The man who protected Bill and Hillary Clinton for 12 years says there is “something seriously wrong” with Hillary and that her bizarre collapse in New York on Sunday was likely a seizure and not “dehydration” as her campaign claimed.
Former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne, who protected the Clintons between 1991 and 2003, wrote a lengthy article in which he claimed that the explanation that Hillary was merely suffering from “overheating” was “highly suspect”.
“Through the lens of my 29-year-career in The Service, I can see what a naked-eyed media pundit cannot: There is something seriously wrong with Mrs. Clinton,” asserts Byrne, noting that the now infamous video of her clearly shows a woman who cannot stand on her own.
“She awkwardly leans on the ballard and stares straight ahead with her neck craned and extended up as her body is supported at the side and rear by her staffers.”
“The agent who opened the door moves to take the place of the staffer and take Mrs. Clinton’s arm, but as they switch control, she nearly falls completely. The bald agent, who I believe is the shift leader, knows what is going on with Mrs. Clinton and – this oddity is very telling.”
“As Mrs. Clinton jerks back and forth and her legs fold, the bald agent takes her right arm. The staffer also tries to also grab underneath Mrs. Clinton’s armpits to lift Mrs. Clinton.”
“Close examination of Mrs. Clinton’s legs reveal her feet and legs have extended and are not holding her weight at all. The toes of her right foot drag and skid on the pavement. As they lift and push her forward, her legs don’t keep up and she falls forward again.”
Byrne remarks on how all the agents immediately rushed to hide Clinton from public view once she collapsed and how her bizarre movements are more indicative of a seizure than anything to do with allergies or overheating.
Friday night, Hillary Clinton said out loud what our progressive friends have long been thinking. It may cost her the election.
Half of Donald Trump’s supporters, claimed Hillary, were merely anxious about the future. The other half belonged in a “basket of deplorables.” What made them deplorable, said Hillary, was that they were “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.”
Having been called all of these things, I can assure you that to be so defamed one need only express a common sense opinion on, say, affirmative action, gender differences, traditional marriage, immigration or terrorism — an opinion that the defamer may have held as recently as yesterday.
In my 2015 book, Scarlet Letters, I explored the desperate urge felt by Hillary and her fellow travelers to demonize their fellow citizens. My inspiration came after watching an HBO documentary called Fall to Grace and directed by Alexandra Pelosi — yes, Nancy’s daughter. Pelosi revealed, without intending to, how easily the failure to follow the shifting multicultural creed could become a “sin.”
The documentary tracks the career of former New Jersey governor, Jim McGreevey, the self-dubbed “gay-American” disgraced in a sex and security scandal. In one passing scene, McGreevey enters an Episcopal Church ostensibly more welcoming than the hidebound Catholic Church of his childhood. The message board on the church front reads, “Lord help us overcome the sins of racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia.”
Had the message board been bigger, I argued, the good pastor might have added xenophobia, Islamophobia, and global warming denial. “Although there are many other ways an individual can go wrong,” I wrote, “these stand for the moment as the seven new deadly sins.” In her speech, Hillary cited five of the seven. By concluding with the phrase “you name it,” she encouraged her audience to conjure up some other new sin, “transphobia” perhaps.
My new book has been published and will be officially released on Tuesday. However, preorders for the e-Book version are now available on Amazon and can be obtained by clicking this link:
The central banks have gone so far off the deep-end with financial price manipulation that it is only a matter of time before some astute politician comes after them with all barrels blasting. As a matter of fact, that appears to be exactly what Donald Trump unloaded on bubble vision this morning:
By keeping interest rates low, the Fed has created a “false stock market,” Donald Trump argued in a wide-ranging CNBC interview, exclaiming that Fed Chair Janet Yellen and central bank policymakers are very political, and should be “ashamed”of what they’re doing to the country…
He’s completely correct. After all, they are crushing real wages with their 2% inflation targeting; destroying savers with NIRP and sub-zero rates, and burying unborn taxpayers in monumental debts that today’s politicians are pleased to issue with reckless abandon because the short-run carry cost is nil.
Interest on the Uncle Sam’s $19.4 trillion of debt, for example, is easily $500 billion lower than its true economic cost based on a normal yield after inflation and taxes and elimination of the phony $100 billion per year in so-called Fed “profits” that are booked by the treasury as negative interest expense.
Alas, when interest rates eventually normalize, the Treasury’s debt service costs will soar by hundreds of billions. At the same time, the entirety of the Fed’s “profits”, which are conjured from thin air because it buys interest-yielding government and GSE debt with printing press liabilities which cost virtually nothing, will disappear. That’s because it will be forced to take reserve charges for giant principal losses on the falling prices of its $4.5 billion portfolios of government and GSE bonds.
At that moment, the long-abused citizens of Flyover America, who have already been clobbered as savers and wage earners, will get hit with the triple whammy of soaring Federal tax bills. And this is not a matter of if or even when; it’s really just a question of how soon.
When it comes to the establishment’s monetary lunacy, of course, Mario Draghi’s is always leading the charge. So just consider what has been happening after his inartful punt during last week’s ECB meeting.
First, the casino cheerleaders have insisted that there is nothing to sweat about with respect to the incredible anomaly that now plagues the euro-bond markets. To wit, socialist Europe has apparently not issued enough qualifying debt (with a yield not below the negative 0.4% threshold) to fill the ECB’s $90 billion per month purchase target.
The solution is real simple according to Draghi’s acolytes in the casino. In addition to lowering the bond yield threshold as deep into the subzero freezer as necessary, they have proffered an even better solution. Just buy up the stock market, too!
“The obvious reason for the ECB to buy equities is they have almost run out of German bonds to buy,” said Stefan Gerlach, chief economist at BSI Bank and a former deputy governor of Ireland’s central bank. “The basic idea is that the central bank can put essentially anything on its balance sheet and there is no reason to be straight-laced about this.”
Equities offer a deep pool of assets. The market capitalization of listed eurozone companies was $6.1 trillion at the end of 2015, according to World Bank data.
And this isn’t just some whacko sell side analyst talking his book. Here’s what one of the world’s alleged leading monetary policy exports added to the mix:
When policy rates approached zero, central banks in the U.S., the U.K., Japan and the eurozone turned to bond purchases to reduce long-term interest rates. Buying equities would likely yield some of the same effects in terms of encouraging consumption and investment through higher household wealth and lower cost of capital.
“I don’t see a reason not to do this,” said Joseph Gagnon, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “It isn’t obvious to me why a central bank wouldn’t always want a diversified portfolio, including equities.”
Actually, it gets even better. According to another casino player, bonds have now gotten so over-valued—-from massive central banking QE purchases, of course—-that European equities are now “undervalued” in relative terms!
Therefore, the ECB can do no less than plunge into a stock buying bacchanalia in order to set things right.
ECB stock purchases “would be justified: European equities are undervalued, while there is a bubble—that the ECB continues to inflate—in bonds,” said Patrick Artus, chief economist at French investment bank Nataxis in a research note.
Besides that, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) and the BOJ have already pioneered the way. Fully 20% of the former’s bulging portfolio consists of equities, including massive holdings of US stocks. And when we say “massive” that’s exactly what we mean.
The balance sheet of the SNB is up by nearly 7X since the eve of the financial crisis and now totals $715 billion. That happens to be 108% of Switzerland’s GDP.
It also happens to mean that in order to fight off the exchange rate impact of Mario’s relentless campaign to trash the Euro, the Swiss monetary central planners have purchased upwards of $150 billion of global equities, making them one of the largest hedge funds in the world.
Now that the Donald has extended his talk about the “rigged” system run by our unelected financial elites to include the stock market, he surely has a point.
Nor is the SNB an outlier. The BOJ also has roughly $150 billion of equities on its balance sheet. Indeed, it already owns 55% of all Japanese ETFs; is now among the top 10 shareholders in 90% of Japan’s 225 largest companies; and is slated to become the top holder in 40 of the Nikkei 225 companies by year-end 2017 at its planned stepped-up ETF purchase rate.
But the insanity of buying up and thereby falsifying large sections of the stock and bond markets in order to pursue the will-o-wisp of 2% inflation isn’t the half of it. Having done this, the central banks have made themselves hostage to the most reckless fast money speculators in the entire casino.
That’s because the latter will sell at a moments notice anything they have been front-running via leveraged carry trades if they think the central banks’ buying binge will stop.
In the case of Japan’s 30-year bond, for example, the yield in the last few weeks has soared from 6 bps to 61 bps on fears that the BOJ may “pause” its madcap bond buying program. Since it has already purchased more than 40% of Japan’s monumental public debt, the mere hint that it might stop caused the price of the 30-year bond to plunge by upwards of 20%.
But the recent dislocations in the euro-bond market leave nothing to the imagination. Draghi’s failure last Thursday to unequivocally state that the ECB’s $90 billion per month QE program would be extended after its scheduled expiration next March shows exactly why the central banks have turned themselves into monetary doomsday machines:
Meanwhile, yields on 10-year German Bunds turned positive for the first time since June 22. Yields were around 0.013 percent at the time of the market close, up from -0.06 percent on Thursday.
“The jolt across bond markets began when ECB president Mario Draghi said the governing council did not discuss extending its asset purchase program.Understandably, bondholders got a little nervous about holding onto a negative-yielding asset which could fall in price if there’s no central banking buying alongside them,” Jasper Lawler, market analyst at CMC Markets, said in a note on Friday.
There is all the evidence you need that the world’s financial markets are totally and completely rigged. And that’s why Donald Trump was exactly on target this morning when he uncorked another politically incorrect observation about the rigged nature of the Wall Street casino.
To wit, Yellen is still sitting on interest rates at the zero bound after 93 months for one simple reason. Even in the context of an economic recovery that is now allegedly so complete that we are actually on the cusp of full employment, according to Vice-Chairman Stanley Fischer, she is deathly fearful of a hissy fit on Wall Street, as was foreshadowed by last Friday’s sharp sell-off.
Opined the Donald:
“She’s obviously political and she is doing what [President Barack] Obama wants her to do,” Trump said in an interview on CNBC. Trump predicted that the market is going to “go way down” as soon as interest rates go up.
“I believe it is a false market because money is essentially free,” Trump said.
He got that right but needs to take it a step further. At the same time that the Fed continues placating Wall Street gamblers with an unending stint of free carry trade funding that has self-evidently not generated real breadwinners jobs or higher real incomes in Flyover America, savers and retirees continue to be pounded.
In fact, our unelected monetary politburo is causing upwards of $300 billion per year to be transferred from savers to the banks and the financial system owing to its senseless pursuit of 2.00% inflation via pegging the money market interest rate on the zero-bound.
Even then, however, the true impact goes far beyond retirees and the modest share of the population that actually attempts to save. To wit, 2% inflation targeting is absolutely the stupidest thing any central bank could pursue in the context of a global economy is which goods and services are freely traded, and in which the US, Europe, and Japan have the highest nominal wage rates on the planet.
What inflation targeting does is cause the domestic price level to rise, rather than fall, in DM economies. It thereby also causes the nominal wage gap with China and its EM supply chain to widen. So the Donald is right on that one, too.
Indeed, the most potent agency of off-shoring American jobs is not the USTR or bad trade deals, but the central banks. And in the middle and lower ranks of the wage market—-where the China price on goods and the India price on services bears down most heavily—-the Fed’s inflation folly is especially perverse.
As we have demonstrated with our more accurate “Flyover CPI”, the cost of living faced by main street America—especially for the four horsemen of food, energy, medical and housing prices—has risen by 3.1% annually since the late 1980s. And that is well more than hourly wage gains for production workers.
So the Fed has delivered to working class Americans the worst of both worlds. Namely, rising nominal wages which have priced them out of the world market, but even higher domestic inflation that has caused their real wages and living standards to shrink.
Here is the smoking gun. Notwithstanding a near tripling of the nominal wage rate from $9 per hour in 1987 to about $22 per hour today, real wages are lower than they were three decades ago.
At the same time, the tripling of nominal wages has caused a relentless export of breadwinner jobs in goods and services to the China price and India price regions of the world. That’s why, in fact, there were still 1.4 million fewer full-time, full-pay breadwinner jobs at $50k per year in August than there were way back when Bill Clinton was packing his bags to shuffle out of the White House in January 2001.
In short, the “something for nothing” money printing policies inflicted on Flyover America by our unelected rulers at the central banks, and with the full support of their facilitators and supporters among the Wall Street/ Washington ruling elites, are not only bad economics; they are perverse and unjust beyond measure.
Indeed, the Fed is waging an insensible and outrageous war on savers, workers, and future taxpayers—even as it pleasures the 1% with fantastic financial windfalls from the Wall Street casino.
Now that is a rigged system. And that is a beltway evil that merits Donald’s unrelenting attack on behalf of the citizens of Flyover America who have been left behind in their tens of millions.
Reprinted with permission from David Stockman’s Contra Corner.
We live in a world of vast and sometimes instantaneous changes. I know well that unpredictable, great events could stop Trump from becoming U.S. President in this Great Global Crisis we face. The danger of assassination by “accident” alone is a major risk he faces.
But the probability that Trump and Pence will win by a landslide and bring in veto-proof Republican majorities in the Senate and House is now quite high and overshadows other possible outcomes.
There are many major factors that support this conclusion.
1. Hillary faces immense problems now just trying to survive a series of fierce debates, speeches, etc.
2. There are many major legal and immense corruption challenges she and all her close associates face in these two months before the election.
Assange will hit her with horrific e-mails. Judicial Watch will do the same. Major Congressional exposes will hit her and the FBI. et al.
Charles Ortel, Jack Kelly and other major analysts will hit her and the Foundation and masses of associates with analyses showing they have committed crimes greater than all previous U.S. political crimes at the top combined, possibly involving $100billion in corrupt payoffs and even treason.
3. The stress of all of this is already killing them and this will all cause them awful anxieties that will destroy their thinking and reactions.
4. Trump’s Army of Fierce Rebels against all that slime and corruption is already huge, passionate and growing very fast.
5. The Demo’s Monopoly Media have been the mainstay of their vast Lies, but even it is now rapidly disintegrating.
6. While Hillary and her forces fumble and crumble ever more completely, Trump and his Army are now well organized and becoming fiercely effective, as seen in their 2-day rush onto mass screens with a powerful expose of Hillary’s insane attack on that vast Trump Army.
7. Trump’s forces are issuing serious, professional task force reports and major proposals almost every day.
8. As Trump forces tip the balance more and more rapidly in their favor, millions of fence sitters and holdouts are rushing to join the winners. As these Trump supporters surface in ever greater waves, even Never Trumpers among the Neo-Con Republicans will rush to join to avoid being disappeared forever from American politics.
9. Foreign leaders will rush to get on good terms with Trump, as Nieto and Putin have done. Big Money will pour in with no strings attached from rich friends to support get-out-the-vote armies.
10. Trump will be able to “cool” his own attacks on “Poor Hillary” et al. and become the benign elder Family Leader he loves to be.
11. Trump and his passionate Army of American Lovers will then begin their devoted rebuilding of our beloved nation.
IF THIS BE FALSE AND UPON ME PROVED, I NEVER WROTE NOR EVER PROGNOSTICATED.
Believe it or not, there are 12 black dots in this viral image, which is driving the internet to distraction.
However, with four dots placed horizontally on the top row, four along the middle and four along the bottom, it seems it’s almost impossible to see them all at the same time.
Instead, once the viewer’s eyes are fixed on one dot, the others in that row become visible – but the rest in the grid seem to bizarrely disappear from sight.
The baffling image, which was posted on reddit by djeclipz, has already had more than 1.4 million views – and is leaving people on the site very confused
‘Apparently, the illusion depends on your eyes being a certain distance from it.’
The Scintillating Grid ‘is constructed by superimposing white discs on the intersections of orthogonal gray bars on a black background,’ according to Wikipedia.
‘Dark dots seem to appear and disappear rapidly at random intersections, hence the label “scintillating”. When a person keeps his or her eyes directly on a single intersection, the dark dot does not appear. The dark dots disappear if one is too close to or too far from the image.’
di Gary North
Il termine "rivolta populista" è stato usato per oltre un secolo. Ma, fatta eccezione per le tre campagne presidenziali fallite di William Jennings Bryan -- 1896, 1900, 1908 -- non ne abbiamo mai avuta una.
Eppure il termine è sopravvissuto. Perché? Perché l'Old Boy Network rappresentato dal Council on Foreign Relations ne è spaventato a morte. Essi e i loro portavoce intellettuali nei media e nel mondo accademico, vogliono che gli elettori credano che i "bifolchi nelle frange" sono una minaccia per l'America.
Fino a quest'anno, i populisti sono stati un semplice fastidio. Ma quest'anno, sono finalmente arrivati. Ce ne sono milioni, e stanno ignorando i media. Non possono essere manipolati dall'Old Boy Network.
La vecchia guardia del Grand Old Party ha perso il controllo. La situazione che sta affrontando Paul Ryan è simbolica. Era titubante nel sostenere Trump. Ora Trump ha restituito il favore con le stesse parole di Ryan. Il 6 maggio scorso quest'ultimo ha detto: "Non sono ancora pronto a sostenerlo." Il 2 agosto scorso Trump ha detto: "Non sono ancora pronto a sostenerlo."
Il 9 agosto Ryan potrebbe perdere le primarie repubblicane nel suo distretto. Un parvenu, Paul Nehlen, sta correndo contro di lui. L'establishment del partito repubblicano è preoccupato che questa situazione potrebbe diventare un replay del 2014, quando Eric Cantor perse contro uno sconosciuto
RYAN E IL TPP
Ryan è un promotore del TPP di Obama: il Trans-Pacific Partnership, una mostruosità da 2,000 pagine in cui gli Stati Uniti cederanno la loro sovranità ad una versione asiatica del NAFTA.
Obama ha detto che lo sottoporrà al Congresso dopo le elezioni. Sarà un Congresso "zoppo". Obama confida nella memoria corta degli elettori. Coloro che votano per il TPP contro l'aperta ostilità dei loro elettori, alla fine la faranno franca. Gli elettori non se ne ricorderanno nel 2020. Tutto sarà perdonato. "Ne sarà passata di acqua sotto i ponti." Si tratta di un gioco di potere anti-democratico. Clinton ha rinnegato il TPP.
Obama lo vuole come sua unica vittoria importante dopo l'ObamaCare del 2010. Ha davvero poco altro da mostrare per i suoi otto anni come presidente. Ma sembra che non avrà i voti. Quest'anno sono arrivati per davvero i populisti. Non vogliono la globalizzazione.
Ryan non ha detto che si opporrà apertamente al piano di Obama affinché il Congresso supporti il TPP dopo le elezioni. Ha usato la retorica del libero scambio come copertura.
Non c'è affatto libero scambio nel TPP. Non ci vogliono 2,000 pagine di parole senza senso per avere il libero commercio. Tutto ciò che serve è un voto, sì o no sulla riduzione dei dazi in base ad una percentuale specifica. Ma i globalisti non hanno mai voluto il libero scambio. Vogliono un commercio gestito -- commercio gestito da burocrati internazionali senza volto che non possono essere licenziati dai politici.
I burocrati sono anti-democratici. Non vogliono mantenere il potere in base ai capricci dei politici che affrontano gli elettori volubili ogni tot. anni. Vogliono posti di lavoro a vita e il potere a vita sulle masse. Questo è il motivo per cui hanno promosso leggi sul pubblico impiego fin dal 1880. Il TPP è solo la prossima fase della presa di potere burocratico che ha avuto inizio in Occidente agli inizi del XIX secolo in Francia: regolamentazione da parte di funzionari non eletti. È l'obiettivo dei socialisti in tutto il mondo. Ludwig von Mises lo descrisse nel suo libro del 1944, Bureaucracy:
I campioni del socialismo si definiscono progressisti, ma suggeriscono un sistema caratterizzato da una rigida osservanza della routine e da una resistenza ad ogni tipo di miglioramento. Si definiscono liberali, ma sono intenti a sopprimere la libertà. Si definiscono democratici, ma bramano la dittatura. Si definiscono rivoluzionari, ma vogliono rendere onnipotente lo stato. Promettono le benedizioni del giardino dell'Eden, ma hanno in programma di trasformare il mondo in un gigantesco ufficio postale. Ogni uomo, un impiegato subordinato in un ufficio. Che utopia allettante! Che nobile causa per cui combattere!
In nome del libero scambio, i globalisti esigono che gli elettori e i loro rappresentanti politici si arrendano ai burocrati internazionali.
Trump si oppone a tutto questo. Considera giustamente questo obbrobrio burocratico come "Figlio del NAFTA."
Sono un sostenitore del libero commercio -- tasse ridotte sulle vendite delle merci importate -- e lo sono sempre stato. Ciò risale ad un articolo che ho scritto nel 1969: "Guerra dei dazi: lo stile libertario." Ma mi sono opposto al NAFTA. Questo perché il NAFTA era un costrutto anti-libero scambio. Sostituiva alla sovranità nazionale una burocrazia internazionale. Una riduzione delle imposte sulle vendite delle merci importate, non merita la cessione della sovranità giudiziaria nazionale.
Obama comprende la natura di questo scambio. Lo vuole come sua eredità politica. Ryan è timido su questo tema. Non parla del TPP.
La maggior parte degli elettori americani non vuole questa cessione. I populisti di certo non la vogliono. Sono finalmente riapparsi come blocco unito di voti. Erano scomparsi fin dal 1908. Sono una minaccia per l'Old Boy Network che gestisce questo paese, e che è stato globalista fin dalle sue origini nel periodo successivo alla prima guerra mondiale. È stato fondato dall'intellighenzia britannica nel primo decennio del XX secolo: the Round Table Network. Poi venne fondato il Council on Foreign Relations nel 1921: il ramo americano del Round Table.
Se Ryan verrà sconfitto il 9 agosto, questo esito consegnerà un messaggio inequivocabile ai repubblicani al Congresso: "Le vostre carriere sono in pericolo." Sei membri repubblicani della Camera che erano saliti a bordo del rullo compressore TPP, sono appena scesi. Consigliano ad Obama di non attuare il suo piano.
Ovviamente non hanno fegato. Erano a bordo, ma hanno alzato le dita in aria per vedere da che parte soffiasse il vento. Si tratta di un uragano di livello 3. Così hanno spedito una lettera al Presidente.
Come i nostri elettori hanno ripetutamente espresso, l'America è profondamente preoccupata per l'impatto negativo degli accordi commerciali internazionali sui posti di lavoro americani, sulla produzione e sull'economia.
Così consigliano una rinegoziazione di questa mostruosità. Sono disposti a vendere la sovranità giudiziaria degli Stati Uniti. Vogliono solo un prezzo migliore.
Crediamo che sia necessario molto lavoro per le rinegoziazioni, in modo da garantire che il Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) funzioni per i lavoratori americani -- e non solo per quelli dei nostri partner commerciali.
Sono ancora a bordo, in linea di principio.
Un accordo di alto livello è fondamentale per il futuro del commercio, dal momento che non include solo gli attuali 12 paesi partecipanti, ma anche un modello affinché altri paesi possano unirsi in futuro.
Ma, per ora, consigliano una posticipazione.
Prenderò quello che posso ottenere. Questa posticipazione ucciderà il piano. Non c'è modo che questa mostruosità possa essere rinegoziata. È stata messa insieme in completa segretezza da eserciti di burocrati in tutto il mondo. Non volevano che i dettagli trapelassero tra la popolazione prima che l'accordo fosse siglato.
Obama cercherà di siglarlo come il suo canto del cigno.
Se Paul Ryan verrà sconfitto, il 9 agosto, Obama si brucerà dopo l'8 novembre se cercherà di convincere il Congresso a rompere sia con Trump che con la Clinton nella loro opposizione al TPP. Non credo che voglia questo esito come sua eredità politica. Non vuole essere ricordato come un cane al guinzaglio dell'Old Boy Network.
Il populisti sono arrivati -- milioni di loro. Stanno combattendo come non mai. Non possono essere placati. Trump è davvero la loro voce.
L'Old Boy Network è preoccupato per il loro ritorno alle urne sin dall'elezione fatidica del 1912, quando tre progressisti gareggiavano per la Presidenza: il Presidente Taft, Teddy Roosevelt e il professor Wilson. I populisti scomparvero nel 1912. Si fusero con l'elettorato generale, il quale non ha mai minacciato l'Old Boy Network.
Ora, senza preavviso, sono tornati. L'OBN è allo sbando.
Ryan ha raccolto 12 volte il denaro che ha raccolto Nehlen.
Nel 2014 era un candidato vincente.
La rivolta è appena iniziata. Nella prossima recessione, che sarà peggiore di quella 2008-9, la rabbia sarà enorme. Sarà chiaro a milioni di persone che i programmi dell'establishment non possono portare prosperità permanente. L'establishment ripeterà quello che ha detto nel 2009. Niente funzionerà come promesso.
Poi inizieranno le vere battaglie politiche.
[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: http://francescosimoncelli.blogspot.it/
What are speed limits, exactly?
I know … a number on a sign.
But why pay any attention to them?
I mean, assuming there isn’t a cop around?
They’re not much use as far as advisories about the maximum safe velocity for a given road. If they were, then everyone (just about) wouldn’t be driving at least that fast.
Probably, they’d be driving slower.
If speed limits meant anything substantive, that is.
Like the redline on a tachometer, for example. That is a real limit.
Most people do not run their engines at or even near redline for more than brief moments. Because the red line is the fastest you can safely spin the engine without risking engine damage.
So they don’t do it.
The idea that driving over the speed limit is risking anything (other than a ticket) is ridiculous.
If that were not the case, then most people wouldn’t “speed” as a matter of routine – because most people aren’t reckless with their own lives or the lives of others.
The fact that speed limits are almost universally ignored (by cops, too) says something about their merits.
Prohibition comes to mind. Another absurd law that was respected accordingly.
But Prohibition went away.
Speed limits are still with us.
It’d be nice if they’d go away, like Prohibition.
It would tolerable if they at least plausibly represented a speed faster than most people on a given road normally drive.
That is, in fact, how speed limits are supposed to be set. Such that most drivers would not be “speeding.” The few who did could then at least be characterized as driving faster than most other drivers and one could then at least make the claim that maybe these people are driving too fast.
But that is not good for revenue – which is what speed limits are really all about.
By purposely setting limits so low such that nine out of ten drivers on any given road are “speeding,” it makes it easier to catch “speeders.” Which means more revenue via tickets issued for this manufactured offense.
So, speed limits have little, if anything, to do with “safety.”
They are useless as far as informing drivers about reasonable speeds for a given (and perhaps unfamiliar) road.
They are not (for the most part) posted on the basis of traffic engineering surveys, as they are supposed to be.
They are arbitrary and typically under-posted, deliberately – in order to criminalize reasonable/safe driving so as to give police an excuse to issue “citations” which just happen to be a major source of local government income.
Harvard professor and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Kenneth S. Rogoff, is out with a new book. The Curse of Cash.
In the book, he attempts to make the case for banning paper money.
His justification for banning cash is two-fold: It will hamper criminal activity and it will allow central banks to take rates, when necessary, deep into negative territory.
As far as criminal activity, which he wants to make more difficult, he paints a broad brush that includes many activities that not all would consider offensive or a threat. He says it would make drug dealing more difficult, that it would make it more difficult for businesses to pay illegal workers. He raises the “horror” that in the Eurozone a ban on cash would make it more difficult for the many who use cash to escape oppressive value added taxes and he tells us it would hamper the black market in organs.
In other words, Rogoff is no libertarian, he is a technocrat for the state—designing and proposing methods by which the state can control people more aggressively and efficiently.
But there is more. His hate of cash seems to go beyond that of just a technocrat, he is almost obsessive.
Early on in the book, he writes with great alarm:
What is remarkable about the huge demand for cash is that it persits and grows despite the proliferation of alternative payment mechanisims.
And he is completely at wits end with the reported fact that there is some $4,200 in cash for every person in the United States. He mentions this fact, probably, half-dozen time in the book as if it indicates some great evil—though he admits that there is no hard data on where this money is.
As for his second justification for wanting cash banned, that it would allow central bankers to push interest rates far into negative territory when warranted, it must be noted that this view that central banks should be manipulating interest rates in the first place is not a universal one. The track record of the Federal Reserve interest rate manipulations has been horrific.
Indeed, the history of central bank money and interest rate manipulations is one of steadily declining values of a central bank controlled monies and occasionally hyperinflations–the history of some of the hyperinflations, Rogoff even recounts in his book. But, yet, he is unconcerned about the dangers of even further extending central bank money control.
Nor is he concerned about the additional privacy invasions that a ban on cash would necessarily create. Rogoff has been warned about the tracking evils of his cash ban advocacy, He writes in the book:
Most of the people who want to protect paper currency have perfectly legitimate reasons for hoping to preserve the status quo. After a lecture I gave it Munich University in 2014, former European Central Bank board member and chief economist Otmar Issing strongly took issue with my views and commented that paper currency is “coined liberty” (a nod to Dostoyevsky’s House of the Dead) that must never in any way be compromised or surrendered.
But the government mechanic just dismisses these type warnings and continues his plotting to bring to fruition economies that ban cash and thus enhance government tracking and control of individuals.
But is not only on a theoretical level that we must be concerned about what Rogoff tells us in this book. The statist mechanic is pushing for the first steps in a cashless society to be adopted now and he fills us in on new sophisticated methods of even tracking cash as an interim step.
He is promoting his cash ban madness at global government monetary conferences. He writes:
I received feedback from colleagues at the Group of 30 meeting in June 2015 in Rio de Janireo, during an extensive discussion after a presentation I gave.
And he has a section in the book specifically aimed at cryptocurrencies:
At the end of the day, governments will not lightly tolerate financial transactions that protect the anonymity of criminals and terrorists…To the extent that new approaches to financial tranactions are developed that evade government efforts, they will be met with a stiff hand.
And don’t think if you use cash, it won’t be completely untraceable in the future, even if magnetic strips are not present in the money. He reports:
Embedded chips (or magnetic strips) may prove unnecessary in any event, given the development of increasingly low-cost cash processors that can scan serial numbers at extremely high speeds. The technology already exists in the high-end currency-sorting machines that many banks and law enforcement agencies have access to…
The scanners work particularly well with high-polymer plaste currencies that don’t crinkle and bend as easily as paper. As costs fall sufficiently, serial number scanners can in principle be embedded in standard retail cash registers.
Bottom line: There are government technocrats out there plotting seriously on a short-term and longer-term basis how to better track us and control us and our money. Rogoff is one of them, if not the most significant current cash banning plotter.
This is a scary book in that it informs on the thinking and plotting that is going on. It is thorough, though, in recounting the theories of every lunatic that have ever advocated negative interest rates or the banning of cash.
If you need an encyclopedic summary of this lunacy, this is the book. If you are interested in learning the high-level changes in technology and cash that are in our future, this is the book.
Keep in mind, nothing will stop them, not even nuclear attack.
Rogoff writes that he once participated in a Federal Reserve mock nuclear attack drill. The peons he said were left behind as part of the drill but “helicopters were whisking away the Fed’s officials to deep caves in West Virginia…”
He said the “lowly peons were supposed to follow the instructions on the back of phone books, which I recall, said something along the lines of ‘hide under your desk and avert your eyes from flashes of bright lights.'”
The anti-cash attack needs to be stopped, that can only be done when a significant portion of the general public understands how dangerous the elitist anti-cash movement is. In an odd way, for the thinking person, Rogoff’s book paints the picture that should make it easier to understand the attack.
Reprinted with permission from San Francisco Review of Books.
Everyone has heard of the sex drive, but few of us know we have a sleep drive, too — our biological need for some shuteye.
And just as some have a stronger sex drive than others, people’s sleep drive varies according to their personality and genetic inheritance or internal biological clock.
Our bodies and brains all run on our individual bio-time. Or at least that’s what they’re designed to do.
During my 15-plus years as a sleep doctor, I’ve seen hundreds of patients struggle with seemingly intractable sleep problems — and all the knock-on effects on relationships, careers, and health — as a direct result of what I call chrono-misalignment, or the disruption of our personal biological clocks.
For 50,000 years we’ve kept perfect bio-time, but in the past 125, all the technological advances of modern life — artificial light, air travel, instant communication, caffeine — have knocked the natural rhythm of our biology horribly out of sync.
The good news is it doesn’t take much to get our clocks back on time. All it needs is just a few tweaks to our lifestyle and schedules — changing the hour we drink our first cup of coffee, for example; when we nap; when we have lunch and so on.
And that’s the beauty of it: you don’t have to overhaul your life entirely to reap the enormous benefits of a return to your correct bio-time — benefits that include losing weight, becoming more creative, solving problems, improving mood and, of course, getting a better night’s sleep.
The key is to know what time your biological clock runs on. Different people fall into different classifications, based on sleep drive, and require different tweaks.
Using all my clinical experience, I’ve identified four ‘Chronotypes’ and called them by the names of the animals that seem to share their sleep traits most closely. Take the quiz on the right to find which one you are and then read on to discover your perfect day.
Although I’ve never made a secret of my opinion of Jonah’s pseudo-scholarship or my annoyance with his self-importance as a “conservative” thinker, I now feel sorry for this guy. Let me explain! Jonah has just posted a eulogy for longtime conservative advocate Phyllis Schlafly, who died on September 5 at age ninety-two. Phyllis, who was kind enough to have had me on her radio program, embodied what was the gold standard of American conservatism in my youth. She favored traditional gender distinctions, although she was clearly not averse to women like herself practicing law and standing up for conservative principles.
She was also an American patriot but was opposed to military interventions that she didn’t think served the national interest. Phyllis worked in an ammunition factory throughout World War Two; and although a non-combatant participant in that struggle did not think women should serve in combat roles or be drafted into military service. As Jon B. Utley, publisher of The American Conservative, stresses in a moving eulogy, Phyllis Schlafly was devoted to America but was neither a feminist nor war-enthusiast. She also showed other habits of the Old Right. For example, she never used the term “liberal democracy” to describe her country but insisted that the Founders had set up a “constitutional republic.” Our governing powers, if properly exercised, would be distributed between the states and the federal government as well as among the federal branches.
Like her friend Pat Buchanan, Phyllis was an immigration restrictionist and took that controversial stand not only to protect American jobs. She also believed that the American government, as originally designed, required a certain civic culture to remain what it was intended to be. Phyllis never held that signature neoconservative view that the US should be treated as a “global democracy” or “propositional nation.” The stable constitutional government required what Aristotle called an “ethos,” a shared disposition of mind. It was not diversity, but a self-disciplined and self-reliant citizenry that allowed the US to prosper as long as it did, within a framework of ordered freedom.
Although Phyllis was hardly an uncritical admirer of the Republican nominee, one of her last achievements, which she struggled to complete while being ravaged by cancer, was a short book making The Conservative Case for Trump. Jonah doesn’t find this tract especially palatable, and he lets us know at the outset: “I had my disagreement with the legendary conservative activist, particularly of late.” Jonah also suggests that his stated feelings about Trump were reflected in Phyllis’s “squabbles” with her daughter and with some of her erstwhile friends, who shared Jonah’s dislike for the GOP nominee. But Jonah’s “disagreements” with Mrs. Schlafly do not stop with Jonah’s Never-Trump posture or with his predictable identification with Republican establishment candidates. Although the teaser to his eulogy indicates that Phyllis Schlafly’s life shows that “conservatism matters,” in point of fact Jonah and the subject of his eulogy agreed on very little. His muddled eulogy is the kind of word cluster that I might have composed for George Soros if circumstances had forced me to produce such a text. (I do, by the way, like Soros’s name, which means a “brewer” in Hungarian, “sor” being the Magyar word for “beer”.)
This lack of agreement underscores the total disconnect between what self-described conservatives believed in the past and where the neoconservatives and establishment Right have been moving for about the last thirty years. Phyllis led the successful struggle against the Equal Rights Amendment and did so with particular dedication in her (and then my) state of Illinois. But Jonah, who favors all kinds of “anti-discrimination” legislation for women, is not really moved by this well-known accomplishment. He, therefore, damns with faint praise what Mary Ellen Bork chooses to emphasize in celebrating Phyllis’s life in First Things.
After all, it’s hard to talk up someone for opposing what one would have been happily endorsed in substance—if not specifically as an amendment. Jonah calls on us not only “to celebrate the fruits of feminist success at home,” but to carry our feminist success “overseas.” Phyllis was also famously against the legalization of gay marriage; while Jonah and his collaborators at NR have supported this measure. In Jonah’s “conservative” worldview, “it’s progressed that gay activists and left-wingers are celebrating the institution of marriage as essential.” Although Phyllis criticized Obama’s decision to pull our troops out of Iraq, while exposing the remaining soldiers to extreme danger, she also emphatically opposed the invasion in 2003. Jonah thought that invasion was at worst “a worthy mistake”, and has generally provided neoconservative justifications for American intervention all over the planet. Finally, I find no evidence that Jonah’s views on immigration are the same as those of Schlafly. Unlike her, he wishes to increase the legal immigration from Latin America so that we can become more diverse.
I certainly don’t want to disparage what Jonah has accomplished as a eulogist. I’ve no idea how given what he believes or publicly professes he could have written anything more convincing. He is a well-paid spokesman for something that has very little to do with his subject’s fixed principles. Jonah may be more in line (and I’ve no doubt that he is) than Phyllis Schlafly (or I) with where we’re now moving as a country. And I’m sure he can appeal to Millennials much more effectively than the women whom he attempts to eulogize. But that’s still no reason to believe the two were ever on the same page or that Jonah could praise his subject without appearing to be uncomfortable and even ridiculous. Let’s imagine that Barack Obama set out to celebrate Thomas Jefferson as an ancestor of the present Democratic Party. What exactly would Obama be able to say that was not utter nonsense? And those listening who had not entirely drunk the Cool-aid would know the obvious, namely that the connection that Obama strained to make between the democratic localist Jefferson and his own party of government centralization and unlimited social engineering was entirely made-up.
Christmas has come early for “conspiracy theorists” around the world. An academic report published by Europhysics News in time for the anniversary of 9/11 is questioning the official explanation for the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001, and their conclusion may make even the most rational person rethink their outlook. As the report from Europhysics News, a “ magazine of the European physics community,” notes:
“It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST [U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology] reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.”
Entitled “15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses,” the investigation was conducted by Steven Jones, a former professor of physics at Brigham Young University; Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering and the Engineering Institute of Canada; Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer; and Ted Walter, author of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s Beyond Misinformation: “What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7.”
The Europhysics News report begins by questioning the official explanation for the collapse of the three buildings on September 11, 2001, as determined by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST began carrying out an investigation in August 2002, and their findings are still questioned to this day. The report reminds us that:
“Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.”
The report explains why this would be the case, offering four main explanations why steel-framed high rises have endured large fires in the past without undergoing total collapse: (1) the heat of a fire and its duration do not typically generate enough energy to heat the large structural members to the point where they would fail; (2) most high-rise buildings have fire suppression systems (such as water sprinklers) that would further inhibit the fire from reaching anywhere near the heat necessary to create a total collapse; (3) the structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent the structure from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods; (4) steel-framed high-rise buildings are designed to be highly redundant, meaning that the buildings can suffer a partial collapse due to a fire but would not result in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
“Countless other steel-framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse,” the report points out.
It goes on to confirm the scientists’ doubts regarding the official explanation by referencing the head structural engineer of the buildings, John Skilling, who was interviewed by the Seattle Times following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Skilling, who was concerned about a possible airplane attack, performed an analysis that proved the towers would withstand the impact of Boeing 707:
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed…The building structure would still be there…However, I’m not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage…. I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”
To put it politely, Skilling believed the only thing that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled demolition, certainly not a fire alone – not even a “horrendous fire.”
A controlled demolition would better explain how the buildings were able to collapse in the manner that they did, the report argues:
“In general, the technique used to demolish large buildings involves cutting the columns in a large enough area of the building to cause the intact portion above that area to fall and crush itself as well as crush whatever remains below it. This technique can be done in an even more sophisticated way, by timing the charges to go off in a sequence so that the columns closest to the center are destroyed first. The failure of the interior columns creates an inward pull on the exterior and causes the majority of the building to be pulled inward and downward while materials are being crushed, thus keeping the crushed materials in a somewhat confined area—often within the building’s ‘footprint.’ This method is often referred to as ‘implosion.’”
The lesser-known WTC building 7, which also collapsed that day, is “remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion.” According to the report:
“The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds.”
In relation to WTC Building 7, the report criticizes the official NIST explanation by pointing out some heavy flaws with their investigation. The NIST investigation began with the conclusion that fires brought down WTC building 7 but then had trouble trying to reconcile the evidence with that predetermined conclusion. The NIST report also attempted to deny the building fell at free-fall speed. However, independently verifying NIST’s computer modeling is currently impossible because NIST refuses to release a large portion of its data, arguing doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”
The most surprising aspect of this report, however, is that it goes further than any “conspiracy theorist” would ever have expected it to by questioning the explanation for the collapse of the Twin Tower buildings, as well. The report acknowledges:
“Thus, the definitive report on the collapse of the Twin Towers contains no analysis of why the lower sections failed to arrest or even slow the descent of the upper sections—which NIST acknowledges ‘came down essentially in free fall’—nor does it explain the various other phenomena observed during the collapses. When a group of petitioners filed a formal Request for Correction asking NIST to perform such analysis, NIST replied that it was ‘unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse’ because ‘the computer models [were] not able to converge on a solution.””
Lastly, the report briefly argues that to this day, there is still a significant volume of unexplained evidence that further supports the theory controlled demolitions took place on that tragic day fifteen years ago, including the fact that videos and photographs show numerous high-velocity bursts of debris being ejected from “point-like sources”; the well-documented presence of molten metal throughout the debris field; and a number of eyewitness accounts (some 156 witnesses) stating they saw, heard and/or felt explosions prior to and during the collapses.
As the authors of the report note, until their hypothesis is the “subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities,” we will never know the truth of what happened for sure. People will continue to speculate, and those of us who question the official story will continue to be labeled “crazy” despite the fact that there are many unanswered questions.
For example, if it’s crazy to question why media outlets reported on the collapse of WTC Building 7 before it even collapsed, then perhaps we should never question anything.
As rapper Lupe Fiasco wrote in his song “Words I Never Said”:
“9/11, Building 7, did they really pull it?”
Review by Sam Irvin:
Reading “Dr. Feelgood” is as addictive as the drugs he pushed. The malignant deeds of this mad scientist crept through high society like cancer, reaching its most toxic peak in the Oval Office. In the process, countless lives and the course of history were irreparably shattered. The only thing more shocking than this book is that the atrocities of this monster were shamefully covered up for half a century. Thanks tothe relentless detective work of Richard A. Lertzman and William J. Birnes, justice has finally been served.
When I was researching my own book, “Kay Thompson: From Funny Face to Eloise,” I will never forget the day I discovered that Kay Thompson was on Dr. Max Jacobson’s patient list. Based on what little I knew then about Jacobson, the implications were frightening enough. But, as I delved deeper into my own research of the doctor’s evil deeds, the revelations literally made me nauseous.
The extensive list of famous patients that is revealed in the final pages of “Dr. Feelgood” is tragic beyond belief. It is high time a comprehensive expose was written about this demonic mosquito — and this is certainly it!
Reprinted from Amazon.com.
The post Dr. Feelgood: Drug Pusher to Pols, the Rich, and the Famous appeared first on LewRockwell.
Speaking to 1,000 of the overprivileged at an LGBT fundraiser, where the chairs ponied up $250,000 each and Barbra Streisand sang, Hillary Clinton gave New York’s social liberals what they came to hear.
“You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” smirked Clinton to cheers and laughter. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.” They are “irredeemable,” but they are “not America.”
This was no verbal slip. Clinton had invited the press in to cover the LGBT gala at Cipriani Wall Street where the cheap seats went for $1,200. And she had tried out her new lines earlier on Israeli TV:
Politically and demographically, America is at a tipping point.
Minorities are now 40 percent of the population and will be 30 percent of the electorate in November. If past trends hold, 4 of 5 will vote for Clinton.
Meanwhile, white folks, who normally vote 60 percent Republican, will fall to 70 percent of the electorate, the lowest ever, and will decline in every subsequent presidential year.
The passing of the greatest generation and silent generation, and, soon, the baby-boom generation, is turning former red states like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada purple, and putting crucial states like Florida and Ohio in peril.
What has happened to America is astonishing. A country 90 percent Christian after World War II has been secularized by a dictatorial Supreme Court with only feeble protest and resistance.
A nation, 90 percent of whose population traced their roots to Europe, will have been changed by mass immigration and an invasion across its Southern border into a predominantly Third World country by 2042.
What will then be left of the old America to conserve?
No wonder Clinton was so giddy at the LGBT bash. They are taking America away from the “haters,” as they look down in moral supremacy on the pitiable Middle Americans who are passing away.
But a question arises for 2017.
Why should Middle America, given what she thinks of us, render a President Hillary Clinton and her regime any more allegiance or loyalty than Colin Kaepernick renders to the America he so abhors?
How hot can you handle your spice?
If you’re one to shy away from the vindaloo, classing yourself as more of a korma-kinda kid, it may be time to man up.
New evidence suggests eating chilli and ginger together could help prevent cancer.
Eating chilli, combined with ginger, can protect against cancer, a new study has revealed.
Scientists believe the fiery peppers when combined with ginger could help fight the deadly disease.
Past studies have suggested capsaicin, that gives chillis their kick, may cause cancer.
But the new findings suggest the pungent compound in ginger, 6-ginergol, could counteract the potentially harmful effects of capsaicin.
Both chilli and ginger are widely used spices, particularly in Asian cuisine, and scientists have long studied their potential health benefits.
Yet, some past research has pointed to negative health effects.
Americans of all political persuasions want something from the government, including libertarians. But what libertarians want from the government is quite different from what liberals and conservatives want.
Liberals want much from government. To get an idea of just how much they want, just look at the new 2016 Democratic Party platform. Liberals, progressives, and socialists—all of whom always vote Democratic—want the government to:
- Raise workers’ wages
- Support working families
- Help more workers share in near-record corporate profits
- Expand access to affordable housing and homeownership
- Protect and expand Social Security
What is remarkable about the Republican Party platform is what it doesn’t say about things that conservatives generally support—like the federal government’s war on drugs. And of course, one of the hallmarks of conservatives is that they want the government to incessantly meddle in the affairs of other countries, build military bases on every continent, police the world, and station troops all over the globe.
In contrast to the 55 pages of the Democratic Party platform and the 66 pages of the Republican Party platform, the platform of the Libertarian Party consists of just 7 pages. Here is what it says about the proper role of government:
The prescribed role of government is to protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty, and property.
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government.
The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.
The military should be “sufficient” to “defend the United States against aggression,” but “the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world.” U.S. foreign policy “should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements.” The “current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid” should be ended.
Criminal laws should be limited to those that actually violate “the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm.” The government should not interfere “in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.”
The difference between the Libertarian Party and all other political parties is a simple one: “All political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.” Indeed, this is the root of the difference between libertarians and everyone else. Most non-libertarians deem it completely appropriate for government:
(1) to punish people for engaging in entirely peaceful, voluntary, and consensual actions that do not aggress against the person or property of others; or
(2) to take people’s resources against their will, by force if necessary, and transfer or redistribute them to other citizens or foreigners as the government sees fit.
Libertarians maintain that people should be free from government interference to live their lives any way they desire and engage in any economic activity they choose as long as their actions are peaceful and consensual and they don’t violate the personal or property rights of others.
It is too bad that the Libertarian Party candidates for president and vice president deviate significantly from both their party platform and libertarian theory.
What do libertarians want from government? If they haven’t violated the personal or property rights of someone else, libertarians just want to be left alone.
“To become a unit with nothing to believe in, not even one’s own humanity; to have nothing to be loyal or faithful to; to be a nonentity without family, nation or faith is to become a slave.
The new globalist world order would make slaves of us all as surely as communism sought to make all enslaved laborers for the almighty state, fit only to serve a cabal of superiors.”
A now disillusioned Russia has experienced the results of a secular globalist vision first hand. Those who lived through some or most of the years from 1918 to 1989 know that the ideals of the universal communist brotherhood of mankind looked and felt like in reality.
Chroniclers of real history such as Alexandre Solzhenitsyn leave no doubt as to the violence required to enact a Marxist utopian vision alien to the Russian soul. Millions died. But the perfect communist man was never born.
So it is not a surprise that some Russians who lived through the attempts to establish a new world order recognize a variant of the communist ideal of a classless society–and repudiate it. The fact is that the supposedly new “World Order” envisioned by such leaders as Barak Obama and Angela Merkel, among others, is merely a mutant version of the universal brotherhood alluringly promised by the communist leaders of Russia’s past.
Once again, there has arisen a beatific vision of a globalist, secular world order that is the antithesis yet imitator of the vision of the Kingdom of God represented by the Church universal; a vision articulated by St. Augustine in his City of God. The apostles and early church fathers articulated the vision of the transcendent Kingdom of God revealed and ruled by Christ.
The beatific vision of the City of God, including the vision of the Russian Orthodox Church, is to be replaced by a “new” universal, but secularist world order; an order in which human beings’ allegiance is to a global City of Men ruled by elite priests who act as gods for the masses. Preachers of the globalist vision present an ersatz kingdom that is the opposite of the City of God.
Like the Christian vision of the universal Kingdom of God, the religion of secular globalism claims universality, but it is actually an earthly minded substitute for the Church universal. The Christian vision sees the Church universal as God’s holy kingdom, a kingdom that transcends and informs all earthly rule. The religion of globalism sees an earthly, utopian world order in which all men pay allegiance to elite priests who rule over a World City without national borders.
Sometimes the substitute beatific vision is expressed in terms of a “global village,” a mystical and conveniently vague entity that takes the place of the family of God. The globalists’ family of humanity is to be without distinction of country, tribe or religious creed. The ideal human being is seen as detached from country and faith. He is exiled from everything that gives his life meaning in order he become an abstraction, a tabula rasa on which a new program might be written by those who are superior.
The universal citizen of the new secularist world order does not know yet what he will be. But rest assured he will be told by those who know better than he, much as the peoples of Stalinist USSR, Mao Tse Tung’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia were told what the perfect communist human being would look and act like.
And, as Russians discovered over some seven decades, the world citizen adrift in a sea without horizons would come to know this much: Anything to which he has been or is attached must be and would be demolished. The secularist vision required and requires complete destruction of the old; including nations, institutions, faith and even historical memory itself. Hence, for instance, the constant and relentless attacks on the Christian Church as well as on the reality and concept of nation and the human being. Devotion to faith, family, nation was and is not only suspect, but considered positively injurious to “progress” of the new World Order.
The ideology of globalism involves stripping humanity of its former and unique status as beings created in imago dei and the substitution of the idea of humanity as genderless units.
As Eric Hoffer, author of the prescient book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements wrote:
“To ripen a person for self-sacrifice he must be stripped of his individual identity and distinctiveness. He must cease to be George, Hans, Ivan, or Tadao—a human atom with an existence bounded by birth and death. The most drastic way to achieve this end is by assimilation of the individual into a collective body. The fully assimilated individual does not see himself and others as human beings…To a man utterly without a sense of belonging, mere life is all that matters. It is the only reality in an eternity of nothingness, and he clings to it with shameless despair.
“The effacement of individual separateness must be thorough. In every act, however trivial, the individual must by some ritual associate himself with the congregation, the tribe, the party, etcetera. His joys and sorrows, his pride and confidence must spring form the fortunes and capacities of the group rather than from his individual prospects and abilities. Above all, he must never feel alone. (Must always be watched by the group.) The individual is absorbed into the collective.”
Globalists embrace what Hoffer recognized as an “unbounded contempt for history.” The erasure of history inevitably means attacking the past and established institutions possessing history; institutions such as the Russian Orthodox Church. Only the future matters. The present is busy with wreckage of what exists, even if what presently exists has a thousand year or more heritage.
That is because for globalists, the present is a shadow and illusion–merely a “passageway to the glorious future.” It is a meagre “way station on the road to Utopia…The radical and the reactionary loathe the present.”
Therefore, the present is treated ruthlessly, including the present bodily form of the human. Both must be mercilessly scourged in order something new is created; something perfectly fitted for the new vision. Flagellation of the soul almost to the point of extinction is a requirement in order the new man is born.
As Hoffer writes, “The radical has a passionate faith in the infinite perfectibility of human nature. He believes that by changing man’s environment and by perfecting a technique of soul forming, a society can be wrought that is wholly new and unprecedented.”
Ultimately the new beatific vision for humankind means embracing the Hegelian concept of a collective consciousness, a “Geist” that is a single “mind” common to all men. What is that vision? As philosopher R.C. Solomon noted, “The entre sweep of [Hegel’s]‘The Phenomenology of Spirit’ is away from the ‘disharmonious’ conception of men as individuals to the ‘absolute’ conception of all men as one. In the ‘phenomenology’ we are concerned with the inadequacy of the conceptions of one’s self as an individual in opposition to others…and in opposition to God.”
For Hegel, Solomon goes on to say, this opposition is resolved by a conception of one’s self as a member of a family or community. Absolute consciousness (salvation) is recognition of one’s self as universal spirit. “The concept of ‘Geist’ is the hallmark of a theory of self-identity—a theory in which I am something other than a person.” [Italics added.]
The transgender movement, for example, is the spear point of a philosophy in which humanity is something other than people as previously understood for thousands of years. It is a proselytizing movement on behalf of Hegel’s idea of the world geist. As such, it is not a civil rights movement, but a direct attempt to denature humanity; that is, to smash the ancient concept of humanity as made imago dei. It is an attempt to radically transform humanity itself, replace Judeo/Christian concept of the human being with a de-gendered, robotic and malleable unit—a non-person who is merely part of the universal world soul.
But to be a unit detached from nation, faith and even one’s individual humanity is to be nobody. It is to be a drifter in a sea of nothingness.
To become a unit with nothing to believe in, not even one’s own humanity; to have nothing to be loyal or faithful to; to be a nonentity without family, nation or faith is be become a slave. The new globalist world order would make slaves of us all as surely as communism sought to make all enslaved laborers for the almighty state, fit only to serve a cabal of superiors.
As previously mentioned, in the above respects, the new world vision is nothing new. It is merely the revival of the rationales behind all empires, ancient and modern. Whether the vision of Hellenization dreamed of by Alexander the Great; whether the vision of eternal Rome ruled by demi-god Caesars; whether the vision of a Thousand Year Reich ruled by a noble race; whether the vision of a global communist international brotherhood in which the common man was to reign– the actualization of the imperial, earthly vision of man is always the same. Human beings are regarded as units to be ruled by powerful others. Human beings are enslaved.
Against those visions and the present day globalist vision stands the Christian beatific vision of the New Jerusalem, a view in which the entire human race, men and women, are transformed by the realities of the transcendent Kingdom of God, putting the beatific vision of a holy City of God to work here on earth.
Which vision will prevail will depend on the retrieval of the idea of the human being as created imago dei; and along with that, the revival of the unique stories and heritages of nations; particularly, the revival of the idea of nations as under the sovereign rule of a loving God who created all of us.
Reprinted from Russia Insider.
Step into any grocery store and you’ll see shelves upon shelves of antibacterial soaps. Dishwashing liquid, hand soaps, wipes, and gels with this distinction have become extremely common in the United States, with many people using these products several times a day. Marketers have long been capitalizing on our fear of germs to make a buck, but it turns out you’re far better off not using those products, many of which contain chemicals that were banned by the FDA this week. The FDA says that the risks outweigh the benefits and that serious harm may come from the continued and prolonged use of these soaps.
19 Dangerous Chemicals
di David Stockman
Quasi ovunque sul pianeta le bolle finanziarie create dalle banche centrali nel corso degli ultimi due decenni, si stanno sgonfiando. Gli ultimi esempi sono i titoli bancari che si infrangono in Italia e altrove in Europa, e le improvvise sospensioni delle negoziazioni di tre fondi britannici immobiliari.
Se tutto questo sta cominciando a sembrare come l'agosto 2007, è perché lo è. E le smentite da parte dei trader nel casinò sono arrivate repentine.
All'epoca i permabull incolparono quello che definirono "una singola dose di bromuro", vale a dire, la tempesta finanziaria era dovuta ad un paio di errori isolati che non avevano alcun rapporto con le grandi tendenze del mercato, perché l'economia era presumibilmente solida come una roccia.
Così, il crollo inatteso di Countrywide Financial è stato attribuito agli eccessi immobiliari di Angelo Mozillo e il crollo dei mutui di Bear Stearns era presumibilmente dovuto ad una mancata supervisione.
Quindi il tutto si riduce al classico "Circolare! Non c'è niente da vedere qui!" Basta spostarsi avanti e continuare a comprare.
Infatti, dopo aver raggiunto un picco a 1550 il 18 luglio 2007, l'indice S&P 500 scese di circa il 9% il mese successivo, ma i cosiddetti "acquirenti durante i ribassi" tornarono alla carica su consiglio dei venditori ambulanti "esperti". Il 9 ottobre l'indice era di nuovo tornato al picco pre-crisi, a 1565, e poi da lì è andato alla deriva fino al settembre 2008.
Ovviamente i permabull avevano torto. Al momento del crollo della Lehma,n tutte le crepe finanziarie precedenti crearono enormi buchi e l'ascia si scagliò sul mercato azionario in modo violento.
Durante i 160 giorni successivi, l'indice S&P 500 è calato di un ulteriore 50%. Complessivamente andarono in fumo più di $10,000 miliardi di capitalizzazione di mercato.
L'ironia suprema di oggi è che i permabull insistono sul fatto che non esista alcuna lezione da imparare dalla Grande Crisi Finanziaria. Questo perché s'è scoperto che la liquidazione del singolo asset più rischioso dei tempi moderni, è stato anche un evento una tantum.
Non può accadere di nuovo, ci viene assicurato. Dopo tutto, le cause principali sono state eliminate.
In tal senso si è insistito che le banche degli Stati Uniti sono state tutte risanate e ora hanno bilanci "solidi". Allo stesso modo, il mercato immobiliare ha messo in scena una sana ripresa, ma rimane tiepido e stabile senza alcun segno di bolle. E i multipli PE del mercato azionario ricadono presumibilmente all'interno del loro range storico e sono pienamente garantiti dagli attuali tassi d'interesse ultra-bassi.
Questa è una sciocchezza, naturalmente. Durante lo scorso anno, per esempio, l'IPC core è aumentato del 2.20%, mentre questa mattina il decennale USA ha sforato il suo minimo storico a 1.38%. Il rendimento reale è negativo, e questo senza contare le tasse sui pagamenti degli interessi.
Pertanto affermare che è possibile cavalcare il mercato azionario ad un multiplo PE insolitamente elevato, implica che i tassi reali negativi siano una condizione permanente e che i governi saranno in grado di distruggere i risparmiatori fino alla fine dei tempi.
La verità è che i tassi d'interesse possono solo salire, il che significa che l'attuale repressione dei tassi è semplicemente assurda. Infatti dopo il breve rally della settimana scorsa, l'indice S&P 500 è scambiato al 24.3X degli utili riportati.
Inoltre gli $87 per azione riportati per il periodo conclusosi a marzo, rappresentavano un calo del 18% rispetto al picco dei $106 per azione registrato a settembre 2014. Quindi, di fronte al calo degli utili e all'inesorabile aumento dei tassi d'interesse, gli scommettitori nel casinò sono invitati a chiudere gli occhi e ad acquistare ancora una volta durante i ribassi.
E questa non è nemmeno la metà della storia. Questa volta è davvero diverso, ma non in senso positivo. L'ultima volta, dopo il dead cat bounce dell'agosto 2007, gli utili annuali dell'indice S&P 500 erano trattati a $85 per azione, il che significa che alla vigilia del crollo del 2008 il multiplo era solo del 18.4X.
Proprio così. Dopo l'esperienza pre-morte del 2008-2009 e una pseudo-ripresa economica, i giocatori d'azzardo nel casinò hanno drasticamente aumentato ancora una volta le valutazioni.
C'è una ragione per tale sconsideratezza, la quale va ben oltre la propensione degli scommettitori di Wall Street e i robo-trader di rimanere seduti ai tavoli finché le cose non vanno a rotoli. Vale a dire, sono incapaci di capire che la Finanza delle Bolle alimentata dalle banche centrali genera inesorabilmente cicli boom/bust che alla fine portano sempre a crash finanziari.
La Finanza delle Bolle si basa sulla falsificazione sistematica dei prezzi degli asset finanziari. Questa è l'essenza della ZIRP e della NIRP.
È anche il risultato di un massiccio acquisto di obbligazioni attraverso il QE delle banche centrali. Ed è lo scopo della dottrina dell'effetto ricchezza. Quest'ultimo è progettato per gonfiare i prezzi delle azioni ed i valori netti, incoraggiando così le famiglie ad accendere nuovi prestiti (rispetto a garanzie reali carenti) ed a spendere nell'aspettativa di una ricchezza reale sempre maggiore.
Il problema è che i prezzi finanziari non possono essere falsificati a tempo indeterminato. Alla fine, diventano oggetto di un gioco incentrato sulla fiducia, rischiando d'innescare crisi ed eventi imprevedibili che neanche le banche centrali sono in grado di controbilanciare. Poi arriva il giorno della resa dei conti e del dolore economico.
E questo ci porta al padre della Finanza delle Bolle, l'ex-presidente della FED Alan Greenspan. In una parola, ha abusato sistematicamente del potere della FED per cortocircuitare ogni singolo tentativo di correzione dei mercati finanziari durante tutto il suo mandato di 19 anni nell'Eccles Building.
Ciò include il panico dell'ottobre 1987, quando inondò il mercato con liquidità dopo il Lunedì Nero. Peggio ancora, inviò anche i gendarmi monetari della FED a New York affinché chiedessero a Wall Street di commerciare con parti che sapevano d'essere insolventi e di sostenere i prezzi delle azioni e altre valutazioni finanziarie che erano scollegate dai fondamentali.
Greenspan continuò ad ostacolare le forze di mercato ed a distruggere il processo di una determinazione onesta dei prezzi nei mercati monetari e dei capitali. Sicuramente fu questo che fece quando tagliò i tassi d'interesse nel 1989-1990, e quando schiacciò la rivolta giustificata dei bond vigilantes nel 1994 con un rinnovato slancio di stampa monetaria.
Idem quando salvò Long-Term Capital e sostenne il mercato azionario nell'autunno del 1998 — una manovra che generò la bolla delle dotcom e il conseguente collasso.
E poi assestò il colpo di grazia a ciò che rimaneva della determinazione onesta dei prezzi a Wall Street. Durante i 30 mesi successivi al dicembre del 2000, tagliò i tassi d'interesse dal 6.25% all'1.0% in un diluvio incessante di liquidità. Quest'ultima, a sua volta, diede il via alla bolla più folle nel mercato immobiliare che il mondo avesse mai visto.
Nel secondo trimestre del 2003, per esempio, i tassi furono portati fino all'1.0%, cifra che il sistema finanziario non aveva mai visto; e il sistema finanziario generò finanziamenti ipotecari ad un tasso annuale di $5,000 miliardi. Anche un paio di anni prima, un tasso di finanziamento ipotecario di $1,000 miliardi era considerato eccessivo.
Inutile dire che i prezzi delle case e i costi dei finanziamenti nell'edilizia abitativa vennero sistematicamente e radicalmente distorti. Il crollo del 2008-2009 era il risultato inesorabile della politica di Greenspan: falsificazione dei prezzi degli asset finanziari — una politica che il suo successore, lo zio Ben, ha raddoppiato e che è equivalsa a gettare fango in un ventilatore acceso.
Così, mentre siamo seduti sulla cuspide del prossimo crollo della Finanza delle Bolle, ora arriva Alan Greenspan per spiegarci ancora una volta che non sa nulla sulle bolle finanziarie. Secondo l'impenitente ex-Maestro, è tutta colpa dell'irrazionalità della "natura umana".
A suo dire le banche centrali non hanno nulla a che fare con tutto ciò!
"La bolla del 2000 è esplosa. A malapena abbiamo visto un cambiamento nell'attività economica. Il 19 ottobre 1987 il Dow Jones è sceso del 23% in un solo giorno. Non troverete la minima indicazione dell'esplosione di una bolla nei numeri del PIL – o nella produzione industriale o in qualsiasi altra cosa. Quindi penso che si debba decidere cosa stia causando cosa. Credo che il problema principale nei modelli finanziari sia quello di catturare gli effetti delle bolle. Queste ultime sono essenzialmente parte di una natura umana non interamente razionale. E lo si può vedere nei dati in modo molto chiaro."
E invece le cose non stanno così. Come Doug Noland ha osservato nel suo articolo più recente:
Nella loro intima essenza, le bolle riguardano l'eccesso di credito e le distorsioni nei mercati. Nelle grandi bolle c'è quasi certamente lo zampino dello stato. Sono tossiche e seducenti. Se la FED di Greenspan non avesse sostenuto artificialmente i mercati e inondato il sistema con liquidità dopo il crash del 1987, il credito si sarebbe ristretto e gli effetti della bolla sarebbero stati evidenti anche nei dati. Invece alla fine degli anni ottanta (il "decennio dell'avidità"), l'eccesso ha assicurato bolle nel debito spazzatura, nelle fusioni & acquisizioni e negli immobili. Sin da allora ci sono state bolle in serie.
Noland ha ragione, infatti. Durante la prima parte dell'epoca della Finanza delle Bolle, l'economia di Main Street è stata inondata di volta in volta da credito a buon mercato, il quale induceva le famiglie e le imprese a spendere i ricavi sfruttando una leva finanziaria superiore.
Alla fine, l'economia americana non ha fatto altro che eseguire un LBO su sé stessa. Il rapporto di leva storico dell'1.5X tra debito totale nel mercato del credito e reddito nazionale, salì al 3.5X alla vigilia della crisi finanziaria. Ciò significava che l'economia degli Stati Uniti si trascinava dietro $52,000 miliardi di debito nel dicembre 2007 — o $30,000 miliardi di più rispetto a quanto ce ne sarebbe stato col rapporto storico dell'1.5X.
Inutile dire che l'effetto leva una tantum sui bilanci collettivi dell'economia degli Stati Uniti ha effettivamente generare PIL incrementale, sebbene tale crescita economica fosse alimentata da debito insostenibile.
Pertanto l'affermazione di Greenspan, secondo cui le precedenti bolle non avevano fatto vacillare i numeri del PIL, fornisce al termine sofisma una nuova connotazione. Infatti la FED non ha fatto altro che reflazionare bolle scoppiate, rendendo la resa dei conti finale più traumatica e distruttiva.
Tuttavia, all'epoca Greenspan aveva addirittura applaudito l'esplosione della leva finanziaria nei bilanci delle famiglie. In realtà si vantava di come avesse indotto una maggiore spesa al consumo incoraggiando le famiglie americane a rifinanziare i loro castelli e poi a spendere il ricavato in MEW (mortgage equity withdrawal) per una nuova auto o un viaggio a Disneyland.
Ecco cos'è successo al rapporto di leva delle famiglie durante la campagna monetaria distruttiva di Greenspan. Pensava davvero che l'aumento del rapporto di leva durante il suo mandato, a quasi il doppio della media storica, fosse dovuto all'irrazionalità della natura umana?
In realtà la limpida ripresa della spesa per consumi delle famiglie, anche secondo le misure keynesiane della FED, non è affatto una conseguenza della natura umana. È la conseguenza delle politiche delle banche centrali che prima hanno spinto il settore delle famiglie verso una condizione insostenibile di Picco del Debito, e ora l'ha lasciato con un onere di debito schiacciante da $14,500 miliardi.
In breve, per sua natura la Finanza delle Bolle impregna il sistema con dispositivi finanziari esplosivi. E peggio ancora, ciò che Greenspan ha iniziato negli Stati Uniti è stato esportato al resto del mondo.
In parte ciò è stato causato dall'emulazione della Finanza delle Bolle da parte di tutte le banche centrali del mondo. Ed è stato aggravato dalle razionalizzazioni a favore della stampa di denaro, strategia implementata a causa del massiccio flusso di passività in dollari nel sistema finanziario globale.
Ora stiamo entrando nell'agosto 2007 per l'ennesima volta, ed è evidente dalla crisi del sistema bancario italiano. Quello che succede verso la fine di un ciclo boom/bust, è che quelle attività che non meritavano le loro valutazioni gonfiate vengono abbandonate dagli scommettitori, come è successo con Countrywide e Bear Stearns alla fine del 2007.
Nel caso della terza banca d'Italia, Monte dei Paschi di Siena, la festa è finita. È completamente insolvente e lo è stata per anni. Eppure non più tardi di due anni fa veniva trattata al 225X dell'attuale prezzo delle sue azioni.
Ma il crollo mostrato qui sotto non è dovuto ai mercati; è semplicemente aria speculativa alimentata dalla stampante di Mario Draghi che esce dalla bolla.
E questo non è un esempio isolato. Come abbiamo sottolineato la scorsa volta, il sistema bancario italiano nel suo complesso è insolvente. Sin dalla fine del secolo scorso, i suoi bilanci sono quasi triplicati e ora si attestano a €4,000 miliardi.
Questo numero rappresenta il doppio del PIL italiano, un rapporto decisamente aumentato rispetto al 2000. L'altra cosa fuori scala, oltre a questo tipo di esplosione dei bilanci delle banche, è stato l'accumulo di asset tossici nel sistema bancario commerciale.
Ora ci sono circa $3,000 miliardi di prestiti nel sistema bancario italiano e il 13% sono non-performanti. In termini relativi, stiamo parlando di un rapporto quasi 3 volte superiore al cattivo debito nel sistema bancario degli Stati Uniti al culmine della crisi dei mutui subprime.
Inutile dire che questi €400 miliardi di sofferenze stanno crescendo rapidamente. Monte dei Paschi, Unicredit e le altre tre grandi banche italiane hanno €119 miliardi di sofferenze. Invece alla fine del primo trimestre il patrimonio netto complessivo del sistema bancario italiano era di appena €125 miliardi.
Le banche italiane sono sostanzialmente insolventi. Che le azioni siano scese sin dal Brexit, e ora siano giù del 50%-70% rispetto all'inizio dell'anno, incarna semplicemente la comprensione tardiva degli speculatori che né il governo italiano né la BCE sono in grado di fare tutto il necessario per sostenere questa particolare truffa della Finanza delle Bolle.
Il primo ha chiesto alla UE di aggirare le regole riguardo il bail-in, mentre alla seconda non sarà consentito dai tedeschi di estendere il QE ai €187 miliardi di obbligazioni bancarie italiane che sono dirette verso un haircut.
Infatti, non più tardi di due anni fa il capitale e il debito del sistema bancario italiano era valutato a $400 miliardi. In realtà, non valeva sostanzialmente niente.
La battaglia del governo italiano per salvare questa catastrofe da un crollo completo, creerà senza dubbio la prossima crisi di governo e innescherà l'implosione dell'UE. Ma prima che queste eventualità si materializzeranno completamente, il punto più grande è già stato dimostrato.
Vale a dire, come Countrywide e i suoi compari nel 2007, l'implosione del sistema bancario italiano non è un evento una tantum. Invece, è parte integrante della Finanza delle Bolle.
[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: http://francescosimoncelli.blogspot.it/