This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Hoover Warned "New Deal" May Lead To Fascism, Asserting War In Europe Was Result Of Similar "Planned Economy"
With Geoffrey Batt
In a Washington Post article from 1938 one finds an interesting warning from former president Herbert Hoover, in which he declares that the FDR "New Deal" is leading the US to fascism. In a grass roots convention, Hoover stated that "despite every alibi, this depression is the direct result of Government actions. The torch of liberty has been dashed out by some sort of fascism in 14 nations of more than 240,000,000 people - they all undertook new deals under some title, usually planned economy. The New Deal started with a government debt of $21 billion and today finds itself with a debt either direct or guaranteed of $42 billion. It started with 12 million unemployed; it finds itself after five years with 12 million unemployed. If the 12 million unemployed are not due to [overextension in new construction or in capital equipment or speculation requiring liquidation] to what are they due? Why have a recession in the face of low interest rates, no overextension of credit, no oversized inventories, no overextension of capital equipment, no overstock of goods, no speculation. If there are none of these sins or forces in the financial world, such as did exist in previous depressions, obviously the origins cannot be blamed upon finance and business. There is only one place left to search for the causes of this depression. Despite every alibi, the depression is a direct result of governmental actions." We know how the 30s ended for America, and we wonder what would have happened had the US not joined the WWII fray, which according to many economists was the only exogenous factor which pushed the country out of the depression and realigned the global map. We do not know what Hoover would say about our current regime, but we doubt it would have been full of praise.
»
- 16568 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
What has John Paulson been up to?
TD has just posted an analysis but you can follow Paulson and other Hedgies at the SEC site
Here is Paulson's very own 13f SEC page that updates automatically each quarter
Paulson & Co Inc
The American Psychiatric Association classifies one a psychopath or a sociopath if the patient meets three of the following seven criteria: 1. Failure to conform to social norms with resect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are ground for arrest 2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure 3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead 4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults 5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others 6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations 7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated or stolen form another
http://ow.ly/1MiFi
(note this is from the Web Archive as it is no longer available online except for there)
and this old article from Fast Company:
Is Your Boss a Psychopath?
I only scored two out of seven so I guess I'm OK.
Watch American Psycho
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144084/
4 out of 7, crap! I gotta get help!
Indeed. That's disgraceful.
A *real* sociopath (or as we prefer, egophile) would score at *least* a 6.
or lie about their score. Only a true sociopath would deny their diagnosis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uMJYQ9LKGQ
HAHAHA Brilliant! I really must start becoming a Monty Python fan.
Means I have to quit picking on my husband and his friends for quoting them alla time. Somehow I didn't realise they actually *are* funny.
- excellent !!
There you have it folks, the U.S. Gov. scores a perfect 7.
I believe #s 3, 6 and 7 would apply to Congress.
I'm a solid four, and indifferent to the fact, else I would be a three.
lmao !!
Freaking awesome find Tyler. The opinions of Hoover (rightfully so though like Bush) were so dismissed in the mid to late 1930's that he was considred background noise, much like the Austrian economists of that era even though they were right.
History does repeat somewhat.
And you knew who you were then,
Girls were girls and men were men,
Mister we could use a man
Like Herbert Hoover again.
Didn't need no welfare state,
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old LaSalle ran great.
Those were the days.
Hoover was a great man, widely celebrated in Europe after the Great War for the relief efforts he organized. Presidents nowadays always get an honorary "Presidential Library" after leaving office, to help scholars study their Presidency; Hoover was the only President to have a library named after him before becoming President (the famous Hoover Institution at Stanford). Hoover became President in March of 1929 and a world-wide depression started in October of 1929. Clearly Hoover had nothing to do with causing this depression as President; however, the policies that he supported in the years leading up to 1929 may have abetted the depression. Since I believe that boom/bust cycles are part of a healthy economy, I don't view the "Great Depression" as being a bad thing anyway. I think the "Great Depression" was exacerbated by government interference making it last longer than earlier busts like the Panic of 1893.
Interesting take on Hoover, but this part is nonsense. Malinvestment, and the subsequent collapse, is a sign of unhealthy economic behavior.
Haaaaw...come on! Herbert Hoover opinions...like the man didn't have a vested interest AND a grudge to vent.
Let's be serious...not even the hard right wing Republicans with a brain here would dig out Hoover's opinions...
Maybe the KKK may use them..come on!!
I do believe Hoover was the original New Dealer, he tried every trick in the book to use government to prop up the economy.
It is interesting to read Rothbard about 1931-32 and see the same words/phrases used today. The "evil speculator" idea and vernacular was as vogue then as now.
Government IS the problem, not the solution. Hoover talking in the late 30's about government interference is just laughable.
sschu
I know right? It would be like Bush, or Cheney (who some would argue was acting as the president) criticizing Obama for bailing out the banks the second time. Lawl.
Hervert Hoover.....Father of FEMA. Just wonderful.
Or maybe Hoover just figured it out too late. Hoover was FDR-light, and probably never dreamed he could get away with FDRs Bullshite. FDR was seriously scrapping the constitution and swapping it for quasi-authoritarianism.
Unionista public schools have FDR painted as a hero for his massive intervention because he was a big union guy and a supporter of implementing socialist programs. So every text book presents FDR as a Hero. The same way they present Lincoln, the crusher of states' rights, as a hero. Civil War was as much the war to entrench lobbyists and North East corporatism and strong central authority. Slavery was not so much a priority as it was an honerable means of implementing a horrible concept.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover
A self-described Progressive and Reformer, Hoover saw the presidency as a vehicle for ...
Hoover was little better than Roosevelt. Coolidge was the man, but what we need now is an Andrew Jackson to drive a spike through the heart of the Fed.
Budd, you obviously have no real understanding of early 20th century history, which is not uncommon these days. Apparently the schools are rather resoundingly bad at presenting facts, as opposed to hype. Hoover was actually a Progressive who ran on the Republican ticket, much like the first Roosevelt. It was Hoover who began the massive public works initiatives in the early 30's, including the eponymous Hoover Dam. He was actually more Keynesian than his successor, just less forthright about it. It was his Congress who really did him irreparable damage, with the Smoot-Hawley Act. It did not help Hoover either to be positioned in a deadly economic cycle, much as Obama will prove to have been.
I would add, as an Austrian, that Hoover was hopelessly deluded anyway. So now you can attack me, instead of Hoover.
thank you. your post squares with my understanding of hoover's background and administration. just today i put a message on obama's website that asked his administration to read/reread the james galbraith memo to the congressional investigative subcommittee and enlarge it to include bush's and obama's war and police state crimes, noting that even though they had powerful friends they had bad economic timing and, though they knew they were not fdr, i wasn't sure they realized yet how thoroughly they were herbert hoover, though without the engineering expertise or personal honesty (i was guessing on that last one, but i was pissed).
Your understanding of Hoover is accurate, see Rothbard's book on the depression.
sschu
Also, to put him context, read Amity Shlaes' very detailed The Forgotten Man. Indeed, Hoover had quite the progressive streak compared to Coolidge, and believed in engineering solutions to problems in a hands-on, interventionist fashion.
FDR intervened in overdrive however, and just about everybody involved is on record pondering five or ten years down the road, at least to some degree, if all their "bold persistent experimentation" hadn't helped, or indeed had prolonged and deepenend the pain.
