Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Another Outstanding Article by Peter Schiff

http://www.europac.net/commentaries/raising_roof_debt

Peter Schiff
Monday, May 16, 2011
 
Today the U.S. government officially borrowed beyond its $14.29 trillion statutory debt limit. And even though the Obama administration has assured us that accounting gimmickry will allow the government to borrow for another few months, the breach has given seeming urgency to Congressional negotiations to raise the debt ceiling. Republicans are making a great show of acting tough by linking their “yes” votes with promises for future budget cuts (that could even slow the rate of debt increases at some uncertain point in the future). But as we go through the process, many novice observers may wonder why we have a debt ceiling at all when our government has never shown the slightest inclination to respect its prior self-imposed limits.

The ceiling was first imposed in 1917 as part of a deal that passed the Liberty Bond Act that funded America’s entry into the First World War. To make it easy for the Treasury to sell those bonds, Congress also amended the Federal Reserve Act to allow the Fed to hold government bonds as collateral. But given the potential for unchecked Federal deficits, Congress sought to limit taxpayer exposure to $11.5 billion.

The problem was that Congress never passed a law to prevent future Congresses from raising the ceiling. And even if it had, that law could have been rewritten by future legislation. Sure enough, when the Second World War rolled around the debt limit was raised frantically, leaving it at $300 billion by 1945. But believe it or not, after the War ended, the limit was actually reduced to $275 billion.

Despite the costs associated with the Korean War, the next increase did not come until 1954. And over the ensuing eight years, the ceiling was raised seven times and reduced twice, finally getting back to $300 billion in 1962. Since then, Congress has voted to raise the ceiling 74 times without a single reduction.

Practically speaking, a ceiling that is raised automatically is no ceiling at all. Given that, why not dispense with the pretense? The reason is politics. No Congressman wants to be on the record voting for unlimited debt, yet most are willing to rail against fiscal recklessness while raising the ceiling every time it’s reached. Any Congressman who gives lip service to a balanced budget Amendment but votes to raise the debt ceiling is a hypocrite.  No one needs constitutional help to hold the line on the debt right now!

But epic levels of Federal red ink and the approach of the 2012 elections have raised the stakes. Despite the newfound urgency, nearly all Democrats and a very large chunk of Republicans argue that failure to raise the ceiling will be tantamount to economic suicide. They argue that such a rash move will cause the U.S. to default on outstanding debt obligations, thereby sending interest rates sharply higher across the board. Higher interest rates they argue would cripple the economy and permanently increase debt service costs. As a result, they predict capping debt now will precipitate a far deeper economic contraction than what we have already seen in the last few years.

Few see the inherent absurdity in the notion that taking on more debt improves the economic health and creditworthiness of the United States. I would argue for the much simpler idea that more debt weakens a nation’s financial position. More importantly, capping U.S. debt at current levels means bringing a future crisis into the present where it can be dealt with in practical terms. This is something that nobody in Washington actually wants.

If we do today what we have failed to do in the past, we very may well default on a portion of our debt. No doubt our creditors will suffer. But such near term pain will lead to a quicker and healthier recovery. Out of control Federal spending will have to be dealt with now. A downgraded credit rating will make it harder for the United States to continue borrowing, and as a result should be viewed as a blessing in disguise.

A reduction in debt levels is good economics. Remember, taxpayers will have to repay with interest anything the government borrows now. The more the government borrows, the larger it grows, and the larger it grows, the weaker the economy becomes. The less money the government borrows, the more that is available for the private sector to borrow to increase production and create jobs.

Failing to raise the debt ceiling will force Congress and the President to tell the truth to Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries who have been promised more than taxpayers can deliver. They will have to concede that so-called government “trust funds” are mere accounting gimmicks, and that benefits will need to be cut if the programs are to be solvent. They will have to tell the truth to our creditors that the U.S government has borrowed beyond the ability of its citizens to repay. And lastly, the stark reality will force the government to tell the truth to Federal employees whose salaries and benefits are unsupportable given our fiscal weakness.

But, on the other hand, if we raise the debt ceiling, we can postpone the crisis into an indefinite future. All of these tough choices could be avoided. Government pay and benefits will flow unabated, and our creditors will continue to get their interest payments now. But in the future, the value of principal repayments and government benefits and paychecks will lose purchasing power. That’s because if we keep raising the ceiling indefinitely, we risk destroying our currency. But the long slow death of a currency and the ebbing of a nation’s economic vitality doesn’t make for huge headlines.

