This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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.
»
- 16569 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Good point. You don't get very far with fascism without the military and ex-military patriots. Again, Fascism is a right-wing political viewpoint, always has been, always will be.
The linkage of fascism to "the right wing" is sloppy and tenuous. It only makes sense given the European idea of "the right wing" which is a very different thing than ours. In truth fascism is a form of socialism, and historically fascism originated as a direct outgrowth of the progressive ideals of the early twentieth century, right down to the Nazi's eugenic campaign of racial purity. Although this is not the best forum, I could cite almost every contemporary progressive view, right down to "meat is murder", and trace the beginnings of that view to no less than Nazism. In the "meat is murder" case, refer to Himmler's campaign to ban hunting in Germany. This but a trivial example, selected only because it seems so "cutting edge" progressive and it's so improbable that the minds who devised the Final Solution had any tears to cry for Bambi, but they did. By the way, look into the fascist elements of the Disney film, "Bambi", and its debt to Hitler's filmographer.
Always, the best antidote against fascism is not to be "big government" person, and as such you'd naturally find yourself at home on the American right. Hitler was a big government person, Mussolini was a big government person, Franco was a big government person. Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Ronald Reagan? Not so much. This is not to say that faith in governmental solutions is what defines fascism, rather, it is meant to illustrate, briefly in sketch form, the fundamental flaw with your argument.
But, again, you won't care to debate this honestly, and I waste my breath. Because you are a brownshirt.
See above. Supporters of Fascism fear democracy. For example, if Arizona decided to allow every illegal immigrant the right to vote and be a citizen the rulers would be voted out of power and the new immigrants would be in charge. Get it yet? Fascism is a response to the tyranny of the masses, and the masses want socialism.
Pure democracy is no better than having an autocrat, because then 51% of the population just becomes the autocrat. Which is the point of a republic, you separate out the power and limit democracy by limiting the government's actions. If our system was actually followed, and not completely ruined by FDR and his "New Deal", which totally broke the separation of the powers.. we might actually have a functioning democratic republic which protected the rights of EVERYONE instead of just protecting the rights of 51% of the population or a certain minority in power.
. (Can't give you any more edits.)
I still agree with this edit though. Just because I have a half-dead FDR as my pic doesn't mean that I think FDR was teh l33437!!!
Well said. The right/left dichotomy is BS.
There is only one true political dichotomy, and that's between Liberty and the Total State.
Communism and Fascism are both at the same end. They are often misrepresented as being polar opposites because they were on different sides during WWII (at least for the stage the masses are aware of), but they were simply 2 blood-brothers fighting for control of the levers of power.
Communism has never existed. You are talking about self-named Socialist Republics.
You're repeating this so much it sounds like you're trying to convince yourself it's true, first and foremost. Since the "purest" right-wing economic platform is laissez-faire you simply can't square that circle with fascism. In fact, the fascist leaders of Europe were, to a man, hostile to laissez-faire as an economic doctrine.
Wait, are you saying that fascism is extreme left-wing, not right-wing?
If so that doesn't square much with the stuff in school:
- left --> communist
- right --> fascist
BUT I've always thought it a pretty stupid cop-out to say after that, "But the extremes of both turn into the same thing," which people do.
So, if socialism (communism?) becomes fascism, then what would be the right-wing extreme?
ETA: Never mind, just saw Rusty's reply above, answers my question. Too hard to keep up with who's posting what, where.
Left wing and right wing are not precise words. The political spectrum doesn't break down as simplistically as they teach you these days in most schools. For example, in European politics the term "right wing" tended for the longest time to mean royalists, monarchists, supporters of the aristocracy. In the United States the term never had those trappings at all, but rather it came to signify strict constitutionalists, little "r" republicans, generally folks who favored limited governments and maximal personal freedoms. So already the terms "right wing" vs. "left wing" have broken down and failed to be useful in anything other than local contexts.
A current of "reactionism" does exist among those who get tagged "right wing", however. Just as the royalists in Europe were termed to reactionaries against progressive forces, so too have American conservatives been termed to be reactionaries against the same forces. But even this distinction is minimally useful. Hitler, for example, was no reactionary but rather a full-up utopian pursuing his own twisted vision of social justice. He always had a lot more in common with Karl Marx than with James Madison, or with Louis XIV. Yet he gets called a "right winger", principally because he opposed communism. That's the principal basis of Hitler's reputation as a "right winger". It's flimsy -- Hitler's main objection to communism was that he considered it to be a Jewish conspiracy. Also, in Germany during the 1920's the Nazis and the communists were essentially political competitors out battling in the beer halls FOR THE SAME SPACE. In practice as the Furher he wasn't that different from Stalin. Mussolini, the guy who coined the term "fascism", as well as Hitler too, never at any point ever claimed to be anything but committed socialists and avowed enemies of capitalism. Culturally they were much more like American leftists of today than American conservatives. Hell, Mussolini seriously entertained going to live on a commune in Vermont (yes, they had them there back then, too). You won't believe how weird the Nazi braintrust was and how seedy their origins were (Mussolini and Italians sure didn't; they were shocked when confronted with the real deal); the freakish early Nazis were far more at home on Castro Street than Main Street.
The history is fascinating; check it out. Follow up on those things they told you in school!
I will Xando - thanks for taking the time to explain this thoroughly.
It does make me laugh when I think of Stalin saying he was for 'corporate statism'...people today would probably think that meant he was a capitalist!
I must admit you kind of left me behind with the whole Bambi-fascist connexion and the Palin thing, but this reply above is accessible for me and an addition to my files. (I file internet finds to read from time to time, ponder and as you said follow up.)
Thank you again for the detail. I too am finding the whole 'left' 'right' rhetoric far too simplistic, and am on the road to deciding it's another form of media propaganda best ignored, like "War On [Drugs/Terror/Poverty]" or "patriot". (Doesn't mean the concepts don't exist, just that they have been corralled for use by the 'corporate state'.)
I am talking about the difference between democracy and state control. Laissez-faire requires the government to enforce these free transactions or it doesn't work. In a democracy, the people without will vote take take the stuff from the people who have it, therefor Laissez-faire cannot exist in a democracy, and can only exist in some sort of republic which enforces stratification.
Which is exactly the problem with democracy...
WTF ?
Just because the market does not go down.
Hedge yourself :)
Central bankers and their Progressive lackeys have been proselytizing world government since WWI. This is the closest they've come since the League of Nations treaty was voted down by the Senate. Our multi-millionaire President is doing everything he can to accommodate the international banking cabal under the mistaken belief that they support his neo-socialist agenda, but the banksters want they have always wanted- control of the currency. They care not a whit for ideology as long as they remain the bankers.
It was always a half-assed plan.
It's done, now. It was teetering, we all pushed together, and now it's tumbling down the mountain.
We will be having plenty more Obamavilles everywhere.
"We know how the 30s ended for America, and we wonder what would have happened had the US not joined the WWII fray..."
How About What Would Have Happened If Wall Street Had Not Financed Hitler and Union Busting Nazi Germany?
1. IBM: Numbers tattooed on Concentration camp victims were IBM punch card numbers. IBM systems kept those trains running on time with ruthless IBM/Nazi efficiency.
2. Standard Oil: In 1940 treasonous Rockefeller sold the Nazis enough patented techroline to keep the Luftwaffe flying throughout the war killing thousands of US soldiers.
3. GM, Ford, ITT, International Harvester and...
4. Union Bankcorp headed by none other than Prescott Bush... which had its assets seized in 1942 for violating the "Trading with the Enemies Act" and was liquidated in 1950 by the Feds for continuing to launder Nazi loot....
Yes Tyler, we wonder about the treasonous jackals on Wall Street...
god, problem, i have read this from you before, IBM. standard oil.
blood on your saddle†
i know. i am connecting dots.
wasn't me, but damn my crowd growing up,
had their granddaughters, spreading their words.
indifference, sorry†
This all while using the Doelarr, a currentsea that would be defaulted on in '71 by Prescott's favorite minion, "Tricky" Nixon. The doelarr got fat from the Nazi days, through 'Nam, and then was popped under deGaulle's nose. Now they are trying to use it one last time. They may be jackals, and their desperation is noted.
Ummmmm, many of these are side effects.
Eugenics were vivid in the US in the 1910s and on (as a way to solve poverty) and the project was exported to Germany for field testing.
This has more bearings.
Continued...
