The Lifeboat Hour

from Progressive Radio Network » Lifeboat Hour | Progressive Radio Network http://prn.fm/2012/06/24/lifeboat-hour/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lifeboat-hour

The Lifeboat Hour – 06/17/12

from Progressive Radio Network » Lifeboat Hour | Progressive Radio Network http://prn.fm/2012/06/17/lifeboat-hour-061712/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lifeboat-hour-061712

Britain to give banks $200 billion to kick-start economy

I wonder where the money will come from? The country is as broke as its private sector. 

Osborne unveils £140bn scheme to kick-start stagnant economy.

Interventionism is constantly proven to stifle markets, not encourage a return to positive activity. I would expect that this injection of inflated capital will not promote long-term growth. It never does. 

More: http://www.infowars.com/britain-to-give-banks-200-billion-to-kick-start-economy/

Fed Buying 61 Percent of US Debt

The Federal Reserve is propping up the entire U.S. economy by buying 61 percent of the government debt issued by the Treasury Department, a trend that cannot last, Lawrence Goodman, a former Treasury official and current president of the Center for Financial Stability, writes in a Wall Street Journal opinion article published Wednesday.

"Last year the Fed purchased a stunning 61 percent of the total net Treasury issuance, up from negligible amounts prior to the 2008 financial crisis," Goodman writes.

Goodman also warns that U.S. economy and markets are “at risk for a sharp correction” if conditions aren’t “normalized.”

"This not only creates the false appearance of limitless demand for U.S. debt but also blunts any sense of urgency to reduce supersized budget deficits." 

With the government relying on debt rather than production to drive growth (falsely), it's only a matter of time until that house of cards collapses.

The U.S. government is growing increasingly more dependent on borrowing to finance itself, with net issuance of Treasury securities hitting 8.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on average per annum, more than double levels before the crisis.

Fed intervention in the government debt market makes demand for Treasury bonds appear higher than it really is, as foreign creditors and other investors have fled U.S. government debt instruments and are looking elsewhere until the government makes serious attempts to curb spending and narrow its gaping deficits.

[...]

Read more: WSJ: Fed Buying 61 Percent of US Debt 

Fed Head Leading by Example: Just Say No to Bonds

Americans got an unprecedented peek at the wealth of the Federal Reserve’s top ranks this week, when the central bank released nearly 600 pages of financial disclosure documents from its current regional presidents.

If the dollar is stable and the Federal Reserve is creating positive economic changes, why does Richard Fisher, the president of the Dallas Fed, own 7,000 acres of farmland and a million dollars worth of gold? If the heads of the Federal Reserve banks believed that our financial system is the best thing since sliced bread, then why would they not buy government bonds instead?


Because the dollar is constantly reducing in value (although it is fiat and has no intrinsic value) through the actions of the Fed. The dollar has not risen in value in our lifetime. The only way the banking cartel can continue to monetize debt (fractional reserve banking) is to devalue the currency already in circulation (which in essence steals from those holding dollars in savings). At least Bernanke invested in the system to some extent to foster confidence, though that public confidence is in constant retreat.

The following table shows the minimum and maximum value of the assets reported by each Fed president. (Chart courtesy of economix)

More


Maybe this is why even Fisher believes that buying bonds is risky, and he has put so much of his wealth into tangible assets like precious metals and the technology industry. Sounds like he is recommending that others reduce or limit bond investments. While I support the right for investors to get rich in  private markets, it speaks volumes when they do so while recommending not to invest in public investments like treasury bonds. Might this be foreshadowing or a sign of things to come? I only wish those running the banking cartel that controls the Fed and the treasury would also recognize reality.
Why buy a treasury bond that returns 3.5% when that barely matches the  inflation of the dollar by the Fed? Maybe that's why the Fed is  increasing the frequency and volume of bond purchases to make up for  reduced demand by private buyers...

Indiana becomes first state to let citizens shoot cops

Indiana has become the first state to legally permit residents to shoot at police if they feel their property is being illegally breached by an officer.

Proponents of the law, including its author, state Sen. Michael Young and the National Rifle Association, say it was necessary following a state Supreme Court ruling last year which said "there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers," Young told Bloomberg News.

Violence against others is unquestionably wrong on any situation. When one is the victim of an offense by another, the natural and constitutional rights to protect life and property stand. When the state undermines those rights, society suffers. 

The measure amends the 2006 so-called Castle Doctrine bill that allows deadly force to stop illegal entry into a home or car. The term "public servant" was added following the court's ruling.

http://times247.com/articles/indiana-law-gives-citizens-right-to-shoot-police.mobile

Wisconsin Union Changes Saving Schools Millions

Just days before recall elections, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker sent out a news release saying the union reforms he pushed are already saving school districts millions.

I actually have to hand it to Walker, he is making progress in cutting wasteful spending and relieving potential tax burden the private sector labor force.

From Madison to Hudson, angry protesters promised dire consequences if Wisconsin lawmakers voted to strip government union members of some of their collective bargaining rights. The reforms did pass and a Madison think tank says they're already having an impact.

Public unions should rightly have little bargaining power, as their market is driven by private sector successes. We were warned against allowing public unions decades ago, but socialism sees no limit to it's malignant potential in a free society.

"With collective bargaining not an option for teachers outside of salary concerns, we're seeing a lot more freedom for these school boards to find new and creative ways to save money," said Christian D'Andrea of the MacIver Institute. His organization says many school districts are shopping around for health insurance for the first time. In the past, they had to buy it from the Wisconsin Education Assocation, the teachers union.

Imagine that. Shifting to private sector markets for services and goods saves significant resources over public alternatives, where accountability is no more than a word and politicians come and go through the revolving door, replaced by another who serves special interest groups rather than the true social good. They were forced to purchase marked-up, low-value insurance and not given choices. This lack of choice is a big problem with unions. Rock out with voluntarism.

"The problem there is that, once you become static... and this is true with any company, I'm not just picking on WEA. But once you become static within one company, you tend to settle for higher rates," said D'Andrea.

