The end of the Great American Recession
It’s spring break time in Saranac Lake, when many families flee the mud season and use the two-week school vacation to visit sunnier spots.
With my wife Susan and son Nicholas, I set off on a driving trip that looped down through Pennsylvania, plunging into the South, then across the Midwest.
The surprising part of our trip was the burgeoning evidence of an economic recovery. The roads were frantic with tractor-trailers.
The restaurants were packed. The National Parks and rest areas were thrumming.
When we stopped to pick up forgotten essentials — a bathing suit for Nicholas, an attachment for my Ipod — we found the stores busy with customers.
This entirely anecdotal research was echoed today by news that the US economy added 162,000 jobs in March — the largest gain in three years.
“We have had this massive disaster, but we’re at a place now where things are stabilizing,” said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, in an interview with the New York Times.
A lot of the jobs growth came as new Census workers were added. That’s another stimulus created by the Federal government, and it’s sure to be controversial.
There’s no doubt that at some point — and fairly soon — we’ll have to start weaning ourselves from an excess of government spending.
We’re learning this painful lesson now in northern New York, where taxpayer jobs are fading away with no good plan in place to bolster private sector employment.
But for the moment, it appears that we’ve avoided tipping off the cliff.
Americans are out on the road again, working, shopping and going about their lives.
For businesses in the Adirondacks hoping for a busy season this summer, that has to be a welcome sign of spring.
Pemo, if Gov't wasn't so involved in creating loop holes, laws that benefit their cronies, unrealistic regulations in one area and not enough in others, in other words an unnatural or artificial field for capitalism to work on, then things would be different. Don't get me wrong, this has nothing to do with Obama or Bush or Clinton or any other Administration over the past 75-100 years. This goes back to the day when, whoever it was, decided Gov't could control the economy by statute and regulation. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time. But all it did is allow for an artificial base for our economy to work under. Once it started the end result was inevitable. If you make an exception for one person the other people involved are going to want their exceptions too. Now we're stuck with a system that's become corrupt in a zillion different ways, and I'll bet every one of them seemed like a "good idea" at the time. Whether it was Gov't siding with a Union back when Teddy Roosevelt was in charge or FDR controlling American industry and making them hire people instead of paying their bills and rebuilding their business or Obama pushing health care reform through- Gov't, the Federal Gov't especially, was never intended to play in those areas. But now we're stuck and I see no easy way out. IOW, we made our bed and now we've got to lay in it. I would bet that Jacksons "rich and powerful" were involved up to their necks in every single decision made that got us to the point we're at now.
"As far as I am concerned after one year they are both his. We are still fighting two wars and that is one thing President Obama could change right now, he chooses instead to escalate one of the wars."Someone posted a question earlier that if the troops all came home unemployment would skyrocket.This would be a shame if that is what is keeping the wars going, but the poster may have a good question.I personally feel that some things take longer to un-tie than they do to tie-up, so saying Obama is failing is mistaken. Ever prune a plant wrong?, takes a second to cut it, and quite awhile before the plant grows out- if it recovers, and if you top a pine, well, it never gets it back -ever.To say a President can't affect our Government is ridiculous.To say that Obama could stop all the wars, preoblems, etc. at anytime now is equally ridiculous.Wait for the day he says "OK everybody come home" and see what happens, who squeals.He couldn't get healthcare done in a snap, I doubt he can call troops home, or make the economy grow overnight.I think his approach is one headache at a time. If a president could just wave his hand and make anything so, then it would not be a Democracy.History will prove,I believe, Bush was a complete failure and did considerable harm to the country he swore to nurture."All hat and no cow" is dead on.Cheney,is very strong in the running for the darkest and greediest heart known to mankind award. And he's a terrible hunting partner to boot. Blaming Bush is unfair solely in the sense it was Cheney who ran the Government anyway during Bush's terms. Someone posted Bush was a "C" student. I wonder if he did that well in school. His business accumen is closer to an "F", and we gave him the most coveted job in the free world–well for one term anyway, 'cause he stole the other clearly. I gave up after "we" re-elected him after that debacle. I figure "we" all got what we deserved for that. Finally if the Government has nothing to do with any of this, why do we even subjecate ourselves to it then?Merv, Bret, i hope you're "old timers", cause your scaring me.
One thing that rarely gets said: If there were no government, there would still be governing. It would just come from corporations, or mobs, or men with guns.The last 30 years have been a giveaway of control of much of our lives to the biggest corporations, without much real regulation.And on some pretty big stuff, they've screwed the pooch.
Men with guns… that was a punk rock band in the eighties no?!!
no- but screwed the pooch was :)
Certainly the federal government has some impact. What I am simply saying is that we delude ourselves into thinking that the President or the federal government has the overarching power to change the economy, and he/she/it does not. Did FDR choose to have another 8 years of severe depression AFTER his New Deal? Of course not. Did Bush want a Recession, does Obama want this persistent unemployment? The reality is, they can't do anything about it. They can marginally help or marginally hurt.The President does have the power over war though.
"The President does have the power over war though."April 3, 2010 12:29 PMRight, OK everbody, stop fighting and get along.He may be able to take our troops out of the scenario, but that's about it.
"The President does have the power over war though."Actually, Congress has the power over war.They just don't want it.
Congress no longer has direct power over declaring war. The real constitution is "-written on the hearts of the people" The other one is a piece of paper. But anyway back on topic Brian is right we are coming out of this recession which is a good thing!
Congress no longer has direct power over declaring war. The real constitution is "-written on the hearts of the people" The other one is a piece of paper. But anyway back on topic Brian is right we are coming out of this recession which is a good thing!
Merv, Bret, i hope you're "old timers", cause your scaring me.April 3, 2010 10:53 AMYeah, kinda sinks when someone with some life experience has an opinion not garnered from MTV or the Comedy channel.
Yeah Ed- "Evolve or Die" I believe was the last topic.I'm fifty, grew up watching the Vietnam war and the civil rights riots on TV and thought they were one and the same war coming up north to my town next.I don't think age necessarilly gives you wisdom, experience for sure, but I think a university level history class would disagree quite a bit with some of the "facts" given out here. And the constitution is written on HEMP, but that's a topic for another day eh?How happy it must be for you "old timers" to be able to trump the one depression i got to live through with the two you can now claim bragging rights to. Too bad you guys didn't pay better attention from the first one, cause if Bret and Merv are right- it wasn't the government that caused them it was all about the people.
Whether Bush "wanted" a recession or not is not the point. He didn't concern himself with the outcome of any of his actions that would/did not affect him! Or he would have behaved differently. Bush and Cheney and a few special others made plenty of money I'm sure. They do not live the same lives that the people they ruled over do. It's that sense of entitlement that angers me. Presidents have been shot for less.
George W. Bush (Dubya)The White House1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NWWashington, D.C. 20500Past Work Experience •Ran for congress and lost. •Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie. •Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. •Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox. •With father's help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas. (cont)
Accomplishments in Previous Positions•Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. •Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. •Set record for most executions by any governor in American history. •Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my father's appointments to the Supreme Court.(cont)
Accomplishments As President•Attacked and took over two countries. •Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury. •Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history. •Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period. •Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market. •First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner. •First president in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record. •First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in U.S. history. •After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history. •Set the record for most campaign fundraising trips than any other president in U.S. history. •In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job. •Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in U.S. history. •Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period. •Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in U.S. history. •Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television. •Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in U.S. history. •Presided over the biggest energy crises in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed. •Presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have. •Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans. •Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. •Dissolved more international treaties than any president in U.S. history. •My presidency is the most secretive and unaccountable of any in U.S. history. •Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history (the 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleezza Rice, has an Exxon oil tanker named after her).(cont)
Good lord, can some of you people READ? No one said the President can't affect our GOVERNMENT Gink. No one said the President has ZERO to do with the economy and how the nation handles things on the whole during his administration. What I said was that Gov't's meddling in areas they shouldn't be, even when the reasons were "good" has given us an artificial base for our economy. Like anything artificial there will be troubles. The recent bailouts are a good example. We should have let them die rather than bail out poorly run corporations. I would also think it would have been perfectly clear that what Mervel was saying was that a President cannot FIX an economy. All he can do is influence it's path. I'm going to take up drinking again. At least then the headache will be my fault.
•First president in U.S. history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt. •Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world. •First president in U.S. history to order a U.S. attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation. •Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States. •Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in U.S. history. •First president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the human rights commission. •First president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the elections monitoring board. •Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in U.S. history. •Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant. •Withdrew from the World Court of Law. •Refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions. •First president in U.S. history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. elections). •All-time U.S. (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations. •My biggest lifetime campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation). •Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in U.S. history. •First president in U.S. history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community. •First president to run and hide when the U.S. came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1) •First U.S. president to establish a secret shadow government. •Took the biggest world sympathy for the U.S. after 9/11, and in less than a year made the U.S. the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in U.S. and world history). •With a policy of 'disengagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years. •Fist U.S. president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability. •First U.S. president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the U.S. than their immediate neighbor, North Korea. (cont)
•Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts. •Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated U.S. law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts. •Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive.' •Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capital building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects. •In the 18 months following the 9/11 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States. •Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in U.S. history. •In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the U.S. has ever been since the Civil War. •Entered office with the strongest economy in U.S. history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. Records and References •At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available) •AWOL from National Guard and deserted the military during a time of war. •Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use. •All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father's library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. •All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. •All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. •Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review. •For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (they can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.) Source: Kelley Kramer
"I would also think it would have been perfectly clear that what Mervel was saying was that a President cannot FIX an economy. All he can do is influence it's path." well then i say don't break what you can't fix.
What was the average unemployment rate and national debt in the 8 years of the Bush Presidency? This will be the measure in 2012. President Obama’s opponent will ask if we are better or worse off than 4 years ago. Right now the jury is out on that question, it is possible we will see a major turnaround in the next year, I really hope we do and that would really help our current President. As far as the numerous foreign policy critiques posted of the previous president; many of which are VERY legitimate we must assume that President Obama the current President the one with the power to unilaterally change many of those policies; agrees with most of them as he has not changed much of anything in that area. As an aside; Iraq will go down as a success, which is related to this topic actually. It seems to me that those on the Left who so hated that war really really hope we fail because much like the right who refuse to recognize the turning economy, they seem to refuse to recognize the success in Iraq.If President Obama honestly felt that Iraq was a failure he would be a very immoral person to leave our soldiers their to die for a failed mission just because he was too weak or afraid of the political consequences of leaving. I must assume he feels that the Iraq mission is needed and is a success.
"If President Obama honestly felt that Iraq was a failure he would be a very immoral person to leave our soldiers their to die for a failed mission just because he was too weak or afraid of the political consequences of leaving. I must assume he feels that the Iraq mission is needed and is a success."To quote the President."I will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in"This is a man who actually thinks things through before he acts. He is not a "Cowboy" who acts first and thinks way later.Iraq was a disaster in every respect. Militarily it was badly planned and executed.Remember the basis we invaded on.We will be greeted as liberators.The war will be over in weeks.It will cost 500 million dollars.All false, and known falsehoods to anyone with a smattering of the history of the region.I only thank God that McCain and icebilly are not in the White House because right now we would be at war with Iran, and that war would make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a piece of cake.
Anon 8:20- I didn't read all of your post (s), but right off the bat I see you bought the story hook, line and sinker. "•First president in U.S. history to order a U.S. attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation. " Huh, kind of forgot the War of 1812, The Barbary Pirates, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic (The Banana Wars), WW2 (What did Germany and Italy do to us?), etc., etc., etc. And please explain how you figure ALL 50 states went bankrupt? People are always telling me I use strawmen. So in that vein I ask for an explanation of your claims.
Bret are you a college/professor school teacher?
Well we will see how things turn out. They are President Obama's wars now and everyone who is serving and risking their life in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing so on his orders and his orders alone.Why would a President put someone's life at risk for a mission that he thought was a failure and was simply taking his time about leaving? I mean what kind of a guy would do that? I think President Obama believes in both of those wars and missions and that is why we are still in both places after he has been in office for a year and a quarter; at least I hope and pray he is not so cold and heartless to simply be making political calculations.
"Iraq was a disaster in every respect. Militarily it was badly planned and executed."You seem pretty vested in this idea do you want it to be true? Do you recognize any of the successes which have happened and are happening in Iraq?It is kind of like the Republicans who refuse to recognize the start of an economic recovery because it messes up there narrative of President Obama.
"You seem pretty vested in this idea do you want it to be true? Do you recognize any of the successes which have happened and are happening in Iraq?"Success came when Bush was pressured into firstly shipping pallet loads of cash to bribe the tribes. Secondly to send a decent amount of manpower to do the job.That of course had something Republicans almost never think about Unintended Consequences.The consequence was that the war in Afghanistan, one which was actually worth fighting was virtually abandoned. So we gained some measure of success in Iraq, the level of that success will only be judged when we pull out. I am fully expecting a civil war.The reason for that is that Iraq is a false construct of a country with 3 disparate tribes. Without a strong dictator to hold the place together it will fall into anarchy. I hope that is not the case but fear that it will be.
"I must assume he feels that the Iraq mission is needed and is a success."Not quite, Mervel. Obama was always against Iraq and thought it a bad idea. He doesn't feel it's a success. He's just trying to lessen the failure with the gradual withdrawal (to prevent an all-out sectarian war). I don't agree with it, but that's the thinking.
What exactly is it that would define Iraqi success to those of you that feel it's a failure?
Iraqi success = ability to remain independent of Iran after we finally leave.
PCS, is that with or without Iran forcing themselves into Iraq?
"He's just trying to lessen the failure with the gradual withdrawal (to prevent an all-out sectarian war). I don't agree with it, but that's the thinking."Yes I realize that he was against the invasion of Iraq, I was very much against the invasion also for that matter. However that does not preclude the overall impact of that war from being a success. I certainly hope that our President did not order the guys who died last week on his orders and his orders alone; to die to "lesson the failure". Does he tell their children yes I had your dad die to lesson the failure?
It's getting more and more difficult to find someone who admits to supporting the invasion of Iraq.
"I certainly hope that our President did not order the guys who died last week on his orders and his orders alone; to die to "lesson the failure". Does he tell their children yes I had your dad die to lesson the failure?"Mervel, with all due respect, what does that matter? I thought conservatives were the ones who hated the touchy-feely stuff. They are carrying out a mission. Regardless of how people want to sugar coat it, there's no way you can call this a success. It was a grave waste of blood and treasure. The reason we're still there IS to lessen the failure, to somewhat stabilized what we, unprovoked, destabilized.If it were my son (and yes, I've had family in the service, though not in Iraq), I would rather have an honest justification than a gussied-up lie, like "Mission Accomplished." The country screwed up, and your loved one sacrificed in order that the country could remedy that.
" PCS said… It's getting more and more difficult to find someone who admits to supporting the invasion of Iraq. April 6, 2010 9:27 AM"I watched the build up intently. Having spent a lot of time in NYC after 9/11 I could understand the fear of another attack. I remember both Democrat and Republicans supporting the idea, telling us the evidence was there. The whole world was saying Saddam was up to something and he didn't do anything to alter our fears. Given the time, the apparent evidence and the cost to America if we were hit again…I understand the decision. Had we found that ticking nuke addressed to the White House most people would have been satisfied. Instead we found everything BUT that nuke, so it had to all be wrong. Seems like a political view to me.Anon 4/4/10 11:22- No, I'm not. But any student of American history, especially military history would be aware of the things I listed and many more similar examples.
"Instead we found everything BUT that nuke…"Huh? Exactly what "everything" was found?
"The whole world was saying Saddam was up to something"Incorrect.People in our own government were saying this wasn't the case. The people who turned out to be correct lost the argument. Note the date:http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2002/09/06/8546/lack-of-hard-evidence-of-iraqi.html
Yellow cake, sarin gas, mustard gas, centrifuges, missile parts for the delivery of those agents and the people with the knowledge of how to use all this. The US itself had sent samples of biological weapons to Iraq back in the 80's. Does anyone really believe good old Saddam just tossed that stuff? How much was sent to Syria? I distinctly recall watching sat pics of truck convoys leaving suspected WMD sites and traveling to Syria on CNN. Iraqs brass says so to- http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/ Never heard any follow up on that stuff, did we?What about the 3 container ships that left Iraq just prior top the war and somehow "disappeared"What wasn't found was what everyone thought there would be- nukes, lots of them. There is no way to satisfy the WMD claim without that, and that's how it will be seen forever.Had I been President with a known bad guy seemingly frothing at the mouth to do us harm, I might well have taken the same course. Or maybe not. Since none of us know what intelligence the White House had access to how can we say? All I know is Cheney still says the WMD were there and they had the intel to back it up. I've talked to guys off Drum that say they've seen things that never got reported that sure look like WMD related material. In truth, it's easier for me to believe we blew finding things than it is to believe Saddam was Mr. Nice Guy.I don;t ask anyone to agree with me, I just think some people are bit too simplistic when dealing with this subject. It's not black and white, and if we've learned anything it's that what the truth is and what we're told aren't always the same things.Fact checker- IIRC pretty much every intel source involved had it pegged as something bad in the works. The Clintons both said there was, the Israelis and Russians said he was, the only country saying he wasn't was the French and the UN also was skittish, but if you'll recall both the French and UN had shady deals going there. Again, it's all moot now. Whats done is done, but this idea Saddam was squeaky clean is garbage.
"Yellow cake,"Bret,Hate to keep this thread going, but the yellow cake was a hoax. This is from wikipedia, but the facts have been thoroughly reported, if you'd like to look it up:"In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[2] This single sentence, known now as the infamous "Sixteen Words",[3] would become a crucial justification of the administration's decision to conduct an invasion of Iraq less than three months later.The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated, "These sixteen words should never have been included." The administration attributed the error to the CIA.[4] In mid-2003, the U.S. government declassified the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which contained a dissenting opinion published by the U.S. Department of State stating that the intelligence connecting Niger to Saddam Hussein was "highly suspect,"
Sorry Fact checker, you're free to disagree with my opinion, but the facts support me this time. It was all over CBC, the Canucks were po'd.- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/"Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from IraqLast major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canadaupdated 6:57 p.m. ET, Sat., July 5, 2008The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions."See the link for the complete story.
Hi anon,I think it really does matter as he has not said he is there to soften or lesson failure, so what IS he doing there?"Regardless of how people want to sugar coat it, there's no way you can call this a success. It was a grave waste of blood and treasure. The reason we're still there IS to lessen the failure, to somewhat stabilized what we, unprovoked, destabilized."I do think rational people can disagree with the above statement. Was it the best thing to do at that moment in time? I don't think so personally. But to call it a grave waste of blood and treasure I think is not true. We will still be in Iraq when President Obama leaves office either in 2012 or 2016 and Iraq will be more Democratic than most of its neighbors. Heck we have backpackers vacationing there today (they just need to stay out of Iran). The Kurdish areas of Iraq have enjoyed 8 years of relative peace and some prosperity and have not had anymore genocides against them; that alone is valuable.
Do people consider our continued presence in the Balkans a sign of failure? Afghanistan? Japan, Korea, Italy or Germany? History will be the best judge of our success or failure.
"The Kurdish areas of Iraq have enjoyed 8 years of relative peace and some prosperity and have not had anymore genocides against them; that alone is valuable."Again, Mervel, with due respect (an thanks for your tone), this was true before the invasion. The Kurds were protected by the no-fly zone after the first Gulf War–when the U.S. realized it had forsaken them. They were enriched by the UN oil-for-food policy, and had supermarkets and a thriving economy and a large degree of autonomy before the invasion.
So whatcha think about that yellow cake now Frank, I mean Fact Checker?
I think yellow cake is tasty.But I don't think I'm Frank.
Frankly I was hoping for your acknowledgment that you got the facts wrong. My apologies for assuming you were someone else.
Brian- if this means what I understand it to mean, you can kiss any hope of any kind of recovery goodbye.http://www.marketskeptics.com/2010/04/gold-manipulation-officially-confirmed.html
Thanks for the link Bret. But I feel bad for Eric deCarbonnel. How does the guy get through the day. Desertification, worse crop harvest ever, catastrophic Fall in global food production, loss of topsoil….man this guy is more depressed than Eeyore.
Yeah, he's into making money off those who can afford gold, but get beyond him and read the articles. If this is even partially true then the US stands to be in a world of hurt. If the prices have been manipulated by US firms it'll come back on our financial position and could lead to some major, major problems for us. Bye-bye to our bond ratings (already on shaky ground), so long to our ability to convince people we have the wherewithal to pay our debts. Even more serious is the possibility this is world wide and that the markets major players don't actually have the gold they've claimed they do! This kind of ties in with the Feds blocking any talk of auditing their books. If this is all smoke and mirrors…this could make 1929 look like a sweet dream. This could literally destroy the world financial markets overnight.You're talking trillions of dollars of wealth that doesn't really exist, that people have used for collateral, that nations base their economies on. If this is accurate this is immense.