The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
The US Economy Has Not Recovered and Will Not Recover
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The US economy died when middle class jobs were offshored and when the financial system was deregulated.

Jobs offshoring benefitted Wall Street, corporate executives, and shareholders, because lower labor and compliance costs resulted in higher profits. These profits flowed through to shareholders in the form of capital gains and to executives in the form of “performance bonuses.” Wall Street benefitted from the bull market generated by higher profits.

However, jobs offshoring also offshored US GDP and consumer purchasing power. Despite promises of a “New Economy” and better jobs, the replacement jobs have been increasingly part-time, lowly-paid jobs in domestic services, such as retail clerks, waitresses and bartenders.

The offshoring of US manufacturing and professional service jobs to Asia stopped the growth of consumer demand in the US, decimated the middle class, and left insufficient employment for college graduates to be able to service their student loans. The ladders of upward mobility that had made the United States an “opportunity society” were taken down in the interest of higher short-term profits.

Without growth in consumer incomes to drive the economy, the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan substituted the growth in consumer debt to take the place of the missing growth in consumer income. Under the Greenspan regime, Americans’ stagnant and declining incomes were augmented with the ability to spend on credit. One source of this credit was the rise in housing prices that the Federal Reserves low inerest rate policy made possible. Consumers could refinance their now higher-valued home at lower interest rates and take out the “equity” and spend it.

The debt expansion, tied heavily to housing mortgages, came to a halt when the fraud perpetrated by a deregulated financial system crashed the real estate and stock markets. The bailout of the guilty imposed further costs on the very people that the guilty had victimized.

Under Fed chairman Bernanke the economy was kept going with Quantitative Easing, a massive increase in the money supply in order to bail out the “banks too big to fail.” Liquidity supplied by the Federal Reserve found its way into stock and bond prices and made those invested in these financial instruments richer. Corporate executives helped to boost the stock market by using the companies’ profits and by taking out loans in order to buy back the companies’ stocks, thus further expanding debt.

Those few benefitting from inflated financial asset prices produced by Quantitative Easing and buy-backs are a much smaller percentage of the population than was affected by the Greenspan consumer credit expansion. A relatively few rich people are an insufficient number to drive the economy.

The Federal Reserve’s zero interest rate policy was designed to support the balance sheets of the mega-banks and denied Americans interest income on their savings. This policy decreased the incomes of retirees and forced the elderly to reduce their consumption and/or draw down their savings more rapidly, leaving no safety net for heirs.

Using the smoke and mirrors of under-reported inflation and unemployment, the US government kept alive the appearance of economic recovery. Foreigners fooled by the deception continue to support the US dollar by holding US financial instruments.

The official inflation measures were “reformed” during the Clinton era in order to dramatically understate inflation. The measures do this in two ways. One way is to discard from the weighted basket of goods that comprises the inflation index those goods whose price rises. In their place, inferior lower-priced goods are substituted.

For example, if the price of New York strip steak rises, round steak is substituted in its place. The former official inflation index measured the cost of a constant standard of living. The “reformed” index measures the cost of a falling standard of living.

The other way the “reformed” measure of inflation understates the cost of living is to discard price rises as “quality improvements.” It is true that quality improvements can result in higher prices. However, it is still a price rise for the consumer as the former product is no longer available. Moreover, not all price rises are quality improvements; yet many prices rises that are not can be misinterpreted as “quality improvements.”

These two “reforms” resulted in no reported inflation and a halt to cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients. The fall in Social Security real incomes also negatively impacted aggregate consumer demand.

The rigged understatement of inflation deceived people into believing that the US economy was in recovery. The lower the measure of inflation, the higher is real GDP when nominal GDP is deflated by the inflation measure. By understating inflation, the US government has overstated GDP growth.

What I have written is easily ascertained and proven; yet the financial press does not question the propaganda that sustains the psychology that the US economy is sound. This carefully cultivated psychology keeps the rest of the world invested in dollars, thus sustaining the House of Cards.

John Maynard Keynes understood that the Great Depression was the product of an insufficiency of consumer demand to take off the shelves the goods produced by industry. The post-WW II macroeconomic policy focused on maintaining the adequacy of aggregate demand in order to avoid high unemployment. The supply-side policy of President Reagan successfully corrected a defect in Keynesian macroeconomic policy and kept the US economy functioning without the “stagflation” from worsening “Philips Curve” trade-offs between inflation and employent. In the 21st century, jobs offshoring has depleted consumer demand’s ability to maintain US full employment.

The unemployment measure that the presstitute press reports is meaningless as it counts no discouraged workers, and discouraged workers are a huge part of American unemployment. The reported unemployment rate is about 5%, which is the U-3 measure that does not count as unemployed workers who are too discouraged to continue searching for jobs.

The US government has a second official unemployment measure, U-6, that counts workers discouraged for less than one-year. This official rate of unemployment is 10%.

When long term (more than one year) discouraged workers are included in the measure of unemployment, as once was done, the US unemployment rate is 23%. (See John Williams,

Fiscal and monetary stimulus can pull the unemployed back to work if jobs for them still exist domestically. But if the jobs have been sent offshore, monetary and fiscal policy cannot work.


What jobs offshoring does is to give away US GDP to the countries to which US corporations move the jobs. In other words, with the jobs go American careers, consumer purchasing power and the tax base of state, local, and federal governments. There are only a few American winners, and they are the shareholders of the companies that offshored the jobs and the executives of the companies who receive multi-million dollar “performance bonuses” for raising profits by lowering labor costs. And, of course, the economists, who get grants, speaking engagements, and corporate board memberships for shilling for the offshoring policy that worsens the distribution of income and wealth. An economy run for a few only benefits the few, and the few, no matter how large their incomes, cannot consume enough to keep the economy growing.

In the 21st century US economic policy has destroyed the ability of real aggregate demand in the US to increase. Economists will deny this, because they are shills for globalism and jobs offshoring. They misrepresent jobs offshoring as free trade and, as in their ideology free trade benefits everyone, claim that America is benefitting from jobs offshoring. Yet, they cannot show any evidence whatsoever of these alleged benefits. (See my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West.)

As an economist, it is a mystery to me how any economist can think that a population that does not produce the larger part of the goods that it consumes can afford to purchase the goods that it consumes. Where does the income come from to pay for imports when imports are swollen by the products of offshored production?

We were told that the income would come from better-paid replacement jobs provided by the “New Economy,” but neither the payroll jobs reports nor the US Labor Departments’s projections of future jobs show any sign of this mythical “New Economy.”

There is no “New Economy.” The “New Economy” is like the neoconservatives promise that the Iraq war would be a six-week “cake walk” paid for by Iraqi oil revenues, not a $3 trillion dollar expense to American taxpayers (according to Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes) and a war that has lasted the entirely of the 21st century to date, and is getting more dangerous.

The American “New Economy” is the American Third World economy in which the only jobs created are low productivity, low paid nontradable domestic service jobs incapable of producing export earnings with which to pay for the goods and services produced offshore for US consumption.

The massive debt arising from Washington’s endless wars for neoconservative hegemony now threaten Social Security and the entirety of the social safety net. The presstitute media are blaming not the policy that has devasted Americans, but, instead, the Americans who have been devasted by the policy.

Earlier this month I posted readers’ reports on the dismal job situation in Ohio, Southern Illinois, and Texas. In the March issue of Chronicles, Wayne Allensworth describes America’s declining rural towns and once great industrial cities as consequences of “globalizing capitalism.” A thin layer of very rich people rule over those “who have been left behind”—a shrinking middle class and a growing underclass. According to a poll last autumn, 53 percent of Americans say that they feel like a stranger in their own country.

Most certainly these Americans have no political representation. As Republicans and Democrats work to raise the retirement age in order to reduce Social Security outlays, Princeton University experts report that the mortality rates for the white working class are rising. The US government will not be happy until no one lives long enough to collect Social Security.

The United States government has abandoned everyone except the rich.

In the opening sentence of this article, I said that the two murderers of the American economy were jobs offshoring and financial deregulation. Deregulation greatly enhanced the ability of the large banks to financialize the economy. Financialization is the diversion of income streams into debt service. When debt service absorbs a large amount of the available income, the economy experiences debt deflation. The service of debt leaves too little income for purchases of goods and services and prices fall.

Michael Hudson, who I recently wrote about, is the expert on finanialization. His book, Killing the Host, which I recommended to you, tells the complete story. Briefly, financialization is the process by which creditors capitalize an economy’s economic surplus into interest payments to themselves. Perhaps an example would be a corporation that goes into debt in order to buy back its shares. The corporation achieves a temporary boost in its share prices at the cost of years of interest payments that drain the corporation of profits and deflate its share price.

Michael Hudson stresses the conversion of the rental value of real estate into mortgage payments. He emphasizes that classical economists wanted to base taxation not on production, but on economic rent. Economic rent is value due to location or to a monopoly position. For example, beachfront property has a higher price because of location. The difference in value between beachfront and nonbeachfront property is economic rent, not a produced value. An unregulated monopoly can charge a price for a service that is higher than the price that would bring that service unto the market.

The proposal to tax economic rent does not mean taxing you on the rent that you pay your landlord or taxing your landlord on the rent that you pay him such that he ceases to provide the housing. By economic rent Hudson means, for example, the rise in land values due to public infrastructure projects such as roads and subway systems. The rise in the value of land opened by a new road and housing and in commercial space along a new subway line is not due to any action of the property owners. This rise in value could be taxed in order to pay for the project instead of taxing the income of the population in general. Instead, the rise in land values raises appraisals and the amount that creditors are willing to lend on the property. New purchasers and existing owners can borrow more on the property, and the larger mortgages divert the increased land valuation into interest payments to creditors. Lenders end up as the major beneficiaries of public projects that raise real estate prices.

Similarly, unless the economy is financialized to such an extent that mortgage debt can no longer be serviced, when central banks lower interest rates property values rise, and this rise can be capitalized into a larger mortgage.


Another example would be property tax reductions and legislation such as California’s Proposition 13 that freeze in whole or part the property tax base. The rise in real estate values that escape taxation are capitalized into larger mortgages. New buyers do not benefit. The beneficiaries are the lenders who capture the rise in real estate prices in interest payments.

Taxing economic rent would prevent the financial system from capitalizing the rent into debt instruments that pay interest to the financial sector. Considering the amount of rents available to be taxed, taxing rents would free production from income and sales taxation, thus lowering consumer prices and freeing labor and productive capital from taxation.

With so much of land rent already capitalized into debt instruments shifting the tax burden to economic rent would be challenging. Nevertheless, Hudson’s analysis shows that financialization, not wage suppression, is the main instrument of exploitation and takes place via the financial system’s conversion of income streams into interest payments on debt.

I remember when mortgage service was restricted to one-quarter of household income. Today mortgage service can eat up half of household income. This extraordinary growth crowds out the production of goods and services as less of household income is available for other purchases.

Michael Hudson and I bring a total indictment of the neoliberal economics profession, “junk economists” as Hudson calls them.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Economics • Tags: Free Trade, Unemployment, Wall Street 
Hide 55 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. 22pp22 says:

    Trumps says the right things. If he wins, I hope he does the right things.

  2. I wish PCR would give these sorts of updates on RT’s Boom Bust show. This is information that needs to be widely debated and talked about. A regular update on RT and YouTube would help get information out.

    PCR’s analysis makes a lot of sense to me. I’m not sure how professional economists get around these arguments. They seem to be engaged in “winning the debate by not having one.” If you refuse to engage in an economic debate, you can’t lose.

    I hate to say it, but neo-liberal “modern economics” is in the mode of Galen, bordering on outright quackery, with Austerity as the modern version of bleeding the patient to balance his humors.

    “In medieval Europe, Galen’s writings on anatomy became the mainstay of the medieval physician’s university curriculum; but they suffered greatly from stasis and intellectual stagnation. Some of Galen’s ideas were incorrect: he did not dissect a human body nor did the medieval lecturers.”

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  3. MarkinLA says:

    I’m not sure how professional economists get around these arguments.

    They are paid to say what the corporate/billionaire class wants. Do you really think when the King Of France told the entrails reader he wanted to invade Wallonia that the entrails reader would come back and say that the entrails don’t favor it?

  4. MarkinLA says:

    The supply-side policy of President Reagan successfully corrected a defect in Keynesian macroeconomic policy

    Bullshit. Reagan was there in the right place at the right time and that is about it. The bear market in stocks ended (starting in the mid 60s) because they became so cheap it started the LBO craze. The PC and semiconductor industries matured creating hundreds of thousands of jobs for engineers as semiconductors moved into every industry. Jimmy Carter’s appointment of Paul Volcker killed off the inflation plaguing the economy all during the 70s.

    As for what Reagan really did – he pushed for free trade, the basis for all out outsourcing woes today. He looked the other was while corporations sent buses to Mexico to get workers to destroy unions and drive wages down and he eventually amnestied the illegals to indemnify their employers against any possible legal action. Of course, he did nothing to control the border and we had a flood of new illegals.

    He tasked the NSF to push the “tech worker shortage” meme that led to the H-1B visas signed into law under Bush. Now even kids just out of college are having a hard time getting STEM degrees as the government has created an alphabet soup of visas that allow foreign students to stay here almost as long as they want. In the case of the soon to be expanded to 3 year OPT program, the foreign worker doesn’t pay payroll taxes so is even cheaper than a citizen. Add on an H-1B visa and you have 6 years of indentured servitude versus as American worker.

    This is the real Reagan legacy for working Americans. This doesn’t even touch what he did for affirmative action policies.

    Well Nancy did get free designer dresses for the galas at the White House so I guess it all balances out.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Anonymous
  5. The US economy died when middle class jobs were offshored and when the financial system was deregulated.

    Amen! And thank you Mr. Clinton. Bush (the lessor) and Obama may seem like monsters. But they are standing on Bill Clinton’s shoulders.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @Bill Jones
  6. MarkinLA says:

    But they are standing on Bill Clinton’s shoulders.

    Who was standing on GHWB’s shoulders (NAFTA negotiator) and the dozing body of Reagan (NAFTA originator and banking deregulator).

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  7. @MarkinLA

    Yes NAFTA was on the drawing board before Clinton and his new Democrats kicked labor out of the Democratic coalition ending all resistance to “free trade”. I think of Bill, Dubya and Bama as the first modern presidents because starting with Clinton’s second term it has been all Wall Street all the time. Anyway – it all started with a big bang.

  8. This goes hand in hand with the article on minimum wages jobs elsewhere in the pages of Unz. The Feds and States have teamed up with big biz to shut down mom&pop and middle-market businesses, which used to be the engine of American jobs creation because, for the govt types, it is a lot easier to collect taxes and impose rules via a handful of mega-corps than to deal with a few million entrpreneurial types who don’t have the time or inclination to deal with it. Works for the mega-corps, as they get to further depress labor costs, and when they hit what looks like bottom, they get their friends in DC to open the spigots for even cheaper labor from the rest of the world. Makes perfect sense to me.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  9. @WorkingClass

    Bush (the Lessor) sb Bush (the Lesser)

    How many leases did he sign?

    • Replies: @Ivy
  10. @The Alarmist

    … it is a lot easier to collect taxes and impose rules via a handful of mega-corps than to deal with a few million entrpreneurial types who don’t have the time or inclination to deal with it.

    Actually, with their armies of lobbyists and lawyers-on-retainer, it is much easier for those mega-corporations to avoid paying taxes and to get rid of profit-reducing regulations than it is for mom and pop.

  11. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Our economy will never recover due to the pathetic shape our infrastructure is in. We need to spend around four TRILLION DOLLARS by 2020 to get it back in shape, but don’t hold your breath for that to happen, the government is too busy propping up bankrupt Wall Street banks and busting up ME nations for Israel.

    Here’s a good link on the infrastructure report card.

  12. TheJester says:

    Paul, I’ve spend decades mulling and reading and it seems that macro and micro economics and all of the graphs and metrics systematically confuse the trees for the forest.

