Notre Dame & Obama

Notre Dame Honors Pro-Abortion President

Visions of Tyranny

I'm not a fear monger or prone to panic. But if we see the growth of tyrannical police states in the West, this is how things may unfold. The first noose goes on capital.

Switzerland’s private banks have started to ban their top executives from travelling abroad, even to neighbouring France and Germany, because of fears they will be detained as part of a global crackdown on bank secrecy.

The head of one leading private bank in Geneva said the growing determination of countries such as the US and Germany to tackle tax evasion and secrecy meant banks felt they had to take extra measures to protect employees.

“Some banks have taken this precaution,” he said. “If today I go to Germany to visit two banks I deal with...German customs can take me in and question me.”

The travel bans, which have not been brought in by all banks, have focused on those visiting the US, following the detention there last year of a senior private banker from UBS, Switzerland’s biggest bank, as part of a federal tax investigation.

The head of the private bank, which itself has no travel restrictions, said: “Today if you are a banker from Switzerland going to the US you have to fear you will be taken in for questioning. I am thinking twice about going to America.”

However, four people in the private banking industry in Geneva told the Financial Times of banks bringing in total travel bans for staff, even for adjoining European countries.

Moldbug's Latest

If we separate the economy into two consolidated balance sheets - A, the balance sheet of the government and the banking industry; B, the balance sheet of all other industries and households - we feel it is perfectly normal for B to borrow more and more money, every year, from A. But is it?

In fact, when this "flow of credit" ceases, the result is described as a "recession." And it is certainly quite painful. And when the flow reverses - that's real pain.

Now: imagine you were considering investment in a business, and that business had borrowed two trillion dollars last year. Or two billion dollars. Or two million dollars.

There are two possibilities. One, the business is in an expansion stage, and is creating equity with negative cashflow. It has a "burn rate." But it is using this money to make productive long-term investments which will, in time, reverse this and produce a profit.

Two: the business is a dog. It is losing money. It needs to be liquidated or at least restructured. Woof! Sorry, Old Yeller. The time has come to say hello to Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.

Which is it? There is no way to know. However, if we discover that the same business has been borrowing money every year, in the same way, for the past decade, we probably have our answer. If it has been bleeding for the past quarter-century... behold: Exhibit A.

In this interpretation, the United States, as a whole, is a money-losing operation. The fact that the dollar is a fiat currency has allowed us to disguise this, because fiat currency is essentially equity, and equity can always be diluted. So our losses are funneled into a hemorrhage of new shares, in the classic equity death spiral of the dying corporation. But since USG, unlike most dying corporations, is sovereign, the game can continue indefinitely.

Read the whole post, he also has Plan M to revitalize the financial sector.

Obama's Deficit

Every liberal likes to talk about Reagan and his deficits, which at the time, were pretty large. Over 8 years in office, however, the deficits under Reagan amounted to roughly $1,600,000,000,000. Already, the estimate for this year's deficit is $2,000,000,000,000, and my personal estimate is something closer to $2,500,000,000,000, or about two-thirds more than all eight years of Reagan.

And of course, Obama's first 4 years of deficits will likely surpass 8 years of Bush.

The Federal Reserve just announced another bailout program, to the tune of more than $1,000,000,000,000. And Treasury Secretary Geithner just announced a $1,000,000,000,000 plan to buy toxic waste.

But Americans want to get their panties in a wad about $167,000,000 in AIG bonuses. To put that in perspective, 167,000,000 divided by 4,500,000,000,000 is equal to 0.0037%. Why do the politicians and ACORN want you to focus on 0.0037% and ignore the other 99.6289%? Or put it this way, take you anger over AIG. You should be about 27,000 times as angry over the other spending, as you are about AIG. If you're not, you are what is commonly known as a tool or a useful idiot.

Could say the same thing to Bubama

Hear hear!

I have no idea if this has ever happened before at the EU parliament, an intranational feud carried out in an international arena.

The Way to Hell

Go Topolanek, it's your birthday:

Topolanek bluntly said that "the United States did not take the right path.".

He slammed the U.S.' widening budget deficit and protectionist trade measures -- such as the "Buy America" -- and said that "all of these steps, these combinations and permanency is the way to hell."

"We need to read the history books and the lessons of history and the biggest success of the (EU) is the refusal to go this way," he said.

"Americans will need liquidity to finance all their measures and they will balance this with the sale of their bonds but this will undermine the stability of the global financial market," said Topolanek.

Damn skippy.

Zimbabwe's Collapse

Check out this video titled Gold for Bread.

Alec Baldwin Goes John Galt

Dr. Helen notices some hypocrisy, but I notice a celebrity endorsement of the John Galt lifestyle!

Red Tape? Not in Red China

Read it and weep.

The environment ministry today said it cut its review time for new building proposals to two days from five. The regulator approved 246 projects with a total investment of 970 billion yuan in the first two months.

"It wasn't me, it was the gooks!"

The Yellow Peril, the Asian Menace, call them what you will, but according to a growing number of economists, they're the reason for the economic decline. You know, the one caused by American central bank printing and excessive borrowing by consumers and businesses. Latest j'accuse courtesy of Alan Greenspan. Krugmania now includes fear of the Orient on the list of symptoms.

The Rise of the Chucktatorship

Chuck Norris, President of Texas.

When I appeared on Glenn Beck's radio show, he told me that someone had asked him, "Do you really believe that there is going to be trouble in the future?" And he answered, "If this country starts to spiral out of control and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country (which it would have under I think the Republicans as well in this situation; they were taking us to the same place, just slower), Americans won't stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up." Then Glenn asked me and his listening audience, "And where's that going to come from?" He answered his own question, "Texas, it's going to come from Texas. Do you agree with that Chuck?" I replied, "Oh yeah!" Definitely.

It was these types of thoughts that led me to utter the tongue-n-cheek frustration on Glenn Beck's radio show, "I may run for president of Texas!"

We Surround Them

Glenn Beck is having his own get together on Friday.

Do you watch the direction that America is being taken in and feel powerless to stop it?

Do you believe that your voice isn’t loud enough to be heard above the noise anymore?

Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you’re completely alone?

If so, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull the curtain away you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all.



We surround them.

VDH Drops the Hammer on "Conservatives"

Finally. The sooner the recriminations end, the sooner they can move forward.

Conservatives created Barack Obama and his vision of the Europeanization of America, and so have themselves to blame for the current recessional, as the present as we have known it fades into the past..

Let me explain. Yes, I know that the 2000-01 recession, Hurricane Katrina, two wars, and a $1 trillion hit after 9/11 made fiscal discipline hard. But being a conservative in America these days is hard—and one gets very little leeway or second chances.

Reaping, sowing, and all that jazz. Vox Day also comments on the situation:

Modern politicians didn't cause the economic crisis, as the seeds for that were planted back when the 63rd Congress elected to turn monetary power over to the Federal Reserve. They merely helped determine the particular form it took. If the credit inflation hadn't taken place in the tech and housing sectors, it would simply occurred in some other part of the economy. But in first choosing George W. Bush as their standard bearer, then lining up behind him in support of his wars and occupations, conservatives laid the groundwork to put Obama into office at this critical juncture. The insane selection of John McCain instead of Ron Paul as the 2008 Republican Party standard bearer was little more than the foul icing on an excremental cake. Paul might well have lost... but he certainly couldn't have done any worse than McCain and the Republican Party would have far more credibility with regards to the present crisis than it does now.

ODS

During the Bush years, many liberals had BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome. I wonder how many conservatives have ODS, Obama Derangement Syndrome. Sure, the guy is more liberal and he's spending way more money on even more wasteful programs, but it isn't as though Bush was much better. Plus, Bush laid the groundwork for Obama. There were conservatives blasting Bush, but most of the party rallied around him. Obama is like 130% McCain. Videos like the one below might suddenly be popular, but if John McCain had won, he'd be effectively destroying just as much of America, except conservatives would cheer it and liberals would scream that it wasn't enough spending and McCain was abusing government power.

And many conservatives are still singing the same tune. Just last week at CPAC, Mitt Romney won with 20%! It's encouraging that Ron Paul tied Sarah Palin with 13%, and Bobby Jindal had 14%, but I don't know enough about Palin or Jindal. I do know, however, that Romney is a liberal who went along with universal health care in Massachusetts. In sum, I'm not going to listen to anyone who gets angry at Obama for doing 130% of what they voted for and/or continue to support.

About those immigrants Mass relies on...

Why Skilled Immigrants Are Leaving the U.S.

Our new paper, "America's Loss Is the World's Gain," finds that the vast majority of these returnees were relatively young. The average age was 30 for Indian returnees, and 33 for Chinese. They were highly educated, with degrees in management, technology, or science. Fifty-one percent of the Chinese held master's degrees and 41% had PhDs. Sixty-six percent of the Indians held a master's and 12.1% had PhDs. They were at very top of the educational distribution for these highly educated immigrant groups -- precisely the kind of people who make the greatest contribution to the U.S. economy and to business and job growth.

The immigrants go home first, but Americans may be following them soon.

And it wasn't just new immigrants who were returning. In fact, 30% of respondents held permanent resident status or were U.S. citizens.

I guess we'll have to rely on the public education system...

Robert Gibbs—Let me break it down for you.

I understand playing politics, but this is really lame. The only reason a President needs to respond to a partisan talk show host is if his comments are finding a mainstream audience.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who last month blasted CNBC host Rick Santelli from the podium in the briefing room, challenged reporters on Monday to ask Republicans if they agree with Limbaugh's desire.

"Do they want to see the president's economic agenda fail? You know, I bet there are a number of guests on television throughout the day and maybe into tomorrow who could let America know whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend."

Gibbs said he thought "it would be charitable to say he doubled down on what he said in January in wishing and hoping for economic failure in this country."

Pull up a chart of the DJIA or S&P 500 Index. See that chart that goes lower and lower? That's a successful Obama Presidency. If Obama starts losing and his bills are defeated in Congress, the bailouts end, and taxes stay the same, then the chart reverses.

This isn't rocket science. When the president has the wrong policies, we want him to fail and fail spectacularly.

Sorry you work for a loser who's presidency is already worse than Carter or Bush. You jumped the shark and are busy attacking radio hosts and news reporters.
So long, farewell, see you in 2010.

ReTea Party

This is just unacceptable.

The department attributed to rise in incomes to pay raises for federal civilian and military employees, as well as cost-of-living adjustments to several government transfer payments programs. It said excluding these factors, incomes increased by 0.2 percent in January.

Incomes are up thanks to taking money from working people and giving the money to government workers and welfare recipients. By this logic, if you make $40,000 and I make $0, but the government takes all your money and gives it to me, we're both earning $40,000 per year.

And then some Keynesian retardation, but I repeat myself:

"There was a big increase in the savings rate to 5 percent. It is good that people save but it is not good that everybody saves at the same time. That makes the current downturn more severe and long lasting."

Savings jumped to an annual rate of $545.5 billion, the highest level since monthly records began in 1959. The saving rate surged to 5 percent in January, the biggest advance since March 1995, as households uncertain about the economy prefer to conserve their cash.

So during the 1950s to 1980s, when the savings rate was 10 percent, the economy did horribly? How does the savings rate get to 10% unless we're all saving at the same time? And yes, the savings rate needs to get to about 10%, or double current levels.