Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cause of the 2008 crash? Was it Terrorism?
#1
Bill Gertz.

Was the US economy deliberately ruined to elect the boy?
Sanders 2020

Reply
#2
Why are you teasing me so?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#3
No intention to tease anyone this time.

I'd dismiss this article, but Gertz used to be very credible.
Sanders 2020

Reply
#4
mv Wrote:No intention to tease anyone this time.

I'd dismiss this article, but Gertz used to be very credible.

Agreed. However, he is staying on the Moonie wagon, so that may negate his credibility. I constantly receive crap from the WaTimes almost every day. No matter how many times I place each one in the "Spam" folder, it keeps coming back under a new IP address.

I have gotten where I hate the WaTimes as a result. And as you know, when you attempt to read that article, you are constantly bombarded with that advertising bar, which will not go away.

Screw them and the Kimchi horse Moon rode in on.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#5
The article is roughly based on the concept: "Suspects include financial enemies in Middle Eastern states, Islamic terrorists, hostile members of the Chinese military, or government and organized crime groups in Russia, Venezuela or Iran."

Well, of course that is no-brainer. Anything that they could do, I'm sure they did. But that attack is omnipresent and rarely effective. People like Soros, the money speculators, also make their wealth by moving other people's money around to their benefit. But the people who create the wealth always hold the upper hand.

I still believe the attack on our economic system occurred because the ever present negative elements were allowed to brew on purpose by Democrats in 2007 and 8 who wanted a slight hit on the system as a political wedge to use against the Bush administration and any incoming GOP candidates. As immoral and dishonorable as they were, they never intended the depths of the hit that ensued.

Any foreign suspects looking to harm us economically took advantage of the opened doorway - but did so opportunistically, not by creating it.
Reply
#6
These consipracy theories are silly,men like Soros don't need to see that Obama or Bush is elected,they're going to have their persuasion over whoever is elected.

That guy is a formal part of the US state. I guess he would prefer a nominal lefty,he can get his way w/o one.
Reply
#7
Palladin Wrote:...men like Soros don't need to see that Obama or Bush is elected,they're going to have their persuasion over whoever is elected.
Ah! But those elected will do what they can to earn the blessing of the holy men.

Reading Bush's latest best seller, he should be remembered for not putting anything ahead of what he thought was the right thing for the people.
Reply
#8
Bill, if Junior Really, Really, thought that increasing the size of the State, adding more layers of security, high deficit spending, among other things, was for the good of the people, then he was every bit as stupid as the Jackasses accused him of being.

By your statement above, are you saying he really did think that?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#9
No doubt about it. He believes to this day, that the fragmented security system inherited from Jaimie Gorelick and Clinton, and the bolluxed-up intel bureaus killed under Carter had to be put under one umbrella, hence the Homeland Security Agency, to fix it all. He anguished over the added weight of government, but did it anyway, because 9/11 put first things first in his mind. He used metrics to prove the added weight was better than what existed before, but never saw the added size as a good thing.

In the same way, he anguished over enhanced interrogation and opening up Gitmo - but saw no better way to safeguard the homeland. Almost all actions he took were supported by all sides, until the calendar marched on and his political opponents forgot what he remembered. Everyday, he wore the dogtags of a Special Forced soldier killed in Afghanistan and the badge of a firefighter killed on 9/11. He worked to keep his memory focused and his motives pure.

Things like NCLB and other leftist programs were in his platform from the beginning. Even his studying of how to handle embryonic stem cell research was a study in focus, relying on ethicists, scientists, clergy, and advisers. He eventually signed his "lines of existing stem cells" while holding a snowflake baby in his arms (a child born from the same sources of embryos used for research.)

No, he never acted out of pique or stupidity. Many times he later had reason to change his opinions - but most of his decisions were well-reasoned and proved-out in the end.

I encourage you to read Decision Points, his memoirs. I have Rumsfeld's book in hand, also. I long ago learned not to take the street version of anything, when the street is ruled by such non-journalists and hapless politicians. Bush rarely explained in detail his decisions, but this book goes a long way to correct that.
Reply
#10
Thanks, but no thanks Bill. He can talk about his anguish all day long. But I trusted him, and voted for him in 2004, in spite of all my hesitations. No longer! Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me..............................you get my meaning here, right?

Junior is a card carrying, dyed in the wool, 100%, totally committed statist. All this Compassionate Conservatism is just a bullshit smokescreen for Big Government traditionalists, who are doing their damnest to become part of the Ruling Class Establishment.

Screw him, and any other Bushie who comes along. They all suck Big Time in my book. Like Daddy, like Junior. And any other Bushie who comes along. They are ALL part of the Republican Wing of the Big Government Part. I despise All of them, and any Big Government C&G as well.

As I have stated before, if I am going to get stabbed, I would rather see it coming from the enemy I DO know, rather than in the Back, by someone I TRUSTED, but did not live up to that trust. And that is why I totally Loathe the GOP DC establishment. They are full of Statists, who will say one thing, and then sell the voters down the river, all for their own devices and desires. What is it with them, when they get to DC?

My biggest problem with you, my friend, is that you are still willing to swallow all this crap. You are a confirmed optimist about that totally worthless party, and are more than willing to look past all the ugliness, warts, and whatever, but I'm not. Never again will I even remotely come close to trusting them again,........unless there is a bloody revolt from within, where all the establishment Statists, such as McDoofus, Goober Grahm, et al, are run out with a whip, or stood up against the wall and "retired" permanently.

Never again. I used to have trouble understanding how some love jilted women became confirmed "man haters", but I understand it now. That is exactly what I think, and how I feel about the GOP. Just like a love jilted woman.

No offense to you my friend, but you have no idea how much I loathe that worthless party, and my words here only begin to describe it. I wouldn't even bother to piss on the C&G leadership if they were on fire. Only the Libertarian wing deserves any credit for trying to make things right. And one day they are finally going to realize that it is a total waste of time, and they are going to make like a tree and leave. And when they do, the GOP will cease to exist, just as they destroyed the Whigs. Good riddance I say.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#11
John L Wrote:...He can talk about his anguish all day long. But I trusted him, and voted for him in 2004, in spite of all my hesitations.
Our disagreement is not as total as you think. Although Bush 43 did have his roots in Big government statism, he governed much closer to the people than any other president I've read up on. Look at the schism between most leaders and their charge. Obama is on a pedestal so high above the people that he refuses to acknowledge them. If you voted for Bush thinking he was Ghandi, you didn't do your homework. I knew what he was when I voted, and took the bad with the good - understanding that he had the Reagan big tent mind set, but was still far better than Gore or Kerry.

Bush did not dishonor any covenant with you. If anything, the media beguiled you into believing he campaigned on the celestial plane - not on solid planks enumerated in detail.

It was in March 2002, six months after 9/11, that an INS letter was received by a Florida Flight school clearing Mohamed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi for participation in flight training - after having flown airplanes into the twin towers. That was a catalyst to align authority and responsibility with Homeland Security.

This was not done in the dark of night, either. It went to the voters, and Bush had increases in both the House and Senate in the midterm election for the first time since FDR. It was six weeks after the midterm elections that the bill starting the new agency was passed with the support of the people. At the same time, Bush did not want to grow government per se, so targeted the existing dysfunctional legacy agencies for streamlining and shared teamwork rather than the iconoclastic independent fiefdoms they had evolved into.

Remember that Bush was a history major and well read on the errors of past Presidents who grew government. He did what he thought was needed with the minimal hurt to the country - but did it in spite of wanting government smaller. You may laugh about his anguish at the decisions he made, but he did them in full light of the harm a larger government would do, and constantly worked to minimize them. Recall that before the Dems took the government from him that he was bringing down costs of government and shrinking the deficit.

I am not arguing that everything he did was the single best thing and mirrored a perfectionist's philosophy - but that his head and heart were always in the right place and trying to serve rather than rule.
Reply
#12
John L Wrote:Junior is a card carrying, dyed in the wool, 100%, totally committed statist. All this Compassionate Conservatism is just a bullshit smokescreen for Big Government traditionalists, who are doing their damnest to become part of the Ruling Class Establishment.
Bush appointed fiscal conservatives to many positions and did attempt to privatize social security, which of course failed. Though you won't believe it, Bush was determined to reduce domestic spending.

Quote:Evidence outlined in a Pentagon contractor report suggests that financial subversion carried out by unknown parties, such as terrorists or hostile nations, contributed to the 2008 economic crash by covertly using vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system.
The home mortgage crisis was the primary cause of recession. These claims of foreign involvement seem to be either an exaggeration or fabrication.
Reply
#13
Gommi Wrote:
John L Wrote:Junior is a card carrying, dyed in the wool, 100%, totally committed statist. All this Compassionate Conservatism is just a bullshit smokescreen for Big Government traditionalists, who are doing their damnest to become part of the Ruling Class Establishment.
Bush appointed fiscal conservatives to many positions and did attempt to privatize social security, which of course failed. Though you won't believe it, Bush was determined to reduce domestic spending.

the 'so called' fiscal conservatism is really mislabeled. In fact it is really fiscal realism. Only a Keynesian genius would teach borrowing and spending to help an economy while practicing just the opposite in his/her own life. "Macro and Micro" are really very much the same, only one is on a grander scale. Gommi, do you practice Keynesian theory on your own personal life? Do you spend money in order to become solvent? Do you?

Quote:
Quote:Evidence outlined in a Pentagon contractor report suggests that financial subversion carried out by unknown parties, such as terrorists or hostile nations, contributed to the 2008 economic crash by covertly using vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system.
The home mortgage crisis was the primary cause of recession. These claims of foreign involvement seem to be either an exaggeration or fabrication.

The home mortgage crisis, i.e. bank crisis, recession, etc, was caused by the practice of home loan insanity. And the major culprits are Christopher Dowd, and Barney Frank, who pursued this even from the 1990s. Fiscal stupidity, all in the guise of getting home mortgages to those who were unable to afford them.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#14
WmLambert Wrote:I still believe the attack on our economic system occurred because the ever present negative elements were allowed to brew on purpose by Democrats in 2007 and 8 who wanted a slight hit on the system as a political wedge to use against the Bush administration and any incoming GOP candidates. As immoral and dishonorable as they were, they never intended the depths of the hit that ensued.

No, not true. And neither was the article. The attack on our economy has been going on since the Federal Reserve act of 1913. (D)Woodrow Wilson will the help of ®Senator Nelson Aldrich and the rest of the democrats helped to pass the most destructive bill ever created. Woodrow Wilson seemed to do his best to destroy the country. By the way Bush..is a piece of ****
Reply
#15
BillPrestonEsq Wrote:...No, not true. And neither was the article.
No. If you study the article and history more, you may get past a few hackneyed conspiracy theories that while true, are more coincidental than malevolent.

The foreign opposition does scheme to maximize their own global stance at the expense of the US whenever possible. ...And international financiers will always scheme to make as much money as they can. No argument there. What is most germane is that that is nothing new. In the short term, the economic crisis was caused by the Dems intentionally spiking the economy so they could blame Bush - and letting the wolves come through the opened door.

As for thinking Bush was anything but honorable tends to label yourself as an easy dupe. The effect of his actions can be debated - not that he ever acted out of arrogance or personal aggrandizement. It was the media who mirrored the personal attacks of the Democrats and unfairly defined Bush's public persona. He was working to minimize the size and cost of government and succeeding - after the blowback of 9/11, until the Dems rode the coattails of a complicit media and reversed his efforts.

The blame of toxic loans being at the root of the economic mess is arguable as well. Yes, it would be smart not to have cretins in charge of the cash register, but remember that the single thing that crashed the home loan business was the sudden lack of equity. It always counter-balanced over-extended families owning more than they could afford, because they could always sell the home and get enough in equity to pay off the mortgage and still have enough left over for the family to rethink the situation and move into an apartment or rental.

What killed equity was the overnight unemployment in construction. When Echelon shut down in Las Vegas, that multi-billion dollar project threw tens of thousands of workers out of well-paying jobs. When one day they could pay for $500,000 homes - the next, the homes were going for $250,000 and they had no income. It was not just the top projects, like Echelon, that killed the economy. Most other projects canceled in response to what the big guys were doing, with no hope of re-employment for anyone out of a job.

Yes, the CRA got out of control - as John mentioned, by the political machinations of Dodd, Frank, Schumer, Waters, Raines, Gorelick, and the other perps. The situation was rife for going FUBAR, but it was the Dems who sabotaged the energy market, and started the runs on the banks that ignited the misery.

You do understand that had IndyMac not been attacked, Echelon would be a Casino complex today, and all those workers would have lived in those half million dollar homes with no foreclosures or equity losses. None of the copycat closings would have occurred, and those thousands of workers would have moved on from one job to another as they always had.
Reply
#16
WmLambert Wrote:No. If you study the article and history more, you may get past a few hackneyed conspiracy theories that while true, are more coincidental than malevolent.

You underestimate the amount of studying I have done on the subject.
While I believe there was a conspiracy to create the Fed Act, I realize that it took many more years of stupidity at the least to get to the absolute mess that we are in now.


Quote:The foreign opposition does scheme to maximize their own global stance at the expense of the US whenever possible. ...And international financiers will always scheme to make as much money as they can. No argument there. What is most germane is that that is nothing new. In the short term, the economic crisis was caused by the Dems intentionally spiking the economy so they could blame Bush - and letting the wolves come through the opened door.

How exactly did the Dems(because the GOP are a bunch of saints)intentionally spike the economy so they could blame bush?


Quote:As for thinking Bush was anything but honorable tends to label yourself as an easy dupe. The effect of his actions can be debated - not that he ever acted out of arrogance or personal aggrandizement. It was the media who mirrored the personal attacks of the Democrats and unfairly defined Bush's public persona. He was working to minimize the size and cost of government and succeeding - after the blowback of 9/11, until the Dems rode the coattails of a complicit media and reversed his efforts.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA! honorable....that's...oh..that's good...thank you...
I don't judge bush on how the media portrayed him. Sorry the -liberal- media. Thank you Fox News for evening the playing field! Anyways, his idea of minimizing the size and cost of government was...the Iraq war?
Or was it the Patriot act, the department of homeland security? He actually set a record deficit and a record for government growth while in office not just in "defense" spending. So I am not sure what you are talking about. Oh unless it was the democrats fault...just like it is the republicans fault that we haven't recieved our hope and change yet. The blowback of 9/11, that is good stuff. So you are saying that we had to invade Iraq right? Yeah, he had to do everything that he did. He is possibly one of the most despicable men to ever walk the planet.

Quote:As for thinking Bush was anything but honorable tends to label yourself as an easy dupe

an easy dupe...not me..fool me once..shame on you, fool me-..you can't get fooled again! Oh well I am not good at words, I am the decider! I do what God tells me to do and rarely question myself. WOW! How can anyone that is not out of their mind think that bush did anything right is beyond me, and to call him honorable is sickening.

Quote:The blame of toxic loans being at the root of the economic mess is arguable as well. Yes, it would be smart not to have cretins in charge of the cash register, but remember that the single thing that crashed the home loan business was the sudden lack of equity. It always counter-balanced over-extended families owning more than they could afford, because they could always sell the home and get enough in equity to pay off the mortgage and still have enough left over for the family to rethink the situation and move into an apartment or rental.

What killed equity was the overnight unemployment in construction. When Echelon shut down in Las Vegas, that multi-billion dollar project threw tens of thousands of workers out of well-paying jobs. When one day they could pay for $500,000 homes - the next, the homes were going for $250,000 and they had no income. It was not just the top projects, like Echelon, that killed the economy. Most other projects canceled in response to what the big guys were doing, with no hope of re-employment for anyone out of a job.

Yes, the CRA got out of control - as John mentioned, by the political machinations of Dodd, Frank, Schumer, Waters, Raines, Gorelick, and the other perps. The situation was rife for going FUBAR, but it was the Dems who sabotaged the energy market, and started the runs on the banks that ignited the misery.

You do understand that had IndyMac not been attacked, Echelon would be a Casino complex today, and all those workers would have lived in those half million dollar homes with no foreclosures or equity losses. None of the copycat closings would have occurred, and those thousands of workers would have moved on from one job to another as they always had.

The crash of our financial system was inevitable and a larger more devastating crash is imminent. Now that I have had a look at both side's budget proposals I am sure of it. It is the lack of understanding of economics on all sides that spells certain doom for this confused country.
No matter what triggered it, our economy is set up to fail. Our consumer economy only needs one domino to fall in order to take us all down. Our banking system relies solely on faith. We just have to believe that the banks aren't commiting fraud everyday, right in front of us. So I am not blaming any one thing in particular on the crash because it was bound to happen one way of another. Anytime you have a fractional reserve system and a printing press, and a government that believes they can exploit them and the American people, and the rest of the world for that matter you have a problem. Also a 10% reserve requirement that leaves 90% of the money in banks that is all insured by the "full faith" of the U.S. government you have a big problem.
Oh yeah then you continue to manipulate not only the very medium of exchange in the market but also the market itself to create a giant corporate power that seeks to outsource jobs in order to undercut other businesses in the wake of rising inflation, using government to corner all markets, including energy, food, transportation, housing, schooling, everything that is important to our survival. And to top it all off blame it all on capatalism! F***ing beautiful! So that is the problem, a hundred years or more of ignorance leading us to our most certain fate. Your precious GOP will not save you, and neither will "the liberals" because they both are double teaming this country eiffel tower style, slapping hands and counting stacks as they get ready for the big money shot.
Reply
#17
There is a longish article (too long to quote here) in the WSJ that claims that we are in for serious inflation and the banks will not be able to handle this.

It also note that the Fed is overconfident in how quickly it can stop inflation once it has begun. In the early 70's, for example, it took several year of extremely high interest rates to stop it.

Many pressures are in the pot: the Fed printing money, the rise of commodity prices, energy prices, food prices, Mid East turmoil, etc. etc.

LINK
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#18
Usually, by the time inflation becomes visible, it has already picked up enough steam that turning it around take far longer than necessary. I suspect this will continue to accelerate for a few years, regardless the action taken. And too, the Fed has already used up it's remedies.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#19
The fear of inflation really comes from the confidence in the dollar around the world rather than domestically right? I mean I don't see a whole lot of spending going on here. Home sales still haven't gone up even with interest rates as they are. What would cause such dramatic inflation?
I mean when I first heard of the stimulus and the other various stimulus packages introduced around the world I thought that massive inflation would be the obvious outcome. But if that money is making up for the loss of home equity, atleast in the U.S., then why would that translate into inflation? No one is spending and lenders are much more careful.
It would seem that the danger of sudden inflation comes with lack of confidence alone. If everyone in a panic for instance started buying up reserves of food and water, they would go up in price, or buying silver to escape the threat of inflation, silver would go up. Can anyone explain this in detail?
Or does anyone have an article that explains the mechanics of this threat?
Reply
#20
BillPrestonEsq Wrote:The fear of inflation really comes from the confidence in the dollar around the world rather than domestically right? I mean I don't see a whole lot of spending going on here. Home sales still haven't gone up even with interest rates as they are. What would cause such dramatic inflation?
I mean when I first heard of the stimulus and the other various stimulus packages introduced around the world I thought that massive inflation would be the obvious outcome. But if that money is making up for the loss of home equity, atleast in the U.S., then why would that translate into inflation? No one is spending and lenders are much more careful.
It would seem that the danger of sudden inflation comes with lack of confidence alone. If everyone in a panic for instance started buying up reserves of food and water, they would go up in price, or buying silver to escape the threat of inflation, silver would go up. Can anyone explain this in detail?
Or does anyone have an article that explains the mechanics of this threat?

Bill, are you asking about the real cause of Inflation? Is this a general question, or do you need more specifics? If general, you can start off by reading from the late Henry Hazlet's famous work, Economics In One Lesson,, and click on Chapter XXII, The Mirage of Inflation. That's a great place to start.

Also, Why Inflation is Back.

I'm really not certain what specific answer you are looking for here. If you believe that confidence in the dollar is related to inflation, it is. But it is a 'result of', not a 'cause'. Simply stated, inflation is the result of too much liquidity pursueing too little Goods and Services. In other words too much money floating around.

And this is also a result of how the controling interests view the "Monetary" World. Currently, the branch of economics in control of our well-being is that of the Keynesians, heaven help us. Keynesian believe that throwing money around will generate the economy. But it won't. THis is akin to saying that a drunk has to "drink himself sober". Have you ever heard of that working before? It's pure madness, and only a utopianist would believe such. But Keynesians do. That is why Bernanke is flooding the money supply(i.e. liquidity) in hopes of stimulating the economy. What he is really doing, is raping it, as his fellow Keynesians are cheering for more.

But I still don't understand what you really want here.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)