What nobody asks about the Great Depression is why, this time, unlike any depression before it, did the problems not clear themselves out, and why was the economy not back on square footing in a matter of years like every prior depression in history. What was different this time vs. all the other times? Why did it get to be sooooo GREAT vs. all prior ones?
Rothbard's Great Depression only covers through Hoover given the damage was done, and the wheels set in motion to turn the Great Depression great. What would have blown over in an matter of months / a few years instead was prolonged into a decade, possibly exacerbating global politics into WWII (you never know).
You obviously don't have all of your facts straight either. Hoover was not a progressive. He started the New Deal as a response to the neoliberal economic policies that he supported before the markets started crashing. Austrian economics is neoliberalism defined. Please spare me the remarks about debt and Austrian economics. Any idiot who has to balance his checkbook can tell us excessive credit expansion causes doom. The rest of Austrian economics is extremely weak and often ill-formed. In fact, Hoover's inititial response to the collapsing economy was very Austrian-ish. He and his kookie Republican corporatists believed that you should let the market collapse and it would then recover once the malinvestment was wiped out. So, we already witnessed the neoliberal bullshit modern day Austrians prescribe. It is voodoo economics. And Hoover's response, or lack thereof, is what caused the Great Depression. Smoot Hawley is a ruse. America was a tariff-based economy before the Smoot Hawley Act and the act itself was a nickel and dime tariff response on VERY SPECIFIC items. The tariff was a response to Europe trying to dump goods on the international market below cost after their economies collapsed with the onset of the depression in order to pay the war reparations and war debt that saddled their economies from WWI.
Austrians, other than understanding credit expansion, which is common sense, are dubious economic experts at best. There are many easy ways out of this crisis that will cause the US economy to hum again. What are the Austrian recommendations to turn the economy around? Specific plans not generalizations.
If only smart guys like you were in charge...
Good one!
+1
"There are many easy ways out of this crisis that will cause the US economy to hum again."
What do you suggest?
EQ, on Hoover starting the New Deal: Hoover was out of office when the New Deal was very famously rolled out, by FDR and his team of super geniuses. What was that about getting facts straight now?
but he started intervening long before FDR did...
You were dropped on your head as a baby one too many times. Austrian school of economics is not voodoo, its much the same as evolution. Free markets and evolution are both scientifically and mathematically verifiable. Allowing businesses to fail when they can not function any more on their own is called "survival". If you can not survive, guess what, you die. It is really as simple as that. And what happens when you suck blood dry from everyone else to prop up a bunch of failed institutions? You starve off other business models that would have continued and cause them to fail instead, and all you are left with is a failed institution that needs a continuous supply of more blood exponentially just to stay afloat. At some point the system becomes unsustainable because you bleed everything dry and their is nothing left. That is the failed "voodoo" economics that is Keynesianism.
Alternative universes are also mathematically verifiable.
As for being scientifically verifiable, one has to observe an object for that.
When a free market?
Modern economics seems to think that if everyone just stopped worrying about planting and nurturing a healthy crop, and instead just ate all the seedcorn, it'd solve all the world's problems.
I see our investment in public education is really paying off.
Read the last chapter of Ron Paul's Revolution for some damn good ideas as to how to right this ship. Government is suffocating us . Slash it TO THE BONE !
The Austria school explified by Hayek (I'm sure you've never read "the road toe serfdom" from your ill informed comments) understand one central theme, central planning is always coercive and leads to "experts" in control who then screw things up royally by a combination of excessive debt and "price fixing". Austrians believe only one equation: productivity=wealth, and the individual is the source of all creativity not the state. Q.E.D.
Austerity ='s Money in my pocket... every time that someone pushes for it, the little people get squeezed the power that be pour yet more money into thier own pockets. EVERY! FUCKING TIME! like clock work.
First... establish confidence that there will be no more attacks on Free Men? The Lobby numbers where not in favor of the ignorant, mob masses Governing this Great Country.
Second... let the Christian Freaks run Business... the ends do not justify the means... we are capitalists, or wanna be capitalists... and the Austerian View of letting the markets sort themselves out... is farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr from letting the Chruch sign off on deals.
Third... produce something? do something, worth something and sell that something? with the costs of R & D verse Bribbing / Lobbying the Whores? it is sooooooooooo much cheaper to grow market share thru legislation than thru hard work... the risk alone justify's no real growth!
Someone shoot me now please...
interesting, usually you are telling others to shoot themselves.
You are so wordy with the others... you wanna be Frog... how about a nice french wine to go with your whine? fruit, cheese? all aprapos when considering what you offer me, please dont hold back... I am happy to tie you in a knot for all to sea.
brotha man, you just made me chuckle.
i agree with you half the time, but expect a tirade from you should i reply, and yes a back and forth on how/why you should killyourself can be amusing, i wasn't feeling it on this post.
As for the French thing, I'll have you know that when I was given a globe as a gift when I was around 10 or so, I immediately scraped france off it with a screwdriver. even then i knew...
I Love You! and I dont want your BudLight!
high triglycerides, no more beers for me. you cuddly son of a bitch you.
Egalite! Fraternite! Eh...
Vive la resistance!
Eh, avez-vous de Grey Poupon?
I Love You! Too! Wings!
It has been a great day!
and yes, please pass the mustard and Gray Goose!
Hoover stated that "despite every alibi, this depression is the direct result of Government actions.Yes, what government??..
British Financial Warfare: 1929; 1931-33; How The City Of London Created The Great DepressionThe great economic and financial cataclysm of the first half of the twentieth century, which we have come to know as the Great Depression, was caused by the Bank of England, the British government, and the City of London. The potential for the Great Depression derived from the economic and human destruction wrought by World War I, which was itself a product of British geopolitics and especially of the British policy, exemplified by King Edward VII, of creating an encircling anti-German alliance in order to wage war. The economic destruction of Europe was continued after 1918 by the Peace of Paris (Versailles, St. Germain, Trianon, Neuilly, Sevres) imposed by the Allies on the defeated Central Powers. Especially important here were the 55 billion gold dollars in reparations inflicted on defeated Germany, along with the war debt burden of the supposedly victorious powers themselves. Never during the 1920’s did world trade surpass the levels of 1913. Reparations and war debt were a recipe for economic stagnation.
The ravaged post-war, post-Versailles world of the 1920’s provides the main backdrop for the following considerations:
As we have already hinted, we consider that these matters are not solely of historical interest. The repertoire of central bank intrigue, speculative bubbles, defaults, devaluations, bank rate manipulations, deflations and inflations constitute the essential arsenal being used by British economic warfare planners today.
The Maastricht “convergence criteria” with their insane deflationary thrust are very similar in effect to the rules of the gold exchange standard as administered by London, 1925-1931. For that matter, the policies of the International Monetary Fund are too. The parallel extends even to the detail of Perfidious Albion’s gambit of opting out of the European Currency Union while watching its victims writhe in an deflationary straightjacket tailored between Threadneedle Street and Saville Row.
Since the summer of 1995 hot money generated by the low interest rates of the Bank of Japan has been used by hedge fund operators of the Soros school to puff up the world bubble. If the Bank of England’s late 1996 switch to bank rate increases turns out to be a harbinger of world tight money, then it is possible that the collapse and disintegration of the world financial system will recapitulate other phases of the interwar years.
Lord Montagu Norman was always obsessed with secrecy, but the British financial press has often practiced an arrogant and cynical bluntness in its self-congratulatory accounts of its own exploits. Therefore, wherever possible we have let the British, especially the London Economist magazine and Lord Keynes, speak for themselves and indict themselves. We have also drawn on the memoirs of US President Herbert Hoover, who had moments of suprising lucidity even as he, for the sake of absurd free-market, laissez-faire ideology, allowed his country to drift into the abyss. As we will see, Hoover had everything he needed to base his 1932 campaign for re-election on blaming the Federal Reserve, especially its New York branch, for the 1929 calamity. Hoover could have assailed the British for their September 1931 stab in the back. Hoover would have been doing the country a permanent service, and he might have done somewhat better in the electoral college. But Hoover was not capable of seriously attacking the New York Fed and its master, Lord Montagu Norman.
ECONOMIC DECLINE AFTER WORLD WAR IThe roots of the crash of 1929 are to be sought in the economic consequences of World War I, which was itself a product of the British geopolitical machinations of King Edward VII and his circles. The physical impact of World War I was absolutely devastating in terms of human losses and material damage. This destruction was then greatly magnified by the insistence of London and Paris on reparations to be paid by defeated and prostrate Germany.
After a few years of haggling, these reparations were fixed at the astronomical sum of 32 billion gold-backed US dollars, to be paid over 62 years at an interest rate of 5%. Even Lord Keynes, in his “Economic Consequences of the Peace,” compared this to the imposition of slavery on Germany and her defeated allies, or to squeezing a lemon until the pits squeak.
The reparations issue was complicated by the inter-allied war debts, owed especially by France and Britain to the United States. For a time a system emerged in which Wall Street made loans to Germany so that Germany could pay reparations to France, which could then pay war debts to Britain and the US. But this system was based on usury, not production, and was therefore doomed.
The most dramatic evidence available on economic stagnation during the 1920’s is the fact that during this decade world trade never attained the pre-war level of 1913.
To be Continued....
as always, my pleasure to you G E O.
bank of england, maybe evil doer's†
most of this is all well and good (and accurate), but i think you underestimate the refusal of the US to forgive, delay, defer or in any other way enable the british and french to pay back their WWI debts to us (which are still on the books btw). b/c our refusal to be reasonable, the british and french squeezed germany dry in order to pay back our loans. the inter-allied war debts were the primary issue regarding reperation payments. france and britain offered numerous times to give germany better terms if we were to give them better terms.
you don't think lord montagu begged and cried to strong and any american that would listen for leway on the debt? we knew damn well what we were doing, sucking europe dry of gold and capital. you don't think we delayed and hemmed and hawed getting involved in WW2 until britain was on the brink of bankruptcy in order to displace the financial capitol of the world from london to NYC, the reserve currency from the pound to the dollar? it was more then simple usury, it was geopolitics ;-)
i don't think anyone would defend the french or english during the interwar period, but we were no saints.
We didn't get involved in WWII until FDR moved the carrier fleet out to sea and had his people tell the radar operators in pearl harbor that they had spotted birds, not planes.
Hoover = Greenspan:
I see no bubble, I hear no bubble, I eat no bubble...
Now that is a nice piece of factual history to back up one's position...
In the next chapter are you going to talk about Bank of England and Rothschilds Berlin being two of the original share holders in Timmay G's beloved FRBNY?
Hoover actually warned of the "orgy of easy credit" in a NYT piece on January 1, 1926. He was no greenspan
I had not read that take on financial history of those times.
Thank you geopol for that submission.
Thanks geopol for needed context. I await the continuation of your post.
Nice! Also not to be forgotten is the Federal Reserve's mid-depression interest rate hike. Let's hope that Ben "Student of the Depression" Bernanke doesn't make the same mistake.
Now, given the organization of the Federal Reserve, should we see that interest rate hike as a private sector mistake, or a government mistake? I suppose we'll have to go government side with the reorganization of the Federal Reserve that happened after Strong's rendering of aid and assistance to the Bank of England. So pre-reorg, private sector mistake, post-reorg, public sector mistake. I'm supposing there is a difference.
The complete 'book",
British Financial Warfare: 1929; 1931-33; How The City Of London Created The Great Depressioncan be read online at
http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/british-financial-warf...
I believe that was my line...when I deemed appropriate..But the ZH protocol can not be claimed by you, can it?,, my dubious friend..Conversation should be like jugling, balls and plates up and down in and out, glittering in the footlights,,but when you speak, it's like small bubbles drifting from an old clay pipe, full of rainbow light for a second, and then futh....vanished,,, with nothing left at all,,,nothing...
Wait, I thought fascism is just a word the crazy teabaggers try to use to discredit the humanitarian-minded, progressive teabagees. No no, fascists are Republican warmongers if I remember my Bush era MSNBS. Ah fuck, they're all fascists, we're all fascists, lets sit on each others faces.
Fascism = less democracy and more central power, elites protected from the will of the masses through government. Fascism is a right wing position.
less democracy and more central power, elites protected from the will of the masses through government Fascism is a right wing position.
And as far as I can tell, that has been the agenda of BOTH US parties for the last several decades.
And what were Stalin and Mao? I don't recall they and their elites particularly "responsive" to the will of the masses.
In what way were Mao and Stalin pro-democratic again? I'm confused.
Fascism in pure form, a la Mussolini, is sort of a jealous reaction to the Bolshevist 'successes' of 1910-1918 (Mexico, Russia). Obviously both left and right can become out of control monsters bent on dehumanization.
I don't think FDR or Hoover were particularly fascist. Macarthur was but Truman canned his ass. Teddy Roosevelt was at heart a fascist, but the political ideology did not exist for that to even be an option (and presumably the US system would not have supported the move in 1900-1910).
The system we have today, as forewarned by Eisenhower, has become far more fascist than the US in the 1930s had any realistic chance of becoming. Heck, we still had family farms back then, no standing intelligence service (it was considered unAmerican and something dirty like the Europeans would do), and just as many civilian guns as ever.
Now we have to watch as preening ecofascist weenies on the left try to out-guilt trip the populace while leather bondage perverts on the right make up foaming nonsense about race and values in between $5000 haircuts and Xanax fixes.
What a bunch of crap.
Zero Hedge does politics about as well as it does climate science, by the way, which is pretty poorly....maybe we can get some baseball commentary in here before Memorial Day? Or some nice shrubbery planting tips.
"If all men were angels, no government would be necessary"
Because men are not angels, government can never be trusted.
This is true, as is the corollary: because men are not angels, governments are necessary.
Yeah, right - so that devils rule us. Not necessarily so.
Introduction to a Stateless Society - Not only is government immoral, it doesn't work.
Bits of this at your leisure are more persuasive (or at least interesting) than I could ever be - particularly Stefan Molyneux http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AQYx0A5-LpykZGNmMnI3ZjlfMWNrOXJmaGN0&h...
Just as well read in order - and they are brief!
Your take on the choice we have between giant douche and turd sandwich is quite right, but I think ZH deserves a bit more credit for its actual political analysis. Part of what goes on is that TD et al. mine a wide variety of takes on what's going on out there, and then chum up the waters with it to let us gnaw and fight each other to stimulate discussion. That's distinct from actual analysis of Senate proceedings or legislation coming through the woodwork; which I think ZH does quite well even if I don't agree with some of the conclusions.
But, in all honesty, THANK YOU for actually knowing what 'fascism' means...at least I know someone paid attention in history class.
the bloods and the crips
Facism is used by the metrosuxyall tea cupper to enslave workers through taxation and tribute.
This is a great find. Can you believe how much more sophisticated their language was, back then?
FDR managed to pull through because of a lack of privatized mass-communications and English literacy.
Now, the communications network is nominally private. They're not going to be able to pull off such naked shenanigans as they were during the New Deal.
They're not going to be able to pull off such naked shenanigans as they were during the New Deal.
I would like to think that this is true, but not so sure. There is more information available, but is there really is a more informed public?
Human nature being what it is, when SHTF people will not care, all they will want to know is where there next meal/check/handout comes from. This is when the demigods/fascists can get elected and create the havoc they have so often done before.
sschu
If we do nothing, yes, they'll get everything they want.
But this time, they're going to lose. History isn't a closed cycle.
My job, as I see it, is just to keep trade going, preserve civil society, and stay alive. As long as those things are there, we can forestall the worst.
Allowing the idiots to control the media is the most dangerous thing. If there were no Zero Hedge or things like it, where would we be now? For once, we can bring them to heel. Even the Pentagon generals need to pay the bills, eat, and sleep in a bed.
There's no way a full-on command economy can gain traction in the US. It did in the past, but under wartime conditions. Women are too accustomed to pretty clothing and makeup, men like their video games, and so on.
New Deal-era USA was still largely agrarian to an extent that's hard for us to appreciate. Those that weren't peasants were one generation removed from the peasantry.
Stop thinking that the establishment talking heads are anything less than weak-willed men and women. They will follow the strongest-looking person in the room, every time - they're conditioned to. Keep your shoulders square, write with confidence, and look people in the eye.
Even the Mexican government-owned New York Times is getting in on the game: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/business/16ben.html?pagewanted=all
Take the initiative before the generalissimos do.
I am with you and hopeful, but I have to admit my faith in people is just not that high.
I do believe intuitively people know that the situation is just not right and that it is the fault of the government. Not sure that we have the collective stamina to win the war. Hope I am wrong.
sschu
I know I've the stamina.
The people will follow the money. The words are largely immaterial.
I like the cut of your jib.
Your posts are great. Your writing reminds me of your avatar.
Who the hell junks such prose?
Fascism is here if you want to know.
Socialists have transformed into fascistic parties using the same old rhetoric.
I have warned you. There are no SocialDemocrats anymore. Only NationalSocialists where "National" refers to the economic obligation to bailout nearly bankrupt companies and "Socialism" refers to care for the "poor workers". Welcome to the NEW WORLD ORDED.
I agree. And I'm not even Greek.
PS: The Nazi movement from what I understand was known as National Socialism.
Here in Greece, Socialists use the word patriotic to describe someone who cares only for the economy.
Greeks use the word patriotic for someone who loves this piece of land and cares about the language, the ethics and has the will to defend it if any enemy tries to grab any part of this land.
That second definition works for me.
The first one, not so much. :-)
The Greek people should be proud of themselves. They are the first to resist in a way that the world has noticed. Didn't fall over quite as fast as the banksters thought they would.
What is going to happen in Greece will enlight the world.
the greeks should be proud of their independant spirit and resistance, but they should not be proud of supporting the system of hairdressers retiring at 50 which got them where they are now.
Come on, don't bite with that vile propaganda. Greeks are not afraid to work. Socialists, especially G-Pap's father, in order to buy votes offered to many Greeks pensions, and made them lazy. It was another form of unemployment benefit.
Do you think that nowadays Socialists don't give pensions to illegal immigrants from Pakistan just for votes, as they legislated a corrupt law for citizenship?
Macedonian, first off, I read and enjoy your comments and truly appreciate your on the ground insights.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Pap clan bought votes in Greece with entitlements just like the Bush/Clinton Clans did in the good ole USA. Neither populace should be excused for it. I am not making a judgment that this is endemic to greeks alone, though I do think Southern Eurosocialism fosters the reliance/laziness more then good ole 'merican or northern euro socialism.
Rest assured, I am not buying Faux News propaganda about lazy Europeans. The US currently in possession of the Exorbitant Privilege, which is just allowing us to get away with the same for just a little while longer.
I want to believe that people won't listen to the sirenes of Socialism that create lazy people in a large public sector that milks corrupted Gvnt officials and Banksters. All the problems, as you pointed exactly, have a political basis. It's a worldwide phenomenon as Globalization is.The image of lazy Greeks that you have and is correct, is the sum of a propaganda that emerged in the 80's in order to atract tourists. The decline of productiveness due to subsidies or entitlements had to be balanced. Greeks want to enjoy life and they need to because of their temperament. But that has nothing to do with this false image the Socialist Gvnt tries to pass in the world, accusing Greeks as corrupted and cheaters.
Change of politics is what we need. And in Greece people are disgusted with the crap of Socialism for almost 30 years. They redistributed wealth only for themselves and stole the savings of a hardworking lifetime from many Greeks. But now once again the same Socialists try to redistribute what wealth has been left.
I'm sure in US is pretty much the same. I have a friend there and talk quite often. And because the basis of the problems are political, the solution must be political. People must express what they feel and don't be affraid of the sirenes.
But AS don't be under the influence of collective guilt. Politicians created the mess and politicians will have to pay for that. The people knew nothing about their cheats and their manipulations.
I don't know Mace, I am thinking a lot of 'mericans are guilty of us being where we are. Unthinking sheep ignoring our massive debt for years, for being blind consumers of chinese junk, reality tv watching braindead oafs. Maybe I am unrealistic to think that people have a duty to study history and be slightly aware of the world around them. I was lucky to live in a middle class suburbs with decent schools, had a father who taught me about the world from an early age. If I was in some war torn inner city ghetto, perhaps I would be a mindless consumer myself.
I am just disgusted with your avg american who just doesn't give a fuck until things get so bad, it is too late. I am disgusted. Period. And in this world of globalization I am just as disgusted with the Europeans as I am with Americans.
PEOPLE, WAKE THE FUCK UP (of course the people who read this site aren;t the people who need to hear that).
We are all gonna crash and burn, and we deserve it.
You benefitted from having a father who took the time to teach you about the world which unfortunately is becoming less of an option for many American children today.
ugh, i know...
Hey AS
Mixed feelings on your comment. Public unions make me sick to my stomach. Just more bureaucratic parasites to prevent any real work getting done to measurable standards. Private unions...a bit more case-by-case.
I think Greece is something like 1/3 public sector employment. And the private sector as you've noticed is in disarray...but, the bankster credit bubble as Macedonian says below, tends to make people 'lazy' or at least rewards the debtor lifestyle and sets up a wealth transfer FROM earners.
Being a smart citizen, what does one do? Retires at 50, and hides taxes from the government (which would take as much as it can to redistribute to the less productive). Hell, I would do that, if I could figure out how to game the system, in a New York minute I would - I'd rather be 'lazy' than fleeced. I don't see the nobility in preserving a system that is this corrupt, and basically exists to separate me from as much of my wealth as possible. Isn't this the best way for a citizen to survive, provide for family, and perhaps even thrive?
On top of that, I have it from several first-hand Greek sources that wages in that sector without bribes are nowhere near cost of living. I bet we can all relate to that.
Now - having done all that, and succeeded in hiding what wealth they have from a rapacious government, AND in some cases playing the system exactly as it is deliberately set up TO be played - now the people are supposed to take on all this austerity and gut their society, so that bankster filth, and FOREIGN banksters at that, can continue getting bonuses and not have to pay for making bad loans, bad investments, bad trades, and...well, you know the rest.
I agree, hairdressers should not be retiring at 50. But I think this is focusing on the symptom, rather than the disease. I have to say I think the Greeks are bang-on correct here, in perceiving that this bailout is making them pay even more than they already have, to support bankster filth.
I'd be singing a different tune had the banks been allowed to fail, the creditors paid the FULL PRICE for their stupid misjudgements, and the only issue between Greece and full prosperity were greedy & lazy citizens.
Sounds like I hate everything with this comment. :-) In fact, I can't stand the unproductive, wasteful debt serfdom most of us live in, including those of us who are employed, but I really can't say I blame the citizens any more than I blame Joe Schmuck for trying to get rich quick 'flipping' houses, and taking on too much debt. If you offer a dog too much food, do we blame the dog for eating it? If you offer Joe Third-Generation Financially Illiterate Schmuck too much money, and tell him Of course you can refinance, look at this chart, prices always go up...can we blame him for taking it? Especially when his small wage makes him a peasant, and nowhere near middle-class.
Who *should* pay the price of a bad debt? To one extent, the debtor - to a much greater extent, the moronic (or just vile) creditor.
Endeth rant. :-) Sorry it was so long...got carried away.
(PS: And no - I'm not a 'house-flipper'. I learned some bitter lessons about debt as a kid in the early '80s, when my parents mortgaged their souls for some stupid bigass house.)
Ren,
As you may be able to divine from my nom de guerre, I am an angry debt serf.
Now maybe I am being naive, but I am thinking that people damn well knew that retiring at 50 is on its face absurd (macedonian could answer that better I presume) and I just don't see how that can be rationally tolerated as normal. How can you have people retiring that early in a country with a high life expectancy? Is everyone entitled to 40 or so years of the good life on the dime of the next generation?
I also find it amusing when Greeks blame the bribery and tax dodging on "ottoman habits."
My view may be skewed in all this; I studied in London for awhile and had a serious girlfriend in Spain (this was '99). I would visit and was shocked by the apathy and cynicism (and this was in Catalonia!), and maybe I am the naivie one. But as I was getting ready to get a job after college, people who were graduating college had no plans, knew that the government wanted them to stay in school as long as possible to be off the unemployment rolls and hell school and healthcare were free, so why not get your 3rd graduuate degree in hair braiding? There was the same lax attitude with bribes, etc. The way of life there (healthy food, relaxing lifestyle) was great, but at some point you have to realize that you are competing against other countries and that you don't get a siesta in the 21st century. But maybe I am just a dumb American...
Now as for the house flippers, you are kinder then I. I hate them (well did, they ain't around no more!). You can not speculate with most of your income to make a quick buck and be idiotic enough to think that housing prices will go up forever. Of course this was enabled by freddie and fannie via GWB and barney frank whom convinced every american they had a constitutional right to a home even if they were a drug addicted, illegal imigrant with 14 kids who never worked a day in their life. Of course i hate the bankers who securitized these mortgages sold em to freddie and knew they would get a bailout from uncle sam.
So I hate idiotic speculators (same morons who bought pets,com stock), complicit politicians givin the sheeple what they want and the bankers who profited off all this.
And you know who is paying the price? Suckers like me who work, has been prudent with money, and has tried to save.
everyone sucks.
:-)
LOL - I don't think we really disagree that much. Well, if at all...
Starting to sound like it's an issue of, how much do we blame the peasants / debtors / houseflippers for gaming a system, that was set up to game THEM?
Me, I think it's OK for them to do that. But I *wouldn't* think it's OK, if the system *wasn't* set up to game them...
"And you know who is paying the price? Suckers like me who work, has been prudent with money, and has tried to save."
Yeah, see, THAT'S my issue. You've kept your honour, but unfortunately the bankster filth relies on citizens doing that. It makes you worthy of respect, but I can't really blame the people (whether Greek or others!) who turned the game around, took on for themselves the 'parasite' role and thus left the banksters and government high and dry...and now refuse to get to work for the sake of the bankster high life.
I've paid the price too. Debt-free, most of my life, and living in my own 'austerity' for lo these past several years. So, I've avoided the bankster trap all right...and fallen straight into the government-bitch trap. (*They're* the government, and guess who's *their* bitch now?) Bitter about it? Well, maybe a tad. :-)
And yeah - I'm (sometimes) kinder to the houseflippers - well, I'm sad to say my parents fell into the category of 'just buy the bigass mansion, it's for the children', and while wonderful parents in many other ways...damn. Let's just say I'm to this day not sure whether they *chose* not to, or actually *could* not, think it through. Well, it's my parents, not my place to judge I guess.
OK, I'm talking in circles now. Let's just go with:
"everyone sucks"
BIG TIME.
(some of us better than others)
(hehe - sorry, couldn't resist. It had to be said.)
Ren / AS,
Interesting discourse; thanks for the points you both raise and for keeping it civil. Both are most appreciated.
I think the issue here is simpler: ignorance is bliss. My 10th grade algebra teacher said, all the way back in 1983, "ignorance is bliss until test time."
As long as IQ levels fall within a normal distribution curve, it's predictable that majority components of any society, from any epoch, geographic locale, or culture, will always be subject to manipulation. Ren, so much of Monty Python's humor is directed at this stuff that viewing them now really does illustrate their genius.
My problem is that I'm just smart enough to realize what kind of mess we're in, but not quite smart enough to help anyone (including myself) get the hell out of it. That's why I come here day after day, sacrificing time I could be using to build a bomb shelter, plant a garden, or verbally berate some knuckle-dragging troglodyte over his or her fascination with the latest MTV show; I'm hoping to learn enough to make it through the latest crisis du jour.
Unfortunately, it's just damn impossible for a sizable portion of humanity to ever truly keep up with all the levers and curtains being pulled by those with more. More greed, more appetite, more intellect, more connections, more money, more political clout, etc. etc. etc.
The only thing they have less of is respect for their fellow Man.
And yes, everyone does suck. I appreciate your "glass half full" approach to that, Ren ;-)
MP
I have a lot of time for AS. Learn a lot from his comments. (I know I say that to several people but there are this site has more than its share of thought-provoking commentors...)
Your algebra teacher said a mouthful.
Monty Python is going to get me watching all this old historic stuff...recently my husband got me watching Yes, Minister. Holy cats I thought they were prophets, and describing the way government works right now.
Man I hear you with how MUCH there is to learn, how overwhelmingly much! and the time it takes to get it, trying to catch up. (And to suck it up - the info I mean!)
many thx ren
MP, thx for the kind words; and if we don't keep it at least somewhat civil on here, we won't accomplish much. unless its harry wanger, then there is no need for civility.
I am here for the same reasons, to learn and to discuss. And guess what, before I came here, I learned the hard way about how our system is rigged to abuse the honest man (or woman). I went from debt free to chasing the american dream via law school, I wanted to be rich. Well 160k later in NON DIS-CHARGEABLE DEBT, I am pretty damn pissed off. It isn't so much that I can not afford to pay it, though the pay increase with loan payments figured in isn't all its cracked up to be. Simply the fact of a NON DIS-CHARGEABLE DEBT makes me sick, pretty sure when the constitution did away with indentured servitude and debtors prison, this kind of debt was not what they were contemplating. I AM A SERF. Am I at fault for not taking this into account before going to school, yes. I was living in ignorance.
So now that I have these debts, how can I pay them off? By working for a big lawfirm representing the scum of the earth (banksters). This, in a perverse way has been very enlightening. I have seen the subprime mess from A to Z. I have seen how the lower level bankster klowns literally believed housing prices would go up forever, but in the small chance that they didn't, they didn't give a sh*t b/c Freddie was on the hook and Uncle Sam would save his ass! btw, I worked on a case b4 subprime went bad, where Freddie was fined for keeping too much money in its loan loss reserve!! Granted, they did it to hide earnings, but after that they were forced to keep less money for a rainy day. that worked out great.
I will tell you this much, the system was designed to fail.
I actually do berate people (and man are they getting sick of it) about their ignorance. No one cares though. And it isn't the kid at the grocery store checkout I am berating. It is other lawyers, MBA's, CPA's and other people who should damn well know better. They are either willfully blind, or complicit. Sadly, I think its mostly willful blindness. They are scared/unable to contemplate the collapse of what they know. (i'm sure CD can expound on that better then I). oh, and these people will freely admit that they do pay more attention to real housewives of NJ then their child's college portfolio and their own nest egg.
So what can you do? I am using what I learned to fight the enemy. I am deferring my payments on my loans, I have always owned guns, but everyone should. Take money out of all bailed out institutions, buy PM's. And agitate. agitate as much as you can. I am nowhere near full resistance to the borg yet, but I am positioning myself to do so more every day. You know what else, when the braindead come to you crying for help you can give them a big fat "I told you so" and live guilt free (until the starving masses cannibalize you).
Do I expect to actually change anything? Not too much really. But right now it is all I can do.
Aaaaah. Very good exchange. Thank you AS and Ren. Wading through all kinds of flotsam to hear other genuine experiences.
Hitler's Political party were the National Socialists.
Its ideology was against a)Democratic State, b) Bolsevic (aka Communists) cosmopolitan Jews c) liberal bourgois, d) Treaties with other countries, e)trade manipulation of carbon and fuels, f) reform of Global institution like UN, and many other.
Although they were in the begining a Workers Party, Nazi's were influenced by Mousolini's (italian fascist) Carta di Lavoro on what to do with finance.
Ummmm there was no UN when the Nazis were in power (the word Nazi is an amalgamation of the term NAtional soZIalismus incidentally). There was the league of nations, but they were even more impotent then the UN is now, as hard as that is to believe. The Nazis were happy to have treaties as well, they just didn't honour them (the Warsaw pact being a good example).
In the end the rise of facism and the second world war were results of the first world war and the overly punitive requirements put on the German people for loosing a war they did not actually start. The French have as much guilt for the second world war as anyone as they forced Germany into back breaking reperations that they could only meet by printing money, leading to the hyperinflation, degradation and shame of the Wymar republic. There is a famous qoute from a working class German who was interviewed after the end of the second world war and asked about Hitler and fascist politics. It translates to "first you worry about food in your belly, then you worry about politics". I don't think attitudes are much different today. Except maybe its "first you worry about who will win american idol, then you worry about politics. Or you don't"
Funnily enough the French are pretty eager to get the rest of Europe (and by Europe we really mean Germany, the ones that save and aren't up to their eyeballs in debt) to bail out their banksters today and Sarkozy is endlessly at the forefront of rails against speculators.
But at the end of the day no one made the Greeks take all the hand outs. No Greeks were marching in the streets or putting up a fight and not many were even asking questions, when the Greek government was driving the economy into the ground. Now things look bad the Greeks are suddenly angry. Well its a bit late now I'm afraid. That the path of least resistence seems now to be the path most travelled by all, doesn't change any of those facts. I'm sorry but I see nothing noble about the Greek position. It is a microcosm of everything that is wrong throughout the West. The Greek government acted disgracefully as did their lenders. Capitalism says they should both suffer.
And one way or another I am pretty sure they will and so will the rest of us eventually.
They were a party that attracted the Christian disenfranchised nationalist (ex-military goons) who couldn't think for themselves. They needed someone to think for them, so they gave their vote and allegiance to the party. They did not want nor trust democracy (one vote for everyone) and preferred an autocrat who they felt would fix things for them. They were Republican as you can get.
Yeah, right. All those people protesting against further incursions of government into daily life are actually clamoring for an autocrat to fix things for them.
The things some people will believe.
They want an autocrat, they don't want a democrat. They want someone who will protect them from the demands of the masses.
You are a barrel of jackassery and misinformation ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
Take two hours of my tax dollars from your work at "Blogging for America" and go get an education ...
So what is your point again?
Oh, you don't have one.
You have a photo of FDR as your avatar and you spew the same monotoneous left-wing B.S. everywhere on this site.
Hello pot.
Dead on - thanks- my thoughts exactly FDR-- PLEEEEZZZZEEEE
Republicans? are owned Whores... Democrats? are owned Whores... the difference between them? NOTHING!
You two idiots waste time talking about a 2 party system that OWNED by everyone but YOU!
http://www.opensecrets.org/
Republicans? are owned Whores... Democrats? are owned Whores... the difference between them? NOTHING!
You two idiots waste time talking about a 2 party system that OWNED by everyone but YOU!
http://www.opensecrets.org/
Godwin point reached. Great job pan-the-ist!
Negative, I never used the H word!
The work you guys do is unprecedented. ZH will be the de facto place for the truth when the world shits the bed. Click the advert links boy and girls. Got my NH land already. Live Free or Die!!
Best state slogan in the Union.
Best state flag. Nothing else even close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Texas_Flag_Come_and_Take_It.svg
"Montani semper liberi" is pretty fine as well.
put, i plan to do the same, though I was thinking maine. but you guys do have a better state slogan and lowers taxes, but northern maine is REMOTE.
With Hoover's policies, you think we'd have been prepared for the war?
Strong argument can be made that there was no need for us to enter either of the great wars of the past century. Try reading Tom Fleming's The Illusion of Victory and The New Dealer's War. Then Pat Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler, and the Un-necessary War.
Tyler, geopol,
One can not disentangle economics from politics. This becomes glaringly apparent when looking at early twentieth century history and particularly at the era between the world wars.
It simply has to be accepted that human endeavors are at root political. Whether examining the behavior of individuals or entire societies, one has to look at the question of ambitions and motives. The economics are the means to achieve political ends, in the final analysis.
The post-World War 2 was one of exceptional and rising global integration. The Pax Americana, although denied by John F. Kennedy, was the banner under which much of the world rallied and was united, whether pro or con. The climactic moment of the fall of communism ushered in the final phase and triumph of global integration (globalism) but also hastened its end.
What are the elements and features of the end of "globalism"? What's weakening and what's strengthening? Where are the emerging trends? Understand this and the economics are sure to follow.
Globalism will be begged for..Centripetal force to enhance the desired forces of entitlement.. We know no other expedient... The people will eradicate themselves..
Agree. Globalism dies the very minute everyone is in it. It's very infrastructure was a form of economic imperialism. The agenda was to promulgate this imperialism through political and economic integration.
But globalism must collapse of its own weight. The forces which permitted the powers that be to be "elite amongst peers" fall apart once there is no common enemy left. Then it just becomes another version of global domination, and others have their own ambitions.
before the collapse the "interested parties" will have taken their cut.
Always very surprised when people from North America speak badly about globalism.
Their society is the result of globalism.
It seems that they only despize globalism when they are on the wrong side of it.
wait, b/c North America was "discovered" by some globalizing european imperialists, by default all people living in north america in 2010 should be ultra pro free trade? really?
and which old country do you hail from?
insane comment.
Where ever you are... the FED owns you, the FED owns your people and thats not going to be something you see changing in your life time. Protectionism, is a red neck idiot behavior... its a "tell"... someones true self peaking truth the front provided for general consumption.
The interesting thing, is that you are mad at him becuase hes fucking stupid... but you as well admit your ignorance (at fucking best) by returning the favor... so an idiot in a BRIC country blames an Amercian idiot for whatever or viceaversa... The two of you have NO power, and your shallow opinions would lead me to believe you are never going to be of any consequence in this world... but still you would blame each other.
My last bit of information for you...
SDR Valuation as of May 18, 2010
Disclaimer: The International Monetary Fund makes no warranties, express or implied, regarding these tables or the performance of this site. The Fund shall not be liable for any losses or damages incurred in connection with this site.
http://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/data/rms_sdrv.aspx?Month=05&Day=18&Year=2010&submit=Submit
I hope you can more clearly understand exactly who you work for... no matter who you think you work for.
Statistics Database back to top
International Trade Statistics, 2009 back to top
I disagree. Individuals and groups whose activities are not "value-add" economically speaking introduce politics into economic activity as a means of gaining access to resources which they should not have. Politics is a form of economic activity for those whose actual economic contributions are de minimis. It's "rent-seeking", pure and simple. Look at Achilles' complaints about Agammemnon stealing all the good spoils for himself, despite his minor contributions to the war efforts. Agammemnon is "politics" and Achilles is "economics".
Why else would it have happened that the original "politicians" were the various priestly castes of ancient society? Do-nothing fucktards who wanted a cut of everyone's labor. So, yeah, in the sense that people are morons who haven't advanced one iota beyond where they'd evolved to 10,000 years ago, human endeavors are, at root, political.
What gets me, and I think this is where we are really moving toward a political synthesis trancending traditional conceptions of left/right in this site, is that the "do-nothing fucktards" come at us from both sides. Rent seeking oligarchs and welfare bums both sponge off the life force of others...it just has to stop.
Very nice post - and thanks from a Producer
at the very very best hoover was being disingenuous....more realistically he was acting like a slimy self serving politician....
hoover was the architect of the new deal in principle....he spoke long and hard for government programs in the 1920s advocating state intervention during a possible economic crisis.....fdr simply put hoover's ideas on steroids....
read murray rothbard to get the story on hoover's contribution to the depression - indeed it was hoover's legacy to america....and fdr was no better....
hoover was a slimebag...
Well said.
Monday morning quarterbacking of a coach using Hoover's playbook.
Geopol your piece sounded a lot like Brit bashing, are you a Brit hater?
I agree the Brits and in general all the European nations have not played nice for centuries. The U.S. after taking over the role of superpower at the end of WWII as the Brits were totally bankrupt, and could not dismantle their empire (and expense) fast enough, has a pretty dirty track record as well.
As a proud American, I to have to squirm a little when I look at what the U.S has done in places like Central and Latin America to overthrow governments for the benefit of U.S. businesses and banks.
"Ye without sin, cast the first stone."
Let me expand the thought..
Continued....
THE BRITISH RECORD OF STARTING WALL STREET PANICSThe British had a long track record of using the London Bank Rate (that is, the rediscount rate of the Bank of England) for financial and economic warfare against the United States. The periodic panics of the nineteenth century were more often than not caused by deliberate British sabotage. A few examples:
In the Panic of 1837, the stage had been set for depression by outgoing President Andrew Jackson’s and Secretary of the Treasury Roger Taney’s abolition of the Second Bank of the United States, by their cultivation of the state “pet” banks, by their imbecilic Specie Circular of 1836, which demanded gold payment to the federal government for the purchase of public lands, and by their improvident distribution of the Treasury surplus to the states. London’s ultinmate weapon turned out to be the Bank of England bank rate. With all the American defenses sabotaged, the Bank of England sharply raised its discount rates, sucking gold specie and hot money liquidity back across the Atlantic, while British merchants and trading houses cut off their lines of credit to their American customers. In the resulting chaos, not just private banks and businesses went bankrupt, but also the states of Mississippi, Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Michigan, which repudiated their debts, permanently impairing US credit in the world. Internal improvements came to a halt, and the drift towards secession and civil war became more pronounced.
The Panic of 1873 resuted from a British-directed effort to ruin the banking house of Jay Cooke and Company, which had served Lincoln and his successors as a quasi-governmental agency for the marketing of United States Treasury securities and railroad bonds during and after the Civil War. The Cooke insolvency had been preceded by a massive dumping of US staocks and bonds in London and the rest of Europe. This was London’s way of shutting down the Civil War boom that Lincoln’s dirigist and protectionist policies had made possible. Instead, a long US depression followed.
The Panic of 1893 was prepared by the 1890 “Baring panic” in London, caused by the insolvency of Barings Bank, the same one which went bankrupt and was sold off in the spring of 1995. In the resulting depression, the US Treasury surplus was reduced to almost nothing, and a budget defecit loomed. Using this situation as a pretext, British speculators drove the exchange rate of the dollar down to the point where owners of gold began exporting their gold to London. Treasury gold stocks dipped below $100,000,000, and then kept falling to $68,000,000; US national bankruptcy threatened. In response to this crisis, subversive President Grover Cleveland gave control of the US public debt to the New York banking houses of Morgan and Belmont, themselves British agents of influence. Cleveland “sold out to Wall Street” by selling US gold bonds to Morgan and Belmont at reduced prices, with the taxpayers picking up the tab; Morgan and Belmont promised to “use their influence” in London to prevent further British bear raids against the US dollar and gold stocks. All of this caused another long depression.
The economics profession is totally bankrupt today, with every Nobel Prize winner in economics with the sole exception of Maurice Allais qualifying for committment to a psychiatric institution. One of the reasons for the depravity of the economists is that their assigned task has always been one of mystification, especially the job of covering up the simple and brutal fact that American depressions have generally been caused by Bank of England and City of London bankers. All the mystical mumbo-jumbo of curves, cycles, and epicycles a la Schumpeter has always had the purpose of camouflaging the fact that the Bank of England bank rate was the nineteenth century’s closest equivalent to the hydrogen bomb.
DEFLATION CRISIS OF 1920-21The New York panic of 1920-21 represents yet another example of British economic warfare. The illusion that the existence of the Federal Reserve System might serve as a barrier against new financial panics and depressions received a nasty knock with the immediate postwar depression of 1920, which was a co-production of the Bank of England and the New York Federal Reserve. The British deliberately provoked this Wall Street panic and severe depression during a period of grave military tension between London and washington occasioned by the naval rivalry of the US and UK. The British Bank Rate had been at 6% from November 1919 until April 15, 1920, when it was raised to 7%. The bust in Wall Street began in the late summer of 1920. The UK Bank Rate was lowered to 6.5% in April 1922, and it went down all the way to 3% by July, 1922.
The Federal Reserve, as usual, followed London’s lead, gradually escalating the discount rate to 7% in June, 1920 to detonate the bust, and descending to 6.5% about a year later. The argument used by the central bankers’ cabal to justify their extreme tight money policy was the climate of postwar inflation, speculation, expansion and the freeing of consumer demand that had been pent up in wartime. This depression lasted about two years and was quite sharp, with a New York composite index of transaction indices falling 13.7% for the sharpest contraction since 1879. In many other countries this was the fiercest depression on record. As Keynes later complained, the US recovered much more rapidly than the British, who scarcely recovered at all. For the rest of the interwar period, the United Kingdom was beset by permanent depression.
The fact that this depression was brought on deliberately by the Norman-Strong duo is amply documented in their private correspondence. In December 1920, Strong and Norman agreed that “the policy of making money dearer had been successful, though it would have been better six months earlier. They agreed, too, that deflation must be gradual; it was becoming now too rapid and they favored a small reduction in rates both in London and New York.” [Clay, Lord Norman, p. 132]
THE CRASH OF 1929The panic of 1929 is a prime example of a financial collapse which was not prevented by the Federal Reserve. In fact, the 1920’s speculaltive bubble and subsequent crash of 1929 was directly caused by Federal Reserve policies. Those policies in turn had been dictated by the world of British finance, which had been decisive in shaping the Federal Reserve to begin with.
During World War I, all the industrialized nations except the United States had left the gold standard. Only the United States had been able to stay with gold, albeit with special controls. During the 1920’s about two thirds of the world’s supply of monetary gold, apart from Soviet holdings, was concentrated in two countries – the United States and France. The British, who were fighting to preserve their dominance of the world financial system, had very little gold.
The British were determined to pursue their traditional economic imperialism, but they had emerged from the war economically devastated and, for the first time, a debtor nation owing war debts to the United States. At the same time, the British were fighting to keep their precious world naval supremacy, which was threatened by the growth of the United States Navy. If the US had merely built the ships that were called for in laws passed in 1916, the slogan of “Brittania Rules the Waves” would have gone into the dust- bin of history early in the 1920’s.
The pre-war gold parity had given a dollar to pound relation of $4.86 per pound sterling. As an avid imperialist Montagu Norman was insisting by the mid-1920’s that the pound return to the gold standard at the pre-war rate. A high pound was a disaster for British exports, but gave the British great advantages when it came to buying American and other foreign real estate, stocks, minerals, food, and all other external commodities. A high pound also maximized British earnings on insurance, shipping, and financial services — London’s so-called “invisible exports” and earnings.
To be continued...
do we act any different now that we are the financial hegemon/imperialists?
No we don't.
In the Volatility Machine by Mike Pettis http://www.mpettis.com
he explains that emerging financial market crises are caused not by failure of the borrower but by financial crises in the lender necessitating repatriation of capital.
He continues to discuss optimal capital structure for emerging market nations to best protect them from the inevitable.
I would like to take this opportunity to "antijunk" geopol's contribution.
Thank you, sir.
You forgot to mention that the Brits also gave us what we know as Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which would be as problemmatic today if the Brits hadn't shaped them into states doomed to fail.
So OK, we get it ... the Brits are evil.
Hoover was right on this; and too bad his realization came too late. He was very much the progressive, in fact, he was the darling of progressives. Remember, before his election he was touted as a singular beaurocratic genius, a man who truly could make the trains run on time. FDR was merely a fellow traveler; Hoover has very little leg to stand on given that his own answers to the Great Depression were, in fact, exactly the same as FDR's.
What Hoover points to in his 1938 stance is a fact that completely and tragically eluded him during his presidency, and it's a fact that still eludes the great majority of people today: progressivism is the pre-cursor to outright fascism. That's a guarantee.
We'd all do well to take that to heart.
But, we won't. I fully expect the brownshirts to slam me for saying these things, because that is who they are and that is what they do. And I fully expect them to get away with it, at my expense, because that is what we allow them to do.
But, we won't. I fully expect the brownshirts to slam me for saying these things, because that is who they are and that is what they do. And I fully expect them to get away with it, at my expense, because that is what we allow them to do.
Not an honest way to invite constructive criticism.
The idea of constructive criticism relies upon the assumption that a framework for reasoned debate exists. It does not. What exists instead is a simmering socio-economic war. Reason is only useful on a tactical basis. You're simply not going to talk a brownshirt down, dude.
I was hoping. :)
I see you as the brownshirt.
I see you as Ellsworth Toohey, but with boobs like Robert "Bob" Paulson.
Which form of government do you want Hedgeless? Maybe there should be a poll.
Democracy?
Republic?
Dictator?
Politboro?
None of the above (please explain)?
I happen to be a fan of our Republic and have hope that it can be fixed short of dictator being elected/installed. What is obvious to me is that Obama is not a fascist, and we can speculate on which direction the government is headed, but the reality is the current government is not, and if we do see such a government, it will like be headed by a Neo-Conservative. The republicans are as much to blame (if not more) than the democrats for the mess we are in, and real change won't happen until the economic reality is apparent to all. Austerity is coming and Obama will introduce it, but not until after the elections. We have the most workable form of government and it needs to be given a chance to work.
Libertarian? Sorry, I read The Daily Bell, good stimulating commentary, as it is here.
This dude/dudette is a BfA troll with a U.S. "education".
Which means he is borderline smarter than Trig Palin.
AWWWWWP! Citing Ayn Rand as authority! (snicker).
Hoover learned that as a stanford mining grad (1895) 'pullin in 25K a year in china.
He was busy readying America's 20th century workforce which traditionally doesn't include actual Americans. Boxers didn't make the best coolies once they found out the whole pay-day thingy was just a joke.
In the Summer of 1923, Harding journeyed westward taking with him the Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover. “If you knew of a great scandal in our administration”… he asked Hoover.. “would you for the good of the country and the party expose it publicly, or would you bury it?”
Hoover’s response: “Have you ever heard of the Chicago White Sox?”
When the 1929 stock market first collapsed Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon gave President Hoover "good advice," perhaps the only sound advice he received in the whole of his presidency. Mellon urged him to let the crisis take its toll and accept the pain: “Liquidate labor,” he said. “Liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate and so purge the rottenness from the economy.” The DJIA did not recover it's October 29 levels until the 1940s, and it took a war to restore the dynamism of the American economy.
r
"Remember the Pain.. uhhh.. make that M(a)ine!" (we have to do something about that coal dust;-)
Xando great point:
Progressives = Fascism
The Nazi party was the party of new ideas, hope and change in the 1930's. Sounds eerily familiar.
Obama offered zero new ideas.
He offered an efficient marketing campaign directed at illiterate college students and self-interested academics.
Gotta stop seeing the government as all-powerful... they are weak as hell. They're more in danger from their own folks than anyone else.
For example... do you think the military would comply if Obama really gave an order to unilaterally withdraw from the imperial outposts?
How many divisions has the executive?