MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Goldman Sachs’

The Counterrevolutionary Left | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on September 15, 2020

But do these benefactors really want thugs to continue rampaging through our cities if their party wins? What about Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, Mitt Romney, John Kasich, Michael Bloomberg, members of the Bush family and other pro-Biden establishmentarians? Are they looking forward to a Green New Deal, having AOC in a Biden cabinet, or perhaps seeing BLM “peaceful protestors” sitting across from them at the table of the new Democratic government? And assuming these counterrevolutionaries don’t want that to happen, what measures are they willing to take to keep the extremists with whom they are allied from sharing power?

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-counterrevolutionary-left/

Home/Articles/Politics/The Counterrevolutionary Left

The Counterrevolutionary Left

What happens when rioters cease to be useful to America’s woke oligarchs?

CWB honorees Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors speak onstage during attends The New York Women’s Foundation Celebrating Women Breakfast at Marriott Marquis Hotel on May 14, 2015 (Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for The New York Women’s Foundation)
 
 

Reports about tons of dark money flooding Democratic operatives from “left wing groups” seems to confirm an analysis offered this week by Pedro Gonzalez in his column “The Ruling Class Strikes Back”:

A network of left-wing groups with budgets eclipsing those of conservative powerhouses like the Heritage Foundation will likely ‘carpet bomb’ the 2020 election with anonymous dark money, a new report obtained by Fox News warns.”

Here the ruling class is indeed striking back. This “carpet bombing” money, which is intended to push the mentally deteriorated Democratic presidential candidate over the finish line, is coming from neither inner-city blacks nor derelicts at a soup kitchen. This dark money has issued from the wealthy and very wealthy. It is meant to keep Donald Trump from winning the November election and thereby continuing what the donors view as a revolutionary experiment in American government. Pedro urges us not to be distracted by screams about the underprivileged and Trump’s “right wing extremism.”

The people who are behind the anti-Trump crusade and who manufacture daily crises and scandals to bring him down represent an establishment that Trump ruffled without displacing. And now they’re coming after him, the Deep State, the neocon global interventionists, the culture industry that resents Trump’s defiance, and the friends of the Clintons and Obamas in the media. In their view and in that of the Never-Trump and Lincoln Project Republicans, Trump is not the kind of person who should be in the White House. He is brash and shoots too often from the hip. He also doesn’t defer often enough to the sage counsels of “experts.” 

Pedro Gonzalez is on the money that there is a counterrevolutionary character to much of the organized opposition to Trump. The rich people and those in power loathe him, while working-class whites, church-going country folk, and the young women who never went to college form his base. Who but a total idiot would confuse Michelle Obama, the ultimate pampered mediocrity, with an impoverished black mother, when she declaims against “white privilege” from her 11-million dollar pleasure dome on Martha’s Vineyard? Moreover, while the Dems are hemorrhaging working class voters, such plutocrats as Jeff Bezos, Jeff Zucker, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, and all kinds of Hollywood celebrities have rallied to their cause. Tucker Carlson was paraphrasing this causal explanation when he observed that “our leaders have decided to punish the middle class” for having voted for Trump. 

But I would offer two qualifications to Pedro’s argument that underscores the uniqueness of the present counterrevolution. This enraged resistance is coming from the institutionalized Left against what in its appeal to national interest is a challenge from the right. Not all counterrevolutions originate on the right, and certainly not if leftists are the ones in power or are the ones who are fearful of losing power. When the Communist regime in Poland fought Polish Catholic nationalists; or the Republican government in Spain in 1936 resisted the Nationalists under General Franco, the leftist establishment might have described itself as counterrevolutionaries who were resisting a revolutionary right. Throughout Western Europe today populists are battling to wrest power from a globalist capitalist class, which actively supports the LGBT cause and is welcoming Third World Muslim immigration. Here too the counterrevolutionaries are located on the left.

Another complicating factor, which I discuss in a book in press, Antifascism: Course of a Crusade, is that the ruling class has allied itself with dangerous radicals, who want to push things beyond where our elites wish them to go. The CEOs of Pepsico, Citibank, Netflix and dozens of other globally active corporations are delighted to shower money on BLM and even Antifa groups, but this may be mostly to topple the present administration by creating chaos in our cities. They may also play the fashionable role of woke capitalists and like Goldman-Sachs, or require their employees to use transgender pronouns in the workplace.

But do these benefactors really want thugs to continue rampaging through our cities if their party wins? What about Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, Mitt Romney, John Kasich, Michael Bloomberg, members of the Bush family and other pro-Biden establishmentarians? Are they looking forward to a Green New Deal, having AOC in a Biden cabinet, or perhaps seeing BLM “peaceful protestors” sitting across from them at the table of the new Democratic government? And assuming these counterrevolutionaries don’t want that to happen, what measures are they willing to take to keep the extremists with whom they are allied from sharing power?

What may generate an instant crisis is if the rioters continue to run amok. It will no longer be possible to blame these disturbances on the defeated “racist” president; and at some point, the victorious Democrats may have to deal with their unruly voters. It is not entirely unlikely that force will then be applied; and as in the Minneapolis riots some attempt will be made to link the disorder to the “far right.” A possible comparison that comes to mind is the way Hitler wiped out the hell-raising Brown Shirts after he came to power. We may not see in Biden’s America anything quite as disquieting as the Night of the Long Knives, but it’s also doubtful that the unruliness will go away on its own.  

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Tragedy of America’s Entry into World War I | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 26, 2019

Hence there were fervent supporters of American entry into the war from American industrial and financial quarters, as well as some voices in the political class, including former President Theodore Roosevelt, the “John McCain of his day” regarding his “all war, everywhere” bellicosity

https://mises.org/wire/tragedy-americas-entry-world-war-i

11/10/2018

This week some 80 world dignitaries including Presidents Putin, Trump, and Chancellor Merkel are gathering in France to mark the culmination of year-long remembrances of the centenary of the end of “the Great War” on November 11, 1918 – later labeled and known to every American high school history student as World War I. While at least 17 million people, including more than 116,000 Americans, died in this war — and millions more were wounded, gassed, or maimed — it’s a conflict widely misunderstood today. Indeed, because of World War II’s size and scope, cultural influence, and greater media coverage and capture, the First World War is often called “the forgotten war.”

Yet it was a cataclysmic event in its own right that both foreshadowed more intense and violent warfare in the 20th century, and fueled the growth of gargantuan central government in the United States. Most crucially, however, it was a war that should never have been fought — its causal origins and assignment of guilt for same are still a hot topic of debate a century later, a fact that alone attests to its superfluity — and one that, in any case, the United States should never have entered. These are disturbing theses about the war that will not be remembered by any of the global elites in Paris this weekend, but given the lessons for today, Americans should learn about them so as to demand of their Beltway solons wiser policy choices in the future. What follows is a short summary of America’s involvement in the war and lessons for today.

Origins of the Conflict in 1914

When the United States declared war on Germany following strong majority votes in both houses of Congress and the impassioned speech of President Woodrow Wilson to a joint session on April 2, 1917, he asserted that America must fight in the European war “to make the world safe for democracy.” This was a mere five months after Wilson had won re-election in 1916 via a slogan of “He kept us out of war.” 100 years later, though, there’s still no clearly-enunciated explanation of what it means to create safety for democracy. Later history would prove, however, that this goal — whatever it meant — was most certainly not achieved by the victorious Entente or their associated power and late entrant, the United States.

Nonetheless, when Count von Metternich convened the Congress of Vienna in November 1814 to settle long-simmering disputes in Europe following the  Napoleonic wars, little could he have guessed that precisely a century later his august project would crash forever upon the shoals of boiling Balkan nationalism. Metternich’s Concert of Europe had, in fact, been durable and substantial: after 1815 there had been only minor-but-contained skirmishes across Europe in the 19th century: the formation of the Second French Republic after the liberal revolution of 1848, the Franco-German War of 1871 that flipped Alsace-Lorraine, and the consolidation of German and Italian nation-states. The British, meanwhile, were extending their empire into the far reaches of Asia and Africa. But after victory over Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815, there would be no sizable war in the heart of Europe for another century.

Across the continent as a whole, then, the 19th century was one of general peace and ever-increasing material wealth for the masses, thanks to increasing economic integration and its attendant gains from trade.  The rule of law, protection of property rights, a sound monetary framework, and the unleashing of entrepreneurial energies, thanks to patient capital, had spread across the continent and built a civilized order. It was, said the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises later, the Age of Liberalism , and marked by the broad cessation of warfare and its attendant impoverishing taxation and destruction.

The First World War that ended this widespread peace and prosperity was, therefore, an appalling tragedy. In the end, some 65 million troops were mobilized (including 4.7 million Americans), there were more than 20 million casualties including civilians, and the Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, and Russian empires were destroyed. Meanwhile the victorious British and French empires peaked and were effectively bankrupted. The British needed a century to pay off its war loans. Many national boundaries were redrawn, and activist high-tax/interventionist governments replaced laissez-faire regimes everywhere.

American Entry into the War in 1917

However, initially with the advent of hostilities in 1914, President Wilson attempted to steer a neutral course. There was no discernible reason for America ever to become involved in a European land war, and the United States traded with — and had immigrants from — all countries in the conflict. Following a longstanding foreign policy that had first been enunciated by Wilson’s foremost predecessor, George Washington, the American position on the Great War remained, as always, “Friend of Liberty everywhere, Guarantor only of our own.” Critics called it “isolationist,” but the American people in near-unanimity sought to steer clear of the massive conflict across the Atlantic Ocean.

Tensions rose in May of 1915 with the sinking of the merchant cruiser Lusitania by a German U-boat, killing 128 Americans, among others. While there was an outcry against Germany over such unrestricted submarine warfare, the German government had in fact taken pains to warn American passengers via advertisements in major east coast media, and indeed the Lusitania was carrying contraband, and hence was a legitimate target of war. In any case Mr. Wilson was able to get the German government to restrict its operations and let a specified number and type of American ships pass through to England, and in spite of a few other minor incidents, the President cruised to re-election in November 2016 via the campaign war-cry of “He kept us out of war.”

By the end of 1916, however, things looked bleak for the Triple Entente (the alliance between Britain, France, and Russia). Russia was in trouble in the east and riddled with revolutionary fervor. The western front, while stabilized, would be bled by increased and more powerful German thrusts should Russia quit the war, as increasingly looked likely. The French and British, racked by losses in Turkey and higher casualties on their German front than the Germans, were beginning to fear an inability to continue to finance the war effort. The Italians were stalemated. The Allies increasingly saw one big solution to their plight, and it lay across the Atlantic.

Pressures thus were mounting on Mr. Wilson to join the fray. The British, as they were to do again after 1939, mounted a broad effort to entice America into their war via propaganda such as alleged German battlefront atrocities in Belgium. Further, tens of billions of (2018-equivalent) dollars had been loaned to Britain and France by New York banks such as Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan (which had major European offices in London and Paris, and thus led American capital raising efforts for these belligerents), in at least five times the amount lent to the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary): should Germany win the war, these loans to the western powers could not be recouped. American armaments makers and industrial producers such as Bethlehem Steel or DuPont, many of which had suffered during the 1913-14 recession in the United States, loved the advent of war. Exports to Britain and France quadrupled between 1914 and 1917.1

Hence there were fervent supporters of American entry into the war from American industrial and financial quarters, as well as some voices in the political class, including former President Theodore Roosevelt, the “John McCain of his day” regarding his “all war, everywhere” bellicosity….

Wartime Conduct of the Wilson Administration and the Advent of Big Government and Central Planning

Although most Americans were inflamed with a sense of patriotic fervor when reminded of the Lusitania (from 23 months earlier!) and then became enraged at news of the Zimmermann Telegram, U.S. entry into the war was not uncontroversial. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan had already resigned his cabinet position in the aftermath of the Lusitania sinking, fearing a tilt toward the British via war finance. Bryan had recommended to Wilson right away in 1914 that American loans or exports to belligerents be forbidden as a way to shorten the war. This counsel was ignored. Well-known Leftist and progressive Randolph Bourne publicly broke with Wilson over the war. He was one of many who did so. And there were also critics from what would today be called small-government libertarian types, most prominently H.L. Mencken of the Baltimore Sun.

This is of interest today because while the war effort went well enough once American soldiers and Marines were on the ground fighting in France, there were pockets of protesters in the United States. The protestors saw no logic to our fighting wars on behalf of European belligerents, with all of whom we had friendly commercial relations before the war, and none of whom represented any threat to us. It is an historical parallel to current era American wars in the Muslim world, and earlier wars in east Asia.

Domestically, historian Ralph Raico reports that the war ushered in central planning on a massive scale not seen since the Civil War, whose controls and federal dictates were easily surpassed in 1917. Congress passed the National Defense Act, for example. It gave the president the authority, in a time of war “or when war is imminent,” to place orders with private firms which would “take precedence over all other orders and contracts.” If the manufacturer refused to fill the order at a “reasonable price as determined by the Secretary of War,” the government was “authorized to take immediate possession of any such plant and to manufacture therein such product or material as may be required” for the war effort. The private business owner, meanwhile, would be “deemed guilty of a felony.”

Once war was declared, the power of the federal government grew at a dizzying pace in all sorts of directions. The Lever Act, for example, passed on August 10, 1917, was a law that, among other things, created the United States Food Administration and the Federal Fuel Administration: this put the federal government in charge of the production and distribution of all food and fuel in the United States. President Wilson reached into all corners of American life for the sake of the war effort via price controls and monetary manipulation, as well as such direct actions as banning beer sales (and this right before Prohibition).

Some of the Wilson Administration’s conduct was shameful. For example, in an effort at control of public opinion that would make Josef Goebbels proud, some 850 citizens were prosecuted under the Espionage and Sedition Acts between 1917 and 1919, with many jailed for having the temerity to question the logic behind the war. Most famous of these was the former Socialist candidate for President Eugene V. Debs, who was fined and given a 10-year jail sentence – at age 63 – after a June 1918 speech in Canton, Ohio wherein he decried American involvement in a war that was of no consequence to us or our national security; Debs further criticized the use of a conscript/slave labor army to prosecute the war. He was given early release by President Harding at Christmas 1921 and met at the White House the next day. But in a cold, damp, dark federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Debs had contracted tuberculosis, sending him to perhaps an early death in 1926.

Further, Wilson set up a propaganda office immediately after the declaration of war, called the Committee on Public Information. This was a government-staffed propaganda agency charged with message control of the media (viz. putting “spin” on war news) to sustain morale in the U.S., to administer voluntary press censorship, and to develop propaganda abroad. This entity eventually comprised 37 distinct divisions. These included the Division of Pictorial Publicity which employed hundreds of artists to create graphics with patriotic themes, or to incite fear and hatred of Germans.

Mr. Wilson also had one of his cronies, Albert M. Briggs, set up the American Protective League (APL), an organization of 250,000 private citizens that worked with federal law enforcement agencies during World War I to identify suspected German sympathizers. Its mission was to “counteract the activities of radicals, anarchists, anti-war activists, and left-wing labor and political organizations.” In other words, it was a giant “army” of snitches, sort of a benign Gestapo. One victim was a man named Taubert in New Hampshire who received a sentence of three years in prison for saying out loud and in public that World War I was a war “for J.P. Morgan, and not for the people.” He meant the was was being fought to recoup Morgan’s war loans to the British and French, and pad the bottom line of the capitalist class…

Let us be starkly clear in our closing thought: America went to war 100 years ago for no good reason, and certainly not for the “general interest” of national security. Instead, President Wilson wanted war for the sake of narrow special interests contained in what President Eisenhower was to later call the “military-industrial- congressional complex.” This panoply of overlapping Beltway groups or individuals, coupled with the “ruling class elite” who toil in Manhattan boardrooms, is still alive and well today. These groups can all do great things on their own, legitimately on behalf of the American people, as the case may be. But never again should an American soldier or Marine be asked to die, face down in the mud, thousands of miles away from the borders he is paid to defend, for anything less than a lethal threat to our national security. Nor should hard-pressed American taxpayers foot the bill for the wars of others. THAT is the primordial lesson of World War I, which reverberates through time and still resonates today.

On the occasion of the centennial of the second most brutal human conflict of all time, we salute all who died on all sides, and as Americans express our respect to the American war-dead. Yet at the same time, knowing the history of this and similar conflicts, one feels nothing but contempt for Woodrow Wilson and his fellow politicians. The foreign policy of a free and great commercial republic should anywhere and everywhere be: champion of liberty for all; vindicator only of our own.

Be seeing you

The Christmas Truce | Jacobin

The Christmas Truce. Never to be repeated.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Epstein His Connection to “The Club” of Manipulators | Armstrong Economics

Posted by M. C. on August 15, 2019

Aside from the fact that they could NEVER allow Epstine to be put on trial with all the connections he had, there is something else beyond the sex scandal. I have explained that there is what I have called “The Club” where a number of players ban together informally to manipulate a particular market.

To find the answer follow the money.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/epstein-his-connection-to-the-club-of-manipulators/

Ghislaine Maxwell was more than the alleged protector and procurer of young girls for Jeffrey Epstein as well as his girlfriend based upon allegations. However, she is also the daughter of Robert Maxwell who I believe was a member of “The Club.” Interestingly, Maxwell’s protege was also William Browder who loves to run around claiming he is the number one enemy of Putin. While the prosecutor wants to charge Ghislaine with conspiracy, nobody knows where she is. That alone in today’s world seems unbelievable. Use a credit card or turn on your phone and they have you. You need cash and a burner phone just to start. Then you need fake passports for you to book a ticket in your name and they will be there when you land waiting with open arms.

Epstein grew up in Brooklyn with no money to speak of and never finished college. She is Paris-born, Oxford-educated, a jet-setter who partied with princes and billionaires. They are reporting that Jeffrey Epstine hung himself with his bedsheet in isolation when guards were supposed to check on him every 30 minutes. The Los Angeles Times attributed any doubt to just conspiracy theories. But nobody asks the question: Why was Epstein in the hole?

You are thrown in that dungeon supposedly for disciplinary reasons. Epstein at best should have been there for a few days assuming there was no bed space in population. To be in isolation is rare since they need every bed in MCC and they will often send people to Brooklyn’s MCC when they need more space. Epstein had been in prison before so it would be no dramatic shock. To be thrown in the hole from day-one is typically on the phone call from the prosecutor. The MCC is controlled by the prosecutors when that is supposed to be illegal. But nobody will ever investigate that one. Having him in isolation without another cellmate allows for anything to happen without a witness. Who ordered to put Epstein in solitary confinement?

The fascinating connection her is Ghislaine Maxwell is the daughter of Robert Maxwell who I believe was a member of “The Club” deeply involved with Salomon Brothers and had dealings also with Goldman Sachs. You got it. The official report issued by Britain’s Department of Trade and Industry said investment bank Goldman Sachs Group, Inc had “substantial responsibility” for allowing Mr. Maxwell to manipulate the stock market prior to the collapse of his businesses reported the Wall Street Journal back in April 2001.

JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank, which did business with Mr. Epstein, are scouring their books for clues. There also runs a conspiracy theory numbering the deaths of people associated with JPMorgan Chase, not just the Clintons. Questions still surround billionaire Les Wexner, the financier’s most prominent client prior to his first incarceration. Exactly how Mr. Epstein used Mr. Wexner’s wealth to finance his own fortune is not clear. In August 2019, following Epstein’s second incarceration, Wexner addressed the Wexner Foundation by letter, delivering a detailed account of his dealings with Epstein, stating that the former financial advisor had “misappropriated vast sums of money” from Wexner and from his family. Wexner retained services of criminal defense attorney Mary Jo White of Debevoise & Plimpton, who used to be the head prosecutor in Southern District of New York. Why does he need a criminal lawyer who was the head of the New York prosecutors?

Then there is the infamous Epstein’s so-called “little black book,” of 92 pages with names, emails, and phone numbers of people Epstein knew or wanted to know, but in any event, had detailed information about.  The list goes on and on includes top people from the entire financial spectrum down the food chain from Goldman Sachs to just low-level billionaires (under $2 bil).

Aside from the fact that they could NEVER allow Epstine to be put on trial with all the connections he had, there is something else beyond the sex scandal. I have explained that there is what I have called “The Club” where a number of players ban together informally to manipulate a particular market. One member will typically take the lead and take the publicity if need be. There were some hedge fund players but mostly bankers and a few big punters.

I also believe one of those in “The Club” was Robert Maxwell (1923-1991), the flamboyant billionaire British publisher, who allegedly drowned after falling off his yacht in the Canary Islands near the northwest coast of Africa. Maxwell’s last words in communication were on November 5, 1991.

Robert Maxwell is Ghislaine Maxwell’s father. The scandal unfolding was the manipulation of the US Treasury auctions back then. Note the date for the Salomon Brothers scandal manipulating the U.S. Treasury Auctions broke August 18, 1991. It was this event that I believe changed the direction of Goldman Sachs. After that scandal where the government was going to shut down Salomon Brothers who was the biggest bond dealer in the USA for manipulating markets, all of a sudden, people from Goldman Sachs started taking posts in government…

Be seeing you

You Have to Follow the Money - Finding Deceit in the Stock ...

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Stock Prices Are Surging Because Corporations Are Spending More Money On Stock Buybacks Than Anything Else

Posted by M. C. on September 24, 2018

The reason for this is obvious – stock buybacks are a really easy way for corporations to manipulate stock prices.

For instance, this week we learned that the third largest bank in the entire country is going to lay off thousands of workers…Why would they do that if the economy was in good shape?

Because that is what happens when when one of the most crooked banks on the planet keeps getting caught.

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/stock-prices-are-surging-because-corporations-are-spending-more-money-on-stock-buybacks-than-anything-else_09212018

Michael Snyder

The primary reason why stock prices have been soaring in recent months is because corporations have been buying back their own stock at an unprecedented pace. In fact, the pace of stock buybacks is nearly double what it was at this time last year. According to Goldman Sachs, S&P 500 companies spent 384 billion dollars buying back stock during the first half of 2018. That is an absolutely astounding number. And in many cases, corporations are going deep into debt in order to do this. Of course this is going to push up stock prices, but corporate America will not be able to inflate this bubble indefinitely. At some point a credit crunch will come, and the pace of stock buybacks will fall precipitously.

The reason for this is obvious – stock buybacks are a really easy way for corporations to manipulate stock prices. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The world’s most powerful bank issues a major warning | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on September 9, 2017

Just because they are one of the most vile, corrupt, thieving, lying groups of people on the planet doesn’t mean they don’t know what they talking about.

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/the-worlds-most-powerful-bank-issues-a-major-warning/

Goldman Sachs has been at the heart of nearly every major banking scandal in recent history.

The company has settled lawsuits on countless charges, ranging from exchange rate manipulation, stock price manipulation, demanding bribes from their own clients, front-running retail customers, and just about every shady business practice that would put money in their pockets.

Yet throughout it all, Goldman Sachs has been protected from any serious punishment by its friends in highest offices of government. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Trump on How We Must Get Out of Afghanistan. Ho, Ho, Ho.

Posted by M. C. on August 25, 2017

German generals made several surrender appeals possibly as early as 1941 with Rudolf Hess’ defection to England. The allies said no.

The Japanese wanted to surrender in early 1945 but the allies said no.

The Afghan Taliban wanted to surrender but the US said no.

War is the health of the state (Randoph Bourne). War is a racket (General Smedley Butler). War is big busine$$ (Me).

https://www.garynorth.com/public/17055.cfm

On Monday, August 21, President Trump announced that he has reversed his previous plan to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.

Politics is a matter of selective betrayals
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

If The Export-Import Bank Is So Great…

Posted by M. C. on June 28, 2015

The E-I bank made 20 some billion dollars last year, if we choose to believe the government.  If it makes so much moolah then why wouldn’t private banks offer these loans?

The obvious benefit of E-I loans is that if the loans go bad the taxpayer takes the heat either through higher taxes and/or inflation due to printing dollars to make up  the difference.  But this is no different than government backed mortgages and school loans made by banks.  There is no risk for the bank, just the taxpayer.

There is a snake borrowed deep in the woodpile.  Whatever it is it likely involves the Fed and it’s joined at the hip twin Goldman Sachs.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Greek Bailout-Who Gets Stuck Holding The Bag?

Posted by M. C. on June 26, 2015

Greece’s socialist government with its tourism based economy (ie no economy) won’t let it’s 55-year-old retirees give up their full benefits.  The is the Cloward-Piven Strategy at work.  Get them everything no matter the cost.  When it all collapses, everyone ends up dependent on the (Euro) government to survive.

But I digress, who will take it on the chin when Greece declares bankruptcy?

Those with savings who haven’t already gotten their money out of the banks.  Haircut time ala Cyprus.

Greek banks?  Maybe to an extent.  The Euro presses will take care of them. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »