Krugman Doesn't Get It: The crimes started with the 1971 "Nixon Shock"
Mort Zuckerman
Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu, gary_w...@nymc.edu,
scientifi...@ostp.gov, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
fran...@comcast.net, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov,
richar...@yale.edu, harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu,
inq...@aldf.com, ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: Krugman Doesn't Get It: The crimes started with the 1971
"Nixon Shock"
Date: Dec 14, 2009 6:56 AM
KRUGMAN ARTICLE BELOW
=====================================
When in the late 1960s and early 1970s
we realized that E = mc(squared) and that
we no longer had the E to maintain the
Gold or the dollar squared (think jewels =
joules = dollars = the Basis of All
Commerce; the dollar was no longer "square"
or fair), Nixon unpegged the dollar.
Ever since then the Banksters surely
knew they could Capitalize on the
funny-money, since how else could they
create "wealth" than to cheat other
peoples and other nations with their
fake money?
Try to remember what happened after that:
The Recession of 81-82 spawned the fake
real estate market...
=====================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system#Bretton_Woods_II
Nixon Shock
Main article: Nixon Shock
"By the early 1970s, as the Vietnam War accelerated inflation, the
United States as a whole began running a trade deficit. The crucial
turning point was 1970, which saw U.S. gold coverage deteriorate from
55% to 22%. This, in the view of neoclassical economists, represented
the point where holders of the dollar had lost faith in the ability of
the U.S. to cut budget and trade deficits.
"In 1971 more and more dollars were being printed in Washington, then
being pumped overseas, to pay for government expenditure on the
military and social programs. In the first six months of 1971, assets
for $22 billion fled the U.S. In response, on August 15, 1971, Nixon
unilaterally imposed 90-day wage and price controls, a 10% import
surcharge, and most importantly "closed the gold window", making the
dollar inconvertible to gold directly, except on the open market.
Unusually, this decision was made without consulting members of the
international monetary system or even his own State Department, and
was soon dubbed the "Nixon Shock".
"The surcharge was dropped in December 1971 as part of a general
revaluation of major currencies, which were henceforth allowed 2.25%
devaluations from the agreed exchange rate. But even the more flexible
official rates could not be defended against the speculators. ***By
March 1976, all the major currencies were floating—in other words,
exchange rates were no longer the principal method used by governments
to administer monetary policy.***
=============================
All of the crazy nonsense that has happened
since was because of this one idea- this
one event. The Oil Wars are all about the
Fake Petrodollar, and in fact, Kissinger
himself said in 1973 that we "could just
"take over Saudi oil fields" by force as a
contingency.
This is what we now have done with the
phoney war on terror. Israel intends to
help with the pipelines and the oil
refining, and in fact, that's why Marc
Grossman, Wolfowitz, Feith, James Baker
et al have been dealing with Turkey all
these years.
Since the early 1970s, the current crises
have been in development. It's the same
game. It's the same strategy. It's about
forcing the phoney petrodollar on the global
market and the banksters were intending to
get what they could out of it before it all
went down.
Don't try to talk like you deserve some
Nobel Prize in Economics, Paul. You don't.
You're not a physicist.
If you were a physicist, you would have
called it in 2000, like I did:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thread/thread/6940a8d9e0024621/8591b95e0ece47f7?q=Bush%2FGore+ENERGY+&rnum=1#8591b95e0ece47f7
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_frm/thread/e4359868117b8d81/e066f6566802741e?q=lehrer+bush+gore+bombs+bursting+in+air&rnum=1#e066f6566802741e
"If we get Bush, we get a global
economic Depression, more oil, more,
terrorism,... more pollution, and less
access to healthcare."
Oh, and OF COURSE people are not going
to understand it (as Krugman notes below).
It is a matter of Humility and the *WILL*
to look into the matter.
It takes the *BALLS* of Humility to
say, "Hey, wait a minute... this doesn't
make sense... I don't get it...
"I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS;
HMMM, MAYBE *I* AM *NOT* ABOVE PUTTING
THE TIME INTO UNDERSTANDING IT??"
Americans have no brains because they
have no balls.
We've already had this discussion 20,000
milliondy times.
You cannot make something into something
else unless you have energy. There can
be no GROWTH (not that we need to; this
is only a bankster notion whereby bankster-
gets-a-cut whenever someone else produces
a work), without E. And *we* don't have
any. We're *taking* Arab E by force - with
a bunch of *LIES* about Arab "extremism" which
is simply a truthful and honest response to
what the Israelis and the Petrodollar Banksters
have been doing to them for 60 years.
But Bushie didn't win the Iraq/Afghan Oil War.
Bushie Spook Bankers then, in between the failed
Iraq War II, took CIA Drug Bottle just like Bushie
Riggs Bank, CIA Spook Bank...
http://www.actionlyme.org/LYME_CORRUPTICUT.htm
then, the 2008 collapse of the Banks...
...And the Corporate/Oil/Israeli (AIG) Bankster
crooks thought they would have a "bailout"
system already underway, when they found out
for sure McCain/Palin didn't have a snowflake's
chance in hell of beating Obama.
They made sure Obama was stuck with the
crisis they created. Meanwhile, their
money - and these same crooks happen to
BE the IMF - have as their IMF by-laws, that
they, themselves, do not have access to
the data in the Bermuda Banks.
There is NO SUPERVISION of what goes on in
Bermuda by anyone. That is because the
IMF wrote the Bermudan laws on the matter.
No one will ever find the money, because
what the bankster have is real estate and
other hard wealth (actual physical precious
metals in their private Cheneybunkers), and
like Bushie, who has 10,000 acres in Paraguay
and the likes of rogue bands of Rockefeller
CIA and Blackwater as their private armies.
It's probably too late, but the real
remedy is to get rid of the Fed and for
this country - the people - have
the BALLS to deal with the real value
of the US dollar.
Think that will happen?
I do not.
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
=========================
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/opinion/14krugman.html
December 14, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Disaster and Denial
By PAUL KRUGMAN
When I first began writing for The Times, I was naïve about many
things. But my biggest misconception was this: I actually believed
that influential people could be moved by evidence, that they would
change their views if events completely refuted their beliefs.
And to be fair, it does happen now and then. I’ve been highly critical
of Alan Greenspan over the years (since long before it was
fashionable), but give the former Fed chairman credit: he has admitted
that he was wrong about the ability of financial markets to police
themselves.
But he’s a rare case. Just how rare was demonstrated by what happened
last Friday in the House of Representatives, when — with the meltdown
caused by a runaway financial system still fresh in our minds, and the
mass unemployment that meltdown caused still very much in evidence —
every single Republican and 27 Democrats voted against a quite modest
effort to rein in Wall Street excesses.
Let’s recall how we got into our current mess.
America emerged from the Great Depression with a tightly regulated
banking system. The regulations worked: the nation was spared major
financial crises for almost four decades after World War II. But as
the memory of the Depression faded, bankers began to chafe at the
restrictions they faced. And politicians, increasingly under the
influence of free-market ideology, showed a growing willingness to
give bankers what they wanted.
The first big wave of deregulation took place under Ronald Reagan —
and quickly led to disaster, in the form of the savings-and-loan
crisis of the 1980s. Taxpayers ended up paying more than 2 percent of
G.D.P., the equivalent of around $300 billion today, to clean up the
mess.
But the proponents of deregulation were undaunted, and in the decade
leading up to the current crisis politicians in both parties bought
into the notion that New Deal-era restrictions on bankers were nothing
but pointless red tape. In a memorable 2003 incident, top bank
regulators staged a photo-op in which they used garden shears and a
chainsaw to cut up stacks of paper representing regulations.
And the bankers — liberated both by legislation that removed
traditional restrictions and by the hands-off attitude of regulators
who didn’t believe in regulation — responded by dramatically loosening
lending standards. The result was a credit boom and a monstrous real
estate bubble, followed by the worst economic slump since the Great
Depression. Ironically, the effort to contain the crisis required
government intervention on a much larger scale than would have been
needed to prevent the crisis in the first place: government rescues of
troubled institutions, large-scale lending by the Federal Reserve to
the private sector, and so on.
Given this history, you might have expected the emergence of a
national consensus in favor of restoring more-effective financial
regulation, so as to avoid a repeat performance. But you would have
been wrong.
Talk to conservatives about the financial crisis and you enter an
alternative, bizarro universe in which government bureaucrats, not
greedy bankers, caused the meltdown. It’s a universe in which
government-sponsored lending agencies triggered the crisis, even
though private lenders actually made the vast majority of subprime
loans. It’s a universe in which regulators coerced bankers into making
loans to unqualified borrowers, even though only one of the top 25
subprime lenders was subject to the regulations in question.
Oh, and conservatives simply ignore the catastrophe in commercial real
estate: in their universe the only bad loans were those made to poor
people and members of minority groups, because bad loans to developers
of shopping malls and office towers don’t fit the narrative.
In part, the prevalence of this narrative reflects the principle
enunciated by Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to
understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding
it.” As Democrats have pointed out, three days before the House vote
on banking reform Republican leaders met with more than 100 financial-
industry lobbyists to coordinate strategies. But it also reflects the
extent to which the modern Republican Party is committed to a bankrupt
ideology, one that won’t let it face up to the reality of what
happened to the U.S. economy.
So it’s up to the Democrats — and more specifically, since the House
has passed its bill, it’s up to “centrist” Democrats in the Senate.
Are they willing to learn something from the disaster that has
overtaken the U.S. economy, and get behind financial reform?
Let’s hope so. For one thing is clear: if politicians refuse to learn
from the history of the recent financial crisis, they will condemn all
of us to repeat it.
Home
* World
* U.S.
* N.Y. / Region
* Business
* Technology
* Science
* Health
* Sports
* Opinion
* Arts
* Style
* Travel
* Jobs
* Real Estate
* Automobiles
* Back to Top
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
* Privacy Policy
* Terms of Service
* Searc
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci