Financial Crisis

[houseinbkk]

Mrs Merkel of the 4th Reich that is the German led EU has most certainly talking up a war in the past month if Europeans dont do as she says, the German political elite have been trying to rule Europe for 100 years and it seems theyre going to get their way.

She is a communist, you only have to see the way in which she has put her facist stooges in Greece and Italy to acknowledge this.

Peter Mandelson's said in 2009 we now live in a post-democratic era, he has been proven to be correct.

IMHO there will be Indigenous freedom fighters in Europe if this continues in the coming years. The problem being the fascist EU is most advanced police state in the world and has so many ways of suppressing them.

HALLELUJAH... AMEN... PRAISE THE LORD... DOWN WITH THE NAZIS!

p.s. GODSPEED to the Indigenous freedom fighters the J€hadis and M€Ujahedins.

Are you trying to say you believe the communist scum that is the German political elite are Nazis? Theyve certainly similar non democratic principles. But the other groups you mentioned are not indigenous.

You are clearly a fool who believes that appointing unelected totalitarian stooges in sovereign countries that are meant to be democracies to serve the purpose of the German led utterly corrupt EU regime is going to be accepted by the people!

As the gentleman Nigel Farage states the EU was meant to stop fascism and the Germans taking over Europe its doing exactly the opposite.

the rubbish you write proves who of us two is a fool

Its a fact Italy and Greece have been inflicted with unelected EU appointed stooges to push through reforms.

This is outright fascism, and the German political elite are at the fore of this.

Maybe you should look up the meaning of fascism and accept that i am correct and the EU is a fascist regime.

PS Whilst youre at it google Peter Mandelsons "post democracy statement" that has been proven to be correct.

Edited November 18, 2011 by houseinbkk

[fletchsmile]

Small example:

US' govts own estimate of its funding for Iraq (note direct costs) is just under $ 1 trillion. However, Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard's Linda Bilmes put the true cost at $3 trillion. That's a nice reduction on US debt, before we even start counting other wars, and would have significantly slowed the US debt clock.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[houseinbkk]

Small example:

US' govts own estimate of its funding for Iraq (note direct costs) is just under $ 1 trillion. However, Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard's Linda Bilmes put the true cost at $3 trillion. That's a nice reduction on US debt, before we even start counting other wars, and would have significantly slowed the US debt clock.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Obviously not enough to share between the power brokers, thus Americas trek around the planet looking for more wars to start. (with its trusty little yappy dog that is the British govt. pretending its still a world power)

[ronz28]

More on the MF Banksters, Euro, $USD etc. from Keiser, Mish and NY Times.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/mf-global-is-said-to-use-customer-cash-improperly/

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/11/mish-video-with-max-keiser-rise-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MishsGlobalEconomicTrendAnalysis+%28Mish%27s+Global+Economic+Trend+Analysis%29

[flying]

More on the MF Banksters, Euro, $USD etc. from Keiser, Mish and NY Times.

Thanks

Good video ron

disheartening & sobering but good.

[flying]

I thought Canada was the 51st state.

Nah...they dont ask for 3 Billion a year

But Canada does have a new form of money currency

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/meet-canada-high-tech-plastic-currency-184640433.html

Edited November 18, 2011 by flying

[houseinbkk]

Mrs Merkel of the 4th Reich that is the German led EU has most certainly talking up a war in the past month if Europeans dont do as she says, the German political elite have been trying to rule Europe for 100 years and it seems theyre going to get their way.

She is a communist, you only have to see the way in which she has put her facist stooges in Greece and Italy to acknowledge this.

Peter Mandelson's said in 2009 we now live in a post-democratic era, he has been proven to be correct.

IMHO there will be Indigenous freedom fighters in Europe if this continues in the coming years. The problem being the fascist EU is most advanced police state in the world and has so many ways of suppressing them.

HALLELUJAH... AMEN... PRAISE THE LORD... DOWN WITH THE NAZIS!

p.s. GODSPEED to the Indigenous freedom fighters the J€hadis and M€Ujahedins.

Are you trying to say you believe the communist scum that is the German political elite are Nazis? Theyve certainly similar non democratic principles. But the other groups you mentioned are not indigenous.

You are clearly a fool who believes that appointing unelected totalitarian stooges in sovereign countries that are meant to be democracies to serve the purpose of the German led utterly corrupt EU regime is going to be accepted by the people!

As the gentleman Nigel Farage states the EU was meant to stop fascism and the Germans taking over Europe its doing exactly the opposite.

the rubbish you write proves who of us two is a fool

Your beloved 4th Reich, are now telling us water no longer prevents dehydration, they really are the most misguided bunch of totalitarians on the planet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html

And a 2 year prison sentence for anyone who disputes the 3 year of EU research or more appropriately called thieving of taxpayers money.

[Naam]

i am not willing to discuss the paintstroke of an old master with a blind person.

[Naam]

I thought Canada was the 51st state.

Nah...they dont ask for 3 Billion a year

But Canada does have a new form of money currency

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/meet-canada-high-tech-plastic-currency-184640433.html

has it been reduced or are you taking inflation of the last 30 years into consideration?

[Naam]

Small example:

US' govts own estimate of its funding for Iraq (note direct costs) is just under $ 1 trillion. However, Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard's Linda Bilmes put the true cost at $3 trillion. That's a nice reduction on US debt, before we even start counting other wars, and would have significantly slowed the US debt clock.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

don't be such a beancounter Fletch! one trillion, three trillion, five trillion... what difference does it make?

[flying]

has it been reduced or are you taking inflation of the last 30 years into consideration?

No actually in the news Israel has asked Obama to increase to 3 Billion per year for the next decade.

There was also something about another 20 Billion more in Security<sic> aid to upgrade

Edited November 18, 2011 by flying

[lovetotravel]

Yes hopefully that won't be necessary and Iran's regime can be persuaded or otherwise forced to stop their nuclear bomb program without it coming to that.

Another way the US could save money and reduce debt: Phase out their own nuclear weapons, and stop making any more. Would probably save other countries billions too in de-escalation, and help reduce their debts.

I'm no fan of Iran. But put yourself in their shoes. Why shouldn't they develop nuclear weapons when a belligerent and war-mongering US has them? What gives the US the right to nuclear weapons and saying others can't? If you were Iran wouldn't you want to protect yourself from the US? The US have been proving for hundreds of years if they have superior weaponry, they've no qualms about using it for their own interest, and eliminating others.

Do the US really think other people will want to continue bringing knives to their gun fights? They need to grow out of the mentality they've had since elminating the Indians for their own interests

http://en.wikipedia....feration_Treaty

Maybe you need to read up a bit on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. On 11 May 1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. A total of 190 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council). More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.^[1] Four non-parties to the treaty are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons, while Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to the treaty in 1985, but never came into compliance, and announced its withdrawal in 2003.

The NPT process was launched by Frank Aiken, Irish Minister for External Affairs, in 1958. It was opened for signature in 1968, with Finland the first State to sign

Country Warheads active/total^{[nb 1]} Year of first test CTBT status The five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT United States 1,950 / 8,500^[3] 1945 ("Trinity") Signatory Russia (former Soviet Union) 2,430 / 11,000^[3] 1949 ("RDS-1") Ratifier United Kingdom 160 / 225^[3] 1952 ("Hurricane") Ratifier France 290 / 300^[3] 1960 ("Gerboise Bleue") Ratifier China ~180 / 240^[3] 1964 ("596") Signatory Non-NPT nuclear powers India n.a. / 120–200^[3] 1974 ("Smiling Buddha") Non-signatory Pakistan n.a. / 90–110^[3] 1998 ("Chagai-I") Non-signatory North Korea n.a. / <10^[3] 2006 (2006 test) Non-signatory Undeclared nuclear powers Israel n.a. / 80-200^[3][4] possibly 1979 (See Vela Incident) Signatory

Seems Russia has more "total" weapons now, US is #2. Iran is more concerned with Pakistan, India and Israel than the US. And with a nuclear weapon, will have significant influence over that region. Something that might be that good?

And as we know, Libya was well on it's way to becoming member of the club, thanks to Pakistan and China:

Libya had signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and was subject to IAEA nuclear safeguards inspections, but undertook a secret nuclear weapons development program in violation of its NPT obligations, using material and technology provided by the A.Q. Khan proliferation network^[74]—including actual nuclear weapons designs allegedly originating in China.

[cloudhopper]

Interesting interview - http://maxkeiser.com/2011/11/12/ote131-on-the-edge-with-charles-hugh-smith/

[fletchsmile]

Yes hopefully that won't be necessary and Iran's regime can be persuaded or otherwise forced to stop their nuclear bomb program without it coming to that.

Another way the US could save money and reduce debt: Phase out their own nuclear weapons, and stop making any more. Would probably save other countries billions too in de-escalation, and help reduce their debts.

I'm no fan of Iran. But put yourself in their shoes. Why shouldn't they develop nuclear weapons when a belligerent and war-mongering US has them? What gives the US the right to nuclear weapons and saying others can't? If you were Iran wouldn't you want to protect yourself from the US? The US have been proving for hundreds of years if they have superior weaponry, they've no qualms about using it for their own interest, and eliminating others.

Do the US really think other people will want to continue bringing knives to their gun fights? They need to grow out of the mentality they've had since elminating the Indians for their own interests

http://en.wikipedia....feration_Treaty

Maybe you need to read up a bit on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. On 11 May 1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. A total of 190 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council). More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.^[1] Four non-parties to the treaty are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons, while Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to the treaty in 1985, but never came into compliance, and announced its withdrawal in 2003.

The NPT process was launched by Frank Aiken, Irish Minister for External Affairs, in 1958. It was opened for signature in 1968, with Finland the first State to sign

Nope. Aware of that thanks. Simple fact. Now US has their own nuclear weapons they would like to prevent others having them.

NNPT is just one method of many (bureaucracy in this case) to help maintain their advantage over some of the more "reasonable" nations.

For the "less reasonable nations" (in the eyes of US) another method is simply start a war and eliminate them.

So for these 2 (of many methods), it comes down to:

Method: I have my gun, you should sign a piece of paper saying you'll only ever bring a knife to the gun fight; or

Method: I have a gun, if you try and get one too and want to be my equal, we'll shoot you.

Until the US gets rid of its own (nuclear) gun. It can't expect anyone else not to want one. Many obviously will see nuclear weapons for what they are, and realise the futility of playing the game.

Unfortunately the US don't and wishes to be a main player in the game, and inevitably some of the nutters want to play too.

So US is #2 and Russia #1? Doesn't make much difference given they can both destroy the world many times over

The only way the US can have any creditability and trust in claiming others shouldn't have nuclear weapoms is when they are much further down your list, or better still have none at all. Even then I doubt we could trust they wouldn't be lying

[flying]

Although we are drifting off Topic with these nuclear weapon discussions I agree 100% with fletchsmile

[fletchsmile]

Country Warheads active/total^{[nb 1]} Year of first test CTBT status The five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT United States 1,950 / 8,500^[3] 1945 ("Trinity") Signatory Russia (former Soviet Union) 2,430 / 11,000^[3] 1949 ("RDS-1") Ratifier United Kingdom 160 / 225^[3] 1952 ("Hurricane") Ratifier France 290 / 300^[3] 1960 ("Gerboise Bleue") Ratifier China ~180 / 240^[3] 1964 ("596") Signatory Non-NPT nuclear powers India n.a. / 120–200^[3] 1974 ("Smiling Buddha") Non-signatory Pakistan n.a. / 90–110^[3] 1998 ("Chagai-I") Non-signatory North Korea n.a. / <10^[3] 2006 (2006 test) Non-signatory Undeclared nuclear powers Israel n.a. / 80-200^[3][4] possibly 1979 (See Vela Incident) Signatory

Seems Russia has more "total" weapons now, US is #2. Iran is more concerned with Pakistan, India and Israel than the US. And with a nuclear weapon, will have significant influence over that region. Something that might be that good?

And as we know, Libya was well on it's way to becoming member of the club, thanks to Pakistan and China:

Libya had signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and was subject to IAEA nuclear safeguards inspections, but undertook a secret nuclear weapons development program in violation of its NPT obligations, using material and technology provided by the A.Q. Khan proliferation network^[74]—including actual nuclear weapons designs allegedly originating in China.

So why does the US still have so many nuclear weapons? That's around 9 each for attacks on EVERY single country in the world

So you're telling us in turn that the US having that sort of power to annihilate everyone and anyone is "something that might be good" and is a justifiable thing because they have signed a piece of paper, and we can "trust" them?

In contrast Iran or Iraq having "a nuclear weapon" is unthinkable for the "angelic" US.

Coming back to the economics of the situation. Aside from the trillions that could have been saved in the US' conventional wars of the last couple of decades, I wonder how much we could save if the US actually led the world in something good and divided their nuclear attack arsenal by a factor of 10 - say a 90% cut just to start with?

So some main objections:

1) the "US holier than thou" attitude (in reality they have shown they can't be trusted, and balance is needed from outside the US) . How many other such treaties have they breached? Torture/ Human Rights? Invasion/War ?

2) the sheer economic cost of the US military - wars and nuclear/none nuclear weapons. Would the US be in such an economic mess if they were less belligerent and other countries could trust them?

Edited November 19, 2011 by fletchsmile

[houseinbkk]

i am not willing to discuss the paintstroke of an old master with a blind person.

It would seem youre not willing to discuss facts about the Merkels 4th Reich that is EU's fascism either.

For someone who claims to see in glorious technicolour why dont you open your eyes.

Here look who runs Ireland.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bd9ab93a-11fb-11e1-a114-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1e81MGxAT

[Naam]

the sheer economic cost of the US military - wars and nuclear/none nuclear weapons. Would the US be in such an economic mess if they were less belligerent and other countries could trust them?

YO Fletch...

you sure present some twisted logic! the economic mess would be even bigger without wars and using up weaponry. don't you know that every fired round of ammunition, cruise missile, smart bomb and you name it which has to be replaced adds to a country's GDP and therefore lowers the debt/GDP ratio?

[Naam]

sorry, double posting :jap:

Edited November 19, 2011 by Naam

[Naam]

Although we are drifting off Topic with these nuclear weapon discussions I agree 100% with fletchsmile

quite right Flying... BUT any attack on Iran is very relevant to the topic "Financial Crisis". to me it seems, that politicians of whatever couleur or provénience are only happy when they can create additional problems even though when surrounded by unsolved problems.

take the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea!

[churchill]

Ha Ha

Maddow realizes that Herman Cain is an art project!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Ze-ejTC7c&feature=player_embedded

[fletchsmile]

the sheer economic cost of the US military - wars and nuclear/none nuclear weapons. Would the US be in such an economic mess if they were less belligerent and other countries could trust them?

YO Fletch...

you sure present some twisted logic! the economic mess would be even bigger without wars and using up weaponry. don't you know that every fired round of ammunition, cruise missile, smart bomb and you name it which has to be replaced adds to a country's GDP and therefore lowers the debt/GDP ratio?

Really Dr.Naam, since they are paying for that ammunition with debt, isn't that one for the numerator and one for the denominator, or are you going to start going all multiplier effect on me Perhaps you've stumbled on to something though. When the debt / GDP ratio was lower (as it should be) - let's say 40% - they've been adding 1 debt for 1 GDP for so long and in such great amounts for insane ideas such as their war efforts, that they're now around the 1/1 = 100% level

If you insist on the multiplier effect argument, wouldn't it have been a bit more constructive to spend that money on job creation, where there's a positive multiplier effect for the economy rather than a multiplier effect on world instability and radicalism/ extremism.

Even spending money digging holes and filling them in again would have been better. 2000 holes in Blackburn Lancashire in the style of the Beatles and all that ...

Edited November 19, 2011 by fletchsmile

[Naam]

they've been adding 1 debt for 1 GDP for so long and in such great amounts for insane ideas such as their war efforts, that they're now around the 1/1 = 100% level

the wars you are referring to were (and will be) necessary. take the glorious victory of the Grenada war which pacified the whole Caribbean, the Panama war to get rid of Noriega as a consultant for the CIA, the second Iraq war because "Sad Dàmn wanted to kill my Daddy", the Afghanistan war to kill bin-Laden in Pakistan, make women drop their burqas and establish nudie bars serving burgers and coke in Mazar-e-Sharif, the soon to happen invasion of Vuvuzela (spelling?) to give the coup de grâce to cancer stricken Hugo Chávez (for humanitarian reasons only)...

[jamescollister]

This war thing to fix the west would have worked if there was a real opponent. Iran would not last any longer than Iraq. China for all it's population is not capable of putting up much of a fight against the west. They are surrounded by superior forces. Russia to the north, Europe to the west Japan/US east and they are not one nation. The place would break up at the first strike.

If they go for war it has to be big and long and there is just no one out there to fight. Maybe they will find some bad aliens out there. Jim

[flying]

This war thing to fix the west would have worked if there was a real opponent. Iran would not last any longer than Iraq. China for all it's population is not capable of putting up much of a fight against the west. They are surrounded by superior forces. Russia to the north, Europe to the west Japan/US east and they are not one nation. The place would break up at the first strike.

If they go for war it has to be big and long and there is just no one out there to fight. Maybe they will find some bad aliens out there. Jim

I am not sure about that....

Given first off that war is a total waste of life & resources...with the exception of TPTB that continue to profit

from the business of war.

It is a sad statement that in the year 2011 we still have such aggression. That it comes mainly from

the one that was once a beacon of freedom & an example to follow makes it all the worse.

Secondly I do not agree about war being short or lack of real opponents.

Look at how long...over a decade now in Iraq/Afghanistan & now Pakistan

Against a supposedly "easy" enemy...There is as yet no end in sight. Yes they promise withdrawal but yet it continues.....For What?

Look at Vietnam again a supposedly "easy" enemy & how long + how many lives wasted on both sides did it cost.....For What??

All for what???

America could learn much from

John Quincy Adams on U.S. Foreign Policy (1821)

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

Full address at link above

Edited November 19, 2011 by flying

[teatree]

Fantsastic speech by Farage of UKIP giving the unelected Eurocrats the contempt they deserve:

[Naam]

Fantsastic speech by Farage of UKIP giving the unelected Eurocrats the contempt they deserve...

...made Monti and Papademos shaking with fear and rumour has it that Juncker considers that Luxembourg declares war on U.K.

[Naam]

This war thing to fix the west would have worked if there was a real opponent. Iran would not last any longer than Iraq. China for all it's population is not capable of putting up much of a fight against the west. They are surrounded by superior forces. Russia to the north, Europe to the west Japan/US east and they are not one nation. The place would break up at the first strike.

If they go for war it has to be big and long and there is just no one out there to fight. Maybe they will find some bad aliens out there. Jim

because China's intercontinental ballistic missiles do not carry multiple nuclear warheads but just leftover fireworks from the last Chinese New Year celebrations.

[ronz28]

It sounds like the cat is out of the bag with with Cold Fusion or Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) possibly based on nanomagnetism but there is still debate on the explanation for the observations. Rossi sold 13 more units to the military and other companies have products under development too.. Some of what is being observed in the cold fusion devices is:

1. 
   the components that give rise to the process are nickel and hydrogen;
2. 
   reaction produces copper in the heart of which is obtained by adding a proton (hydrogen nucleus) the nucleus of nickel;
3. 
   the amount of energy released in the process is much higher than the energy of chemical reactions that have occurred and requires a nuclear process ;
4. 
   during the process, the system emits gamma rays (shieldable with small thicknesses of lead) that are the signature of a nuclear process.
   http://e-catsite.com...nlenr-findings/
   This and the new found cheaper supplies of natural gas through fracking should lower the overall cost of energy and help economies recover worldwide. However, every crook that got us into the crisis still needs to be prosecuted or any recovery will be short lived if they continue to steal from depositors and investors.

Edited November 20, 2011 by ronz28

[churchill]

Who is in charge of Europe ...?

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2011/10/Pg-12-eurozone-graphic.jpg