Tag Archives: Big Media/Big Tech

Krugman: “The U.S. government is having no trouble borrowing to cover its deficit. In fact, its borrowing costs are near historic lows.”

In his latest propaganda dispatch, Krugman writes:

open quote It’s important to make this point, because I keep seeing articles about the “fiscal cliff” that do, in fact, describe it — often in the headline — as a debt crisis. But it isn’t. The U.S. government is having no trouble borrowing to cover its deficit. In fact, its borrowing costs are near historic lows. And even the confrontation over the debt ceiling that looms a few months from now if we do somehow manage to avoid going over the fiscal cliff isn’t really about debt.

No, what we’re having is a political crisis, born of the fact that one of our two great political parties has reached the end of a 30-year road.close quote

This is such a flagrant distortion that it makes my blood boil.

Basically, the US government is lending money to itself at an artificially low interest rate. This allows professional propagandists like Krugman to claim that the US is having no trouble borrowing money.

The US holds over 6.3 trillion dollars worth of its own debt. By contrast, China holds about 1.1 trillion. (source)

See???

What they’re effectively doing is printing money to buy their own debt. The effect of this is that they steal the saving of everyone in the world who uses dollars. This is going to be a goddamn catastrophe. I recommend guns, gardens and gold.

Marc Faber: “Paul Krugman Should Go And Live In North Korea”

“The views of the Keynesians like Mr. Krugman is that the fiscal deficits are far too small. One of the problems of the crisis is that it was caused by government intervention with fiscal and monetary measures. Now they tells us we didn’t intervene enough. If they really believe that they should go and live in North Korea where you have a communist system. There the government intervenes into every aspect of the economy. And look at the economic performance of North Korea.” (Read more)

Rachel Maddow, War Propagandist

open quote The Moment had arrived! I’m talking about that Benghazi Moment, when the axis of elite opinion turns and the Forces of Righteousness come to the rescue — Syria’s internet was down!

Rachel Maddow had one of those “Oh, This is Serious” looks on her face as she solemnly warned us that Something Was Up: that nasty old critter Bashar al-Assad was about to commit Hair-Raising Atrocities “in the dark”! Think of those poor jihadists “rebels” who would have to construct their suicide bombs without downloading the instructions — why, that could be dangerous!

Of course, Maddow knew who was behind this outage, because the US government told her what to believe, and she believed it. So in place of reporting, you know, actual news, she channeled US government officials accusing the Syrian government of this dastardly act.

. . . .

Two days later, our Rachel was “reporting” the imminence of yet another Benghazi Moment — the Syrians, she breathlessly recounted, have Weapons of Mass Destruction! Without referencing her previous false alarm, Maddow once again solemnly informed us the evil Syrian government was about to visit Death and Destruction “on its own people” — you know, just like Saddam Hussein, that other possessor of Weapons of Mass Destruction.close quote (Read more)

As we approach financial Armageddon, economic ignorance dominates the press

open quoteThat’s how things often work in America. Half-a-century of tax cuts focused on the wealthiest Americans leave us with third-rate public services, leading the wealthy to develop inefficient private workarounds. close quote (Read more)

The latest propaganda meme seems to revolve around the 90% top income tax bracket of the 1950’s (which nobody paid b/c there were so many loop holes). Regardless, the true measure of how much money the gov’t is stealing is not taxes, but spending. What they don’t steal immediately, they’ll take from your children through debt, or stealthily through inflation.

***

open quoteSTUDY: Every $1 Of Infrastructure Spending Boosts The Economy By $2

Read more: www.businessinsider.com/infrastructure-economic-multiplier-2012-11#ixzz2DqgS19ci
close quote

I say we spend a HUNDRED THOUSAND BAZILLION dollars on infrastructure! That way, we’ll make TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND BAZILLION dollars!

AP believes it found evidence of Iran’s work on nuclear weapons

open quoteUncritical, fear-mongering media propaganda is far too common to take note of each time it appears, but sometimes, what is produced is so ludicrous that its illustrative value should not be ignored. Such is the case with a highly trumpeted Associated Press “exclusive” from Tuesday which claims in its red headline to have discovered evidence of “Iran Working on Bomb”.

What is this newly discovered, scary evidence? It is a “graph” which AP says was “leaked” to it by “officials from a country critical of Iran’s atomic program to bolster their arguments that Iran’s nuclear program must be halted before it produces a weapon” (how mysterious: the globe is gripped with befuddlement as it tries to guess which country that might be). Here’s how AP presents the graph in all its incriminating, frightening glory:

This, says AP, shows that “Iranian scientists have run computer simulations for a nuclear weapon that would produce more than triple the explosive force of the World War II bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.” Moreover, “an intelligence summary provided with the drawing” – provided, that is, by the mysterious “country critical of Iran’s atomic program” – “linked [the graph] to other alleged nuclear weapons work – significant because it would indicate that Iran is working not on isolated experiments, but rather on a single program aimed at mastering all aspects of nuclear arms development.”

Where to begin? First, note that AP granted anonymity here not merely to an individual but to an entire country. What’s the proffered justification for doing so? The officials wanted it, so AP gave it: “officials provided the diagram only on condition that they and their country not be named.” That’s very accommodating of AP.
Binyamin Netanyahu UN with bomb Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu with a diagram illustrating Iran’s nuclear programme.

Second, this graph – which is only slightly less hilariously primitive than the one Benjamin Netanyahu infamously touted with a straight face at the UN – has Farsi written under it to imbue it with that menacing Iranian-ish feel, but also helpfully uses English to ensure that US audiences can easily drink up its scariness. As The Atlantic’s Robert Wright noted: “How considerate of the Iranians to label their secret nefarious nuke graph in English!”. It’s certainly possible that Iranian scientists use English as a universal language of science, but the convenient mixing of Farsi and English should at least trigger some skepticism.

Third, even if one assumes that this graph is something other than a fraud, the very idea that computer simulations constitute “evidence” that Iran is working toward a nuclear weapon is self-evidently inane.close quote (Read more)

Neo-con behind Petraeus character assassination?

open quoteThere have been three major developments in this fast-moving story since my last column on this subject: 1) The stunning revelation by Broadwell in a speech given at the University of Denver that there were detainees in the Benghazi “consulate” — really a CIA station — and that the attack may have been an attempt to free them, and 2) the rising visibility of the “shirtless guy,” the Tampa FBI agent whose impatience with the progress of the investigation led him to go to the House GOP leadership, an act that sealed Petraeus’s fate — and, perhaps, Gen. Allen’s. Which brings us to 3) the ensnaring of Gen. Allen in the Broadwell-Petraeus net, which adds much fuel to an already raging fire.

The Benghazi angle may help bring the “why” of this whole imbroglio into sharper focus. First, let’s set the context: Fox News and the Republicans had been making a full-bore effort to turn the Benghazi attack into a “scandal” that would bring down the Obama administration, an “October surprise” that would make short work of the anti-colonialist Kenyan. They spun a narrative that had the President of the United States — and his CIA Director — ordering a rescue team to “stand down” while Ambassador Chris Stevens, and three others, were murdered by Islamists. Broadwell’s “by the way there were detainees in there” remark, uttered almost offhand, was pushback, no doubt encouraged by Petraeus.

The “shirtless guy,” who earned this description because he reportedly sent shirtless photos of himself to Jill Kelley — the recipient of Broadwell’s “harassing” emails — enters the picture as the key catalyst who set the anti-Petraeus coup in motion. We are told he is a friend of someone with a connection to Rep. Reichert (R-WA), who brought the matter to Rep. Cantor’s office. But hold on, wait a minute here …

Since when does the FBI investigate “harassing” emails sent to an ordinary American citizen? Sure, Kelley had a friend in the FBI — the Shirtless Guy — but the question is why did the FBI’s cybercrimes section agree to launch a lengthy and costly investigation into emails that, by some accounts, weren’t that big a deal? The Shirtless Guy, who is said to have become so obsessed with the case that he was taken off it, must have developed some suspicion of who was behind the emails, and the nature of Broadwell’s connection to Petraeus. Whose instrument was he?

I gave my own view of the answer to this question in my last column, and the attempt to take down Gen. Allen seems to confirm my analysis. Who, you ask, would want Allen’s scalp? Well, consider the General’s comments after the latest blue-green attack in Afghanistan:

“ISAF commander General John Allen told US 60 Minutes program in an interview recorded before the latest incident, and scheduled to be aired today, that insider attacks were unacceptable.

“’I’m mad as hell about them, to be honest with you,’ he said. ‘We’re willing to sacrifice a lot for this campaign, but we’re not willing to be murdered for it.’

“Gen. Allen said that just as homemade bombs had become the signature weapon of the Iraq war, he believed that in Afghanistan, “the signature attack that we’re beginning to see is going to be the insider attack.”

Insider attacks make up the great majority of US casualties in Afghanistan, these days, and with the Obama administration about to undergo a general review of our troop levels in that country, Allen’s open hostility to the mission would not sit well with the more hawkish faction in the national security apparatus, i.e. the neocons and their fellow travelers. So, he had to go, too — and it’s a “nice” touch that they managed to get him in the course of the same investigation, without having to bother cooking up another scandal. Good work, boys!

One aspect of the Great Pentagon Purge that has gone almost completely unnoticed is this offhand little tidbit in a Washington Post story about the scandal,

“Prominent members of conservative, Washington-based defense think tanks were given permanent office space at [Petraeus’s] headquarters and access to military aircraft to tour the battlefield. They provided advice to field commanders that sometimes conflicted with orders the commanders were getting from their immediate bosses.

“Some of Petraeus’s staff officers said he and the American mission in Afghanistan benefited from the broader array of viewpoints, but others complained that the outsiders were a distraction, the price of his growing fame.”

So the neocons were right there looking over Petraeus’s shoulder, and his successor’s shoulder, giving “advice” that went against orders from the top, i.e. they were undermining the mission as conceived by the Pentagon, and no doubt actively subverting the planned withdrawal. Did Gen. Allen throw them out? That he’s been caught in the honey trap along with Petraeus should come as no surprise.

The military is quite a distinct entity from the War Party, and this should be obvious to anyone who has been alert to the internal debates in the national security bureaucracy over the course of the past decade or so.close quote (Read more)

Germany wants its gold

open quoteDespite the fall in the gold price this week, those thinking to buy gold bullion have been buoyed by talk of Germany auditing and repatriating their gold reserves held abroad. Below, Jan Skoyles looks at what this mean and says about the country.

This week few will have missed reports that Germany is getting closer to bringing its gold bullion reserves home. Following questions asked in Parliament earlier this year regarding the 3,396 tonnes of gold bullion, federal auditors have now instructed the Bundesbank to regularly inspect the gold bullion reserves held in the US Federal Reserve, Bank of England and Banque de France.

Der Speigel also report that the Bundesbank is planning to ship 150 tonnes of the gold reserves from the New York Federal Reserve back onto home soil, over the next three years. It is also only now becoming clear that the Bundesbank reduced 1,100 tonnes of gold holdings with the Bank of England to 500 tonnes between 2000 and 2001.

The mainstream media coverage of Germany’s actions regarding their gold reserves seems to have an underlying accusatory tone to it. It’s almost as if by the Bundesbank openly admitting it is looking out for its own finances, for its own country and its citizens, it is being unpatriotic to the global cause of pretending that a highly leveraged, fiat money, banker-centric, government-spending driven economy is exactly how things work best.

Germany isn’t the first country to ask questions about its gold, let alone repatriate it. Switzerland is also raising plenty of questions and Venezuela finished repatriating their gold earlier this year. So what does repatriating the country’s gold say about the sovereignty?

1. Changing geo-political landscape

There are two geopolitical reasons for a country taking custody of another’s gold; the first is for ease of transport for payment purposes, the second is to protect the gold from geopolitical risk.

The ease of transport for payment purposes can be argued to still be a relevant reason, particularly given moves by China, India, Russia and Iran to make gold payments for oil and wheat. However, the chances of the US, UK and France demanding payments in gold in the near future as they desperately try to prop up their own currencies is unlikely, particularly as Germany is a successful export nation to these countries. This was one of the reasons for Venezuela’s movement of gold into Brazilian and Chinese custody – they’re trading partners with useful exports and are more likely to accept gold.

Germany’s gold was primarily kept in the US on account of the physical threat from Russia. This seemed reasonable at the time; the US was the bigger and lesser of two evils. The big guy in the playground can be an allay, for a time.

Much of Germany’s gold held in the US has never made it to Germany; it started life as German gold reserves in a US vault somewhere. This was on account of the European country running trade surpluses between the 1950s and the end of the Bretton Woods. German gold reserves between 1950 and 1971 went from zero to 3,600 metric tonnes, in the same period US reserves fell by 11,000 tonnes.

But the threat no longer remains, so why hasn’t the gold been moved back to Germany?

2. Do not trust the custodian country to keep track of it when lending it out

Back in the mid-1920s, the head of the German Central Bank, Herr Hjalmar Schacht, went to New York to see Germany’s gold. However the NY Fed officials were unable to find the palette of Germany’s gold bullion. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Benjamin Strong was mortified, but to put him at ease Herr Schacht turned to him and said ‘Never mind, I believe you when you when you say the gold is there. Even if it weren’t you are good for its replacement.’

Both GATA and Bring Back Our Gold argue that central banks have either loaned or “sold short” the majority of the country’s gold. As GATA found out between 2008 and 2009 the Fed has gold-swap arrangements with foreign banks but keeps them secret. This practice of loaning out gold is not uncommon; it’s the worst kept secret ever.

. . . .

3. Do not trust the custodian country to protect the value of their own currency

As we said in the first point, much of the gold was originally stored abroad for safe keeping, particularly in regard to storing with the US Federal Reserve. However as two round of QE have shown and the third just beginning, the US aren’t even willing to protect their own assets in the long-term, so are they likely to look after those of another country’s when they realise the rest of the world doesn’t want to use their currency anymore.

. . . .

4. Foresee the need to protect the future of your own monetary system

Germany is the one country in the Eurozone which appears to be reminding everyone of how important it is to return to some resemblance of sound money. In the last few months we have listened to Jens Weidmann, President of the Bundesbank, compare the ECB’s plans to the ‘Faustian Pact’. However, thanks to the undemocratic nature of the Eurozone, fewseem to be listening.

. . . .

5. It’s yours, you want it where you can see it

As we work hard to show here at The Real Asset Company, when you buy allocated gold bullion, you own gold, only you can instruct what should happen to it. The Bundesbank, and Venezuela before it, has done nothing wrong. This is despite mainstream coverage which wants to imply that the Bundesbank’s decision to move 600 tonnes of gold from the Bank of England between 2000 and 2001 was a ‘shock’ and ‘mystery’. . . .
close quote (Read more)

Leaked Debate Agreement Shows Both Obama and Romney are Sniveling Cowards

open quoteTime’s Mark Halperin has made himself useful for once by obtaining, and publishing, a copy of the 21-page memorandum of understanding that the Obama and Romney campaigns negotiated with the Commission on Presidential Debates establishing the rules governing this month’s presidential and vice presidential face-offs. The upshot: Both campaigns are terrified at anything even remotely spontaneous happening.

They aren’t permitted to ask each other questions, propose pledges to each other, or walk outside a “predesignated area.” And for the town-hall-style debate tomorrow night, the audience members posing questions aren’t allowed to ask follow-ups (their mics will be cut off as soon as they get their questions out). Nor will moderator Candy Crowley.

Most bizarrely, given the way the debates have played out, the rules actually appear to forbid television coverage from showing reaction shots of the candidates: “To the best of the Commission’s abilities, there will be no TV cut-aways to any candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question or to a candidate who is not giving a closing statement while another candidate is doing so.”close quote (Read more)

Stinking Heap of BS: “Home prices rise for sixth month, a sign of recovery”

This is such an outstanding piece of bullshit, that I just had to post it. Who are these people?

open quote U.S. home prices rose for a sixth straight month in July in the latest sign of a sustainable housing market recovery, while a jump in consumer confidence this month offered a harbinger that Americans are ready to loosen their spending.

Six years after its collapse, economists believe the housing market has turned a corner.

Two separate reports on Tuesday showed that home prices rose in July, though the gains were not as strong as the previous month. That follows recent data that home resales and groundbreaking on new properties rose in August, while business sentiment among homebuilders hit a more than six-year high this month.close quote (Read more)

***

The last QE3 is aimed explicitly at the housing sector. The government is printing huge amounts of money and throwing it at the housing sector, then these idiots have the temerity to suggest that rising home prices are a sign of recovery!