LONDON’S SINGAPORE DEFENSE OF THE BRITISH POUND, 1931The surrender to Japan of the British naval base and fortress of Singapore on February 15, 1941 was the culmination of one of the most absurd military farces in the history of Perfide Albion. This was the result of a long-term, conscious and deliberate committment to surrender Singapore as soon as possible if attacked by Japan, combined with the need to make a sham of defending the place so as not unduly to arouse the suspicions of the bloody Yanks. The British were looking ahead to the postwar world. They wanted the Japanese to have plenty of time to attain and fortify their defense perimeter, so that the US losses in rolling back Nippon would be nothing short of catastrophic. At the same time, the British wantesd to hide this treachery from the US public. It had to look as if they were caving in to force majeure.
At the time, every schoolboy knew that the British had fortified their coast defense artillery so that the guns could only point out to sea, and not to the land approaches, which were the axis of attack chosen by the Japanese. The British troops present, mainly imperial conscripts, were more or less overtly told not to fight. Once the needs of dramaturgy for the US market had been satisfied, Gen. Percival, the British commander, surrendered with all deliberate speed.
The feeble efforts to save the pound mounted by Montagu Norman’s Bank of England and by Ramsay MacDonald’s national unity cabinet in the summer of 1931 can be usefully summed up as a “Singapore defense” avant la lettre — a bungling bogus sham that was deliberately designed to fail.
NORMAN INTENDED TO DEFAULT ALL ALONGThere is sold evidence that Montagu Norman’s decision to provoke a British default on gold payment dated back to mid-July, 1931, well before the pound got into trouble. The following is an account of Montagu Norman’s meeting with the German delegation during the London Conference of July, 1931, which had been called together to deal with the crisis of the German banks and currency. Norman’s preferred recipe for Germany was default on gold payment, standstill agreements, and a possible debt moratorium. As we see here, Norman told German State Secretary Schaeffer that in a few weeks it would be clear what he was driving at — which in retrospect was understood by all concerned as an allusion to Norman’s own coming British default on gold payment:
“Zur fuer die ganze Konferenz entscheidenden internen Sitzung kam es am 21. [Juli 1931] in der britischen Treasury, an der Reichskanzler Bruening, Ministerialdirektor Schwerin-Krosigk, Staatssekretaer Schaeffer und Geheimrat Vocke auf deutscher und Montague Norman, Sir William Leith-Ross und Waley auf britischer Seite teilnahmen. In dieser Sitzung erklaerte Montague Norman mit aller Offenheit, dass er bei vollem Verstaendinis fuer die deutsche Lage nicht imstande sei, ueber die Bank von England zu helfen, da dise selbst durch die anhaltende Geldabzuege der letzten Tage (taeglich bis zu 2 Mill. Pfund) unter schwerstem Druck stehe. Sein einziger – und unter den gegebenen Verhaeltnissen auch einzig moeglicher – Rat waere, die Konferenz schnell zu beenden, deutscherseits selbst private Stillhaltevereinbarungen mit den Auslandsglauebigern zu treffen, gegebenfalls ein Auslandsmoratorium – und im Inneren Suspendierung der Goldeinloesungs- und Golddeckungspflicht, mit anderen Worten genau das, was England acht Wochen spaeter selbst zu tun gezwungen war. Dass Norman dabei bereits an diese spaetere eigene Politik dachte, geht daraus hervor, dass er im Anschluss an die Sitzung Staatssekretaer Schaeffer persoenlich erklaerte, dass Schaeffer ihn in wenigen Wochen wohl verstehen wuerde.” [Rolf E. Lueke, Von der Stabilisierung zur Krise (Zuerich: Polygraphischer Verlag, )
This report not only illuminates the timing of Norman's decision to default. It also shows how explicitly Norman pushed Germany into the status of an autarkical currency bloc, with all international payments subject to strict government controls.
On August 23, Norman (who was nursing one of his periodic nervous breakdowns in Canada) talked by telephone with Harrison of the New York Fed. Harrison asked Norman if he though that the austerity program proposed by the new British National Government were adequate. Norman replied that he believed that the austerity program was not adequate, and that any inadequate program was bound to cause trouble within a year or so. Norman recommended exploiting the current crisis to force through an economic adjustment featuring a drastic reduction in wages and in the cost of production, so as to make British goods competitive again. If this were done, Norman thought, there would be no need for any loans. Harrison objected that it might be risky to rely exclusively on a balanced budget to defend a currency. Norman was signalling a new defeatist policy for the Bank of England -- one that impotently called on the British government to impose more austerity.
HARVEY LIES TO THE CABINETThe Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Ernest Harvey - the man who actually terminated the British gold standard - was uniformly defeatist throughout the crisis. At a cabinet meeting on September 3, Harvey expressed his conviction that "the future course of events depended largely upon the attitude of the British public towards the Government's proposals." This view, expressed at the height of the crisis, was at odds with the entire Bank of England and postwar central bank ideology, which stressed the autonomy and power of the central banks over the flailing of the politicians and governments. For three centuries the Bank of England had considered itself responsible for the fate of the pound; now Harvey was talking out of the other side of his mouth. This reversal of attitude was also expressed in Lord Norman's constant refrain that the crisis of the pound had to be solved by a balanced budget on the part of the British government, and not by an increase in the Bank Rate of other measures which only the Bank of England itself could take.
As contemporary observer Palyi writes, "several 'eyewitnesses' have told this writer that both those in the Treasury and in the Bank had convinced themselves that Britain's house could not be brought into order without first 'teaching a lesson' to a public which was either indifferent or indolent." [Palyi, p. 269] But that was a cover story for deliberately scuttling the pound.
At that same cabinet meeting of September 3, Sir Ernest Harvey told the cabinet that total losses by the Bank of England since the beginning of the crisis amounted so far to 130 million pounds in gold and foreign exchange. Harvey then deliberately lied to the cabinet, stating that since the loans made to London by the foreign central banks would have to be repaid in gold if they could not be paid any other way, this “amounted in effect to a lien on a portion of their existing gold holding and reduced their actual free holding to little more than 80 million pounds or about the equivalent of the new government credit.” As one historian comments, “This alarming exposition of the credit agreements was…seriously misleading. They did not provide for a lien on the Bank of England’s gold or anything close to it. Rather they contained a gold payment clause which required that payment be made in gold.” [Kunz, p. 122]
LONDON REFUSES TO RAISE BANK RATE TO CRISIS LEVELAs Robbins notes, the monetarist orthodoxy of British financial experts between the two world wars was that if a country got into economic trouble, “You must put up your bank rate and you must limit your fiduciary issue. Anything else is bad finance.” Curiously, when the terminal crisis of Montagu Norman’s much-vaunted gold standard finally arrived, the British did neither of these things.
British monetarist ideology featured the faith that an increase in the Bank of England’s bank rate could pull gold up out of the ground, or even attract gold to London from the moon. The bank rate was at the heart of the entire British fetish of usury.
Fiduciary issue of currency was a means used to regulate the supply of credit. These were extra bank notes issued by the central bank. Cutting fiduciary issue would have meant a credit contraction – tight money. In the midst of the summer, 1931 pound and gold crisis, the British actually increased their fiduciary issue, when their own orthodoxy would have dictated a sharp cut. But the Norman’s Bank of England persistently increased fiduciary issue in the face of the crisis.
NORMAN’S REFUSAL TO HIKE THE BANK RATEAs for the Bank Rate, the Bank of England acted in violent contradiction to its own monetarist orthodoxy. As one scholar later summed up:
“On May 14 [1931], immediately after the collapse of the Kredit-Anstalt, the Bank Rate was actually lowered, from 3 to 2 1/2 per cent. It was not changed until July 23rd, when at last it was raised to 3 1/2 per cent. During the last week or so of July the Bank of England lost over 25 million pounds in gold. On July 30th the Bank Rate was again raised, but only to 4 1/2 per cent, and there it remained until September 21st. Great Britain had always advocated a high Bank Rate as the remedy for a financial crisis and a drain of gold. She had been on the gold standard, in effect, for over two hundred years, with only two breaks – one during the Napoleonic wars and one during the last war [1914-1925]. Now for the first time in her history she suspended gold payments in time of peace and with a Bank Rate of 4 1/2 per cent ! Does it follow that the British monetary authorities were secretly glad to leave the gold standard? ….why was the Bank Rate not raised but actually lowered after the Kredit Anstalt closed? Why was it not raised to 8 per cent or perhaps 10 per cent in July or even in August?” [Benham, Monetary Policy, pp. 9-11] These are good questions.
Back in 1929, when Montagu Norman had been concerned with precipitating the New York stock market panic, 6.5% had not seemed too high a Bank rate in view of the desired result. In April 1920, when the Norman had wanted to undercut New York, the Bank Rate reached 7%, and had stayed there for a full year. But now, 4.5% was the nec plus ultra.
A worried J.P. Morgan of New York cabled on September 7 to Morgan Grenfel in London:
“Are the British Treasury and the Bank of England satisfied that the present method of dealing with the sterling exchange is the best that can be devised? In this connection the question naturally arises as to why the Bank of England does not use the classic remedy of Bank Rate instead of apparently pegging the exchange.” [Kunz, p. 126]
Apologists for Norman and his retainers have advanced various lame arguments to explain the gross treachery of Threadneedle Street. One argument was that the British domestic economy was already too depressed to survive a rise in the Bank Rate. But on September 21, after defaulting on gold, the Bank of England raised the Bank Rate to 6% and left it there for five months, regardless of the impact on the credit-starved domestic British economy.
Then there is the argument of “prestige,” which claims that radically to raise the Bank Rate under the pressure of foreign gold demands would have undermined the prestige of the pound sterling. Was it then more prestigious to default?
“It had been intimated that the decision to devalue was due to British ’sensitivity’: the Treasury and the Bank found it ‘undignified’ to balance the national budget under pressure of foreign bankers. Was their dignity better served by defaulting?” [Palyi, p. 294]
As the same author sums it up, “the reluctance to use the discount weapon was at the root of the widely disseminated charge that ‘perfidious Albion’ had intentionally ‘trapped its creditors,” especially given the fact that British foreign obligations were denominated in pounds, not in the currency of the lending country. So these foreign obligations could be paid off in cheaper pounds after a default and devaluation.
You really should consider ending these posts with "Britannia delenda est!"
http://hoover.archives.gov/ Stop in sometime when you're travelling I-80
Also here are more Depression Headlines
http://www.jolietpubliclibrary.org/Digitization%20Projects/The%201930s/D...
This is funny considering Hoover is the one that began the New Deal. A great book on this is America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard. The New Deal, which actually started with Hoover, did not lead to fascism - it WAS fascism.
It was explicitly fascism. Hitler followed FDR's lead.
Young Pioneers? They're just the boy scouts.
"Hitler had genuine admiration for the decisive manner in which the President had taken over the reins of government. “I have sympathy for Mr. Roosevelt,” he told a correspondent of the New York Times two months later, “because he marches straight toward his objectives over Congress, lobbies and bureaucracy.” Hitler went on to note that he was the sole leader in Europe who expressed “understanding of the methods and motives of President Roosevelt.”
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0310j.asp
THE INVERGORDON FARCEIn late September 1929, Norman had used the Hatry bankruptcy as a pretext for raising the Bank Rate, which he had wanted to do for reasons of economic warfare against the USA. In 1931, an indispensable part of the orchestration of the British default was an alleged “mutiny” in the Royal Navy in protest over pay cuts.
On Tuesday, September 15, Sir Austen Chamberlain, the First Lord of the Admiralty, informed MacDonald of a trifling incident which had taken place at Invergordon. About 500 sailors of the Royal Navy had assembled for meetings to discuss the pay cut for experienced seamen which the National Government was proposing. The seamen ignored orders to return to their ships until their protest meetings were over. In response, the Admiral of the British Atlantic Fleet announced the postponement of the scheduled naval maneuvers, and also the dispersal of the Atlantic fleet to its various home ports. It was these latter actions which “elevated what might have remained a small incident into a mjor occurrence. Sensational headlines around the world pointed to the parallels to the Russian revolution of 1905 and 1917 and the German revolution of 1918, both of which had been marked in their early phases by fleet mutinies. The Revolution was about to overpower the Royal Navy itself! In addition to this hysterical hype, there was also the sense that the austerity program would have rough sledding from other groups in Britain as well. [Kunz, p. 131]
THE BANK OF ENGLAND DEMANDS DEFAULTA despatch of September 17, 1931 to the New York Times reported that Sir Ernest Harvey, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, and other financial leaders had gone that evening to the House of Commons to convey to Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald “a grave warning that the stability of the pound was again imperiled.” “It is stated that they gave two reasons for this emergency – first, the naval unrest, and, second, the report that a general election was imminent.”
Saturday September 18 was the day the British cabinet officially decided to default on Britain’s gold obligations. MacDonald called it the most solemn conference ever held at 10 Downing Street. True to form, it was the Bank of England that proposed the abrogation of the gold standard through the mouth of its Deputy Governor, who announced that the only course of action left was for Britain to leave the gold standard. [Kunz, p. 135] Harvey deliberately created the false impression that he had discussed the situation after the close of trading on Friday with Harrison of the New York Fed. This was not true. Harvey, in response to a question from MacDonald, added that he did not think it worthwhile to raise even 100 million pounds ($450 million) if people were only going to withdraw it. MacDonald quickly agreed to default, and the rest of the cabinet meeting was devoted to technical details of how to terminate the gold standard. [Kunz, p. 135]
It was only on Saturday, September 19 that Harvey informed Harrison of the New York Fed of what the British government was now doing. Harrison was described as greatly shocked by this decision, which came as a surprise to him. Harrison persisted for a time in exploring possible alternatives to London’s default, and offered further loans. [Kunz, p. 137] But the Bank of England remained committed to immediate default. More help could have been obtained from Paris as well. Then there is the embarrassing fact that during the last week of the gold standard the Bank of England’s gold stocks INCREASED from 133,300,000 to 135,600,000 pounds. [Palyi, p. 277]
THE END OF THE WORLDOn Sunday, September 20, 1931, the British government issued its statements announcing its decision to “suspend for the time being” the clause of the Gold Standard Act of 1925 requiring the Bank of England to sell gold at the fixed price. All the other elements of the official British mythology were also present. “His Majesty’s Government have no reason to believe that the present difficulties are due to any substantial extent to the export of capital by British nationals. Undoubtedly the bulk of withdrawals has been for foreign accounts.” The bloody wogs, as we see, were once again the root of the problem. Furthermore: “His Majesty’s Government have arrived at their decision with the greatest reluctance. But during the last few days international markets have become demoralized and have been liquidating their sterling assets regardless of their intrinsic worth. In the circumstances there was no alternative but to protect the financial position of this country by the only means at our disposal.” As we have seen, there were other means. Finally, there was the obligatory stiff upper lip: “The ultimate resources of this country are enormous and there is no doubt that the present exchange difficulties will prove only temporary.” [New York Times, September 21, 1931]
The worldwide shock was severe. In the words of Jackson E. Reynolds. then President of the First National Bank of New York, “when England went off gold it was like the end of the world.”
THE BANKERS’ RAMPWith the help of demagogic headlines in the London afternoon tabloids, the British oligarchy placed the blame for the fall of the mighty pound on a “bankers’ ramp” led by foreign central bankers. A favorite target was poor George Harrison of the New York Federal Reserve, who was rewarded with slander and obloquy for his pathetic and servile devotion to the currency of British imperialism. Another fall-guy was the Banque de France.
One British chronicler of these times sums up the official line of scapegoating the foreigners as follows: “It was basically the American trade cycle, and not British monetary policy, that made life so wretched for us.” [R.S. Sayers, 97]
JACQUES RUEFF ATTACKS BRITISH HANDLING OF CRISISDuring the weeks of the British crisis, the economist Jacques Rueff was serving as the Financial Attache at the French Embassy in London. This meant that Rueff was in practice the manager of the French sterling balances.
Palyi cites the “‘posthumous’ charge by Rueff that the “Bank of England defaulted intentionally in order to damage the creditor central banks, the Bank of France in particular….” [Palyi, p. 268]
On October 1, 1931, Rueff completed his memorandum entitled “Sur les causes et les enseignements de la crise financière anglaise,” which was intended to be read by French Finance Minister P.-E. Flandin and the French Prime Minister, Pierre Laval.
Rueff first described the modes of intervention of the Bank of England: “Elle avait…deux instruments: le taux d’escompte et la politique dite d”open market’….Depuis 1929 la Banque d’Angleterre a constamment utilisé ces deux instruments pour maintenir aussi bas que possible les taux en vigeur sur le marché de Londres. Elle a toujours retardé aux maximum les élévations de taux d’escompte qui s’imposaient, cependant qu’elle cherchait à augmenter, par ses achats de valuers d’Etat, l’abondance monétaire du marche.” [Jacques Rueff, De L'Aube au Crépuscule, p. 301]
For Rueff, the British were guilty of violating the implicit rules of the gold exchange standard, since they tried to maintain their liquidity despite a gold outflow. “on peut affirmer notamment qu’en 1929 et 1930, presque sans exception, la politique d”open market’ de la Banque d’Angleterre a été faite à contresens. Les mouvements d’or, en effet, tendent à se corriger eux-mêmes, puisque toute sortie de métal tend à provoquer une restriction de crédit, qui hausse les taux du marche. Or, en 1929 et 1930, toutes les fois que de l’or sortait de la Banque d’Angleterre, celle-ci achetait des valeurs d’Etat sur le marché, remplacant ainsi les disponibilites qui venaient de dispara&itremas;tre.” [302]
“Autrement dit, pendant les deux années 1929- 1930, la Banque d’Angleterre a constamment paralysé le jeu des phénomenes qui tendaient à adapter la balance des paiements anglais aux nécessites résultant de la politique économique suivie par le pays.” [p. 303]
Because of these policies, Rueff found, the British had weakened themselves even before the German crisis had begun: “Or, en 1931, ces fautes ont été commises, provoquant des mouvements de capitaux qui ont été mortels pour le change anglais. Il est très probable que l’Angleterre aurait pu y résister, si elle n’avait pas été mise préalablement dans un état de paralysie économique et financière, interdisant à son organisme les réactions spontanées d’un marche normal.” [p. 303]
Rueff repeatedly condemns Stimson’s intervention at the London Conference of July, 1931 with the proposal for standstill agreements which immediately created a liquidity crisis and put world banking in difficulty: “Toutes les banques du monde, voyant soudain immobilisé une fraction très importante de leurs capitaux a court terme, ont cherché à récupérer toutes les réserves qu’elles pouvaient rendre disponibles.” [304}
But the British always blamed the wogs:
"...l'opinion britannique ...recherche a l'exterieur la cause de ses difficultés." [305]
The British had been wallowing in a depression since 1918, and that for them made it a world economic crisis: “Il faut d’abord remarquer que, pour l’opinion britannique, la crise économique d’après guerre n’est pas chose nouvelle. Depuis que l’Angleterre souffre du chomage permanent – c’est- à-dire depuis la guerre – l’opinion britannique et les experts anglais affirment que le monde est en état de crise. Depuis la guerre, même lorsque le monde, sauf l’Angleterre, était en pleine prospérite, les représentants britanniques ne cessaient de demander à la Société des Nations de trouver un remède à la crise économique, qualifiée de mondiale parce qu’elle affectait les intérêts du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d’Irlande.” [307]
A key British problem was their high unemployment, which they had chosen to deal with by means of payments to the unemployed, called the dole: “Et cela explique que la hausse des prix soit pour l’Angleterre, dans le régime ou elle s’est volontairement placée, une nécessité vitale. Ayant fixe une catégorie des prix, elle est conduite à vouloir y adapter tour les autres….Cette hausse des prix anglais peut, il est vrai, être réalisée sans hausse des prix mondiaux, par la dépréciation de la livre sterling et aussi – bien que dans une mesure probablement insuffisante – par un tarif douanier. D’ou des diverses solutions envisagées en Angleterre, l’une d’entre elles – la dépréciation monétaire – étant déjà en voie de réalisation….”
[308-309]
For Rueff, all British proposals for international monetary cooperation were strategems designed to shift the crisis from Britain to the rest of the world: “Il reste enfin à évoquer la dernière des formules par lesquelles l’Angleterre prétend que le monde devrait etre reconstruit: la cooperation financière internationale. C’est là un programme dont le sens n’a jamais été défini, probablement parce qu’il n’en a aucun….Il n’est pas douteux que tous les plans présentés à Genève ou a Bale, plan Norman, plan Kindersley, plan Francqui, tendent seulement a réaliser le trust des entrprises en faillite et a y investir des capitaux qui sans cela se seraient refusés. Par là, ils sont un merveilleux instrument pour transférer les difficultes financières des Etats qui les ont provoqués, a ceux qui ont été assez sages ou assez prudents pour s’en préserver…Tel est d’ailleurs le sens profond et l’objet véritable de tous les efforts tendant a réaliser la solidarité internationale, solidarité que l’on invoque toujours lorsque l’on veut profiter de la prosperité des Etats voisins, mais jamais lorsque l’on peut leur venir en aide.”
[318-319]
Rueff suggested a Franco-American accord capable of putting an end to the British game.
Geopol- do you have a day job too?
:)
<moved to Geopol's next comment below>
This is great stuff, Tyler.
The Great Depression needs to be re-examined as the current paradigm as to its root causes are flat wrong and as such what we are doing now from a policy perspective is as well.
Mises and Hayek need to be reintroduced.
They have been. It's only the illiterates, the deluded, and the self-interested tax eaters that continue to suppress it.
I know I've been doing my part for years now. It's tough to counter the effects of years of public school propaganda, but the economic misery makes people more pliable.
In the old days, before the mass education, Austrian-style economics was more of a gut-level thing. Traders must all know that people are irrational and that markets move for all kinds of crazy reasons. The only people who really believe in the rational actor are either on the government dole (either in a public university or pseudo-private university) or working for the mutual fund industry.
And do those mutual fund slimes even believe their own propaganda?
Apostate
In light of this
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-czar-wants-mandatory-government-propag...
And the reality that paid political posters exist, but as yet are not as skilled, to either manipulate the discourse or to track dissent.
These should be applied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moscow_Rules
The Moscow RulesIt's amusing that Alex Jones has actually become... reputable in recent years.
I've done a lot of work on my own researching the intelligence complex. I was on a career track for CIA or State Department for a while, and wanted to figure out how it would *really* be to work there. I discovered that it would be banal as well as morally compromising.
This Harvard professor is creepy, but there's no way they could successfully implement his ridiculous paper on a country of 330,000,000 people. It's amazing at how fundamentally retarded this professor is.
I doubt he's ever used the internet on a serious level.
Harvard is going to be worthless. Their endowment is going to continue to tank - especially as the market continues to defy their precious theories. They're going to have to cut up a lot of tenure contracts. If the private loan system goes haywire, their shitty little campuses will have to be auctioned off.
Even their brand name is becoming worthless as more of their graduates end up living at home with their parents.
When I go to Meetups that are even vaguely political in nature (even book clubs) there's sometimes one guy who says something like "Yeah! And maybe violent revolution is a good idea!" And it's always my job to say "No, no it's not, that's a terrible idea."
Maybe they're COINTELPRO types, maybe they're just stupid. Whatever the case, it's best to be safe and give them no quarter.
In China, the government hires a lot of propagandists to post on websites. It's become a farce, even among them. The US has enough public sector employees and brainwashed people to do government PR for them already.
Apostate we all know conspiracy and manipulation exist. Father Coughlins silver scam for instance. Or Israels paid posters who nudge discourse against the Palestinians.
Democrats and Republicans have paid posters.
They are there. It may seem innocuous and clumsy. But it will evolve.
---Geopol------ Nicely done. I must admit that I have to do a print out so that I can sit and reread them tomorrow. I don’t read the news paper any more or look at TV news. This is a nice way to use that time. I hope you continue your educational process.
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.
Agreed. It should also be very obvious the end results of said government actions; socio political and economic upheaval, radicalization, wars-civilwars-worldwars, and the outbreak of tyranny by any other name.
This from the James Galbraith article from last night...
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/james-galbraith-economic-theory-disgrac...
"At its heart, therefore, the financial crisis was a breakdown in the rule of law in America."
and this...
"In this situation, let me suggest, the country faces an existential threat. Either the legal system must do its work. Or the market system cannot be restored. There must be a thorough, transparent, effective, radical cleaning of the financial sector and also of those public officials who failed the public trust. The financiers must be made to feel, in their bones, the power of the law. And the public, which lives by the law, must see very clearly and unambiguously that this is the case."
What else is there to say? We're at the end of the road. Over the next rise and turn of the current events is an end to the charade, a place that is not the United States or perhaps only in name. What's it going to be? Are you going to be herded placidly over the next rise, or are you going to stop, and say bah tf!?
It is not too late to late for a large minority, or even a small majority, to cease participation. A large scale workstrike delivered with a list of common sense demands, would be far more real and devestating than any bankster shakedown. A workstike is also a taxstrike, and we have the power to burn out this corrupt corpgov machine that has captured our government without firing a shot. To have our country back, all we have to do is take an unpaid vacation.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
.... excerpt Dylan Thomas, Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night
The sick thing is, all it did was expose that the rule of law has been a facade at best throughout most of American history.
I mean, remember the Civil War?
That was pretty fucked up! And unnecessary!
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Unnecessary? What an odd choice of word? I'm not sure I would characterize it that way. Human History is push pull, our reality is governed by attraction repulsion; conflict. The Civil War didn't have to happen the way it did necessarily, but conflict of one kind or another was indeed inevitable given the social/political/economic tug of war. Now I suppose we could argue about true cultural evolution, if you would like. At that point conflict could be minimized or made unnecessary, but I'm not sure if mankind collectively can pull that off; maybe. Teachers like Jesus believed in the possibility, of course... Societal enlightenment, Shambala, I like it. However, we live in the world of the relative. Conflict, chaos, and destruction are part of the process. If in the course of events History runs into a wall, there are many ways it can break, but break it will. This country is about to transform, one way or the other. I merely suggest that we choose the battlefield. Threats of apocalyse work on our corpo criminal government, apparently. So lets do that. No work, no taxation, no transaction. This will bring TPTB to their knees on our terms. It would be bad, but it would be our chosen bad, and not the bad the bankster cartels are planning. American society is being pushed in a corner, conflict is now inevitable. I'm just saying we should choose the terms of battle before they are chosen for us; is all.
Crab Cake, the United States has ALWAYS been an illusion. A fiction created so the masses could cheerlead and DIE for their masters.
I'm tired of people claiming that the past was better. The past was LESS OBVIOUS. Power has ALWAYS been in the hands of the few and the drones were replaceable.
Are we forgetting Bobby Seale bound and gagged in court? How about COINTELPRO? Or government troops firing on labor strikers? Or Blacks, Irish (Irish and Scots were sold into slavery just not as well publicized), and Indians?
When the fuck has there ever been a magical fairy land in the US?
What is there to take back. Our pride? It was false to begin with the meanderings of twisted power brokers herding their flocks. Our innnocence, it was lack of knowledge that kept us innocent. Our money never was ours to begin with.
Once seen the truth can not be hidden. It is UGLY. It is us.
We can not win because the system was never designed that way. The best we can hope for is a little glimmer of understanding, enough to avoid being crushed by mad forces beyond our control. A hint at the direction the juggernaut is directed so we may dive into the bushes as it passes.
"The personal, as everyone’s so fucking fond of saying, is political. So if some idiot politician, some power player, tries to execute policies that harm you or those you care about, take it personally. Get angry. The Machinery of Justice will not serve you here – it is slow and cold, and it is theirs, hardware and soft-. Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the creatures of power slide from under it with a wink and a grin. If you want justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it personal. Do as much damage as you can. Get your message across. That way, you stand a better chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered dangerous marks the difference - the only difference in their eyes - between players and little people. Players they will make deals with. Little people they liquidate. And time and again they cream your liquidation, your displacement, your torture and brutal execution with the ultimate insult that it’s just business, it’s politics, it’s the way of the world, it’s a tough life and that it’s nothing personal. Well, fuck them. Make it personal."
— Richard K. Morgan (Altered Carbon)
That Morgan quote. WOW.
How bizarre to find Hoover agreeing with Hayek's "Road to Serfdom". Especially since Hoover was, in fact, the true author of the New Deal, as admitted by those in FDR's Administration. Oh well, I guess it's the same as today - it's only socialist/fascist/bad when the other guy does it.
Bernanke studied the Depression as well. Unfotunately, his primary job was to prevent one from happening in the first place. Clues were blatant. One day the WSJ ran a cover story on how some banks were openly wooing illegal aliens. So, I don't want to hear the crap about how they missed the signs. It insane. Perp walk please. Govt failure perp walk. The Maestro played it cool. Ya see, I knew what was goin down but I wuz too much of a wimp to stand up to Congress. Nyett, rep ruined.
Seperately, Geopol: post is brilliant, bloody brilliant...
On we go...
THE BANK OF ENGLAND’S DUTCH TREATBy September 20, most of the sterling balances held by foreigners who were disposed to liquidate them had already been liquidated. The exception were sterling balances held by foreign central banks, like the Dutch, and these would be loyal to London, partly because their estimate was that the crisis was not so severe as to force the British off gold. The little people of the British public were proving docile enough to make no attempt to turn in their pound notes for gold. The Big Five clearing banks were undisturbed by panic runs or the specter of insolvency.
There is no doubt that during the weeks before default, the Bank of England practiced the most cynical deception on other central banks. The Bank of England twice assured the Bank of South Africa that it would do everything in its power to maintain gold payments. The Bank of England acted with great treachery towards the Netherlands Bank, the central bank which had shown itself to be the truest friend of the pound, supporting it in crisis after crisis. The president of the Netherlands Bank, Mr. Vissering, telephoned the Bank of England on September 18, 1931 to enquire whether there was any truth to the rumors about a forthcoming sterling devaulation. The Bank of England official who answered the phone emphatically denied that there would be a devaluation, and offered to pay off the Netherlands Bank sterling balances in gold on the spot. The Dutch decided to keep their gold in London.
A few days after the call summarized above, “Dr. G. Vissering of the Netherlands’ Central Bank called Harvey to request that the Dutch gold held by the Bank of England be earmarked [separated from the Bank of England stocks as a preliminary to shipment to the Netherlands]. Harvey huffily refused, saying that the Dutch could either take their gold back to Amsterdam or keep it in London but if they chose the latter course they would not be placed in the position of a preferred creditor. Vissering backed down. To assuage Vissering’s fears Harvey wrote him about the credits and stressed the total committment of the National Government to the maintenance of the gold standard [Kunz, pp. 119- 120] As a result, “the Netherlands Bank felt, and for good reason so, that it had been deceived by the Bank of England, a turn that was scarcely befitting Norman’s idea of central bank cooperation, or the ‘ethics’ of the gold standard.” [Palyi, p. 278]
The Netherlands Bank thought that the Bank of England should safeguard the Netherlands Bank against all the sterling losses to which it was subjected. A discussion of this British betrayal is found in the 1931-32 Annual Report of the Netherlands Bank. [see Brown, vol, 2, pp. 1170-1172]
Montagu Norman claimed that he had personally not been a participant in the decision to default on gold. As we have noted, Norman’s cover story was that he had suffered a nervous breakdown, and had taken a vacation at the Chateau Frontenac in Quebec, Canada. When the Bank of England suspended gold payment, Norman was on board ship in the middle of the Atlantic. Norman claims that he knew nothing of the decision to go off gold until he landed at Liverpool on September 23. Norman was thus able to blame the default on one of his resident whipping-boys, Deputy Governor Sir Ernest Harvey. Harvey himself suffered a nervous breakdown because of the stress of serving under Norman.
When the British stopped paying in gold, they were quickly followed by Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Bolivia, and India – most of whom were candidates for inclusion in the sterling bloc. Other countries, including Greece, Italy, Germany, Austria, and Hungary were already operating under exchange controls and other measures which effectively prevented gold outflow. [Hoover, p. 82]
The British strategy for saving the golden pound had included histrionic international appeals from Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, who pleaded with other countries not to drain off the last of the British gold. After the British had defaulted, MacDonald’s perfidy caused much resentment abroad. In the words of an American economist, “Hardly had Ramsay MacDonald stopped sobbing over the international radio that Britannia should not be forced to sacrifice her honor, than he began to smile broadly because the fall of the pound gave her marked advantage in exports.”
[Mitchell, p. 14]
THE BRITISH GAMEA British estimate of the London predicament of the early 1930’s reads as follows:
“…Great Britain is a highly populated industrial country, carrying a terrific burden of internal debt, dependent predominantly for existence on foreign trade, enjoying the benefits of being the world’s chief banking centre, possessed of a large net income from long-term investments abroad, but heavily indebted (in her role as world’s banker) to other centres on short- term account.”
[Economist, September 26, 1931, p. 548]
The British racket up until September 1931 had been to use a high pound to maximize their buying up of the world’s productive assets and resources. After September, 1931, a devalued pound meant that pound-denominated foreign claims on the British financial system – and these were the vast majority – were automatically reduced.
Five months after the British default, Norman and the British oligarchy embarked on a policy of cheap money. At this time a series of Bank Rate reductions was started which soon brought the discount to 2.5%, where it stayed for many years. Montagu Norman himself, the former gold addict, became the main theoretician of Cheap Money in the new era of competitive monetary devaulations. The British stock market quickly recovered amd kept rising during most of the 1930’s. But unemployment hovered around 2.5 million until the beginning of the Second World War.
“For years, Continental opinion had been coming to the view that the British system was dying of ossification,” wrote Lionel Robbins [p. 93] “Now the British had increased their own relative importance compared to their continental rivals, who had joined them in perdition.”
The post-1931 British strategy also included Imperial Preference and trade war: “Britain entered the lists with the Import Duties Act of March, 1932 (reaching 33 1/3 per cent), and the later Ottawa Agreement establishing empire tariff preferences spurred other countries in the process of retaliation. Sterling losses of so many countries spread deflation through the struggle for liquidity. The contest between economies that remained on gold and those that had left it became acute.” [Mitchell, p. 14]
Soon, US exports to the rest of the world had dropped to about one third of their 1929 level. [Hoover, p. 83] European purchases of American agricultural products ceased almost entirely. US unemployment increased rapidly. Tax revenue fell by 50%. [Hoover, p. 89]
BRITISH DEFAULT: TEN MORE YEARS OF WORLD DEPRESSIONThe Gibraltar of British Empire finance had crashed. The old saying, “as safe as the Bank of England” was now a mockery. “It was only vaguely understood, if at all, that at stake was what is called today the ‘world monetary system.’ It was still a sterling system. The likely alternative to…the gold standard, at the old sterling parity, may have been the breakdown of that system. That is what happened after September, 1931.’ [Palyi, p. 86] “The cooperation of the central banks in the 1920’s ended in a breakdown of the entire system, having been essentially a cloak that masked the ultimate purpose of its chief ingredient, the gold exchange standard, which was to maintain Britain’s gold standard without obeying the rules of the gold standard.” [p. 146]
During the 18-month period after the British default, most world currencies also terminated gold payments through external default. Until March, 1933 the US dollar and some of its satellite currencies in central America were able to keep up payments on gold. Otherwise, the gold standard was maintained by a group of countries called the “gold bloc,” comprehending France, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Poland, and Estonia. Estonia was forced off gold, and Italy and Poland imposed gold export controls. The Belgian franc was devalued in March, 1935. France imposed a gold embargo in September, 1936. Switzerland and Holland announced devaluations immediately thereafter.
Of the fifty-four nations that had been on the gold standard at some timne between 1925 and 1931, none remained on gold in 1937. The world monetary system had indeed disintegrated.
CHART: COUNTRIES LEAVING THE GOLD STANDARDApril 1929 – April 1933
[See Brown, 1075]
BEYOND BREAKDOWN TO DISINTEGRATION———————————————————
The year 1931 is thus a turning point in the financial history of Europe analogous to 1914 in political-military history: “…because of the profound influence of the war upon the structure of the world’s credit system and upon the economic environment in which it operated, 1914-19 was a period that marked the breakdown, rather than the suspension or modification, of the pre-war international gold standard system…….when England suspended the convertibility of sterling in 1931 the international gold standard as a world institution entered into an historical phase which must be described by a stronger term than breakdown. SEPTEMBER 1931 MARKED THE BEGINNING OF ITS DISINTEGRATION.”
[Brown, p. 1052, emphasis added]
Current historians and economists are fixated on 1929, but there can be no doubt that September 1931 was the more important watershed by far. “Britain’s devaluation in 1931 had a psychological and political impact on Europe, and beyond, that can hardly be overestimated. In final analysis, the break-up of the international financial and commercial system was a decisive factor in balkanizing Europe and preparing the ground for World War II.” [Palyi, p. 270] Another writer noted that among the “consequences [of 1931] were an increase of international suspicion and hatred, an inflamed nationalism in Europe and, finally, war.”
[Giuseppi, p. 164]
Indeed.
Geopol, thanks for the contributions. <redacted, as I use a quasi-anonymous avatar myself>
Nevertheless, keep at it, thought provoking stuff. I guess if people want to find out/read more, they always can. You are one of the (many) reasons ZH remains fascinating. Thanks for being here.
I suppose the question that has remained unanswered up to now for me (and thus remains interesting)is how do the TPTB benefit in end/ who remains standing once the dust settles this time? Is it reasonable to assume that since the planet never imploded with previous iterations of the (same underlying) script's execution, it will not do so this time either? Is it the powers with ample nat. resources, manpower and arable land to be self-sufficient? And too large to be simply extorted with terms extended through a 'liberating army'?
Thankx,CD...
I suppose the question that has remained unanswered up to now for me (and thus remains interesting) is how do these so-called TPTB benefit in the end...
Population reduction and resource hording,, Fictitious war on terror..The masses submit..
The planet for them, not you..Seeds stored in Norway...You get the idea..
I was hoping I had it wrong. Hmm... As the population graph goes truly exponential in the years after 1950 or so, the 'wiping the slate' analogy takes on a whole new meaning. The previous 'formal' interlude of WWII merely checked pop. growth in 'industrialized' countries -- what needs to happen this time around?
Also, just thinking on the chance that the Wachowski brothers or their various inspiring authors grace this site. It's not every decade you see this kind of stuff playing out (but then again, perhaps it actually is - hence an even greater irony).
"Current historians and economists are fixated on 1929, but there can be no doubt that September 1931 was the more important watershed by far."
Approximately two years, post initial crash, hmmmm...
We are 1931.
"We are 1931" i say this to all who will listen (actually I say" 2010 is 1931"). Unfort no one is aware of the post '29 rally.
-----Crab Cake------ Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.---------
Funny you should post this. Today I talked to a friend that is 78 years old, 7 years older than me. I also talked to a 72 year old friend. Let me assure you that there IS Rage with the “old age” group. There are a bunch that are pissed off. It may take us a whole day to do what we used to do in a morning, and most of us can’t go 3 rounds (in the ring or neat). But, we will fight with you. We need the bight and young to lead----- no trite intended--- we all are in desperate need of leadership at the ground level.
Hi onlooker
This is reassuring to hear.
I see a lot of 'seniors' at the protests that they show from the US, but I don't seem to hear from them a lot on the blogs. Maybe it's a generational thing.
:-)
Seniors are the ones who will pay the MOST. They don't have the next half of their life to spend making up for the theft of their savings. You *should* be angry.
Seniors may not 'lead' per se, but they will give experience, stability, gravitas, political power and counsel to those who are on the barricades. And...of course...seniors are voters and campaigners.
onlooker
You don't need leadership, you need insight. Each individual must act in their own way not follow the direction of another. That is how we came here. We SETTLED. We did that not for our own individual interest but because we were promised if we compromise things will be better for all.
Act selfish. What I want may be radically different than what YOU want. Why should either of us give up our vision for some half assed middle ground neither of us is happy with or fulfilled by.
TPTB can manipulate leaders and movements, BUT they can not control informed independent individuals. There are just too many to reach.
Do not lead and do not follow, educate.
My relatives who lived through the 30's and 40's always had a silent but extremely strong resentment towards banksters, politicians, and other parasitic classes. While listening (sometimes patiently, sometimes feigning patience), I was until recently able to always withdraw into the illusion that 'oh, but that was the GREAT Depression, and WWII -- we don't have such things these days'.
And of course, I recently got to thinking -- why on earth WOULD they express their outrage publicly? Haven't they been taught, with very pointed, brutal and unforgettable lessons, what happens to those who speak out? Who won't stay down?
Would that more of them were still around. Would that their children and grandchildren listened to them more carefully. But hey, I got it (in the end) -- try to take the time to educate the younger, (even more) indoctrinated generations. There are still some who cling to the ideas of old, of respecting elders -- not necessarily for their age, but for the necessarily higher quotient of experience.
If we are in a similar financial period of 1931 and large amounts of soldiers are not needed for modern wars, a WW will not sufficiently alleviate unemployment. So if history somewhat ryhmes then what event(s) can we be expecting to simulate a WW2?
Can't just alleviate unemployment.
Must also destroy the productive facilities of all the other market competitors.
MisesFTW
China and India both have a large pool of young mateless males.
Iran is quickly becoming the rallying point because they thumb their nose at the US.
Mexico has a large youth pool.
Then make of this what you will
http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/News_flash2005/08%20July%20rising%20population.htm
"Fornos also cited the U.S. National Intelligence Council, a panel that advises the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), as saying that large youth populations potentially threaten U.S. interests in Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq, Mexico, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the West Bank and Gaza. ")
So that means don't join the army?
As a human i find myself venturing into the flawed thoughts of Thomas Malthus. I have to remind myself that we humans are a resourceful bunch and have seemed to survive structural unemployment before. Industrial rev. internet age. whats the next thing to wait for to employ us and put our productive resources to good use? Real-time pondering is a pain in the ass and it's easy to see how Malthusian doctrines can be infectious.
By the way i just got a copy of Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, Thoughts?
Tainter's Collapse of Complex societies is on the way.
Not to sound like a bible-thumper but do you think
it messed the work force up by adding all the women in?
Could an unintended consiquence be the cost of policing,
judging and confining the un-parented brats?
Why don't join the Army (other than the Army is a Police Force)? becuase of the superior numbers implied in other Locals?
"OOOOOOOOOOOOO" Food supplies?
Since the 4. World Wilderness Congress in1987, where Earth Charter co-author and illuminist, Mr. Maurice Strong introduced his friend, Edmund de Rothschild, the world never became the same: The Devil – excuse me - CO2 was at large. Rothschild stated that CO2 was the cause of non-existent man-made global warming. CO2, therefore, had to be caught and transported to the poles and into the Sahara to lower the temperatures there! This absurdity was accepted without discussion at the UN Rio Summit in 1992!! More about this on this video, after 28:45 min mark, where Rothschild states : “This needs money!”(our money). He is having it now through a stroke of genius.
Here is Rothschild´s approach to grabbing 30% of the Earth with the consent of our governments/central banks
Andrew Hitchcock: "The History of the Money Changers", 2006: In 1987, Edmund de Rothschild creates the World Conservation Bank which is designed to transfer debts from third world countries to this bank, and in return those countries would give land to this bank. The idea is for the IMF to create more and more SDR's backed by nothing, in order for struggling nations to borrow them. These nations will then gradually come under the control of the IMF as they struggle to pay the interest, and have to borrow more and more. The IMF will then decide which nations can borrow more and which will starve. They can also use this as leverage to take state owned assets like utilities as payment against the debt until they eventually own the nation states.
1988: The World Central Bank has three arms, the World Bank, the BIS and the IMF. 2000: How the World bank and the IMF took over Argentina, Tanzania and Bolivia. Terrible reading. The IMF is closely interwoven and here with Rothschild´s BIS Bank, and the BIS, IMF and the World Bank have a common external website.
http://euro-med.dk/?p=13656
Total fucking conspiracy... right?
November 2008, Rothschild announced a joint venture with Rabobank of the Netherlands whereby the two banks agreed to work together on deals in the food and agriculture sectors.
In a period of flux and instability, few can lay claim to the staying power of the Rothschild dynasty. With roots spanning more than two centuries, the Rothschild family made its name financing governments during the Napoleonic wars.
It arranged the first ever bond issue, on behalf of the Prussian Government in 1818; acted as bullion broker to the Bank of England during the gold rush; secretly financed Disraeli’s acquisition of the Suez Canal in 1857; established the first fund of hedge funds in 1969; and guided the Conservative Government in the UK through the privatisations of the 1980s.
The firm is among the most prolific advisers in the world. Rothschild consistently works on more deals than any of its competitors, covering mid-market as well as the largest deals in all sectors and geographies, and specialising in advising governments and public bodies.
It claims this approach gives its clients access to senior bankers regardless of the size of the transaction. Data provider mergermarket recently compiled a list of the top 10 bankers by the number of deals they had worked on in the last decade. Seven of them came from Rothschild, including healthcare rainmaker Dominic Hollamby, French banker Laurent Baril and head of UK investment banking Robert Leitao.
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/08-02-2010/rothschild-on-track-for-vintage-year-1
1 oz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage
1.5 oz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megadeath
dash of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Shake until sheen of condensation freezes on outer surface of shaker. Serve in chilled glasses with sprig of mint or twist of lemon.
Replenish drink as needed until desired labor/manufacturing/capital equilibrium is reached. No guarantee for planetary integrity or containable results expressed or implied.
MisesFTW
Its my measly self-educated opinion that the herd
will naturaly thin itself when SHTF and the pitiful
are no longer supported. Everyone needs cut-off,
welfare, politicians, bankers, and non-profits.
The strong and/or intelligent people will survive
because they have something to offer.
My husband and I are self-employed and therefore
cannot collect unemployment so we make it because
its the only choice. We are in the repair business
which qualifies as "producers" and have no debt. We
both quit our jobs to start our business in 06 and
had no idea things would go from awsome to bare
bones in such a short amount of time. I can adjust to whatever comes my way. The higher taxes on us small
business owners tells me that buying that big house we could afford wasn't a great idea just yet. I wouldn't
want to give them something to take away. I have
family that works for the state and own land I can build a cabin on if I have to. They will need me to share
3G's with them.
Whether it is on purpose or by stupidity the system
will have to implode at some point and I will welcome
the level playing field.
P.S. I found this site and love it but the only
stocks I ever bought was through Ameritrade last year as an experiment. I bought exactly 20 shares of GE and
10 shares of MRO. I was in at $430 bucks and out
with $650 a year later. It was enough to tell me that
the markets are above my pay grade (makes as much
sense to me as legal documents and the healthcare
bill). I am smart enough to know when I am getting
screwed but its nice to get confirmation by people
that know what they are talking about. Hat tip to
everyone at zerohedge I love this F'ING site.
So you are ready to cut and run... Austerity, so you may then go camping... the strong will survive? becuase lazy America is to, too much a Burden?
Mrs. I Hope and Pray for people like you every day, that the lights do not go out.
The whole strong will overcome thing, well sweety there are strong forces out there that are not playing within the same rule book you would choose to follow. The mobs / masses / criminals, do not follow your good natured theme and the idea that you are an operator and thusly can defend you and yours... cause your Daddy or Husband told you, you are a great shot and tuff girl, will not cut it when the shit hits the fan.
The moral high ground of giving everything up? to go camping? and fight off whatever comes your way? verses the lie that is our reality?
The level palying field you dream of does not come when the blanket of protection you are afforded now is lifted. I am sure you tell yourself all kinds of things like... you can handle the truth... or? you can take on anyone who comes thru that door? how about somone who smokes you out? for instance, or picks you off at distance... unless you are cute then just wings you for entertainment later... wake up! the world is not unicorns and rainbows now and what you are dreaming of would be farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr less safe for you than what you already suffer day to day.
Just and FYI... I say buy guns, ammo and food... gold if you can after the stamples... have a trade to barter with is fantastic as well... but hoping and praying for the end is not the smartest thing you have done lately.
Be well, JW
Good night everyone, thank you for the respectful debate and constructive criticism. I appreciate that there were relatively few personal attacks to my spam. I just came into this idea that Fascism was the enemy of the Tyranny of the masses and you all helped me think it through.
Goodnight pan-the-ist.
You were a big part of a day of learning for me. You didn't sound like spam - you sounded like someone with an opinion that isn't of the majority here.
Thank you for the education (connection between republic and laissez-faire, vs democracy), and thoughtful dialogue. Keeps us from making up our minds too damn quick, and ZH from deteriorating into another echo chamber.
Dude. You got an education from the logical, factually, and philosophically incorrect tripe that the pan was frying above?
His whole "Laissez-faire requires the government to enforce these free transactions or it doesn't work." is the biggest bunch of hooey ever propogated by a left-winger on this website.
And the complete non-sequitur argument about the Arizona immigration bill and the abdication of the voting rights of illegal immigrants ... that must be some awesome "ed-u-kay-shun" he is providing, right?
Folks, not that I would like to see the Hedge be an echo chamber of God, guns, and Palin ... far from it, but please don't let this forum turn into a place where idiocy and ignorance are championed simply because the argument is coming from the other side.
So my comments are Hooey and non-sequitur? Again, you haven't added anything to the discussion, probably because you don't have a leg to stand on if you had to explain yourself.
I agree with Hoover and Hayek on the overall topic, that socialism can lead to fascism. I just think that some people wish to shape the right wing into something it isn't (it isn't libertarian rainbows cooked with dewdrops), and the NeoCons are the American Fascists whether you like it or not, those are the facts. Here's a song just for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRf1Ad_Txsg
From a "fascist" (at least in your deluded world) on the subject of people like you ...
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Ciao, idiot.
Again, nothing to add.
Hoover’s greatest legacy is the Hoover Institution located at Stanford University
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution :
"The Hoover Institution is influential in the American conservative and libertarian movements
Mission statement
Herbert Hoover's 1959 statement to the Board of Trustees of Stanford University on the purpose of the Hoover Institution continues to guide its ideology and define its activities:
This Institution supports the Constitution of the United States, its Bill of Rights and its method of representative government. Both our social and economic systems are based on private enterprise from which springs initiative and ingenuity ... Ours is a system where the Federal Government should undertake no governmental, social or economic action, except where local government, or the people, cannot undertake it for themselves ... The overall mission of this Institution is, from its records, to recall the voice of experience against the making of war, and by the study of these records and their publication, to recall man's endeavors to make and preserve peace, and to sustain for America the safeguards of the American way of life. This Institution is not, and must not be, a mere library. But with these purposes as its goal, the Institution itself must constantly and dynamically point the road to peace, to personal freedom, and to the safeguards of the American system."
Most importantly this institution provided the opportunity for Antony C. Sutton, from 1968 to 1973, to conduct his seminal determination of the common financial, technical and industrial source for Bolshevik Marxism and German National Socialism: that being the Anglo-American private central banking centers of Wall Street and London:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton
"Sutton's...major published books Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Russian Revolution as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. His books became classics in the study of covert politics and economics in the twentieth century. In Sutton's own words he was "persecuted but never prosecuted" for his research and subsequent publication of his findings."
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (1974, 1999)
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/index.html
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (1976, 1999)
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/index.html
America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones (1983, 1986, 2002)
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119639.pdf
It clearly laid bare the false Right-Left dialectic that powers to this day the global military-industrial gulag complex and pointed to a common and singular cause of evil benefitting from and responsible for the rain of financial crises, war and genocide through the 20th century and beyond...
The Hoover Institution and Sutton's legacy is really an epochal war crime indictment.
It is time to stop following the money and start bringing to justice the stateless and stealthy global financial and political malice that disguises itself as a government of the same people it wishes to destroy.
BS!! BS!! The New Deal built up infrastructure. Dams, freeways, electricity to rural areas, irrigation, money into education and more. This (infrastructure) allowed the population to move forward in order to become more productive. FDR's pecora brought one of the most anti fascist banker bill of all time, the Glass Steagal act. The report sounds like something written by the American League which was being funded by JP Morgan, Dupont and more. FDR was more than a true patriot, he was a true visionary..
Intentions and eventual/long-term outcomes very rarely line up 1-to-1. Building infrastructure is rather ideology neutral, wouldn't you say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Autobahns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Plan_for_Electrification_of_Russia
Isn't one of the aspects/manifestations of fascism an intertwined structure of government and corporations? One one hand, such close gov't control over banking could be seen as fascist as it in effect potentially allows gov't to dictate to said banks. On the other hand, wasn't the final outcome of the Glass Steagal act (even if noble in the intentions of some of its proponents) merely that banksters had to find more indirect, less obvious ways to access the levers of power until conditions could be arranged such that this tiresome charade could be done away with?
Well, the most famous dam of the Great Depression era was the Hoover Dam, which was not a New Deal project. The federal highway system was also not a New Deal project; it was Eisenhower's. The New Deal did do the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Works Progress Administration, and these were big ticket items, but you overclaim their usefulness.
Also, FDR was self-admitedly not much of a visionary at all. He thought of himself, and sold himself, as a daring pragmatist who was willing to try anything. He even picked the price of gold out of thin air, $21, because he said it was his "lucky number." That's not the hallmark of a visionary, that's the hallmark of somebody who, one, is pulling stuff out of his ass and, two, has the temerity to force that bullshit on a whole nation. When that grand plan inevitably flopped, he responded by simply confiscating everybody's gold, in a snit. FDR's mind was compared to that of a hummingbird, by his friends, and that's not exactly a complement.
I know, FDR is a bonafide American hero. He led us thru the worst war ever. He was a patriot, too, despite it all, and there is a lot to overlook. FDR was a megalomaniac, he had a wide tyrannical streak, and in the end he did hold his own political power over the best interest of the nation. And, he was no visionary but rather a Wilson administration re-tread. If the man ever had a novel idea, nobody's the wiser.
HAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!
The real reason we got out of the depression was not WWII, it was because FDR finally DIED, which put an end to regime uncertainty.
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=430
"If we don't learn from the past, history is bound to repeat itself" We have indeed learned nothing from the past. I thought Keynes was dead.
Hoover's words are even more relevant today and guess what ... we've got the same elegant, arrogant and totally stupid players in Washington DC.
The problem with killing off Keynesian lunacy is that the distorted version of the philosophy that most politicians encounter is hugely appealing to those with a will to power and a desire to be admired. Generally, once a reasonable set of rules exists for constraining and/or punishing fraud, the best thing politicians can do is get out of the way. The Great Depression was one long and, well, depressing illustration of that.
But that is hardly satisfying to those inclined to political office. They need to seen as DOING SOMETHING, which has been a repeated disaster for the populace in all sorts of areas. Everything from attempts to redress centuries old social ills overnight to meddling with the economy when things turn down. This is why the idea of stimulus spending, without the requirement of having saved up and put aside money during the good times, is so appealing. The politico can claim to be helping the people sooner than later, even when patience and endurance were the only real treatments.
So long as there are politicians, Keynes will enjoy immortality.
This is all by design, every stinking EVIL bit of it!
The bit of an issue is propagandists failed to renew their tricks.
Tricks grow old and are no longer satisfying.
Hoover spouted political partisanship.
Nice. Not more different from now. That is the problem.
Anyone interested in the transformation of the world before WW2 cannot skip that Germany, Italy and Japan were deeply influenced by the US policy. Not the one self professed by the US but the one they could observed.
When reading their ideologues, the conclusion is they only wanted to do more faster. Just like a guy entering late in a competition and who wants to catch up by being fiercer than the others.
Politics of segregation, land grabbing, lebensraum, reservation camp, eugenics etc... All was to be found in the US politics.
Japan, Germany, Italy were all wannabe US.
EURUSD / EURJPY continues to show buying support on intra day chart.
EURGBP daily chart gives mild bullish warnings.
http://stockmarket618.wordpress.com
http://www.zerohedge.com/forum/latest-market-outlook-1
I warned ya EUR/USD short fags that Ben would squeeze ya like a grape
Isn't it funny how both the world wars occurred after the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913? The Federal Reserve is the GREATEST evil threatening human race today. All the booms, busts, recessions and depression are a DIRECT result of the Fed (and banks before it) meddling with the money supply and are NOT "natural".
We can dismantle their power one step at a time. Pulling their bank clients who interface with people in line is the best start, since it appears you can't go straight at the FED, take their friends down one notch at a time.
The feedback I'm getting from my friend inside one such Congressman's office is a "panic" to have populist voting record before November, esp after Bennett got cleaned like a fish. One Senator who is "liberal" yet voted the wrong way on "TBTF" says their office was slammed by calls and letters saying they'll never vote for her again. "Just on an amendment" even while she pushed reform. They're blown away that people are watching amendments and threatening relationship-end over it.
This usury am might actually pass. Obama is a nonstarter on most amendments. It's now the Congress more worried about themselves. They stopped relying on the big guy or heeding his deals.
Hard to believe but good news
I like Hoover's solution to the Fed:
"Ninth set up a court of 25 responsible, non-political men representing business, labor, and agriculture to direct the Federal Reserve policies and thus take control of credit out of the hands of politicians."
Riiight.
You want to F the banks?
Call and make everyone you know call their elected prostitute and tell them to support the Senator Whitehouse USURY Amendment which will allow the states to re-set top rates for OUT OF STATE BANKS, ending the fraud and predator banks overturning the bullshit ruinous Marquette-National Bank Supreme Court mistake. (This kicked off bank over-state and consumer power many year ago. The case logic made me sick elevating banks over even state rights)
Show some teeth, don't relent. This is a BIGGER F'IN DEAL than anything Biden thinks is a big F'in deal.
Then short their book (after your own DD!). I don't have to tell you how much in interest is collected between 12-100% on credit.
This bill looks legit.
This will act as a massive stimulus, if it passes, another selling point for fence sitting prostitutes.
----Gully Foyle and Lucky Guest-----
“by Gully Foyle
on Mon, 05/17/2010 - 22:16
#357557
onlooker
You don't need leadership, you need insight. Each individual must act in their own way not follow the direction of another. That is how we came here. We SETTLED. We did that not for our own individual interest but because we were promised if we compromise things will be better for all.Act selfish. What I want may be radically different than what YOU want. Why should either of us give up our vision for some half assed middle ground neither of us is happy with or fulfilled by.TPTB can manipulate leaders and movements, BUT they can not control informed independent individuals. There are just too many to reach.
Do not lead and do not follow, educate.------------------------------------ “
--reply--
I was somewhat unclear with my intent and statement. I have to agree that insight is needed, but, it usually based upon something like education, and experience by life or genes. My call to the youthful brighter is to lead in an effort to expand the information that the shadows have not been forth right with. AND if there is a movement with stellar insight, many may get involved with what ever asset they can lend to the cause. Your last sentence urging education is spot on. But, you DO have to lead and you may need to follow. I appreciate your activism. I have a boy that is a senior engineering student. His time is restrained because being an average kid, he is 24/7 getting a degree that is almost over his head, but he is doing it. It is the aware like you that can lead these kids into a movement that is sorely needed------- if it is education and awareness, then maybe change is possible.
----------------------------------------------------
Lucky Guest
Interesting point. Yes It caused a change in culture, but the physical movement away from rooted family (primarily the grandparents, brothers, sisters) who in the past had assisted with working mothers was a problem ( migration to the North and West ). Women have always worked. Historically with a baby slung on their hip, fortunately some work places are attempting to have child centers. Dr Spock, drugs, and the advertising drive to have more were deadly. But, it is that it is. And here again, education and real understanding of child raising is lacking.
Hoover wasn't that innocent either:
Murray Rothbard argued that the recession-adjustment that began in 1929 was greatly worsened and turned into a full-blown depression by the policies implemented by Herbert Hoover:
http://mises.org/daily/3689#ixzz0oOCnBW42 and http://cleppe0.blogspot.com/2010/05/that-other-monetary-crisis-in-west.h...I visited this page first time and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin!
http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net
http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net/phone-lookup