    The four stages of Industrialization, a.k.a. Capitalism as a formal bookkeeping exercise to analogically try to keep track of the cost of resources, the cost of production, and the cost of marketing and distribution:

    1. Industrial processes produce so many goods that local populations cannot consume them. (The 18th Century)

    2. Hence, we see the rise of maritime empires bent on subjugating non-western peoples in order to loot their natural resources and serve as forced markets for excess production, a.k.a. colonialism. Sometimes the empires seriously fought each other over access to natural resources and external markets. Sometimes the prevailing ideologies created to justify colonialism had to decide whom we should call western and whom we should call non-western so they knew whom to loot. We call this the era of colonial wars, culminating in WWI and WWII. (The 19th and 20th Centuries)

    3. Then, the rest of the world started industrializing and arming. We now live in a sea of excess production so vast that it cannot possibly be consumed. With total war out of favor (it wrecks too much of everything in a multi-polar world with nuclear weapons), we now resort to clever bookkeeping, also called Financialization, that allows bankers to create money and broadly distribute debt in the hope that this will help soak up excess production. When the debts come due and cannot be paid, the bankers loot the debtors’ resources, not caring whether the debtors are nation states, corporations, or individuals. Austerity and depression appear to be the natural outcomes of Financialization. (The 21st Century)

    4. Enter the robots. After the initial investment, now goods can be produced 24/7 without the cost of labor. Talk about massive excess production! Big problem! There are fewer people left to consume primary much less excess production because workers no longer have jobs. Wars are out of favor in a nuclear-armed world; and distributing debt doesn’t work anymore because the idle populace no longer have sufficient incomes to retire debt.

    As a corollary to the above, it should be clear that there have never been “free markets”. Behind the algorithms of the bookkeepers were always politics and greed, enforced by force of arms when necessary.

    What’s next? Game up … capitalism dead! We’re of necessity ready for a new order of material and economic existence for the human race for governing the creation and distribution of material production. We need a new approach to bookkeeping. Any ideas? Where is Marx when we need him most?

    • Replies: @annamaria
  13. Well, here’s something I never thought I’d say: Paul Craig Roberts is actually making sense. Now if he would just stick to economic analyses like this one and knock off the 9/11 Truther shit…

    With that being said, I’m not sure I would agree that taxing economic rents is the correct way to end financialization and restore balance to the economy. The opportunity to extract economic rents (for instance, purchasing a property that is likely to rise in value) is one of the primary drivers of entrepreneurialism and hence a fundamental market force. Such things should not be punished. I am much more inclined to think that heavy regulation of the banking industry is the correct way to go. A Putin-esque strongman who keeps the oligarchs on a short leash and who operates the macro-economy in the national interest (e.g. with protectionist tariffs) is the only way to ensure that the middle- and working- classes are not robbed of either their purchasing power or their dignity.

    • Replies: @Wally
  14. Wally says: • Website

    The proof of all that is where?

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  15. Wally says: • Website
    @Intelligent Dasein

    “… knock off the 9/11 Truther shit …” ???

    Do you have a problem with getting to the truth about 9/11?

    Or do you accept the US Gov’s ridiculously impossible conspiracy theory?

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

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  16. @Wally

    Or do you accept the US Gov’s ridiculously impossible conspiracy theory?

    Um…you guys are the ones claiming that it’s a conspiracy. Hence you’re the ones with the “conspiracy theory.”

    And yes, I do fully accept that the WTC towers (including Building 7) came crashing down as a result of the damage they incurred in a terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslim hijackers. I believe this not because “the government says so,” but because that is what happened. There was no controlled demolition, no explosive charges, no thermite, and no holograms.

    Now, if you want to talk about a “softer” version of conspiracy, i.e. that the CIA was actively involved in funding and training Al-Qaeda members who slipped their leash and attacked America, and that to cover up this complicity the USG decided to declare a “War on Terror,” then I would agree with you. But the idea that 9/11 was anything but a terrorist attack is nonsense.

    • Replies: @Dave
    , @Rurik
    , @Truth
  17. Ivy says:
    @Bill Jones

    43 was Lessor in effect as he and his ilk signed over various economic and social rights that used to be more available to American citizens. That will end up being some messy pottage for us all.

  18. Dave says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Although I loathe most conspiracy writers, you still need to explain how building 7 came down without being hit by any aircraft or major debris.
    That building was “pulled” and the muslims didn’t do it.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  19. Rurik says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Um…you guys are the ones claiming that it’s a conspiracy. Hence you’re the ones with the “conspiracy theory.”

    the official version is also a conspiracy theory, as it involved a conspiracy between Osama and his 19 henchmen. According to the official conspiracy theory, those men conspired to attack the WTC and Pentagon.

    And yes, I do fully accept that the WTC towers (including Building 7) came crashing down as a result of the damage they incurred in a terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslim hijackers

    well then you haven’t looked at much of the evidence, or considered it thoughtfully, or you’re a liar and a shill, or of course there is the distinct possibility that you’re simply an imbecile.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  20. @Dave

    I don’t want to turn this thread into another interminable 9/11 brouhaha, for God knows we’ve had enough of those over the last 15 years. But nevertheless I will respond to your challenge.

    First of all, Building 7, pace your assertion, was struck by major debris and was severely damaged. Second of all, it had been burning for hours. Thirdly, its foundations were weakened by the shock waves of Buildings 1 and 2 collapsing. You have heard of an earthquake bomb, right? Just imagine the kinetic energy of the two 1000-ft tall towers collapsing to the ground, and what those shock waves must have done to the foundations of adjacent buildings. The only wonder is that there weren’t more failures around Manhattan.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Truth
    , @Gary
    , @Greg Bacon
  21. @Rurik

    No, I’ve looked at the evidence very carefully, and I seem to be the only sane man in a room full of lunatics.

    Do not ever insult me again, even by implication. I now cordially invite you to go fuck yourself.

  22. Rurik says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    I don’t want to turn this thread into another interminable 9/11 brouhaha,

    by suggesting that building seven fell because of the office fires and the vibrations, you’re forcing me to point out how utterly idiotic such a suggestion is, because it was that false flag event that they’ve used as a pretext for their Eternal Wars. And we must never allow them to get away with it. So I have to point out how utterly foolish and wildly preposterous your suggestions are.

    The only wonder is that there weren’t more failures around Manhattan.


    you have absolutely zero knowledge of what you’re talking about

    steel does not evaporate because of an office fire or some vibrations

    and the fact that they reported on the building imploding before! it did, is proof that it was staged and that the controlled media was in on it.

    DO SOME RESEARCH before you speak on this issue or you’re going to come off as pathetically ill-informed , at best

  23. Rurik says:

    “and no holograms.”


    it’s your imperious tone that invites mockery, especially when you speak of things you know nothing about.

    I’m not trying to be any kind of flamer here. And I respect those people who actually are confused about what happened on 911- and who were responsible. There are lots of people of good will who simply do not understand all the minutia and for several understandable reasons, don’t want to. If you’re one of those, then I have no hostility to you whatsoever. And certainly no reason to insult.

    But there are others, people who would obfuscate the truth of what happened on that day for reasons other than naiveté. People who would try to blame the innocent, and cover for the guilty. It is those people who I lose respect for, and find it necessary to use a harsher tone with. They’re dishonest, ya know. I don’t cotton to the dishonest type. ; )

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  24. @Rurik

    Well then let me explain my intentions here.

    I agree with the broadly diffused, global intuition that the United States government is corrupt in its very marrow, and that its policies both before and after 9/11 are highly suggestive of ulterior motives. In that much, we are on the same page.

    I do not agree with the specific allegation that 9/11 was a US government plot, and I certainly don’t agree that the physical evidence leads to the conclusion that there were causal factors other than hijacked airplanes bringing the towers down. This should not be used to infer anything else about my political opinions. I am not a neocon and I have never defended the Iraq war, or much of anything else concerning the Bush administration.

    However, I do think it is vitally important to insist that 9/11 was not a false flag. It was so opportunistically used by the government that it might as well have been, but in point of fact it wasn’t and the difference is significant. The Islamic world does present a real and existential threat to the Western world, and 9/11 is proof of that.

    The correct policy response to 9/11 was something so contrary to established habits that it didn’t bear thinking of—nationalism, isolationism, an end to globalism, and a cordon sanitaire between the West and Islam. Because the correct solution fell into the realm of forbidden thought, people initially latched on to the neocon-proffered pseudo-solution of Invade the World/Invite the World. We would employ “smart power” against Islam and make them just like us. The Truther movement arose in response to the self-serving and tawdry elements implicit in the neocon vision, correctly calling out the duplicity of the United States government; but it did not escape from the same underlying assumption that everything was basically alright save for the interference of a certain nasty element, in this case the USG. Trutherism and Neoconservatism are basically two sides of the same coin: they both avoid addressing the real problem.

    In more than 10 years of talking about this, I have always taken pains to point out that I understand, and in fact agree with, the Truthers’ motivations for believing the way that they do, but that in certain matters of fact they were simply wrong. For this I have been consistently rewarded with calumny and insult. I have never called them shills or imbeciles, but I do think they are mistaken about the physics of planes, fires, and collapsing buildings.

    The interesting (and tragic) thing about 9/11 is that instead of becoming a catalyst for a much-needed change in our national direction, it turned into a whole Dreyfus Affair that tore the nation apart and spurred us even further down the road to ruin.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @WhatEvvs
  25. Muse says:

    Mr. Roberts,
    With all due respect, you have forgotten to include that immigration laws have been ignored by the past three administrations to undercut the wages of workers performing jobs that cannot be exported to third world nations.

  26. Rurik says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    I do not agree with the specific allegation that 9/11 was a US government plot, and I certainly don’t agree that the physical evidence leads to the conclusion that there were causal factors other than hijacked airplanes bringing the towers down.

    it wasn’t a US government plot per se, but there were elements inside the US government; Dick Cheney- many more who yes, conspired with elements in the Israeli government and intelligence services to perpetrate this false flag as a pretext to destroy regimes and countries who Israel and the neocons considered inconvenient to their long-term agenda.

    Building seven was not hit by an airplane. It had superficial damage and there were a couple of office fires, but that is not enough to disappear a modern, steel-frame building’s frame work so that it plops into its basement at free-fall speed. That is impossible without some other forces (controlled demolitions charges and thermite) sabotaging the structure of such a building.

    This is rather long but please at least peruse it

    these people are sincere and what they have to say is cogent and relevant

    the people who did 911 are psychopaths. They must be removed from power or they’re going to do worse next time. They don’t care about the West, they want to put a boot upon the neck of the West. That’s why they’re importing millions upon millions of Muslims into the West, because they hate Germany and Europe and North America and all the other Christian countries who’ve persecuted them so cruelly for ‘two thousand years’. They, in fact hate them far, far worse than they hate the Muslims, who they see as tools and savages. They see you as a threat to their eternal imperative for domination. That’s why your world has to be destroyed, and their built up. See?

    Anyways, I have no more time. Please watch some of the video. Regards..

    • Replies: @joe webb
  27. Truth says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    And yes, I do fully accept that the WTC towers (including Building 7) came crashing down as a result of the damage they incurred in a terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslim hijackers. I believe this not because “the government says so,” but because that is what happened. There was no controlled demolition, no explosive charges, no thermite, and no holograms.

    So it didn’t happen because, well, “you said so.”

    First time I’ve heard such irrefutable proof on the subject. I’ve changed my mind.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  28. Truth says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    The only wonder is that there weren’t more failures around Manhattan.

    LOL, and what do you infer from this mysterous “wonder”?

  29. vinteuil says:

    Oh, troof.

    You think there’s a behind-the-scenes cabal capable of bringing off 9/11, pinning it on a bunch of innocent Saudis, and using that as an excuse to kill as many brown brothers as possible – without any of the hundreds or thousands who must have been in on it blowing the whistle?

    All I can say is: I want in on this conspiracy! Anybody capable of getting away with all that is a super-genius who richly deserves to rule the world.

    • Replies: @Truth
    , @AndrewR
  30. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    A totally uninformed comment. Why do people make such fools of themselves.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  31. Gary says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    One thing Dasein isn’t is intelligent.

  32. joe webb says:

    I have remained sorta agnostic on 9-11-01 because of a perhaps too simple sense that who-dunnit is somewhat besides the point when it is so “obvious” why it was done, and that was for the Jews/Israel and as you point out their eternal hatred of Christianity, the West, and especially
    Whites because we are the only people capable of destroying them as a political power.

    Maybe somebody could explain to me why the 9-11 protest has been so anemic with regard to naming the Jews, although this film did at least mention the PNAC factor but it went by so fast and was not explained that anybody without a fair, at least, knowledge of Israel and Jews would not catch it.

    Jews are the only apparent reason for 9-11. And/or a secondary reason, of some kind of strange tactic of seizing upon the Middle East as a way of getting at Russia and its perceived role in opposing the EU/American economic empire as well as payback for throwing out the jew power in Russia. Maybe the War Party folks, per Buchanan, jews and American Empire actually does exist as a military operation to further economic domination.

    I dunno. This gets back to the Sacker, and his obsession with the anglo-zionist theme.

    Assuming that the War Party , which certainly exists, actually thinks that war, which is very expensive, will produce an economic miracle to pull the internationalist or Global economy together together again under the US, can actually work.

    This seems pretty stupid to me. Now with regard to the other hypothesis of a jewish OT guided protocol of World Domination, this seems a perfect caper for the jews to suck the White goyem into Jewish Wars more or less forever.

    Corollary #1: The jewyorktimes every day now is hammering Europe to accept Migrants. Today it featured a story condemning France for its marshal law (?) hunts for muzzie terrorists. Its photo op was of a blind muzzie (boo hoo) confined to house arrest and having to phone in to the cops three times a day. And the jewyorktimes chief jew rabbi, Roger Cohen, every day chants the mantra of integration of muzzies into Europe. (this is more exploitation of liberal humanitarianism and Natural Rights discourse).

    In other words destroy Europe with neocon/US shabbas goyem bombs over Arabs. As you admirably put it, “because they hate Germany and Europe and North America and all the other Christian countries who’ve persecuted them so cruelly for ‘two thousand years’…”

    Now to accept this thesis, 1, the imbecile policy of War for US/EU economies….it is hard to believe that anyone can go for this. Thesis #2, that it is all for the Jews, and that the jews are that ruthless, and that “we”can be so dumb as to go along with it, Christian Fundamentalists notwithstanding, is easier to believe given the apparent death grip that the jews have on the Protestant mentality, as well a good part of Catholics. Never mind their money, but not to forget their academic, etc. power and media, etc. it may turn out that it is all for the Jews.

    Hard to believe, but it gets more and more plausible. The recent remark by Trump that he would be a neutral party between Israel and the Arabs…I expected it but he should have kept his mouth shut for the time being. Meanwhile it also cannot be lost on Europeans that the jews are promoting migration of the Arabs and Africans into Europe.

    The jews will be amply rewarded in future for their behaviors today, but meanwhile, we seem to be gaining a march or two on them with Trump and the growing liberal distrust of them. Zionism may continue to gather more and more people who despise it. The jews are right, anti-zionism is the first step toward anti-semitism.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @Rurik
  33. Greg Bacon says: • Website
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Then please explain who looted the gold and silver bullion from WTC 4 the night BEFORE the attacks?

    And who placed the ‘shorts’ on airline stock in the weeks leading up to 9/11?

    Guess we should just close our minds and believe anything that DC tells us, yes, that’s much safer.

  34. Truth says:

    You think there’s a behind-the-scenes cabal capable of bringing off 9/11, pinning it on a bunch of innocent Saudis, and using that as an excuse to kill as many brown brothers as possible – without any of the hundreds or thousands who must have been in on it blowing the whistle?

    No, I think a guy in a cave with a walkie-talkie issued a “stand-down” order to the US Air Force, and two guys who couldn’t fly Piper Cubs navigated a state of the art jetliner, on route to Ohio to make a 270 degree turn and collide with a building in New York.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  35. AndrewR says:

    I don’t think anyone said the hijackers were innocent. The question is exactly how they were able to carry out the attack. Who helped them and who looked the other way?

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  36. vinteuil says:

    “I think…two guys who couldn’t fly Piper Cubs navigated a state of the art jetliner, on [sic] route to Ohio to make a 270 degree turn and collide with a building in New York.”

    Yeah – sounds crazy, doesn’t it?

    So who do you think *was* navigating the airliner?

    • Replies: @Truth
    , @Eddie
  37. vinteuil says:

    “I don’t think anyone said the hijackers were innocent.”

    Et tu, AndrewR? Please check out Truth’s post, just before yours. He apparently *does* believe either that there *were* no highjackers, or that they were not flying the plane.

  38. Truth says:

    Obviously someone who was not on it.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  39. bondo says:

    the hijackers arent innocent those blamed are.

    give a govt explanation for the c-ring hole linked below and look at who buys it.

    wtc 7 was so severely damaged by paper clips, spit wads and flying drawer handles that lucky larry had to have it brought down using explosives somehow already preset and ready to be used.

    the small, incomplete g-d blessed its favored spawn


    the zionized amurderkan economy is not meant to recover for the lesser souls.

    shit is the planned present and future

    trump may have other ideas

    bring nader into your admin

  40. Rurik says:
    @joe webb

    Hello Joe,

    so anemic with regard to naming the Jews,

    for a few reasons; there were clearly Gentiles involved and people don’t want to come off as sounding anti-Semitic. If you notice Jews in a way that isn’t positive you risk becoming a scorned outcast. Think Mel Gibson or Rick Sanchez or Joe Sobran. It sends a powerful message to the rest to bow their heads and watch what they say.

    that the jews are that ruthless, and that “we”can be so dumb as to go along with it

    yes and yes

    But here again I caution against blanket observations. Just as the Sacker likes in impugn all Anglos by innuendo, so too it’s folly and unfair to impugn even most Jews as being ruthless or complicit. It may be true that Jews are raised to always consider ‘what’s good for the Jews’, but I wouldn’t take that to imply any collective guilt per se.

    it also cannot be lost on Europeans that the jews are promoting migration of the Arabs and Africans into Europe.

    Zionism has always had a two part approach. Racial purity for Jews on one hand with an overtly racially pure nation-state / and open borders and Blanda Upp for the rest – especially the whites.

    Race is everything, and every race that does not keep its blood from being mixed will perish. . . Language and religion do not determine a race–blood determines it.”
    —British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli,

    the Nazis were only emulating what the Jews have believed for centuries

    • Replies: @joe webb
  41. WhatEvvs [AKA "Anonymous4"] says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Very briefly, I agree w/everything you say, and I regretted that this thread had been hijacked to 9/11 trutherism until I saw your brief description of what it is and where you differ with it. I’ve never seen a better one, thanks. But…

    “The Islamic world does present a real and existential threat to the Western world, and 9/11 is proof of that.”

    I’m beginning to wonder about that one. I think the real existential threat to the Western world is China. We can deal with the Muslims. Just don’t let them in. Whether we have the will to do this, I don’t know. But our economy is so hollowed out, I don’t know whether we can compete with China.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  42. annamaria says:

    Going to back to the beauties of the US’ and global economy (that latter being controlled by the US):
    “Over the past three decades, sixty of the world’s poorest countries have paid $550 billion in principal and interest on loans of $540 billion, yet they still owe a whopping $523 billion on those same loans. The cost of servicing that debt is more than these countries spend on health or education and is twenty times the amount they receive annually in foreign aid. In addition, World Bank projects have brought untold suffering to some of the planet’s poorest people…. the governments in these countries have beaten, tortured, and killed opponents of World Bank projects.”
    Today the US citizenry is experiencing the capitalism that “has turned to exploiting the West itself:”
    Michael Hudson: “In 2008 the Federal Reserve had a choice: It could save the economy, or it could save the banks. It might have used a fraction of what became the vast QE credit – for example $1 trillion – to pay off the bad mortgages and write them down. That would have helped save the economy from debt deflation. Instead, the Fed simply wanted to re-inflate the bubble, to save banks from having to suffer losses on their junk mortgages and other bad loans. Keeping these debts on the books, in full, let banks foreclose on defaulting homeowners. … a financial war waged by Wall Street against the economy. The Fed is a major weapon in this war.”

    • Replies: @Rurik
  43. gwynedd1 says:

    I have have understood this for years. I saw a comment that we paid lip service to our founding principles some years ago and decided to find out myself. I decided to read Adam Smith , Ricardo , Js Mill , Henry George etc. I can attest we have been betrayed and swindled by financial interests starting around WWII.

    Here we have “free trade” under so called liberalism, but nothing about no direct taxes on labor for example. We never had income taxes . There was no federal income tax and states typically taxed real estate. Indeed most taxes aimed at economic rent. Now the policy is to remove taxes from anything that can be turned into a security and privately traded capital. Then they are systematically loaded with debt and turned into an economic surplus pump via interest payments.

  44. vinteuil says:

    OK, so there were no hijackers – the planes that hit the WTC towers were remotely controlled. The pilots sat there helplessly while the remote controllers flew them into the towers – not because it was really necessary, ’cause the explosives were set to bring them all down anyway, but just to create some additional drama, I guess…

    Wow – what a sense of theatre those guys had!

    • Replies: @Truth
    , @Jonathan Revusky
  45. Truth says:

    There is hope for you after all.

  46. annamaria says:

    “…our economy is so hollowed out…” – This is the real existential threat for the US.
    Look at the policies (and their authors) that have brought the US to this sorry state. Also, whose policies have created ISIS? Could you disentangle Bush the lesser’ wet kisses with Saudi Princes from the origin of the 9/11 main actors? What institution singlehandedly has brought Greece to ruin? My point is, looking for external enemies has been a favorite pastime of the US swindlers in high places, whether MIC or Finance. Perhaps the US should first clean their own Augean Stables to find if the cleaning alone could remove the “existential threat.”

  47. Eddie says:

    “So who do you think *was* navigating the airliner?”

    A document called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century” published by The American Enterprise’s “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC), called for “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” being necessary to foster the frame of mind needed for the American public to support a war in the Middle East that would politically and culturally reshape the region.

    Rabbi Dov Zakheim, a respected and established voice in the intelligence community, went from his position at Systems Planning Corporation to become the Comptroller of the Pentagon in May 2001.

    System Planning Corporation, according to their official website, specializes in many areas of defense technology production and manufacture, including a system developed by their Radar Physics Group called the Flight Termination System, or FTS. This is a system used to destroy target drones (craft that would be fired on by test aircraft or weaponry) in the event of malfunction or “misses”. This highly sophisticated war-game technology allows the control of several ‘drones’ from a remote location, on varying frequencies, and has a range of several hundred miles. This “remote control” technology can be used on many different types of aircraft, including large passenger jets.

    According to the SPC website, a recent customer at that time was Eglin AFB, located in Florida. Eglin is very near another Air Force base in Florida – MacDill AFB, where Dov Zakheim contracted to send at least 32 Boeing 767 aircraft, as part of the Boeing /Pentagon tanker lease agreement.

    As the events of September 11, 2001 occurred, and were being investigated, little was mentioned about these strange connections, and the possible motives and proximity of Dov Zakheim and his group. Since there was little physical evidence remaining after the events, investigators were left only with photographic and anecdotal evidence.

  48. joe webb says:

    well, “it’s folly and unfair to impugn even most Jews as being ruthless or complicit.”

    I am 74 years old, started out as a philo-semite, only slowly saying goodbye to my jewish friends on personal grounds, one by one, and then getting into the whole deal here only about 15 years ago. Talk about sea-changes. I was a social democrat…still am but for my own people only.

    Most means over 51% I suppose. In my long experience personally and intellectually, I would go for 90% being complicit in jewish plots to destroy Whites and white civilization. I have substantial local history in the Palo Alto area with jamming up jews. They are Ruthless. Sorry.

    That is what we have to be, ruthless with Enemies. However, that also means cagy.

    They want us dead or replaced or marginalized in a dark swamp of third worlders . It is that simple. They are so ruthless as to allow for some jews getting whacked in Europe by muzzies…that they champion muzzie and african immigration. This is to destroy Europe.

    Read your Kevin MacDonald. However, jews are not our only enemy. Liberals are arguably as important as Jews, but jews , like in 1917, took the commanding role. This was fueled by high intelligence and hatred. Still, Emotional commitment is far more important than intelligence once you get over about 120 in IQ.


    • Replies: @Rurik
  49. MarkinLA says:

    An economist calling somebody else a fool, not that’s a hoot.

  50. MarkinLA says:

    Ronnies baby NAFTA

    In the mid to late 1980s, the NSF began circulating an unorthodox demographic study projecting scarcities of more than half a million scientists and engineers:

    Now are you really going to dispute Reagan’s role in amnesty?

    The book Fast Food nation is where it was mentioned that IBP sent buses to Mexico to get strikebreakers.

  51. Rurik says:
    @joe webb

    Hey Joe,

    I would go for 90% being complicit in jewish plots to destroy Whites and white civilization.

    Perhaps, but then that 10% is where men like Benjamin Freedman come from, and we need them perhaps more than anyone, no? Or some of my personal favorites like Carl Sagan, so many others.. Barry Goldwater from your generation. (we’re chatting on a website owned by such a man)

    But I admit that collectively they do seem like that story of the frog and the scorpion, when the scorpion is dependent upon the frog for a ride across the lake, but instead stings the frog, dooming them both, because it simply is the nature of the scorpion to do so.

    I’m hoping interbreeding and collective consciousness made possible by the Internet will damper down their more strident elements, so that perhaps it doesn’t play out as an ‘us or them’ ultimatum. I’m sure that’s how the Nazis saw it, and perhaps with good reason.

    But we have a burgeoning explosion of technological advances in so many fields that it’s impossible to predict how this will all play out. People are using genetics to pick designer babies. How many of those are going to be orcs vs. beauties? People will want what people will want. – The Gods of the Copybook Headings and all that.

    So I remain hopeful that we’ll find a way to live together, or apart if must be, but without needing to completely remove the (very real and dire) threat that some of them certainly pose. (The owners of the Fed being the most urgent)

    I’m familiar with McDonald and his works, and know what he’s talking about. It’s just all so darn tragic that there’s that element in their character that seems to insist on our destruction. Envy?

    Anyways, cheers

  52. @vinteuil

    not because it was really necessary, ’cause the explosives were set to bring them all down anyway, but just to create some additional drama, I guess…

    Kermit, the plane hijacking story was necessary. It was necessary to frame the Arab patsies.

    If they simply blew up the buildings with no plane story, how do they get their splendid little wars? They need to be able to say: “Dem ay-rabs did this!”

    You’ve really got to intellectually engage a bit more, Kermit, like not say that Wikipedia, which only serves as a summary of the official story, is proof of the official story. Stuff like that. Figure out what proof really is, figure out how and why these deep events have patsies and the meaning of that. That sort of thing… Learn… Think…. (It ain’t illegal yet!)

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS