FedUpUSA

Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

Comes now this morning into my email notification that The Daily Bell has not only ripped off my commentary and opined upon it (legitimate) they further attributed it to CNBC (not kosher folks.)

But let’s examine their opinion a bit, shall we?

Dominant Social Theme: By expanding the regulatory state, we can make things better.

Free-Market Analysis: One of the main emergent US dominant social themes is that the government and regulators must step in to clean up the market and make it safe for investors. The idea is that the larger modern marketplace is very necessary for the functioning of modern society and that one must “clean up fraud” so that people will “trust” the market again.

This meme is being enunciated aggressively all over the place lately, and we have done our best to point it out. It is based on a misapprehension and is placing good people into rhetorical boxes where they decry modern finance but turn to the US’s penitentiary-industrial complex for solutions. Here’s more from the article excerpted above:

Uh, no.

Expand the regulatory state?  How about we actually enforce the laws that already exist?  And for those that are not laws but written as laws, how about if we either turn them into actual laws (instead of lying about what they are) or repeal them so that nobody thinks they’re a law when they are not?

It is against the law, for example, to swindle people.  It’s a crime.  And as I pointed out here, the Right side of the aisle, including the Tea Party, refuses to address the fact that our nation’s largest financial institutions are serial violators of the law to the point that nearly all would have committed their “third strike” and be disbanded (the equivalent to life imprisonment) by now.

There is no shortage of laws under which to actually prosecute.

The Daily Bell goes on to sling around the common mud of “fiat funny money” and allege that but for The Fed there would be no problem at all.  This, however, is a lie, for two simple reasons:

1. The Fed is already constrained in what it can do — it has a mandate for stable prices (that is, zero inflation) that it has serially and repeatedly violated for its entire 100 year history, even prior to the implementation of the so-called “dual mandate”, and yet there has been no enforcement.  Why not?  There is no punishment called out in that law, just as there is no punishment called out in the former enabling law for the OTS and thus “backdating” deposits by IndyMac bank didn’t lead to a criminal indictment against either IndyMac or the so-called “regulator” who did it.  A “law” or “regulation” without a punishment for violations is no law or regulation at all — it is a mere suggestion.  As such these so-called “laws” are nothing more than sops for the fools at places like The Daily Bell who love to point to all these “laws” and then claim that “more regulation” is futile.  That would be true if those were actual ineffectual laws but due to the lack of a punishment clause they stand as nothing more than blank pieces of paper.
2. The proffered solution, free market currencies, is just another sop to idiocy.  Government will always denominate its current taxes due in something.  Whatever that something is will be the defacto currency of the nation and will be the majority — by far — currency that is used for transactions.  The “why” is simple: Nobody in their right mind wants to wake up some morning and find that their currency du jour has been devalued by some sort of debauchery and their taxes due but not yet paid have suddenly doubled or more, instantly bankrupting them.  The simplest and “zero cost” way to hedge against such an event is to transact in the currency you pay your taxes in.  Sorry folks, but logic resolves this conflict and it doesn’t go where the Paulites would like; you must employ magical thinking to get to their claimed nirvana.

Indeed, the problem with the “free market” currency solution is that if you do not resolve the actual problem — the lack of The Rule of Law (that is, #1) so-called “free market” people will intentionally create the situation in #2 and get away with it!

That, incidentally, is the history of monetary systems going all the way back to the American Revolution and beyond.  Indeed if you look at historical inflation rates prior to The Fed you will find ridiculous changes in the valuation of the currency over very short periods of time.  10, 20, even 30% swings in valuation were common.  If you happen to believe that the fact that over the long haul the “more or less stable value” was preferable to what we have today you’re cherry-picking your timeline — get it wrong by a year or so and you’d either have made a bundle or been bankrupted.

Unfortunately life doesn’t work this way; you fall in love, you get sick, you get well, you find a job, you lose a job, your roof leaks, you get hit by a bus and you die all on a very unpredictable timeline.  But those who pull the strings through government are more than happy to use your series of unfortunate events to screw you blind and steal everything you have — and absent The Rule of Law, they will.

Our latest little corruption was sent to me here, from the Fed weekly balance sheet:

Where did that $45 billion go?  Oh, in the nice catch-all bucket called “Other”, right?  What’s in “Other”?

Let’s see…. the GSEs are in there (Fannie/Freddie), the IMF is in there, the UN is in there, a lot of things are in there.  So which “other” was this and why wasn’t it identified with specificity?  Oh that’s simple: There is no rule of law when it comes to Fed operations as there is no “or else” to be found anywhere in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as amended.

Thus The Fed could “decide” that Fannie and Freddie paper was “ok” to buy, even though the black letter of the law says otherwise.  They could point to their own “interpretation” and since there was no “or else”, if they interpreted wrong, even intentionally wrong, there was no cost to them personally that could be imposed.  Ditto for “Maiden Lane” and their other machinations.

In this case it appears they bailed out someone yet didn’t tell us who it was.  Gee, with all the turmoil in the markets you can’t find someone who needed to be bailed out, can you?

Those who argue for “End The Fed” have yet to reconcile the fundamental nature of the problem: It is not The Fed that is the issue, it is the presence of so-called “laws” with no penalty for non-compliance that is where the problem resides.

In point of fact The Fed’s actual mandate for stable prices is exactly correct.  Followed to the letter we have no debasement of the currency over time, no inflation, and you can save a mere 7% of your income — if your Social Security taxes were then to be merely returned to you in retirement along with that 7% you would have an effective 20% saving rate for retirement and would need exactly nothing beyond that for a reasonable retirement lifestyle similar to that of your working years!  If you saved nothing you would still have a 13% saving rate and we would meet the mandate of the “social safety net” allegedly to be provided.

If the “law” had actually been followed there would have been no ramp in credit compared to GDP because it could not have been funded.  There would have been no Internet bubble, no Housing bubble and no crash.  House prices never would have gone materially over 2x incomes and likely would be between 1x and 2x.  Medical and college costs would be what they were then.  Wages would have risen with productivity but not beyond, and you would have kept that standard of living increase instead of having it stolen by the vipers of Wall Street and the Capitol.  Jobs would not have been offshored and there would have been no incentive to hire illegal aliens and displace American workers.

So why didn’t it happen this way?  That’s easy: There is no “or else” in these so-called “laws.”

Ending The Fed will do exactly nothing without fixing this problem.  Competing currencies will do nothing without fixing this problem.  In point of fact essentially every current economic issue we face is found, at some point, in this singular premise.

Those who continue to beat on the “End The Fed”, “Competing Currencies” and other similar-sounding drums are either missing the mark because they fail to analyze the problem or worse, they’re shilling for those who are looking for yet another way to rob you blind when the current scam, which is about to collapse, comes down around their ears.

Don’t fall for it.

Does anyone need any additional evidence that our political system is completely broken?  The bipartisan congressional supercommittee that was given two months to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts over the next decade has failed to reach an agreement.  It is an epic failure and a national embarrassment.  The truth is that they never even came close to an agreement.  In fact, as you will read below, the two sides on the panel have been barely even talking to each other.  In the end, the supercommittee was a super joke.  Meanwhile, the U.S. national debt has passed the 15 trillion dollar mark and we are facing trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.  We are heading directly for a national financial disaster, and our “leaders” seem powerless to do anything about it.

According to the supercommittee’s rules, any plan would have had to have been submitted to the Congressional Budget Office by Monday in order to give the CBO 48 hours to analyze how much the plan would reduce budget deficits over the coming decade.

When the supercommittee was announced, it made headlines all over the world, but now it is ending with a whimper.

The supercommittee was never a good idea in the first place, but you would have thought that they could have come up with something over the course of two months.

But instead all they are giving us are a whole bunch of excuses and a whole lot of hot air.

What a joke.

Is it really that difficult to come up with $1.2 trillion in cuts over a decade?

It isn’t as if they would even be cutting very deeply.  $1.2 trillion in cuts would not even cut the budget by $150 billion a year.  We would still be talking about trillion dollar deficits way into the future.

But instead of agreeing to some token cuts, they have chosen to do nothing and to blame each other.

So now $1.2 trillion in “automatic budget cuts” will go into effect starting in 2013.  But even that $1.2 trillion figure contains a lot of “fuzzy math”.  For example, it includes $169 billion in “projected savings” from “reduced interest costs” on the national debt.

I would love to see how they came up with that figure.

In any event, the truth is that none of these numbers really matter at all.

Why?

None of the budget cuts go into effect until after the 2012 election.  That means that this Congress can vote to repeal the automatic cuts well before then.

Some in Congress are already pushing for this.  For example, U.S. Senator John McCain said the following recently….

“It’s something we passed. We can reverse it.”

Or, even more likely, once the new president and the new Congress are elected in 2012 they will almost certainly choose to abandon this agreement.

When it comes to politics, the only thing that matters is what happens before the next election.

All of this talk of future cuts is just an illusion.  When the next president and the next Congress come to power, they will want to do their own thing.

So after all of the huffing and puffing over the last couple of years, what has actually been accomplished as far as reducing our horrific budget deficits?

Not much at all.

We racked up a $1.3 trillion budget deficit during the fiscal year that just ended, and this fiscal year we will be somewhere in the same neighborhood.

We have been living in the greatest debt bubble in the history of the world, and at some point all of this is going to end very, very badly.

The total amount of debt in this country (government, business and consumer) has been rising much, much faster than our national income has.  If you don’t believe this, just check out this chart.

In particular, government debt is totally out of control.  When Barack Obama first took office, the national debt was 10.6 trillion dollars.

It is now over 15 trillion dollars.

We are in debt up to our eyeballs and we desperately need our leaders to do something about it.

But according to a recent Politico article, the members of the supercommittee haven’t even been talking to each other….

The supercommittee last met Nov. 1 – three weeks ago! It was a public hearing featuring a history lesson, “Overview of Previous Debt Proposals,” with Alan Simpson, Erskine Bowles, Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin. The last PRIVATE meeting was Oct. 26. You might as well stop reading right there: The 12 members (6 House, 6 Senate; 6 R, 6 D) were never going to strike a bargain, grand or otherwise, if they weren’t talking to each other. Yes, we get that real deal-making occurs in small groups. But there never WAS a functioning supercommittee: There was Republican posturing and Democratic posturing, with some side conversations across the aisle.

Can you believe that?

Could it really be true that they have not met since November 1st?

Is Congress really that much of a joke?

According to Real Clear Politics, the approval rating for Congress is sitting at about 12 percent right now.

After this, it may get even lower.

Instead of working on a solution to our problems, the members of the supercommittee have been busy going on television and telling us who to blame.

The following is a short exceprt from a recent article in the Washington Post….

Republicans on the supercommittee held a conference call Saturday morning, and aides said members from both parties continued to talk by phone. But neither side was predicting a last-minute breakthrough. Instead, seven panel members booked appearances on the Sunday talk shows, as both sides readied their best arguments for why the other is at fault.

Our politicians are obsessed with finding someone else to blame and with getting ready for the next election.

Meanwhile, the ship is going down and people are starting to panic.

And this is not going to look good to the rest of the world at all.  There is a very real risk that one of the other major credit rating agencies will decide to downgrade U.S. debt.

The second downgrade of debt is often more important than the first.  When the first downgrade happened, U.S. debt still had a AAA rating from the other two major credit rating agencies.

But after another downgrade, the average credit rating of U.S. debt will be less than AAA.  That will mean that U.S. debt will no longer be a cash proxy.  A lot of transactions that take place right now in the financial world would not be able to happen if that takes place.

So what do our leaders need to do?

Well, the truth is that we should recognize that they are in a really, really tough position.  Decades of nightmarish decisions have left us out of good options under our current financial system.

The reality is that members of Congress are damned if they do and they are damned if they don’t.

This is what I mean – if we don’t deal with our national debt now, everyone agrees that a massive day of reckoning is coming down the road.  Greece is an example of what happens when debt catches up with a nation.

However, if we did cut the federal budget very deeply right now, it would almost certainly bring on a huge economic contraction.

Right now, insane federal spending is one of the only things keeping this economy afloat.  If you were to suddenly pull half a trillion dollars (or more) of federal spending out of the economy, it would have a devastating impact.

A lot of people out there correctly argue for a huge reduction in federal spending, but they greatly underestimate the amount of pain that it would cause.

Let there be no doubt, all of this federal debt has enabled us to enjoy a “false prosperity” for several decades, and when we dramatically cut back on spending a lot of that “false prosperity” is going to disappear.

Our “real economy” is rapidly being gutted and America is becoming poorer as a nation every single day.  One way that we have been making up the difference is by going into almost unbelievable amounts of government debt.  When the government debt bubble pops, the pain is going to be enormous.

If you do not believe this right now, you will believe it soon enough.

Not that we should keep going into huge amounts of debt.

Every dollar that we “borrow” is actually being stolen from our children and our grandchildren.

In fact, that is what Thomas Jefferson believed.  According to Jefferson, when the federal government borrows money in one generation which must be paid back by future generations it is equivalent to stealing….

And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

We have got to stop stealing from future generations.  If they get the chance, they will curse us for what we have done to them.

Anyone out there that supports our current system of running endless budget deficits is supporting a horrific crime against our children and our grandchildren.

But once again, we all need to clearly understand that when the borrowed money stops flowing out of Washington D.C., our economy is going to get much worse.

Are you prepared for the unemployment rate to double?

Are you prepared for foreclosures to soar to unprecedented heights?

Are you prepared for economic pain unlike anything you have ever seen before?

According to the New York Times, there are 100 million Americans that are either living in poverty or that are considered to be among the “near poor” right now.

So how bad will things get if we plunge into a depression?

Anyone that believes that we can drastically cut the federal budget and improve the economy at the same time under our current system is not being rational.

Just look at what is happening to Greece.  They implemented substantial budget cuts (although not nearly big enough to bring them to a balanced budget) and they have plunged into a nightmarish economic depression.

Right now, we are in a position where we are going to experience a horrific amount of pain whatever we do.  If we keep piling up debt at this rate we will experience a nightmare, but if we pop the debt bubble and try to live within our means we will also experience a nightmare.

There is a way out of this, but our politicians are not talking about it.  As I have written about previously, if the federal government abolishes the Federal Reserve and starts issuing debt-free money, we could eliminate our federal budget deficits, cut taxes and improve the economy all at the same time.

But nobody is even talking about debt-free money.

Instead, all of our politicians are talking about “fixing” the current system.

Well, let me tell you, it is impossible to solve our problems under the current system.  If we insist on maintaining our current debt-based financial system, it will only end in a massive amount of pain.

The American people need to get educated about our financial system.  They need to learn that the Federal Reserve and the debt-based currency that they issue are at the very heart of our economic problems.

Back in 1913, prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the national debt was only about $2.9 billion.

Today, our national debt is over 5000 times larger.

Debt-based central banking is a perpetual debt machine.  It is at the heart of our financial problems and it is also at the heart of the financial problems that Europe is experiencing.

Unfortunately, the American people don’t understand this, and there are virtually no politicians out there that are even talking about this.

Very dark days are ahead for America.

You had better get prepared.

The Economic Collapse

Okay.  I’m going to have to take a shower or delouse myself or something, but Lord help me the woman nailed this one.  Even if given a week, I couldn’t possibly find a single thing about which I’ve ever agreed with Maddow.  Normally, if I ever happen to come across her on the television, I can’t turn the channel fast enough; however, this little piece right here must be seen.  There’s a whole lot of truth going on right here.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Quite frankly, I’m absolutely stunned.  Dogs sleeping with cats.  Everything turned upside down.  I don’t know, but I can say this: the time for partisanship has passed.  If we do not unite behind fighting the criminal cartel of the Wall-Street/Washington DC complex, our country is toast.

Oh, and a message to the GOP:  the more you ignore the fraud and criminality, the more you seal your fate to be relegated to the trash bin of history.  Right now, the GOP looks like it is defending and even promoting the criminal, crony capitalism that passes for our economy.  Cluephone:  the people are utterly repulsed and disgusted with this Democrat administration for its excusing, aiding and abetting criminal acts which extorted billions of dollars from taxpayers and allows those responsible to somehow entirely be immune from prosecution, but the people are getting just as disgusted and repulsed with the GOP for failing to do a damn thing about it.

You’re not going to like this.

I don’t care.

Let me make this clear in case the title wasn’t: The Republican Party bears UNITARY responsibility for what is about to happen to the United States economy and political system.

That’s right: UNITARY responsibility.

It’s simple, really: The Constitution requires that all spending bills must originate in The House.

Therefore, the overspending, today is the responsibility of THE HOUSE, which has a Republican majority. 

Yes, it used to have a Democrat majority.  Then a Republican one before that.  But let’s remember how the die was cast here.

• Gramm-Leach-Bliley.  All three sponsors were from which party?
• Alan Greenspan allowed “sweeps” which were a blatant attempt to evade reserve requirements.  Since that was their only purpose they were intentionally fraudulent edifices.  Which political party’s President nominated him to The Federal Reserve?
• Alan Greenspan was responsible for off-balance-sheeting Medicare and Social Security.  Which party did that again?  (Hint: Someone named “Ronald” was the President at that time and appointed that commission.)

Do not take this to indicate that Democrats are not also responsible for the lead-up to this.  They are.  The fact of the matter is that both major political parties have serially made promises that cannot be kept.

This is active fraud upon the public and both parties are guilty of it.  In a just society the leaders of both parties would be indicted, tried and imprisoned for attempting to run serial Ponzi Schemes on the public.  We do not, obviously, live in a just society and the proof of same is that jackals like Reid and Boehner are free to ravage, er, wander amongst the people of this nation.

But that’s then, and this is now.

NOW we need to cut the federal budget not with a knife or a scalpel, but a chainsaw.

Bachmann has said “43%.”  There were gasps when she uttered those words.

Sorry, that’s not enough.  (Take your heart medication before continuing folks.)

Here’s the math.

Last year (Calendar 2010) we ran a 12% of GDP deficit, $1.7 trillion.  This year we are tracking to run about $1.4, but we have three months left.  If history repeats as to size it’ll come in around $1.4 trillion, which is approximately 9% of GDP.  This is within the rough range of 9-12% of the last three years.

The last year of Bush’s Presidency we ran somewhat over 9% of GDP.  Obama has run 11 and 12%, respectively, and this will be ~9-10%, so there’s no change in that regard.

But withdrawing the deficit spending is not enough because the withdrawal of that money, when it runs through the economy, then produces a (gross) reduction in tax receipts.  Figure 1/3rd of that deficit spending ultimately returns to the government in the form of taxes in some form or fashion by the time all of the “turns” those funds made in the economy (e.g. from company making the presidential limo to the folks making the alternator to the folks making the copper wire to the mine pulling the copper out of the ground), and subtract that off as well.

So now we need to reduce spending not by $1,700 billion but that plus about another $500 billion for the tax impact, for a total of $2.2 trillion out of $3.7 trillion spent.  About $500 billion of our spending at present is interest so this means we have: $3.7 – $2.2 – $0.5 = $1 trillion in total actual federal spending available to us out of an original $3.7 trillion.

Were you sitting down when you ran that number?

To put this in perspective DOD is $750 billion.  You cannot pay for both that and any of the “big 5″ entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, TANF/WIC/etc and Unemployment)

You can cut DOD by 50% and cover one of the big entitlement programs in full.  The other four and everything else in the Government gets zeroed.

I know what you’re going to say: That’s impossible – it will collapse everything.

Go talk to the Republican Party folks.  They allowed this to continue past August with the debt ceiling vote and they’ve allowed this through passing “continuing resolutions” where they had the ability to stop them in the Senate (since there was no filibuster-proof majority) all the way since George Bush was President.

When George Bush was President the gross reduction (in 2007) to address this was about 25%, not 43%.  It was still horrific, but not as bad.

Nobody from either party is telling the truth.  It doesn’t matter: Right now responsibility rests with the party that can put a stop to it here, now and today.

That party is the Republican Party.

This is an exponential series and in 2007 the contraction was about 25%.  Now it’s up to more than half and if we don’t cut this crap out we’re going to lose the ability to choose what happens at all.

Can we do this “more slowly”?  A bit, but not much.

Just remember one thing: So long as the government is running a deficit we’re merely extending how long we have before it all blows up – we’re not changing the outcome.

Yes, folks, it’s that bad.  I know people don’t want to hear it or believe it, but just because you don’t want to believe something does not make it untrue.

It just means you’re being an Ostrich and if that’s a hunter you are sticking your head in the sand to “avoid” dealing with you’re about to be turned into dinner.

This is the Ticker I’ve been holding for roughly the last week, editing it as the days go by.

Please go pull an espresso, grab a beer, or (if you’re easily disturbed) a shot of whiskey might be appropriate.

I’ve taken a boatload of heat for my alleged “support” of the “Occupy Everything” meme that is taking off across the country.  There are a lot of people commenting on my positions that have displayed everything that is wrong with our education system, chief among them being its utter lack of teaching people to read for content rather than generating spittle-laced knee-jerk invective.

No matter.  Since 2007 I have written what I believe on The Market Ticker and if you read Musings going back to 2004 you can see my commentary there too.  A very few remember the rather-acerbic interviews and debates that I had with the ACLU and other organizations during the 1990s, including some tame appearances on Chicago Tonight and some much-more-lively ones on Usenet.  If you think I can’t take the heat that gets dished out you are rather naive; I believe there were entirely-new curses named for me back in the 1990s.  In comparison the screeching of people on other blogs and media outlets today is the sort of thing that annoys with the intensity of a dog that occasionally barks next door.

OWS, whether you like it or not or whether you accept it or not, is displaying all of the hallmarks of a nascent political apparatus.  In this nation we’re free to organize with others, irrespective of our beliefs, into political parties.  We usually remember only Democrats or Republicans, but in fact there are a whole bunch of actual parties; the Libertarians are one such example of a third party that has some prominence.  The modern Democrat and Republican parties date to the 1800s; prior to them we had The Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, the Democratic-Republicans, the Toleration Party, The Anti-Masonic (really!) party, and of course the Whigs, among others.

Through our nation’s history, however, we have more-or-less always had a two-party system.  Sure, there have been times (like when Ross Perot ran for President) that this has been threatened, but it has never been a stable situation unlike many other nations that have several political parties active at any given time and revolve around coalitions between them to build consensus in their legislatures.

Whether this is good or bad from your point of view doesn’t matter; it simply is.

Now add to your perception of OWS the following: They have and are explicitly disavowing any sort of “spokesperson” support from MoveOn, as just one example.  In short they’re refusing to “ally” with others – they see themselves as an independent group and are acting like it.  That doesn’t stop other organizations to claiming that they “stand with” or “in solidarity with” the protests, but that’s no more valid of OWS’ interest in the claiming organization than if I were to say I stand “in solidarity” with Harry Reid (trust me, I’m quite sure he wouldn’t stand “in solidarity” with me!)

As I see it “OWS” (in all of its branches across the country) will go one of two routes:

1. Someone will do something stupid.  Specifically, the “movement” will turn toward violence.  Public opinion will instantly shift against them and that will be the end of it.  The people generally support the First Amendment but they will not stand for looting and burning cars, nor should they.  I will leave the position I will immediately adopt if that happens “in my pocket” for the present time as I don’t expect to have to show that set of cards, but trust me on this: I have pocket rockets and my position is founded in the Constitution as currently written.
2. The group will maintain a peaceful organization, even if “in your face”, long enough to actually coalesce around a core set of ideas.  If that happens a formal political apparatus will almost-certainly arise.

Now you can dislike this but there is no legal means available to you to prevent it from happening nor should there be.  Political activism is what we all be both supporting and engaging in ourselves.  After all, if you’re not politically active you have little room to bitch if you don’t like the political outcome.

I believe the second is their goal; the people I’ve talked with, the videos I’ve seen, the emails that I’ve read on the various mailing lists lead me to believe that while there are some “bomb throwers” in the group there are in all groups and that the vast majority of those involved in OWS recognize that #2 is imperative if anything is to be accomplished (other than getting their head cracked, that is.)  Indeed, if you watched any of the livestream coming from Times Square last weekend you saw this in action – the camerapeople were warning the protesters that the police were showing up with lots of plastic handcuffs intending to bust heads and that they had to keep their cool.  They did.

This doesn’t mean that the bomb-throwing nuts are all done and won’t take their best shot.  They might.  I don’t know what sort of goal doing that has in any kind of cogent movement, because there’s only way that ever can “win”: You have to incite a revolution and doing so requires at least high-single-digit percentages of the general population willing to die for what you believe in.  If not you’re simply going to go to prison – and in my view you should as you’re a rioter, not a “freedom fighter.”

Now add another nasty historical fact to the mix: Revolutions are odds-on things to produce dictatorships, not freedom.  For every 1 George Washington you get 10 Hitlers.  Oh, and by the way, if you think you’ll be the dictator’s new best friend if you “help” incite such a thing?  You’re wrong – you’ll be one of the first shot since you could do it again and overthrow him!  Don’t be stupid: The first act of a dictator is to cement his power and he does that by killing anyone that could threaten him.  Duh.

So let’s not play the romantic eh?  It doesn’t work like that and anyone who has bothered to pass history class in High School (say much less do any independent reading) knows it.  I’m going to assume anyone reading this blog is well-aware of these facts and is too intelligent to fall for the sort of tripe that the agitators might run.

Back to the practical: If a new political party comes from this one of the existing ones will almost-certainly splinter and die.

The salient question: Which one will it be?

Did that deep chill go down your spine?

If not, you’re not paying attention.  And don’t be smug either — let’s remember the facts, shall we?  There are a lot of people who got screwed.  The OWS folks have the “who did it” right.  The Republicans and Democrats have both rewarded (and participated in!) the scammers games, but who takes the hit?

I honestly don’t know, but my handicapping says that if you think the Republicans are “safe” on this you’re playing with fire.

IF the Republican Party goes down then you have the Democrats and….. what, exactly?

I don’t know, but I’m not at all sure I like it!

Do I like it if the Democrats go down?  Not necessarily much better if the more-radical and mathematically stupid views prevail.

They don’t have to.  If you’ve been reading this blog for a good long while and listening to Blogtalk you know my position on this going back to before Obama’s election, when people were calling him the “Marixist in Chief” and suggesting that he would never leave office (just as they did with Bush, incidentally): I have no fear of Obama.  The guy who follows him, or worse, someone down the road later on in the throes of a real economic shitstorm is an entirely different matter.

History, if you recall, is replete with these examples: An economy goes “overcenter” due to exponential games that cannot be maintained.  Rather than address it and get in front of it, accepting that which has to happen partisanship increases and the people become more and more restive.  They recognize that the politicians and those in “private business” have conspired together to rip them off but they have no effective voice.  Economic deterioration continues right up until someone stands and says “I can fix all this….. but there will be a few compromises.”

He wins in a landslide.

I think you know what comes next – the last time six million gassed people came next, along with a global conflict that killed millions more.  Today such conflicts come with body counts that can be in the tens of thousands or more per weapon used, which makes avoidance of such an outcome much more important than it was before (not that ignoring the risk then was very smart!)

So yeah, folks, I think you should all engage these people.  Logic wins, if you can manage to get people to think.  The anger on the street is properly placed in terms of who did it, by and large, although they’re not (yet) directing the proper proportion of it toward the elected and appointed officials that glad-handled the situation and “backstopped” their stupidity (and worse) by ripping you off.

The fact of the matter is that these problems are not new and cannot be solved without serious efforts by everyone  involved, along with a lot of pain.  But there are two principles we must adhere to if we’re going to actually fix things:

1. Those who took on or have leverage on at present cannot be protected from what happens to them when the supports are removed – and they must be removed.  That is, the entire problem, boiled down, is the amount of debt in the system.  You can’t reduce it without the people on both sides (who borrowed and who lent) foolishly taking the hit.  If you shift it from one person to another to provide “relief” you have not reduced the amount outstanding, and what you’re doing won’t work.  It’s called a balance sheet for a reason – it balances.
2. The enabling policies in trade, taxation, immigration and on the monetary side must be fixed and then safety-wired closed so they can’t be abused again.  One of the big problems is that there are many regulations that prevent the sort of abuses we’ve seen (and we continue to see) in the laws governing acts by various government and quasi-government actors but there is no “or else” in those laws of materiality.  That has to change.

These are the two keys folks.  Everything else is open to debate – the exact how, the what and similar, but we cannot avoid these two realities if we intend to actually fix things.

Economic adjustment cannot be avoided.  But we can stop propping up those who did evil, even illegal things.  We can allow the market to work.  We cannot avoid the pain but we can mitigate it, and we must.

As just one example we can restore the right of bankruptcy to all citizens irrespective of how their debt was acquired.  This immediately collapses the college debt and college cost bubbles and neither gives students who did foolish things a free ride nor their lenders.  A one-sentence law reversing decades of intentional gate-barring that our government has engaged in for the purpose of enslaving our youth.  We can demand this today, and we should both demand it and enforce that demand.  This is a demand that I suspect virtually everyone involved in OWS would support.

There is much more and I’m sure that readers have their own ideas.  The key point is this: You can either engage or go hide in a cave – but you can’t, through lawful means, stop what is going on.  If we refuse collectively to engage then we own whatever comes out of this, and we owe it to ourselves and our children to each attempt to make this a constructive process before believing what someone else tells you – including me.

The “professional right” has gone into a tizzy over this movement, just as the left did with the Tea Party (remember calling the Tea Party “teabaggers”, referencing an obscene act performed with a man’s testicles?)  The “Tea Party” in the professional sense was effectively marginalized (anyone who doubts this simply needs to look at how Bachmann is polling as the Tea Party “standard bearer” in the Presidential race; she’s running at roughly “dog catcher” in terms of popularity) but don’t be so sure that this will work with OWS.  Remember that as of right now all you have from them for a platform is discussion points, which means they’re deliberating – you’re not being asked to support or not as written, you’re being asked for input!

So give them input, and educate people – or, if you refuse, I hope you intend to shut up if what comes of this doesn’t meet with your approval.

Libertarians Support Wall Street Protest to End the Fed

Ron Paul says that the Wall Street protests are legitimate, and that they are really protesting against the Federal Reserve.

One of the protest organizers tells me that a large proportion of the protesters are Ron Paul supporters. Most of them believe that ending the Federal Reserve is the most important step to restore our country’s prosperity. See this and this.

Remember, even the Wall Street Journal has called for the Fed to be broken up.

As I have extensively documented, the Fed is largely responsible for the economic crisis, and has failed to meet a single one of its stated mandates (let alone its implied ones).

The Fed has been enabler-in-chief for the corruption rampant on Wall Street.

And as I noted Tuesday:

Some very well-known economists also support ending the Fed.

For example, Milton Friedman said:

This evidence persuades me that at least a third of the price rise during and just after World War I is attributable to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System… and that the severity of each of the major contractions —
1920-1, 1929-33 and 1937-8 is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by the Reserve authorities…

 

Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes — excusable or not — can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic — this is the key political argument against an independent central bank…

To paraphrase Clemenceau, money is much too serious a matter to be left to
the central bankers.

Austrian economists such as Murray Rothbard also would like to end the Fed:

Given this dismal monetary and banking situation, given a 39:1 pyramiding of checkable deposits and currency on top of gold, given a Fed unchecked and out of control, given a world of fiat moneys, how can we possibly return to a sound noninflationary market money? The objectives, after the discussion in this work, should be clear: (a) to return to a gold standard, a commodity standard unhampered by government intervention; (b) to abolish the Federal Reserve System and return to a system of free and competitive banking; (c) to separate the government from money; and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks, or at least to arrive at a system where any bank, at the slightest hint of nonpayment of its demand liabilities, is forced quickly into bankruptcy and liquidation. While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced, the problems of enforcement, especially where banks can continually innovate in forms of credit, make free banking an attractive alternative.

Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have introduced bills to abolish the Fed.

And as I noted last week, most Americans want the Fed ended or at least reined in:

At least 75% of the American people want a full audit of the Fed, and most
were against reconfirming Bernanke.

Indeed, as Bloomberg noted last December:

A majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the nation’s independent central bank, saying the U.S. Federal Reserve should either be brought under tighter political control or abolished outright, a poll shows.

***

Americans across the political spectrum say the Fed shouldn’t retain its current structure of independence. Asked if the central bank should be more accountable to Congress, left independent or abolished entirely, 39 percent said it should be held more accountable and 16 percent that it should be abolished. Only 37 percent favor the status quo.

As I have extensively documented, the Fed is largely responsible for the economic crisis, and has failed to meet a single one of its stated mandates (let alone its implied ones).

Indeed, the Founding Fathers despised the British central bank, and said that the right to create their own credit and currency was one of the core battles in the Revolutionary
War.

Obama Is Not the Answer

Libertarians also point out that – while the Obama campaign and Democratic National Committee are trying to hijack the Wall Street protests – they have been part of the problem, not part of the solution.

They point out that Obama has appointed Wall Street insiders to all of his key economic posts, and accepted more money from Goldman Sachs and the other big Wall Street banks than anyone
else (and is still raking it in). As such, despite his populist rhetoric, he’s with Wall Street, not the protesters. Indeed, he is Wall Street.

They point out that Obama has continued the process of turning the U.S. into a banana republic, and whether you call it communism, fascism or crony capitalism, Obama has been at least as bad as Bush.

They point out that Obama has been a wolf in sheep’s clothing, someone who thinks high levels of unemployment are good.

They point out that Obama has been more brutal than Bush and has destroyed our liberties
even faster than Bush.

For these reasons, libertarians correctly state that re-electing Obama is not the answer. And they note that Ron Paul’s consistent, decades-long positions are much closer to the American peoples’ demands than Obama’s.

Postscript: Anyone who still thinks Obama will save us is high.

On the other hand, libertarians have been out of power for a long time. Neoliberals and Neoconservatives – two masks on a single face of corruption – have been in the driver’s seat for
decades. Libertarians should welcome the protests as a chance to challenge the status quo, to promote liberty and to end the Fed – the chief enabler of corruption in our country today.

Folks dismissing the Occupy protests as being Obama propaganda or left-wing haven’t yet learned the facts, are blaming the fact that the mainstream Democratic party is trying to infiltrate the movement on the protesters, or are letting Fox, Drudge or other mainstream news sources blow a sub-set of the overall protests out of proportion. See this, this and this.   Indeed, as the Associated Press notes, the protesters are fed up with BOTH mainstream parties.

ZeroHedge