The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
America Is Being Destroyed By Problems That Are Unaddressed
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_131518544

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

One hundred years ago European civilization, as it had been known, was ending its life in the Great War, later renamed World War I. Millions of soldiers ordered by mindless generals into the hostile arms of barbed wire and machine gun fire had left the armies stalemated in trenches. A reasonable peace could have been reached, but US President Woodrow Wilson kept the carnage going by sending fresh American soldiers to try to turn the tide against Germany in favor of the English and French.

The fresh Amerian machine gun and barbed wire fodder weakened the German position, and an armistance was agreed. The Germans were promised no territorial losses and no reparations if they laid down their arms, which they did only to be betrayed at Versailles. The injustice and stupidity of the Versailles Treaty produced the German hyperinflation, the collapse of the Weimar Republic, and the rise of Hitler.

Hitler’s demands that Germany be put back together from the pieces handed out to France, Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, comprising 13 percent of Germany’s European territory and one-tenth of her population, and a repeat of French and British stupidity that had sired the Great War finished off the remnants of European civilization in World War II.

The United States benefitted greatly from this death. The economy of the United States was left untouched by both world wars, but economies elsewhere were destroyed. This left Washington and the New York banks the arbiters of the world economy. The US dollar replaced British sterling as the world reserve currency and became the foundation of US domination in the second half of the 20th century, a domination limited in its reach only by the Soviet Union.

The Soviet collapse in 1991 removed this constraint from Washington. The result was a burst of American arrogance and hubris that wiped away in over-reach the leadership power that had been handed to the United States. Since the Clinton regime, Washington’s wars have eroded American leadership and replaced stability in the Middle East and North Africa with chaos.

Washington moved in the wrong direction both in the economic and political arenas. In place of diplomacy, Washington used threats and coercion. “Do as you are told or we will bomb you into the stone age,” as Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told President Musharraf of Pakistan. Not content to bully weak countries, Washington threatens poweful countries such as Russia, China, and Iran with economic sanctions and military actions. Consequently, much of the non-Western world is abandoning the US dollar as world currency, and a number of countries are organizing a payments system, World Bank, and IMF of their own. Some NATO members are rethinking their membership in an organization that Washington is herding into conflict with Russia.

China’s unexpectedly rapid rise to power owes much to the greed of American capitalism. Pushed by Wall Street and the lure of “performance bonuses,” US corporate executives brought a halt to rising US living standards by sending high productivity, high value-added jobs abroad where comparable work is paid less. With the jobs went the technology and business knowhow. American capability was given to China. Apple Computer, for example, has not only offshored the jobs but also outsourced its production. Apple does not own the Chinese factories that produce its products.

The savings in US labor costs became corporate profits, executive renumeration, and shareholder capital gains. One consequence was the worsening of the US income distribution and the concentration of income and wealth in few hands. A middle class democracy was transformed into an oligarchy. As former President Jimmy Carter recently said, the US is no longer a democracy; it is an oligarchy.

In exchange for short-term profits and in order to avoid Wall Street threats of takeovers, capitalists gave away the American economy. As manufacturing and tradeable professional skill jobs flowed out of America, real family incomes ceased to grow and declined. The US labor force participation rate fell even as economic recovery was proclaimed. Job gains were limited to lowly paid domestic services, such as retail clerks, waitresses, and bartenders, and part-time jobs replaced full-time jobs. Young people entering the work force find it increasingly difficult to establish an independent existance, with 50 percent of 25-year old Americans living at home with parents.

In an economy driven by consumer and investment spending, the absence of growth in real consumer income means an economy without economic growth. Led by Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve in the first years of the 21st century substituted a growth in consumer debt for the missing growth in consumer income in order to keep the economy moving. This could only be a short-term palliative, because the growth of consumer debt is limited by the growth of consumer income.

Another serious mistake was the repeal of financial regulation that had made capitalism functional. The New York Banks were behind this egregious error, and they used their bought-and-paid-for Texas US Senator, whom they rewarded with a 7-figure salary and bank vice chairmanship to open the floodgates to amazing debt leverage and financial fraud with the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall destroyed the separation of commercial from investment banking. One result was the concentration of banking. Five mega-banks now dominate the American financial scene. Another result was the power that the mega-banks gained over the government of the United States. Today the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve serve only the interests of the mega-banks.

In the United States savers have had no interest on their savings in eight years. Those who saved for their retirement in order to make paltry Social Security benefits liveable have had to draw down their capital, leaving less inheritance for hard-pressed sons, grandsons, daughters and granddaughters.

Washington’s financial policy is forcing families to gradually extinguish themselves. This is “freedom and democracy “ America today.

ORDER IT NOW

Among the capitalist themselves and their shills among the libertarian ideologues, who are correct about the abuse of government power but less concerned with the abuse of private power, the capitalist greed that is destroying families and the economy is regarded as the road to progress. By distrusting government regulators of private misbehavior, libertarians provided the cover for the repeal of the financial regulation that made American capitalism functional. Today dysfunctional capitalism rules, thanks to greed and libertarian ideology.

With the demise of the American middle class, which becomes more obvious each day as another ladder of upward mobility is dismantled, the United States becomes a bipolar country consisting of the rich and the poor. The most obvious conclusion is that the failure of American political ledership means instability, leading to a conflict between the haves—the one percent—and the dispossessed—the 99 percent.

The failure of leadership in the United States is not limited to the political arena but is across the board. The time horizon operating in American institutions is very short term. Just as US manufacturers have harmed US demand for their products by moving abroad American jobs and the consumer income associated with the jobs, university administrations are destroying universities. As much as 75 percent of university budgets is devoted to administration. There is a proliferation of provosts, assistant provosts, deans, assistant deans, and czars for every designated infraction of political correctness.

Tenure-track jobs, the bedrock of academic freedom, are disappearing as university administrators turn to adjuncts to teach courses for a few thousand dollars. The decline in tenure-track jobs heralds a decline in enrollments in Ph.D. programs. University enrollments overall are likely to decline. The university experience is eroding at the same time that the financial return to a university education is eroding. Increasingly students graduate into an employment environment that does not produce sufficient income to service their student loans or to form independent households.

Increasingly university research is funded by the Defense Department and by commercial interests and serves those interests. Universities are losing their role as sources of societal critics and reformers. Truth itself is becoming commercialized.

The banking system, which formerly financed business, is increasingly focused on converting as much of the economy as possible into leveraged debt instruments. Even consumer spending is reduced with high credit card interest rate charges. Indebtedness is rising faster than the real production in the economy.

Historically, capitalism was justified on the grounds that it guaranteed the efficient use of society’s resources. Profits were a sign that resources were being used to maximize social welfare, and losses were a sign of inefficient resource use, which was corrected by the firm going out of business. This is no longer the case when the economic policy of a counry serves to protect financial institutions that are “too big to fail” and when profits reflect the relocation abroad of US GDP as a result of jobs offshoring. Clearly, American capitalism no longer serves society, and the worsening distribution of income and wealth prove it.

None of these serious problems will be addressed by the presidential candidates, and no party’s platform will consist of a rescue plan for America. Unbridled greed, short-term in nature, will continue to drive America into the ground.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 182 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. The Scalpel says: • Website

    This is PCR in his power zone – economics. Amen

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /proberts/america-is-being-destroyed-by-problems-that-are-unaddressed/#comment-1276535
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Rehmat says:

    I remember reading a good article by Canadian war reporter and author Eric Margolis on this subject.

    The Organized Jewry played a significant role in both World Wars, and the main loser were Germans in both wars.

    The Soviet Union was destroyed as result of Red Army’s defeat in Afghanistan at the hands of Afghan Mujahideen, and not by the American army. But, Afghans are still paying for America’s greed for opium and oil pipeline – both meant to benefit Jewish Russian Drug Mafia and Israel.

    Under Reza Shah dynasty, Iran played the transit role for opium produced in Afghanistan, India and some part of Iran and Turkey. The drug smugglers were under the protection of Shah’s Mossad-CIA trained special force, SWAK. In early 1980s, Imam Khomeini banned the cultivation of poppy and drug in Iran. Later-on USSR occupied Afghanistan and the conbined result was that drug barrons, working for the Jewish-controlled world drug empire – had to shift their capital and infrastructure to Israel and Afghanistan’s Helmand Province – which is currently controlled by British troops – has made them the best protection drug-money can buy – with an impressive 57% of the total annual opium production countrywide. But it was not the only reason why Washington needed to replace religious leadership of Mullah Omar with a pro-US secularist ruler in Kabul. The openly touted Caspian Sea oil exploitation was also to benefit Israel to a great extent. Alexander Machkevitch, born and raised in Kyrgyzstan. He is a very close friend of country’s dictator Nursultan Nazarbyev and member of many Jewish lobby groups working for Israel’s interests in Central Asia and Africa. He owns the lion-share of oil industry in the country. Machkevitch is reported to be worth US$5 billion – making him the richest Israeli-citizen outside Israel – ignoring the fact that Bernard Madoff stashed most of his US$50 billion loot in Israeli banks…..

    http://rehmat1.com/2010/01/08/afghanistan-wests-drugstore/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. MarkinLA says:

    Well PCR you left out looking the other way on illegal immigration and guest worker programs – both designed to destroy the ability of American workers to ever get a raise in pay.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Read the article again Mark or better still, have somebody read it to you. The well paid jobs for Americans just aren't there anymore. PCR even covers why that is, on this very page.

    Honest Abe said it simply enough, even for you, Mark. 'When we buy foreign goods we get the goods and they get the money. When we buy our own goods we get both'.

    James Fallows wrote a wonderful piece a while back on the economic theories of Friedrich List, tried and tested to great effect in none other than the (then) great US of A.

    Could economics really be this straightforward? Back to Thomas Paine and Common Sense.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/how-the-world-works/305854/
    , @Clyde
    You are 100% correct that immigration is left out by Paul Craig Roberts, in his otherwise excellent essay.
    , @Big Bill
    Paul Craig Roberts and Michael Hudson both ignore immigration. Both are liberals (although patriots) and cannot bring themselves to mention the subject.

    Both are tough-minded economists who can see through the Wall Street BS, yet both studiously avoid the obvious problems associated with importing low IQ Third World peasants by the tens of millions.

    It truly is a puzzlement. Their avoidance is so painfully obvious that I scratch my head trying to figure it out. Are their children or grandchildren married to Third Worlders? Do they belong to Evangelical religions that see immigrant rescue as a commandment from God? I just can't figure out how people so smart can avoid a huge economic elephant like Open Borders ... yet they do.

    God bless them both. I do pray that the scales will fall from their eyes sometime soon, but I am no longer holding my breath.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Strictly speaking, Roberts is right. American “capitalism” isn’t capitalism–too much crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

    Read More
    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @alexander
    Absolutely agree Mr Larson.

    What I find is the amount of" fraud" that has embedded itself within the system...and the ease and impunity in which it has manifested itself..

    Indeed it is "fraud " that has made, or rather "unmade" much of our capitalist system over the past decade and a half.

    Take a look at Citigroup, which was surely the most weighted blue chip stock within the financials index of every mutual fund and 401k in the country.

    At the time of the subprime disaster, its stock plummeted from 70 dollars to a buck ninety ....over night.

    Why?

    because it decided to take its obscene losses from all its "off book transactions" and put them "on" the books...sending the stock plummeting along with its stellar blue chip valuation.

    So where is the fraud ?...the fraud consists in ever having an "off book portfolio of transactions "to begin with.

    When investors choose to buy a stock, especially for other people, as in a mutual fund or 401k, they have to look at the balance sheet of the company, and weigh its assets against its liabilities to determine its book value..

    If there are hundreds of millions of dollars invested in subprime vehicles of dubious value or the derivatives trades around them.....the bank is mandated to" disclose" that information to the investor, on the balance sheet.

    Yet Citigroup kept it all" off book"...preventing investors from eyeing it and having the opportunity to hold or sell their stock.

    This constitutes a "defrauding "of the investor...because it prohibits them from analyzing the true value of the company.


    Just one more example(on top of PCR's) of this new found "ease of fraud," post 9-11, that seems to have permeated so many of the catastrophes that have crippled our Nation.

    , @Bill Jones
    From FDR on, the US economic system has been Fascist.
    , @MarkinLA
    Wrong. It is capitalism returning to it's truer self. Why shouldn't the government be for sale in a capitalist country? There is no such thing as "real" capitalism just as there is no such thing as real communism or real free trade.

    What was purer capitalism than paying your employees in company script that can only be used in the company store and never enough such that somebody can ever get out of debt for the company provided shack they live in? If that isn't capitalism the way capitalists want it, then what is?
    , @annamaria
    "Clearly, American capitalism no longer serves society, and the worsening distribution of income and wealth prove it."
    The problem is, the "invisible hand" of market had been cutoff to protect unaccountability, and unaccountability could be safely equated with cancerous growth (see financial sector). The US have become difficult for innovations for the same reason a centralized economy of the former USSR was not able to respond to innovators.
    Moreover, privatization of everything just does not work for maintaining a healthy society, because certain functions - healthcare, education, air and water and soil, and social security for the elderly - all belong to moral imperative.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Sterling says:

    You’re right PCR, and that’s why Donald Trump will do well in November.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. @MarkinLA
    Well PCR you left out looking the other way on illegal immigration and guest worker programs - both designed to destroy the ability of American workers to ever get a raise in pay.

    Read the article again Mark or better still, have somebody read it to you. The well paid jobs for Americans just aren’t there anymore. PCR even covers why that is, on this very page.

    Honest Abe said it simply enough, even for you, Mark. ‘When we buy foreign goods we get the goods and they get the money. When we buy our own goods we get both’.

    James Fallows wrote a wonderful piece a while back on the economic theories of Friedrich List, tried and tested to great effect in none other than the (then) great US of A.

    Could economics really be this straightforward? Back to Thomas Paine and Common Sense.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/how-the-world-works/305854/

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    Nothing you or Mark say sounds far off base to me except for your being a totally uncalled for dick.
    , @bach

    ‘When we buy foreign goods we get the goods and they get the money. When we buy our own goods we get both’.
     
    But what isn't explained is why real goods for funny-money is a bad trade-off.

    For instance, if I can purchase your goods/services with monopoly money I print up, where is my loss? Indeed, you're welcome to as much of my monopoly money as you want in exchange for your goods/services.
    , @MarkinLA
    I did read it moron. Nowhere does he talk about the jobs staying here being intentionally devalued by flooding the labor market. But maybe you can point to the exact place where he does mention that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. David says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Read the article again Mark or better still, have somebody read it to you. The well paid jobs for Americans just aren't there anymore. PCR even covers why that is, on this very page.

    Honest Abe said it simply enough, even for you, Mark. 'When we buy foreign goods we get the goods and they get the money. When we buy our own goods we get both'.

    James Fallows wrote a wonderful piece a while back on the economic theories of Friedrich List, tried and tested to great effect in none other than the (then) great US of A.

    Could economics really be this straightforward? Back to Thomas Paine and Common Sense.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/how-the-world-works/305854/

    Nothing you or Mark say sounds far off base to me except for your being a totally uncalled for dick.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    It would appear that way but take a look at both of our previous posts and you'll see who is the dick.
    , @MarkinLA
    He is a 9-11 truther who is butt-hurt because he thinks everybody who doesn't accept his "facts" about 9-11 is stupid. His facts are all the same unprovable assertions that everybody has heard a million times.
    , @interesting
    good call on the dick part, AND maybe that's why America is really circling the drain? everyone in America would rather "one up" each other than have serious dialog.

    on the other hand, i discovered in 2015 then when you talk with people about this shit it becomes obvious that they simple do not fucking care.

    America and Americans deserve all that's coming....and none of it good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. alexander says:
    @Orville H. Larson
    Strictly speaking, Roberts is right. American "capitalism" isn't capitalism--too much crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

    Absolutely agree Mr Larson.

    What I find is the amount of” fraud” that has embedded itself within the system…and the ease and impunity in which it has manifested itself..

    Indeed it is “fraud ” that has made, or rather “unmade” much of our capitalist system over the past decade and a half.

    Take a look at Citigroup, which was surely the most weighted blue chip stock within the financials index of every mutual fund and 401k in the country.

    At the time of the subprime disaster, its stock plummeted from 70 dollars to a buck ninety ….over night.

    Why?

    because it decided to take its obscene losses from all its “off book transactions” and put them “on” the books…sending the stock plummeting along with its stellar blue chip valuation.

    So where is the fraud ?…the fraud consists in ever having an “off book portfolio of transactions “to begin with.

    When investors choose to buy a stock, especially for other people, as in a mutual fund or 401k, they have to look at the balance sheet of the company, and weigh its assets against its liabilities to determine its book value..

    If there are hundreds of millions of dollars invested in subprime vehicles of dubious value or the derivatives trades around them…..the bank is mandated to” disclose” that information to the investor, on the balance sheet.

    Yet Citigroup kept it all” off book”…preventing investors from eyeing it and having the opportunity to hold or sell their stock.

    This constitutes a “defrauding “of the investor…because it prohibits them from analyzing the true value of the company.

    Just one more example(on top of PCR’s) of this new found “ease of fraud,” post 9-11, that seems to have permeated so many of the catastrophes that have crippled our Nation.

    Read More
    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. tanabear says:

    OT –

    There is currently a raging inferno in a building in Dubai. Does anyone really expect it to collapse like World Trade Center 1, 2 or 7?

    Just asking….

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Excellent and very important comment, thanks. 7 is the hanging thread that should unravel the web of deception and treason.
    , @Astuteobservor II
    I had the exact fucking thought when I saw the videos of it :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Orville H. Larson
    Strictly speaking, Roberts is right. American "capitalism" isn't capitalism--too much crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

    From FDR on, the US economic system has been Fascist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. bach says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Read the article again Mark or better still, have somebody read it to you. The well paid jobs for Americans just aren't there anymore. PCR even covers why that is, on this very page.

    Honest Abe said it simply enough, even for you, Mark. 'When we buy foreign goods we get the goods and they get the money. When we buy our own goods we get both'.

    James Fallows wrote a wonderful piece a while back on the economic theories of Friedrich List, tried and tested to great effect in none other than the (then) great US of A.

    Could economics really be this straightforward? Back to Thomas Paine and Common Sense.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/how-the-world-works/305854/

    ‘When we buy foreign goods we get the goods and they get the money. When we buy our own goods we get both’.

    But what isn’t explained is why real goods for funny-money is a bad trade-off.

    For instance, if I can purchase your goods/services with monopoly money I print up, where is my loss? Indeed, you’re welcome to as much of my monopoly money as you want in exchange for your goods/services.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    That might be true (for a while) if the Fed was part of your government and was using that money for the commonwealth, it isn't. That funny money is a vehicle to create endless debt, for you.

    The Chinese, for instance, are using that funny money to buy all of the real gold, as in actual bullion, while Wall St pedals gold "certificates", paper substitutes for real gold.
    , @marylou
    I happen to have to do real work for my funny monopoly money to buy their goods.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Damn straight.

    The underlying problem, of course, is the incestuous relationship that exists between the Wall Street banksters and Washington, District of Corruption. There’s the “revolving door” that brings D.C. types to Wall Street, and Wall Street types to D.C. And all for the mutual benefit of both.

    How will this ever change? you ask. Well, if Vlad Putin ever decides to administer an ICBM enema to Washington, District of Corruption. . . .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. @David
    Nothing you or Mark say sounds far off base to me except for your being a totally uncalled for dick.

    It would appear that way but take a look at both of our previous posts and you’ll see who is the dick.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @bach

    ‘When we buy foreign goods we get the goods and they get the money. When we buy our own goods we get both’.
     
    But what isn't explained is why real goods for funny-money is a bad trade-off.

    For instance, if I can purchase your goods/services with monopoly money I print up, where is my loss? Indeed, you're welcome to as much of my monopoly money as you want in exchange for your goods/services.

    That might be true (for a while) if the Fed was part of your government and was using that money for the commonwealth, it isn’t. That funny money is a vehicle to create endless debt, for you.

    The Chinese, for instance, are using that funny money to buy all of the real gold, as in actual bullion, while Wall St pedals gold “certificates”, paper substitutes for real gold.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bach

    That might be true (for a while) if the Fed was part of your government and was using that money for the commonwealth, it isn’t. That funny money is a vehicle to create endless debt, for you.
     
    But it's not necessarily in the form of debt. And the FED is a quasi branch of the government.

    If I give you funny-money in exchange for your services, that's not debt. I just issued a piece of paper which gives you the right to buy something from me.

    But as we see with trade surplus countries, much of that money is just parked in our financial markets.

    So it would be like you taking my funny-money and giving it right back to me for safe keeping.

    In this scenario, how do I lose? You have provided me services and goods for free because it costs me nothing to print up my funny-money.

    Now, if you want to keep this going forever where I give you worthless pieces of paper for iPhones, TVs, kitchen goods and other sundries, should I complain?

    The Chinese, for instance, are using that funny money to buy all of the real gold, as in actual bullion, while Wall St pedals gold “certificates”, paper substitutes for real gold.
     
    The Chinese use some of it to buy gold and other things. But a significant portion is parked in our financial markets.

    On net, the US has a trade deficit with the entire world, which means that on net, the entire world takes our paper money and gives it right back to us for safe keeping.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @tanabear
    OT -

    There is currently a raging inferno in a building in Dubai. Does anyone really expect it to collapse like World Trade Center 1, 2 or 7?

    Just asking....

    Excellent and very important comment, thanks. 7 is the hanging thread that should unravel the web of deception and treason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    It sure is interesting watching that Dubai hotel being engulfed in flames for 24 hours....and not collapsing..at all..as a result...

    It seems, from the footage, the inferno there was ten times worse than building number seven's.

    Maybe the fires in Dubai burn less "hot" ?....or maybe Dubai steel has a higher melting point than American steel.?..

    Does anyone know?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. bach says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    That might be true (for a while) if the Fed was part of your government and was using that money for the commonwealth, it isn't. That funny money is a vehicle to create endless debt, for you.

    The Chinese, for instance, are using that funny money to buy all of the real gold, as in actual bullion, while Wall St pedals gold "certificates", paper substitutes for real gold.

    That might be true (for a while) if the Fed was part of your government and was using that money for the commonwealth, it isn’t. That funny money is a vehicle to create endless debt, for you.

    But it’s not necessarily in the form of debt. And the FED is a quasi branch of the government.

    If I give you funny-money in exchange for your services, that’s not debt. I just issued a piece of paper which gives you the right to buy something from me.

    But as we see with trade surplus countries, much of that money is just parked in our financial markets.

    So it would be like you taking my funny-money and giving it right back to me for safe keeping.

    In this scenario, how do I lose? You have provided me services and goods for free because it costs me nothing to print up my funny-money.

    Now, if you want to keep this going forever where I give you worthless pieces of paper for iPhones, TVs, kitchen goods and other sundries, should I complain?

    The Chinese, for instance, are using that funny money to buy all of the real gold, as in actual bullion, while Wall St pedals gold “certificates”, paper substitutes for real gold.

    The Chinese use some of it to buy gold and other things. But a significant portion is parked in our financial markets.

    On net, the US has a trade deficit with the entire world, which means that on net, the entire world takes our paper money and gives it right back to us for safe keeping.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Adoll
    The problem with it is the local producer takes it in the teeth because he can't print money, only trade goods and services. So folks with access to the spigot grow wealthy buying cheap goods with magic money, while normal folks suffer.

    While low prices on goods may appear to be a boon for a while, eventually the local guy closes shop, or goes bankrupt. Then the foreign producer you pumped up with funny money senses a good deal, comes local, and buys up distressed property, pushing out locals and prices on property high. We are at this stage.

    The long term result is peasants with pitchforks and torches.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. MarkinLA says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Read the article again Mark or better still, have somebody read it to you. The well paid jobs for Americans just aren't there anymore. PCR even covers why that is, on this very page.

    Honest Abe said it simply enough, even for you, Mark. 'When we buy foreign goods we get the goods and they get the money. When we buy our own goods we get both'.

    James Fallows wrote a wonderful piece a while back on the economic theories of Friedrich List, tried and tested to great effect in none other than the (then) great US of A.

    Could economics really be this straightforward? Back to Thomas Paine and Common Sense.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/how-the-world-works/305854/

    I did read it moron. Nowhere does he talk about the jobs staying here being intentionally devalued by flooding the labor market. But maybe you can point to the exact place where he does mention that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    PCR explained quite clearly and succinctly why it is that jobs for Americans disappeared.

    Don't you have anybody who can read it to you?

    "In exchange for short-term profits and in order to avoid Wall Street threats of takeovers, capitalists gave away the American economy. As manufacturing and tradeable professional skill jobs flowed out of America, real family incomes ceased to grow and declined. The US labor force participation rate fell even as economic recovery was proclaimed. Job gains were limited to lowly paid domestic services, such as retail clerks, waitresses, and bartenders, and part-time jobs replaced full-time jobs. Young people entering the work force find it increasingly difficult to establish an independent existance, with 50 percent of 25-year old Americans living at home with parents."

    I do agree with you though that it would indeed be helpful for some if PCR included some pictures, cartoons even, to accompany his articles. Have you considered asking him?

    Happy New Year!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. MarkinLA says:
    @David
    Nothing you or Mark say sounds far off base to me except for your being a totally uncalled for dick.

    He is a 9-11 truther who is butt-hurt because he thinks everybody who doesn’t accept his “facts” about 9-11 is stupid. His facts are all the same unprovable assertions that everybody has heard a million times.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. MarkinLA says:
    @Orville H. Larson
    Strictly speaking, Roberts is right. American "capitalism" isn't capitalism--too much crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

    Wrong. It is capitalism returning to it’s truer self. Why shouldn’t the government be for sale in a capitalist country? There is no such thing as “real” capitalism just as there is no such thing as real communism or real free trade.

    What was purer capitalism than paying your employees in company script that can only be used in the company store and never enough such that somebody can ever get out of debt for the company provided shack they live in? If that isn’t capitalism the way capitalists want it, then what is?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Wrong. It is capitalism returning to it’s truer self. Why shouldn’t the government be for sale in a capitalist country? There is no such thing as “real” capitalism just as there is no such thing as real communism or real free trade.
     

    If that isn’t capitalism the way capitalists want it, then what is?
     
    Yup, that's really what it is. This is the way capitalism evolves. It's hard to try to tell people this because one then gets accused of being some type of commie. It's true though, this is how real living capitalists operate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @MarkinLA
    I did read it moron. Nowhere does he talk about the jobs staying here being intentionally devalued by flooding the labor market. But maybe you can point to the exact place where he does mention that.

    PCR explained quite clearly and succinctly why it is that jobs for Americans disappeared.

    Don’t you have anybody who can read it to you?

    “In exchange for short-term profits and in order to avoid Wall Street threats of takeovers, capitalists gave away the American economy. As manufacturing and tradeable professional skill jobs flowed out of America, real family incomes ceased to grow and declined. The US labor force participation rate fell even as economic recovery was proclaimed. Job gains were limited to lowly paid domestic services, such as retail clerks, waitresses, and bartenders, and part-time jobs replaced full-time jobs. Young people entering the work force find it increasingly difficult to establish an independent existance, with 50 percent of 25-year old Americans living at home with parents.”

    I do agree with you though that it would indeed be helpful for some if PCR included some pictures, cartoons even, to accompany his articles. Have you considered asking him?

    Happy New Year!

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Somebody needs to read it to you because you really are pathetic. Nowhere does PCR specifically cite immigration related issues as being responsible for the lowering of the standard of living for Americans. He simply gives a vague reference to greedy capitalists. Do you actually see the difference?

    If you knew anything about PCR you know he never, to my knowledge, (I have to say that because I haven't read everything he wrote) has acknowledged the problem of immigration when it comes to the economy. I remember reading in Vdare how people wanted him taken off the website because his columns never dealt with immigration or white people issues. Brimlow and him were both Reagan administration staffers so Brimlow probably has a soft spot for him when he was bounced from main stream publications. I also remember reading a long time ago on American Renaissance that PCR considered them NAZIs but that just might have been some guys assertion and not a direct quote from PCR.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. AmericanaCON [AKA "Charlie Hendersen"] says:

    It is not only United States which is a mess. Most of the Western Civilization has been in the toilet for quite some time. If we not include micro states for wealthy people like Luxemburg, Monaco and Lichtenstein only Switzerland and Norway do well. The second is heavily depended on their massive oil fund. What I find so interesting is that the official numbers don’t add up anymore. They don’t reflect people’s lives anymore.

    http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

    You can do the same thing as Shadow Stats in Canada and European countries you will more or less find the same thing. There are simply not enough good jobs anymore but the political elites seem to push BS that everything is great but people don’t notice it. I really hope that the elites change their positions because if not we will end up with either fascism or communism as people have no choice other than elect far-right or far-left extremists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. MarkinLA says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    PCR explained quite clearly and succinctly why it is that jobs for Americans disappeared.

    Don't you have anybody who can read it to you?

    "In exchange for short-term profits and in order to avoid Wall Street threats of takeovers, capitalists gave away the American economy. As manufacturing and tradeable professional skill jobs flowed out of America, real family incomes ceased to grow and declined. The US labor force participation rate fell even as economic recovery was proclaimed. Job gains were limited to lowly paid domestic services, such as retail clerks, waitresses, and bartenders, and part-time jobs replaced full-time jobs. Young people entering the work force find it increasingly difficult to establish an independent existance, with 50 percent of 25-year old Americans living at home with parents."

    I do agree with you though that it would indeed be helpful for some if PCR included some pictures, cartoons even, to accompany his articles. Have you considered asking him?

    Happy New Year!

    Somebody needs to read it to you because you really are pathetic. Nowhere does PCR specifically cite immigration related issues as being responsible for the lowering of the standard of living for Americans. He simply gives a vague reference to greedy capitalists. Do you actually see the difference?

    If you knew anything about PCR you know he never, to my knowledge, (I have to say that because I haven’t read everything he wrote) has acknowledged the problem of immigration when it comes to the economy. I remember reading in Vdare how people wanted him taken off the website because his columns never dealt with immigration or white people issues. Brimlow and him were both Reagan administration staffers so Brimlow probably has a soft spot for him when he was bounced from main stream publications. I also remember reading a long time ago on American Renaissance that PCR considered them NAZIs but that just might have been some guys assertion and not a direct quote from PCR.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. alexander says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Excellent and very important comment, thanks. 7 is the hanging thread that should unravel the web of deception and treason.

    It sure is interesting watching that Dubai hotel being engulfed in flames for 24 hours….and not collapsing..at all..as a result…

    It seems, from the footage, the inferno there was ten times worse than building number seven’s.

    Maybe the fires in Dubai burn less “hot” ?….or maybe Dubai steel has a higher melting point than American steel.?..

    Does anyone know?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    "Does anyone know?"

    No, I don't, but it kinda makes a man wonder, now, doesn't it? . . .
    , @peterike

    It sure is interesting watching that Dubai hotel being engulfed in flames for 24 hours….and not collapsing..at all..as a result…

     

    Maybe because it wasn't hit by a commercial air liner. Just a wild idea.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Maybe that is why so many Americans are leaving the U.S.A and renouncing their citizenship, despite the State Dep. charges going up to 2,000 Dollars from 400 Dollars.

    It might be a lot easier to let go of the ‘country’ concept-indoctrination and let individuals choose a server they want paperwork to be stored and send to/ from. (Re)Migrating from server to server as they please.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. @alexander
    It sure is interesting watching that Dubai hotel being engulfed in flames for 24 hours....and not collapsing..at all..as a result...

    It seems, from the footage, the inferno there was ten times worse than building number seven's.

    Maybe the fires in Dubai burn less "hot" ?....or maybe Dubai steel has a higher melting point than American steel.?..

    Does anyone know?

    “Does anyone know?”

    No, I don’t, but it kinda makes a man wonder, now, doesn’t it? . . .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Just by Googling I find reports that
    (a) the 63 storey hotel was opened in 2008 so long after the deficiencies of the WTC had become well understood by structural engineers;
    (b) the fire was said to have started on the facade;
    (c) the fire was not such as to prevent evacuation with few casualties so hardly comparable to WTC 1 and 2 - or, given that the WTC 7 fire burned all day inside without serious, or any, attention from firefighters WTC 7 also.
    , @Rurik

    “Does anyone know?”

    No, I don’t, but it kinda makes a man wonder, now, doesn’t it? . . .
     
    I know

    they were wired for controlled demolitions

    http://www.hoaxofthecentury.com/911Demolition1_files/Groundposts.jpg

    http://kn0l.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/thermiteonwtccolumns.jpg

    they wanted maximum casualties for their "new Pearl Harbor"

    and Larry Silverstein had just purchased these buildings which were slated for very expensive asbestos removal by the Port Authority. So expensive in fact that the decision to take ownership of them was financially incomprehensible under the circumstances. But "lucky Larry" was clever enough to insure these building for billions of dollars just in case of a fortuitous 'terrorist' attack. How was that for prescient eh?

    After 911 "lucky Larry" claimed two separate acts of "terrorism" (Jewish lightning) and was awarded several billion dollars for his efforts

    Here's lucky Larry, (who was in the towers every morning for breakfast, but decided- like his children did too, not to go on the morning of 911) describing the decision to "pull" building seven.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpcpQxLvadQ
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Right. That’s why I bang on about Newton all the time. He did the wondering for us and yet there’s this contradiction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Yeah

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. @Orville H. Larson
    "Does anyone know?"

    No, I don't, but it kinda makes a man wonder, now, doesn't it? . . .

    Just by Googling I find reports that
    (a) the 63 storey hotel was opened in 2008 so long after the deficiencies of the WTC had become well understood by structural engineers;
    (b) the fire was said to have started on the facade;
    (c) the fire was not such as to prevent evacuation with few casualties so hardly comparable to WTC 1 and 2 – or, given that the WTC 7 fire burned all day inside without serious, or any, attention from firefighters WTC 7 also.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    With all due respect, Mr Oz,

    kind of a lame response.

    Why?

    Because it presupposes the structural engineers of WTC 1, WTC 2, and building #7, who must have constituted perhaps the finest engineers in the world....had "no" knowledge of how to build a skyscraper such that its structural integrity could withstand a 'serious fire" without collapsing , completely, in under 12 hours.

    As though there had never been a "serious"fire... ever.... in any high rise, or office building, prior to their construction...from which the engineers could learn from...or did learn from.

    Please.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. alexander says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Just by Googling I find reports that
    (a) the 63 storey hotel was opened in 2008 so long after the deficiencies of the WTC had become well understood by structural engineers;
    (b) the fire was said to have started on the facade;
    (c) the fire was not such as to prevent evacuation with few casualties so hardly comparable to WTC 1 and 2 - or, given that the WTC 7 fire burned all day inside without serious, or any, attention from firefighters WTC 7 also.

    With all due respect, Mr Oz,

    kind of a lame response.

    Why?

    Because it presupposes the structural engineers of WTC 1, WTC 2, and building #7, who must have constituted perhaps the finest engineers in the world….had “no” knowledge of how to build a skyscraper such that its structural integrity could withstand a ‘serious fire” without collapsing , completely, in under 12 hours.

    As though there had never been a “serious”fire… ever…. in any high rise, or office building, prior to their construction…from which the engineers could learn from…or did learn from.

    Please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    As though there had never been a “serious”fire… ever…. in any high rise, or office building, prior to their construction…from which the engineers could learn from…or did learn from.
     
    You 9/11 truthers are a sick bunch. The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was fully and competently explained by real structural engineers (you're heard of those?) within a few months of the event. The combustible components of the building materials and average contents, triple-rated for fire-code regulations, would not have produced collapse. The super-augmentation of caloric output from 80000 gallons of #1 jet fuel melted the ties at the external framework, and the floors collapsed downward and vertically in-place -- 100% predictable from the models demonstrated, EXACTLY as modeled.

    Real science answers questions. Conspiracy theories make theorists look like morons.
    , @MarkinLA
    You are also forgetting the kinetic energy of the aircraft hitting the building and the damage that does as there is mechanical damage to the supports as well as heat energy being created from the kinetic energy. This can be seen if you have ever seen a bullet go through a plate of steel. Where does the molten steel spawled out on the backside of the plate come from since there is no explosive in the bullet? The pressure created by the bullet compressing the steel created the heat. If there was any magnesium such as for the landing gear wheels that could easily have caught on fire and burned extremely hot.

    They also didn't hit the building at the very top. You have 20-30% of the building including the massive ventilation and elevator terminal equipment up there that has to be supported by the weakened structure below.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. peterike says:
    @alexander
    It sure is interesting watching that Dubai hotel being engulfed in flames for 24 hours....and not collapsing..at all..as a result...

    It seems, from the footage, the inferno there was ten times worse than building number seven's.

    Maybe the fires in Dubai burn less "hot" ?....or maybe Dubai steel has a higher melting point than American steel.?..

    Does anyone know?

    It sure is interesting watching that Dubai hotel being engulfed in flames for 24 hours….and not collapsing..at all..as a result…

    Maybe because it wasn’t hit by a commercial air liner. Just a wild idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Right,


    Except Building #7 was never "hit" by a commercial airliner either... Now was it ?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. alexander says:
    @peterike

    It sure is interesting watching that Dubai hotel being engulfed in flames for 24 hours….and not collapsing..at all..as a result…

     

    Maybe because it wasn't hit by a commercial air liner. Just a wild idea.

    Right,

    Except Building #7 was never “hit” by a commercial airliner either… Now was it ?

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @alexander
    With all due respect, Mr Oz,

    kind of a lame response.

    Why?

    Because it presupposes the structural engineers of WTC 1, WTC 2, and building #7, who must have constituted perhaps the finest engineers in the world....had "no" knowledge of how to build a skyscraper such that its structural integrity could withstand a 'serious fire" without collapsing , completely, in under 12 hours.

    As though there had never been a "serious"fire... ever.... in any high rise, or office building, prior to their construction...from which the engineers could learn from...or did learn from.

    Please.

    As though there had never been a “serious”fire… ever…. in any high rise, or office building, prior to their construction…from which the engineers could learn from…or did learn from.

    You 9/11 truthers are a sick bunch. The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was fully and competently explained by real structural engineers (you’re heard of those?) within a few months of the event. The combustible components of the building materials and average contents, triple-rated for fire-code regulations, would not have produced collapse. The super-augmentation of caloric output from 80000 gallons of #1 jet fuel melted the ties at the external framework, and the floors collapsed downward and vertically in-place — 100% predictable from the models demonstrated, EXACTLY as modeled.

    Real science answers questions. Conspiracy theories make theorists look like morons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    The super-augmentation of caloric output from 80000 gallons of #1 jet fuel melted the ties at the external framework, and the floors collapsed downward and vertically in-place
     
    Ah, but building 7 was never hit by a plane, yet it imploded just like buildings 1 and 2. Say what you want about the latter two buildings, but the jet fuel argument is totally irrelevant to building 7.
    , @Rurik

    You 9/11 truthers are a sick bunch. The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was fully and competently explained by real structural engineers (you’re heard of those?) within a few months of the event.
     
    it didn't take months, this staged actor was telling us within minutes how it happened

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOK08byAehw

    an obviously planted shill 'explaining away' the towers turning to powder to put the seed in people's minds that this atrocity happened in the way they want us to believe it did.

    The super-augmentation of caloric output from 80000 gallons of #1 jet fuel melted the ties at the external framework, and the floors collapsed downward and vertically in-place — 100% predictable from the models demonstrated, EXACTLY as modeled
     
    .
    what a load of horse shit

    here's woman standing in the hole the jet caused in the middle of your super-duper caloric inferno that is melting thick steel girders all around her

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1glMoJSa35w/Tmxp3AqTWyI/AAAAAAAAAuU/vxYgf-6W_ws/s1600/wtc-hole1.jpg

    and how did the BBC report on building seven plopping into its basement at free-fall speed before it happened?!

    Eh?
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    You 9/11 truthers are a sick bunch. The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was fully and competently explained by real structural engineers (you’re heard of those?) within a few months of the event.
     
    Bull. Shit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @John Jeremiah Smith

    As though there had never been a “serious”fire… ever…. in any high rise, or office building, prior to their construction…from which the engineers could learn from…or did learn from.
     
    You 9/11 truthers are a sick bunch. The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was fully and competently explained by real structural engineers (you're heard of those?) within a few months of the event. The combustible components of the building materials and average contents, triple-rated for fire-code regulations, would not have produced collapse. The super-augmentation of caloric output from 80000 gallons of #1 jet fuel melted the ties at the external framework, and the floors collapsed downward and vertically in-place -- 100% predictable from the models demonstrated, EXACTLY as modeled.

    Real science answers questions. Conspiracy theories make theorists look like morons.

    The super-augmentation of caloric output from 80000 gallons of #1 jet fuel melted the ties at the external framework, and the floors collapsed downward and vertically in-place

    Ah, but building 7 was never hit by a plane, yet it imploded just like buildings 1 and 2. Say what you want about the latter two buildings, but the jet fuel argument is totally irrelevant to building 7.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Ah, but building 7 was never hit by a plane, yet it imploded just like buildings 1 and 2. Say what you want about the latter two buildings, but the jet fuel argument is totally irrelevant to building 7.
     
    LOL. The conspiracy dcepens. Why did the conspirators implode Building 7, but left the two towers to an unproven, but fully conspiratorial, fate produced by jet aircraft? Dum dum dum DAH!!

    You guys are comic geniuses.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    But WTC 7, hit by burning debris and evacuated, burned for many hours didn't it? And the motive for bringing down WTC 7 by plotters who wanted everyone to believe that a lot of aeronautical Al Qaeda terrorists did it all by flying highjacked planes has never been explained. Because of course it contradicts the conspiracy theory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @MarkinLA
    Wrong. It is capitalism returning to it's truer self. Why shouldn't the government be for sale in a capitalist country? There is no such thing as "real" capitalism just as there is no such thing as real communism or real free trade.

    What was purer capitalism than paying your employees in company script that can only be used in the company store and never enough such that somebody can ever get out of debt for the company provided shack they live in? If that isn't capitalism the way capitalists want it, then what is?

    Wrong. It is capitalism returning to it’s truer self. Why shouldn’t the government be for sale in a capitalist country? There is no such thing as “real” capitalism just as there is no such thing as real communism or real free trade.

    If that isn’t capitalism the way capitalists want it, then what is?

    Yup, that’s really what it is. This is the way capitalism evolves. It’s hard to try to tell people this because one then gets accused of being some type of commie. It’s true though, this is how real living capitalists operate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Roberts is in error blaming the concentration of banking on the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Instead it was the result of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Branch Banking Act of 1994. Previous to that, banks could not branch across state lines. A great contraction in the number of banks took place following the passage of Riegle-Neal, as large money-center banks acquired regional and community banks, which they could not have done without its provision for interstate branching. It is this, not Glass-Steagall, which enabled the six largest banks in the United States to hold more than half of all deposits in the country.

    I’ve often wondered why there is so much attention given to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley repeal of Glass-Steagall – and none at all to Riegle-Neal. Riegle and Neal were both Democrats, Congress was controlled by Democrats in 1994, and this bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton. I remember thinking at the time it was enacted that it exploded the pretense that Democrats were in any sense the party of the “little guy,” the “working stiff.” I suggest this is why the role of Riegle-Neal in creating “too big to fail” banks is so largely ignored. It fits the left’s narrative better to blame it on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, since that bill was authored by Republicans and passed during a period of Republican control of Congress.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    But WTC 7, hit by burning debris and evacuated, burned for many hours didn't it? And the motive for bringing down WTC 7 by plotters who wanted everyone to believe that a lot of aeronautical Al Qaeda terrorists did it all by flying highjacked planes has never been explained. Because of course it contradicts the conspiracy theory.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Sorry, a problem with the software (probably me or my thumb). I think my reply was meant to suggest that both repeals of legislation contributed to the extent of the financial damage though perhaps the former was a less culpable one (if culpable at all) because it was consistent with banking practice around the world, could fairly readily have been managed by prudential regulators and didn't provide the temptation and means for the dangerous kind of animal spirits to be let loose on the traditional banks. Perhaps it is wrong to use the wisdom of hindsight to be very critical of mere politicians in an age when the intellectual fashion was for freeing up business from every aspect of government and had even ensnared someone as knowledgeable as Greenspan (though I don't know where he stood on the repeal of G-S at the time).
    , @MarkinLA
    G-S did allow banks into the world of investment banking where the risks are less well understood than in commercial banking. Commercial banks do go insolvent all the time but usually because the area they operate in has had a major economic blow-out and the assets they hold loans against are no longer worth what they were at the time the loan was made and the bank doesn't have the reserve capital to write the loan off.

    The idea behind separating the banks back in the day was that you keep a regional bust regional. The idea behind letting the banks merge was that the bigger bank has the capital reserves to withstand a regional bust and not go insolvent. It was also thought that US banks could not compete internationally with Japanese and German banks.

    No matter what you do you need strong regulation that takes down a weak bank well before the FDIC has to put out much money. This is more difficult when the bank is creating CDOs and writing CDS instead of just making loans to businesses and people.
    , @Phil K
    Thanks for bringing up Riegle-Neal. I didn't remember it, if I was even aware of it to begin with. It gets almost no attention from anybody.
    My go-to financial site, naked capitalism, in thousands of posts over seven years, has made only one reference to it, though it's on target and in context:

    He [Clinton] didn’t just push the Democrats controlling the House to pass a bill (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) that dissolved the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law, which barred investment banks from commercial banking activities. He deregulated the risky derivatives market (Commodity Futures Modernization Act), gutted state regulation of banks (Riegle-Neal) leading to a wave of banking mergers, and reappointed Alan Greenspan as Federal Reserve chair. In recent years, Clinton has ludicrously claimed that the GOP forced him to do this, which led in no small part to the global financial crisis of 2008 and the too-big-to-fail ethos, with the federal government obligated to bail out multinational banks while doing little for individual account holders.
    15 Ways Bill Clinton’s White House Failed America and the World
    Posted on June 23, 2015 by Yves Smith
     
    MoveOn has a petition asking Obama to enforce all provisions of Riegle-Neal. The "Petition Background" states:

    Section 101, Part 2 of The Riegle-Neal Act of 1994 states no bank merger or acquisition or new branch bank may be approved if a bank "would control, more than 10 percent of the total amount of deposits of insured depository instituions in the United States." Three banks have been in violation of this since the Bush Administration. Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan and Bank of America--control close to 40% of the money in this country.
    Prosecute Big Banks--Enforce Riegle-Neal
     
    So the provisions of Riegle-Neal that were favorable to the banks were taken advantage of immediately, and those unfavorable to the banks were ignored by Republican and Democratic administrations. This petition has been sitting at MoveOn's site for years, and hasn't gotten 200 signatures. As you said, "largely ignored."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. szopen says:

    God bless Woodrow Wilson!
    And the WWII would be avoided, if western politicians hadn’t tried to appease a monster.

    As for Versailles, well, I’d say Germany has no right to complain after the terms of peace it dictated to states it defeated in WWI.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Orville H. Larson
    • Replies: @Wally
    Oh yawn, more Hitler nonsense from the indoctrinated.

    There were the 'Nazis' with the mythological '6M & gas chambers' and there were the 'Nazis' without the mythological '6M & gas chambers'.

    The '6M & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    www.codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Real truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    As for Versailles, well, I’d say Germany has no right to complain after the terms of peace it dictated to states it defeated in WWI.
     
    Terms were not dictated.

    According to Bard College history professor Sean McMeekin, Lenin/Trotsky conducted negotiations with Germany and used the settlement to enforce Communist doctrine
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?324061-1/discussion-woodrow-wilson-treaty-versailles

    Don't recall where it's reported that a Jewish guy did the negotiating for the German side; iirc his name was Kaufmann. The claim was that German leadership was incompetent and lazy; only the chosen had the requisite skills.


    On the other hand, Germany was shut out of participation in Versailles negotiations. Many accounts -- including McMeekin's -- fail to record that Jewish interests were over-represented at Versailles, including Bernard Baruch at Wilson's elbow the whole time, and the Warburgs from both Europe and USA had seats at the table to monitor their interests.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Rurik says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    As though there had never been a “serious”fire… ever…. in any high rise, or office building, prior to their construction…from which the engineers could learn from…or did learn from.
     
    You 9/11 truthers are a sick bunch. The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was fully and competently explained by real structural engineers (you're heard of those?) within a few months of the event. The combustible components of the building materials and average contents, triple-rated for fire-code regulations, would not have produced collapse. The super-augmentation of caloric output from 80000 gallons of #1 jet fuel melted the ties at the external framework, and the floors collapsed downward and vertically in-place -- 100% predictable from the models demonstrated, EXACTLY as modeled.

    Real science answers questions. Conspiracy theories make theorists look like morons.

    You 9/11 truthers are a sick bunch. The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was fully and competently explained by real structural engineers (you’re heard of those?) within a few months of the event.

    it didn’t take months, this staged actor was telling us within minutes how it happened

    an obviously planted shill ‘explaining away’ the towers turning to powder to put the seed in people’s minds that this atrocity happened in the way they want us to believe it did.

    The super-augmentation of caloric output from 80000 gallons of #1 jet fuel melted the ties at the external framework, and the floors collapsed downward and vertically in-place — 100% predictable from the models demonstrated, EXACTLY as modeled

    .
    what a load of horse shit

    here’s woman standing in the hole the jet caused in the middle of your super-duper caloric inferno that is melting thick steel girders all around her

    and how did the BBC report on building seven plopping into its basement at free-fall speed before it happened?!

    Eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    WoW - never saw that picture of the women just standing there in the middle of the wreckage with NO fire - that sure puts the lie to inferno story!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Rurik says:

    szopen

    =

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. Rurik says:
    @Orville H. Larson
    "Does anyone know?"

    No, I don't, but it kinda makes a man wonder, now, doesn't it? . . .

    “Does anyone know?”

    No, I don’t, but it kinda makes a man wonder, now, doesn’t it? . . .

    I know

    they were wired for controlled demolitions

    they wanted maximum casualties for their “new Pearl Harbor”

    and Larry Silverstein had just purchased these buildings which were slated for very expensive asbestos removal by the Port Authority. So expensive in fact that the decision to take ownership of them was financially incomprehensible under the circumstances. But “lucky Larry” was clever enough to insure these building for billions of dollars just in case of a fortuitous ‘terrorist’ attack. How was that for prescient eh?

    After 911 “lucky Larry” claimed two separate acts of “terrorism” (Jewish lightning) and was awarded several billion dollars for his efforts

    Here’s lucky Larry, (who was in the towers every morning for breakfast, but decided- like his children did too, not to go on the morning of 911) describing the decision to “pull” building seven.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Seamus Padraig

    The super-augmentation of caloric output from 80000 gallons of #1 jet fuel melted the ties at the external framework, and the floors collapsed downward and vertically in-place
     
    Ah, but building 7 was never hit by a plane, yet it imploded just like buildings 1 and 2. Say what you want about the latter two buildings, but the jet fuel argument is totally irrelevant to building 7.

    Ah, but building 7 was never hit by a plane, yet it imploded just like buildings 1 and 2. Say what you want about the latter two buildings, but the jet fuel argument is totally irrelevant to building 7.

    LOL. The conspiracy dcepens. Why did the conspirators implode Building 7, but left the two towers to an unproven, but fully conspiratorial, fate produced by jet aircraft? Dum dum dum DAH!!

    You guys are comic geniuses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    LOL. The conspiracy dcepens. Why did the conspirators implode Building 7,
     
    I don't know, but since you work for them, why don't you ask them yourself.

    but left the two towers to an unproven, but fully conspiratorial, fate produced by jet aircraft?
     
    Uhhh, no. All three buildings were imploded. Ask your employers. They'll verify that for you.
    , @Wally
    Suckers are born every minute.

    If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.
    http://www.ae911truth.org

    The government's laughable & impossible 9/11 conspiracy theory is what drives the US foreign policy.

    - The US govt. cannot change laws of physics.

    - It's an established scientific fact that military grade nano-thermite was used in the 9/11 attack.

    - '9/11' has been an immensely profitable scam for various players in the US and Israel.

    - '9/11' provides excuses for our disastrous & mass murdering foreign policy.

    - '9/11' provides excuses for the theft of our constitutional rights.

    - '9/11' provides excuses for the enormous increase of government power.

    Follow the money.
    Who benefits?

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7
    http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/#beyond-misinformation
    , @alexander
    Hi John,


    Just because you are the last man standing who still believes it was "Saddam's anthrax" or that Iraq was an" imminent threat"...

    Doesn't make the rest of us," who don't".......look like "comic geniuses".....


    it makes you look like "the tragic fool".


    But I am sure you are a great guy in a lot of other ways , you just need to face the fact you had the wool pulled over your eyes...that's all...then you will feel much better about yourself.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Seamus Padraig

    The super-augmentation of caloric output from 80000 gallons of #1 jet fuel melted the ties at the external framework, and the floors collapsed downward and vertically in-place
     
    Ah, but building 7 was never hit by a plane, yet it imploded just like buildings 1 and 2. Say what you want about the latter two buildings, but the jet fuel argument is totally irrelevant to building 7.

    But WTC 7, hit by burning debris and evacuated, burned for many hours didn’t it? And the motive for bringing down WTC 7 by plotters who wanted everyone to believe that a lot of aeronautical Al Qaeda terrorists did it all by flying highjacked planes has never been explained. Because of course it contradicts the conspiracy theory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    But WTC 7, hit by burning debris and evacuated, burned for many hours didn’t it?
     
    there were a couple of office fires, unlike that building in Dubai which burned like an inferno, and yet of course it's standing. It's made of steel!

    And the motive ... ... has never been explained. Because of course it contradicts the conspiracy theory.
     
    we've known of the motive all along ~

    "... The regime of Saddam Hussein must be toppled immediately, by U.S. force if necessary. And the entire Middle East must be reordered according to an American plan. PNAC’s most important study notes that selling this plan to the American people will likely take a long time, "absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (1997), p.51)"

    here Wizard, just peruse this Wiki page on the PNAC and you'll soon glimmer what's been going on..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @David
    Nothing you or Mark say sounds far off base to me except for your being a totally uncalled for dick.

    good call on the dick part, AND maybe that’s why America is really circling the drain? everyone in America would rather “one up” each other than have serious dialog.

    on the other hand, i discovered in 2015 then when you talk with people about this shit it becomes obvious that they simple do not fucking care.

    America and Americans deserve all that’s coming….and none of it good.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @tanabear
    OT -

    There is currently a raging inferno in a building in Dubai. Does anyone really expect it to collapse like World Trade Center 1, 2 or 7?

    Just asking....

    I had the exact fucking thought when I saw the videos of it :)

    Read More
    • Agree: Junior
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Rurik says:

    Why did the conspirators implode Building 7, but left the two towers to an unproven, but fully conspiratorial, fate produced by jet aircraft?

    The jet that was shot down over Pennsylvania was likely intended to hit building seven as the pretext for it’s collapse. But when didn’t show up on schedule, they had to “pull it” anyways since it had already been wired for the demolition.

    I love these shills and liars as they show up for damage control

    they talk of conspiracy as if it were evidence of sleestacks and tinfoil hats. Yet even their own idiotic and wildly absurd official narrative involves a conspiracy, doesn’t it? The conspiracy of Emanuel Osama Goldstein in the Himalayan foothills with his laptop and cell phone and his nineteen Saudi henchmen- some of whom are still alive today. But that conspiracy is a open and shut case! That is one conspiracy that none must doubt or question! Or Johnny here will come and call you nasty names!

    But just consider his conspiracy for a moment. If involves a comic genius living in Afghanistan who was able to use his magic powers to shut down the most expensive and sophisticated national and air defenses the world has ever known. To shut down NORAD and SAC strategic air command. He was able to command absolute control of the skies over the US on 911 completely unmolested- as his henchmen, who couldn’t fly a Cessna, were able to magically maneuver passenger jets to their exact targets, and then cause the Flight Data Recorders to magically vaporize in jet crashes that they’re specifically designed to survive, all while the “terrorists” passport floated down to the New York street to be discovered moments after the crash. (this is all part of the official conspiracy that we’re all supposed to take for granted on their word, and these are the same people who lie to us about everything, from WMD to Benghazi, yet in this case they are absolutely infallible!

    There’s so much more. The missing videos from the Pentagon. Bush sitting in that classroom for 20 minutes after it’s common knowledge our nation is under attack. Dick Cheney saying the “orders still stand”. The removal and destruction of the forensic evidence, not just of that singular crime, but also of the engineering impossibilities of these buildings just turning into so much powder, and building seven flopping down like it was made of cardboard. The way the administration tried to avoid any kind of investigation, and then when it was forced, they wanted Henry Kissinger to head it! But then they choose Philip Zelikow instead.

    The whole thing stinks to high heaven, but isn’t it funny how some people don’t want us taking about it? Isn’t that curious. And they come here and insult and rave and use words like “super-augmentation of caloric output” to attempt to befuddle, and I;m sure it works on a lot of people. I’ll leave you all with this quote..

    “… the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    You didn't need to bring down buildings to start a war. You simply had to catch the Muslims in the act and stop them and ramp up the howling in the media. If the sky Marshalls had tackled them and they blew up a grenade in the plane with their plans to take down the buildings left in a car, that would have been enough for the AIPAC shills to get their war.

    This is where the conspiracy theories get lost. Never do more than you have to because the bigger it is the more people that have to be in on it and the more difficult it is to keep secret.
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    I love these shills and liars as they show up for damage control
     
    Oh, I love a good conspiracy as much as the next paranoiac.

    But, if Flight 93 was intended to hit Bldg. 7 (an utterly absurd hypothesis), why was it shot down by an F-15 out of Pax River? Oooooeeeeeeoooooo......

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @John Jeremiah Smith

    As though there had never been a “serious”fire… ever…. in any high rise, or office building, prior to their construction…from which the engineers could learn from…or did learn from.
     
    You 9/11 truthers are a sick bunch. The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was fully and competently explained by real structural engineers (you're heard of those?) within a few months of the event. The combustible components of the building materials and average contents, triple-rated for fire-code regulations, would not have produced collapse. The super-augmentation of caloric output from 80000 gallons of #1 jet fuel melted the ties at the external framework, and the floors collapsed downward and vertically in-place -- 100% predictable from the models demonstrated, EXACTLY as modeled.

    Real science answers questions. Conspiracy theories make theorists look like morons.

    You 9/11 truthers are a sick bunch. The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was fully and competently explained by real structural engineers (you’re heard of those?) within a few months of the event.

    Bull. Shit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    But WTC 7, hit by burning debris and evacuated, burned for many hours didn't it? And the motive for bringing down WTC 7 by plotters who wanted everyone to believe that a lot of aeronautical Al Qaeda terrorists did it all by flying highjacked planes has never been explained. Because of course it contradicts the conspiracy theory.

    But WTC 7, hit by burning debris and evacuated, burned for many hours didn’t it?

    there were a couple of office fires, unlike that building in Dubai which burned like an inferno, and yet of course it’s standing. It’s made of steel!

    And the motive … … has never been explained. Because of course it contradicts the conspiracy theory.

    we’ve known of the motive all along ~

    “… The regime of Saddam Hussein must be toppled immediately, by U.S. force if necessary. And the entire Middle East must be reordered according to an American plan. PNAC’s most important study notes that selling this plan to the American people will likely take a long time, “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” (PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (1997), p.51)”

    here Wizard, just peruse this Wiki page on the PNAC and you’ll soon glimmer what’s been going on..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You don't answer the nub of the difficulty facing you on this. If conspirators felt it necessary to achieve a clear connection with Arab terrorists who had highjacked planes to commit major outrages against buildings in NYC and DC why would they add to the chance that their plot would be discovered and publicised by blowing up WTC 7?

    As to your asbestos angle I have searched for World Trade Center asbestos and it appears that there was no compulsion for Larry Silverstein to remove the asbestos (which was only in floors 1-40 of the North Tower and would have cost about $200 million to remove). In fact the owner/builder the Port Authority had been wanting for many years to remove the asbestos at their insurers' expense, presumably to improve letability, but lost their 10 year case against the iinsurersand decided to sell.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Ah, but building 7 was never hit by a plane, yet it imploded just like buildings 1 and 2. Say what you want about the latter two buildings, but the jet fuel argument is totally irrelevant to building 7.
     
    LOL. The conspiracy dcepens. Why did the conspirators implode Building 7, but left the two towers to an unproven, but fully conspiratorial, fate produced by jet aircraft? Dum dum dum DAH!!

    You guys are comic geniuses.

    LOL. The conspiracy dcepens. Why did the conspirators implode Building 7,

    I don’t know, but since you work for them, why don’t you ask them yourself.

    but left the two towers to an unproven, but fully conspiratorial, fate produced by jet aircraft?

    Uhhh, no. All three buildings were imploded. Ask your employers. They’ll verify that for you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Uhhh, no. All three buildings were imploded. Ask your employers. They’ll verify that for you.
     
    Naaaa. That's Wacko McDoofuss talk. There is absolutely zero supporting evidence for implosion of all three buildings, or even one. The jet fuel did the job by superheating the structure and blowing out the welds in the lattice, after which the weight above the broken ties collapsed each succeeding floor downward -- gravity, have you heard of it? That is why the buildings collapsed "in place", in a pure vertical drop, boom boom boom, as each collapsing floor added to the weight and cascaded downward. That's why it was such a bitch to dig out, to get the bodies, etc. Everything piled up in one spot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @szopen
    God bless Woodrow Wilson!
    And the WWII would be avoided, if western politicians hadn't tried to appease a monster.

    As for Versailles, well, I'd say Germany has no right to complain after the terms of peace it dictated to states it defeated in WWI.

    Oh yawn, more Hitler nonsense from the indoctrinated.

    There were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological ’6M & gas chambers’ and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M & gas chambers’.

    The ’6M & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    http://www.codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Real truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    You are an idiot. First of all, I have not said a single word about nazis; I said about war-mongering idiot, who was responsible for millions of Polish (and Russian, and Ukrainian, and Belarussian) deaths, vast majority of them civilians, Second, I have already discussed on this site with your kind and I am tired of talking to the wall.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Wally says: • Website
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Ah, but building 7 was never hit by a plane, yet it imploded just like buildings 1 and 2. Say what you want about the latter two buildings, but the jet fuel argument is totally irrelevant to building 7.
     
    LOL. The conspiracy dcepens. Why did the conspirators implode Building 7, but left the two towers to an unproven, but fully conspiratorial, fate produced by jet aircraft? Dum dum dum DAH!!

    You guys are comic geniuses.

    Suckers are born every minute.

    If it can’t happen as alleged, then it didn’t.

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    The government’s laughable & impossible 9/11 conspiracy theory is what drives the US foreign policy.

    - The US govt. cannot change laws of physics.

    - It’s an established scientific fact that military grade nano-thermite was used in the 9/11 attack.

    - ’9/11′ has been an immensely profitable scam for various players in the US and Israel.

    - ’9/11′ provides excuses for our disastrous & mass murdering foreign policy.

    - ’9/11′ provides excuses for the theft of our constitutional rights.

    - ’9/11′ provides excuses for the enormous increase of government power.

    Follow the money.
    Who benefits?

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7

    http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/#beyond-misinformation

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    - It’s an established scientific fact that military grade nano-thermite was used in the 9/11 attack.

     

    No, it isn't.

    - ’9/11′ has been an immensely profitable scam for various players in the US and Israel.
     
    Of course.

    - ’9/11′ provides excuses for our disastrous & mass murdering foreign policy.
     
    Mais oui.

    - ’9/11′ provides excuses for the theft of our constitutional rights.
     
    Not that excuses are necessary.

    - ’9/11′ provides excuses for the enormous increase of government power.
     
    Not that excuses are necessary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    Among the capitalist themselves and their shills among the libertarian ideologues, who are correct about the abuse of government power but less concerned with the abuse of private power, the capitalist greed that is destroying families and the economy is regarded as the road to progress. By distrusting government regulators of private misbehavior, libertarians provided the cover for the repeal of the financial regulation that made American capitalism functional. Today dysfunctional capitalism rules, thanks to greed and libertarian ideology.

    Great article! I especially liked this above paragraph on the Libertarian shills providing cover for the Crony Capitalists by repealing regulations. Shills are EXACTLY what they are. And they are the worst kind of shills, pretending to want to make things better but only making things worse. It’s a nightmare we see unfolding before our eyes.

    The Fed and all their associated crony globalists crooks are robbing Americans for everything they can before they crash the dollar and therefore all the world’s economies because the dollar is the world reserve currency. There aim is Trotsky’s International Permanent Revolution because it is the only way the world’s populace will accept a One World Government.

    They have a limited time to do this before China and BRICS is established and that is why our debt crisis has been sent into hyper-drive and is ignored. It’s also the reason for all the massive migrations and chaos we are seeing all over the world, so that the perpetrators of all these unaddressed problems can make sure that the globe’s native populations don’t band together to do something about stopping their Global Permanent Revolution plans and so that they have a scapegoat to blame it on when the shit hits the fan and the dollar collapses. Call me a “Conspiracy Nut” all you want, but you’ll have to call George Soros, who openly talks about this plan to crash the dollar to establish a New World Order, a “Conspiracy Nut” also.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. MarkinLA says:
    @alexander
    With all due respect, Mr Oz,

    kind of a lame response.

    Why?

    Because it presupposes the structural engineers of WTC 1, WTC 2, and building #7, who must have constituted perhaps the finest engineers in the world....had "no" knowledge of how to build a skyscraper such that its structural integrity could withstand a 'serious fire" without collapsing , completely, in under 12 hours.

    As though there had never been a "serious"fire... ever.... in any high rise, or office building, prior to their construction...from which the engineers could learn from...or did learn from.

    Please.

    You are also forgetting the kinetic energy of the aircraft hitting the building and the damage that does as there is mechanical damage to the supports as well as heat energy being created from the kinetic energy. This can be seen if you have ever seen a bullet go through a plate of steel. Where does the molten steel spawled out on the backside of the plate come from since there is no explosive in the bullet? The pressure created by the bullet compressing the steel created the heat. If there was any magnesium such as for the landing gear wheels that could easily have caught on fire and burned extremely hot.

    They also didn’t hit the building at the very top. You have 20-30% of the building including the massive ventilation and elevator terminal equipment up there that has to be supported by the weakened structure below.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Hi Markin,


    I was referring to building #7 in "my" comment....which was never struck by an aircraft.

    Mr Oz, suggested the reason why the Dubai hotel did not collapse from its" raging inferno",was because the structural engineers" learned" from 9-11 and overcame the "deficiencies" inherent in the WTC designs...as though some how the engineers for the WTC , including #7, had "never anticipated" a fire...thus explaining why they collapsed so fast...and Dubai did not collapse at all.


    I suggested that was lame...and I said why.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. MarkinLA says:
    @Rurik

    Why did the conspirators implode Building 7, but left the two towers to an unproven, but fully conspiratorial, fate produced by jet aircraft?
     
    The jet that was shot down over Pennsylvania was likely intended to hit building seven as the pretext for it's collapse. But when didn't show up on schedule, they had to "pull it" anyways since it had already been wired for the demolition.

    I love these shills and liars as they show up for damage control

    they talk of conspiracy as if it were evidence of sleestacks and tinfoil hats. Yet even their own idiotic and wildly absurd official narrative involves a conspiracy, doesn't it? The conspiracy of Emanuel Osama Goldstein in the Himalayan foothills with his laptop and cell phone and his nineteen Saudi henchmen- some of whom are still alive today. But that conspiracy is a open and shut case! That is one conspiracy that none must doubt or question! Or Johnny here will come and call you nasty names!

    But just consider his conspiracy for a moment. If involves a comic genius living in Afghanistan who was able to use his magic powers to shut down the most expensive and sophisticated national and air defenses the world has ever known. To shut down NORAD and SAC strategic air command. He was able to command absolute control of the skies over the US on 911 completely unmolested- as his henchmen, who couldn't fly a Cessna, were able to magically maneuver passenger jets to their exact targets, and then cause the Flight Data Recorders to magically vaporize in jet crashes that they're specifically designed to survive, all while the "terrorists" passport floated down to the New York street to be discovered moments after the crash. (this is all part of the official conspiracy that we're all supposed to take for granted on their word, and these are the same people who lie to us about everything, from WMD to Benghazi, yet in this case they are absolutely infallible!

    There's so much more. The missing videos from the Pentagon. Bush sitting in that classroom for 20 minutes after it's common knowledge our nation is under attack. Dick Cheney saying the "orders still stand". The removal and destruction of the forensic evidence, not just of that singular crime, but also of the engineering impossibilities of these buildings just turning into so much powder, and building seven flopping down like it was made of cardboard. The way the administration tried to avoid any kind of investigation, and then when it was forced, they wanted Henry Kissinger to head it! But then they choose Philip Zelikow instead.

    The whole thing stinks to high heaven, but isn't it funny how some people don't want us taking about it? Isn't that curious. And they come here and insult and rave and use words like "super-augmentation of caloric output" to attempt to befuddle, and I;m sure it works on a lot of people. I'll leave you all with this quote..

    "... the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

    You didn’t need to bring down buildings to start a war. You simply had to catch the Muslims in the act and stop them and ramp up the howling in the media. If the sky Marshalls had tackled them and they blew up a grenade in the plane with their plans to take down the buildings left in a car, that would have been enough for the AIPAC shills to get their war.

    This is where the conspiracy theories get lost. Never do more than you have to because the bigger it is the more people that have to be in on it and the more difficult it is to keep secret.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    You didn’t need to bring down buildings to start a war.
     
    "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

    that's what they were shooting for. Something like the attack on Pearl Harbor that would rile the spirit of Americans to be willing to suit up, lock and load and go give those terrorists what for. Just like what Pearl Harbor did.

    But it had to be horrific. It had to be something so monstrous as to swell an outrage in the heart and spirit of the American people. Those planes hitting the towers and those fireballs and then the Pentagon and the anthrax attacks for icing on the cake. They tried something in the nineties with some bomb, and there were just yawns. But blowing up those iconic buildings in the center of America's iconic cultural and financial capital, was breathtaking. I remember my colleague and I were watching the TV when the second plane hit, and we were gobsmacked. Then, right on cue men like Pat Tillman would say to hell with a multimillion dollar professional football contract to life as a superstar, and would rather shoulder an M16 and kill some of the bastards that did that to this country. And he wasn't alone. Soon, just as Ehud Barak predicted, our rights were being tosses away as fast as they could trample them. And they were prodding and stripping old ladies in wheelchairs and seven year olds. The Orwellian Fiends had won the day.

    And right as the 21st century looked like it might turn out to be relatively sane and peaceable. This they could not countenance. There is still Gaza and parts of the West Bank that need to be dealt with. There are burgeoning, nascent threats to their absolute and utter dominance of this planet and its people. A wily statesman in Russia has intrigued a patriotic Russian in the Kremlin. This is a catastrophe. They had Russia exactly where they wanted her, and this guy snatched her right from under their noses!

    Anyways tt wasn't until quite some time afterward 911 that I discovered it was a false flag. I sure was suspicious when they didn't want an investigation, and those 'Jersey girls' forced it. And then when Bush declared that Henry Kissinger would head the "investigation', I knew there was a rat. Now today its brutally obvious that it was a false flag. When I saw that the BBC (and Fox News) reported on building seven falling before it did, there was all the proof in the world.

    If you have an open mind, and look at the evidence objectively, there's no other possible alternative than it was a false flag conducted by the Mossad and CIA and FBI with assistance from agents at the top of the US federal government, and of course the media is controlled and complicit. That ought to be obvious to anyone. And everybody else just sort of goes along to get along. Paychecks and all that.

    So, is you have a plausible explanation for how the BBC knew in advance that building seven was going to fall, then that would sure be helpful. Otherwise all the talk about planes hitting buildings is a distraction, because building seven was not hit. And yet it imploded into its perfect little footprint and free-fall speed. Go figure.
    , @Seamus Padraig

    You didn’t need to bring down buildings to start a war. You simply had to catch the Muslims in the act and stop them and ramp up the howling in the media.
     
    Your theory was tested in 1993 and it failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

    It turns out that, psychologically speaking, actual dead bodies are a hell of a lot more compelling than merely potential dead bodies.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    You just don"t get it do you.

    There were just three people in each of the CIA and FBI deducated to makibg sure the conspiracy was never known within their agencies to anyone but them and that any stray information from police or customs etc was safely filed without getting soread around.

    The conspiracy was financed by Adelson types and as a strictly deniable private operation though with needed access to false docs and the like. Not difficult really when you've found (and in some cases compromised) old CIA and FBI hands who can lure impressionable young Arabs into thinking they are going to pull off Al Qaeda's greatest coup to get them doing just what the highjackers actually did to prepare for the great coup. Not difficult either to get them to leave just the trail needed so that, though dead men tell no tales all the remnants would add up to the story which is now official.

    They had to have multiple targets because some might fail, even be prevented from boarding the aircraft. Would one hit on just one building with an anticipated 250 deaths do the trick? Probably, because the 3 failures would count as another 750 in terms of outrage and the fact of attempts on the Pentagon and Congress (alleged but probably not because Congress would be needed for action and the wrong people might be killed - or maybe the time of day would make sure it was OK). Of course WTC 7 was totally unplanned and unexpected. Really quite an embarrasment when it gets to set off all those nutters who cry "conspiracy" (sod those f*****g fools who go on about thermite too. NO thermite needed!).

    How do I know. Well my cousin compromised by his gambling habit (especially that one) has managed to stay alive but he's again in real money trouble and he's offered me a big cut for his book and film deal. So far a couple of Vladimir's favourite oligarchs are bidding and it's looking promising for 2016 hardback, 2017 paperback and 2018 big screen. There's a little squeamishness to be expected in Hollywood so it may have to be European co-production though the TV miniseries to follow should be OK in the US by 2020.

    And do I believe the story? Well when I was almist wholly sceptical (my cousin being a notorious liar) I ran it past Dan Brown and he gave me good advice. "Tell it 1000 times" he said "and you'll find after 500 you get angry when soneone questions it but then, esoecially if you rub the biggest banknote you can find between your fingers while talking, your demeanour will become quite beatific as the aura of certainty grows".

    Sadly some of our fellow commenters have not only got the story wrong with all their thermitic distractions and unlikely cell phine calls but haven't anywhere near reached narrative nirvana yet.

    PS Would you like to earn cut of the US rights: I have a visa problem?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Sorry, in my haste at #90 I forgot about matters Dan Brown has just reminded me of in a kindly paternal script consultation he has volunteered.

    Actually he directed me to a very interesting BBC Editors web page of 2008 where the nonsense about the BBC's Jane S reporting the collapse of WTC7 prematurely is easily dismissed as a typical media snafu resulting from what firemen were saying would happen getting for a while in a garbled form into a Reuter news feed. Also the automatic dropping of the satellite feed during her broadcast because the prearranged elapsed time had expired.

    But I was reminded of Chomsky's point about it being extremely odd that the US government should choose nationals of its ally Saudi Arabia to set up as the terrorists. Indeed, and that shows how clever the plotters were. Not being the government's Saudi lovers, or indeed those with the closest oil ties to Saudi Arabia it was very smart to focus mostly on young Saudis with their presumptive ties to Osama bin Laden. Planned obfuscation that even took in the genius of Chomsky!

    Then there were the put and call options especially on American Airlines, UA, Citibank and defence contractors in the days immediately preceding 9/11 which of course the plotters noticed. It scared them rigid that there had been leaks (and they were much relieved subsequently when thorough investigations, of which the Wiki account is convincing, cleared the buyers and sellers of suspicion) And it made sure that their own recouping of costs on the markets was carefully modest and mostly confined to plain vanilla index futures and options contracts in unremarkable amounts randomly timed. The movements in all indices were after all going to be large enough to make up for modest volumes. I understand though that the movement up in gold was a bit disappointing.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Rurik

    Why did the conspirators implode Building 7, but left the two towers to an unproven, but fully conspiratorial, fate produced by jet aircraft?
     
    The jet that was shot down over Pennsylvania was likely intended to hit building seven as the pretext for it's collapse. But when didn't show up on schedule, they had to "pull it" anyways since it had already been wired for the demolition.

    I love these shills and liars as they show up for damage control

    they talk of conspiracy as if it were evidence of sleestacks and tinfoil hats. Yet even their own idiotic and wildly absurd official narrative involves a conspiracy, doesn't it? The conspiracy of Emanuel Osama Goldstein in the Himalayan foothills with his laptop and cell phone and his nineteen Saudi henchmen- some of whom are still alive today. But that conspiracy is a open and shut case! That is one conspiracy that none must doubt or question! Or Johnny here will come and call you nasty names!

    But just consider his conspiracy for a moment. If involves a comic genius living in Afghanistan who was able to use his magic powers to shut down the most expensive and sophisticated national and air defenses the world has ever known. To shut down NORAD and SAC strategic air command. He was able to command absolute control of the skies over the US on 911 completely unmolested- as his henchmen, who couldn't fly a Cessna, were able to magically maneuver passenger jets to their exact targets, and then cause the Flight Data Recorders to magically vaporize in jet crashes that they're specifically designed to survive, all while the "terrorists" passport floated down to the New York street to be discovered moments after the crash. (this is all part of the official conspiracy that we're all supposed to take for granted on their word, and these are the same people who lie to us about everything, from WMD to Benghazi, yet in this case they are absolutely infallible!

    There's so much more. The missing videos from the Pentagon. Bush sitting in that classroom for 20 minutes after it's common knowledge our nation is under attack. Dick Cheney saying the "orders still stand". The removal and destruction of the forensic evidence, not just of that singular crime, but also of the engineering impossibilities of these buildings just turning into so much powder, and building seven flopping down like it was made of cardboard. The way the administration tried to avoid any kind of investigation, and then when it was forced, they wanted Henry Kissinger to head it! But then they choose Philip Zelikow instead.

    The whole thing stinks to high heaven, but isn't it funny how some people don't want us taking about it? Isn't that curious. And they come here and insult and rave and use words like "super-augmentation of caloric output" to attempt to befuddle, and I;m sure it works on a lot of people. I'll leave you all with this quote..

    "... the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

    I love these shills and liars as they show up for damage control

    Oh, I love a good conspiracy as much as the next paranoiac.

    But, if Flight 93 was intended to hit Bldg. 7 (an utterly absurd hypothesis), why was it shot down by an F-15 out of Pax River? Oooooeeeeeeoooooo……

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    But, if Flight 93 was intended to hit Bldg. 7 (an utterly absurd hypothesis), why was it shot down by an F-15 out of Pax River?
     
    if you claim it was shot down, they why did they lie about it?

    And isn't' that another one of the "conspiracy theories", that is was shot down, and not brought down heroically by the passengers who shouted "let's roll!" ?

    Are you trying to dance in between mocking those people trying to get at the truth and then mocking the official story too?

    Where does that leave you?

    Collecting your thirty pieces of silver ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Crawfurdmuir
    Roberts is in error blaming the concentration of banking on the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Instead it was the result of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Branch Banking Act of 1994. Previous to that, banks could not branch across state lines. A great contraction in the number of banks took place following the passage of Riegle-Neal, as large money-center banks acquired regional and community banks, which they could not have done without its provision for interstate branching. It is this, not Glass-Steagall, which enabled the six largest banks in the United States to hold more than half of all deposits in the country.

    I've often wondered why there is so much attention given to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley repeal of Glass-Steagall - and none at all to Riegle-Neal. Riegle and Neal were both Democrats, Congress was controlled by Democrats in 1994, and this bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton. I remember thinking at the time it was enacted that it exploded the pretense that Democrats were in any sense the party of the "little guy," the "working stiff." I suggest this is why the role of Riegle-Neal in creating "too big to fail" banks is so largely ignored. It fits the left's narrative better to blame it on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, since that bill was authored by Republicans and passed during a period of Republican control of Congress.

    But WTC 7, hit by burning debris and evacuated, burned for many hours didn’t it? And the motive for bringing down WTC 7 by plotters who wanted everyone to believe that a lot of aeronautical Al Qaeda terrorists did it all by flying highjacked planes has never been explained. Because of course it contradicts the conspiracy theory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. marylou says:
    @bach

    ‘When we buy foreign goods we get the goods and they get the money. When we buy our own goods we get both’.
     
    But what isn't explained is why real goods for funny-money is a bad trade-off.

    For instance, if I can purchase your goods/services with monopoly money I print up, where is my loss? Indeed, you're welcome to as much of my monopoly money as you want in exchange for your goods/services.

    I happen to have to do real work for my funny monopoly money to buy their goods.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bach

    I happen to have to do real work for my funny monopoly money to buy their goods.
     
    Sure, you had to, but the first guy who got hold of the funny money didn't have to. He enjoyed a free ride.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. alexander says:

    Rurik,

    The idea of the Pennsylvania jet as the “failed catalyst” for #7 is kinda interesting….Might be true…But I wrote a comment a while back, in response to Carroll Price…in Phil Giraldi’s ” Dancing Israelis”…its #153, that suggests another possible explanation.

    Check it out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Good read alexander,

    You're so very right that it takes massive amounts of planning and expertise by professionals to keep a building that's being demolished from leaning or tipping out of it's planned collapse into its foot print. In fact that happens occasionally.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIEBLdd6W3Q

    http://on.aol.com/video/demolition-fail-in-crimea-518575330

    here's a nice compilation showing exactly what you're talking about when some of these tip over..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc#t=135

    and it you watch some of these, it sure makes a mockery of the idea that the twin towers or building seven would just vaporize with all those hundreds of tons of concrete and steel turning into so much powder.

    They did this,

    and they did it to take us to wars, which has become clear they wanted all along. Just as general Clark outlined. Seven countries in the Middle East slated to be "taken out". But they needed their pretext. They needed some horrible crime for them to blame on Osama and Saddam and they're still using this event to remove our rights and turn this planet into an Orwellian nightmare of homicidal drones flying over people's heads (soon to be our own) and police state thugs who shoot first and ask questions later and entire countries in the Middle East lying in smoking ruins. The agenda is for us all to be Palestinians. They like to treat people like that. From Bela Kun in Hungary, to Gitmo, these are the monsters from their id. This is their final realization of their Old Testament revenge upon us all for not treating them like Gods on this earth. For not licking their feet and worshiping them as divine and chosen and so very much better than all us cattle- that were put here by God to serve Them!

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N8xCmviugvQ/T6LaYXp6vEI/AAAAAAAABtM/-laMxBs-cVY/s1600/schneerson6.jpg

    So now we have to pay for our insolence. For all the slights they suffered in high school and not getting the cheerleader. Now it's our turn to pay and be humiliated and have a thug's boot on our neck. And 911 was the pretext for them to take away our rights, and so they have.

    Now what?

    http://www.isthatbaloney.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/hillary-clinton-old-hag-7.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. alexander says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Ah, but building 7 was never hit by a plane, yet it imploded just like buildings 1 and 2. Say what you want about the latter two buildings, but the jet fuel argument is totally irrelevant to building 7.
     
    LOL. The conspiracy dcepens. Why did the conspirators implode Building 7, but left the two towers to an unproven, but fully conspiratorial, fate produced by jet aircraft? Dum dum dum DAH!!

    You guys are comic geniuses.

    Hi John,

    Just because you are the last man standing who still believes it was “Saddam’s anthrax” or that Iraq was an” imminent threat”…

    Doesn’t make the rest of us,” who don’t”…….look like “comic geniuses”…..

    it makes you look like “the tragic fool”.

    But I am sure you are a great guy in a lot of other ways , you just need to face the fact you had the wool pulled over your eyes…that’s all…then you will feel much better about yourself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    But I am sure you are a great guy in a lot of other ways , you just need to face the fact you had the wool pulled over your eyes…that’s all…then you will feel much better about yourself.
     
    Well, no, Alec. I assure that I have been described as a double-damned sonofabitch on many occasions. Thus, your supercilious chickenshit troubles me not at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Art says:
    @Rurik

    You 9/11 truthers are a sick bunch. The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was fully and competently explained by real structural engineers (you’re heard of those?) within a few months of the event.
     
    it didn't take months, this staged actor was telling us within minutes how it happened

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOK08byAehw

    an obviously planted shill 'explaining away' the towers turning to powder to put the seed in people's minds that this atrocity happened in the way they want us to believe it did.

    The super-augmentation of caloric output from 80000 gallons of #1 jet fuel melted the ties at the external framework, and the floors collapsed downward and vertically in-place — 100% predictable from the models demonstrated, EXACTLY as modeled
     
    .
    what a load of horse shit

    here's woman standing in the hole the jet caused in the middle of your super-duper caloric inferno that is melting thick steel girders all around her

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1glMoJSa35w/Tmxp3AqTWyI/AAAAAAAAAuU/vxYgf-6W_ws/s1600/wtc-hole1.jpg

    and how did the BBC report on building seven plopping into its basement at free-fall speed before it happened?!

    Eh?

    WoW – never saw that picture of the women just standing there in the middle of the wreckage with NO fire – that sure puts the lie to inferno story!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @ Rurik I agree with you, however some people simply can’t go there. It causes extreme cognitive dissonance, resulting in anger and depression.

    As a 911 Truther, I am willing to have a real forensic/scientific investigation and let the chips fall where they may, whereas the “non-truthers” won’t. They don’t want to know.

    That really is the difference. Just ask them if they would support a real investigation or the release of the 28 pages, the pentagon videos, the NIST computer model etc. If they say no, it means they really can’t handle the truth. It’s not surprising, it is a very ugly truth.

    Nice quote BTW. Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Anything anybody would do would be a massive case of pure wild ass speculation and very little real science. The building has been standing for a long time. It has stresses put on it every day that can weaken it - not to the point of being anywhere close to failure but it is not likely as strong as the day it was built.

    Nobody knows the exact point the plane hit and where the parts of the plane careened off into once inside the building. Nobody knows exactly where all the jet fuel went when it burned. Nobody knows what other substances contributed to the fire.

    Engineers make designs with safety margins all the time and those structures fail all the time and sometimes for the simplest reasons such as one broken component putting the whole structure in an unbalanced state and gravity taking over. Models are always gross simplifications of what happens in real life.
    , @Rurik

    however some people simply can’t go there. ...

    ... They don’t want to know.
     
    I agree with you Si1ver1ock

    It is quite the quantum leap to begin to wonder if your own government, the men and women who you have trusted and paid and authorized with all the power of the organs of the state, to keep us citizens safe, would be the very people to murder us so callously.

    People can't even begin to comprehend it. But there has been precedent. We know that our government covers up horrible acts of war when it suits them. We know they've actually injected men with poisons and diseases to see how their bodies would react. We know that they dropped napalm and gelled gasoline on defenseless people in places like Dresden, not to win a war, (it was already over) but to sadistically burn old men, women and children to death in the most horrific way imaginable. The kind of people who created death camps for teenage German boys to be starved to death after the war was over. That is our government. The kind of people who caused Viet Nam to linger for so long, with all those people killed. The kind of people who left our POWs in Korea and Viet Nam. The kind of people who run a torture camp and don't allow their victims to even starve themselves to death. They stick tubes up their butts and cram nutrients into their bodies in unnatural ways just to be sadistic and cruel. The kind of people who rape children in front of their mothers so the mothers have to listen to the screams of their young sons. The kind of people who drop DU on cities knowing the horrific birth defects it will cause. (I won't post the pictures) Our government is run by psychopaths and sadists. The kind of people who opened fire with automatic weapons when those people in that burning building in Waco were trying desperately to flee the flames. That's the kind of people Hillary and Bill Clinton are. The kind of person who can't contain her cackling at the man she caused to be tortured to death by animals. She was beside herself with gloating.

    http://www.therightplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Hillary-We-Came-We-Saw-He-Died.png

    that is the kind of people they stuff in our federal government. Monsters. Because they are monsters. Men like William Kristol and Dick Cheney and David Frum and Paul Wolfowitz and so many others. If you're a clever psychopath and you want to get rich and powerful beyond your dreams, where do you go?

    Exactly!

    And that's where we're at..
    , @geokat62

    Just ask them [the “non-truthers”] if they would support a real investigation
     
    I support a real investigation.

    Pending that investigation, can any of you non non-truthers do me a favour and help me out by answering a question I'm struggling with? Why would those responsible for carrying out 9/11 (whoever they may be) want to target WTC 7?

    What possible significance could it have, given that it was the 38th tallest building in NYC at the time, especially in light of the other targets that were hit:

    WTC 1, WTC 2 - tallest buildings in NYC, symbols of world's financial capital on Wall St.

    Pentagon - symbol of world's leading military.

    Even though the specific target for Flight 93 is unknown, isn't it more plausible to assume that the intended target was either the WH or the CB, rather than the 38th tallest building in NYC?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City

    P.S. Rurik, hopefully you won't call me a "goat" this time around. As always, just striving to uncover the truth,
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. I think PCR should get out and travel a bit. Get a job as a roving correspondent like Samuel Clemens. Doesn’t have to pay much, just enough to cover expenses. I’d like to read his take on what is going on in the world economically, China, Asia, Russia, Europe etc.

    The Old World Order is passing away and the New One is being born.

    The old American Republic is history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. alexander says:
    @MarkinLA
    You are also forgetting the kinetic energy of the aircraft hitting the building and the damage that does as there is mechanical damage to the supports as well as heat energy being created from the kinetic energy. This can be seen if you have ever seen a bullet go through a plate of steel. Where does the molten steel spawled out on the backside of the plate come from since there is no explosive in the bullet? The pressure created by the bullet compressing the steel created the heat. If there was any magnesium such as for the landing gear wheels that could easily have caught on fire and burned extremely hot.

    They also didn't hit the building at the very top. You have 20-30% of the building including the massive ventilation and elevator terminal equipment up there that has to be supported by the weakened structure below.

    Hi Markin,

    I was referring to building #7 in “my” comment….which was never struck by an aircraft.

    Mr Oz, suggested the reason why the Dubai hotel did not collapse from its” raging inferno”,was because the structural engineers” learned” from 9-11 and overcame the “deficiencies” inherent in the WTC designs…as though some how the engineers for the WTC , including #7, had “never anticipated” a fire…thus explaining why they collapsed so fast…and Dubai did not collapse at all.

    I suggested that was lame…and I said why.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Your earlier reply faulted one of the parts of my argument (though said nothing about the fact that the fire in Dubai was very different from those in the WTC buildings) by suggesting that the structural engineers for the WTC would have been the best there were. Maybe - I don't know, do you know who they were or what their final brief was? - but between 1972 when the twin towers were built and 2008 it seems likely that something was learned about the fire dangers to steel framed buildings and how to deal with them. But JJS's reply suggests that the key to the NYC-Dubai difference is probably the way the fire started and perhaps the absence of imported aviation fuel and magnesium.... Either way recently built buildings surviving fires hardly seems surprising. Cars are safer too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Crawfurdmuir
    Roberts is in error blaming the concentration of banking on the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Instead it was the result of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Branch Banking Act of 1994. Previous to that, banks could not branch across state lines. A great contraction in the number of banks took place following the passage of Riegle-Neal, as large money-center banks acquired regional and community banks, which they could not have done without its provision for interstate branching. It is this, not Glass-Steagall, which enabled the six largest banks in the United States to hold more than half of all deposits in the country.

    I've often wondered why there is so much attention given to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley repeal of Glass-Steagall - and none at all to Riegle-Neal. Riegle and Neal were both Democrats, Congress was controlled by Democrats in 1994, and this bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton. I remember thinking at the time it was enacted that it exploded the pretense that Democrats were in any sense the party of the "little guy," the "working stiff." I suggest this is why the role of Riegle-Neal in creating "too big to fail" banks is so largely ignored. It fits the left's narrative better to blame it on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, since that bill was authored by Republicans and passed during a period of Republican control of Congress.

    Sorry, a problem with the software (probably me or my thumb). I think my reply was meant to suggest that both repeals of legislation contributed to the extent of the financial damage though perhaps the former was a less culpable one (if culpable at all) because it was consistent with banking practice around the world, could fairly readily have been managed by prudential regulators and didn’t provide the temptation and means for the dangerous kind of animal spirits to be let loose on the traditional banks. Perhaps it is wrong to use the wisdom of hindsight to be very critical of mere politicians in an age when the intellectual fashion was for freeing up business from every aspect of government and had even ensnared someone as knowledgeable as Greenspan (though I don’t know where he stood on the repeal of G-S at the time).

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    ... had even ensnared someone as knowledgeable as Greenspan (though I don’t know where he stood on the repeal of G-S at the time)
     
    Unsurprisingly, Mr. Blind Spot actually pushed hard to get G-S repealed:

    Greenspan Urges Glass-Steagall Repeal

    In an appearance before a House Banking subcommittee, Mr. Greenspan said repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act would lead to lower costs and wider availability of investment banking services for businesses and state and local governments.

    http://www.americanbanker.com/175/greenspan-urges-glass-steagall-repeal-1044317-1.html
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. MarkinLA says:
    @Si1ver1ock
    @ Rurik I agree with you, however some people simply can't go there. It causes extreme cognitive dissonance, resulting in anger and depression.

    As a 911 Truther, I am willing to have a real forensic/scientific investigation and let the chips fall where they may, whereas the "non-truthers" won't. They don't want to know.

    That really is the difference. Just ask them if they would support a real investigation or the release of the 28 pages, the pentagon videos, the NIST computer model etc. If they say no, it means they really can't handle the truth. It's not surprising, it is a very ugly truth.


    Nice quote BTW. Thanks.

    Anything anybody would do would be a massive case of pure wild ass speculation and very little real science. The building has been standing for a long time. It has stresses put on it every day that can weaken it – not to the point of being anywhere close to failure but it is not likely as strong as the day it was built.

    Nobody knows the exact point the plane hit and where the parts of the plane careened off into once inside the building. Nobody knows exactly where all the jet fuel went when it burned. Nobody knows what other substances contributed to the fire.

    Engineers make designs with safety margins all the time and those structures fail all the time and sometimes for the simplest reasons such as one broken component putting the whole structure in an unbalanced state and gravity taking over. Models are always gross simplifications of what happens in real life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OutWest
    Been thinking on this. If what you say is correct anything –say an interstate highway bride in Minneapolis- could fail at any time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. bach says:
    @marylou
    I happen to have to do real work for my funny monopoly money to buy their goods.

    I happen to have to do real work for my funny monopoly money to buy their goods.

    Sure, you had to, but the first guy who got hold of the funny money didn’t have to. He enjoyed a free ride.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Rurik

    But WTC 7, hit by burning debris and evacuated, burned for many hours didn’t it?
     
    there were a couple of office fires, unlike that building in Dubai which burned like an inferno, and yet of course it's standing. It's made of steel!

    And the motive ... ... has never been explained. Because of course it contradicts the conspiracy theory.
     
    we've known of the motive all along ~

    "... The regime of Saddam Hussein must be toppled immediately, by U.S. force if necessary. And the entire Middle East must be reordered according to an American plan. PNAC’s most important study notes that selling this plan to the American people will likely take a long time, "absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (1997), p.51)"

    here Wizard, just peruse this Wiki page on the PNAC and you'll soon glimmer what's been going on..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

    You don’t answer the nub of the difficulty facing you on this. If conspirators felt it necessary to achieve a clear connection with Arab terrorists who had highjacked planes to commit major outrages against buildings in NYC and DC why would they add to the chance that their plot would be discovered and publicised by blowing up WTC 7?

    As to your asbestos angle I have searched for World Trade Center asbestos and it appears that there was no compulsion for Larry Silverstein to remove the asbestos (which was only in floors 1-40 of the North Tower and would have cost about $200 million to remove). In fact the owner/builder the Port Authority had been wanting for many years to remove the asbestos at their insurers’ expense, presumably to improve letability, but lost their 10 year case against the iinsurersand decided to sell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Hi Wizard,

    why would they add to the chance that their plot would be discovered and publicised by blowing up WTC 7?
     
    I've just answered this in a reply to Geo on this thread

    as to the asbestos, that's what I've read. But I haven't researched it extensively. There's a lot of noise out there, but I understood it may have cost over a billion dollars to have it all removed properly with all the scaffolding and man hours and logistics in order to comply with the government standards for handling this dangerous material. (I wonder how many first responders and others have died from cancer from that event) And I didn't need to get to the particulars of this issue to see the greater picture staring at me from the wreckage of building seven to the advance reports by the BBC of it's collapse

    that report is a smoking gun that proves elements at the highest levels of the occupied west knew what was going down, and were complicit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Rurik says:
    @MarkinLA
    You didn't need to bring down buildings to start a war. You simply had to catch the Muslims in the act and stop them and ramp up the howling in the media. If the sky Marshalls had tackled them and they blew up a grenade in the plane with their plans to take down the buildings left in a car, that would have been enough for the AIPAC shills to get their war.

    This is where the conspiracy theories get lost. Never do more than you have to because the bigger it is the more people that have to be in on it and the more difficult it is to keep secret.

    You didn’t need to bring down buildings to start a war.

    “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

    that’s what they were shooting for. Something like the attack on Pearl Harbor that would rile the spirit of Americans to be willing to suit up, lock and load and go give those terrorists what for. Just like what Pearl Harbor did.

    But it had to be horrific. It had to be something so monstrous as to swell an outrage in the heart and spirit of the American people. Those planes hitting the towers and those fireballs and then the Pentagon and the anthrax attacks for icing on the cake. They tried something in the nineties with some bomb, and there were just yawns. But blowing up those iconic buildings in the center of America’s iconic cultural and financial capital, was breathtaking. I remember my colleague and I were watching the TV when the second plane hit, and we were gobsmacked. Then, right on cue men like Pat Tillman would say to hell with a multimillion dollar professional football contract to life as a superstar, and would rather shoulder an M16 and kill some of the bastards that did that to this country. And he wasn’t alone. Soon, just as Ehud Barak predicted, our rights were being tosses away as fast as they could trample them. And they were prodding and stripping old ladies in wheelchairs and seven year olds. The Orwellian Fiends had won the day.

    And right as the 21st century looked like it might turn out to be relatively sane and peaceable. This they could not countenance. There is still Gaza and parts of the West Bank that need to be dealt with. There are burgeoning, nascent threats to their absolute and utter dominance of this planet and its people. A wily statesman in Russia has intrigued a patriotic Russian in the Kremlin. This is a catastrophe. They had Russia exactly where they wanted her, and this guy snatched her right from under their noses!

    Anyways tt wasn’t until quite some time afterward 911 that I discovered it was a false flag. I sure was suspicious when they didn’t want an investigation, and those ‘Jersey girls’ forced it. And then when Bush declared that Henry Kissinger would head the “investigation’, I knew there was a rat. Now today its brutally obvious that it was a false flag. When I saw that the BBC (and Fox News) reported on building seven falling before it did, there was all the proof in the world.

    If you have an open mind, and look at the evidence objectively, there’s no other possible alternative than it was a false flag conducted by the Mossad and CIA and FBI with assistance from agents at the top of the US federal government, and of course the media is controlled and complicit. That ought to be obvious to anyone. And everybody else just sort of goes along to get along. Paychecks and all that.

    So, is you have a plausible explanation for how the BBC knew in advance that building seven was going to fall, then that would sure be helpful. Otherwise all the talk about planes hitting buildings is a distraction, because building seven was not hit. And yet it imploded into its perfect little footprint and free-fall speed. Go figure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @alexander
    Hi John,


    Just because you are the last man standing who still believes it was "Saddam's anthrax" or that Iraq was an" imminent threat"...

    Doesn't make the rest of us," who don't".......look like "comic geniuses".....


    it makes you look like "the tragic fool".


    But I am sure you are a great guy in a lot of other ways , you just need to face the fact you had the wool pulled over your eyes...that's all...then you will feel much better about yourself.

    But I am sure you are a great guy in a lot of other ways , you just need to face the fact you had the wool pulled over your eyes…that’s all…then you will feel much better about yourself.

    Well, no, Alec. I assure that I have been described as a double-damned sonofabitch on many occasions. Thus, your supercilious chickenshit troubles me not at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Rurik says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    I love these shills and liars as they show up for damage control
     
    Oh, I love a good conspiracy as much as the next paranoiac.

    But, if Flight 93 was intended to hit Bldg. 7 (an utterly absurd hypothesis), why was it shot down by an F-15 out of Pax River? Oooooeeeeeeoooooo......

    But, if Flight 93 was intended to hit Bldg. 7 (an utterly absurd hypothesis), why was it shot down by an F-15 out of Pax River?

    if you claim it was shot down, they why did they lie about it?

    And isn’t’ that another one of the “conspiracy theories”, that is was shot down, and not brought down heroically by the passengers who shouted “let’s roll!” ?

    Are you trying to dance in between mocking those people trying to get at the truth and then mocking the official story too?

    Where does that leave you?

    Collecting your thirty pieces of silver ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    if you claim it was shot down, they why did they lie about it?
     
    That is more than a little obvious. Great big resonating "Duh" for you there.

    Flight 93 was shot down by a fighter out of Pax River. Arguable as to whether it was an F-14 or F-15, as Pax is a naval air station and Navy used the F-14 in 2001, Air Force the F-15.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @alexander
    Hi Markin,


    I was referring to building #7 in "my" comment....which was never struck by an aircraft.

    Mr Oz, suggested the reason why the Dubai hotel did not collapse from its" raging inferno",was because the structural engineers" learned" from 9-11 and overcame the "deficiencies" inherent in the WTC designs...as though some how the engineers for the WTC , including #7, had "never anticipated" a fire...thus explaining why they collapsed so fast...and Dubai did not collapse at all.


    I suggested that was lame...and I said why.

    Your earlier reply faulted one of the parts of my argument (though said nothing about the fact that the fire in Dubai was very different from those in the WTC buildings) by suggesting that the structural engineers for the WTC would have been the best there were. Maybe – I don’t know, do you know who they were or what their final brief was? – but between 1972 when the twin towers were built and 2008 it seems likely that something was learned about the fire dangers to steel framed buildings and how to deal with them. But JJS’s reply suggests that the key to the NYC-Dubai difference is probably the way the fire started and perhaps the absence of imported aviation fuel and magnesium…. Either way recently built buildings surviving fires hardly seems surprising. Cars are safer too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Wally
    Suckers are born every minute.

    If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.
    http://www.ae911truth.org

    The government's laughable & impossible 9/11 conspiracy theory is what drives the US foreign policy.

    - The US govt. cannot change laws of physics.

    - It's an established scientific fact that military grade nano-thermite was used in the 9/11 attack.

    - '9/11' has been an immensely profitable scam for various players in the US and Israel.

    - '9/11' provides excuses for our disastrous & mass murdering foreign policy.

    - '9/11' provides excuses for the theft of our constitutional rights.

    - '9/11' provides excuses for the enormous increase of government power.

    Follow the money.
    Who benefits?

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7
    http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/#beyond-misinformation

    - It’s an established scientific fact that military grade nano-thermite was used in the 9/11 attack.

    No, it isn’t.

    - ’9/11′ has been an immensely profitable scam for various players in the US and Israel.

    Of course.

    - ’9/11′ provides excuses for our disastrous & mass murdering foreign policy.

    Mais oui.

    - ’9/11′ provides excuses for the theft of our constitutional rights.

    Not that excuses are necessary.

    - ’9/11′ provides excuses for the enormous increase of government power.

    Not that excuses are necessary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Jonathan Revusky

    LOL. The conspiracy dcepens. Why did the conspirators implode Building 7,
     
    I don't know, but since you work for them, why don't you ask them yourself.

    but left the two towers to an unproven, but fully conspiratorial, fate produced by jet aircraft?
     
    Uhhh, no. All three buildings were imploded. Ask your employers. They'll verify that for you.

    Uhhh, no. All three buildings were imploded. Ask your employers. They’ll verify that for you.

    Naaaa. That’s Wacko McDoofuss talk. There is absolutely zero supporting evidence for implosion of all three buildings, or even one. The jet fuel did the job by superheating the structure and blowing out the welds in the lattice, after which the weight above the broken ties collapsed each succeeding floor downward — gravity, have you heard of it? That is why the buildings collapsed “in place”, in a pure vertical drop, boom boom boom, as each collapsing floor added to the weight and cascaded downward. That’s why it was such a bitch to dig out, to get the bodies, etc. Everything piled up in one spot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. MarkinLA says:
    @Crawfurdmuir
    Roberts is in error blaming the concentration of banking on the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Instead it was the result of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Branch Banking Act of 1994. Previous to that, banks could not branch across state lines. A great contraction in the number of banks took place following the passage of Riegle-Neal, as large money-center banks acquired regional and community banks, which they could not have done without its provision for interstate branching. It is this, not Glass-Steagall, which enabled the six largest banks in the United States to hold more than half of all deposits in the country.

    I've often wondered why there is so much attention given to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley repeal of Glass-Steagall - and none at all to Riegle-Neal. Riegle and Neal were both Democrats, Congress was controlled by Democrats in 1994, and this bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton. I remember thinking at the time it was enacted that it exploded the pretense that Democrats were in any sense the party of the "little guy," the "working stiff." I suggest this is why the role of Riegle-Neal in creating "too big to fail" banks is so largely ignored. It fits the left's narrative better to blame it on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, since that bill was authored by Republicans and passed during a period of Republican control of Congress.

    G-S did allow banks into the world of investment banking where the risks are less well understood than in commercial banking. Commercial banks do go insolvent all the time but usually because the area they operate in has had a major economic blow-out and the assets they hold loans against are no longer worth what they were at the time the loan was made and the bank doesn’t have the reserve capital to write the loan off.

    The idea behind separating the banks back in the day was that you keep a regional bust regional. The idea behind letting the banks merge was that the bigger bank has the capital reserves to withstand a regional bust and not go insolvent. It was also thought that US banks could not compete internationally with Japanese and German banks.

    No matter what you do you need strong regulation that takes down a weak bank well before the FDIC has to put out much money. This is more difficult when the bank is creating CDOs and writing CDS instead of just making loans to businesses and people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. geokat62 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Sorry, a problem with the software (probably me or my thumb). I think my reply was meant to suggest that both repeals of legislation contributed to the extent of the financial damage though perhaps the former was a less culpable one (if culpable at all) because it was consistent with banking practice around the world, could fairly readily have been managed by prudential regulators and didn't provide the temptation and means for the dangerous kind of animal spirits to be let loose on the traditional banks. Perhaps it is wrong to use the wisdom of hindsight to be very critical of mere politicians in an age when the intellectual fashion was for freeing up business from every aspect of government and had even ensnared someone as knowledgeable as Greenspan (though I don't know where he stood on the repeal of G-S at the time).

    … had even ensnared someone as knowledgeable as Greenspan (though I don’t know where he stood on the repeal of G-S at the time)

    Unsurprisingly, Mr. Blind Spot actually pushed hard to get G-S repealed:

    Greenspan Urges Glass-Steagall Repeal

    In an appearance before a House Banking subcommittee, Mr. Greenspan said repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act would lead to lower costs and wider availability of investment banking services for businesses and state and local governments.

    http://www.americanbanker.com/175/greenspan-urges-glass-steagall-repeal-1044317-1.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. Of course I'm not surprised. By the way you might know when and why and how "neo-liberalism" arose as a term of abuse. About 2007 Labor's unusual nerdy much hated PM to be in Oz launched a tirade in a vaguely lefty mag against "neo-liberalism" which I hardly skimmed because I wasn't interested in politically partisan rhetoric which I took it to be. I had hoped the battle by the Dries, the economic rationalists and openers up of markets had been won in a battle that started in Australia and New Zealand against old stifling protectionist policies (even to a limited extent against the overregulated labour relations régimes) and had I thought been won under both Labor and Liberal National Party coalition governments (and NZ equivalent) parties) but the union based Australian Labor Party, despite union membership in the private sector being very low now, fought an opportunistic comeback and it seems that the anti-neo-liberal rhetoruc and sneer was part of it.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    That last reply to you was meant to pose a question to you about neo-liberalism. That probably got obscured but I would like to know how "neo-liberalusm" came to be used as a smear.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Phil K says:
    @Crawfurdmuir
    Roberts is in error blaming the concentration of banking on the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Instead it was the result of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Branch Banking Act of 1994. Previous to that, banks could not branch across state lines. A great contraction in the number of banks took place following the passage of Riegle-Neal, as large money-center banks acquired regional and community banks, which they could not have done without its provision for interstate branching. It is this, not Glass-Steagall, which enabled the six largest banks in the United States to hold more than half of all deposits in the country.

    I've often wondered why there is so much attention given to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley repeal of Glass-Steagall - and none at all to Riegle-Neal. Riegle and Neal were both Democrats, Congress was controlled by Democrats in 1994, and this bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton. I remember thinking at the time it was enacted that it exploded the pretense that Democrats were in any sense the party of the "little guy," the "working stiff." I suggest this is why the role of Riegle-Neal in creating "too big to fail" banks is so largely ignored. It fits the left's narrative better to blame it on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, since that bill was authored by Republicans and passed during a period of Republican control of Congress.

    Thanks for bringing up Riegle-Neal. I didn’t remember it, if I was even aware of it to begin with. It gets almost no attention from anybody.
    My go-to financial site, naked capitalism, in thousands of posts over seven years, has made only one reference to it, though it’s on target and in context:

    He [Clinton] didn’t just push the Democrats controlling the House to pass a bill (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) that dissolved the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law, which barred investment banks from commercial banking activities. He deregulated the risky derivatives market (Commodity Futures Modernization Act), gutted state regulation of banks (Riegle-Neal) leading to a wave of banking mergers, and reappointed Alan Greenspan as Federal Reserve chair. In recent years, Clinton has ludicrously claimed that the GOP forced him to do this, which led in no small part to the global financial crisis of 2008 and the too-big-to-fail ethos, with the federal government obligated to bail out multinational banks while doing little for individual account holders.
    15 Ways Bill Clinton’s White House Failed America and the World
    Posted on June 23, 2015 by Yves Smith

    MoveOn has a petition asking Obama to enforce all provisions of Riegle-Neal. The “Petition Background” states:

    Section 101, Part 2 of The Riegle-Neal Act of 1994 states no bank merger or acquisition or new branch bank may be approved if a bank “would control, more than 10 percent of the total amount of deposits of insured depository instituions in the United States.” Three banks have been in violation of this since the Bush Administration. Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan and Bank of America–control close to 40% of the money in this country.
    Prosecute Big Banks–Enforce Riegle-Neal

    So the provisions of Riegle-Neal that were favorable to the banks were taken advantage of immediately, and those unfavorable to the banks were ignored by Republican and Democratic administrations. This petition has been sitting at MoveOn’s site for years, and hasn’t gotten 200 signatures. As you said, “largely ignored.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Rurik says:
    @alexander
    Rurik,

    The idea of the Pennsylvania jet as the "failed catalyst" for #7 is kinda interesting....Might be true...But I wrote a comment a while back, in response to Carroll Price...in Phil Giraldi's " Dancing Israelis"...its #153, that suggests another possible explanation.

    Check it out.

    Good read alexander,

    You’re so very right that it takes massive amounts of planning and expertise by professionals to keep a building that’s being demolished from leaning or tipping out of it’s planned collapse into its foot print. In fact that happens occasionally.

    http://on.aol.com/video/demolition-fail-in-crimea-518575330

    here’s a nice compilation showing exactly what you’re talking about when some of these tip over..

    and it you watch some of these, it sure makes a mockery of the idea that the twin towers or building seven would just vaporize with all those hundreds of tons of concrete and steel turning into so much powder.

    They did this,

    and they did it to take us to wars, which has become clear they wanted all along. Just as general Clark outlined. Seven countries in the Middle East slated to be “taken out”. But they needed their pretext. They needed some horrible crime for them to blame on Osama and Saddam and they’re still using this event to remove our rights and turn this planet into an Orwellian nightmare of homicidal drones flying over people’s heads (soon to be our own) and police state thugs who shoot first and ask questions later and entire countries in the Middle East lying in smoking ruins. The agenda is for us all to be Palestinians. They like to treat people like that. From Bela Kun in Hungary, to Gitmo, these are the monsters from their id. This is their final realization of their Old Testament revenge upon us all for not treating them like Gods on this earth. For not licking their feet and worshiping them as divine and chosen and so very much better than all us cattle- that were put here by God to serve Them!

    So now we have to pay for our insolence. For all the slights they suffered in high school and not getting the cheerleader. Now it’s our turn to pay and be humiliated and have a thug’s boot on our neck. And 911 was the pretext for them to take away our rights, and so they have.

    Now what?

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Rurik,


    I think your footage just about seals the deal.


    Given the amount of planning and expertise needed by "top" demolition experts to ensure a building collapses" perfectly" within its own footprint...


    what are the chances of it happening to two of the "tallest " buildings in the world..... "and" building #7......completely naturally ?


    Really....what are the chances ?


    Wouldn't at least one of them.....if not all three .. have tipped over..( even a bit)...or come down in a zig-zag fashion , accordion style.....or something?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Rurik

    But, if Flight 93 was intended to hit Bldg. 7 (an utterly absurd hypothesis), why was it shot down by an F-15 out of Pax River?
     
    if you claim it was shot down, they why did they lie about it?

    And isn't' that another one of the "conspiracy theories", that is was shot down, and not brought down heroically by the passengers who shouted "let's roll!" ?

    Are you trying to dance in between mocking those people trying to get at the truth and then mocking the official story too?

    Where does that leave you?

    Collecting your thirty pieces of silver ?

    if you claim it was shot down, they why did they lie about it?

    That is more than a little obvious. Great big resonating “Duh” for you there.

    Flight 93 was shot down by a fighter out of Pax River. Arguable as to whether it was an F-14 or F-15, as Pax is a naval air station and Navy used the F-14 in 2001, Air Force the F-15.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    That is more than a little obvious. Great big resonating “Duh” for you there.

    Flight 93 was shot down by a fighter out of Pax River.
     
    Ok, so now the fool is prancing around and raving hysterics about planes being shot out of the sky.

    But the poor, pathetic fool doesn't' realize that saying the plane was shot out of the sky is playing into the hands and narrative of the 911 truthers, who have been saying all along that the official story is a crock, and now the fool is agreeing with them even as he plies his little shtick of naysaying those who're trying to get at the truth.

    it must be a scary world you inhabit, so full of contradictions and incongruities
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Rurik says:

    No matter what you do you need strong regulation that takes down a weak bank well before the FDIC has to put out much money. This is more difficult when the bank is creating CDOs and writing CDS instead of just making loans to businesses and people.

    and that is why they (Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers of the Goldman Sachs Cosa Nostra) had their dancing chimp Buba repeal Glass, because they wanted to have their gambling debts guaranteed by the tax-slave, and that’s why they put Goldman Sachs boys like Paulson and Geithner at the Treasury. So between the Fed, the Treasury and Goldman Sachs they have the perfect trifecta to loot us all dry and turn our savings into a pile of manure with their printing press and inflation. So as they all get spectacularly wealthy by loaning us all money they magically conjure and hand to us as debt instruments from the very start and they create swindles and frauds like CDSs and CDOs and ‘dark pools’ and sub-prime liar loans that we’re always on the hook for, they get rich and we all get poor. Such a deal!

    Read More
    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. Clyde says:
    @MarkinLA
    Well PCR you left out looking the other way on illegal immigration and guest worker programs - both designed to destroy the ability of American workers to ever get a raise in pay.

    You are 100% correct that immigration is left out by Paul Craig Roberts, in his otherwise excellent essay.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Rurik says:
    @Si1ver1ock
    @ Rurik I agree with you, however some people simply can't go there. It causes extreme cognitive dissonance, resulting in anger and depression.

    As a 911 Truther, I am willing to have a real forensic/scientific investigation and let the chips fall where they may, whereas the "non-truthers" won't. They don't want to know.

    That really is the difference. Just ask them if they would support a real investigation or the release of the 28 pages, the pentagon videos, the NIST computer model etc. If they say no, it means they really can't handle the truth. It's not surprising, it is a very ugly truth.


    Nice quote BTW. Thanks.

    however some people simply can’t go there. …

    … They don’t want to know.

    I agree with you Si1ver1ock

    It is quite the quantum leap to begin to wonder if your own government, the men and women who you have trusted and paid and authorized with all the power of the organs of the state, to keep us citizens safe, would be the very people to murder us so callously.

    People can’t even begin to comprehend it. But there has been precedent. We know that our government covers up horrible acts of war when it suits them. We know they’ve actually injected men with poisons and diseases to see how their bodies would react. We know that they dropped napalm and gelled gasoline on defenseless people in places like Dresden, not to win a war, (it was already over) but to sadistically burn old men, women and children to death in the most horrific way imaginable. The kind of people who created death camps for teenage German boys to be starved to death after the war was over. That is our government. The kind of people who caused Viet Nam to linger for so long, with all those people killed. The kind of people who left our POWs in Korea and Viet Nam. The kind of people who run a torture camp and don’t allow their victims to even starve themselves to death. They stick tubes up their butts and cram nutrients into their bodies in unnatural ways just to be sadistic and cruel. The kind of people who rape children in front of their mothers so the mothers have to listen to the screams of their young sons. The kind of people who drop DU on cities knowing the horrific birth defects it will cause. (I won’t post the pictures) Our government is run by psychopaths and sadists. The kind of people who opened fire with automatic weapons when those people in that burning building in Waco were trying desperately to flee the flames. That’s the kind of people Hillary and Bill Clinton are. The kind of person who can’t contain her cackling at the man she caused to be tortured to death by animals. She was beside herself with gloating.

    that is the kind of people they stuff in our federal government. Monsters. Because they are monsters. Men like William Kristol and Dick Cheney and David Frum and Paul Wolfowitz and so many others. If you’re a clever psychopath and you want to get rich and powerful beyond your dreams, where do you go?

    Exactly!

    And that’s where we’re at..

    Read More
    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Rurik says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    if you claim it was shot down, they why did they lie about it?
     
    That is more than a little obvious. Great big resonating "Duh" for you there.

    Flight 93 was shot down by a fighter out of Pax River. Arguable as to whether it was an F-14 or F-15, as Pax is a naval air station and Navy used the F-14 in 2001, Air Force the F-15.

    That is more than a little obvious. Great big resonating “Duh” for you there.

    Flight 93 was shot down by a fighter out of Pax River.

    Ok, so now the fool is prancing around and raving hysterics about planes being shot out of the sky.

    But the poor, pathetic fool doesn’t’ realize that saying the plane was shot out of the sky is playing into the hands and narrative of the 911 truthers, who have been saying all along that the official story is a crock, and now the fool is agreeing with them even as he plies his little shtick of naysaying those who’re trying to get at the truth.

    it must be a scary world you inhabit, so full of contradictions and incongruities

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Ok, so now the fool is prancing around and raving hysterics about planes being shot out of the sky.
     
    Awww...did Ru-Ru get all mad because his nonsense is unsupported speculation? Does Ru-Ru get all pissy over facts not aligning with fantasies?

    That the AF shot down Flight 93 does not play into your conspiracy theory at all. That's one of the big problems with conspiracy theories -- they have to expand to take in all information, and add to the number of conspirators, conspiring agencies, etc. Fortunately for you half-baked kiddos, post hoc can always be manipulated into propter hoc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @MarkinLA
    You didn't need to bring down buildings to start a war. You simply had to catch the Muslims in the act and stop them and ramp up the howling in the media. If the sky Marshalls had tackled them and they blew up a grenade in the plane with their plans to take down the buildings left in a car, that would have been enough for the AIPAC shills to get their war.

    This is where the conspiracy theories get lost. Never do more than you have to because the bigger it is the more people that have to be in on it and the more difficult it is to keep secret.

    You didn’t need to bring down buildings to start a war. You simply had to catch the Muslims in the act and stop them and ramp up the howling in the media.

    Your theory was tested in 1993 and it failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

    It turns out that, psychologically speaking, actual dead bodies are a hell of a lot more compelling than merely potential dead bodies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The dead bodies would be those in the downed airplanes. That would have sufficed, especially with AIPAC shills like Judith Miller writing propaganda in the New York Times.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @geokat62

    ... had even ensnared someone as knowledgeable as Greenspan (though I don’t know where he stood on the repeal of G-S at the time)
     
    Unsurprisingly, Mr. Blind Spot actually pushed hard to get G-S repealed:

    Greenspan Urges Glass-Steagall Repeal

    In an appearance before a House Banking subcommittee, Mr. Greenspan said repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act would lead to lower costs and wider availability of investment banking services for businesses and state and local governments.

    http://www.americanbanker.com/175/greenspan-urges-glass-steagall-repeal-1044317-1.html
     

    Thanks. Of course I’m not surprised. By the way you might know when and why and how “neo-liberalism” arose as a term of abuse. About 2007 Labor’s unusual nerdy much hated PM to be in Oz launched a tirade in a vaguely lefty mag against “neo-liberalism” which I hardly skimmed because I wasn’t interested in politically partisan rhetoric which I took it to be. I had hoped the battle by the Dries, the economic rationalists and openers up of markets had been won in a battle that started in Australia and New Zealand against old stifling protectionist policies (even to a limited extent against the overregulated labour relations régimes) and had I thought been won under both Labor and Liberal National Party coalition governments (and NZ equivalent) parties) but the union based Australian Labor Party, despite union membership in the private sector being very low now, fought an opportunistic comeback and it seems that the anti-neo-liberal rhetoruc and sneer was part of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. alexander says:
    @Rurik
    Good read alexander,

    You're so very right that it takes massive amounts of planning and expertise by professionals to keep a building that's being demolished from leaning or tipping out of it's planned collapse into its foot print. In fact that happens occasionally.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIEBLdd6W3Q

    http://on.aol.com/video/demolition-fail-in-crimea-518575330

    here's a nice compilation showing exactly what you're talking about when some of these tip over..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc#t=135

    and it you watch some of these, it sure makes a mockery of the idea that the twin towers or building seven would just vaporize with all those hundreds of tons of concrete and steel turning into so much powder.

    They did this,

    and they did it to take us to wars, which has become clear they wanted all along. Just as general Clark outlined. Seven countries in the Middle East slated to be "taken out". But they needed their pretext. They needed some horrible crime for them to blame on Osama and Saddam and they're still using this event to remove our rights and turn this planet into an Orwellian nightmare of homicidal drones flying over people's heads (soon to be our own) and police state thugs who shoot first and ask questions later and entire countries in the Middle East lying in smoking ruins. The agenda is for us all to be Palestinians. They like to treat people like that. From Bela Kun in Hungary, to Gitmo, these are the monsters from their id. This is their final realization of their Old Testament revenge upon us all for not treating them like Gods on this earth. For not licking their feet and worshiping them as divine and chosen and so very much better than all us cattle- that were put here by God to serve Them!

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N8xCmviugvQ/T6LaYXp6vEI/AAAAAAAABtM/-laMxBs-cVY/s1600/schneerson6.jpg

    So now we have to pay for our insolence. For all the slights they suffered in high school and not getting the cheerleader. Now it's our turn to pay and be humiliated and have a thug's boot on our neck. And 911 was the pretext for them to take away our rights, and so they have.

    Now what?

    http://www.isthatbaloney.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/hillary-clinton-old-hag-7.jpg

    Rurik,

    I think your footage just about seals the deal.

    Given the amount of planning and expertise needed by “top” demolition experts to ensure a building collapses” perfectly” within its own footprint…

    what are the chances of it happening to two of the “tallest ” buildings in the world….. “and” building #7……completely naturally ?

    Really….what are the chances ?

    Wouldn’t at least one of them…..if not all three .. have tipped over..( even a bit)…or come down in a zig-zag fashion , accordion style…..or something?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. MarkinLA says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    You didn’t need to bring down buildings to start a war. You simply had to catch the Muslims in the act and stop them and ramp up the howling in the media.
     
    Your theory was tested in 1993 and it failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

    It turns out that, psychologically speaking, actual dead bodies are a hell of a lot more compelling than merely potential dead bodies.

    The dead bodies would be those in the downed airplanes. That would have sufficed, especially with AIPAC shills like Judith Miller writing propaganda in the New York Times.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Big Bill says:
    @MarkinLA
    Well PCR you left out looking the other way on illegal immigration and guest worker programs - both designed to destroy the ability of American workers to ever get a raise in pay.

    Paul Craig Roberts and Michael Hudson both ignore immigration. Both are liberals (although patriots) and cannot bring themselves to mention the subject.

    Both are tough-minded economists who can see through the Wall Street BS, yet both studiously avoid the obvious problems associated with importing low IQ Third World peasants by the tens of millions.

    It truly is a puzzlement. Their avoidance is so painfully obvious that I scratch my head trying to figure it out. Are their children or grandchildren married to Third Worlders? Do they belong to Evangelical religions that see immigrant rescue as a commandment from God? I just can’t figure out how people so smart can avoid a huge economic elephant like Open Borders … yet they do.

    God bless them both. I do pray that the scales will fall from their eyes sometime soon, but I am no longer holding my breath.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I don't know if it because this was a major policy decision in the Reagan administration that causes PCR to ignore it. Ex-Reagan people are loath to bring up policies that tarnish the Reagan legacy. Pat Buchanan tries to dance around it by blaming GHWB for not closing the border and cutting off immigration from Mexico after Reagan basically went into the barn, opened the stall gates, slapped each horse on the ass and then fired both barrels of his shotgun in the air. GHWB was supposed to close the barn door. Peter Brimlow has written that he tried to get other Reagan staffers to see the eventual problems for the Republican Party but that he was told illegal immigration is good because it undercuts the unions. They probably thought they would have the Mexicans and the Democrats would have the blacks and they would cancel each other out. Kevin Phillips had already written a book arguing that the Republicans were soon going to clean the Democrats clock with the graying of the white population so it is no wonder why the Democrats wanted to import a new people.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    yet both studiously avoid the obvious problems associated with importing low IQ Third World peasants by the tens of millions.

    It truly is a puzzlement. Their avoidance is so painfully obvious that I scratch my head trying to figure it out. Are their children or grandchildren married to Third Worlders? Do they belong to Evangelical religions that see immigrant rescue as a commandment from God?
     
    think about those two statements for about 10 seconds.

    "importing low IQ Third World peasants"


    "Evangelicals . . ."

    By some accounts there are 90 million Evangelical (Christian) zionists in U.S.A.

    Could be their spawn need those low IQ peasants to skew the curve -- as well as raise their children while they're off bible-thumping and Israel-whoring http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=3201

    I'd take low IQ peasants any day over evangelical zionists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. geokat62 says:
    @Si1ver1ock
    @ Rurik I agree with you, however some people simply can't go there. It causes extreme cognitive dissonance, resulting in anger and depression.

    As a 911 Truther, I am willing to have a real forensic/scientific investigation and let the chips fall where they may, whereas the "non-truthers" won't. They don't want to know.

    That really is the difference. Just ask them if they would support a real investigation or the release of the 28 pages, the pentagon videos, the NIST computer model etc. If they say no, it means they really can't handle the truth. It's not surprising, it is a very ugly truth.


    Nice quote BTW. Thanks.

    Just ask them [the “non-truthers”] if they would support a real investigation

    I support a real investigation.

    Pending that investigation, can any of you non non-truthers do me a favour and help me out by answering a question I’m struggling with? Why would those responsible for carrying out 9/11 (whoever they may be) want to target WTC 7?

    What possible significance could it have, given that it was the 38th tallest building in NYC at the time, especially in light of the other targets that were hit:

    WTC 1, WTC 2 – tallest buildings in NYC, symbols of world’s financial capital on Wall St.

    Pentagon – symbol of world’s leading military.

    Even though the specific target for Flight 93 is unknown, isn’t it more plausible to assume that the intended target was either the WH or the CB, rather than the 38th tallest building in NYC?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City

    P.S. Rurik, hopefully you won’t call me a “goat” this time around. As always, just striving to uncover the truth,

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Even though the specific target for Flight 93 is unknown, isn’t it more plausible to assume that the intended target was either the WH or the CB
     
    The intended target for Flight 93 was the White House. It would have made for more exciting television coverage, as the WH has a functional AA missile-rack. Assuming the designated crew was minimally competent, they could hardly miss at that range.
    , @Rurik

    Why would those responsible for carrying out 9/11 (whoever they may be) want to target WTC 7?
     
    first off, it was done, obviously

    so now Geo you're on the right track.. Why did they do it?

    Building seven was also known as the Salomon Brothers Building. Here's a nice Wiki page on the kind of company the Salomon Brothers were.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_Brothers

    just go down and read about the bond scandal

    here's a charming tidbit ..

    The firm's top bond traders called themselves "Big Swinging Dicks,"

    Now here are some of the tenants of building seven on 911

    At the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m2) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.[6][35] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[35] Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[35] the New York City Office of Emergency Management,[36] National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[35] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[6]

    the big banks and federal government are hands down the biggest criminals and swindlers you'll find anywhere. This was an opportunity to disappear a lot of evidence of on going SEC investigations and all sorts of evidence of perfidy and fraud. Also it could be used as the center of the planning and execution of 911 with zero questions asked of the kind of people who'd be working there, and then with the press of a button, all the evidence goes by by. And lucky Larry gets to claim one more loss! Perhaps be made a cool billion on that one alone ; )

    how's that for a 'why', eh?
    , @Junior

    Why would those responsible for carrying out 9/11 (whoever they may be) want to target WTC 7?
     
    I agree with you, geo, that a real investigation needs to be done. I don't profess to know exactly the reasons for what happened on 9/11 with why building 7, but I know that it stinks to high heaven and that we haven't been told the truth about it. One possible reason was that Building 7 housed the enforcement office of the Securities and Exchange Commission as Rurik stated. I don't think the SEC was an intended target, per se, as much as a "might as well" opportunity taken by some bastards in the know who saw a chance to make some extra blood money while staging the "new Pearl Harbor" on America. The "War on Terror" industry was the main goal, the chance at covering up of criminal financial gain was an added bonus.

    Maybe 7 had something to do with covering up the billions in suspicious trading that took place immediately before the attack that we haven't heard about since, or maybe something to do with the investigations into the IPO kickbacks that the Investment Banks were making but ended up settling for pennies on the dollars due to the delays and the banks obstruction, or maybe something to do with the covering up of the Pentagons missing 2.3 trillion, or maybe something to do with hiding the paper trail of gun-running-drug-smuggling-frauds by the CIA... Who knows? Maybe none of them. Maybe all of them. I'm not exactly sure what the reason is behind the stench, but I know that when it comes to Building 7, something is definitely rotten in the state of Denmark.

    Here's an article from the Wall Street Journal on the SEC Enforcement Office being destroyed in Building 7:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000348229290230479

    Here's an article on Citigroup claiming that all their information for the SEC IPO probe conveniently having all been lost in 9/11:

    http://www.thestreet.com/markets/matthewgoldstein/10036925.html

    Here's an interesting thread from the Democratic Underground in which people ask your exact question also. There are some interesting comments about the financial cover-ups angle for why 7:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x237013

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. PCR never mentions mass Third World immigration as a problem.

    Yet it’s the only insurmountable problem we face.

    Why is PCR silent?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. Dwright says:

    Why pay all that money with months of planning to demolish buildings. A good hot fire with some jet fuel will do it, perfectly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. @MarkinLA
    You didn't need to bring down buildings to start a war. You simply had to catch the Muslims in the act and stop them and ramp up the howling in the media. If the sky Marshalls had tackled them and they blew up a grenade in the plane with their plans to take down the buildings left in a car, that would have been enough for the AIPAC shills to get their war.

    This is where the conspiracy theories get lost. Never do more than you have to because the bigger it is the more people that have to be in on it and the more difficult it is to keep secret.

    You just don”t get it do you.

    There were just three people in each of the CIA and FBI deducated to makibg sure the conspiracy was never known within their agencies to anyone but them and that any stray information from police or customs etc was safely filed without getting soread around.

    The conspiracy was financed by Adelson types and as a strictly deniable private operation though with needed access to false docs and the like. Not difficult really when you’ve found (and in some cases compromised) old CIA and FBI hands who can lure impressionable young Arabs into thinking they are going to pull off Al Qaeda’s greatest coup to get them doing just what the highjackers actually did to prepare for the great coup. Not difficult either to get them to leave just the trail needed so that, though dead men tell no tales all the remnants would add up to the story which is now official.

    They had to have multiple targets because some might fail, even be prevented from boarding the aircraft. Would one hit on just one building with an anticipated 250 deaths do the trick? Probably, because the 3 failures would count as another 750 in terms of outrage and the fact of attempts on the Pentagon and Congress (alleged but probably not because Congress would be needed for action and the wrong people might be killed – or maybe the time of day would make sure it was OK). Of course WTC 7 was totally unplanned and unexpected. Really quite an embarrasment when it gets to set off all those nutters who cry “conspiracy” (sod those f*****g fools who go on about thermite too. NO thermite needed!).

    How do I know. Well my cousin compromised by his gambling habit (especially that one) has managed to stay alive but he’s again in real money trouble and he’s offered me a big cut for his book and film deal. So far a couple of Vladimir’s favourite oligarchs are bidding and it’s looking promising for 2016 hardback, 2017 paperback and 2018 big screen. There’s a little squeamishness to be expected in Hollywood so it may have to be European co-production though the TV miniseries to follow should be OK in the US by 2020.

    And do I believe the story? Well when I was almist wholly sceptical (my cousin being a notorious liar) I ran it past Dan Brown and he gave me good advice. “Tell it 1000 times” he said “and you’ll find after 500 you get angry when soneone questions it but then, esoecially if you rub the biggest banknote you can find between your fingers while talking, your demeanour will become quite beatific as the aura of certainty grows”.

    Sadly some of our fellow commenters have not only got the story wrong with all their thermitic distractions and unlikely cell phine calls but haven’t anywhere near reached narrative nirvana yet.

    PS Would you like to earn cut of the US rights: I have a visa problem?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Sam J. says:

    I hate to beat a dead horse but the hasbara “Spoofers” as opposed to truthers lie constantly. Building #7′s behavior is all you need to know about 9-11. The single most important act about false flags is building #7. Building #7 was not hit by a plane. The third skyscraper to fall on 9-11. The North and South tower shouldn’t have fallen like they did either. After all the whole building is built to hold up the top. If the top falls a floor or two from airplane crashes the strength of the bottom doesn’t magically disappear. These building were designed to face hurricane force winds pushing them sideways. Stick a 12″ x 12″, one square foot, board out of your car window at 70 MPH and see how it pushes on your arm. Now imagine double that force for 140 MPH winds and then add up ALL the square feet on the side of the building and multiply times that force you felt. The force of the top falling a few floors onto the bottom floors, designed to take this force, is trivial compared to hurricane force winds.

    Back to building #7. They say it fell from fire. Here’s direct evidence it didn’t. They said the North tower fell on it causing massive damage. There was some damage but not enough to bring the building down “symmetrically”. Meaning all four sides fell at roughly the same rate. Even though it had damage to only one side and some sides seemed to have little to no damage. So a building with no damage or very little to some sides and no fire engulfing the building fell the same speed as a rock dropped next to it in the air, with nothing supporting the rock, for roughly 108 feet. This is impossible. Not improbable, impossible. No matter how big the fires there is resistance to the building falling from the concrete, from columns that haven’t been melted by fire and by the columns themselves. Have you ever seen molten steel? Do you imagine that even molten steel has no resistance to being moved or crushed? (Not that I’m saying the steel was molten, it wasn’t. I’m just comparing the most absurd example.) Building #7 could have had it’s floors magically suspended in air with only bags of marshmellows separating them and it would have still fallen slower than it did.

    The Spoofers keep lying about the fires or lack thereof. Look for yourself and see the fires or lack thereof. Here’s a video of reporters going into building #7 AFTER the North tower supposedly fell on it and destroyed it sufficiently enough for it to collapse completely. Look at :54 you see the #7 for the building on the door.

    Now you’ve seen video of the inside where there is NO massive damage to make all four sides of the building fall. You want pictures of the back? Here’s a picture of the South side of building #7, facing the North tower, after it had fallen. There is no huge gaping hole. There is no massive fire going all the way up the building. So you can’t say it’s the other side and we have plenty of video and pictures of the North side of build #7 pictures with no damage at all. NIST has had to release a lot of video due the FOIA.

    Here’ another NIST FOIA released video taken between one and two hours before building #7 fell. There’s around three floors on fire.

    (Watch the reporter pan up at 2:54. You can clearly see the whole building is not on fire. This side shown is the North side of building #7. Later you can see the fires mostly around three or four floors only and in isolated spots.)
    If the fires were hot enough to melt steel then why isn’t the glass in the windows melted? Glass melts at an extremely lower temperature that steel. Ever put a metal can and a glass bottle in a campfire? The glass bottle melts but the steel can will still be intact. These fires were no hotter than a campfire. One last video of all sides from 23 angles also showing the miraculous collapse.

    Fireman retired so now he can talk. He was right next to the damn building. Says,”…there was an explosion and the building came down…”

    For more info look at a site by some engineers that lay out the evidence.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    And for all you Christens who worship the Jews here’s a little Jesus for you.

    JESUS CHRIST, speaking to the Jews in the Gospel of St. John, 8:44 “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is not truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it. – then answered the Jews — ” (which makes it clear that Christ was addressing the Jews.)

    They’re lying to you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Says,”…there was an explosion and the building came down…”

    When I was a kid in welding shop we had a hydraulic press used to test welds. These are the same presses you see Harbor Freight selling - basically a frame and a bottle jack. Some goof put a 1/2 inch thick piece of steel plate in it and kept cranking it up to see what would happen. All of a sudden the plate cracked and broke right down the middle exposing the crystalline structure of the steel and it sounded like a bomb went off.

    I have no doubt that as the load increases on the superstructure at places that that aren't as close to melting that some of those places would fail like that steel plate failed in shop class.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @geokat62

    ... had even ensnared someone as knowledgeable as Greenspan (though I don’t know where he stood on the repeal of G-S at the time)
     
    Unsurprisingly, Mr. Blind Spot actually pushed hard to get G-S repealed:

    Greenspan Urges Glass-Steagall Repeal

    In an appearance before a House Banking subcommittee, Mr. Greenspan said repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act would lead to lower costs and wider availability of investment banking services for businesses and state and local governments.

    http://www.americanbanker.com/175/greenspan-urges-glass-steagall-repeal-1044317-1.html
     

    That last reply to you was meant to pose a question to you about neo-liberalism. That probably got obscured but I would like to know how “neo-liberalusm” came to be used as a smear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    ... but I would like to know how “neo-liberalusm” came to be used as a smear.
     
    Ok, Wiz, since you insist. Here is my take: if we go back in time, "liberalism" in the traditional sense (i.e., the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economics) was the dominant ideology up until the stock market crash of 1929. But after the ensuing Great Depression, the faith in this ideology began to wane. Then Keynes comes along with his arguments for government intervention to help stimulate the economy and bring it out of this quagmire. But the "neo liberals" (especially Hayak) were always vehemently opposed to these policy prescriptions as they believed they would have the exact opposite affects and were pushing to reverse them.

    So, in the battle between Keynesianism and neo-liberalism, I believe three factors lead to its defeat and why it came to be used as a smear:

    1. After Keynesianism had run its course for a few decades, both Thatcher and Reagan arrive on the scene and are promoting the benefits of "trickle down economics." People initially believed there was some truth to this theory, but after a few decades of it being implemented, most came to realize they were sold a bill of goods.

    2. Have you heard of the Washington Consensus. This was "neo-liberalism" on steroids. The policy prescriptions associated with it were promoted many third world countries to ostensibly help them recover from a financial crisis they were mired in, but the end result was that they found themselves in even more difficulty than before. I believe that Perkin's Confessions of an Economic Hitman provides a more fulsome explanation as to how the program worked.

    3. The Great Recession of 2008. With the repeal of G-S an other legislation that was introduced after the crash of '29, the neo-liberals were convinced in Ayn Rand's concept of the self-regulating market, otherwise known as AG's blind spot. Well, we all know how effective those policy prescriptions turned out to be.

    So there you have it: 3 reasons why I believe the term "neo-liberalism" came to be used as a smear.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. MarkinLA says:
    @Big Bill
    Paul Craig Roberts and Michael Hudson both ignore immigration. Both are liberals (although patriots) and cannot bring themselves to mention the subject.

    Both are tough-minded economists who can see through the Wall Street BS, yet both studiously avoid the obvious problems associated with importing low IQ Third World peasants by the tens of millions.

    It truly is a puzzlement. Their avoidance is so painfully obvious that I scratch my head trying to figure it out. Are their children or grandchildren married to Third Worlders? Do they belong to Evangelical religions that see immigrant rescue as a commandment from God? I just can't figure out how people so smart can avoid a huge economic elephant like Open Borders ... yet they do.

    God bless them both. I do pray that the scales will fall from their eyes sometime soon, but I am no longer holding my breath.

    I don’t know if it because this was a major policy decision in the Reagan administration that causes PCR to ignore it. Ex-Reagan people are loath to bring up policies that tarnish the Reagan legacy. Pat Buchanan tries to dance around it by blaming GHWB for not closing the border and cutting off immigration from Mexico after Reagan basically went into the barn, opened the stall gates, slapped each horse on the ass and then fired both barrels of his shotgun in the air. GHWB was supposed to close the barn door. Peter Brimlow has written that he tried to get other Reagan staffers to see the eventual problems for the Republican Party but that he was told illegal immigration is good because it undercuts the unions. They probably thought they would have the Mexicans and the Democrats would have the blacks and they would cancel each other out. Kevin Phillips had already written a book arguing that the Republicans were soon going to clean the Democrats clock with the graying of the white population so it is no wonder why the Democrats wanted to import a new people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. bondo says:

    in case no one has linked to following, david hooper, “anatomy of a great deception”.
    told it is good. re 7.

    bit of a time waster to attempt an honest discussion with willing, knowing liars unless they are within reach.

    9-11 was an israeli operation with help from insiders/traitors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. annamaria says:
    @Orville H. Larson
    Strictly speaking, Roberts is right. American "capitalism" isn't capitalism--too much crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

    “Clearly, American capitalism no longer serves society, and the worsening distribution of income and wealth prove it.”
    The problem is, the “invisible hand” of market had been cutoff to protect unaccountability, and unaccountability could be safely equated with cancerous growth (see financial sector). The US have become difficult for innovations for the same reason a centralized economy of the former USSR was not able to respond to innovators.
    Moreover, privatization of everything just does not work for maintaining a healthy society, because certain functions – healthcare, education, air and water and soil, and social security for the elderly – all belong to moral imperative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The US have become difficult for innovations for the

    This is not true at all. I worked in the medical products field. No country has more people working on more innovative ways to put technology into the field of medicine than the US. The medical companies are simply braying to an ignorant public because they want less regulation no matter how little there is now. Corporate execs complain about the government because that's what execs do.

    We know for a fact (because corporate execs tell us) that there is a shortage of computer programmers in America.

    Even with the regulation we have, companies have had products that had to be removed from the market because they have been found to be harmful or downright dangerous. Many of the negative effects were known to the company but hidden in the FDA submissions.

    The regulations are fairly simple in concept. Does your product or drug make a meaningful difference in the treatment of a disease? Is it better than the therapies we have now? Is it reasonably safe. Is your manufacturing process consistent and are things traceable in case of a problem. There are no hard and fast answers to these questions. If something is the only therapy we have for a disease we may accept more risk. If it is just another me-too therapy it needs to show it is at least as good as what we already have.

    You always see the appeals on places like Change.org - my kid will die if he doesn't get this life saving drug that the FDA won't approve. Well what would have happened to that kid 10 years ago before anybody had any therapy? What makes now so important?

    The company I worked at bought about 10 start-ups while I was there. Almost every one of them had a product that looked promising but was never viable in the market and the company was shut down. Every company operates under the same regulations so it really doesn't give anybody any advantage.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @ John Jeremiah Smith

    So your premise is that they most assuredly did lie about flight 93?
    ….But the 9/11 commission report is solid truth…
    That kinda makes you a douche, eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    So your premise is that they most assuredly did lie about flight 93?
    ….But the 9/11 commission report is solid truth…
    That kinda makes you a douche, eh?
     
    It means I know something you don't, because I had access to information you did not. That Flight 93 was shot down is an open secret in the AF and NSA. They do their jobs and stick to the official story. So should you, as it appears you are inclined to do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. geokat62 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    That last reply to you was meant to pose a question to you about neo-liberalism. That probably got obscured but I would like to know how "neo-liberalusm" came to be used as a smear.

    … but I would like to know how “neo-liberalusm” came to be used as a smear.

    Ok, Wiz, since you insist. Here is my take: if we go back in time, “liberalism” in the traditional sense (i.e., the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economics) was the dominant ideology up until the stock market crash of 1929. But after the ensuing Great Depression, the faith in this ideology began to wane. Then Keynes comes along with his arguments for government intervention to help stimulate the economy and bring it out of this quagmire. But the “neo liberals” (especially Hayak) were always vehemently opposed to these policy prescriptions as they believed they would have the exact opposite affects and were pushing to reverse them.

    So, in the battle between Keynesianism and neo-liberalism, I believe three factors lead to its defeat and why it came to be used as a smear:

    1. After Keynesianism had run its course for a few decades, both Thatcher and Reagan arrive on the scene and are promoting the benefits of “trickle down economics.” People initially believed there was some truth to this theory, but after a few decades of it being implemented, most came to realize they were sold a bill of goods.

    2. Have you heard of the Washington Consensus. This was “neo-liberalism” on steroids. The policy prescriptions associated with it were promoted many third world countries to ostensibly help them recover from a financial crisis they were mired in, but the end result was that they found themselves in even more difficulty than before. I believe that Perkin’s Confessions of an Economic Hitman provides a more fulsome explanation as to how the program worked.

    3. The Great Recession of 2008. With the repeal of G-S an other legislation that was introduced after the crash of ’29, the neo-liberals were convinced in Ayn Rand’s concept of the self-regulating market, otherwise known as AG’s blind spot. Well, we all know how effective those policy prescriptions turned out to be.

    So there you have it: 3 reasons why I believe the term “neo-liberalism” came to be used as a smear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. Convincing. Short of a meticulous citation, with explanation and elaboration, of early uses of the expression "neo-liberalism" that will serve very well.

    I've been defending Keynes against some mad Austrians and debt-phobic Treasury types since 2008 but in the course of that have had my own educational gaps fixed by, for example, reference to Irving Fisher on debt deflation as a major cause of the GFC's lasting damage. (Mind you I don't think the old chap who mentioned Fisher had heard of Minsky - who would have been applauded by Keynes). Despite Fisher being remembered for the "permanent plateau" he seems to have been a clever man who, like Keynes, could learn from mistakes and adapt to change in information. (Hayek to his credit described Keynes as the one great man he'd ever known. I suppose that counts in his, and Keynes's, favour despite it being written to Keynes's widow).

    While rattling on I have forgotten to ask what you think the distinctionis between neoliberal and neoclassical.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. MarkinLA says:
    @Sam J.
    I hate to beat a dead horse but the hasbara "Spoofers" as opposed to truthers lie constantly. Building #7's behavior is all you need to know about 9-11. The single most important act about false flags is building #7. Building #7 was not hit by a plane. The third skyscraper to fall on 9-11. The North and South tower shouldn’t have fallen like they did either. After all the whole building is built to hold up the top. If the top falls a floor or two from airplane crashes the strength of the bottom doesn’t magically disappear. These building were designed to face hurricane force winds pushing them sideways. Stick a 12" x 12", one square foot, board out of your car window at 70 MPH and see how it pushes on your arm. Now imagine double that force for 140 MPH winds and then add up ALL the square feet on the side of the building and multiply times that force you felt. The force of the top falling a few floors onto the bottom floors, designed to take this force, is trivial compared to hurricane force winds.

    Back to building #7. They say it fell from fire. Here’s direct evidence it didn’t. They said the North tower fell on it causing massive damage. There was some damage but not enough to bring the building down “symmetrically”. Meaning all four sides fell at roughly the same rate. Even though it had damage to only one side and some sides seemed to have little to no damage. So a building with no damage or very little to some sides and no fire engulfing the building fell the same speed as a rock dropped next to it in the air, with nothing supporting the rock, for roughly 108 feet. This is impossible. Not improbable, impossible. No matter how big the fires there is resistance to the building falling from the concrete, from columns that haven’t been melted by fire and by the columns themselves. Have you ever seen molten steel? Do you imagine that even molten steel has no resistance to being moved or crushed? (Not that I’m saying the steel was molten, it wasn’t. I’m just comparing the most absurd example.) Building #7 could have had it's floors magically suspended in air with only bags of marshmellows separating them and it would have still fallen slower than it did.

    The Spoofers keep lying about the fires or lack thereof. Look for yourself and see the fires or lack thereof. Here’s a video of reporters going into building #7 AFTER the North tower supposedly fell on it and destroyed it sufficiently enough for it to collapse completely. Look at :54 you see the #7 for the building on the door.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc

    Now you’ve seen video of the inside where there is NO massive damage to make all four sides of the building fall. You want pictures of the back? Here’s a picture of the South side of building #7, facing the North tower, after it had fallen. There is no huge gaping hole. There is no massive fire going all the way up the building. So you can’t say it’s the other side and we have plenty of video and pictures of the North side of build #7 pictures with no damage at all. NIST has had to release a lot of video due the FOIA.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/b7_nofire.jpg

    Here’ another NIST FOIA released video taken between one and two hours before building #7 fell. There’s around three floors on fire.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IssGRpcB_ms

    (Watch the reporter pan up at 2:54. You can clearly see the whole building is not on fire. This side shown is the North side of building #7. Later you can see the fires mostly around three or four floors only and in isolated spots.)
    If the fires were hot enough to melt steel then why isn’t the glass in the windows melted? Glass melts at an extremely lower temperature that steel. Ever put a metal can and a glass bottle in a campfire? The glass bottle melts but the steel can will still be intact. These fires were no hotter than a campfire. One last video of all sides from 23 angles also showing the miraculous collapse.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo

    Fireman retired so now he can talk. He was right next to the damn building. Says,”…there was an explosion and the building came down…”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws

    For more info look at a site by some engineers that lay out the evidence.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    And for all you Christens who worship the Jews here's a little Jesus for you.

    JESUS CHRIST, speaking to the Jews in the Gospel of St. John, 8:44 “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is not truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it. – then answered the Jews — ” (which makes it clear that Christ was addressing the Jews.)

    They're lying to you.

    Says,”…there was an explosion and the building came down…”

    When I was a kid in welding shop we had a hydraulic press used to test welds. These are the same presses you see Harbor Freight selling – basically a frame and a bottle jack. Some goof put a 1/2 inch thick piece of steel plate in it and kept cranking it up to see what would happen. All of a sudden the plate cracked and broke right down the middle exposing the crystalline structure of the steel and it sounded like a bomb went off.

    I have no doubt that as the load increases on the superstructure at places that that aren’t as close to melting that some of those places would fail like that steel plate failed in shop class.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    a 1/2 inch thick piece of steel plate in it and kept cranking it up to see what would happen. All of a sudden the plate cracked and broke right down the middle exposing the crystalline structure of the steel and it sounded like a bomb went off.
     
    that wasn't cold rolled steel Mark, that was cast iron

    the kind of steel that was used to construct the towers was a cold rolled steel. It's the kind of steel that's used in most construction for its strength and its price and it's properties, being able to weld it and drill it and so forth. It doesn't snap apart in a nice seam. It bends, and twists, like those beams you see of the wreckage of 911

    http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2011/wtc_steel/wtc_steel_01.jpg

    these pieces have been cut, either with thermite or an acetylene torch or somehow because cold rolled steel doesn't brake in two like this.

    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01477/girders_1477867i.jpg

    I happen to know a little about metallurgy, having worked with it and used it structurally in my profession. I understand its different properties instinctively. Steel, hi-carbon steel, cast iron, aluminum, brass, copper, pot metal, stainless steel, and on and on. I think it may be my familiarity with steel and its properties that sometimes makes me a little impatient with others who seem so incredibly credulous to the official narrative. I watch building seven fall and know it was brought down, because I understand how steel works, and what it takes to make it fail. So I fear I may have been too harsh with others who're simply trying to figure it all out, seeing it all in ways that I can't, having as I do my background.

    If so, then my sincere regrets and apologies..
    , @Sam J.
    Notice you took one small portion of a post. Mind explaining how that kid with the bottle jack relates to a building falling the same speed as a bowling ball in free air for 10 stories when only 3 or 4 floors can be seen on fire? Look at the video. The way the building fell was impossible. Not unlikely. Impossible.

    I haven' even talked about the hoards, masses, and tons of other information that show the buildings were demolished. Really don't need to as the manner of buildings 1, 2 and 7 are impossible. I just focus on #7 because even to the average person it is impossible.

    People who dispute the function of gravity must at least explain themselves. A building can't fall as if it had NO SUPPORT unless...it had NO SUPPORT.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. MarkinLA says:
    @annamaria
    "Clearly, American capitalism no longer serves society, and the worsening distribution of income and wealth prove it."
    The problem is, the "invisible hand" of market had been cutoff to protect unaccountability, and unaccountability could be safely equated with cancerous growth (see financial sector). The US have become difficult for innovations for the same reason a centralized economy of the former USSR was not able to respond to innovators.
    Moreover, privatization of everything just does not work for maintaining a healthy society, because certain functions - healthcare, education, air and water and soil, and social security for the elderly - all belong to moral imperative.

    The US have become difficult for innovations for the

    This is not true at all. I worked in the medical products field. No country has more people working on more innovative ways to put technology into the field of medicine than the US. The medical companies are simply braying to an ignorant public because they want less regulation no matter how little there is now. Corporate execs complain about the government because that’s what execs do.

    We know for a fact (because corporate execs tell us) that there is a shortage of computer programmers in America.

    Even with the regulation we have, companies have had products that had to be removed from the market because they have been found to be harmful or downright dangerous. Many of the negative effects were known to the company but hidden in the FDA submissions.

    The regulations are fairly simple in concept. Does your product or drug make a meaningful difference in the treatment of a disease? Is it better than the therapies we have now? Is it reasonably safe. Is your manufacturing process consistent and are things traceable in case of a problem. There are no hard and fast answers to these questions. If something is the only therapy we have for a disease we may accept more risk. If it is just another me-too therapy it needs to show it is at least as good as what we already have.

    You always see the appeals on places like Change.org – my kid will die if he doesn’t get this life saving drug that the FDA won’t approve. Well what would have happened to that kid 10 years ago before anybody had any therapy? What makes now so important?

    The company I worked at bought about 10 start-ups while I was there. Almost every one of them had a product that looked promising but was never viable in the market and the company was shut down. Every company operates under the same regulations so it really doesn’t give anybody any advantage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    You are an expert, and I agree with your point of view. But how come that the US have that kind of power grid (antiquated) and that kind of public transit (no fast-train network) and that relying on the overseas oil and on coal?
    "The share of Research & Development funded by the federal government now puts the United States in 29th place among nations. The United States is unlikely to suffer from a shortage of scientists, because most of what they do that is funded by American companies can readily be moved abroad. The problem is that the resulting economic impact will then also be abroad..."
    http://www.aaas.org/news/basic-research-needs-sustained-federal-investment-says-norman-augustine
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Jason says:

    So instead of focusing on the public policy of mass 3rd world immigration targeted ONLY to White countries, we are going to focus on gee whiz conspiracy theories instead?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. @szopen
    God bless Woodrow Wilson!
    And the WWII would be avoided, if western politicians hadn't tried to appease a monster.

    As for Versailles, well, I'd say Germany has no right to complain after the terms of peace it dictated to states it defeated in WWI.

    As for Versailles, well, I’d say Germany has no right to complain after the terms of peace it dictated to states it defeated in WWI.

    Terms were not dictated.

    According to Bard College history professor Sean McMeekin, Lenin/Trotsky conducted negotiations with Germany and used the settlement to enforce Communist doctrine

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?324061-1/discussion-woodrow-wilson-treaty-versailles

    Don’t recall where it’s reported that a Jewish guy did the negotiating for the German side; iirc his name was Kaufmann. The claim was that German leadership was incompetent and lazy; only the chosen had the requisite skills.

    On the other hand, Germany was shut out of participation in Versailles negotiations. Many accounts — including McMeekin’s — fail to record that Jewish interests were over-represented at Versailles, including Bernard Baruch at Wilson’s elbow the whole time, and the Warburgs from both Europe and USA had seats at the table to monitor their interests.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Oh, so the treaty of Bucharest was very reasonable, and the peace in Brest was also reasonable, because reasonable Germans were forced by Russia to accept huge territories. Also, Germans really didn;t want to accept 6 billions marks of reparations from Russia, bout those awful bolsheviks forced poor Germans to accept those terms.

    Damn, I heard many lame excuses, but this one is the worst of them all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Big Bill
    Paul Craig Roberts and Michael Hudson both ignore immigration. Both are liberals (although patriots) and cannot bring themselves to mention the subject.

    Both are tough-minded economists who can see through the Wall Street BS, yet both studiously avoid the obvious problems associated with importing low IQ Third World peasants by the tens of millions.

    It truly is a puzzlement. Their avoidance is so painfully obvious that I scratch my head trying to figure it out. Are their children or grandchildren married to Third Worlders? Do they belong to Evangelical religions that see immigrant rescue as a commandment from God? I just can't figure out how people so smart can avoid a huge economic elephant like Open Borders ... yet they do.

    God bless them both. I do pray that the scales will fall from their eyes sometime soon, but I am no longer holding my breath.

    yet both studiously avoid the obvious problems associated with importing low IQ Third World peasants by the tens of millions.

    It truly is a puzzlement. Their avoidance is so painfully obvious that I scratch my head trying to figure it out. Are their children or grandchildren married to Third Worlders? Do they belong to Evangelical religions that see immigrant rescue as a commandment from God?

    think about those two statements for about 10 seconds.

    “importing low IQ Third World peasants”

    “Evangelicals . . .”

    By some accounts there are 90 million Evangelical (Christian) zionists in U.S.A.

    Could be their spawn need those low IQ peasants to skew the curve — as well as raise their children while they’re off bible-thumping and Israel-whoring http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=3201

    I’d take low IQ peasants any day over evangelical zionists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    " I'd take low IQ peasants any day over evangelical zionists"


    ...What's the difference?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. alexander says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    yet both studiously avoid the obvious problems associated with importing low IQ Third World peasants by the tens of millions.

    It truly is a puzzlement. Their avoidance is so painfully obvious that I scratch my head trying to figure it out. Are their children or grandchildren married to Third Worlders? Do they belong to Evangelical religions that see immigrant rescue as a commandment from God?
     
    think about those two statements for about 10 seconds.

    "importing low IQ Third World peasants"


    "Evangelicals . . ."

    By some accounts there are 90 million Evangelical (Christian) zionists in U.S.A.

    Could be their spawn need those low IQ peasants to skew the curve -- as well as raise their children while they're off bible-thumping and Israel-whoring http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=3201

    I'd take low IQ peasants any day over evangelical zionists.

    ” I’d take low IQ peasants any day over evangelical zionists”

    …What’s the difference?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    low IQ peasants are educable; the evangelical zionist brain is cast in concrete.

    Participants at the UNZ forum and activists who wish to remove zionist influence from American institutional dominance and change the situation of Palestinians in Israel, etc. would do well to take a lesson from Haim Saban wrt to "low IQ peasants."

    Saban bought a radio - TV network whose audience is Hispanic (presumably included in the "low IQ" generalization). Saban has been working for years to indoctrinate "low IQ peasants" to slide seamlessly into the evangelical zionist camp.

    What have we activist been doing besides bemoaning the influence of Haim Saban and denigrating low IQ peasants?

    --
    thought-on-a-tangent: Years ago I attended the naturalization ceremony for an Iranian friend. Today, my Iranian-American friend has organized other members of the Muslim community and opened a number of offices that assist Hispanics to learn to speak English. Something like Saban & Univision, my friend created an opportunity rather than damn the threats.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. annamaria says:
    @MarkinLA
    The US have become difficult for innovations for the

    This is not true at all. I worked in the medical products field. No country has more people working on more innovative ways to put technology into the field of medicine than the US. The medical companies are simply braying to an ignorant public because they want less regulation no matter how little there is now. Corporate execs complain about the government because that's what execs do.

    We know for a fact (because corporate execs tell us) that there is a shortage of computer programmers in America.

    Even with the regulation we have, companies have had products that had to be removed from the market because they have been found to be harmful or downright dangerous. Many of the negative effects were known to the company but hidden in the FDA submissions.

    The regulations are fairly simple in concept. Does your product or drug make a meaningful difference in the treatment of a disease? Is it better than the therapies we have now? Is it reasonably safe. Is your manufacturing process consistent and are things traceable in case of a problem. There are no hard and fast answers to these questions. If something is the only therapy we have for a disease we may accept more risk. If it is just another me-too therapy it needs to show it is at least as good as what we already have.

    You always see the appeals on places like Change.org - my kid will die if he doesn't get this life saving drug that the FDA won't approve. Well what would have happened to that kid 10 years ago before anybody had any therapy? What makes now so important?

    The company I worked at bought about 10 start-ups while I was there. Almost every one of them had a product that looked promising but was never viable in the market and the company was shut down. Every company operates under the same regulations so it really doesn't give anybody any advantage.

    You are an expert, and I agree with your point of view. But how come that the US have that kind of power grid (antiquated) and that kind of public transit (no fast-train network) and that relying on the overseas oil and on coal?
    “The share of Research & Development funded by the federal government now puts the United States in 29th place among nations. The United States is unlikely to suffer from a shortage of scientists, because most of what they do that is funded by American companies can readily be moved abroad. The problem is that the resulting economic impact will then also be abroad…”

    http://www.aaas.org/news/basic-research-needs-sustained-federal-investment-says-norman-augustine

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    You are an expert, and I agree with your point of view. But how come that the US have that kind of power grid (antiquated) and that kind of public transit (no fast-train network) and that relying on the overseas oil and on coal?

    The US has it's own unique problems. As for the power grid, nobody anywhere knows how bad their system is or how susceptible to an attack they are because none have happened yet. That is the only real test.

    The problems you state if they are true are due to the large size of the US compared to even a large European country like Germany. I took a train from Moscow to Bernaul in Russia so I wouldn't go using them.

    The US is too big for high speed rail and high speed rail would actually be more dangerous (derailment at 200 MPH) and costly (all new track laid) than an airplane and take too long (15 - 20 hours LA to NY) for the people who the airlines really profit from - business travelers.

    The power grid problem is also due to size because all the electric utilities are independent and operating in their own geographical area yet they all buy power from one another. Some operations are more profitable than others and the money for upgrades has to come from the rate payers.

    As for research funding, we just had this story of the female entrepreneur scammer who seems to be able to find money to develop her project. If money was as scare as people say this wouldn't be anywhere close to happening and neither would the many private space vehicle projects happening in the US right now. There is money everywhere for something that the technology seems to be able to support and can either save money or make it.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    Does that 29th place take account of defence (and offence!) research? Possibly the figures are skewed because a lot of US research for the military industrial complex is privately financed. It occurs to me that only the US is big and rich enough to rely on competitive private firms; also that the biggest military expebditure by far is bound to correlate with high research expenditure.

    As to oil: are you overlooking America's amazingly successful development of fracking?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Jason Liu says:

    “China’s rise was due to American greed.”

    A common and facile narrative. It is not solely a matter of greed (by definition, all corporations are greedy), it is a matter of corporate survival. No company can remain competitive without exploiting the cheapest labor possible, even if they didn’t want to. If it wasn’t Chinese labor, it would be labor somewhere else.

    The only way to combat this is to lower your own minimum wage, and that’s not gonna happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The only way to combat this is to lower your own minimum wage, and that’s not gonna happen.

    Uh no, you have tariffs and domestic content rules. If Walmart wants to bring in Chinese made goods let them but tax them so they cost more than the US made stuff at the local hardware store. I wonder what Walmart would do?

    I believe I read that even Netanyahu told Israeli businessmen that they need to stop using low cost Arab labor if they expect Israel to continue to be able to keep the place a Jewish majority country.
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    The only way to combat this is to lower your own minimum wage, and that’s not gonna happen.
     
    Not at all. Import duties and bans can handle the problem quite effectively. What cannot be handled effectively is the gross corruption of Congress and government by the rich.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. MarkinLA says:
    @annamaria
    You are an expert, and I agree with your point of view. But how come that the US have that kind of power grid (antiquated) and that kind of public transit (no fast-train network) and that relying on the overseas oil and on coal?
    "The share of Research & Development funded by the federal government now puts the United States in 29th place among nations. The United States is unlikely to suffer from a shortage of scientists, because most of what they do that is funded by American companies can readily be moved abroad. The problem is that the resulting economic impact will then also be abroad..."
    http://www.aaas.org/news/basic-research-needs-sustained-federal-investment-says-norman-augustine

    You are an expert, and I agree with your point of view. But how come that the US have that kind of power grid (antiquated) and that kind of public transit (no fast-train network) and that relying on the overseas oil and on coal?

    The US has it’s own unique problems. As for the power grid, nobody anywhere knows how bad their system is or how susceptible to an attack they are because none have happened yet. That is the only real test.

    The problems you state if they are true are due to the large size of the US compared to even a large European country like Germany. I took a train from Moscow to Bernaul in Russia so I wouldn’t go using them.

    The US is too big for high speed rail and high speed rail would actually be more dangerous (derailment at 200 MPH) and costly (all new track laid) than an airplane and take too long (15 – 20 hours LA to NY) for the people who the airlines really profit from – business travelers.

    The power grid problem is also due to size because all the electric utilities are independent and operating in their own geographical area yet they all buy power from one another. Some operations are more profitable than others and the money for upgrades has to come from the rate payers.

    As for research funding, we just had this story of the female entrepreneur scammer who seems to be able to find money to develop her project. If money was as scare as people say this wouldn’t be anywhere close to happening and neither would the many private space vehicle projects happening in the US right now. There is money everywhere for something that the technology seems to be able to support and can either save money or make it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @annamaria
    You are an expert, and I agree with your point of view. But how come that the US have that kind of power grid (antiquated) and that kind of public transit (no fast-train network) and that relying on the overseas oil and on coal?
    "The share of Research & Development funded by the federal government now puts the United States in 29th place among nations. The United States is unlikely to suffer from a shortage of scientists, because most of what they do that is funded by American companies can readily be moved abroad. The problem is that the resulting economic impact will then also be abroad..."
    http://www.aaas.org/news/basic-research-needs-sustained-federal-investment-says-norman-augustine

    Does that 29th place take account of defence (and offence!) research? Possibly the figures are skewed because a lot of US research for the military industrial complex is privately financed. It occurs to me that only the US is big and rich enough to rely on competitive private firms; also that the biggest military expebditure by far is bound to correlate with high research expenditure.

    As to oil: are you overlooking America’s amazingly successful development of fracking?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. MarkinLA says:
    @Jason Liu
    "China's rise was due to American greed."

    A common and facile narrative. It is not solely a matter of greed (by definition, all corporations are greedy), it is a matter of corporate survival. No company can remain competitive without exploiting the cheapest labor possible, even if they didn't want to. If it wasn't Chinese labor, it would be labor somewhere else.

    The only way to combat this is to lower your own minimum wage, and that's not gonna happen.

    The only way to combat this is to lower your own minimum wage, and that’s not gonna happen.

    Uh no, you have tariffs and domestic content rules. If Walmart wants to bring in Chinese made goods let them but tax them so they cost more than the US made stuff at the local hardware store. I wonder what Walmart would do?

    I believe I read that even Netanyahu told Israeli businessmen that they need to stop using low cost Arab labor if they expect Israel to continue to be able to keep the place a Jewish majority country.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @bach

    Uh no, you have tariffs and domestic content rules. If Walmart wants to bring in Chinese made goods let them but tax them so they cost more than the US made stuff at the local hardware store. I wonder what Walmart would do?
     
    Tariffs and import duties cannot be the answer. These are just bandages. And such policies compromise personal liberties.

    The question that must be asked is how corporations obtain the capital to make foreign investments. How do companies move en mass capital from one economy to another economy without causing ostensible deleterious effects on the first economy?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Rurik

    That is more than a little obvious. Great big resonating “Duh” for you there.

    Flight 93 was shot down by a fighter out of Pax River.
     
    Ok, so now the fool is prancing around and raving hysterics about planes being shot out of the sky.

    But the poor, pathetic fool doesn't' realize that saying the plane was shot out of the sky is playing into the hands and narrative of the 911 truthers, who have been saying all along that the official story is a crock, and now the fool is agreeing with them even as he plies his little shtick of naysaying those who're trying to get at the truth.

    it must be a scary world you inhabit, so full of contradictions and incongruities

    Ok, so now the fool is prancing around and raving hysterics about planes being shot out of the sky.

    Awww…did Ru-Ru get all mad because his nonsense is unsupported speculation? Does Ru-Ru get all pissy over facts not aligning with fantasies?

    That the AF shot down Flight 93 does not play into your conspiracy theory at all. That’s one of the big problems with conspiracy theories — they have to expand to take in all information, and add to the number of conspirators, conspiring agencies, etc. Fortunately for you half-baked kiddos, post hoc can always be manipulated into propter hoc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    That the AF shot down Flight 93 does not play into your conspiracy theory at all.
     
    bullshit

    it implies a major lie at the very heights of the federal government and media. All the stories about "let's roll" were all lies. President Bush saying "let's roll!", it was all a lie. All the stories about the plane crash in that existing gorge were all lies.

    From the very start those of us who've been paying attention have always known that they lied about flight 93 as well, but we've heard nothing but endless lies from the goons standing guard over the controlled narrative. The passengers heroically thwarted the terrorists when Mark Bingham said 'let's roll !" and heroically fought for control of the plane, ultimately causing its tragic crash in Shanksville, PA. They even made a movie about it!

    But now the fool come here and tries to tell us all that it was a fraud and all a lie and the jet was actually shot down. BUT! ALL the rest of it is all true to the last missing Pentagon video to the smirking chimp sitting in that classroom.

    Yea, right. Fool.
    , @Sam J.
    "...That the AF shot down Flight 93 does not play into your conspiracy theory at all. That’s one of the big problems with conspiracy theories — they have to expand to take in all information, and add to the number of conspirators, conspiring agencies, etc. Fortunately for you half-baked kiddos, post hoc can always be manipulated into propter hoc..."

    Nope. All we need is building #7. You people are the ones that keep bringing up a lot of other various theories.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Jason Liu
    "China's rise was due to American greed."

    A common and facile narrative. It is not solely a matter of greed (by definition, all corporations are greedy), it is a matter of corporate survival. No company can remain competitive without exploiting the cheapest labor possible, even if they didn't want to. If it wasn't Chinese labor, it would be labor somewhere else.

    The only way to combat this is to lower your own minimum wage, and that's not gonna happen.

    The only way to combat this is to lower your own minimum wage, and that’s not gonna happen.

    Not at all. Import duties and bans can handle the problem quite effectively. What cannot be handled effectively is the gross corruption of Congress and government by the rich.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Stonehands
    @ John Jeremiah Smith

    So your premise is that they most assuredly did lie about flight 93?
    ....But the 9/11 commission report is solid truth...
    That kinda makes you a douche, eh?

    So your premise is that they most assuredly did lie about flight 93?
    ….But the 9/11 commission report is solid truth…
    That kinda makes you a douche, eh?

    It means I know something you don’t, because I had access to information you did not. That Flight 93 was shot down is an open secret in the AF and NSA. They do their jobs and stick to the official story. So should you, as it appears you are inclined to do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @geokat62

    Just ask them [the “non-truthers”] if they would support a real investigation
     
    I support a real investigation.

    Pending that investigation, can any of you non non-truthers do me a favour and help me out by answering a question I'm struggling with? Why would those responsible for carrying out 9/11 (whoever they may be) want to target WTC 7?

    What possible significance could it have, given that it was the 38th tallest building in NYC at the time, especially in light of the other targets that were hit:

    WTC 1, WTC 2 - tallest buildings in NYC, symbols of world's financial capital on Wall St.

    Pentagon - symbol of world's leading military.

    Even though the specific target for Flight 93 is unknown, isn't it more plausible to assume that the intended target was either the WH or the CB, rather than the 38th tallest building in NYC?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City

    P.S. Rurik, hopefully you won't call me a "goat" this time around. As always, just striving to uncover the truth,

    Even though the specific target for Flight 93 is unknown, isn’t it more plausible to assume that the intended target was either the WH or the CB

    The intended target for Flight 93 was the White House. It would have made for more exciting television coverage, as the WH has a functional AA missile-rack. Assuming the designated crew was minimally competent, they could hardly miss at that range.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    The intended target for Flight 93 was the White House.
     
    yea, and you know this how?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @geokat62

    ... but I would like to know how “neo-liberalusm” came to be used as a smear.
     
    Ok, Wiz, since you insist. Here is my take: if we go back in time, "liberalism" in the traditional sense (i.e., the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economics) was the dominant ideology up until the stock market crash of 1929. But after the ensuing Great Depression, the faith in this ideology began to wane. Then Keynes comes along with his arguments for government intervention to help stimulate the economy and bring it out of this quagmire. But the "neo liberals" (especially Hayak) were always vehemently opposed to these policy prescriptions as they believed they would have the exact opposite affects and were pushing to reverse them.

    So, in the battle between Keynesianism and neo-liberalism, I believe three factors lead to its defeat and why it came to be used as a smear:

    1. After Keynesianism had run its course for a few decades, both Thatcher and Reagan arrive on the scene and are promoting the benefits of "trickle down economics." People initially believed there was some truth to this theory, but after a few decades of it being implemented, most came to realize they were sold a bill of goods.

    2. Have you heard of the Washington Consensus. This was "neo-liberalism" on steroids. The policy prescriptions associated with it were promoted many third world countries to ostensibly help them recover from a financial crisis they were mired in, but the end result was that they found themselves in even more difficulty than before. I believe that Perkin's Confessions of an Economic Hitman provides a more fulsome explanation as to how the program worked.

    3. The Great Recession of 2008. With the repeal of G-S an other legislation that was introduced after the crash of '29, the neo-liberals were convinced in Ayn Rand's concept of the self-regulating market, otherwise known as AG's blind spot. Well, we all know how effective those policy prescriptions turned out to be.

    So there you have it: 3 reasons why I believe the term "neo-liberalism" came to be used as a smear.

    Thanks. Convincing. Short of a meticulous citation, with explanation and elaboration, of early uses of the expression “neo-liberalism” that will serve very well.

    I’ve been defending Keynes against some mad Austrians and debt-phobic Treasury types since 2008 but in the course of that have had my own educational gaps fixed by, for example, reference to Irving Fisher on debt deflation as a major cause of the GFC’s lasting damage. (Mind you I don’t think the old chap who mentioned Fisher had heard of Minsky – who would have been applauded by Keynes). Despite Fisher being remembered for the “permanent plateau” he seems to have been a clever man who, like Keynes, could learn from mistakes and adapt to change in information. (Hayek to his credit described Keynes as the one great man he’d ever known. I suppose that counts in his, and Keynes’s, favour despite it being written to Keynes’s widow).

    While rattling on I have forgotten to ask what you think the distinctionis between neoliberal and neoclassical.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Jeff says:

    At the end you give away the root cause of the problem. It is not Capitalism per se. You mention the bubble in the University system. What is the root cause of this problem. You mention the conversion of everything into leveraged debt? What enables all of this?

    Capitalism was far more functional (if by functional you mean just and ripe with opportunity for anyone willing to take some risk) before 1913. What happened in 1913? Aside from removing any statehouse oversight of Congress and the beginnings of direct income taxes there is one institution that created debt. In fact, the entirety of America’s currency is it’s debt and government debt is it’s asset….

    Take a stab at the answer…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  114. @alexander
    " I'd take low IQ peasants any day over evangelical zionists"


    ...What's the difference?

    low IQ peasants are educable; the evangelical zionist brain is cast in concrete.

    Participants at the UNZ forum and activists who wish to remove zionist influence from American institutional dominance and change the situation of Palestinians in Israel, etc. would do well to take a lesson from Haim Saban wrt to “low IQ peasants.”

    Saban bought a radio – TV network whose audience is Hispanic (presumably included in the “low IQ” generalization). Saban has been working for years to indoctrinate “low IQ peasants” to slide seamlessly into the evangelical zionist camp.

    What have we activist been doing besides bemoaning the influence of Haim Saban and denigrating low IQ peasants?


    thought-on-a-tangent: Years ago I attended the naturalization ceremony for an Iranian friend. Today, my Iranian-American friend has organized other members of the Muslim community and opened a number of offices that assist Hispanics to learn to speak English. Something like Saban & Univision, my friend created an opportunity rather than damn the threats.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. alexander says:

    Dear Mr Roberts,

    When I look back over the last fifteen years…the most outstanding element to the collapse of our country…and much of the world……

    ….is Fraud.

    Fraud ,Mr Roberts,….mostly “Neocon” fraud.

    It seems its the power to defraud us..to defraud us into fear….to defraud us into hate…to defraud us out of peace….to defraud us into war….to defraud us out of “obscene” amounts of money…is their “raison d’etre”.

    Fraud…and perhaps the sheer level of impunity for having “defrauded us”…is what stands out as the signature elements that have harmed” most” our society , and what we need most, as a nation, to address.

    Lets take a look at the financial impact of that “fraud”on our nations balance sheet…and see where we could be, as opposed to where we are.

    In the year 2000 our GDP was 9.3 trillion and our national debt was 5.7 trillion.
    Today our GDP is 18.2 trillion and our national debt is a whopping 18.7 trillion.

    over a 15 year time span our GDP has less than doubled and our national debt has nearly quadrupled?

    On average per year, our government has spent close to a trillion dollars “more” than it has taken in.

    How much of that spending, Mr Roberts has been catalyzed by “Fraud”?

    These” Neocons” have not just defrauded “us”, they have defrauded future generations out of “their” money and” their” choice” ….their very ” chance” Mr Roberts,to do things differently….

    .How evil is that, Mr Roberts?

    How pernicious ?

    Is there a point in time, where” most” can agree, this trajectory toward insolvency began ?

    Perhaps, Mr Roberts, its at” Tora Bora” ?

    At that time,we could have made a “right turn” into Pakistan , and captured the “terrorists” who attacked us…but instead we made a” left turn” into Iraq..(and spent untold trillion of dollars we didn’t have ) destroying an entire nation that never attacked us at all.

    How stupid is that ?

    For me, as an American, it was” Tora Bora” .

    Tora Bora was the “signature ” moment when our government chose “not” to follow the mandate of” the people”…to bring to justice those that attacked us…but to initiate a war of aggression against those who didn’t.

    That for me, began the “unraveling”….the suspicion that our own government was no longer working for “us”, but against us…and for someone else.

    In time I learned who that someone was……….the” Neocons”.

    What if had we pursued Al Qaeda into Pakistan…and completed our mission there?

    We would have brought closure to every American who demanded it, and the families of all the 9-11 victims..who needed it.

    We could of had a celebration… a ticker tape parade for our “special forces” down 5th Avenue.

    An American ” ding dong the witch is dead” moment…and moved on with our lives in freedom, dignity and solvency.

    It would have capped our “war spending debt” at less than five percent of what it is today.

    We could have moved forward as a nation, intelligently.

    We could have allocated 50 billion a year more to counter “terrorism”. beefed up the FBI….
    and kept our military spending within its pre-existing purview.

    Imagine if we spent,” at most”, 100 billion a year beyond our” budget”..to fight the “war on terror….what would the numbers look like today?

    if you multiply” 100 billion” times fifteen years….Thats 1.5 trillion in accrued debt, over the same period in time…not 13 trillion.

    Given(to be fair) the horrific losses to the subprime fiasco(3 trillion)…that would put our collective accumulated debt over the same period,at close to 4.5 trillion not 13.

    All other things being equal,we would have a GDP today, of 18.2 trillion and a National debt, nearly “half” of what it is today…10 trillion dollars.

    Not great, mind you, but well within the debt to GDP” threshold” that underwrites the credit worthiness of our nation and the long term value of our treasury bonds.

    If we take “the fraud “out of the equation in the things we do, the things we stand for, and the things we fight for….we could become “ourselves” again, Mr Roberts, and give our future generations the fighting chance to become “better”…… than we are today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    when you finally come to understand the biblical level of betrayal that is the Federal Reserve Bank alexander, then you will have begun to glimmer the real depth of truly egregious fraud

    and the swindle of the people of this earth from their right to the ground beneath their very feet, to the waters that flow through it. Their futures and their progeny are being sold away to eternal debt slavery, and to the most intractable and deadliest of their enemies.

    When you come to finally understand the Fed, then I hope your blood will not chill like mine did, and your soul not be hardened by cynicism.

    There is life after the Fed, but only insofar as you see the struggle to bring than satanic eye or Mordor down, and the people of the planet to have some shred of hope for a future that isn't an Orwellian boot on all of our necks.

    Buy silver and gold (they're very cheap right now, especially silver), stay out of debt unless you're buying real-estate at very low rates, support the effort of the BRICs nations to find an alternative to the dollar. Wake people up.
    , @Junior

    Tora Bora was the “signature ” moment when our government chose “not” to follow the mandate of” the people”…to bring to justice those that attacked us…but to initiate a war of aggression against those who didn’t.
     
    Great point about Tora Bora being an eye-opening moment in which they revealed their hand, alexander.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. geokat62 says:

    … the distinctionis between neoliberal and neoclassical.

    Here’s an article by Sean Ross that may help explain the difference:

    While it may be likely that many neoliberal thinkers endorse the use of (or even emphasize) neoclassical economics, the two terms are not necessarily related. Neoliberalism branches into two separate arguments – one consequential and empirical, the other philosophical and normative. Consequentialist neoliberalism derives many of its arguments from the prescriptions of neoclassical economics, including smaller governments, free trade, private sector deregulation and fiscal responsibility in government.

    Neoclassical Economics as Science
    The neoclassical model of economic science was the first dominant metatheory in the field. It grew through notable economists such as Frederick Bastiat, Alfred Marshall, Jean-Baptiste Say and Leon Walras.

    A few fundamental assumptions are at play in the neoclassical theory that differentiate it from the older classical school. It is assumed that individual economic actors have rational preferences, that individuals seek to maximize utility and that decisions are made on the margin. Neoclassical economics gave birth to the perfect competition models of microeconomics.

    Neoclassicalism was the first strongly math-based school of economic thought, and it was eventually replaced by the even more mathematical Keynesian paradigm in the 1930s.

    Neoliberalism as Political Philosophy
    Neoclassical economics is most closely related to classical liberalism, the intellectual forefather of neoliberalism. In a sense, the neoliberal movement between 1960 and 1980 represented a partial return to the neoclassical assumptions about economic policy and partial rejection of the failed central planning arguments of the 1930s.

    As far as public policy is concerned, neoliberalism borrowed from the assumptions of neoclassical economics to argue for free trade, low taxes, low regulation and low government spending. It often deviated in terms of anti-trust and externality arguments.

    Neoliberalism does not have a set definition, although it has often been attributed to the policies of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States. It has also been attributed to 20th century economists Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek, although both men rejected the label; Friedman considered himself a classical liberal and Hayek argued from an Austrian perspective.

    Read more: How does neoclassical economics relate to neoliberalism? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/063015/how-does-neoclassical-economics-relate-neoliberalism.asp#ixzz3wCZ8pRn2

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. I'll absorb when I've returned from my script consultation with Dan Brown on a couple of matters I omitted in my conversations here with MarkinLA wrt 9/11 (q.v.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    Just ask them [the “non-truthers”] if they would support a real investigation
     
    I support a real investigation.

    Pending that investigation, can any of you non non-truthers do me a favour and help me out by answering a question I'm struggling with? Why would those responsible for carrying out 9/11 (whoever they may be) want to target WTC 7?

    What possible significance could it have, given that it was the 38th tallest building in NYC at the time, especially in light of the other targets that were hit:

    WTC 1, WTC 2 - tallest buildings in NYC, symbols of world's financial capital on Wall St.

    Pentagon - symbol of world's leading military.

    Even though the specific target for Flight 93 is unknown, isn't it more plausible to assume that the intended target was either the WH or the CB, rather than the 38th tallest building in NYC?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City

    P.S. Rurik, hopefully you won't call me a "goat" this time around. As always, just striving to uncover the truth,

    Why would those responsible for carrying out 9/11 (whoever they may be) want to target WTC 7?

    first off, it was done, obviously

    so now Geo you’re on the right track.. Why did they do it?

    Building seven was also known as the Salomon Brothers Building. Here’s a nice Wiki page on the kind of company the Salomon Brothers were.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_Brothers

    just go down and read about the bond scandal

    here’s a charming tidbit ..

    The firm’s top bond traders called themselves “Big Swinging Dicks,”

    Now here are some of the tenants of building seven on 911

    At the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m2) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.[6][35] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[35] Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[35] the New York City Office of Emergency Management,[36] National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[35] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[6]

    the big banks and federal government are hands down the biggest criminals and swindlers you’ll find anywhere. This was an opportunity to disappear a lot of evidence of on going SEC investigations and all sorts of evidence of perfidy and fraud. Also it could be used as the center of the planning and execution of 911 with zero questions asked of the kind of people who’d be working there, and then with the press of a button, all the evidence goes by by. And lucky Larry gets to claim one more loss! Perhaps be made a cool billion on that one alone ; )

    how’s that for a ‘why’, eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    This was an opportunity to disappear a lot of evidence of on going SEC investigations and all sorts of evidence of perfidy and fraud.
     
    Interesting hypothesis, Rurik. Curious to learn what level of confidence you attach to it.

    Not to get too fancy, but perhaps we could avail ourselves of WEPs or Words of Estimative Probability. WEPs are terms used by intelligence analysts in the production of analytic reports to convey the likelihood of a future event occurring. They express the extent of their confidence in the finding.

    So, which of the following WEPs would you attach to your hypothesis:

    Certain 100%
    Almost Certain 93%
    Probable 75%
    Chances About Even 50%
    Probably Not 30%
    Almost Certainly Not 7%
    Impossible 0%
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Rurik says:
    @MarkinLA
    Says,”…there was an explosion and the building came down…”

    When I was a kid in welding shop we had a hydraulic press used to test welds. These are the same presses you see Harbor Freight selling - basically a frame and a bottle jack. Some goof put a 1/2 inch thick piece of steel plate in it and kept cranking it up to see what would happen. All of a sudden the plate cracked and broke right down the middle exposing the crystalline structure of the steel and it sounded like a bomb went off.

    I have no doubt that as the load increases on the superstructure at places that that aren't as close to melting that some of those places would fail like that steel plate failed in shop class.

    a 1/2 inch thick piece of steel plate in it and kept cranking it up to see what would happen. All of a sudden the plate cracked and broke right down the middle exposing the crystalline structure of the steel and it sounded like a bomb went off.

    that wasn’t cold rolled steel Mark, that was cast iron

    the kind of steel that was used to construct the towers was a cold rolled steel. It’s the kind of steel that’s used in most construction for its strength and its price and it’s properties, being able to weld it and drill it and so forth. It doesn’t snap apart in a nice seam. It bends, and twists, like those beams you see of the wreckage of 911

    these pieces have been cut, either with thermite or an acetylene torch or somehow because cold rolled steel doesn’t brake in two like this.

    I happen to know a little about metallurgy, having worked with it and used it structurally in my profession. I understand its different properties instinctively. Steel, hi-carbon steel, cast iron, aluminum, brass, copper, pot metal, stainless steel, and on and on. I think it may be my familiarity with steel and its properties that sometimes makes me a little impatient with others who seem so incredibly credulous to the official narrative. I watch building seven fall and know it was brought down, because I understand how steel works, and what it takes to make it fail. So I fear I may have been too harsh with others who’re simply trying to figure it all out, seeing it all in ways that I can’t, having as I do my background.

    If so, then my sincere regrets and apologies..

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    It wasn't cast iron which is beyond the ability of high school welding classes to teach (I have never seen rod for welding cast iron in any classes I took). These were the same plates we used the motorized cutting torch to cut off practice samples for stick arc welding. I have seen the same kind of fractures in the shrapnel of exploded shells and they aren't cast iron.

    I know there are different steels and the difference in the carbon content determines how strong and brittle it is. Out here in earthquake country structural steel is probably not as as strong so it won't be brittle and crack in a earthquake. I just wonder what did people building skyscrapers in an area with no earthquakes think back in the 60s when this building was being designed. The stronger steel has the advantage of less weight something to consider when you are thinking about the foundation. This building wasn't built with the knowledge we have today of how to make practically any steel we want for any application.

    I don't know but I doubt anybody here does as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Rurik says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Ok, so now the fool is prancing around and raving hysterics about planes being shot out of the sky.
     
    Awww...did Ru-Ru get all mad because his nonsense is unsupported speculation? Does Ru-Ru get all pissy over facts not aligning with fantasies?

    That the AF shot down Flight 93 does not play into your conspiracy theory at all. That's one of the big problems with conspiracy theories -- they have to expand to take in all information, and add to the number of conspirators, conspiring agencies, etc. Fortunately for you half-baked kiddos, post hoc can always be manipulated into propter hoc.

    That the AF shot down Flight 93 does not play into your conspiracy theory at all.

    bullshit

    it implies a major lie at the very heights of the federal government and media. All the stories about “let’s roll” were all lies. President Bush saying “let’s roll!”, it was all a lie. All the stories about the plane crash in that existing gorge were all lies.

    From the very start those of us who’ve been paying attention have always known that they lied about flight 93 as well, but we’ve heard nothing but endless lies from the goons standing guard over the controlled narrative. The passengers heroically thwarted the terrorists when Mark Bingham said ‘let’s roll !” and heroically fought for control of the plane, ultimately causing its tragic crash in Shanksville, PA. They even made a movie about it!

    But now the fool come here and tries to tell us all that it was a fraud and all a lie and the jet was actually shot down. BUT! ALL the rest of it is all true to the last missing Pentagon video to the smirking chimp sitting in that classroom.

    Yea, right. Fool.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Rurik says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Even though the specific target for Flight 93 is unknown, isn’t it more plausible to assume that the intended target was either the WH or the CB
     
    The intended target for Flight 93 was the White House. It would have made for more exciting television coverage, as the WH has a functional AA missile-rack. Assuming the designated crew was minimally competent, they could hardly miss at that range.

    The intended target for Flight 93 was the White House.

    yea, and you know this how?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Rurik says:
    @alexander
    Dear Mr Roberts,


    When I look back over the last fifteen years...the most outstanding element to the collapse of our country...and much of the world......


    ....is Fraud.

    Fraud ,Mr Roberts,....mostly "Neocon" fraud.

    It seems its the power to defraud us..to defraud us into fear....to defraud us into hate...to defraud us out of peace....to defraud us into war....to defraud us out of "obscene" amounts of money...is their "raison d'etre".

    Fraud...and perhaps the sheer level of impunity for having "defrauded us"...is what stands out as the signature elements that have harmed" most" our society , and what we need most, as a nation, to address.

    Lets take a look at the financial impact of that "fraud"on our nations balance sheet...and see where we could be, as opposed to where we are.

    In the year 2000 our GDP was 9.3 trillion and our national debt was 5.7 trillion.
    Today our GDP is 18.2 trillion and our national debt is a whopping 18.7 trillion.

    over a 15 year time span our GDP has less than doubled and our national debt has nearly quadrupled?

    On average per year, our government has spent close to a trillion dollars "more" than it has taken in.

    How much of that spending, Mr Roberts has been catalyzed by "Fraud"?

    These" Neocons" have not just defrauded "us", they have defrauded future generations out of "their" money and" their" choice" ....their very " chance" Mr Roberts,to do things differently....

    .How evil is that, Mr Roberts?

    How pernicious ?


    Is there a point in time, where" most" can agree, this trajectory toward insolvency began ?

    Perhaps, Mr Roberts, its at" Tora Bora" ?

    At that time,we could have made a "right turn" into Pakistan , and captured the "terrorists" who attacked us...but instead we made a" left turn" into Iraq..(and spent untold trillion of dollars we didn't have ) destroying an entire nation that never attacked us at all.

    How stupid is that ?

    For me, as an American, it was" Tora Bora" .

    Tora Bora was the "signature " moment when our government chose "not" to follow the mandate of" the people"...to bring to justice those that attacked us...but to initiate a war of aggression against those who didn't.

    That for me, began the "unraveling"....the suspicion that our own government was no longer working for "us", but against us...and for someone else.

    In time I learned who that someone was..........the" Neocons".

    What if had we pursued Al Qaeda into Pakistan...and completed our mission there?

    We would have brought closure to every American who demanded it, and the families of all the 9-11 victims..who needed it.

    We could of had a celebration... a ticker tape parade for our "special forces" down 5th Avenue.

    An American " ding dong the witch is dead" moment...and moved on with our lives in freedom, dignity and solvency.

    It would have capped our "war spending debt" at less than five percent of what it is today.

    We could have moved forward as a nation, intelligently.

    We could have allocated 50 billion a year more to counter "terrorism". beefed up the FBI....
    and kept our military spending within its pre-existing purview.

    Imagine if we spent," at most", 100 billion a year beyond our" budget"..to fight the "war on terror....what would the numbers look like today?

    if you multiply" 100 billion" times fifteen years....Thats 1.5 trillion in accrued debt, over the same period in time...not 13 trillion.

    Given(to be fair) the horrific losses to the subprime fiasco(3 trillion)...that would put our collective accumulated debt over the same period,at close to 4.5 trillion not 13.

    All other things being equal,we would have a GDP today, of 18.2 trillion and a National debt, nearly "half" of what it is today...10 trillion dollars.

    Not great, mind you, but well within the debt to GDP" threshold" that underwrites the credit worthiness of our nation and the long term value of our treasury bonds.

    If we take "the fraud "out of the equation in the things we do, the things we stand for, and the things we fight for....we could become "ourselves" again, Mr Roberts, and give our future generations the fighting chance to become "better"...... than we are today.

    when you finally come to understand the biblical level of betrayal that is the Federal Reserve Bank alexander, then you will have begun to glimmer the real depth of truly egregious fraud

    and the swindle of the people of this earth from their right to the ground beneath their very feet, to the waters that flow through it. Their futures and their progeny are being sold away to eternal debt slavery, and to the most intractable and deadliest of their enemies.

    When you come to finally understand the Fed, then I hope your blood will not chill like mine did, and your soul not be hardened by cynicism.

    There is life after the Fed, but only insofar as you see the struggle to bring than satanic eye or Mordor down, and the people of the planet to have some shred of hope for a future that isn’t an Orwellian boot on all of our necks.

    Buy silver and gold (they’re very cheap right now, especially silver), stay out of debt unless you’re buying real-estate at very low rates, support the effort of the BRICs nations to find an alternative to the dollar. Wake people up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    You don't answer the nub of the difficulty facing you on this. If conspirators felt it necessary to achieve a clear connection with Arab terrorists who had highjacked planes to commit major outrages against buildings in NYC and DC why would they add to the chance that their plot would be discovered and publicised by blowing up WTC 7?

    As to your asbestos angle I have searched for World Trade Center asbestos and it appears that there was no compulsion for Larry Silverstein to remove the asbestos (which was only in floors 1-40 of the North Tower and would have cost about $200 million to remove). In fact the owner/builder the Port Authority had been wanting for many years to remove the asbestos at their insurers' expense, presumably to improve letability, but lost their 10 year case against the iinsurersand decided to sell.

    Hi Wizard,

    why would they add to the chance that their plot would be discovered and publicised by blowing up WTC 7?

    I’ve just answered this in a reply to Geo on this thread

    as to the asbestos, that’s what I’ve read. But I haven’t researched it extensively. There’s a lot of noise out there, but I understood it may have cost over a billion dollars to have it all removed properly with all the scaffolding and man hours and logistics in order to comply with the government standards for handling this dangerous material. (I wonder how many first responders and others have died from cancer from that event) And I didn’t need to get to the particulars of this issue to see the greater picture staring at me from the wreckage of building seven to the advance reports by the BBC of it’s collapse

    that report is a smoking gun that proves elements at the highest levels of the occupied west knew what was going down, and were complicit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. bach says:
    @MarkinLA
    The only way to combat this is to lower your own minimum wage, and that’s not gonna happen.

    Uh no, you have tariffs and domestic content rules. If Walmart wants to bring in Chinese made goods let them but tax them so they cost more than the US made stuff at the local hardware store. I wonder what Walmart would do?

    I believe I read that even Netanyahu told Israeli businessmen that they need to stop using low cost Arab labor if they expect Israel to continue to be able to keep the place a Jewish majority country.

    Uh no, you have tariffs and domestic content rules. If Walmart wants to bring in Chinese made goods let them but tax them so they cost more than the US made stuff at the local hardware store. I wonder what Walmart would do?

    Tariffs and import duties cannot be the answer. These are just bandages. And such policies compromise personal liberties.

    The question that must be asked is how corporations obtain the capital to make foreign investments. How do companies move en mass capital from one economy to another economy without causing ostensible deleterious effects on the first economy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    And such policies compromise personal liberties.

    Not another libertarian.

    The US is a country and things are done to benefit the great majority of people at the expense of a few - just like any large organization of people who care more about the community than themselves.

    The question that must be asked is how corporations obtain the capital to make foreign investments. How do companies move en mass capital from one economy to another economy without causing ostensible deleterious effects on the first economy?

    That question has been asked over and over again throughout history and the one answer that keeps coming up is tariffs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    Why would those responsible for carrying out 9/11 (whoever they may be) want to target WTC 7?
     
    first off, it was done, obviously

    so now Geo you're on the right track.. Why did they do it?

    Building seven was also known as the Salomon Brothers Building. Here's a nice Wiki page on the kind of company the Salomon Brothers were.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_Brothers

    just go down and read about the bond scandal

    here's a charming tidbit ..

    The firm's top bond traders called themselves "Big Swinging Dicks,"

    Now here are some of the tenants of building seven on 911

    At the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m2) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.[6][35] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[35] Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[35] the New York City Office of Emergency Management,[36] National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[35] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[6]

    the big banks and federal government are hands down the biggest criminals and swindlers you'll find anywhere. This was an opportunity to disappear a lot of evidence of on going SEC investigations and all sorts of evidence of perfidy and fraud. Also it could be used as the center of the planning and execution of 911 with zero questions asked of the kind of people who'd be working there, and then with the press of a button, all the evidence goes by by. And lucky Larry gets to claim one more loss! Perhaps be made a cool billion on that one alone ; )

    how's that for a 'why', eh?

    This was an opportunity to disappear a lot of evidence of on going SEC investigations and all sorts of evidence of perfidy and fraud.

    Interesting hypothesis, Rurik. Curious to learn what level of confidence you attach to it.

    Not to get too fancy, but perhaps we could avail ourselves of WEPs or Words of Estimative Probability. WEPs are terms used by intelligence analysts in the production of analytic reports to convey the likelihood of a future event occurring. They express the extent of their confidence in the finding.

    So, which of the following WEPs would you attach to your hypothesis:

    Certain 100%
    Almost Certain 93%
    Probable 75%
    Chances About Even 50%
    Probably Not 30%
    Almost Certainly Not 7%
    Impossible 0%

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik



    This was an opportunity to disappear a lot of evidence of on going SEC investigations and all sorts of evidence of perfidy and fraud.
     
    Interesting hypothesis, Rurik. Curious to learn what level of confidence you attach to it.
     
    I think, therefor I am' ~ of that I'm 100% certain, but then it all goes downhill from there

    by the time I was able to sit down at the computer again I've already noticed that JR has also replied to this question you ask regarding a reason for imploding building seven, and all the financial evidence of fraud and malfeasance that was destroyed, and also as I've mentioned, other reasons like using building seven for a staging point for the false flag attack on that day.

    What are the percentages of my certainty? Impossible to calculate unless we get super specific. Would they destroy a building to hide evidence of criminality? Of that I'm pretty much 100%

    Did they? I don't know. Was building seven imploded? There again, I'm pretty much at 100%.

    Why did they do it, and we're back to IDK.

    Check out JRs links. Good stuff!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @geokat62

    ... the distinctionis between neoliberal and neoclassical.
     
    Here's an article by Sean Ross that may help explain the difference:

    While it may be likely that many neoliberal thinkers endorse the use of (or even emphasize) neoclassical economics, the two terms are not necessarily related. Neoliberalism branches into two separate arguments – one consequential and empirical, the other philosophical and normative. Consequentialist neoliberalism derives many of its arguments from the prescriptions of neoclassical economics, including smaller governments, free trade, private sector deregulation and fiscal responsibility in government.

    Neoclassical Economics as Science
    The neoclassical model of economic science was the first dominant metatheory in the field. It grew through notable economists such as Frederick Bastiat, Alfred Marshall, Jean-Baptiste Say and Leon Walras.

    A few fundamental assumptions are at play in the neoclassical theory that differentiate it from the older classical school. It is assumed that individual economic actors have rational preferences, that individuals seek to maximize utility and that decisions are made on the margin. Neoclassical economics gave birth to the perfect competition models of microeconomics.

    Neoclassicalism was the first strongly math-based school of economic thought, and it was eventually replaced by the even more mathematical Keynesian paradigm in the 1930s.

    Neoliberalism as Political Philosophy
    Neoclassical economics is most closely related to classical liberalism, the intellectual forefather of neoliberalism. In a sense, the neoliberal movement between 1960 and 1980 represented a partial return to the neoclassical assumptions about economic policy and partial rejection of the failed central planning arguments of the 1930s.

    As far as public policy is concerned, neoliberalism borrowed from the assumptions of neoclassical economics to argue for free trade, low taxes, low regulation and low government spending. It often deviated in terms of anti-trust and externality arguments.

    Neoliberalism does not have a set definition, although it has often been attributed to the policies of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States. It has also been attributed to 20th century economists Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek, although both men rejected the label; Friedman considered himself a classical liberal and Hayek argued from an Austrian perspective.


    Read more: How does neoclassical economics relate to neoliberalism? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/063015/how-does-neoclassical-economics-relate-neoliberalism.asp#ixzz3wCZ8pRn2
     

    Thanks. I’ll absorb when I’ve returned from my script consultation with Dan Brown on a couple of matters I omitted in my conversations here with MarkinLA wrt 9/11 (q.v.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @MarkinLA
    You didn't need to bring down buildings to start a war. You simply had to catch the Muslims in the act and stop them and ramp up the howling in the media. If the sky Marshalls had tackled them and they blew up a grenade in the plane with their plans to take down the buildings left in a car, that would have been enough for the AIPAC shills to get their war.

    This is where the conspiracy theories get lost. Never do more than you have to because the bigger it is the more people that have to be in on it and the more difficult it is to keep secret.

    Sorry, in my haste at #90 I forgot about matters Dan Brown has just reminded me of in a kindly paternal script consultation he has volunteered.

    Actually he directed me to a very interesting BBC Editors web page of 2008 where the nonsense about the BBC’s Jane S reporting the collapse of WTC7 prematurely is easily dismissed as a typical media snafu resulting from what firemen were saying would happen getting for a while in a garbled form into a Reuter news feed. Also the automatic dropping of the satellite feed during her broadcast because the prearranged elapsed time had expired.

    But I was reminded of Chomsky’s point about it being extremely odd that the US government should choose nationals of its ally Saudi Arabia to set up as the terrorists. Indeed, and that shows how clever the plotters were. Not being the government’s Saudi lovers, or indeed those with the closest oil ties to Saudi Arabia it was very smart to focus mostly on young Saudis with their presumptive ties to Osama bin Laden. Planned obfuscation that even took in the genius of Chomsky!

    Then there were the put and call options especially on American Airlines, UA, Citibank and defence contractors in the days immediately preceding 9/11 which of course the plotters noticed. It scared them rigid that there had been leaks (and they were much relieved subsequently when thorough investigations, of which the Wiki account is convincing, cleared the buyers and sellers of suspicion) And it made sure that their own recouping of costs on the markets was carefully modest and mostly confined to plain vanilla index futures and options contracts in unremarkable amounts randomly timed. The movements in all indices were after all going to be large enough to make up for modest volumes. I understand though that the movement up in gold was a bit disappointing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    BBC Editors web page of 2008 where the nonsense about the BBC’s Jane S reporting the collapse of WTC7 prematurely is easily dismissed as a typical media snafu
     
    like "sexed up dossiers" as a cause for waging aggressive wars, huh?

    when they reported the building falling before it did, they reported on an event that even today people can't explain

    how was an event that was impossible to predict and even now is incomprehensible, something that could be predicted and even reported on at the top of the Western media's flag ship news organization unless the person who handed the reporters the story knew building seven was going to fall that day, eh Wizard?

    here's a nice gif I got from one of JR's links about building seven

    http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/gifts/gse_multipart5707.gif
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. bondo says:

    check out archives soldier magazine (official mag of u.s. army) sept 2011. anniversary issue.

    pic of hole through C ring.

    silo shape at dirt level.

    E ring outer, then D, then C.

    no plane did this.

    i think photo known in some circles but rarely mentioned

    would link but unable to connect

    Read More
    • Replies: @bondo
    courtesy of blogsite "goon squad"


    http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2015/09/why-passenger-jet-did-not-crash-into.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @geokat62

    Just ask them [the “non-truthers”] if they would support a real investigation
     
    I support a real investigation.

    Pending that investigation, can any of you non non-truthers do me a favour and help me out by answering a question I'm struggling with? Why would those responsible for carrying out 9/11 (whoever they may be) want to target WTC 7?

    What possible significance could it have, given that it was the 38th tallest building in NYC at the time, especially in light of the other targets that were hit:

    WTC 1, WTC 2 - tallest buildings in NYC, symbols of world's financial capital on Wall St.

    Pentagon - symbol of world's leading military.

    Even though the specific target for Flight 93 is unknown, isn't it more plausible to assume that the intended target was either the WH or the CB, rather than the 38th tallest building in NYC?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City

    P.S. Rurik, hopefully you won't call me a "goat" this time around. As always, just striving to uncover the truth,

    Why would those responsible for carrying out 9/11 (whoever they may be) want to target WTC 7?

    I agree with you, geo, that a real investigation needs to be done. I don’t profess to know exactly the reasons for what happened on 9/11 with why building 7, but I know that it stinks to high heaven and that we haven’t been told the truth about it. One possible reason was that Building 7 housed the enforcement office of the Securities and Exchange Commission as Rurik stated. I don’t think the SEC was an intended target, per se, as much as a “might as well” opportunity taken by some bastards in the know who saw a chance to make some extra blood money while staging the “new Pearl Harbor” on America. The “War on Terror” industry was the main goal, the chance at covering up of criminal financial gain was an added bonus.

    Maybe 7 had something to do with covering up the billions in suspicious trading that took place immediately before the attack that we haven’t heard about since, or maybe something to do with the investigations into the IPO kickbacks that the Investment Banks were making but ended up settling for pennies on the dollars due to the delays and the banks obstruction, or maybe something to do with the covering up of the Pentagons missing 2.3 trillion, or maybe something to do with hiding the paper trail of gun-running-drug-smuggling-frauds by the CIA… Who knows? Maybe none of them. Maybe all of them. I’m not exactly sure what the reason is behind the stench, but I know that when it comes to Building 7, something is definitely rotten in the state of Denmark.

    Here’s an article from the Wall Street Journal on the SEC Enforcement Office being destroyed in Building 7:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000348229290230479

    Here’s an article on Citigroup claiming that all their information for the SEC IPO probe conveniently having all been lost in 9/11:

    http://www.thestreet.com/markets/matthewgoldstein/10036925.html

    Here’s an interesting thread from the Democratic Underground in which people ask your exact question also. There are some interesting comments about the financial cover-ups angle for why 7:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125×237013

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @alexander
    Dear Mr Roberts,


    When I look back over the last fifteen years...the most outstanding element to the collapse of our country...and much of the world......


    ....is Fraud.

    Fraud ,Mr Roberts,....mostly "Neocon" fraud.

    It seems its the power to defraud us..to defraud us into fear....to defraud us into hate...to defraud us out of peace....to defraud us into war....to defraud us out of "obscene" amounts of money...is their "raison d'etre".

    Fraud...and perhaps the sheer level of impunity for having "defrauded us"...is what stands out as the signature elements that have harmed" most" our society , and what we need most, as a nation, to address.

    Lets take a look at the financial impact of that "fraud"on our nations balance sheet...and see where we could be, as opposed to where we are.

    In the year 2000 our GDP was 9.3 trillion and our national debt was 5.7 trillion.
    Today our GDP is 18.2 trillion and our national debt is a whopping 18.7 trillion.

    over a 15 year time span our GDP has less than doubled and our national debt has nearly quadrupled?

    On average per year, our government has spent close to a trillion dollars "more" than it has taken in.

    How much of that spending, Mr Roberts has been catalyzed by "Fraud"?

    These" Neocons" have not just defrauded "us", they have defrauded future generations out of "their" money and" their" choice" ....their very " chance" Mr Roberts,to do things differently....

    .How evil is that, Mr Roberts?

    How pernicious ?


    Is there a point in time, where" most" can agree, this trajectory toward insolvency began ?

    Perhaps, Mr Roberts, its at" Tora Bora" ?

    At that time,we could have made a "right turn" into Pakistan , and captured the "terrorists" who attacked us...but instead we made a" left turn" into Iraq..(and spent untold trillion of dollars we didn't have ) destroying an entire nation that never attacked us at all.

    How stupid is that ?

    For me, as an American, it was" Tora Bora" .

    Tora Bora was the "signature " moment when our government chose "not" to follow the mandate of" the people"...to bring to justice those that attacked us...but to initiate a war of aggression against those who didn't.

    That for me, began the "unraveling"....the suspicion that our own government was no longer working for "us", but against us...and for someone else.

    In time I learned who that someone was..........the" Neocons".

    What if had we pursued Al Qaeda into Pakistan...and completed our mission there?

    We would have brought closure to every American who demanded it, and the families of all the 9-11 victims..who needed it.

    We could of had a celebration... a ticker tape parade for our "special forces" down 5th Avenue.

    An American " ding dong the witch is dead" moment...and moved on with our lives in freedom, dignity and solvency.

    It would have capped our "war spending debt" at less than five percent of what it is today.

    We could have moved forward as a nation, intelligently.

    We could have allocated 50 billion a year more to counter "terrorism". beefed up the FBI....
    and kept our military spending within its pre-existing purview.

    Imagine if we spent," at most", 100 billion a year beyond our" budget"..to fight the "war on terror....what would the numbers look like today?

    if you multiply" 100 billion" times fifteen years....Thats 1.5 trillion in accrued debt, over the same period in time...not 13 trillion.

    Given(to be fair) the horrific losses to the subprime fiasco(3 trillion)...that would put our collective accumulated debt over the same period,at close to 4.5 trillion not 13.

    All other things being equal,we would have a GDP today, of 18.2 trillion and a National debt, nearly "half" of what it is today...10 trillion dollars.

    Not great, mind you, but well within the debt to GDP" threshold" that underwrites the credit worthiness of our nation and the long term value of our treasury bonds.

    If we take "the fraud "out of the equation in the things we do, the things we stand for, and the things we fight for....we could become "ourselves" again, Mr Roberts, and give our future generations the fighting chance to become "better"...... than we are today.

    Tora Bora was the “signature ” moment when our government chose “not” to follow the mandate of” the people”…to bring to justice those that attacked us…but to initiate a war of aggression against those who didn’t.

    Great point about Tora Bora being an eye-opening moment in which they revealed their hand, alexander.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    This was an opportunity to disappear a lot of evidence of on going SEC investigations and all sorts of evidence of perfidy and fraud.
     
    Interesting hypothesis, Rurik. Curious to learn what level of confidence you attach to it.

    Not to get too fancy, but perhaps we could avail ourselves of WEPs or Words of Estimative Probability. WEPs are terms used by intelligence analysts in the production of analytic reports to convey the likelihood of a future event occurring. They express the extent of their confidence in the finding.

    So, which of the following WEPs would you attach to your hypothesis:

    Certain 100%
    Almost Certain 93%
    Probable 75%
    Chances About Even 50%
    Probably Not 30%
    Almost Certainly Not 7%
    Impossible 0%

    This was an opportunity to disappear a lot of evidence of on going SEC investigations and all sorts of evidence of perfidy and fraud.

    Interesting hypothesis, Rurik. Curious to learn what level of confidence you attach to it.

    I think, therefor I am’ ~ of that I’m 100% certain, but then it all goes downhill from there

    by the time I was able to sit down at the computer again I’ve already noticed that JR has also replied to this question you ask regarding a reason for imploding building seven, and all the financial evidence of fraud and malfeasance that was destroyed, and also as I’ve mentioned, other reasons like using building seven for a staging point for the false flag attack on that day.

    What are the percentages of my certainty? Impossible to calculate unless we get super specific. Would they destroy a building to hide evidence of criminality? Of that I’m pretty much 100%

    Did they? I don’t know. Was building seven imploded? There again, I’m pretty much at 100%.

    Why did they do it, and we’re back to IDK.

    Check out JRs links. Good stuff!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Sorry, in my haste at #90 I forgot about matters Dan Brown has just reminded me of in a kindly paternal script consultation he has volunteered.

    Actually he directed me to a very interesting BBC Editors web page of 2008 where the nonsense about the BBC's Jane S reporting the collapse of WTC7 prematurely is easily dismissed as a typical media snafu resulting from what firemen were saying would happen getting for a while in a garbled form into a Reuter news feed. Also the automatic dropping of the satellite feed during her broadcast because the prearranged elapsed time had expired.

    But I was reminded of Chomsky's point about it being extremely odd that the US government should choose nationals of its ally Saudi Arabia to set up as the terrorists. Indeed, and that shows how clever the plotters were. Not being the government's Saudi lovers, or indeed those with the closest oil ties to Saudi Arabia it was very smart to focus mostly on young Saudis with their presumptive ties to Osama bin Laden. Planned obfuscation that even took in the genius of Chomsky!

    Then there were the put and call options especially on American Airlines, UA, Citibank and defence contractors in the days immediately preceding 9/11 which of course the plotters noticed. It scared them rigid that there had been leaks (and they were much relieved subsequently when thorough investigations, of which the Wiki account is convincing, cleared the buyers and sellers of suspicion) And it made sure that their own recouping of costs on the markets was carefully modest and mostly confined to plain vanilla index futures and options contracts in unremarkable amounts randomly timed. The movements in all indices were after all going to be large enough to make up for modest volumes. I understand though that the movement up in gold was a bit disappointing.

    BBC Editors web page of 2008 where the nonsense about the BBC’s Jane S reporting the collapse of WTC7 prematurely is easily dismissed as a typical media snafu

    like “sexed up dossiers” as a cause for waging aggressive wars, huh?

    when they reported the building falling before it did, they reported on an event that even today people can’t explain

    how was an event that was impossible to predict and even now is incomprehensible, something that could be predicted and even reported on at the top of the Western media’s flag ship news organization unless the person who handed the reporters the story knew building seven was going to fall that day, eh Wizard?

    here’s a nice gif I got from one of JR’s links about building seven

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Sam J. says:
    @MarkinLA
    Says,”…there was an explosion and the building came down…”

    When I was a kid in welding shop we had a hydraulic press used to test welds. These are the same presses you see Harbor Freight selling - basically a frame and a bottle jack. Some goof put a 1/2 inch thick piece of steel plate in it and kept cranking it up to see what would happen. All of a sudden the plate cracked and broke right down the middle exposing the crystalline structure of the steel and it sounded like a bomb went off.

    I have no doubt that as the load increases on the superstructure at places that that aren't as close to melting that some of those places would fail like that steel plate failed in shop class.

    Notice you took one small portion of a post. Mind explaining how that kid with the bottle jack relates to a building falling the same speed as a bowling ball in free air for 10 stories when only 3 or 4 floors can be seen on fire? Look at the video. The way the building fell was impossible. Not unlikely. Impossible.

    I haven’ even talked about the hoards, masses, and tons of other information that show the buildings were demolished. Really don’t need to as the manner of buildings 1, 2 and 7 are impossible. I just focus on #7 because even to the average person it is impossible.

    People who dispute the function of gravity must at least explain themselves. A building can’t fall as if it had NO SUPPORT unless…it had NO SUPPORT.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Mind explaining how that kid with the bottle jack relates to a building falling the same speed as a bowling ball in free air for 10 stories when only 3 or 4 floors can be seen on fire?

    I didn't realize somebody dropped a bowling ball from one of the windows when the building started to collapse or how else would you have known that?

    How do you know it was in freefall and not 999/1000 of freefall? This idea that it can't be in freefall is based on what? The strength of the welds holding one single floor? That is nothing compared to the weight of the 20 floors above it coming down. What do you think would happen if you could slowly cut each of those 20 floors from the superstructure and place them on top of that floor? Do you think the welds holding that floor could support that weight? Once that mass at the top starts coming down it it gaining momentum and that is multiplying the force caused by the weight of those floors many times.

    The debris from the other buildings fans out once it hits the ground and could easily take out another buildings foundation. I haven't really paid any attention to this conspiracy stuff because it would require far too many people to pull off (you are not talking hundreds but thousands) and somebody would have come clean long before now in order to stop the deaths or make himself a lot of money.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Sam J. says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Ok, so now the fool is prancing around and raving hysterics about planes being shot out of the sky.
     
    Awww...did Ru-Ru get all mad because his nonsense is unsupported speculation? Does Ru-Ru get all pissy over facts not aligning with fantasies?

    That the AF shot down Flight 93 does not play into your conspiracy theory at all. That's one of the big problems with conspiracy theories -- they have to expand to take in all information, and add to the number of conspirators, conspiring agencies, etc. Fortunately for you half-baked kiddos, post hoc can always be manipulated into propter hoc.

    “…That the AF shot down Flight 93 does not play into your conspiracy theory at all. That’s one of the big problems with conspiracy theories — they have to expand to take in all information, and add to the number of conspirators, conspiring agencies, etc. Fortunately for you half-baked kiddos, post hoc can always be manipulated into propter hoc…”

    Nope. All we need is building #7. You people are the ones that keep bringing up a lot of other various theories.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. AmericanaCON [AKA "BostonianConservative"] says:

    You will be surprised how little people understand basic economics or the struggle among the less fortuned among the middle class. I recently joined an extended family dinner and had to listen to my aunt. My aunt is typical for white middle class liberals. Just like Bernie Sanders she describes herself as a “Social Democrat” just like Bernie Sanders. She was a school teacher for decades in a very white and very liberal primary school. When her two children went to college she acquired a PhD in child psychology. She works as a School Psychologist in a very white middle class primary school. She lives with her husband (a school teacher) in a big old house outside Burlington.

    They used to live in Boston but moved twenty years ago for recreational reasons. They are in their sixties and will soon retire. For my aunt globalization is a gift because it allows her to travel and experience different cultures. Globalization naturally entails immigration to Western countries.

    She enjoys migrants (regardless of numbers) coming to United States because it allows her to visit exiting carnivals, experience different food items and practice her Spanish when she visit Boston. Free trade is great because it allows her to find cheaper products in the grocery store. As I listen to her she showed no understanding of outsourcing or that unrestricted immigration push wages down.

    If you criticize globalization you actually promote racism she said. Unemployment is not the cause of globalization but because of fascist politics in second and third world countries (mentioned Poland and Hungary as an example as they both have National-Conservative governments), George W. Bush (she was not able to give an example of what he had done to cause unemployment) and not enough protection of domestic and foreign workers.

    She argued; if we just raise salaries for people who have a job there would automatically create more opportunities. She mentioned herself (as staunch member of the teachers union) with a “horrible” 65K salary paid by government. If she just had a better salary it would increase her consumption and so more people would be able to find employment. The real threat she said are the Republicans which want to make young workers compete with older workers with wages and pensions rather than knowledge.

    In the end unemployment was really not a really an issue she said. My aunt told me that if illegal migrants was able to find employment than everybody ought to be able to find employment. She used herself as an example of someone who had to struggle to find employment. She told me that she had work for a year as a teacher (her former profession) in the same primary school she had previously worked after she received her PhD.

    She then worked for a few months in a private school in New Hampshire (NH) as a councilor (to gain experience) before her old employer gave her a job as a councilor. She has more or less worked for same school for more than twenty years. I asked her how many jobs she had applied to. She said she had applied to maybe five positions during that year she was still working as a teacher – all of them but one in the same county or surrounding counties. Leaving Vermont was of course never an option.

    When pressed by underunemployment among college graduates (with is staggering all over the planet) she said that there is really nothing wrong with young college graduates working in retail or driving cabs. Such talk is just demeaning to the working class which mainly holds these jobs she said. College/university graduates in retail build their skills she continued.

    I asked her how an M.D working in retail is “building his/her skills” and if she could mention any hospital that would prefer an M.D with ten years of retail experience but never practiced medicine over a M.D. with five years experiences working as an M.D.

    She had of course no answer. She didn’t connect that she just moments ago had said that she had to move to NH to gain experience within her field and that was the key (I would guess) that would eventually give her a job within her field. I asked my aunt why we educate people if there are no jobs. Once against she had no answer because she had never reflected over the matter. Lastly, I wondered what will become of the working class if people with college degrees take their jobs because they cannot be gainfully employed within their field. I received no answer at all.

    Her husband entered the discussion and said that if we just introduced “free education” college and university graduates wouldn’t have to worry about repaying their debt. I told him that even in Scandinavia young people tend to take student loans, suffer from underunemployment/unemployment and that he really had not addressed the issue. I also explain that individuals which become underunemployed (just as unemployed) tend to become depressive which is a growing research field.

    My aunt (and her husband) responds that knowledge is an intrinsic value and can (more or less) only be accumulated through formal education. It really didn’t matter if we were wasting human and financial resources.

    Angry college educated youth unemployed/underunemployed had just a bad attitude she said. They should simply just accept the situation, the norms of the society they live in and that accept that life is unfair. They showed no sympathy at all for the many millions Americans which have seen their lives ruined – many young Americans.

    I think one of the reasons why liberals feel so much discomfort in post-Reagan era is that they do not understand the contemporary society they live in. Liberalism (and socialism) has become an ideology for the comfortable middle class and insiders in government and large corporations. They are a protected class which are more than happy to make it difficult for outsiders (people willing to work longer hours for less salary) to compete for their jobs. They don’t care about illegal immigration working for pennies because they are not Construction workers. They don’t care about college graduates and industrial workers which see their jobs disappear through outsourcing to India.

    They don’t care that their own corporations or government institutions has older and older workers. In fact – they seem happy about it and see to that their own is hired and not some hungry newly graduate working long hours for nothing. I think the younger generation will turn to right-libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, national-conservatism and nationalism. They have no choice because the current elite and middle class (which largely and club for the elderly) do not cut them in. I think the elites have really outdone them this time. Social conflicts now run through entire families. Young against old and rich against poor…

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Young against old and rich against poor..." Sadly, true.
    "Liberalism (and socialism) has become an ideology for the comfortable middle class and insiders in government and large corporations." Correct. People entrenched within the large corporations and financial sector have been living a dream of a welfare state. A minor addition: the US have become a nation of managers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. MarkinLA says:
    @bach

    Uh no, you have tariffs and domestic content rules. If Walmart wants to bring in Chinese made goods let them but tax them so they cost more than the US made stuff at the local hardware store. I wonder what Walmart would do?
     
    Tariffs and import duties cannot be the answer. These are just bandages. And such policies compromise personal liberties.

    The question that must be asked is how corporations obtain the capital to make foreign investments. How do companies move en mass capital from one economy to another economy without causing ostensible deleterious effects on the first economy?

    And such policies compromise personal liberties.

    Not another libertarian.

    The US is a country and things are done to benefit the great majority of people at the expense of a few – just like any large organization of people who care more about the community than themselves.

    The question that must be asked is how corporations obtain the capital to make foreign investments. How do companies move en mass capital from one economy to another economy without causing ostensible deleterious effects on the first economy?

    That question has been asked over and over again throughout history and the one answer that keeps coming up is tariffs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bach

    Not another libertarian. The US is a country and things are done to benefit the great majority of people at the expense of a few – just like any large organization of people who care more about the community than themselves.

     

    Not preaching libertarian trade policies, but selective tariffs informed by a few powerful lobbies and industries aren't the answer.

    I'm not against tariffs, but if we do have tariffs, it must be based on a bigger logic that cannot be gamed by politicians and interest groups.

    The question that must be asked is how corporations obtain the capital to make foreign investments. How do companies move en mass capital from one economy to another economy without causing ostensible deleterious effects on the first economy?

    That question has been asked over and over again throughout history and the one answer that keeps coming up is tariffs.
     
    No, I wasn't asking for the solution, but the cause.

    I've been playing devil's advocate, but let me cut to the chase and answer my own question.

    At bottom, it is the financialization of our economy that lies at the root of factories, manufacturing, jobs, and businesses moving overseas with the speed and force that we have.

    When an economy is financialized by central banks, Wall St./banking push out real jobs the way bad money drives out the good according to Gresham's law.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. There seems to be little place for human fallibility or simple errors of communication in your Manichaean world view. My imagination has no problem with someone telling the original recorder of an error which got to Reuters which passed it on to the BBC and others. “WTC 7 will be down by now judging from what the firemen who’ve given up on it told my colleague”. Then, in reply, “did you say this other building – WTC 7 – has collapsed too?” “Well that would be right if you can believe what came from the firemen”. At which point the listener turns to a colleague and says “apparently its not just the towers but building 7″ and so on till someone thinks the story is clear enough and doesn’t want to be the goose that reports that “WTC 7 is likely to be another target destroyed” and have someone jeer at him “Duh, Reuters News Service last with the news! It came down half an hour ago”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  137. MarkinLA says:
    @Rurik

    a 1/2 inch thick piece of steel plate in it and kept cranking it up to see what would happen. All of a sudden the plate cracked and broke right down the middle exposing the crystalline structure of the steel and it sounded like a bomb went off.
     
    that wasn't cold rolled steel Mark, that was cast iron

    the kind of steel that was used to construct the towers was a cold rolled steel. It's the kind of steel that's used in most construction for its strength and its price and it's properties, being able to weld it and drill it and so forth. It doesn't snap apart in a nice seam. It bends, and twists, like those beams you see of the wreckage of 911

    http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2011/wtc_steel/wtc_steel_01.jpg

    these pieces have been cut, either with thermite or an acetylene torch or somehow because cold rolled steel doesn't brake in two like this.

    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01477/girders_1477867i.jpg

    I happen to know a little about metallurgy, having worked with it and used it structurally in my profession. I understand its different properties instinctively. Steel, hi-carbon steel, cast iron, aluminum, brass, copper, pot metal, stainless steel, and on and on. I think it may be my familiarity with steel and its properties that sometimes makes me a little impatient with others who seem so incredibly credulous to the official narrative. I watch building seven fall and know it was brought down, because I understand how steel works, and what it takes to make it fail. So I fear I may have been too harsh with others who're simply trying to figure it all out, seeing it all in ways that I can't, having as I do my background.

    If so, then my sincere regrets and apologies..

    It wasn’t cast iron which is beyond the ability of high school welding classes to teach (I have never seen rod for welding cast iron in any classes I took). These were the same plates we used the motorized cutting torch to cut off practice samples for stick arc welding. I have seen the same kind of fractures in the shrapnel of exploded shells and they aren’t cast iron.

    I know there are different steels and the difference in the carbon content determines how strong and brittle it is. Out here in earthquake country structural steel is probably not as as strong so it won’t be brittle and crack in a earthquake. I just wonder what did people building skyscrapers in an area with no earthquakes think back in the 60s when this building was being designed. The stronger steel has the advantage of less weight something to consider when you are thinking about the foundation. This building wasn’t built with the knowledge we have today of how to make practically any steel we want for any application.

    I don’t know but I doubt anybody here does as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    I have seen the same kind of fractures in the shrapnel of exploded shells and they aren’t cast iron.
     
    I don't know that much about assorted munitions

    All of a sudden the plate cracked and broke right down the middle exposing the crystalline structure of the steel
     
    - but this sound exactly like cast iron. Steel bends and although it can break, it doesn't''t typically bust on a seam, but fractures and cracks unevenly. Especially in a hydraulic press. On a shear or a punch-press, it's different.

    but all that is academic, we don't need to understand the minutia of metallurgy to understand that steel frame skyscrapers don't plop, or flop into their basements at free-fall speed when there's an office fire or two. If they did, then every single hi-rise in the world would be examined and re-engineered to prevent this kind of thing, but they aren't, are they? Because just like with the Dubai building, engineers know they can take the heat, and they know what was done on 911. And some of them have come forward and said it doesn't add up.

    What does add up is that elements inside the Israeli government (crazed Jewish supremacists) and assorted neocons here wanted to use the American military as it golem to go smash the countries in the Middle East who were not under their control, like Jordan is for example. But Saddam's Iraq was not, and so these psychopaths decided to plan their own little Pearl Harbor to get us all in the mood to fight each other. A cataclysmic war of the West agasint Islam, with gentiles getting slaughtered right and left, and a handful of men getting fantastically wealthy off the carnage. Such a deal
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. MarkinLA says:
    @Sam J.
    Notice you took one small portion of a post. Mind explaining how that kid with the bottle jack relates to a building falling the same speed as a bowling ball in free air for 10 stories when only 3 or 4 floors can be seen on fire? Look at the video. The way the building fell was impossible. Not unlikely. Impossible.

    I haven' even talked about the hoards, masses, and tons of other information that show the buildings were demolished. Really don't need to as the manner of buildings 1, 2 and 7 are impossible. I just focus on #7 because even to the average person it is impossible.

    People who dispute the function of gravity must at least explain themselves. A building can't fall as if it had NO SUPPORT unless...it had NO SUPPORT.

    Mind explaining how that kid with the bottle jack relates to a building falling the same speed as a bowling ball in free air for 10 stories when only 3 or 4 floors can be seen on fire?

    I didn’t realize somebody dropped a bowling ball from one of the windows when the building started to collapse or how else would you have known that?

    How do you know it was in freefall and not 999/1000 of freefall? This idea that it can’t be in freefall is based on what? The strength of the welds holding one single floor? That is nothing compared to the weight of the 20 floors above it coming down. What do you think would happen if you could slowly cut each of those 20 floors from the superstructure and place them on top of that floor? Do you think the welds holding that floor could support that weight? Once that mass at the top starts coming down it it gaining momentum and that is multiplying the force caused by the weight of those floors many times.

    The debris from the other buildings fans out once it hits the ground and could easily take out another buildings foundation. I haven’t really paid any attention to this conspiracy stuff because it would require far too many people to pull off (you are not talking hundreds but thousands) and somebody would have come clean long before now in order to stop the deaths or make himself a lot of money.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Rurik says:
    @MarkinLA
    It wasn't cast iron which is beyond the ability of high school welding classes to teach (I have never seen rod for welding cast iron in any classes I took). These were the same plates we used the motorized cutting torch to cut off practice samples for stick arc welding. I have seen the same kind of fractures in the shrapnel of exploded shells and they aren't cast iron.

    I know there are different steels and the difference in the carbon content determines how strong and brittle it is. Out here in earthquake country structural steel is probably not as as strong so it won't be brittle and crack in a earthquake. I just wonder what did people building skyscrapers in an area with no earthquakes think back in the 60s when this building was being designed. The stronger steel has the advantage of less weight something to consider when you are thinking about the foundation. This building wasn't built with the knowledge we have today of how to make practically any steel we want for any application.

    I don't know but I doubt anybody here does as well.

    I have seen the same kind of fractures in the shrapnel of exploded shells and they aren’t cast iron.

    I don’t know that much about assorted munitions

    All of a sudden the plate cracked and broke right down the middle exposing the crystalline structure of the steel

    - but this sound exactly like cast iron. Steel bends and although it can break, it doesn’t”t typically bust on a seam, but fractures and cracks unevenly. Especially in a hydraulic press. On a shear or a punch-press, it’s different.

    but all that is academic, we don’t need to understand the minutia of metallurgy to understand that steel frame skyscrapers don’t plop, or flop into their basements at free-fall speed when there’s an office fire or two. If they did, then every single hi-rise in the world would be examined and re-engineered to prevent this kind of thing, but they aren’t, are they? Because just like with the Dubai building, engineers know they can take the heat, and they know what was done on 911. And some of them have come forward and said it doesn’t add up.

    What does add up is that elements inside the Israeli government (crazed Jewish supremacists) and assorted neocons here wanted to use the American military as it golem to go smash the countries in the Middle East who were not under their control, like Jordan is for example. But Saddam’s Iraq was not, and so these psychopaths decided to plan their own little Pearl Harbor to get us all in the mood to fight each other. A cataclysmic war of the West agasint Islam, with gentiles getting slaughtered right and left, and a handful of men getting fantastically wealthy off the carnage. Such a deal

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. annamaria says:
    @AmericanaCON
    You will be surprised how little people understand basic economics or the struggle among the less fortuned among the middle class. I recently joined an extended family dinner and had to listen to my aunt. My aunt is typical for white middle class liberals. Just like Bernie Sanders she describes herself as a “Social Democrat” just like Bernie Sanders. She was a school teacher for decades in a very white and very liberal primary school. When her two children went to college she acquired a PhD in child psychology. She works as a School Psychologist in a very white middle class primary school. She lives with her husband (a school teacher) in a big old house outside Burlington.

    They used to live in Boston but moved twenty years ago for recreational reasons. They are in their sixties and will soon retire. For my aunt globalization is a gift because it allows her to travel and experience different cultures. Globalization naturally entails immigration to Western countries.

    She enjoys migrants (regardless of numbers) coming to United States because it allows her to visit exiting carnivals, experience different food items and practice her Spanish when she visit Boston. Free trade is great because it allows her to find cheaper products in the grocery store. As I listen to her she showed no understanding of outsourcing or that unrestricted immigration push wages down.

    If you criticize globalization you actually promote racism she said. Unemployment is not the cause of globalization but because of fascist politics in second and third world countries (mentioned Poland and Hungary as an example as they both have National-Conservative governments), George W. Bush (she was not able to give an example of what he had done to cause unemployment) and not enough protection of domestic and foreign workers.

    She argued; if we just raise salaries for people who have a job there would automatically create more opportunities. She mentioned herself (as staunch member of the teachers union) with a “horrible” 65K salary paid by government. If she just had a better salary it would increase her consumption and so more people would be able to find employment. The real threat she said are the Republicans which want to make young workers compete with older workers with wages and pensions rather than knowledge.

    In the end unemployment was really not a really an issue she said. My aunt told me that if illegal migrants was able to find employment than everybody ought to be able to find employment. She used herself as an example of someone who had to struggle to find employment. She told me that she had work for a year as a teacher (her former profession) in the same primary school she had previously worked after she received her PhD.

    She then worked for a few months in a private school in New Hampshire (NH) as a councilor (to gain experience) before her old employer gave her a job as a councilor. She has more or less worked for same school for more than twenty years. I asked her how many jobs she had applied to. She said she had applied to maybe five positions during that year she was still working as a teacher - all of them but one in the same county or surrounding counties. Leaving Vermont was of course never an option.

    When pressed by underunemployment among college graduates (with is staggering all over the planet) she said that there is really nothing wrong with young college graduates working in retail or driving cabs. Such talk is just demeaning to the working class which mainly holds these jobs she said. College/university graduates in retail build their skills she continued.

    I asked her how an M.D working in retail is “building his/her skills” and if she could mention any hospital that would prefer an M.D with ten years of retail experience but never practiced medicine over a M.D. with five years experiences working as an M.D.

    She had of course no answer. She didn’t connect that she just moments ago had said that she had to move to NH to gain experience within her field and that was the key (I would guess) that would eventually give her a job within her field. I asked my aunt why we educate people if there are no jobs. Once against she had no answer because she had never reflected over the matter. Lastly, I wondered what will become of the working class if people with college degrees take their jobs because they cannot be gainfully employed within their field. I received no answer at all.

    Her husband entered the discussion and said that if we just introduced “free education” college and university graduates wouldn’t have to worry about repaying their debt. I told him that even in Scandinavia young people tend to take student loans, suffer from underunemployment/unemployment and that he really had not addressed the issue. I also explain that individuals which become underunemployed (just as unemployed) tend to become depressive which is a growing research field.

    My aunt (and her husband) responds that knowledge is an intrinsic value and can (more or less) only be accumulated through formal education. It really didn’t matter if we were wasting human and financial resources.

    Angry college educated youth unemployed/underunemployed had just a bad attitude she said. They should simply just accept the situation, the norms of the society they live in and that accept that life is unfair. They showed no sympathy at all for the many millions Americans which have seen their lives ruined – many young Americans.

    I think one of the reasons why liberals feel so much discomfort in post-Reagan era is that they do not understand the contemporary society they live in. Liberalism (and socialism) has become an ideology for the comfortable middle class and insiders in government and large corporations. They are a protected class which are more than happy to make it difficult for outsiders (people willing to work longer hours for less salary) to compete for their jobs. They don’t care about illegal immigration working for pennies because they are not Construction workers. They don’t care about college graduates and industrial workers which see their jobs disappear through outsourcing to India.

    They don’t care that their own corporations or government institutions has older and older workers. In fact – they seem happy about it and see to that their own is hired and not some hungry newly graduate working long hours for nothing. I think the younger generation will turn to right-libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, national-conservatism and nationalism. They have no choice because the current elite and middle class (which largely and club for the elderly) do not cut them in. I think the elites have really outdone them this time. Social conflicts now run through entire families. Young against old and rich against poor…

    “Young against old and rich against poor…” Sadly, true.
    “Liberalism (and socialism) has become an ideology for the comfortable middle class and insiders in government and large corporations.” Correct. People entrenched within the large corporations and financial sector have been living a dream of a welfare state. A minor addition: the US have become a nation of managers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AmericanaCON
    Once upon a time the socialists and liberals preferred to expand government to reduce unemployment. Today, government is mostly reduced to benefit insiders. Basically, poor people have become clients to the middle class. Instead of jobs they are given handouts or are forced to work as slaves for food stamps and welfare. Unions once worked to protect American workers. Now it works to protect the corporations and the middle strata and up in the corporations. The “good” part is that as fewer and fewer people are able to enter the middle class even if they have higher education. Many people including families are not able to remain within the middle class over a generation. Everything is so sad – the Western world is slowly shattered into nothing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. bach says:
    @MarkinLA
    And such policies compromise personal liberties.

    Not another libertarian.

    The US is a country and things are done to benefit the great majority of people at the expense of a few - just like any large organization of people who care more about the community than themselves.

    The question that must be asked is how corporations obtain the capital to make foreign investments. How do companies move en mass capital from one economy to another economy without causing ostensible deleterious effects on the first economy?

    That question has been asked over and over again throughout history and the one answer that keeps coming up is tariffs.

    Not another libertarian. The US is a country and things are done to benefit the great majority of people at the expense of a few – just like any large organization of people who care more about the community than themselves.

    Not preaching libertarian trade policies, but selective tariffs informed by a few powerful lobbies and industries aren’t the answer.

    I’m not against tariffs, but if we do have tariffs, it must be based on a bigger logic that cannot be gamed by politicians and interest groups.

    The question that must be asked is how corporations obtain the capital to make foreign investments. How do companies move en mass capital from one economy to another economy without causing ostensible deleterious effects on the first economy?

    That question has been asked over and over again throughout history and the one answer that keeps coming up is tariffs.

    No, I wasn’t asking for the solution, but the cause.

    I’ve been playing devil’s advocate, but let me cut to the chase and answer my own question.

    At bottom, it is the financialization of our economy that lies at the root of factories, manufacturing, jobs, and businesses moving overseas with the speed and force that we have.

    When an economy is financialized by central banks, Wall St./banking push out real jobs the way bad money drives out the good according to Gresham’s law.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Sam Shama says:

    Just a small entry regarding debt, gdp etc. One needs to dispense with the typical hyberbole, surrounding “debt! the Fed! buy Gold!”, and turn towards broader questions regarding the economic strength of the world at large.

    Looking at the size of U.S. National debt in isolation is highly misleading. First, debt is a “stock” concept and GDP is a “flow” or income concept. Second, it is far more important to realise that debt is what we largely owe ourselves, and the associated question of debt serviceability: what percentage of our yearly national income are we paying as interest to service the debt. On that count, things are basically, quite normal: (I am sorry if that disappoints some on this board)

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYOIGDA188S

    [MORE]

    Third, it is far more important to focus on fostering global economic health, via technological/productivity growth, something which has been rather miserable or tepid at best, and it is quite clear at this juncture that the over-investment fuelled growth in China has approached a transitioning point, towards a consumption based economy.

    Can they pull it off successfully? I happen to think so, however it might take a decade or more to be a truly balanced economy. There is much more room for China to grow, yet it is inescapable a conclusion that once countries reach that medium-per-capita-income status [which China is rather close to achieving], growth inevitably slows [it has happened in every instance, including the economic histories of Japan, Asian Tigers, etc. India in this context is quite low-income and therefore has a very large potential to actual gap].

    Every sovereign nation uses and protects its system of credit and the status of its reserve currency [if it has one] comes with a plethora of enormous responsibilities attached to it [as opposed to the benefits - apparently a result of conspiracy - to the exclusion of the associated burdens]. In this context, it should be clear that there is no currency at present or in the foreseeable future that can replace the U.S. dollar. The U.S is the only economy in the world that can effectively shut itself off from international trade and suffer not more than a run-of-the-mill recession. Net exports are small (~ 1.5 -3% of GDP). No one else can. The exporters of goods and services to the U.S take those “useless pieces of paper” and bank them with the U.S. to buy future U.S. products and services. Nobody, I repeat not a soul, country or holy ghost, is preventing them from moving it away from U.S. dollars to JPY, Euro, Renminbi [which is far from being fully convertible or even close to be able to collateralise the size of global assets/liabilities - its true, please look up the distribution of global assets and satisfy yourself as to which currency you would park your balance sheet in, and then actually do it.]

    The responsibility of the U.S. as the primary reserve, is truly staggering. If the U.S. had so desired, it could have literally “beggared” its partners by engaging in QE 5x larger than it did, thereby depreciating the dollar (which is the strongest currency since global QE started) against the counteractions of other countries. It could have done so. It did not, because that would have thrown the rest of the world into depressions and hurt the USA only a bit.

    So what is the purpose of the U.S. treasury/Fed complex? Its rather complicated, and sweeping aside the conspiracy piffle, it is to engage in a very delicate balance, where the U.S. achieves maximal employment and about 2% inflation, while ensuring that our European and Asian partners do not suffer the consequences of our monetary easing. Worth noting here, that if we are able to achieve a 2% inflation, then as the graph above indicates, the debt issued by this country would very naturally get reduced by a certain amount [guesses?], each year, in a very orderly manner. That ladies and gentlemen, is the true goal of the Fed for the benefit of the U.S Treasury. Any objections?

    There is much good analysis in what Mr. Roberts pens in these pages, and I would point to two primary areas. Ones that need to be remedied. The G-S Act needs to be re-installed and done in a way that is meaningful. Truly separate commercial and deposit banking from Investment banking. The founders of this nation [many of them drawn from the elite] intended the country to always preserve a strong and economically healthy middle class. This pillar has been demolished via miscreant regulatory and tax structures, and a wholly morphed elite. Such as dividend and capital gains taxation preferential treatment. But mostly it is the result of the destruction of the capability of the middle class to exist as a voting power, the pillars supporting affordable (and my preference of actually free) education. This is unreservedly the function of Congress and the WH. And it is the duty of the citizenry to vote itself the people who would do so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  143. AmericanaCON [AKA "BostonianConservative"] says:
    @annamaria
    "Young against old and rich against poor..." Sadly, true.
    "Liberalism (and socialism) has become an ideology for the comfortable middle class and insiders in government and large corporations." Correct. People entrenched within the large corporations and financial sector have been living a dream of a welfare state. A minor addition: the US have become a nation of managers.

    Once upon a time the socialists and liberals preferred to expand government to reduce unemployment. Today, government is mostly reduced to benefit insiders. Basically, poor people have become clients to the middle class. Instead of jobs they are given handouts or are forced to work as slaves for food stamps and welfare. Unions once worked to protect American workers. Now it works to protect the corporations and the middle strata and up in the corporations. The “good” part is that as fewer and fewer people are able to enter the middle class even if they have higher education. Many people including families are not able to remain within the middle class over a generation. Everything is so sad – the Western world is slowly shattered into nothing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. woodNfish says:

    “Historically, capitalism was justified on the grounds that it guaranteed the efficient use of society’s resources. Profits were a sign that resources were being used to maximize social welfare, and losses were a sign of inefficient resource use, which was corrected by the firm going out of business. This is no longer the case when the economic policy of a counry serves to protect financial institutions that are “too big to fail” and when profits reflect the relocation abroad of US GDP as a result of jobs offshoring. Clearly, American capitalism no longer serves society, and the worsening distribution of income and wealth prove it.”

    What we have today is not capitalism, it is fascism. The US is a fascist country with a ruling moneyed oligarchy. Capitalism is fine and is the only economic system that has ever lifted so many people out of poverty and into lives of relative comfort. That cannot be denied. The solution to this problem will probably result in massive bloodshed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bondo
    is it possible that capitalism/greed created most poverty in the first place?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Jason says:

    Do ANY of the “Conspiracy People” care about the open, public policy of flooding the US and Europe with mass 3rd world immigration?

    Do you care about your people at all?

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    I agree with Rurik: a discussion of the 3rd world immigration should always start with two questions:
    1. who has forced these people to abandon their homes under horrific distress? - meaning, the war criminals in high places must be exposed and branded as such;
    2. who has been benefitting from the law-breaking waves of immigrants from poor countries? - meaning, the corporations must pay, to the last cent, for various public services provided for illegal immigrants.
    There are children and grandchildren of the home-grown war criminals; the has been enjoying the bloody wealth and perks of power provided for them by the criminal daddies and mommies.
    There are "patriots" that want the US borders remain penetrable for the illegals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Rurik says:

    Do you care about your people at all?

    Yes, and holding those account who have murdered and slaughtered and maimed tens of thousands of our people and millions of others, is a good way to care about our people and yours.

    Go Trump!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Todd Miller
    Please add policy of mass 3rd world immigration to your list! Because it is the most damaging thing of all. And it doesn't require any speculation. Just pointing out the obvious public policy of turning every White country Brown.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Rurik

    Do you care about your people at all?
     
    Yes, and holding those account who have murdered and slaughtered and maimed tens of thousands of our people and millions of others, is a good way to care about our people and yours.


    Go Trump!

    Please add policy of mass 3rd world immigration to your list! Because it is the most damaging thing of all. And it doesn’t require any speculation. Just pointing out the obvious public policy of turning every White country Brown.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. bondo says:
    @bondo
    check out archives soldier magazine (official mag of u.s. army) sept 2011. anniversary issue.

    pic of hole through C ring.

    silo shape at dirt level.

    E ring outer, then D, then C.

    no plane did this.

    i think photo known in some circles but rarely mentioned

    would link but unable to connect

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. bondo says:
    @woodNfish
    "Historically, capitalism was justified on the grounds that it guaranteed the efficient use of society’s resources. Profits were a sign that resources were being used to maximize social welfare, and losses were a sign of inefficient resource use, which was corrected by the firm going out of business. This is no longer the case when the economic policy of a counry serves to protect financial institutions that are “too big to fail” and when profits reflect the relocation abroad of US GDP as a result of jobs offshoring. Clearly, American capitalism no longer serves society, and the worsening distribution of income and wealth prove it."

    What we have today is not capitalism, it is fascism. The US is a fascist country with a ruling moneyed oligarchy. Capitalism is fine and is the only economic system that has ever lifted so many people out of poverty and into lives of relative comfort. That cannot be denied. The solution to this problem will probably result in massive bloodshed.

    is it possible that capitalism/greed created most poverty in the first place?

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    No. Throughout history typical state of humanity has been abject poverty. Only a ruling few and the mercantile class rose above it. Before capitalism there was only tribalism and feudalism. Those are both economic and political systems. Capitalism is just an economic system, and it is probably been the greatest achievement humanity has ever had. It has allowed more people to rise above poverty than any other economic or political/economic system. Even the Chinese communists recognize the benefits of capitalism to pull their people out of poverty. And our problems here in the US are not with capitalism, but with government interference in the economy. The US ha a fascist economy with the government controlling all private property and wealth through regulation, market manipulation and crony capitalism.
    , @another fred

    is it possible that capitalism/greed created most poverty in the first place?
     
    Actually, the archaeological record shows that agriculture/civilization did (although greed probably had a hand).

    When agriculture was developed most people became smaller and more sickly, but more of them survived. Hunter gatherers were healthier and more robust, but they died sooner, often violently.

    Hunter gatherers in the Amazon are still living out the same story. Life is easier for them once exposed to civilization, but they do not prosper, much like Native Americans on a reservation, but they like the lower risk lifestyle.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. rvg says:

    Is there a sane way to create a Republika Srpska in the United States for white people without millions of deaths from large scale ethnic cleansing? OTOH looking looking at present demographics such as the percentage of births that are white electing Trump to save the white race in the US is like using a spoon to bail out the Titanic. I mean even if Trump can get immigration under control white births only make up about 40% of births, plus you have racial miscegenation. The population of the US under age 15 already is like Brazil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Is there a sane way to create a Republika Srpska in the United States for white people without millions of deaths from large scale ethnic cleansing?
     
    I think this question falls to our resident WN, Joe Webb, to answer. He has proposed "population transfers" as a potential solution, but I wouldn't mind it if he expanded on how such a "solution" would be implemented - i.e, how to determine who, especially given the degree of racial miscegenation, qualifies to be transferred?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    So Paul Craig Roberts thinks it is impossible that any Muslims ever carried out any attack anywhere! He says Paris was a “false flag”.

    He believes that every bad thing in the world is orchestrated by Evil White Men.

    And never forget he explicitly blamed White males for supporting police abuses.

    He has no loyalty to HIS people. And he’s proud of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bondo
    and

    what else has pcr not said.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. geokat62 says:
    @rvg
    Is there a sane way to create a Republika Srpska in the United States for white people without millions of deaths from large scale ethnic cleansing? OTOH looking looking at present demographics such as the percentage of births that are white electing Trump to save the white race in the US is like using a spoon to bail out the Titanic. I mean even if Trump can get immigration under control white births only make up about 40% of births, plus you have racial miscegenation. The population of the US under age 15 already is like Brazil.

    Is there a sane way to create a Republika Srpska in the United States for white people without millions of deaths from large scale ethnic cleansing?

    I think this question falls to our resident WN, Joe Webb, to answer. He has proposed “population transfers” as a potential solution, but I wouldn’t mind it if he expanded on how such a “solution” would be implemented – i.e, how to determine who, especially given the degree of racial miscegenation, qualifies to be transferred?

    Read More
    • Replies: @rvg
    You can use genealogy records (say no non-European admixture within the last 3 generations or, but if the non-European admixture is a light-skinned Indian brahmin or a white Arab like Michel Aoun or Amin Gemayel then maybe it would be acceptable) and give everyone DNA tests, the problem is that even in the sucessfull partition of India in 1947 there were one million deaths.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. annamaria says:
    @Jason
    Do ANY of the "Conspiracy People" care about the open, public policy of flooding the US and Europe with mass 3rd world immigration?

    Do you care about your people at all?

    I agree with Rurik: a discussion of the 3rd world immigration should always start with two questions:
    1. who has forced these people to abandon their homes under horrific distress? – meaning, the war criminals in high places must be exposed and branded as such;
    2. who has been benefitting from the law-breaking waves of immigrants from poor countries? – meaning, the corporations must pay, to the last cent, for various public services provided for illegal immigrants.
    There are children and grandchildren of the home-grown war criminals; the has been enjoying the bloody wealth and perks of power provided for them by the criminal daddies and mommies.
    There are “patriots” that want the US borders remain penetrable for the illegals.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mark Green
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. woodNfish says:
    @bondo
    is it possible that capitalism/greed created most poverty in the first place?

    No. Throughout history typical state of humanity has been abject poverty. Only a ruling few and the mercantile class rose above it. Before capitalism there was only tribalism and feudalism. Those are both economic and political systems. Capitalism is just an economic system, and it is probably been the greatest achievement humanity has ever had. It has allowed more people to rise above poverty than any other economic or political/economic system. Even the Chinese communists recognize the benefits of capitalism to pull their people out of poverty. And our problems here in the US are not with capitalism, but with government interference in the economy. The US ha a fascist economy with the government controlling all private property and wealth through regulation, market manipulation and crony capitalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bondo

    "The US ha a fascist economy with the government controlling all private property and wealth through regulation, market manipulation and crony capitalism."
     
    what part of wall st has the gov regulated? mkt, commodities manipulation has been by wall st.

    the manip of gold mkt like oil mkt (gulf producers used by u.s.) is to wage war against russia, china, iran, venezuela.

    nafta, ttp, ttip, whatever else negotiated in secret are to deregulate to put corp not govts in control.

    chinese like all history recognizes business, trade.

    capitalism has reluctantly endured and consistently fought against any improvement to the "people" note the downward movement of the "people".

    fascist. yes. the capitalist, wall st controlled govt doing the bidding of finance and the "crony capitalists"

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. bondo says:
    @woodNfish
    No. Throughout history typical state of humanity has been abject poverty. Only a ruling few and the mercantile class rose above it. Before capitalism there was only tribalism and feudalism. Those are both economic and political systems. Capitalism is just an economic system, and it is probably been the greatest achievement humanity has ever had. It has allowed more people to rise above poverty than any other economic or political/economic system. Even the Chinese communists recognize the benefits of capitalism to pull their people out of poverty. And our problems here in the US are not with capitalism, but with government interference in the economy. The US ha a fascist economy with the government controlling all private property and wealth through regulation, market manipulation and crony capitalism.

    “The US ha a fascist economy with the government controlling all private property and wealth through regulation, market manipulation and crony capitalism.”

    what part of wall st has the gov regulated? mkt, commodities manipulation has been by wall st.

    the manip of gold mkt like oil mkt (gulf producers used by u.s.) is to wage war against russia, china, iran, venezuela.

    nafta, ttp, ttip, whatever else negotiated in secret are to deregulate to put corp not govts in control.

    chinese like all history recognizes business, trade.

    capitalism has reluctantly endured and consistently fought against any improvement to the “people” note the downward movement of the “people”.

    fascist. yes. the capitalist, wall st controlled govt doing the bidding of finance and the “crony capitalists”

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    There are plenty of wall st. regulations: banking, finance, and securities regulations. Insider trading laws is one area. (Notice how Congress exempts its members from insider trading regulation? Why would they cut off one of the main ways they take bribes.)

    capitalism has reluctantly endured and consistently fought against any improvement to the “people” note the downward movement of the “people”.
     
    No, that is not capitalism's fault, but the result of crony capitalism, money and market manipulation by the federal mafia.

    mkt, commodities manipulation has been by wall st.
     
    Some of it, true. Plenty of it illegal. People will always find a way around a law if there is one, and much of the manipulation is in response to government regulation. Do you actually believe Wall St. caused the mortgage crash in 2007? It didn't, the government caused it by requiring the finance companies to give mortgage loans to people who couldn't afford them. The bankers knew they were bad loans, but if they didn't make them, they got sued and would lose.

    The government manipulates the money supply and causes inflation, or deflation. Either way, its bad. Bad is what the government does. The solution is much less government. That isn't going to happen until we have a French style revolution and a huge bloody purge. It could happen. It probably will happen. I hope I'm not around for it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. bondo says:
    @Anonymous
    So Paul Craig Roberts thinks it is impossible that any Muslims ever carried out any attack anywhere! He says Paris was a "false flag".

    He believes that every bad thing in the world is orchestrated by Evil White Men.

    And never forget he explicitly blamed White males for supporting police abuses.

    He has no loyalty to HIS people. And he's proud of it.

    and

    what else has pcr not said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. woodNfish says:
    @bondo

    "The US ha a fascist economy with the government controlling all private property and wealth through regulation, market manipulation and crony capitalism."
     
    what part of wall st has the gov regulated? mkt, commodities manipulation has been by wall st.

    the manip of gold mkt like oil mkt (gulf producers used by u.s.) is to wage war against russia, china, iran, venezuela.

    nafta, ttp, ttip, whatever else negotiated in secret are to deregulate to put corp not govts in control.

    chinese like all history recognizes business, trade.

    capitalism has reluctantly endured and consistently fought against any improvement to the "people" note the downward movement of the "people".

    fascist. yes. the capitalist, wall st controlled govt doing the bidding of finance and the "crony capitalists"

    There are plenty of wall st. regulations: banking, finance, and securities regulations. Insider trading laws is one area. (Notice how Congress exempts its members from insider trading regulation? Why would they cut off one of the main ways they take bribes.)

    capitalism has reluctantly endured and consistently fought against any improvement to the “people” note the downward movement of the “people”.

    No, that is not capitalism’s fault, but the result of crony capitalism, money and market manipulation by the federal mafia.

    mkt, commodities manipulation has been by wall st.

    Some of it, true. Plenty of it illegal. People will always find a way around a law if there is one, and much of the manipulation is in response to government regulation. Do you actually believe Wall St. caused the mortgage crash in 2007? It didn’t, the government caused it by requiring the finance companies to give mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford them. The bankers knew they were bad loans, but if they didn’t make them, they got sued and would lose.

    The government manipulates the money supply and causes inflation, or deflation. Either way, its bad. Bad is what the government does. The solution is much less government. That isn’t going to happen until we have a French style revolution and a huge bloody purge. It could happen. It probably will happen. I hope I’m not around for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bondo
    what i notice are regulations not enforced and regulations removed.

    gov/fed does as wall st, corp ceos desire.

    much less govt, yes. no dhs, no 5 winged pentagon. maybe one wing. reduce nsa, cia, dea, doe, by 160 billion.

    re banks, investment, corps, regulations until they turn purple.

    capitalism in the u.s. has always been crony capitalism so in effect capitalism is crony capitalism

    any thing else is just theory.
    , @MarkinLA
    Insider trading laws is one area

    No, that is not capitalism’s fault, but the result of crony capitalism, money and market manipulation by the federal mafia.

    This is utter nonsense. The laws against insider trading came about BECAUSE a free market was ripe for insider manipulation and rip offs of the public by the wealthy and well connected. Prior to the Great Depression it was common for rich people to get together, buy up the stock of some company and then use their media resources in a pump and dump scheme and it was all perfectly legal or they would short a stock and talk it down.

    Government generally only acts AFTER the public has been screwed.
    , @annamaria
    "Do you actually believe Wall St. caused the mortgage crash in 2007? It didn’t, the government caused it by requiring the finance companies to give mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford them. The bankers knew they were bad loans, but if they didn’t make them, they got sued and would lose."

    This very charitable and gentle defense of the Masters of Universe has been debunked on numerous occasions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. szopen says:
    @Wally
    Oh yawn, more Hitler nonsense from the indoctrinated.

    There were the 'Nazis' with the mythological '6M & gas chambers' and there were the 'Nazis' without the mythological '6M & gas chambers'.

    The '6M & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    www.codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Real truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

    You are an idiot. First of all, I have not said a single word about nazis; I said about war-mongering idiot, who was responsible for millions of Polish (and Russian, and Ukrainian, and Belarussian) deaths, vast majority of them civilians, Second, I have already discussed on this site with your kind and I am tired of talking to the wall.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. szopen says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    As for Versailles, well, I’d say Germany has no right to complain after the terms of peace it dictated to states it defeated in WWI.
     
    Terms were not dictated.

    According to Bard College history professor Sean McMeekin, Lenin/Trotsky conducted negotiations with Germany and used the settlement to enforce Communist doctrine
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?324061-1/discussion-woodrow-wilson-treaty-versailles

    Don't recall where it's reported that a Jewish guy did the negotiating for the German side; iirc his name was Kaufmann. The claim was that German leadership was incompetent and lazy; only the chosen had the requisite skills.


    On the other hand, Germany was shut out of participation in Versailles negotiations. Many accounts -- including McMeekin's -- fail to record that Jewish interests were over-represented at Versailles, including Bernard Baruch at Wilson's elbow the whole time, and the Warburgs from both Europe and USA had seats at the table to monitor their interests.

    Oh, so the treaty of Bucharest was very reasonable, and the peace in Brest was also reasonable, because reasonable Germans were forced by Russia to accept huge territories. Also, Germans really didn;t want to accept 6 billions marks of reparations from Russia, bout those awful bolsheviks forced poor Germans to accept those terms.

    Damn, I heard many lame excuses, but this one is the worst of them all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. bondo says:
    @woodNfish
    There are plenty of wall st. regulations: banking, finance, and securities regulations. Insider trading laws is one area. (Notice how Congress exempts its members from insider trading regulation? Why would they cut off one of the main ways they take bribes.)

    capitalism has reluctantly endured and consistently fought against any improvement to the “people” note the downward movement of the “people”.
     
    No, that is not capitalism's fault, but the result of crony capitalism, money and market manipulation by the federal mafia.

    mkt, commodities manipulation has been by wall st.
     
    Some of it, true. Plenty of it illegal. People will always find a way around a law if there is one, and much of the manipulation is in response to government regulation. Do you actually believe Wall St. caused the mortgage crash in 2007? It didn't, the government caused it by requiring the finance companies to give mortgage loans to people who couldn't afford them. The bankers knew they were bad loans, but if they didn't make them, they got sued and would lose.

    The government manipulates the money supply and causes inflation, or deflation. Either way, its bad. Bad is what the government does. The solution is much less government. That isn't going to happen until we have a French style revolution and a huge bloody purge. It could happen. It probably will happen. I hope I'm not around for it.

    what i notice are regulations not enforced and regulations removed.

    gov/fed does as wall st, corp ceos desire.

    much less govt, yes. no dhs, no 5 winged pentagon. maybe one wing. reduce nsa, cia, dea, doe, by 160 billion.

    re banks, investment, corps, regulations until they turn purple.

    capitalism in the u.s. has always been crony capitalism so in effect capitalism is crony capitalism

    any thing else is just theory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. MarkinLA says:
    @woodNfish
    There are plenty of wall st. regulations: banking, finance, and securities regulations. Insider trading laws is one area. (Notice how Congress exempts its members from insider trading regulation? Why would they cut off one of the main ways they take bribes.)

    capitalism has reluctantly endured and consistently fought against any improvement to the “people” note the downward movement of the “people”.
     
    No, that is not capitalism's fault, but the result of crony capitalism, money and market manipulation by the federal mafia.

    mkt, commodities manipulation has been by wall st.
     
    Some of it, true. Plenty of it illegal. People will always find a way around a law if there is one, and much of the manipulation is in response to government regulation. Do you actually believe Wall St. caused the mortgage crash in 2007? It didn't, the government caused it by requiring the finance companies to give mortgage loans to people who couldn't afford them. The bankers knew they were bad loans, but if they didn't make them, they got sued and would lose.

    The government manipulates the money supply and causes inflation, or deflation. Either way, its bad. Bad is what the government does. The solution is much less government. That isn't going to happen until we have a French style revolution and a huge bloody purge. It could happen. It probably will happen. I hope I'm not around for it.

    Insider trading laws is one area

    No, that is not capitalism’s fault, but the result of crony capitalism, money and market manipulation by the federal mafia.

    This is utter nonsense. The laws against insider trading came about BECAUSE a free market was ripe for insider manipulation and rip offs of the public by the wealthy and well connected. Prior to the Great Depression it was common for rich people to get together, buy up the stock of some company and then use their media resources in a pump and dump scheme and it was all perfectly legal or they would short a stock and talk it down.

    Government generally only acts AFTER the public has been screwed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish

    Government generally only acts AFTER the public has been screwed.
     
    Anytime the government does something it usually makes the problem worse. Step away from the koolaid and take off your blinders.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. woodNfish says:
    @MarkinLA
    Insider trading laws is one area

    No, that is not capitalism’s fault, but the result of crony capitalism, money and market manipulation by the federal mafia.

    This is utter nonsense. The laws against insider trading came about BECAUSE a free market was ripe for insider manipulation and rip offs of the public by the wealthy and well connected. Prior to the Great Depression it was common for rich people to get together, buy up the stock of some company and then use their media resources in a pump and dump scheme and it was all perfectly legal or they would short a stock and talk it down.

    Government generally only acts AFTER the public has been screwed.

    Government generally only acts AFTER the public has been screwed.

    Anytime the government does something it usually makes the problem worse. Step away from the koolaid and take off your blinders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    There is no way to ever fix perfectly things like insider trading but this idiotic libertarian view that the so called free market is self regulating is the biggest bunch of idiocy imaginable. The Ayn Randian nonsense of the noble saintly businessman put upon by the evil government is also another stupid libertarian fairy tale.
    , @annamaria
    "Anytime the government does something it usually makes the problem worse."

    And look what kind of people make decisions for the government and in whose interests. It seems that you still believe that representative democracy is thriving in the US. The Princeton study does not agree with that notion: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @bondo
    is it possible that capitalism/greed created most poverty in the first place?

    is it possible that capitalism/greed created most poverty in the first place?

    Actually, the archaeological record shows that agriculture/civilization did (although greed probably had a hand).

    When agriculture was developed most people became smaller and more sickly, but more of them survived. Hunter gatherers were healthier and more robust, but they died sooner, often violently.

    Hunter gatherers in the Amazon are still living out the same story. Life is easier for them once exposed to civilization, but they do not prosper, much like Native Americans on a reservation, but they like the lower risk lifestyle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. MarkinLA says:
    @woodNfish

    Government generally only acts AFTER the public has been screwed.
     
    Anytime the government does something it usually makes the problem worse. Step away from the koolaid and take off your blinders.

    There is no way to ever fix perfectly things like insider trading but this idiotic libertarian view that the so called free market is self regulating is the biggest bunch of idiocy imaginable. The Ayn Randian nonsense of the noble saintly businessman put upon by the evil government is also another stupid libertarian fairy tale.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. rvg says:
    @geokat62

    Is there a sane way to create a Republika Srpska in the United States for white people without millions of deaths from large scale ethnic cleansing?
     
    I think this question falls to our resident WN, Joe Webb, to answer. He has proposed "population transfers" as a potential solution, but I wouldn't mind it if he expanded on how such a "solution" would be implemented - i.e, how to determine who, especially given the degree of racial miscegenation, qualifies to be transferred?

    You can use genealogy records (say no non-European admixture within the last 3 generations or, but if the non-European admixture is a light-skinned Indian brahmin or a white Arab like Michel Aoun or Amin Gemayel then maybe it would be acceptable) and give everyone DNA tests, the problem is that even in the sucessfull partition of India in 1947 there were one million deaths.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    ... no non-European admixture within the last 3 generations...
     
    What does this rule imply for a segment of the population a previous commenter brought to our attention:

    The population of the US under age 15 already is like Brazil.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. geokat62 says:
    @rvg
    You can use genealogy records (say no non-European admixture within the last 3 generations or, but if the non-European admixture is a light-skinned Indian brahmin or a white Arab like Michel Aoun or Amin Gemayel then maybe it would be acceptable) and give everyone DNA tests, the problem is that even in the sucessfull partition of India in 1947 there were one million deaths.

    … no non-European admixture within the last 3 generations…

    What does this rule imply for a segment of the population a previous commenter brought to our attention:

    The population of the US under age 15 already is like Brazil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rvg
    Screening process will be a lot more rigorous for them, but this is all just conjecture. The jury is still out on whether non-white caucasians can be grandfathered in.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. rvg says:
    @geokat62

    ... no non-European admixture within the last 3 generations...
     
    What does this rule imply for a segment of the population a previous commenter brought to our attention:

    The population of the US under age 15 already is like Brazil.
     

    Screening process will be a lot more rigorous for them, but this is all just conjecture. The jury is still out on whether non-white caucasians can be grandfathered in.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. annamaria says:
    @woodNfish
    There are plenty of wall st. regulations: banking, finance, and securities regulations. Insider trading laws is one area. (Notice how Congress exempts its members from insider trading regulation? Why would they cut off one of the main ways they take bribes.)

    capitalism has reluctantly endured and consistently fought against any improvement to the “people” note the downward movement of the “people”.
     
    No, that is not capitalism's fault, but the result of crony capitalism, money and market manipulation by the federal mafia.

    mkt, commodities manipulation has been by wall st.
     
    Some of it, true. Plenty of it illegal. People will always find a way around a law if there is one, and much of the manipulation is in response to government regulation. Do you actually believe Wall St. caused the mortgage crash in 2007? It didn't, the government caused it by requiring the finance companies to give mortgage loans to people who couldn't afford them. The bankers knew they were bad loans, but if they didn't make them, they got sued and would lose.

    The government manipulates the money supply and causes inflation, or deflation. Either way, its bad. Bad is what the government does. The solution is much less government. That isn't going to happen until we have a French style revolution and a huge bloody purge. It could happen. It probably will happen. I hope I'm not around for it.

    “Do you actually believe Wall St. caused the mortgage crash in 2007? It didn’t, the government caused it by requiring the finance companies to give mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford them. The bankers knew they were bad loans, but if they didn’t make them, they got sued and would lose.”

    This very charitable and gentle defense of the Masters of Universe has been debunked on numerous occasions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Hi annamarina,

    I am not sure the government "caused " the collapse by" requiring" companies to give mortgages to people who could not afford them...The government may have facilitated it by keeping interest rates very low .


    I believe it was the unfettered belief, by home buyers and mortgage brokers that home prices would continue to rise , indefinitely, combined with those low interest rates, that led to the lowering of 'thresholds" for qualified buyers.

    Banks and mortgage brokers felt they could lend to "unqualified buyers" because the value of real estate just kept going up....If the homeowner defaulted on their loan....the bank could then just sell the property at a profit over the original loan amount at some future time.

    It was the belief, by nearly everyone at the time, that property values could never or would never go down...that led to the recklessness in bad loans and the willingness of banks to lend them out .

    , @woodNfish

    This very charitable and gentle defense of the Masters of Universe has been debunked on numerous occasions.
     
    So you think the mortgage companies just went out on their own and made bad loans? What would be their incentive? If you think this has been debunked then prove it.
    , @OutWest
    If you recall the Redlining dustup concerned banks not making loans in neighborhoods of suspect value. Government said such judgements were discrimination. The resulting loans were disastrous primarily for the mortgageor but also for the banks. But only the former were wiped out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. annamaria says:
    @woodNfish

    Government generally only acts AFTER the public has been screwed.
     
    Anytime the government does something it usually makes the problem worse. Step away from the koolaid and take off your blinders.

    “Anytime the government does something it usually makes the problem worse.”

    And look what kind of people make decisions for the government and in whose interests. It seems that you still believe that representative democracy is thriving in the US. The Princeton study does not agree with that notion: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. woodNfish says:

    It seems that you still believe that representative democracy is thriving in the US.

    How do you derive that from anything I’ve written? You’re wrong btw. The US is a fascist, surveillance, police state run by a corporate oligarchy. The republic is dead. Welcome to amerika.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  171. alexander says:
    @annamaria
    "Do you actually believe Wall St. caused the mortgage crash in 2007? It didn’t, the government caused it by requiring the finance companies to give mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford them. The bankers knew they were bad loans, but if they didn’t make them, they got sued and would lose."

    This very charitable and gentle defense of the Masters of Universe has been debunked on numerous occasions.

    Hi annamarina,

    I am not sure the government “caused ” the collapse by” requiring” companies to give mortgages to people who could not afford them…The government may have facilitated it by keeping interest rates very low .

    I believe it was the unfettered belief, by home buyers and mortgage brokers that home prices would continue to rise , indefinitely, combined with those low interest rates, that led to the lowering of ‘thresholds” for qualified buyers.

    Banks and mortgage brokers felt they could lend to “unqualified buyers” because the value of real estate just kept going up….If the homeowner defaulted on their loan….the bank could then just sell the property at a profit over the original loan amount at some future time.

    It was the belief, by nearly everyone at the time, that property values could never or would never go down…that led to the recklessness in bad loans and the willingness of banks to lend them out .

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Might I add one thing,

    Had real estate values continued to rise at a rate of 2%, year over year...the loans that were sub par would not have turned out to be such a bad bet since the banks that lent the money could get it back with some profit, when they sold the property in default, two years down the line.


    It was the ever increasing value of real estate...the banks were "actually" lending their money to....not the home buyer who might well default on their mortgage.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. woodNfish says:
    @annamaria
    "Do you actually believe Wall St. caused the mortgage crash in 2007? It didn’t, the government caused it by requiring the finance companies to give mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford them. The bankers knew they were bad loans, but if they didn’t make them, they got sued and would lose."

    This very charitable and gentle defense of the Masters of Universe has been debunked on numerous occasions.

    This very charitable and gentle defense of the Masters of Universe has been debunked on numerous occasions.

    So you think the mortgage companies just went out on their own and made bad loans? What would be their incentive? If you think this has been debunked then prove it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. alexander says:
    @alexander
    Hi annamarina,

    I am not sure the government "caused " the collapse by" requiring" companies to give mortgages to people who could not afford them...The government may have facilitated it by keeping interest rates very low .


    I believe it was the unfettered belief, by home buyers and mortgage brokers that home prices would continue to rise , indefinitely, combined with those low interest rates, that led to the lowering of 'thresholds" for qualified buyers.

    Banks and mortgage brokers felt they could lend to "unqualified buyers" because the value of real estate just kept going up....If the homeowner defaulted on their loan....the bank could then just sell the property at a profit over the original loan amount at some future time.

    It was the belief, by nearly everyone at the time, that property values could never or would never go down...that led to the recklessness in bad loans and the willingness of banks to lend them out .

    Might I add one thing,

    Had real estate values continued to rise at a rate of 2%, year over year…the loans that were sub par would not have turned out to be such a bad bet since the banks that lent the money could get it back with some profit, when they sold the property in default, two years down the line.

    It was the ever increasing value of real estate…the banks were “actually” lending their money to….not the home buyer who might well default on their mortgage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. OutWest says:
    @annamaria
    "Do you actually believe Wall St. caused the mortgage crash in 2007? It didn’t, the government caused it by requiring the finance companies to give mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford them. The bankers knew they were bad loans, but if they didn’t make them, they got sued and would lose."

    This very charitable and gentle defense of the Masters of Universe has been debunked on numerous occasions.

    If you recall the Redlining dustup concerned banks not making loans in neighborhoods of suspect value. Government said such judgements were discrimination. The resulting loans were disastrous primarily for the mortgageor but also for the banks. But only the former were wiped out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    a partial reply: https://theintercept.com/2016/01/12/hillary-clinton-whiffs-on-reforming-wall-streets-rating-agencies/
    "Sanders’s plan, released last week, would no longer allow the companies that issue securities to pick which rating agency they use – a simple but outrageous practice that creates an enormous conflict of interest and helps facilitate fraud."
    Whether intentionally or not your post was an attempt at absolving the big earners. And these big earners were not either government or banks that gave mortgages. The triple AAA (banking fraud) was not factored into the attempts to make everybody a house-owner.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis
    "Investment banks therefore paid handsome fees to the rating agencies..."
    The big Earners (the big contributors to "peoples representatives"):
    http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/good-riddance-to-qe-it-was-just-plain-financial-fraud/
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/quantitative-easing-benefits-the-super-elite-and-hurts-the-little-guy-and-the-american-economy.html
    http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2014/04/debt-rattle-apr-23-2014-qe-is-a-fraud-perpetrated-by-made-men/

    In case you are not aware, the root of the fraud was the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Legislation
    , @annamaria
    Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis
    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/11/12/reflections-glass-steagall-and-maniacal-deregulation
    "Glass-Steagall protected depositors and prevented the banking system from taking on too much risk by defining industry structure: Commercial banks could not maintain investment banking or insurance affiliates (nor affiliates in non-financial commercial activity). As banks eyed the higher profits in higher risk activity, however, they began in the 1970s to breach the regulatory walls between commercial banking and other financial services. Starting in the 1980s, responding to a steady drumbeat of requests, regulators began to weaken the strict prohibition on cross-ownership. ... in 1998, in an act of corporate civil disobedience, Citicorp and Travelers Group announced they were merging. Such a combination of banking and insurance companies was illegal under the Bank Holding Company Act, but was excused due to a loophole that provided a two-year review period of proposed mergers. The merger was premised on the expectation that Glass-Steagall would be repealed. Citigroup's co-chairs Sandy Weill and John Reed led a swarm of industry executives and lobbyists who trammeled the halls of Congress to make sure a deal was cut. Robert Rubin, having recently stepped aside as Treasury Secretary, was at the time negotiating the terms of his next job as an executive without portfolio at Citigroup. But this was not public knowledge at the time. ... Rubin helped broker the final deal. The Financial Services Modernization Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, formally repealed Glass-Steagall. Among a long list of deregulatory moves large and small over the last two decades, Gramm-Leach-Bliley was the signal piece of financial deregulation."

    Do you believe for a second that the psychopaths in charge of the US mega-banks would invest tons of money into an altruistic project?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. OutWest says:
    @MarkinLA
    Anything anybody would do would be a massive case of pure wild ass speculation and very little real science. The building has been standing for a long time. It has stresses put on it every day that can weaken it - not to the point of being anywhere close to failure but it is not likely as strong as the day it was built.

    Nobody knows the exact point the plane hit and where the parts of the plane careened off into once inside the building. Nobody knows exactly where all the jet fuel went when it burned. Nobody knows what other substances contributed to the fire.

    Engineers make designs with safety margins all the time and those structures fail all the time and sometimes for the simplest reasons such as one broken component putting the whole structure in an unbalanced state and gravity taking over. Models are always gross simplifications of what happens in real life.

    Been thinking on this. If what you say is correct anything –say an interstate highway bride in Minneapolis- could fail at any time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. annamaria says:
    @OutWest
    If you recall the Redlining dustup concerned banks not making loans in neighborhoods of suspect value. Government said such judgements were discrimination. The resulting loans were disastrous primarily for the mortgageor but also for the banks. But only the former were wiped out.

    a partial reply: https://theintercept.com/2016/01/12/hillary-clinton-whiffs-on-reforming-wall-streets-rating-agencies/
    “Sanders’s plan, released last week, would no longer allow the companies that issue securities to pick which rating agency they use – a simple but outrageous practice that creates an enormous conflict of interest and helps facilitate fraud.”
    Whether intentionally or not your post was an attempt at absolving the big earners. And these big earners were not either government or banks that gave mortgages. The triple AAA (banking fraud) was not factored into the attempts to make everybody a house-owner.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis

    “Investment banks therefore paid handsome fees to the rating agencies…”
    The big Earners (the big contributors to “peoples representatives”):

    http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/good-riddance-to-qe-it-was-just-plain-financial-fraud/

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/quantitative-easing-benefits-the-super-elite-and-hurts-the-little-guy-and-the-american-economy.html

    http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2014/04/debt-rattle-apr-23-2014-qe-is-a-fraud-perpetrated-by-made-men/

    In case you are not aware, the root of the fraud was the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Legislation

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. annamaria says:
    @OutWest
    If you recall the Redlining dustup concerned banks not making loans in neighborhoods of suspect value. Government said such judgements were discrimination. The resulting loans were disastrous primarily for the mortgageor but also for the banks. But only the former were wiped out.

    Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/11/12/reflections-glass-steagall-and-maniacal-deregulation

    “Glass-Steagall protected depositors and prevented the banking system from taking on too much risk by defining industry structure: Commercial banks could not maintain investment banking or insurance affiliates (nor affiliates in non-financial commercial activity). As banks eyed the higher profits in higher risk activity, however, they began in the 1970s to breach the regulatory walls between commercial banking and other financial services. Starting in the 1980s, responding to a steady drumbeat of requests, regulators began to weaken the strict prohibition on cross-ownership. … in 1998, in an act of corporate civil disobedience, Citicorp and Travelers Group announced they were merging. Such a combination of banking and insurance companies was illegal under the Bank Holding Company Act, but was excused due to a loophole that provided a two-year review period of proposed mergers. The merger was premised on the expectation that Glass-Steagall would be repealed. Citigroup’s co-chairs Sandy Weill and John Reed led a swarm of industry executives and lobbyists who trammeled the halls of Congress to make sure a deal was cut. Robert Rubin, having recently stepped aside as Treasury Secretary, was at the time negotiating the terms of his next job as an executive without portfolio at Citigroup. But this was not public knowledge at the time. … Rubin helped broker the final deal. The Financial Services Modernization Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, formally repealed Glass-Steagall. Among a long list of deregulatory moves large and small over the last two decades, Gramm-Leach-Bliley was the signal piece of financial deregulation.”

    Do you believe for a second that the psychopaths in charge of the US mega-banks would invest tons of money into an altruistic project?

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    How right you are, Annamarina.

    The bundling of these subprime mortgage vehicles with a few of a higher standard should never have been AAA rated.at all..and they should never have been insured either.

    It is still obscured from the record how many sovereign states in Europe purchased these AAA rated subprime "bundles " and were left swimming in massive debt, overnight, when their values collapsed. I know Iceland went bankrupt....I wonder at the level of contagion throughout the other EU countries that may have bought up these subprime bundles?

    Do you know?

    Do you know if Spain, Greece , Ireland or Portugal were also unwitting purchasers of these subprime bundles, and how much of our " fraud" over here actually "created" the financial collapse over there?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Adoll says:
    @bach

    That might be true (for a while) if the Fed was part of your government and was using that money for the commonwealth, it isn’t. That funny money is a vehicle to create endless debt, for you.
     
    But it's not necessarily in the form of debt. And the FED is a quasi branch of the government.

    If I give you funny-money in exchange for your services, that's not debt. I just issued a piece of paper which gives you the right to buy something from me.

    But as we see with trade surplus countries, much of that money is just parked in our financial markets.

    So it would be like you taking my funny-money and giving it right back to me for safe keeping.

    In this scenario, how do I lose? You have provided me services and goods for free because it costs me nothing to print up my funny-money.

    Now, if you want to keep this going forever where I give you worthless pieces of paper for iPhones, TVs, kitchen goods and other sundries, should I complain?

    The Chinese, for instance, are using that funny money to buy all of the real gold, as in actual bullion, while Wall St pedals gold “certificates”, paper substitutes for real gold.
     
    The Chinese use some of it to buy gold and other things. But a significant portion is parked in our financial markets.

    On net, the US has a trade deficit with the entire world, which means that on net, the entire world takes our paper money and gives it right back to us for safe keeping.

    The problem with it is the local producer takes it in the teeth because he can’t print money, only trade goods and services. So folks with access to the spigot grow wealthy buying cheap goods with magic money, while normal folks suffer.

    While low prices on goods may appear to be a boon for a while, eventually the local guy closes shop, or goes bankrupt. Then the foreign producer you pumped up with funny money senses a good deal, comes local, and buys up distressed property, pushing out locals and prices on property high. We are at this stage.

    The long term result is peasants with pitchforks and torches.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bach

    The problem with it is the local producer takes it in the teeth because he can’t print money, only trade goods and services. So folks with access to the spigot grow wealthy buying cheap goods with magic money, while normal folks suffer.
     
    So we know that those who have first access to the funny money get rich at the expense of those who do not. Wealth and income inequality increases.

    But do normal folks suffer? Or just fall behind the rich folks? Eventually, the funny money trickles down. And everyone gets to enjoy the free goods form China we paid for with our handy printing machines.

    While low prices on goods may appear to be a boon for a while, eventually the local guy closes shop, or goes bankrupt. Then the foreign producer you pumped up with funny money senses a good deal, comes local, and buys up distressed property, pushing out locals and prices on property high. We are at this stage.
    The long term result is peasants with pitchforks and torches.
     
    Why would local shops, selling Chinese made goods, suffer? They're just middle men. Those with first access to funny money can import Chinese made goods for free. Those merchants who do not can enjoy the trickle down and buy Chinese made goods with the crumbs that fall from the fat bosom of bankers and trade with local customers.

    Everyone seems to benefit except manufacturers. But who needs manufacturers when China is willing to make everything in exchange for funny money?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. alexander says:
    @annamaria
    Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis
    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/11/12/reflections-glass-steagall-and-maniacal-deregulation
    "Glass-Steagall protected depositors and prevented the banking system from taking on too much risk by defining industry structure: Commercial banks could not maintain investment banking or insurance affiliates (nor affiliates in non-financial commercial activity). As banks eyed the higher profits in higher risk activity, however, they began in the 1970s to breach the regulatory walls between commercial banking and other financial services. Starting in the 1980s, responding to a steady drumbeat of requests, regulators began to weaken the strict prohibition on cross-ownership. ... in 1998, in an act of corporate civil disobedience, Citicorp and Travelers Group announced they were merging. Such a combination of banking and insurance companies was illegal under the Bank Holding Company Act, but was excused due to a loophole that provided a two-year review period of proposed mergers. The merger was premised on the expectation that Glass-Steagall would be repealed. Citigroup's co-chairs Sandy Weill and John Reed led a swarm of industry executives and lobbyists who trammeled the halls of Congress to make sure a deal was cut. Robert Rubin, having recently stepped aside as Treasury Secretary, was at the time negotiating the terms of his next job as an executive without portfolio at Citigroup. But this was not public knowledge at the time. ... Rubin helped broker the final deal. The Financial Services Modernization Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, formally repealed Glass-Steagall. Among a long list of deregulatory moves large and small over the last two decades, Gramm-Leach-Bliley was the signal piece of financial deregulation."

    Do you believe for a second that the psychopaths in charge of the US mega-banks would invest tons of money into an altruistic project?

    How right you are, Annamarina.

    The bundling of these subprime mortgage vehicles with a few of a higher standard should never have been AAA rated.at all..and they should never have been insured either.

    It is still obscured from the record how many sovereign states in Europe purchased these AAA rated subprime “bundles ” and were left swimming in massive debt, overnight, when their values collapsed. I know Iceland went bankrupt….I wonder at the level of contagion throughout the other EU countries that may have bought up these subprime bundles?

    Do you know?

    Do you know if Spain, Greece , Ireland or Portugal were also unwitting purchasers of these subprime bundles, and how much of our ” fraud” over here actually “created” the financial collapse over there?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. bach says:
    @Adoll
    The problem with it is the local producer takes it in the teeth because he can't print money, only trade goods and services. So folks with access to the spigot grow wealthy buying cheap goods with magic money, while normal folks suffer.

    While low prices on goods may appear to be a boon for a while, eventually the local guy closes shop, or goes bankrupt. Then the foreign producer you pumped up with funny money senses a good deal, comes local, and buys up distressed property, pushing out locals and prices on property high. We are at this stage.

    The long term result is peasants with pitchforks and torches.

    The problem with it is the local producer takes it in the teeth because he can’t print money, only trade goods and services. So folks with access to the spigot grow wealthy buying cheap goods with magic money, while normal folks suffer.

    So we know that those who have first access to the funny money get rich at the expense of those who do not. Wealth and income inequality increases.

    But do normal folks suffer? Or just fall behind the rich folks? Eventually, the funny money trickles down. And everyone gets to enjoy the free goods form China we paid for with our handy printing machines.

    While low prices on goods may appear to be a boon for a while, eventually the local guy closes shop, or goes bankrupt. Then the foreign producer you pumped up with funny money senses a good deal, comes local, and buys up distressed property, pushing out locals and prices on property high. We are at this stage.
    The long term result is peasants with pitchforks and torches.

    Why would local shops, selling Chinese made goods, suffer? They’re just middle men. Those with first access to funny money can import Chinese made goods for free. Those merchants who do not can enjoy the trickle down and buy Chinese made goods with the crumbs that fall from the fat bosom of bankers and trade with local customers.

    Everyone seems to benefit except manufacturers. But who needs manufacturers when China is willing to make everything in exchange for funny money?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Don’t forget how nuclear radiation from atomic tests, nuclear energy, and nuclear meltdowns like Chernobyl and Fukushima have polluted the U.S. air, water and food, causing the sky-high cancer rates.

    If this is news to you, go to ENENEWS.com and scroll thru the headlines, and read Dr. John Gofman’s books ( some of Dr. Gofman’s books are being read on the youtube channel called “nutzforart” for free to try to raise awareness )

    Both ENENEWS and Dr. Gofman’s books should be required viewing/reading for everyone as a good foundation in understanding the truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS