Obamas Go on 12-Day Martha's Vineyard Vacation Amid Global Crises

breitbart

By Wynton Hall 

Amid an international ebola health emergency, U.S. airstrikes in Iraq, and the illegal immigration crisis surging on the southern border, President Barack Obama leaves on Saturday for a lavish Martha's Vineyard twelve day vacation at the 8,100-square foot mansion of Democratic Party donor Joanne Hubschman.

The timing of Obama's swank vacation has even the president's supporters worried.

"Even some of Obama's most ardent supporters are questioning the wisdom of this summer's sojourn as war roils Gaza and a wave of families and children are crossing the southwestern US border illegally," reports the Boston Globe.

The White House announced Thursday that Obama will briefly interrupt his vacation by returning to Washington on Sunday, August 17, for a few meetings and then jetting back to the Massachusetts island retreat on August 19 to continue his vacation until August 24th.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said there is no need to worry that Obama is disengaged from the duties of his office because he travels with "an array of communications equipment" that enable him to carry out his presidential duties..

"He travels with an array of communications equipment and national security advisers that will allow him to perform all of the functions that are required of America's commander in chief," said Earnest."

Obama has vacationed at the wealthy Martha's Vineyard retreat every year of his presidency save 2012 when he was busy campaigning for re-election.

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds Obama hitting a new all-time low approval rating of just 40%.

Famed Investor’s Dire Warning: ‘This Is Going to End Badly… Be Prepared, Be Worried, and Be Careful’

 

Read on TheBlaze >>

Mark Carney’s parting shot at Alan Greenspan

The Globe and Mail

By Kevin Carmichael 

JASON FRANSON/THE CANADIAN PRESS

Mark Carney, who has been called the “outstanding” central banker of his generation, has used one of his final speeches as governor of the Bank of Canada to criticize the legacy of Alan Greenspan, who often was characterized as the greatest central banker of his generation.

Mr. Carney said Wednesday that central banks likely left interest rates too low for too long ahead of the financial crisis, mistakenly believing there was little they could do deflate asset-price bubbles.

“It appears likely that monetary policy would ideally have leaned against growing domestic imbalances in the pre-crisis period, thereby mitigating the eventual fall,” Mr. Carney said in a lecture at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.

By “imbalances,” Mr. Carney is referring to the housing busts in the United States and parts of Europe that brought down the global economy.

Alan Greenspan

As those bubbles were inflating, central bankers generally were of the mind that it was less costly to let them burst and then clean up the damage by quickly lowering interest rates. Mr. Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, (in)famously argued that bubbles could too easily be confused with desirable wealth creation.

Mr. Greenspan’s approach to monetary policy has come under a considerable amount of scrutiny in recent years, for obvious reasons. Mr. Carney, who in July takes over as governor of the Bank of England, clearly has concluded that the crisis has left Mr. Greenspan’s theory wanting. Mr. Carney says central bankers should “lean” against asset-price bubbles under certain circumstances.

“While there clearly would have been economic costs to leaning, these must be viewed in relation to the enormous costs associated with the crisis,” he says. “Relative to the previous consensus, the lean versus clean debate now appears to be, at the very least, more finely balanced, if not tipping in favour of pre-emptive leaning,” he adds in the speech.

Mr. Carney’s conclusions about pre-crisis monetary policy matter because post-crisis monetary policy is rather similar.

The Bank of Canada’s benchmark lending rate has been 1 per cent or lower since January 2009, and the central bank’s current guidance suggests the overnight target will stay at 1 per cent until at least the end of next year. If that approach created “imbalances” a decade ago, it can do so again. That’s why so many critics think central banks such as the Bank of Canada are sowing the seeds for another crisis.

Mr. Carney concedes there is a risk of a repeat. That’s why the Bank of Canada has been so vocal in warning against the perils of household debt and why the central bank continues to tilt toward raising interest rates even as the economy’s momentum approached stall speed.

Yet Mr. Carney’s critique of the Greenspan doctrine isn’t absolute.

He agrees that raising interest rates to cool a specific market is an inelegant way to guide an economy. Which is why he emphasizes that monetary policy is the last line of defense. First, one hopes households, executives and investors will be guided by common sense. When that fails, they next play is regulatory policy; for example, tightening mortgage requirements, as Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has done on four separate occasions. If that fails, then the central bank must raise interest rates, even if that risks impeding economic growth more broadly, to avoid a calamity.

In effect, by stressing the possibility that bubbles could result in higher interest rates, the Bank of Canada has been leaning against the housing market. Mr. Carney said in his lecture compared it to the way central banks use communication to root inflation expectations – if economics actors believe the central bank will react to excessive debt accumulation with by raising borrowing costs, those actors will take on less debt.

“If leaning is understood, expectations will do some of the work for us,” Mr. Carney said.

Some will question to extent to which that is true. Few should question whether it is worth trying. The new generation of central bankers only is trying to correct the mistakes of the previous one.

The Structural Crisis: Middle-Run Imponderables

Immanuel Wallerstein

www.gehablog.org

I have previously laid out why I think the capitalist world-system is in a structural crisis, and why this leads to a worldwide political struggle over which of two alternative outcomes will prevail: one that results in a non-capitalist system that retains all the worst features of capitalism (hierarchy, exploitation, and polarization); or one that lays the basis for a system that is based on relative democratization and relative egalitarianism, a kind of system that has never yet existed.

There are however three imponderables in the process of systemic transition. These are three phenomena whose roots are in the historical developments of the modern world-system, and which could "explode" in some sense in the next twenty to forty years in an extremely destructive manner, with very uncertain consequences for the worldwide political struggle.

These three imponderables are climate change, pandemics, and nuclear warfare. They are not imponderable in the dangers they pose for all of humanity. They are imponderables in terms of the timing of any disasters. Our knowledge about each of these is extensive but there are enough uncertainties and differences of views among those who have studied seriously these issues that I do not believe we can be sure what exactly will happen. Let us discuss each in turn.

Climate change seems an unquestionable reality, except for those who reject this reality for political or ideological reasons. Furthermore, everything that has been causing climate change is actually accelerating rather than slowing down. The political differences between wealthier and less wealthy states as to what should be done about climate change make an accord that would mitigate the risks appear unattainable.

However, the earth's ecological complexity is so great, and these changes so extensive, that we do not know what kinds of readjustments will occur. It seems clear that water levels will rise, are already rising, and this threatens the drowning of vast land areas. It also seems clear that the average temperatures in various parts of the world will change, are already changing. But this can also result in shifting the location of agricultural production and energy sources to different zones in ways that might in some sense "compensate" for the acute damage to other zones.

The same thing seems to be true of pandemics. The enormous "advances" of world medicine in the last hundred or so years that have seemed to bring so many diseases under control have simultaneously created a situation in which humanity's ancient enemy, the germ, has found new ways to be resistant and to create new kinds of maladies that our medical forces find extremely difficult to combat.

On the other hand, we seem to be beginning to learn that germs can sometimes be humanity's best friend. Once again, our knowledge seemed great but, when all is said and done, turns out to be pitifully small. In this race against time, how fast will we learn? And how much must we unlearn, in order to survive?

Finally, there is nuclear war. I have argued that there will be significant nuclear proliferation in the decade or so to come. I do not see this as a danger in terms of interstate warfare. Indeed it is almost the contrary. Nuclear weapons are essentially defensive weapons and therefore reduce, not increase, the likelihood of interstate wars.

However, there are several imponderables. The motivations of non-state actors are not necessarily the same. And there are some no doubt who would like to get their hands on such weapons (as well as on chemical and biological weapons) and use them. In addition, the limited ability of many states to protect such weapons from seizure or purchase may facilitate their acquisition by non-state actors. Finally, the actual use of such weapons is necessarily in the hands of some individuals. And the possibility of a "rogue" state agent, a Dr. Strangelove of fiction, is never to be ruled out.

It is perfectly possible that the world weathers the global transition to a new world-system or systems without any of these catastrophes occurring. But it is also possible that it doesn't. And, if it does weather the transition, it is also possible that the new world-system will take the kinds of measures that will reduce (even eliminate) the likelihood of any of them coming to fruition.

Obviously, we cannot simply sit back and see what happens. We need to pursue whatever measures we can in the immediate present to minimize the possibility of the "explosion" of any of these three imponderables. However, as long as we find ourselves in the modern world-system, what we can accomplish politically is limited. That is why I call them imponderables. We cannot be sure what will actually happen and what effect it will have on the transition.

Let me make myself clear. None of these dangerous occurrences would end the process of structural transition. But it could affect seriously the balance of political forces in the struggle. It seems already clear that one major way in which many people react to these dangers is to pull inward in a heavily protectionist and xenophobic way, thereby strengthening the hand of those who are seeking to create an oppressive system (even if it be a non-capitalist one). We see this tendency already almost everywhere. It means that those who seek a system that is relatively democratic and relatively egalitarian have to become clearer about what is happening and work harder at developing political strategies that will counter this trend.

--------------------------------
Immanuel Wallerstein, Senior Research Scholar at Yale University, is the author of The Decline of American Power: The U.S. in a Chaotic World (New Press).

Global Turmoil in the Middle Run

Immanuel Wallerstein

www.usatoday.com

Making predictions in the short run (the coming year or two) is a fool's game. There are too many unpredictable twists and turns in the real political/economic/cultural world. But we can attempt to make plausible statements for the middle run (a decade or more) based on a workable theoretical framework combined with a solid empirical analysis of trends and constraints.

What do we know about the world-system in which we are living? First of all, we know that it is a capitalist world-economy, whose basic principle is the ceaseless accumulation of capital. Secondly, we know that it is an historical system, which like all systems (from the universe as a whole to the tiniest nano-systems) has a life. It comes into existence, it lives its "normal" life according to rules and structures it creates, and then at some point the system moves too far from equilibrium and enters into a structural crisis. Thirdly, we know that our present world-system has been a polarizing system, in which there has been a steadily increasing gap among states and within states.

We are in such a structural crisis right now, and have been for some forty years. We shall continue to be in it for another twenty to forty years. This is quite an average length of time for a structural crisis of a historical social system. What happens in a structural crisis is that the system bifurcates, which means essentially that there emerge two alternative ways of ending the structural crisis by "choosing" collectively one of the alternatives.

The principal characteristic of a structural crisis is a series of chaotic and wild fluctuations of everything -- the markets, the geopolitical alliances, the stability of state boundaries, employment, debts, taxes. Uncertainty, even in the short run, becomes chronic. And uncertainty tends to freeze economic decision-making, which of course makes things worse.

Here are some of the things we can expect in the middle run. Most states are facing, and are going to continue to face, a squeeze between reduced income and increased expenditures. What most states have been doing is to reduce expenditures in two ways. One has been to cut into (even eliminate) a great many of the safety nets that have been constructed in the past to help ordinary people deal with the multiple contingencies they face. But there is a second way as well. Most states are cutting the money transfers to subordinate state entities -- federated structures, if the state is a federation, and local governments. What this does is simply to transfer the need to increase taxes to these subordinate units. If they find this impossible, they can go bankrupt, which eliminates other parts of the safety nets (notably pensions).

This has an immediate impact on the states. On the one hand, it weakens them, as more and more units seek to secede if they think it economically advantageous. But on the other hand, the states are more important than ever, as the populations seek refuge in state protectionist policies (keep my jobs, not yours). State boundaries have always been changing. But they promise to change even more frequently now. At the same time, new regional structures linking together existing states (or their subunits) -- such as the European Union (EU) and the new South American structure (UNASUR) -- will continue to flourish and play an increasing geopolitical role.

The juggling between the multiple loci of geopolitical power will become ever more unstable in a situation in which none of these loci will be in a position to dictate the interstate rules. The United States is an erstwhile hegemonic power with feet of clay, but one still powerful enough to wreak damage by missteps. China seems to have the strongest emerging economic position, but it is less strong than it itself and others think. The degree to which western Europe and Russia will draw closer is still an open question, and is very much on the agenda of both sides. How India will play its cards is very much undecided by India. What this means for civil wars like that in Syria at the moment is that outside interveners cancel each other out and internal conflicts become ever more organized around fratricidal identity groups.

I shall reiterate my long-argued position. At the end of a decade, we shall see some major realignments. One is the creation of a confederal structure linking Japan, (a reunited) China, and (a reunited) Korea. The second is a geopolitical alliance between this confederal structure and the United States. A third is a de facto alliance between the EU and Russia. A fourth is nuclear proliferation on a significant scale. A fifth is generalized protectionism. The sixth is generalized world deflation, which can take one of two forms -- either a nominal reduction in prices, or runaway inflations that have the same consequence.

Obviously, these are not happy outcomes for most people. World unemployment will rise, not fall. And ordinary people will feel the pinch very severely. They have already shown that they are ready to fight back in multiple forms, and this popular resistance will grow. We shall find ourselves in the midst of a vast political battle to determine the world's future.

Those who have wealth and privilege today will not sit idly by. However, it will become increasingly clear to them that they cannot secure their future through the existing capitalist system. They will seek to implement a system based not on a central role of the market but rather on a combination of brute force and deception. The key objective is to ensure that the new system would guarantee the continuation of three key features of the present system -- hierarchy, exploitation, and polarization.

On the other side will be popular forces across the world who will seek to create a new kind of historical system, one that has never yet existed, one that is based on relative democracy and relative equality. What this means in terms of the institutions the world would create is almost impossible to foresee. We shall learn in the building of this system in the decades to come.

Who will win out in this battle? No-one can predict. It will be the result of an infinity of nano-actions by an infinity of nano-actors at an infinity of nano-moments. At some point, the tension between the two alternative solutions will tilt definitively in favor of one or the other. This is what gives us hope. What each of us does at each moment about each immediate issue matters. Some people call it the "butterfly effect." The fluttering of a butterfly’s wings affects the climate at the other end of the world. In that sense, we are all little butterflies today.

--------------
Immanuel Wallerstein, Senior Research Scholar at Yale University, is the author of The Decline of American Power: The U.S. in a Chaotic World (New Press)

Avoiding a Debt Crisis, Eh? Lessons From Canada

The Foundry

Paul Bremmer 

Congressional lawmakers met last week to try to hammer out a deal to avert the fiscal cliff. Democrats insist on revenue increases as part of such a deal, saying new revenue is the only way to significantly reduce the national debt. However, it is not a lack of revenue that is driving U.S. debt; it is unrestrained federal spending. American lawmakers looking to solve America’s looming fiscal crisis need not look further than Canada.

Highlighted at a recent Cato Institute conference, our neighbor—and competitor—to the north serves as a good example of what it takes to return to a strong economy. The Great White North has turned around its fiscal situation and is now experiencing financial stability and economic growth.

In Canada, federal spending has been trending downward since 1993, according to Cato’s Chris Edwards. Canadians have cut spending in virtually every area except health care. The federal government now accounts for only 38 percent of total government spending. In the U.S., by contrast, the federal government accounts for 71 percent of total government spending.

The Canadian government, among other changes, altered benefit schedules for the Canadian Pension Plan to reduce the total amount of benefits paid.

In a similar vein, The Heritage Foundation suggests a variety of benefit changes to Social Security that would strengthen the program’s finances, for example, by raising the eligibility age slightly and replacing cost of living adjustments with the Chained Consumer Price Index for a more targeted measure of inflation in consumer goods. Bolder changes include gradually introducing a flat benefit that targets scarce resources to those seniors who need them the most and provides all seniors with protection from poverty in retirement.

Canada also cut corporate income tax rates. The U.S. has the highest rate among its competitors in the industrialized world. The combined federal and state corporate rate in the U.S. is over 39 percent. Canada now has a combined rate of only 25 percent.

Contrary to popular expectations, lower corporate tax rates have not resulted in significantly reduced corporate tax revenue in Canada. Instead, corporations based in Canada have reported more income since lower tax rates went into place. And Canada is experiencing low unemployment and a strong Canadian dollar.

The Heritage Foundation’s New Flat Tax would replace today’s complex tax system for individuals and business with a simple, neutral, and transparent tax system that would allow America to achieve its full economic potential.

Europe has not followed Canada’s example, and the resulting severe debt crises are sending people to the streets in an outbreak of violent protests. Out-of-control government spending and deficits have resulted in massive borrowing, which has led to bailouts for many European countries.

High levels of spending on social welfare programs are at the heart of the problem. Greece, for example, spent 42 percent of its federal budget on social benefits in 2009, according to Aristides Hatzis from the University of Athens. Spain is slated to spend 63 percent of its budget on social expenditures in fiscal year 2013, according to Pedro Schwartz from Universidad San Pablo CEU.

Here in the United States, we have all the ingredients necessary to create a similar debt crisis in the not-so-distant future. Over the past four decades, federal spending has increased 288 percent, nearly quadrupling in real terms. Thirty-two cents out of every dollar spent was borrowed in 2012. Debt held by the public is a staggering 73 percent of GDP, and our government has run trillion-dollar budget deficits four years in a row.

In less than 10 years, the U.S.’s publicly held debt will surpass the size of the entire U.S. economy and is projected to continue skyrocketing from there. (continues below chart)

To make matters worse, there is a dark demographic cloud on the horizon. In all Western nations, the proportion of older people as a share of the population is increasing. In the U.S., baby boomers are increasingly reaching retirement age, and in Europe, fertility rates are well below replacement level. As the populations of these countries age, entitlements will eat up an ever-increasing share of federal spending and place a greater strain on a smaller share of working-age taxpayers.

Solving America’s spending and debt challenges is possible. Canada’s example illustrates some of the steps this will take—including major cuts to federal spending, tax reform, and entitlement reform. If our leaders can find the courage to pursue this path, we can avoid an economic collapse and Save the American Dream. 

---------------------------
Paul Bremmer is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm.

Israel-Iran: La Guerra que Occidente debe evitar

Los halcones de Israel pueden estar muy cerca de desatar una guerra a gran escala con Irán. El pasado lunes 28 de noviembre, las fuerzas de operaciones especiales israelitas mas como conocidas como la "Mano de Dios", hicieron estallar una parte de la instalación nuclear iraní  de Isfahan.

 

En otro incidente, una explosion en Teheran provoca la muerte de un general irani.

De acuerdo con el Times de Londres, Dan Meridor, ministro de inteligencia israeli, implicitament asumio la responsabilidad con los hechos: "Hay países que imponen sanciones económicas y hay países que actúan de otra manera para hacer frente a la amenaza nuclear iraní."
     

Por su parte el mayor general Giora Eiland, ex director de la seguridad nacional de Israel, declaro a la radio del Ejército de Israel que la explosión Isfahan no fue un accidente: "No hay muchas coincidencias, y cuando hay tantos eventos es probable que haya algún tipo de mano que guía, aunque tal vez es la mano de Dios"

 Otro ex funcionario de inteligencia israelí, menciona al menos dos otras explosiones que habrian neutralizado bases de lanzamiento del misil de alcance medio Shahab-3.

La respuesta "oficial" de Iran llego en la forma del ataque de los estudiantes extremistas a la embajada del Reino Unido en Teheran.  No hay ojo por ojo no por deseos de venganza de los halcones y la jerarquia eclesiastica, sino por imposibilidad de ejecutarla en proporcion a la incursion israeli. No es prudencia o sabidura politica sino impotencia que inflama las llamas de una guerra casi inevitable por parte de los protagonistas principales.

Al margen de las altisonantes declaraciones de los halcones israelies, el pequeno pero poderoso enclave judio en el corazon del medio oriente islamico, no puede actuar a gran escala en solitario. 

 

Ahora mismo los estados mayores politico-militares de un Occidente envuelto en la mayor crisis economica desde la gran recesion [en un escenario optimista] deben estar evaluando cuidadosamente pero  con toda celeridad los impactos que sufririan si una guerra de estas caracteristicas llegara a desatarse.

Considerando solo la variante energetica [a lo que habria que anadir la reaccion del mundo arabe y musulman no solo de la region y el rol que China y Rusia adoptarian ante la conflagracion] de unas economias donde precios de $150 dolares el barril de crudo, provocan una recesion inmediata en sus maltrechas economias, la disminucion de la oferta diaria en el mercado mundial petrolero estimada en mas de 10 millones de barriles como resultado del conflicto, lanzaria los precios por encima de la barrera de los $200 dolares.

Enfrentados a movimientos sociales si bien poco organizados pero desestabilizadores como el Occupy Movement en muchas de las principales metropolis, huelgas de mas de dos millones de trabajadores publicos en el Reino Unido, una Zona Euro en crisis estructural cronica que amenaza su desintegracion, mientras su poblacion volcada en las plazas rechaza la aplicacion de los programas de austeridad previstos y una Union Europea que acaba de ser apuntalada por los bancos centrales occidentales para atenuar los negativos impactos en sus respectivos mercados, no es un escenario alentador para apoyar una incursion israeli en gran escala contra Iran.

NASA - 2012: Beginning of the End or Why the World Won't End?

Remember the Y2K scare? It came and went without much of a whimper because of adequate planning and analysis of the situation. Impressive movie special effects aside, Dec. 21, 2012, won't be the end of the world as we know. It will, however, be another winter solstice.

Much like Y2K, 2012 has been analyzed and the science of the end of the Earth thoroughly studied. Contrary to some of the common beliefs out there, the science behind the end of the world quickly unravels when pinned down to the 2012 timeline. Below, NASA Scientists answer several questions that we're frequently asked regarding 2012.

Question (Q): Are there any threats to the Earth in 2012? Many Internet websites say the world will end in December 2012.
Answer (A): Nothing bad will happen to the Earth in 2012. Our planet has been getting along just fine for more than 4 billion years, and credible scientists worldwide know of no threat associated with 2012.

Q: What is the origin of the prediction that the world will end in 2012?
A: The story started with claims that Nibiru, a supposed planet discovered by the Sumerians, is headed toward Earth. This catastrophe was initially predicted for May 2003, but when nothing happened the doomsday date was moved forward to December 2012. Then these two fables were linked to the end of one of the cycles in the ancient Mayan calendar at the winter solstice in 2012 -- hence the predicted doomsday date of December 21, 2012.

Q: Does the Mayan calendar end in December 2012?
A: Just as the calendar you have on your kitchen wall does not cease to exist after December 31, the Mayan calendar does not cease to exist on December 21, 2012. This date is the end of the Mayan long-count period but then -- just as your calendar begins again on January 1 -- another long-count period begins for the Mayan calendar.

Q: Could phenomena occur where planets align in a way that impacts Earth?
A: There are no planetary alignments in the next few decades, Earth will not cross the galactic plane in 2012, and even if these alignments were to occur, their effects on the Earth would be negligible. Each December the Earth and sun align with the approximate center of the Milky Way Galaxy but that is an annual event of no consequence.

"There apparently is a great deal of interest in celestial bodies, and their locations and trajectories at the end of the calendar year 2012. Now, I for one love a good book or movie as much as the next guy. But the stuff flying around through cyberspace, TV and the movies is not based on science. There is even a fake NASA news release out there..."
- Don Yeomans, NASA senior research scientist Q: Is there a planet or brown dwarf called Nibiru or Planet X or Eris that is approaching the Earth and threatening our planet with widespread destruction?
A: Nibiru and other stories about wayward planets are an Internet hoax. There is no factual basis for these claims. If Nibiru or Planet X were real and headed for an encounter with the Earth in 2012, astronomers would have been tracking it for at least the past decade, and it would be visible by now to the naked eye. Obviously, it does not exist. Eris is real, but it is a dwarf planet similar to Pluto that will remain in the outer solar system; the closest it can come to Earth is about 4 billion miles. 

More >

The Greater Depression Is Upon Us

From The Daily Reckoning

• The eurozone is growing increasingly desperate. 
• The U.S. debt situation is far worse than anyone in Washington is willing to admit. 
• China's miracle mirage. 
• Japan is essentially offline. 
• The Middle East is in flames.

Read more...    

Total World Economy Collapse

World Economy Collapse explained in 3 minutes

Uploaded by noblecoins

John Clarke and Bryan Dawe calculate the cost of the European debt crisis - A comedy routine. It may seemed hilarious but this is actually what's happening. Without all the financial jargon, any layman can understand what is happening to the current economy crisis.

How can broke economies lend money to other broke economies who haven't got any money because they can't pay back the money the broke economy lent to the other broke economy and shouldn't have lent it to them in the first place because the broke economy can't pay back?

#ClubOrlov: Sailing craft for a post-collapse world

ClubOrlov: Sailing craft for a post-collapse world

Economics of Extinction: Play the Game!

Watch the full 122nd episode of The Keiser Report on Thursday. This week Max Keiser and co-host, Stacy Herbert, talk about Guanxi schemes selling fictional forests for real money, while real farmland cant find even a virtual penny. In the second half of the show, Max talks to author and documentary filmmaker, Greg Palast, about whether it is peak oil or oil dictatorships that is the bigger threat to the global economy.

Bernanke apuesta por destruir el dólar

M. Llamas

EEUU se enfrenta, nuevamente, al riesgo de deflación y recesión. El presidente de la FED admite que el panorama es "inusualmente incierto". Y avanza su receta: "Tomar medidas adicionales" ¿Cuáles? Expansión monetaria de hasta 5 billones de dólares. ¿Efecto? Depreciación del dólar. »

The Third Depression/ Paul Krugman

The Third Depression

G8-G20: Protestas en Toronto

Convocan a refundar la Union Europea

Los 'sabios' exigen una reforma urgente para salvar la Unión Europea

La flota fantasma de Singapur

Taringa! - La Flota Fantasma de Singapur

Crisis financiera. Lo que recomendo un Premio Nobel de Economia

Efectivamente hay cosas que uno no desearia oir nunca y lo que el afamado Paul Krugman ganador en solitario del Nobel en Economia el pasado ano con su New Trade Theory le exigio en publico y en privado a Greespan es una de ellas.

El judio de New York es un insider y no solo un profesor de teoria economica y asuntos internacionales en Princenton University como se le quiere presentar. Ante la crisis de las PuntoCom que se superpuso a la generada tras el 911, Krugman insistio en que la Reserva Federal deberia bajar la tasa referencial de intereses y crear una burbuja inmobiliaria que sustituyera a la PuntoCom.

En el ano 2002 como reproduceArnold Kling en Things I'm Glad I Never Said

Mr. Krugman escribio: ¨To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble¨.

Paranoia y conspiracion 2

Supongo que este scanner se sustente en la medicion de la temperatura corporal. Que pasaria si se detecta que alquien tiene un rojo intenso en la region pelviana.

Ahora mismo el influyente Diario de las Americas nos alarma con eso que Avanza la gripe porcina; avanza???; en que direccion?; para donde tengo que salir huyendo ahora mismo para evitar a ese enemigo mortal e invisible?; cuantas veces al dia tengo que lavarme las manos y cuantas buenas tendre que dejar de estrachar; Por que ninguno de los asesores financieros que se pasan el dia dando explicaciones concienzudas de que acciones comprar, no nos alerto que gastaron lo que tenemos y no en comprar acciones de las companias que fabrican los tapabocas.
El grado de Alarma 4, ante una Pandemia ya se está ejecutandO: Control en los aeropuertos y fronteras

Por otro lado tambien se informa que "Barack Obama, ve un resquicio de luz para la mayor economía del mundo tras sacar adelante un enorme paquete de estímulo y ordenar reformas de largo alcance en sus primeros 100 días de gobierno"Recuperación económica domina la agenda ; un resquicio??? y hemos puesto el futuro de todos nosotros en las manos de uno que solo ve un "resquicio".