This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Time for a Shock Doctrine Crisis

ilene's picture




 

Time for a Shock Doctrine Crisis

Courtesy of Russ Winter of Winter Watch at Wall Street Examiner

"Only a crisis, real or perceived produces real change." -- Milton Friedman

The global elite plutocrats may seek a "crisis" to push the presidential election toward the challenger. There are numerous ways to set up a crisis. As the IMF's banking crisis frequency chart shows below, historically crises tend to erupt between late August and September anyway. The global economy is currently staged for catastrophic financial crises without even a push. All it takes is the slightest deviation away from governments' heavy handed intervention in the markets. It could stem from another U.S. credit downgrade or the collapse of yet another lingering Lehmen Bros.-like zombie. I rate a Grexit (Greece's exit from euro) high on the list of possibilities (US Looks to Exploit Greek Re-default) .

The elite plutocrats are concerned about regulation and whether Obama might take a more populist turn, such as actually implementing a millionaire tax, during a second term. The kleptocrats have already milked Obama and the U.S. Treasury more than ever imaginable. Having already successfully carried forth their looting agenda with their Presidente Hopium puppet, the financial elite are tossing him out like a used-up rag. Obama will be replaced with other sycophants readily willing to set up new types of loots.

Given that the U.S. Treasury is insolvent, held up only by financial rigging, the next major plutocratic objective will be to subject the developed nations of Europe and the U.S. to the economic model practiced under the Washington Consensus (WC). Western governments and banking interests created the WC in the '80s as a neoliberal policy to severely indebt and trap developing nations and capture their governments during financial crises.

The type of WC actually practiced will ignore sounder recommendations of capitalism such as free market interest rates, a degree of fiscal discipline,  controlling rent seeking subsidies, and good property rights. Instead the focus or guise is on a corrupted exploitation version of WC doctrine: severe austerity, dismantled social safety nets, privatizing key assets,  and distributing even more wealth from the gente, or lower and middle classes, to the elites. All of this was done in favor of the alternative: The restructuring of debt so that the losses fall on global banksters. This is the classic "shock doctrine" or "disaster capitalism" discussed by Naomi Klein. The pick of elitist neoliberal Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate all but ices the implementation of the neoliberal corrupted version of the WC approach for America's future.

The next reason for impetus could play out around Israel. Israel distrusts Obama, sees him as too weak, and wants a U.S. administration that is motivated to provide military backup against Iran. Romney has not only been courting Israel  for money, he has all but endorsed its position in a speech in Jerusalem.

 

In the U.S., Israel has the support of strange bed fellows: The evangelicals or “Christian Right.” Listen to this American pastor explain why.  Romney stated the U.S. with Israel would use “any and all measures” to lead the effort to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Romney even held an unprecedented campaign fundraiser in Israel.

 

Although the U.S. on its face is a center-right country, the majority of Americans would never give carte blanche support an extreme neoliberal political economy. Now leading by a very small margin, Obama needs to shuffle through to the election without troublesome events interfering with the election. Surveys show his previous support base has little enthusiasm for his “hope”-based candidacy, so Obama is depending mostly on a negative campaign to convince voters to support him as the lesser of two evils. I think such a campaign  leaves him vulnerable. To ensure his vulnerability will require a crisis or “surprise.” The plutocratic agenda requires that the crisis tree be shaken to push the marginal voter into staying home, thus swaying the election toward the GOP and paving the way for the implementation of the WC model.

 

 

For additional analysis on this topic and related trades subscribe to Russ Winter's Actionable – risk free for 30 days. The subscription fee is $69 per quarter and helps support Russ's work. Click here for more information.

Copyright © 2012 The Wall Street Examiner. All Rights Reserved. The above may be reposted with attribution and a prominent link to The Wall Street Examiner.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 08/19/2012 - 05:12 | 2717737 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

Crises can only be judged by what follows them. Are they catalysts for improvement or are they catalysts for greater misery for the greater part of society?

Crisis led to the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 and crisis led to billions being thrown at GM which is now on the verge of going bankrupt again.

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 11:30 | 2718017 Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

"... Crisis manufactured by the elite bankers led to the formation of the Federal Reserve in  1913..."

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 02:08 | 2717681 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Kliei nailed it with "Disaster Capitalism," but this article misses the point because its author is stuck in the narrow debate offered by MSM.  When you realize that a few hundred very wealthy people control the message (e.g., "are we doing enough to stop terrorism?, how much should we cut "income tax" on those who have mostly capital gains and who could fund SS for 100 years with their non-income wealth"), you will realize that the U.S. election is about whether we should shop at WalMart or Target, or more on point -- Staples or Office Depot.

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 11:46 | 2718039 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 The article presumes that the elite want Romney to replace Obama because Obama would be of little future use.

 There is a strong argument to be made that Obama would be of greater use than Romney. Obama may be able to usher in wars, swindles, and curtail liberties without arousing the political opposition that Romney would doing the same.

In any event, I think the elections serve another important purpose. Even though both candidates are hirelings of the elite, the elections serve as a poll to indicate which candidate is more palatable to the public, and hence could more easily implement disagreeable (to the public) policies. 

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 02:08 | 2717690 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

And yet you insist that representative government empowers the little guy.

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 02:10 | 2717691 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The police have been infiltrated by the mob.  Let's do away with the police and let the mob control us (?).

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 02:21 | 2717693 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

That's a straw man argument based on a false dichotomy. That's what you're left with when you favor faith over reason.

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 02:25 | 2717694 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So you have no answer to my point?  It's not a straw man at all.   It is the core of our debate. 

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 15:14 | 2718612 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Since the police "have been infiltrated by the mob", it stands to reason that the mob is already in control. True to Statist form, you argue that the outcome of dumping or minimizing a coercive monopoly with all the guns, would be....some other coercive monopoly with all the guns. Again...when do we get started?

At least with the mob there is competition.

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 02:38 | 2717698 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

When libertarians suggest that any service provided by government can be better provided by the market you insist that libertarians don't want the services at all. Libertarians don't want to do away with police. We want the police to be directly responsible to those whom they serve. That's the straw man.

The false dichotomy is the choice between government or the mob. Once again you forget the option of free market security and adjudication. You also miss the point that both the government and the mob use violence as an organizing principle, while the market depends on voluntary interaction.

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 14:55 | 2718567 falak pema
falak pema's picture

with a teeeneeee weeeneeee 80% bit of HFTeeeeee!

vive le marché libre.

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 02:49 | 2717700 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

And you gloss over the fact that "the market" has never existed in a truly free way throughout all of human history.  Kings and Queens come to power for a reason, and "voluntary interaction" exists only when there is a check and balance on their power.   The Founding Fathers came up with a brilliant way to keep the power of the oligarhcs in check.

I'm on Eastern Time so good night, Gracie.  We shall live to debate another day, thanks to the system you detest.   

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 05:37 | 2717747 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

About "The Founding Fathers came up with a brilliant way to keep the power of the oligarchs in check." Could you be a bit more specific? Which way?

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 11:15 | 2717996 paintman
paintman's picture

I can answer that.  The Founders recognized that government is all about force.  They divided the forces, as well as they could, into 3 levels with 3 entities at each level, and gave each limited powers over the other two.  In this way, no single level or entity could force its will upon another, but a combination of two could force their will upon the third. Under the original Constitution, federal legislation could not be enacted unless representatives of both the people and the state legislatures agreed in majority.  The Administration could not acquire new authority unless the Legislative and Judicial entities agreed to release that authority.  A similar situation existed at the state and county levels. 

Americans immediately began to tinker with this system, and there were three distinct occurences that caused the unbalancing of these forces.  First was the entrance of parties into the election process.  Rather than allowing voters to choose among the legally filed applicants for the various offices, parties were allowed to force voters to join a party if they wanted to participate in selecting a candidate.  This greatly restricted the voters' choices and gave rise to the "lessor of two evils" elections we are forced to participate in today.  Second was the corruption of Executive Orders, where new authorities could be easily assumed by the Executives but only denied by a long and difficult process by the other two entities.  Third, and probably most corrupting, was the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments which effectively removed the force of the states from the federal legislative process.  After these Amendments, the people were left to counter the federal government alone and history shows that the people, without a third entity to support their efforts, have only two options in this situation.  They either accept federal force, or they revolt.

So, in answer to your question, "The Founding Fathers came up with a brilliant way to keep the power of the oligarchs in check." It was the changes made later that corrupted their system.

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 12:41 | 2718058 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

All well considered points.

I would note that individuals naturally align themselves with their friends and those with common interests. This is the very basis of society and an economy based on the division of labor. The instinct for individuals to come together in parties for political purposes is natural and ineradicable. It is the nature of government itself and its dependence on the use of force by an unproductive elite class which is unnatural. The natural human tendency to work in teams to increase efficiency allows one team to magnify its power exponentially over other teams by the acquisition of government power. Because government turns human virtues into flaws it proves itself to be an unnatural and unworkable institution.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 23:06 | 2737952 paintman
paintman's picture

Assembling into likeminded groups or parties is unquestionably a basic human need.  What is unnatural is the insertion of these parties into the election process.  Why do we have to declare a party affiliation when we register to vote?  Why are the primaries divided into parties?  How can officials be elected in primaries, where only selected individuals are allowed to vote?  If only party affiliates are eligible to vote in a primary, why are the primaries being paid for out of public coffers?  None of these issues existed at the conception of this country.  They are modifications that were made later, and they are all contrary to the concept of one person, one vote.

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 19:13 | 2719078 monad
monad's picture

This was covered in detail in the Anti-federalist papers. It is essential to our enterprise that we maintain an educated population and a competent free press. As you can see, these 2 have been the primary vectors of attack against us, in combination with the sustained attack on family values, accelerated by the permawar and continuous religious fraud.

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 21:30 | 2719375 Conrad Murray
Conrad Murray's picture

For anyone interested, The Library of America has an excellent two-volume set on this subject (original sources: newspaper articles, speeches, etc), "The Debate on the Constitution".

http://www.loa.org/debate

Absolute must-have stuff.

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 15:02 | 2718579 falak pema
falak pema's picture

it proves itself to be an unnatural and unworkable institution.

So we replace it with......? networked friends?

What happens when the Clantons want to take over Tombstone...?

That name is so symbolic of what is happening today! 

We convince them on a friendly basis or like the Earps. And the Earps were...marshalls? 

We can't seem to get away from G, even in the wild west! 

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 19:03 | 2719056 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

How about service providers who are hired and fired by and therefore directly under the control of those who contract for those services?

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 03:06 | 2717702 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Why do you believe that it is impossible for people to voluntarily organize themselves in order to provide those checks and balances?

If people can only be organized by force then their consent is irrelevant, so who is to determine the nature of systemic checks and balances? How can representative democracy have any role in a system which compels individuals through violence?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!