"It means that we can save teacher jobs and really provide a better value for the taxpayers of the state," said Senator Sheila Harsdorf of River Falls. Harsdorf faces a recall election Tuesday because of her support for union reforms and Governor Walker's budget.

In Harsdorf's Senate district, MacIver found savings at Ellsworth, Prescott, Menomonie, Somerset and Hudson school districts. The Hudson Superintendent tells 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS her district stands to save more than $800,000.

"They would have seen that same savings if they'd done it in cooperation with the teachers," said Shelly Moore, a teacher in Ellsworth who is running against Harsdorf in the recall election.

This might be one of the few instances of politicians using the power of the state to promote social good and reduce forced coercion (mandatory union dues) on a captive audience (teachers). Usually the state is doing the opposite, reducing individual liberties and choices, while increasing burden.

Local teachers union President Kris Ohman (OH-mun) said before the union reforms, teachers were already agreeing to cheaper insurance options. Under state law, a district could limit an increase in teacher pay and benefits combined could be limited to 3.8%. If health insurance was more expensive, teachers would have to take less pay to offset it.

The last thing the public sector needs to be able to do is limit things which the private sector can not. If service costs go up in the private, they must be allowed to do so in the public, for it not the costs through taxation will increase disproportionately affecting private sector workers.

"So it had always been in our best interest to keep those costs down so that our pay could be comparable and competitive with districts around us," said Ohman.

The MacIver Institute says if all districts in Wisconsin reconfigured teacher benefits packages, the state could save $451 million.

Report: Wisconsin Union Changes Saving Schools Millions | KSTP TV - Minneapolis and St. Paul

Obama's Unconstitutional Hit List and Misdirection on Investigation

The leader of the government regularly sits down with his senior generals and spies and advisers and reviews a list of the people they want him to authorize their agents to kill. They do this every Tuesday morning when the leader is in town. The leader once condemned any practice even close to this, but now relishes the killing because he has convinced himself that it is a sane and sterile way to keep his country safe and himself in power. The leader, who is running for re-election, even invited his campaign manager to join the group that decides whom to kill.

Judge Napolitano really sets the situation straight in terms of the outright illegal actions by the Obama regime to undermine the rights of foreigner dissidents. Obama and his despotic regime are continuing a foreign policy that creates hatred for America, rather than promoting peace. This has been going on as long as man has existed, but the population is tiring of being pawns. When a democratic black president wields unchecked power and ends up being the biggest warmonger in decades, you know things are on the verge of collapse...

This is not from a work of fiction, and it is not describing a series of events in the Kremlin or Beijing or Pyongyang. It is a fair summary of a 6,000-word investigative report in The New York Times earlier this week about the White House of Barack Obama. Two Times journalists, Jo Becker and Scott Shane, painstakingly and chillingly reported that the former lecturer in constitutional law and liberal senator who railed against torture and Gitmo now weekly reviews a secret kill list, personally decides who should be killed and then dispatches killers all over the world -- and some of his killers have killed Americans.

We have known for some time that President Obama is waging a private war. By that I mean he is using the CIA on his own -- and not the military after congressional authorization -- to fire drones at thousands of persons in foreign lands, usually while they are riding in a car or a truck. He has done this both with the consent and over the objection of the governments of the countries in which he has killed. He doesn't want to talk about this, but he doesn't deny it. How chilling is it that David Axelrod -- the president's campaign manager -- has periodically seen the secret kill list? Might this be to keep the killings politically correct?

[...]

More: http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/31/obamas-secret-kill-list

Depending on whom you ask, the Obama administration has either executed hundreds of civilians abroad with poorly planned drone strikes or none at all. A new report, however, finally offers insight into those conflicting conclusions.

A New York Times article published on Tuesday unearths a lot of information about the White House's largely secretive drone program: despite being a hallmark of the presidency of Barack Obama, authorities working under the commander-in-chief — as well as Obama himself — are for the most part mum when questions arise about the administration's ongoing air strikes by way of unmanned robotic aircraft. In particular, the question of civilian casualties and the death toll of innocent Afghans and Pakistanis who have lost their life at the hands of Washington's war machine are often left unanswered or, even worse, addressed differently. According to the Times' latest write-up, though, the Obama administration has some scandalous opinions on who can and can't be killed by its murder program.

The White House convinces itself that the Obama-ordered air strikes overseas have not killed many civilians because, according to the president, any and all men near around a drone target are considered enemies of America and can be executed without being added to the count of civilian casualties.

"It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent," is how the Times report it. "Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good."

[...]

More: http://rt.com/usa/news/drone-strike-obama-casualties-604

The worst part of the scandal is not that the idea alone is unconstitutional, but that the regime is investigating the leak reports and state propaganda media is focusing on that as well, rather than dealing with the situation they have created.

The president hasn't endangered national security -- and Congress is pursuing the wrong solution. America needs less classified info, not fewer leaks.

When Joseph Heller's literary heirs satirize the War on Terror's absurdity (for there is absurdity in every war), the treatment of classified information is sure to be as fruitful a theme as it was in Catch-22. For example, the CIA bombarded Pakistan last week with three days of drone strikes, ultimately killing Al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi. This didn't surprise anyone, for the whole world knows that the CIA uses drones to target Al Qaeda in Pakistan. The drone program is nevertheless classified. The Department of Justice says as much when explaining to judges why it shouldn't be forced to litigate certain cases. And White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is forced into vague locutions when asked about drone kills. "Our intelligence community has intelligence that leads them to believe that Al Qaeda's number-two leader, al-Libi, is dead," he said last week. "I can't get into details about how his death was brought about."

That is essential context in the ongoing controversy over leaks in the Obama Administration. "A bipartisan Congressional chorus has been expressing concerns on cable news shows over national security leaks," Michael Calderone reported last week. "Lawmakers suggested that the White House had sanctioned intelligence disclosures for its own political gain, in an attempt to depict the president as strong and decisive when dealing with suspected terrorists."

