Home » Posts tagged 'sham'
Tag Archives: sham
When Does This Travesty of a Mockery of a Sham Finally End?
When Does This Travesty of a Mockery of a Sham Finally End?
Credit bubbles are not engines of sustainable employment, they are only engines of malinvestment and wealth destruction on a grand scale.
We all know the Status Quo’s response to the global financial meltdown of 2008 has been a travesty of a mockery of a sham–smoke and mirrors, flimsy facades of “recovery,” simulacrum “reforms,” serial bubble-blowing and politically expedient can-kicking, all based on borrowing and printing trillions of dollars, yen, euros and yuan, quatloos, etc.
So when will the travesty of a mockery of a sham finally come to an end? Probably around 2022-25, with a few global crises and “saves” along the way to break up the monotony of devolution. The foundation of this forecast is this chart I prepared back in 2008 (below).
This is of course only a selection of cycles; many more may be active but these four give us a flavor of the confluence of crises ahead.
Cycles are not laws of Nature, of course; they are only records of previous periods of growth/excess/depletion/collapse, not predictions per se. Nonetheless their repetition reflects the systemic dynamic of growth, crisis and collapse, and so the study of cycles is instructive even though we stipulate they are not predictive.
What is predictable is the way systems tend to follow an S-curve of rapid growth with then tops out in excess, stagnates in depletion and then devolves or implodes. We can see all sorts of things topping out and entering depletion/collapse: financialization, the Savior State, Chinese credit expansion, oil production, student loan debt and so on.
Since each mechanism that burns out or implodes tends to be replaced with some other mechanism, this creates the recurring cycle of expansion / excess / depletion / collapse.
I plotted four long-wave cycles in the first chart:
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
They Have No Proof: MIT Professor Explains Why the Assad Gas Attack Was a Sham
They Have No Proof: MIT Professor Explains Why the Assad Gas Attack Was a Sham
The mainstream narrative surrounding the sarin gas attack in Syria simply doesn’t add up. Even if you assume that Assad is nothing but a vile monster who would have no problem with gassing his own people, the attack still doesn’t make sense. That’s because even monsters have a sense of self-preservation.
Just days before the attack, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced a reversal of a longstanding policy in Washington. He said that the US was no longer absolutely determined to oust Assad. America’s six year war against his regime was basically over. So why would Assad reignite a conflict with the world’s preeminent superpower with a chemical weapons attack? A conflict that I might add, would greatly reduce the chances of him remaining in power?
Assad is by no means a good guy. He’s not even an okay guy. He is definitely a despot who relies on violence to suppress the population. But he’s never shown any signs of being suicidal. Six years of fighting to maintain his rule proves that. What’s much more likely is that Assad is being set up.
Don’t believe our government’s claims about satellite photography catching Assad’s aircraft dropping the sarin. In fact, the little evidence that has been provided falls on its face once you take a closer look. That’s the determination of Theodore Postol, a physicist and professor at MIT, who reviewed documents released by the White House regarding the gas attack.
Postol said: “I have reviewed the [White House’s] document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria at roughly 6am to 7am on 4 April, 2017.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
QE Inventor: It’s EASY to Create a Full-Blown Recovery, But Central Banks Chose to Make Banksters Rich Instead of Helping Main Street
QE Inventor: It’s EASY to Create a Full-Blown Recovery, But Central Banks Chose to Make Banksters Rich Instead of Helping Main Street
QE Is a Sham
Richard Werner (economics professor at University of Southampton) is the inventor of quantitative easing (QE).
Werner previously said that QE has failed to help the economy. (Former long-time Fed chair Alan Greenspan agrees. Numerous academic studies confirm this. And see this.)
But Werner is now taking off the gloves …
He said recently:
- It’s easy for central banks to take steps which would quickly create “full-blown recovery” for the economy
- But the central bankers are instead choosing to act in a way which creates massive profits for the big banks, instead of stabilizing the economy. Werner blames the revolving door between central bankers and private bankers
- The central banks have twisted the whole concept of easing … pretending that they’re trying to help the economy, when they’re doing something else entirely
- Credit should be extended to the productive economy – businesses which create goods and services – and not to financial speculators or high levels of consumer debt. Extending credit to small businesses former creates prosperity; lending to financial speculators only leads to economic instability and soaring inequality; and when too high a percentage of lending goes to luxury consumer consumption, it’s bad for the economy
- Banks create money and credit out of thin air when they make loans (background)
- It’s a myth that interest rates drive the level of economic activity. The data shows that rates lag the economy
Indeed, economists also note that QE helps the rich … but hurts the little guy. QE is one of the main causes of inequality (and see this and this). And economists now admit that runaway inequality cripples the economy. So QE indirectly hurts the economy by fueling runaway inequality.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