It is for that reason I am 100% confident that Congress will do the wrong thing and raise the debt ceiling for the 75th time in 50 years. In the end there will be some kind of phony compromise with each side claiming victory.  But while the politicians celebrate another dodged bullet, the U.S. economy will continue to be shot full of holes.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Ron Paul Hit Job Update


I apologize 1000 times since I assumed you could fast forward to the 30-minute spot in the Ron Paul interview.  I now see it has to buffer the entire file, so I had to go to plan B.  I cut out a 3-minute section so you can hear Paul's comments.  It is an mp4 file so you might need QuikTime to hear it.

What really gets me is there are 30 minutes jam packed with all kinds of good information with a good interviewer asking good questions and O'Reilly cuts out 6 total seconds and rips Paul to shreds.  (I apologize for the music in the last few seconds.  I am a partial retard at these things).

Click here for Ron Paul interview

Respect for international law?  What's that?

Now compare that to O'Reilly's hit job:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wp8-QS-x3I

Fair and balanced?  No Spin Zone?  You decide.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Three Hit Jobs On Ron Paul In One Day

You know, I didn't like O'Reilly for a long time, then thought I understood him better and just viewed it as light entertainment, until he started blaming the evil speculators for the rise in oil recently.  Blaming the speculators has been going on for a long time, including when Nixon defaulted on the gold standard in 1971.  I started wondering if O'Reilly was a shill.

Then I heard O'Reilly going after Ron Paul while listening to Fox Radio by satellite.  The segment seemed suspicious right off the bat.  I was amazed that this was even newsworthy.  Is there nothing better to report than that?  Seriously?

Here is a link to the O'Reilly hit job.

Listen on the lead in how they all chuckle about how "out there" he is.  Then they show Paul for 2 seconds in one clip and 4 seconds in another clip, then proceed to assassinate him. 

So I decided to check out the original interview to hear what was said in context.  Here is the link for the entire radio interview.  It is long but you can skip down to the 30-minute mark.  It will take a minute or so to get to the beef.  Keep in mind, this interview was over 30 minutes covering all kinds of territory, yet O'Reilly ignores all of it except for 6 seconds.

http://www.ronpaul2012podcast.com/2011/05/11/dr-ron-paul-on-whos-simon-conway-show-5102011/

Whether you agree with him or not, you have to agree that his entire, logical argument was completely ignored. 

This is a blatant hit job.

Here are two more links for hit jobs on Paul on the same day.  One is MSNBC and the other is CNN.  At least they give him the courtesy of responding to the attacks.  Is the news this slow, is Ron Paul's logic that bad, or is there a concerted effort to bury him? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-EaOqA9akc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riLe9Uf9t4M&NR=1

New Blog

My friend Kevin just started a new blog.  Be sure to check it out.  He has been in the precious metals business for over twenty years and knows what he's talking about!

http://thoughtcrimes101.blogspot.com/

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Best Description of the Mortgage Mess EVER

I thoroughly enjoy Gonzalo Lira's blog.  

http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/05/best-description-of-mortgage-mess-ever.html

In case you are interested, this is a 1-hour interview with Bill Black, who I believe was the lead attorney working for the government in prosecuting the criminals in the Savings and Loan scam.  I have always been interested as to why there have been no criminal prosecutions in this financial mess although $10 trillion of wealth has been wiped out in the US.  Bill Black's team was responsible for getting over 1000 felony convictions in the Savings and Loan debacle.  How many have you heard of in this financial mess?  He explains very clearly the fraud that was perpetrated and the massive corruption in the Clinton and Bush  administrations that not only allowed the crisis to happen but encouraged it from the top down, including Greenspan, and why you aren't going to see any prosecutions even though the crimes were obvious and intentional. 

He explains that not only were regulators asleep at the wheel, they actively aided and abetted the fraud that caused the whole charade.  None of it happened by accident or ignorance.  The final crime was putting the taxpayers on the hook for the mess.

None of this is explained in a partisan fashion.  A life long Democrat, Black is a legend in the Savings and Loan story.  You might have seen his appearance on Bill Moyer's show a couple of years ago which was also excellent.  "Black asserted that the banking crisis in the United States that started in late 2008 is essentially a big Ponzi scheme; that the "liar loans" and other financial tricks were essentially illegal frauds; and that the triple-A ratings given to these loans was part of a criminal cover-up."

"Black was litigation director for the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) from 1984 to 1986, deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) in 1987, and Senior VP and the General Counsel of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco from 1987 to 1989, which regulated some of the largest thrift banks in the U.S.[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_K._Black

If you have an hour to spare, this is fascinating info and told in a simple, logical way that anybody can understand.  This is Fraud 101.  How to steal trillions and get away with it!

Friday, May 6, 2011

One Million Apply for 62,000 Jobs…with McDonald’s

There has been so much talk in Washington and in the news about the national debt, terrorism, wars and healthcare that one might think thOne Million Apply for 62,000 Jobs…with McDonald’sese are the issues that most concern Americans in 2011. But opinion polls consistently show that none of these issues is as important to most Americans as the Big Issue: unemployment and the economy.
An unusually vivid example occurred on April 19, which McDonald’s declared National Hiring Day, encouraging people across the country to apply for a job.
The world’s biggest restaurant chain reported that it received one million applicants for open positions, which resulted in 62,000 people gaining employment. Another 900,000 plus were turned down.
A McDonald’s spokeswoman said the company had planned to hire only 50,000 new employees. But the intense demand prompted it to take on an additional 24% in staff.
Throughout the country, the dearth of job opportunities prompted huge numbers of people to ask Ronald McDonald for employment. In Florida, for example, 100,000 applications were submitted for about 4,300 positions. In Chicago, more than 75,000 job-seekers vied for 2,000 openings.

Monday, May 2, 2011

Why I Sincerely Believe That I Am The True Champion Of The Poor

When you get a chance, please take a look at the last century of the prices of silver and copper.   minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/  You will have to click on the link for each metal.  They cover 1900-2009.  Look at the difference just since 2009.  I note a big jump following WWII and the resulting inflation.  (Inflation always follows wars because of massive borrowing/printing of money).  It's been pretty much a steady rise ever since, except now the rate is accelerating, of course.  No wonder they had to clip the coins in 1965, but I didn't realize how severe it was until I did the math.  Here is a breakdown on what happened to the Silver Quarter I used to carry around as a kid:

Silver Quarter

.2 oz  90% silver and 10% copper
Current Quarter
.2 oz 75% copper and 25% nickel

Prices as of 4/29/2011:
copper $4.24 per pound = 26.5 cents/oz

Nickel $12.16 per pound = 76 cents/oz

Silver $48 per troy ounce (One troy ounce is equivalent to 1.09714 avoirdupois ounces).

(14.583 troy ounces in an Avoirdupois pound)

Silver is therefore 48 x 14.583 = $700 per AV pound

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

16 oz in 1 AV lb. Therefore = $43.75 per ounce in AV Pound = 700 / 16 ounces

silver quarter = .18 oz silver and .02 oz copper

Which amounts to (in paper dollars):

Silver Quarter = $7.88 silver and .5 cents copper

new quarter = .15 oz copper and .05 oz nickel

new quarter = 4 cents of copper and 3 cents of nickel

$7.88 in the Silver Quarter compared to 7 cents of value in the copper/nickel quarter.  112.5x difference

So the silver quarter is worth 112 times more than the copper quarter as of last Friday's prices.  Quite some clipping the government did there in 1965!


Silver has gone from $19,600 per ton in 1913 to $472,000 in 2009, plus much higher now by 3 to 4 times.  Copper went from $342 per ton in 1913 to $5320 in 2009 but now is $8480.  MASSIVE inflation when you look at it in those terms. 

But look at the production!  In 1900 world production of copper was 493,000 tons, yet by 2009 we were up to 15,900,000 tons, a 32x increase!  So even though the annual output increased by a factor of 32, the price still went up 15 times because of inflation in spite of the huge supply.

The reason is simple.  When we had silver in the money you would commonly get 5%-6% interest on a bank savings account.  The bank would loan out the money for 7% or 10% or whatever they could get to housing and more importantly to business.  The economy grew and companies sprang up that employed hundreds of thousands of people.  Anybody who wanted a good job like at Motorola could get one, with good pay and beautiful benefits, all for just sitting on your ass and pushing a button.  You might have to work nights for awhile.  Wow.  With a 2-year degree you could be a tech and with a bachelors you could be an engineer.  Of course there were abuses, but if you didn't have a good job or a small business it was because you were too lazy.  Hell, I could have mowed as many lawns as I wanted as a kid even and I am the world's worst businessman.

Savers were also rewarded because things naturally go down in price over time because of technology advancement as long as the money stays at one value.  So the longer you saved money you could get things cheaper later, for the most part.  Plus you were getting interest at the bank. 

But in a paper money environment, especially since we dropped the gold backing completely in 1971, savers get punished.  We are now down to .6% for a 13-month CD, and I am afraid to ask what you get for just a plain savings account because it would obviously have to be less than .6%.

So now who benefits in this new debt based environment?  Now that you have to be an idiot to save paper dollars, the bank can no longer rely on savings anymore for their supply of money to lend.  And a bank that doesn't lend money goes out of business.  That is how banks make a profit, they loan money.

So the bank must borrow their money that they in turn loan out at a higher rate of interest.  So now the soundness of a bank is no longer based on its amount held in savings.  Your guess is as good as mine what they base it on now.  My guess is it would be based on the soundness of whoever they borrowed the money from, no?

Anyway, it is obvious by now who benefits under the debt based, non-gold and silver environment.  It is the uber-rich, the banksters, giant corporations, wall street, and the government.  The jobs are gone, so the little guy is fucked.  Good luck getting hired at Wal-Mart, the largest employer in the State of Arizona, where you will get paid shit with even shittier benefits.  Unless you work in banking, the government, or are collecting food stamps and unemployment, you are probably in a dead-end job with no benefits.  Welcome to the new world.

So this is in graphic terms why I believe I am the true champion of the poor.  The system I advocate is already a proven system that provided the best standard of living in the history of the world, while the debt based system is entering its old age with the biggest debt in the history of the world and no hope of ever balancing the budget let alone paying off the debt since the economy is still in the early part of the Greater Depression, which will crush the poor and the old worse than anybody.

Not only are good jobs gone but even shitty jobs aren't so easy to come by.  Every month sets a new record in the unrelenting rise of food stamp users.  Yet what do the "experts" keep saying?  "We need to spend more!  Spend more!"  They are either still duped by Keynesianism  or they are liars.  They are nothing more than carnival barkers.  Economies are strong because of savings, not spending.

I am the true champion of the poor because I want an environment where the poor can thrive.  This can only be accomplished through savings, not debt, food stamps, and welfare.  I was lucky enough to be raised by someone who was born in 1912.  My dad took me down to the bank when I was 6 years old and I opened a "Passport" savings account and got a little blue savings book with $5 stamped in it.  I was officially a saver.  Our parents back then were savers because they got rewarded in their early days from savings, and now savers get punished, and I mean severely. 

As long as paper money is endorsed the poor will continue to be punished.  The best they can hope for will be more food stamps, free health care, free housing, and more handouts, because there are no jobs now even if they want them.  The poor are fucked under this system.  Soon the old will be too when their pensions become worthless.

The paper system only exists for debt and because of debt.  The banksters are rewarded big time as well as the government which grows huge.  It works until people lose CONfidence in the money, which is by definition a CON game, as they have lost CONfidence in the 599 currencies that have already failed in the history of the world.  Gold and silver require no confidence since they have served as money for at least four millenia.  Whatever value you want to ascribe to them, they do not come into existence through debt.  They are mined and then coined.  Their price measured in ever-increasing dollars has gone up enormously especially since the end of World War II.  This only happened for one reason, because the amount of paper dollars grew enormously in percentage terms compared to the amount of gold or silver mined.  It is that simple.  This is the inflation you've come to know and love, and to think of as the only way of life.  You have never experienced the other way so think the religion (paper) you were raised in must be right, because really, how dumb could your parents really be?  I was raised in another religion and I had silver in my pocket, so to you I probably look like a heretic.  But at any rate, if you save paper dollars you must really be an idiot.  This is a debt game, baby, get with the program.  Borrow more and spend more!  Spend more!  We have to spend more or we'll go bankrupt!--Joe Biden  haha  What a buffoon.

Gold and silver equals savings, paper money equals debt.  The charts don't lie.  The final bubble is not gold, it is in US Treasury Bonds, the biggest cesspool of debt in the history of the world.  The only thing it requires to stay alive is BELIEF in the system.  If only you will have FAITH and BELIEVE!  Otherwise, it's FIRE AND BRIMSTONE!  HELL AND DAMNATION FOR ETERNITY IF WE EVER GO OFF THE PAPER!

Admission is free, you pay to get out.