006
I have always been concerned about what really happened on September 11, 2001, but I have also always thought that the attacks were the result of a combination of determined action on the part of terrorists and official incompetence. I did not really believe that they might have actually been orchestrated by our own government. Indeed, such a thought, in itself, seemed almost treasonous to me. I am a political moderate, but I am also a strong patriot. I don't believe in condoning anti-government activity in time of war unless it is warranted by fact.
However, a story appeared on Yahoo News on January 30 that has shocked me deeply. (To read it click here. (See below) If you read this more than 6 months after January 30, 2006 and the link no longer works, please search the Yahoo News archive, or search on PR Web.)
I don't want to believe that our leaders did this to us, that they are responsible for killing thousands of Americans in the interest of restoring the president's then abysmal popularity ratings and enabling them to end many of our freedoms, but a growing number of distinguished academics and scientists do think so, and that has me deeply, deeply worried.
This worry does not end with 911. There is so much wrong that it staggers the mind. In fact, it looks very much like the United States of America is well on its way to becoming a dictatorship. By that I mean that its established institutions will no longer be robust enough to protect the rights they promise its citizens.
On Monday, the story I have linked to above was published on Yahoo News. It's easy to say that the academics involved are just a bunch of liberals, but that simply isn't the case. Some are lefties, but they are mostly political moderates. They have been radicalized by what they have discovered. They are not really promoting a political agenda, but rather demanding an investigation of what increasingly seems to have been not simply official incompetence that led to mass murder, but an actual offical locomotion behind this murder.
That there was official incompetence is now generally accepted. That was even the conclusion of the 911 Commission. But this goes beyond that.
My initial reaction was that the whole business of accusing government officials of orchestrating the attacks was conspiracy theory nonsense. Then I watched "911 in Plane Sight" and I wondered. I liked the way the author of the DVD, Dave von Kleist, asked questions without drawing what seemed to me to be unwarranted conclusions. Then David Ray Griffin came along. I saw him on C-Span, and he seemed quite rational and his research was careful.
I interviewed him on Dreamland. I must add here that the fact that I interview somebody on my radio program doesn't mean that I endorse them. A lot of people get that wrong. It means that I think they're interesting, nothing more. I'm always open and encouraging with them. I conceal my opinions. My program is not about my opinions, it is about my guests' information, and I am often the only interviewer they get who has read their books and/or thought about their work carefully enough to ask them questions that enable them to express their ideas.
Griffin was a very convincing interview. He had done his homework. His book is carefully annotated, with every claim supported by careful documentation.
Frankly, I was appalled at what I read and heard from this man. I found it difficult to believe that he wasn't right. The thought flickered into my mind that I might live in a country run by a bunch of mass murderers.
Which I rejected. Not on rational grounds, on emotional ones. I guess my feeling is that if the light goes out in the United States, maybe mankind is a failed species. It's that large an issue, and if our leaders did indeed cause this catastrophe in order to juice their popularity ratings and cement themselves in power, that is a tragedy of historic proportions. Along with the collapse of the Roman republic and the transformation of Weimar Germany into the Nazi dictatorship, it is one of the great subversions of an institutional republic.
Other media are just now reacting to the Yahoo article. They are as stunned as I am. Robert Steinback, writing in the Miami Herald, puts it very well:
"The reflexive first reaction is incredulity -- how, one asks, could anyone even contemplate, never mind actually do such a barbaric thing? But before you shut your mind, check the resumés -- these aren't Generation X geeks subsisting on potato chips and PlayStation. Then look at the case they present."
The case is indeed a powerful one. It is, largely, not a political case or a case based on conspiracy theories. It could best be described as an engineering-based case. This is what makes it so terrifyingly convincing. These men know how structures work, and they are becoming convinced that these structures--the World Trade Center and the Pentagon--were not destroyed and damged in the ways the government has claimed. They are making an argument that the World Trade Center was, in fact, demolished, and that this was done with thousands of living human beings inside, without regard for their lives.
Immediately after 911, I posted a journal entry complaining that the FBI had failed so profoundly to protect us in this case that its failure was indistinguishable from treason. Now I think that it may have BEEN treason. And this treason may not have involved only the FBI.
I base this not only on the well-publicized investigatory failures of that agency, but also on the way another matter was handled by the administration. This was the fact, that emerged during the 911 hearings, that Condoleeza Rice, in her role as National Security Adviser, had received no fewer than 11 specific warnings from the Federal Aviation Administration that terrorists might use aircraft to strike the World Trade Center.
The fact that she had received this information was held classified prior to the election--illegally classified, incidentally--and only released afterward. Ms. Rice sat before 911 Commission and said that she and her colleagues were completely surprised by the attack.
Frankly, if they were surprised, then there must be some other presence within the government that is able to project its power without the leadership knowing, and is willing to use mass muder as a means of doing so.
I don't believe that. I believe that we need further investigation of 911 and the possible official role in it. In a couple of weeks, Jim Marrs and I are going to interview Webster Tarpley, who wrote 911: Synthetic Terror. I am not going to say what my opinion is of Mr. Tarpley's book. As I stated before, that's not what Dreamland is about. What I am going to do, though, is give him a chance to really air his ideas. As radical as they once appeared, it now seems that they deserve careful attention.
Something that now worries me terribly--in fact, keeps me awake at night--is fear that has arisen from the most recent Osama Bin Laden tape. In it, he states that there is shortly going to be another attack on the United States. He also goes on to condone a book by a liberal author critical of the Bush Administration.
This tape was immediately "validated" by the CIA. Gone was the long period of investigation and the hedging that came from CIA when George Tenet was director. Now, under Porter Goss, confirmation is immediate.
And yet, serious and competent researchers have cast doubt on the authenticity of this tape. So much so that the president has even spoken out against them.
Given what is emerging about 911, what are we to believe? The administration has reached another nadir of unpopularity, one even deeper than the one it was in before 911. However, if there is another terrorist attack at this point, it is going to be blamed, not honored with the support of a shocked nation.
So what would motivate it to orchestrate another attack, if indeed it orchestrated the first one? It knows that what few supporters it has left would abandon it if this was done. Homeland Security would be painted as another FEMA-style farce. Beyond being impeached, the president might literally be run out of town on a rail.
However, it could be that the attack will be so appalling that the administration will, quite simply, end the republic altogether and commence frank dictatorial rule.
If such an attack happens, there seems a distinct possibility that it will have been either officially inspired, actually orchestrated by a government run amok, or allowed to happen. Even if the terrorists are real and they are indeed responsible for such an attack, it wll represent a failure of government so profound that we will need the administration to resign. There will have to be a special election, or a special convention of the Electoral College to choose new leadership.
However, that's not what will happen. If there is an attack, the country will be battened down tight by the administration. It will become a dictatorship, and will remain so until the terrorists are defeated.
But they will never be defeated.
And then:
Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
Mon Jan 30, 11:37 AM ET
Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.
They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."
They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.
They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.
If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.
They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expected from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.
Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.
They have found the government's own investigiation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.
They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.
Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:
*In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?
* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?
* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?
* Since the melting point of steel isabout 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
* Flight 77,which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?
* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?
* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?
* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?
* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?
Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.
These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."
# # #
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA James Fetzer 218 724-2706 E-mail Information
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)