Attorney General Eric Holder has even appointed two prosecutors to conduct leak investigations. (They're unlikely to end in prosecutions for revealing state secrets, as Charlie Savage explains.)

One thing I find amazing is President Obama's statement. "The notion that the White House would purposely release classified national-security information is offensive, it's wrong, and people, I think, need to have a better sense of how I approach this office and how the people around me approach this office," he said. "We are dealing with issues that can touch on the safety and security of the American people -- our families or our military or our allies -- and so we don't play with that."

That's nonsense.

Forget the White House generally. President Obama himself has purposely disclosed "national-security information" -- the existence of the CIA drone program -- that his own Justice Department and press secretary treat as classified. I'm glad he's done so. The notion that the United States government should wage ongoing war in multiple countries while keeping it secret from its own citizens is noxious. By my lights, the CIA drone program's existence should not be a state secret. Obama ought to declassify it.

More: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/dont-be-fooled-by-obamas-faux-righteous-indignation-about-leaks/258316

Killing Joke - The Great Cull

Killing Joke from their 2010 album Absolute Dissent. Great music, and the message is just disturbing enough to make people wake up.

Killing Joke - The Great Cull (2010) - YouTube

Lyrics:

Thomas Malthus Eugenics are alive and kicking
Nutrients and vitamins extract from edible goods
Legislate, sick populations - a higher rate of mortality
Food code (as it's known) Codex Alimentarius

Thin the herd, thin the herd, the great cull is coming down...

Develop virus market cure - exploit the panic
Contaminate by guile and stealth - a quick strum of the harp
Depopulate initiate - pharmaceutical companies
All fall down, all fall down, Codex Alimentarius

Thin the herd, thin the herd, the great cull is coming down...

Most of us must die...

Instigate wars in population density centres
Maintain population below 500 million

Immunise, irradiate, deregulate all toxins
Monsanto feed, Monsanto seed - all the bees are dying
Depopulation in every nation, follow the food code
All fall down, all fall down, Codex Alimentarius

Thin the herd, thin the herd, the great cull is coming down...

Obama: Private Sector is Doing Fine

Well, here's a honest statement from the regime for a change:

On Friday, President Obama inexplicably said 'The private sector is doing fine.'" Since the president is completely out of touch, these middle class workers talked about their experiences to remind him of the realities of the Obama economy.

The private sector of the economy is not doing fine. What's worse than saying that it is fine is the idea that more public sector spending will improve the private sector. No true economist would ever stand behind a statement like that, especially when our own federal government is barely above water in terms of debt. Our national debt is nearly equal to revenue, so increasing the numer of government jobs will only make that disparity even further top-heavy.

Most economists not on the government payroll (or the Fed's) have been saying that increasing government spending (and now debt-spending) has zero chance of righting an economy which has been running numbers that are beyond recession level and actually into depression territory (but that won't be heard on state media outlets). Deficit spending only exacerbates the economic problems and does nothing to counter the source; government itself. As more and more rely on government for income and handouts, and as fewer and fewer are able to pay in (involuntarily, naturally), the imbalance becomes even greater and likelihood of any true recovery slips further away.

As someone who understands markets and the detriment of government intervention in economics, Peter Schiff gives about the most qualified and accurate rebuttal to those statist claims that more state scope and authority is needed when that is exactly the root cause.

Peter Schiff : the money that the government uses to pay the wages of the public sector employees comes from the taxes that he imposes on the private sector , we should get rid of the government jobs , government jobs makes us poor private sector jobs make us richer

If anyone is surprised that interventionism consistently fails to correct economic hard times, they need to look a bit more objectively at the situation and actually learn about economics from a source other than the state itself. As Mises said, "tu ne cede malis." He was right even before those doing economic damage today were even born.

The problem with government intervention into markets is that increasing the money supply by the Federal Reserve is the exact worst thing to do in the situation. It creates a chain reaction that no monetary or public policies can stop. In a nutshell, this is what happens when governments increase the money supply and increase deficit spending in a false attempt to promote economic growth:

What happens when consumers are given money without a proper price comparison? (consumer demand should drive producer supply) Prices increase because there is more currency in circulation, rather than higher levels of production. Prices rise as a response to the new level of currency supply. What happens when prices increase? Consumers spend less. What happens when consumers spend less? Producers cut production, which leads to lower supply levels and lower labor demand, which in turn leads to higher private sector unemployment. Unemployment can not be negated by increased government spending or increased government jobs, as a smaller private sector workforce leads to decreased tax revenues.

Funny how sometimes bad ideas have negative consequences, ain't it?

The resulting hyperinflation and economic collapse is not the subject of conspiracy theory, but of the history books. This is exactly what happened to the Weimar republic in 1923 (now Germany), to Russia in 1992-1993, to Zimbabwe from 1999-2008, and many other countries around the world throughout history. This is even what happened to the great empire of Rome, whose Dinarius currency inflated until the economy collapsed around 230 AD. Once the course is set, very little can be done to avoid disaster. If there were, some of these collapses would never had occurred.

Interventionism champions such as Ben Bernanke and Jamie Diamond are truly  horsemen of a financial apocalypse. Their job  made easier by such willing victims.

Ethos Documentary

Ethos,(2011) a powerful documentary hosted by Woody  Harrelson, is an investigation into the flaws in our systems, and the mechanisms that work against democracy, our environment and the the common good. With a stunning depth of research and breadth of analysis, this film delves deep into the inter-connected worlds of Politics, Multi-National Corporations and the Media. Most of us have wondered at some point how we have arrived at a situation where democracy is touted as having created an equal society when all we see is injustice and corruption. Politicians openly deceive the public with the support of major corporations and the mainstream media. Wars are waged, the environment is destroyed and inequality is on the rise. But what is the source of these institutional mechanisms which when we scratch the surface are so clearly anti-democratic, so contradictory to the values we hold in common and yet so firmly embedded that they seem beyond discussion?
 

Ethos opens a Pandoras box that has its roots in the cross-roads where capitalism meets-democracy, implicates every power-elite puts profit before people and finally offers a solution whereby you the viewer can regain control using the one thing they do care about...., your cash.

ETHOS (Full Documentary) - YouTube

Hong Kong Hoarding Gold

Tyler Durden sez (inflection built-in);

A month ago we were delighted to counterpoint Charlie Munger's prior remarks about the level of "civilization" of a given consumer based on their sentiment vis-a-vis gold, by demonstrating that Chinese purchases of gold from Hong Kong rose to a record. To wit: "Imports from Hong Kong were 135,529 kilograms (135.53 metric tons) between January and March, from 19,729 kilograms in the year-earlier period, according to data from the Census and Statistics Department of the Hong Kong government. Shipments in March rose 59 percent from February, yesterday's data showed." We have just gotten the April update, and, lo and behold, the country which is now the biggest buyer of gold, having surpassed India, just set a new record: "Gold imports by mainland China from Hong Kong climbed 65 percent to a record in April, advancing for a third straight month as investors sought a hedge against financial-market turmoil and an economic slowdown.Shipments totaled 103,644.5 kilograms (103.6 metric tons) in the month from 62,913 kilograms in March, according to export data from the Census and Statistics Department of the Hong Kong government today. In the first four months, imports were 239,174 kilograms from 27,114 kilograms a year earlier, according to Bloomberg calculations. China doesn't publish such figures." In other words: in the first four months of 2012 Chinese purchases have increased by an unprecedented 782%over 2011.

Since they're only buying more gold than at any time in modern history, that should give us pause. There is more demand for gold than most any other resource at this time. Think hard. What happens to that demanded good when all others become significantly discounted. I love economics. 

And this is only from Hong Kong! Said otherwise: "Is the PBOC, which officially has just 1,054 tons of the yellow metal, quietly and relentlessly stockpiling gold?" Oh yes.

Expect a formal announcement from the Chinese central bank in the months ahead, indicating the country's gold hoard has increased by at least 100%. What happens then to the price of gold is rather self-explanatory.

[...]

...as usual, Zero Hedge is wildly more accurate than state media propaganda like CNN. 

Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/hoarding-continues-china-purchases-record-100-tons-gold-april-hong-kong

As media outlets decrease and conspire against the public, that public becomes less intelligent and more divided. 

Go figure. 

The Lifeboat Hour – 06/10/12

from Progressive Radio Network » Lifeboat Hour | Progressive Radio Network http://prn.fm/2012/06/10/lifeboat-hour-061012/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lifeboat-hour-061012

Political Liars - Economic Edition - Tax Subsidies

I've been on an economics kick for the last couple of years, learning all I can. One issue that gets under my skin is is subsidies to industries through theft (taxation, since I is not voluntary). Some politicians believe that subsidizing markets, services, or products will help the economy, but this is a falsehood. Here is why we should end subsidies and involuntary taxation.

By subsidizing those costs to consumers, the public believes that those costs are lower. This is false, since costs are actually higher, but only the direct costs are experienced in transactions. Indirect costs round out the overall transaction, with producers receiving the balance of their revenue from the state, which extorts through taxes that revenue which drives costs and production higher.

This theft from consumers through forced coercion (taxation is theft) affects all taxpayers, even those who do not directly consume those goods or services. By ending subsidies, producers will lower costs to equilibrium and consumers will pay directly or indirectly pay for those goods and services they choose to. In turn, taxation can decrease, since need for taxes is negated by the market.

Beyond that problem, subsidization leads directly to increase costs to consumers, since producers see it as an increased demand (which we know not to be the case). By artificially driving up demand, producers see that demand can go higher, so in turn increase costs to consumers. Subsidies actually increase the total cost, rather than decreasing them.

Obama’s Unwelcome Jubilee Present to Britain

Barack Obama was all smiles in his carefully scripted message of congratulation to Queen Elizabeth II on her Diamond Jubilee. But at the same time as he recorded his message, his administration was actively undermining Great Britain at the annual meeting of the Organisation of American States (OAS), held in Bolivia.

Well that's a fine how do you do. The US despotic regime honors the Queen by engaging in talks regarding the Malvinas. What if China were to approach Puerto Rico and support their cessation from American rule, while also celebrating the US? It's basically the same concept. Rather conniving, no?

The OAS General Assembly, which includes the United States, has just re-adopted the 2010 "Declaration on the Question of the Malvinas Islands," which backed Argentina's call for negotiations between London and Buenos Aires over the Falkland Islands.

http://patriotupdate.com/24237/barack-obamas-unwelcome-jubilee-present-to-britain

Not that I even slightly support a monarchy which removes the natural right to self defense from its citizens (read: subjects). 

GOP rejects Obama's "fine" assessment of private sector

Speaker John Boehner and Republicans leaders responded to President Obama's statement and press conference on the economy on Friday, rejecting his statement that the private sector is "doing fine."

With increasing regulation and taxation on the private sector, while production is anything but increasing, it's no wonder that those actually producing believe Obama's statement to be false. As government spending increases supported by both Left and Right, any opinion that increasing debt while decreasing production is sustainable is laughable, but also an insight that fiat government is well removed from reality. Maybe the state should e removed entirely?

---

Original Page: http://feeds.cbsnews.com/~r/cbsnews/feed/~3/zyBwzJEHadM/

Fires Near Gila, NM

Google Online Security Blog: Security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

We are constantly on the lookout for malicious activity on our systems, in particular attempts by third parties to log into users’ accounts unauthorized. When we have specific intelligence—either directly from users or from our own monitoring efforts—we show clear warning signs and put in place extra roadblocks to thwart these bad actors.

Today, we’re taking that a step further for a subset of our users, who we believe may be the target of state-sponsored attacks. You can see what this new warning looks like here:

If you see this warning it does not necessarily mean that your account has been hijacked. It just means that we believe you may be a target, of phishing or malware for example, and that you should take immediate steps to secure your account. Here are some things you should do immediately: create a unique password that has a good mix of capital and lowercase letters, as well punctuation marks and numbers; enable 2-step verification as additional security; and update your browser, operating system, plugins, and document editors. Attackers often send links to fake sign-in pages to try to steal your password, so be careful about where you sign in to Google and look for https://accounts.google.com/ in your browser bar. These warnings are not being shown because Google’s internal systems have been compromised or because of a particular attack.

You might ask how we know this activity is state-sponsored. We can’t go into the details without giving away information that would be helpful to these bad actors, but our detailed analysis—as well as victim reports—strongly suggest the involvement of states or groups that are state-sponsored.

We believe it is our duty to be proactive in notifying users about attacks or potential attacks so that they can take action to protect their information. And we will continue to update these notifications based on the latest information.

Google Online Security Blog: Security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

Sadly, the US is just as responsible for those sort of actions as foreign actors. Stuxnet was built for this offensive purpose before there was a threat worth speaking about publicly. Now that it has become all but admitted to being an American attack, the fallout and backlash is not unexpected. State-sponsored terrorism starts here as an act of aggression, rather than abroad. The US can't play the victim card this time. Rather  than taking a defensive position, the US seems bent on preemptive attack. How's that for Hope and Change™? The more things change...

Cheat Sheet: Behind the U.S. Cyberattacks on Iran

Angst, Focused

My angst has turned to enlightenment, which in turn has led to a
higher learning. And so I wish on my fellow man.

How to Tell if Your City is Dying

Detroit just took another huge step towards the abyss, with its proposal to turn off street lights across half the city. This is the nightmare scenario for anybody who loves a particular city: that one day, it'll fail. Chances are, if you live in (or near) a city, you already worry over every little sign that your town is getting less cool, less vibrant, or just crappier. More »

---

Original Page: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/io9/full/~3/AhsDFU5-1nM/how-to-tell-if-your-city-is-dying

Floating to Japan on a Sea of Bad Debt

Hold onto your hats. Grab your wallet. All over the world, central planners are getting together. They're watching the whole developed world tilt towards Tokyo. And they're determined to "do something" to stop it.

The Dow fell again yesterday, down 17 points. Not a big deal. But hardly a day goes by without a loss. And look at the yield on a 10-year T-note. Barely above 1.5%.

Thats well below half of the rate of inflation! Interventionist economic policies are the reason for the depression from which we are not recovering. 

The world's advanced economies are almost all in a dreadful funk. And some people say the fixers caused the problem themselves.

Last Friday, for example, analysts turned on their Bloomberg terminals to find out how many jobs had been added last month. Remember, it takes about 100,000 new jobs in order to keep the unemployment level about even. So what number came up on the terminals? Twenty-six thousand!

But wait. That wasn't the number of new jobs created. That was the number of old jobs lost. Net. For men, there were actually 26,000 fewer jobs at the end of the month than there were at the beginning.

What kind of a recovery is this?

It's not a recovery on paper, only in the lamestream state propaganda media. 

We've asked that question — rhetorically — many times. We know the answer. It's not a recovery at all. Instead, it's the deadest dead cat bounce in US economic history. Never before has a 'recovery' been so weak. Felix Salmon:

This is about as bad as the jobs report could possibly be: just 69,000 jobs created, split between 95,000 new jobs for women and 26,000 fewer jobs for men.

[...]

Interventionism, will we ever learn that it rarely effects markets in any positive manner?

---

Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dailyreckoning/~3/8m0DM1DmXkw/

US Dollar Inflation Unsustainable?

Here is my question for Ben Bernanke and the money changers; if a loaf of bread is of relative constant market value, yet it's cost in dollars consistently increases over time, which has more value, the bread or the dollar?

2,224.1% inflation since 1913. That is what has happened to the US currency since establishing the private federal reserve banks and abandoning any real commodity backing. The dollar inherently means and stands for nothing beyond a promise to repay a debt. It is a debt instrument, not one of wealth or even potential.

This means that the dollar is at about 4.3% of it's value since 1913. How's that for a loss on an investment? 4.3% current value, or 95.7% lost value. Did you get rich? Neither did I. All fiat currencies eventually collapse if inflation is ever-present, from the lowly Zimbabwean dollar the great Roman Denarius. Collapse is all but guaranteed in the long-run, as value only moved in one direction; down.

In communist Russia, the sad joke was that it took a basket of paper rubles to buy a loaf of bread, when it could be found. Dmitry Orlov wrote about this, living in America now and writing about similar issues here. Policymakers promoted inflation to foster growth, which didn't happen. It's not much better today, except for the growing elite class. Hyperinflation took root and could not be dissuaded, which led to the total collapse of the currency. The social result was disaster, leaving nearly an entire population destitute. Will Americans learn from history, or will American-branded socialism sound like a good deal until we reach the same end-of-line?

Economists will tell you that prices fall over the long-run when markets are most sustainable, since markets become most efficient when left to find a natural equilibrium without interventionist policies like import/export tariffs or consumption taxes. When the Fed cranks up the presses to kick-start economic growth, it devalues the dollars the individual consumer holds in hand, which violates the non-aggression and property rights principles and is theft at it's most basic since it was not done at the consent of every consumer holding dollars. The same results from fractional reserve banking, where "money" is created by loaning out "money" which does not exist.

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2012

More bad news, inflation is here to stay (well, at least until the dollar completely collapses);

American consumers got a bit of a break in April as US inflation was flat for the month, the US government reported today in Washington.
Consumer prices were unchanged in April and for the first time since December, thanks to falling energy costs. The unchanged reading followed a 0.3% increase in the previous month when gasoline and other energy items were on the rise.
US Labor Department inflation data shows that gasoline prices dropped 2.6% last month compared to March and February increases of 1.7% and 6.0%, respectively. Read more

US inflation tamed just a bit in March and over the past twelve months as energy prices increased at a slower pace last month, the US government reported Friday in Washington. Still, the costs of food and most other goods and services went up last month to add further distress to the pocketbooks of many Americans.
Consumer prices advanced 0.3 percent in March after increasing of 0.4 percent in the previous month, US Labor Department inflation data revealed. Increases were again led by energy, followed by food.
Prices at the pump grew 1.7% last month, although that was significantly slower than the prior month’s 6.0 percent surge which had been the main driver to the biggest monthly increase in consumer prices since April 2011. Read more

While the annual percentage rate remained unchanged, US inflation climbed sharply in February as soaring gasoline costs drove the biggest monthly increase in consumer prices since April 2011.
Consumer prices rose 0.4 percent in February after an increase of 0.2 percent in January, the US government reported today in Washington. The cost of food was actually flat last month, marking the first time food prices have not advanced since July 2010. But energy prices surged in February as prices at the pump jumped 6.0 percent. Read more

The Hoarding Continues: China Purchases A Record 100 Tons Of Gold In April From Hong Kong

A month ago we were delighted to counterpoint Charlie Munger's prior remarks about the level of "civilization" of a given consumer based on their sentiment vis-a-vis gold, by demonstrating that Chinese purchases of gold from Hong Kong rose to a record. To wit: "Imports from Hong Kong were 135,529 kilograms (135.53 metric tons) between January and March, from 19,729 kilograms in the year-earlier period, according to data from the Census and Statistics Department of the Hong Kong government. Shipments in March rose 59 percent from February, yesterday's data showed." We have just gotten the April update, and, lo and behold, the country which is now the biggest buyer of gold, having surpassed India, just set a new record: "Gold imports by mainland China from Hong Kong climbed 65 percent to a record in April, advancing for a third straight month as investors sought a hedge against financial-market turmoil and an economic slowdown. Shipments totaled 103,644.5 kilograms (103.6 metric tons) in the month from 62,913 kilograms in March, according to export data from the Census and Statistics Department of the Hong Kong government today. In the first four months, imports were 239,174 kilograms from 27,114 kilograms a year earlier, according to Bloomberg calculations. China doesn't publish such figures." In other words: in the first four months of 2012 Chinese purchases have increased by an unprecedented 782% over 2011.

And this is only from Hong Kong! Said otherwise: "Is the PBOC, which officially has just 1,054 tons of the yellow metal, quietly and relentlessly stockpiling gold?" Oh yes.

Expect a formal announcement from the Chinese central bank in the months ahead, indicating the country's gold hoard has increased by at least 100%. What happens then to the price of gold is rather self-explanatory.

More:

Increased imports by the second-largest consumer after India may help extend a rebound in the precious metal that's been driven by speculation the U.S. Federal Reserve may add to stimulus this month to safeguard the recovery. Spot gold rallied 4.1 percent on June 1 after U.S. jobs data missed expectations.

China's central bank may also be boosting holdings, according to Wang Xinyou, a senior analyst at Agricultural Bank of China Ltd.

"The fundamentals are intact for a bull market in gold,"

Liang Ruian, head of commodities at Pinpoint Investment Advisory Co. "With so much economic uncertainty out there, the money-printing practice won't stop. Central-bank buying is another bullish factor that shouldn't be discounted."

Immediate-delivery gold, which traded at $1,617.80 an ounce at 8:50 p.m. in Beijing, is 3.6 percent higher this year as investors and central banks bought the metal as a store of value.

Holdings in the SPDR Gold Trust, the biggest bullion-backed exchange-traded fund, rose 1.5 percent in 2012, and central banks from Turkey to Kazakhstan added gold to their reserves.

And the kicker:

"We can't rule out the possibility that the central bank is buying gold," said Wang at Agricultural Bank of China, referring to the People's Bank of China. The PBOC last made known its gold reserves more than two years ago, announcing that it held 33.89 million ounces, or 1,054 tons, as of June 30, 2009.

Rule out? You can bet on it. And when the press release is finally issued hold on to your gold hats folks...

The one thing that Zerohedge leaves out is that China has shifted from paying Iran for oil from US dollars to gold, something that tends to remain unstable as fiat currencies become unstable and collapse. This is a shift away from the dollars a the world's reserve currency, which is what has been the standard for the oil trade for decades. Expect the dollar to suffer even more if this trend spreads to other oil consuming nations. 

---

Original Page: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/hoarding-continues-china-purchases-record-100-tons-gold-april-hong-kong

Soros Predicts Euro Will Survive but Could Create "German Empire"

Billionaire trader, currency speculator and all around global manipulator, George Soros, made the following comments thus weekend at the Festival of Economics, Trento Italy: The real economy of the eurozone is declining while Germany is still booming. This means that the divergence is getting wider. The political and social dynamics are also working toward disintegration. 

Or maybe German economics are simply more sustainable than debt-as-wealth nations like Greece, France, Spain, and America. Good for them for not borrowing themselves into oblivion, but shame on citizens everywhere for allowing ruling class leaders to drag them into debt without consent. 

---

Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/economicpolicyjournal/YZSb/~3/IbWaBsGGjjs/soros-predicts-euro-will-survive-but.html

American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer Compares Gays To Face-Eating Cannibal

I didn't think this story could get any worse, that is until I read this trash article from the American Family Association. Ignorance knows no bounds. 

Is there a topical news story that the American Family Association will not somehow weave into its agenda against LGBT people? Spokesman Bryan Fischer's column this weekend equating homosexual behavior to that guy who ate the face off a homeless man puts up a good arguments for the answer to that question being a flat "no."

RELATED: Sign Of The Zombie Apocalypse? Naked Man Shot While Eating Someone's Face Off In Miami

The article, titled "It's Altogether Right to Discriminate Against Homosexual Behavior," explains that discrimination is acceptable for many other behaviors, including eating a person's face off. Since the government can discriminate against people who drunk drive or kill people, homosexuality should fall under the umbrella of acceptable things to discriminate against, too:

This is what public policy is all about: using good judgment to distinguish those behaviors that are worthy of public approval from those behaviors which ought to receive public disapproval.

Public policy is about discriminating against behaviors that are socially destructive and corrosive to the social fabric. So, we rightly discriminate against people who rip off convenience stores, burgle houses, drive while drunk, eat the faces off homeless people, gun down servicemen on military bases, embezzle funds from employers or clients, or beat their wives.

This discrimination is based, you will note, on behavior. Public policy is not a concern until an individual acts. As Thomas Jefferson said, "[T]he legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions."

This garbage is beyond reprehensible, but in a free society I will defend the right of a hatemonger like Fischer to speak his mind. As society increases its base intellect, people like this will be reduced and fade into history. We can't breed out hate, but it can be negated through higher learning. 

On the other hand, being gay doesn't make a person more special or deserving than any other. It's not a handicap. 

Fischer does helpfully clarify in his column that he does not discriminate against anyone for the way they are born, but only for actual homosexual behavior: "We don't punish people for what they think about doing, or even for what they want to do, but only for their actions, only for the times when they yield to socially destructive impulses." The article came out around the same time as a broadcast in which he explained that it was reasonable "for a rational culture to discriminate against homosexual behavior" and argued that he merely agreed with Congress and the superior courts that upheld the Defense of Marriage Act, which "discriminates against couples whose relationship is based on sodomy."

That video, below:

Original Page: http://www.mediaite.com/online/american-family-associations-bryan-fischer-compares-gays-to-face-eating-cannibal/

The Great Tax Haven Debate, Part II

Dan Mitchell's defense of tax havens is another in a long line of articles and discussions from the Cato Institute which do a great social service to individual liberty. I'll quote a portion of his response here, but refer back to his response and the original article after the jump. In a time of statist reductionist attempts to socialize our society, it's good to see people like Mitchell who get it and are vocal about it;

Back in April, responding to an article written by Ann Hollingshead for the Task Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development, I wrote a long post defending so-called tax havens.

I went through the trouble of a point-by-point response because her article was quite reasonable and focused on some key moral and philosophical issues (rather than the demagoguery I normally have to deal with when people on the left reflexively condemn low-tax jurisdictions).

She responded to my response, and she raised additional points that deserve to be answered.

So here we go again. Let's go through Ann's article and see where we agree and disagree.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a blog post criticizing the philosophies of Dan Mitchell, a libertarian scholar from the Cato Institute. I asked for a "thoughtful discussion" and I got it—both from the comments section of our blog and from Dan himself.  On his own blog, Dan replied with a thought-provoking point-by-point critique of my piece.

It has been a polite discussion, which is good because readers get to see that we don't really disagree on facts. Our differences are a matter of philosophy, as Ann also acknowledges.

The differences are more than philosophical. Mitchell recognizes that interventionist policies by the state are what lead to economic instability, along with promoting the corruption and gross theft of wealth in the process. Keynesian economics have long since been proven failure, and are the Left's parallel to Heston clinging to guns. 

Dan made several interesting points in his rebuttal. As much as I'd like to take on the whole post right now, my reply would be far too long and I don't think our readers would appreciate a blog post that approaches a novella. Rather I'll focus on a couple of his comments that I find interesting on a philosophical level (there were many) and which demand a continued conversation because, I believe, they are the basis of our differences. We'll start with a rather offhand remark in which Dan indirectly refers to financial privacy as a human right. This is an argument we've heard before. And it is worth some exploration.Unless I am very much mistaken, Dan's belief that financial privacy is a human right arises out of his fundamental value of freedom. My disagreement with Dan, therefore, does not arise from a difference in the desire to promote human rights (I believe we both do), but rather in the different relative weights we each place on the value of privacy, which Dan (I'm supposing) would call an extension of freedom.

I wouldn't argue with her outline, though I think it is incomplete. I'm a big fan of privacy as a principle of a civil and just society, but I also specifically support financial privacy as a means to an end of encouraging better tax policy. Simply stated, politicians are much more likely to reduce or eliminate double taxation if they feel such taxes can't be enforced and simply put a country in a much less competitive position.

I'd go further and say the way to promote social good is to remove taxation on markets, as they only give more scope and power to the state, which naturally leads to a curtailing I individual liberties. Fiat tariffs and taxes only reduce economic efficiencies and drive costs to consumers up anyway. Few state interventionist policies beyond preventing monopolies and oligopolies (cartels) in markets do any measurable social good. 

Okay, so on to [my] answer of the subject of this post. Privacy—and financial privacy by extension—is important. But is it a human right? That's a big phrase; one which humanity has no business throwing around, lest it go the way of "[fill in blank]-gate" or "war on [whatever]." And as Dan himself points out, governments have a way of fabricating human rights—apparently some European courts have ruled that free soccer broadcasts and owning a satellite dish are a human rights—so it's important that we get back to [philosophical] basics and define the term properly. The nearly universally accepted definition of "human rights" was established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United Nations adopted in 1948. According to the UN, "human rights" are those "rights inherent to all human beings," regardless of "nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status." The Declaration includes 30 Articles which describe each of those rights in detail. "Financial privacy" per se is not explicitly a human right in this document, but "privacy" is, and I think it's reasonable to include financial privacy by extension. But privacy is defined as a fundamental, not an absolute, human right. Absolute rights are those that there is never any justification for violating. Fundamental freedoms, including privacy and freedom from detention, can be ethically breached by the government, as long as they authorized by law and not arbitrary in practice. The government therefore has the right to regulate fundamental freedoms when necessary.

I'm not sure how to react. There are plenty of admirable provisions in the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but there are also some nonsensical passages – some of which completely contradict others.

Everyone hopefully agrees with the provisions against slavery and in favor of equality under law, but Article 25 of the U.N. Declaration also includes "the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services."

That sounds like a blank check for redistributionism, similar to the statism that I experienced when I spoke at the U.N. last month, and it definitely seems inconsistent with the right of property in Article 17.

I'm not sure that what they are doing at the UN is any different that the wealth redistribution the American Left is calling for over here. Neither is morally correct, as they are both based on theft through taxation, redistributing false wealth to those wio have not worked to earn it. Hollingshead would do well to actually gain a philosophical background on these issues she argues, maybe by reading works like Rothbard's Man, Economy and State, or even better would be Mises' Human Action. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't care that the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes a "right to privacy" because I don't view that document as having any legal or moral validity. I don't know whether it's as bad as the European Union's pseudo-constitution, but I do know that my support for privacy is not based on or dependent on a document from the United Nations.

As an aside, I can't help noting that Articles 13 and 15 of the U.N. Declaration guarantee the right to emigrate and the right to change nationality, somethings leftists should keep in mind when they demonize successful people who want to move to nations with better tax law.

Even the American Right would do well to grasp this idea and remove policies that prevent workers from emigrating to nations with wealth and need for workers. State borders are fiat, which I would call unnecessary and obstructionist to economic growth. Immigrants built the US, so preventing it from continuing by closing down the borders only restricts our ability to maintain a strong economy. Illegal immigration should be seen as the oxymoron that it is. 

[...]

---

Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Intelwar/~3/rTqA9a7gXcs/

The Lifeboat Hour – 06/03/12

from Progressive Radio Network » Lifeboat Hour | Progressive Radio Network http://prn.fm/2012/06/03/lifeboat-hour-060312/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lifeboat-hour-060312

The Red Warriors

Members of the Red Warriors, an antifascist gang in France, 1985. Red Warriors used violent force to remove Neo Nazi gangs from France and provide safe spaces for immigrants during the rise of white nationalism and an outbreak of violent crime against people of colour. They formed a squad called “L.U.S.I.N.E” and were considered the most effective gang to counter nazi violence, working to instill fear in their opposition.

So, they were like SHARPS, but actually did something about nationalized moral corruption? Didn't happen in the states, surprisingly. Ah, America, the birthplace of Nazi eugenics. Imagine that...

So Much for the Facts

In "Obama Says Economy Will 'Come Back Stronger,'" ...

Makes me think of Obama as Vader, with Guinness' immortal line, "if you strike me down I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

...the Associated Press reports that our President remains optimistic despite today's "unexpected" bad news:

President Barack Obama says the May jobs report shows that the economy is not creating jobs "as fast as we want" but vows that the economy will improve.

Firing up the printing presses an creating more dollars doesn't create growth, it stifles it. More so, it devalues the currency further, while inflation is running at about 4% annually. 

Obama says, "we will come back stronger. We do have better days ahead."

Not sure what he's basing that on, since the people who probably know best -- those who operate on the economy's front lines -- are not seeing any evidence of it, as Reuters reports in "Economic worry tightens U.S. CEOs' grip on spending":

CEOs will hold their wallets a little bit tighter heading into the summer after the long-awaited recovery in U.S. employment stumbled in May.

Anyone putting in purchase requests or submitting expense reports is quite aware of the new reality of business spending. 

The United States had been a relative bright spot this year in a troubled world economy coping with Europe's debt crisis and a cooling Chinese economy. But a weaker-than-expected May jobs report on Friday gave corporate America fresh worries.

AT&T Inc was one company that was not surprised by the disappointing jobs numbers as it has seen a lack of hiring at both big and small corporate clients. Fewer employees at these companies means fewer phone lines, which hurts AT&T's growth prospects.

"We are not seeing any hiring in the upper end of business in the U.S.," said Randall Stephenson, chief executive of the biggest U.S. phone company by revenue, told an investor conference in New York on Friday. "People aren't hiring a lot in the U.S," he said.

At smaller companies, Stephenson said, the situation was worse. "As you go down-market, it's getting tighter and tighter, and you're seeing the wallet for investment being less open."

Then again, facts don't really matter when you're running for office, right?

Neither Obama nor Romney can take credit for economic growth, but it seems anything politician do these days sure has visible negative results. What more motivation do we have for a true free market system than the failed attempts by the state to control capitalism?

---

Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/financialarmageddon/~3/6XWS82PtKos/so-much-for-the-facts.html

White House Didn't Ask New York Times Not to Publish Classified Information

When the New York Times published a detailed story by chief Washington correspondent David Sanger today confirming the U.S. as the co-author of the Stuxnet virus and outlining Barack Obama's role in directing a highly classified digital monkeywrenching program against Iranian nuclear facilities, many observers noted that the story couldn't have been written without White House support. Which is odd, considering how much energy the White House has been putting into prosecuting leaks it doesn't like.

By allowing the leaks, the regime is basically giving its blessing. They probably think of Sanger as a national hero, while they'd like to string up Asange for doing the same thing. Hippocracy much?

Sanger's story contains a wealth of presumably Top Secret data about the Stuxnet program—dubbed "Olympic Games" by the CIA—including a direct quote from Vice President Joe Biden during a Situation Room meeting about the operation. Not to diminish Sanger's reporting—one man's hard-won scoop is another man's "official leak"—but it's impossible to imagine that Sanger could have gathered the level of detail that he did about the classified program if the White House didn't want at least some of the information to reach the public.

Considering the fact that Obama's Justice Department has relentlessly pursued even the most innocuous leakers of classified information that it didn't want reaching the public, from NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake to former CIA agent Jeffrey Sterling, who allegedly leaked details of a failed CIA operation against Iran to Times reporter James Risen, the story reeked of White House hypocrisy. 

In other words, at least as far as today's story is concerned, "senior government officials" were aware that the Times was on the verge of releasing highly classified details about a CIA operation. One that happened to have been effective, and the execution of which reflected well on Obama. And neither the White House nor the CIA did anything to try and stop it. Imagine that.

Full article: http://m.gawker.com/5915026/white-house-didnt-ask-new-york-times-not-to-publish-classified-information

Time Zone - World Destruction

Afrika Bambaataa feat. John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten) from 1984. I can't believe he's as old as my father.

Time Zone - World Destruction - YouTube