Society has taken a weird fork in the road—weird, because it’s taken both of the paths. On one hand, policy in many areas of life, including money, communications privacy, and personal weaponry, has become more controlling and more intrusive as politicians seek to know who is talking to whom, what we’re earning (and buying), and whether we have the means to push back against the authorities doing all that snooping. But on the other hand, technology increasingly empowers individuals to evade surveillance and restrictions, hide and transfer funds, and acquire or even manufacture forbidden goods, including firearms, without regard to laws dictated from above.
Professor Louis Michael Seidman, Georgetown University law professor, has an idea that will solve all his left-wing elitist problems, you should give up the constitution.
Give up the Constitution:
From Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman:
I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it’s really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie. For example, most of our greatest Presidents — Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts — had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.
To be clear, I don’t think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn’t a natural-born citizen.So what?
We actually have reasons behind the electoral college. We aren’t supposed to be a democracy, our founders knew that democracies are nothing more than mob rule, so they put in an electoral college system. Also, there are very valid reasons to only allow a natural-born citizen to lead our country. Mostly to ensure our own leader’s allegiance to our nation. These are very arguably good things that our founders weighed deeply before they included them in our charter of government, and that we as a people should weigh deeply before dismissing.
Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control. I understand, though, that’s not everyone’s view, and I’m eager to talk with people who disagree.
But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago. Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one’s commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.
This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today. If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/27/CBS-Runs-Segment-Calle-Lets-Give-Up-On-The-Constitution
Professor Seidman calls it “a simple idea,” which is not simple at all. And even though he says it is “really not radical,” it is. It is extremely radical. He is telling us that because some of “our greatest presidents” violated the Constitution that we should all disregard whatever pieces we don’t find “inspiring or important” — that because Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt pissed all over the Constitution in moves that have enslaved this country through things like monetary policy and federal control of your retirement, that we should not only violate our charter of government, but dismiss it on purely subjective grounds.
What’s great about the constitution is that we can amend it and change such things through representation in our national congress and ratified by our states. If these changes to our contract of government cannot get through our representative government constitutionally, then it isn’t a change that enough of The People want, and no man has justification to disregard it.
They are trying to make the Constitution about being ruled from the grave, which is simply not true. It’s an absolute lie. The founders didn’t fight and die and sacrifice their livelihoods to give us the arbitrary rule of men. They fought and died and sacrificed their families, and property, to give us a charter of government that insured our freedom by the rule of law. They set up a government of checks and balances and separated power to save us from the tyranny of a dictator or king. To give us a standard of law that applies to everyone equally.
No man is beyond stepping on the rights of the people. No man, no matter how well respected or highly regarded, no man is perfect. Which is why our founders limited men with our charter of government — Our Rule of Law.
I would say this is just nonsense left-wing extremist noise that we should not give the time of day, except for the fact that CBS gave it a lot of time on Sunday morning. Within 24 hours parrots were online touting the left wing narrative that we are being “ruled from the grave.”
“Freedom is the emancipation from the arbitrary rule of other men.” Mortimer Adler
No one is ruling us from the grave. That is just another left-wing lie to get you to dismiss your charter of government and accept whatever this administration does. In actuality, those guys in the grave provided us a rule of law, so that no man may arbitrarily rule us. Those who want to throw away the rule of law in favor of handing a man arbitrary control of this country, are advocating enslavement to a dictator. Our freedom is provided by the rule of law.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton
The rule of law is the only thing that keeps us free from the tyranny of corrupt men. When we dismiss this rule of law, what are we replacing it with? For decades the left has been replacing it systematically through precedent. Let’s remember that Professor Seidman is a law professor, doing with it “what lawyers do,” to use his own words.
“I don’t think the Constitution is studied almost anywhere, including law schools. In law schools, what they study is what the court said about the Constitution. They study the opinions. They don’t study the Constitution itself.” Judge Robert Bork
The Constitution was not a suggestion. The Constitution was the form of government that the states ratified. It was a contract between the states to create the national government, and it was ratified contingent upon a forthcoming Bill of Rights.
The trouble is, we have already given up the Constitution. If we return to constitutional government, it would mean a true federalism, true separation of powers, where the federal government only enacts the enumerated powers and everything else is left to the sovereign states — abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization — all the divisive social issues that mostly split us regionally anyway would disappear from national government. If New York wants a more socialist form of state government where they provide a nanny-state with exorbitant taxes and a lot of social services, then The People of New York can vote that into their own state government. If Texas doesn’t then we don’t have to. We have more control over our own lives and freedom at the state and local level than we do at the national. Our founding fathers knew that, and they wanted most of our governing to be done at the state level. The Left knows this, which is why everything they do is geared towards centralizing power and control at the national level.
Picking and choosing whatever pieces of the constitution that Seidman finds “inspiring and important,” is a very subjective criteria to rule a country. You don’t get to hand Obama free rein over this country to do as he pleases just because you like him. If Obama can’t get his agenda passed through Congress, who were also elected by the people, then there aren’t enough people in this country behind his agenda to justify it. Congress is where our representation occurs. The president is only given the power by the Constitution to handle our diplomatic affairs, our military, and as a check and balance to the legislature with the power of a veto. Our president was never intended to have the kind of power that he is wielding today through bureaucrats. No president of this country was ever intended to have unchecked, arbitrary power, and that is specifically for our protection – the protection of We The People.
Most of our problems as a nation today are not because we stuck to the Constitution. Just the opposite, a lot of our problems can be sourced back to the fact that we have already dismissed the Bill of Rights: States rights (10th Amendment), freedom from warrantless searches (4th Amendment), freedom of religion (1st Amendment), the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment), as well as the original design of our representation in the Constitution: Congress coining our money, population basis for the number of representatives in the House, the way state legislatures used to select our Senators. We haven’t really stuck to the limits of our Constitution for a century, which is much of why we have a gargantuan federal government that is dictating to you what kind of light bulbs and toilets you can put in your home today.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. James Madison, “The Father of the Constitution”
There once was a time when Obama sang a different tune as well, but that was before he got the flexibility that comes with not having to face another election.
“The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.” — Senator Barack Obama, March 31, 2008
The Senate Hearing: Wednesday, January 23. On Sept. 11, 2012, our ambassador to Libya and three American veterans were killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi. There were a lot of mistakes made in keeping our diplomats secure and a lot of requests for more security in Libya were denied or ignored. Hillary basically said she takes responsibility for the attack, she takes responsibility for the 4 lives lost.
Why did Clinton, Obama, David Axelrod, and Susan Rice run around the world for three weeks after the attack to claim that American free speech was to blame, making up a story about a YouTube video, insisting that the attack was overzealous protesters getting out of hand, that our free speech apparently incited their violence? Hillary was asked directly about the administration’s response and got testy at the very line of questioning, as though the American people have no right to know why our executive branch spent three weeks lying to us.
Hillary blows up at Ron Johnson:
What difference does it make? Hillary was not in Benghazi. She claimed that she takes responsibility for the actions and mistakes of those beneath her who handled the actual attack in Benghazi, but she does not want to answer questions or take responsibility for her own actions regarding Benghazi, in the weeks that followed the attack.
Sen. Rand Paul started out on the premise that he would have fired Clinton if he were president, before he makes the point. If the media speculation is right, we could be seeing a preview of the 2016 presidential debate in this exchange.
Rand Paul would have fired Hillary:
CLIP: Hillary should be fired – 0:00 to 1:59
Rand Paul: One of the things about the original 9/11 is that no one was fired. We spent trillions of dollars, but there were a lot of human errors, judgment errors and the people who make judgment errors need to be replaced, fired and no longer in a position to make these judgment calls.
So we have a Review Board. The Review Board finds 64 different things we can change. A lot of them are common sense and can be done, but the question is, it’s a failure of leadership that they weren’t done in advance and 4 American lives were lost because of this. I’m glad that you are accepting responsibility. I think that ultimately with you leaving, you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11, and I really mean that. Had I been President at the time, and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it is inexcusable.
The thing is, that we can understand you are not reading every cable. I can understand that maybe you are not aware of the cable from the Ambassador in Vienna that asks for $100,000 for an electrical charging station. I can understand that maybe you are not aware that your Department spent $100,000 on 3 comedians who went to India on a promotional tour called Make Chi, Not War, but I think you might be able to understand that you should be aware of the $80 million spent on a consulate in Mahshahr al-Sharif [Readers, I'm not certain what this references and am researching - will update if I find the info] that will never be built.
I think it’s inexcusable that you did not know about this and that you did not read these cables. I think by anybody’s estimation, Libya has to be one of the hottest of hot spots around the world. Not to know of the requests for securities, really I think cost these people their lives. Their lives could have been saved had someone been more available, had someone been aware of these things, more on top of the job, and the thing is, I don’t suspect you of bad motives. The Review Board said, well these people weren’t willfully negligent. I don’t think you were willfully…I don’t suspect your motives for wanting to serve your country, but it was a failure of leadership not to be involved. It was a failure of leadership not to know these things, and so I think it is good that you are accepting responsibility, because no one else is. There is a certain amount of culpability to the worst tragedy since 9/11, and I’m glad you are accepting this.
Probably the most important question Clinton failed to answer was about our purpose in Benghazi. What were we doing there that got us attacked?
CLIP: Are we running guns in Libya – 2:10 to 3:03
Rand Paul: Now, my question is, is the United States involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?
[Clinton is flummoxed]
Hillary Clinton: To Turkey? I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody’s ever raised that with me.
Rand Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons, and what I would like to know is, the annex that was close by – were they involved with procuring, buying, selling weapons, and are these weapons being transferred to other countries? Any countries, Turkey included?
Hillary Clinton:Well Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the Annex. I will see what information is available…
Rand Paul: You’re saying you don’t know?
Hillary Clinton: I do not know. I have no information on that.
With respect to personnel Senator, that’s why we have independent people who review the situation. We did with the Pickering and Mullin ARB [Accountability Review Board] and all four individuals identified in the ARB have been removed from their job. Secondly, they’ve been placed on administrative leave while we step through the personnel process which will determine the next steps. Third, both Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullin specifically highlighted the reason why this is complicated because under Federal Statute and Regulation, unsatisfactory leadership is not grounds for finding a breach of duty. The ARB did not find these four individuals breached their duty, so I have submitted legislation to this Committee, to the Congress to fix this problem so that future ARBs will not face this situation.
Rand Paul: Here’s the problem. The review board has all these recommendations, but there is one thing they’ve failed to address, and I think you’ve failed to address, and it sets us up for another tragedy like this. They should have never been sent in there without a Military guard. There should have been an Embassy, like in Baghdad, in a war zone, and it should have been under Military guard, significant Military guard under Defense Department Command. I don’t think this State Department is capable of being in the war zone and protecting these people. I still don’t think that…I think another tragedy could happen in another war zone around the world. Someone needs to make an executive decision. Someone needs to take leadership and with that leadership should be that you shouldn’t send them in with no Marines, you shouldn’t send them in with Marines to guard records, not people, you shouldn’t send them in with the same kind of Ambassador or Embassy staff that you have in Paris. I think that is inexcusable.
Hillary Clinton: Well Senator, the reason I am here today is to answer questions the best I can. I AM the Secretary of State, and the ARB made it very clear that the level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined, sat at the level of Assistant Secretary and below. The Administration has sent officials to the Hill more than 30 times. We have given as much information…we’ve been as transparent as we can. Obviously we will continue to brief you and others to answer any questions you have about going forward. The reason we put into affect an Accountability Review Board, is to take it out of the heat of politics and partisanship and accusation and put it in the hands of people who have no stake in the outcome. The reason I said, make it open, tell the world, is because I believe in transparency. I believe in taking responsibility, and I have done so. I hope we will be able to see a good working relationship between the State Department and the Committee going forward.
Sen. John McCain – American people deserve to know:
The House Hearing:
Hillary resigned as Secretary of State, having taken full responsibility, and Obama nominated John Kerry to take her place. It appears that we have another Fast & Furious on our hands — heinous lies and American deaths, questionable missions politicized for the good of the agenda, and no accountability.
They contend “be clever what we wish for”, and they are right. Because, in a neverending story of a American “recovery” which, sadly, never comes (although in a place we keep removing now semiannual iterations of Quantitative Easing), a one repeated thesis we hear over and over and over is to wait for a good revolution out of holds and into stocks. Well, fine. Let it come. The doubt is what afterwards and what happens to a US economy when rates do, finally and so overdue (for all those sellside analysts and media who have been a damaged record on a subject for a past 3 years), go up. To answer usually that question, that in a nation that is now during 103% debt/GDP and that will be during 109% by a finish of 2013, we have motionless to omit a CBO’s farcical models and come adult with a own. Our indication is painfully simple, and usually to give a readers a hands on feel, we have non-stop adult a surpass record for everybody to tinker with (however, unlike a CBO, we do comprehend that when calculating normal interest, one needs to have round references enabled so greatfully do that before we open a model).
Our assumptions are also painfully simple:
i) grow 2012 year finish GDP of ~$16 trillion during what is now widely supposed as a ‘New Normal’ 1.5% expansion rate (this can be simply practiced in a model);
ii) assume a primary necessity is a regressive and inexhaustible 6% of GDP since America will never, repeat never, address a loyal means of mountainous deficits: i.e., spending, that will usually grow in approach suit with demographics though as we said, we are being inexhaustible (also adjustable), and
iii) stimulate for 3 seductiveness rate scenarios: 2% blended money interest; 3% blended money seductiveness and 5% blended money interest.
And it is here that we get a sign of a really pivotal lesson, one that even a CBO certified on Friday they had lost about, in what compounding truly looks like in a nation that is distant over a Reinhart-Rogoff vicious threshold of 80% emperor debt/GDP.
The bottom line: going from usually 2% to 3% interest, will outcome in sum 2022 debt rising from $31.4 trillion to $34.1 trillion; while “jumping” from 2% to just a prolonged tenure chronological normal of 5%, would pull sum 2022 debt to boost by a whopping $9 trillion over a 2% seductiveness rate bottom box to over $40 trillion in sum debt!
Sadly, this is no “magic” – this is a existence that awaits a US.
And for those some-more extraordinary about that other vicious mercantile indicator, debt/GDP, a 3 scenarios outcome in a following 2022 debt/GDP ratios:
2% seductiveness – 169%;
3% seductiveness – 183.5%; and
5% seductiveness – 217%, or usually bashful of where Japan is now.
Which reminds us: in a subsequent few days we will reconstruct a same practice for Japan’s ¥1 quadrillion in sum emperor debt, that will uncover because any some-more “exuberance” outset from Abe’s latest mercantile lunacy, will soon send a nation spiraling into that twilight section where each dollar in taxation income is used only to account seductiveness expense.
Once again, it is not a goal to envision what US GDP or debt/GDP will be in 2022: usually a IMF can do that with decimal turn precision, apparently, and not usually with anyone, though Greece. The whole indicate is to uncover that when traffic with a debt trap durability a decade, even a minute change in submit conditions has surpassing implications on a final outcome. We entice readers to come adult with their possess dumb and smashing projections of what a futures of a US might demeanour like.
And that one should, indeed, be clever what one wishes for.
The formula epitomised for a 3 scenarios:
Total debt: 2013-2022.
The Zero Hedge open source model, for everybody to play around with, can be found here. Remember: don’t be a CBO, capacitate circs!
P.S. don’t even consider of modelling a recession: all Refs adult then.
Initially, there is extensive self-censorship by journalists.
For example, several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather told a BBC that American reporters were practicing “a form of self-censorship”:
There was a time in South Africa that people would put fiery tires around peoples’ necks if they dissented. And in some ways a fear is that we will be necklaced here, we will have a fiery tire of miss of nationalism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps reporters from seeking a toughest of a tough questions…. And again, we am shamed to say, we do not solely myself from this criticism.
What we are articulate about here – either one wants to recognize it or not, or call it by a correct name or not – is a form of self-censorship.
Keith Olbermann agreed that there is self-censorship in a American media, and that:
You can stone a boat, though we can never contend that a whole sea is in difficulty …. You can't say: By a way, there’s something wrong with a …. system.
As former Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin wrote in 2006:
Mainstream-media domestic broadcasting is in risk of apropos increasingly irrelevant, though not since of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The hazard comes from inside. It comes from reporters being fearful to do what reporters were put on this immature earth to do. . . .
There’s a heated vigour to contend entrance to insider sources, even as those sources turn ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive. There’s a fear of being labeled narrow-minded if one’s bullshit-calling isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along a domestic spectrum.
If mainstream-media domestic reporters don’t start job jive some-more often, afterwards we do risk losing a supremacy — if not to a comedians afterwards to a bloggers.
I still trust that no one is essentially some-more able of best bullshit-calling than a well-informed kick contributor – whatever their beat. We usually need to get a editors, or a corporate culture, or a self-censorship – or whatever it is – out of a way.
The fact that a supervision is espionage on all Americans – and regulating a information to launch domestic magician hunts – creates us all watch what we say, and creates us clever about who we speak to. As a ACLU notes:
Peaceful protesters should not be treated as intensity terrorists nor spied on by sovereign supervision agents. Not usually is this a injustice of open supports that could be used to find genuine terrorists, it chills giveaway discuss activities and inhibits a open discuss on critical issues.
The bottom line is that – like Stalin, Mao or Hitler – a U.S. supervision is using assault and threats to dominate and require a own people for domestic functions … to connect energy and conceal dissent.
When one speaks of a judgment it is vicious that it is scrupulously competent so as to be rightly understood. Failure to accomplish that creates unfit for possibly a problem to be identified or a preferred resolution to be found. Perhaps this is since politicians have a bent to pronounce of obscure and oft perplexed concepts, like “social justice,” “a vital wage” or “fair share.” These concepts are unfit to conclude in a approach unchanging with how they are represented, given their proponents paint them as definite, rather than epitome matters. In a time a direct for “the rich” to compensate their “fair share” by aloft taxes has turn a customary fight cry promote from any open and associate source of media. Yet, there is no design means of defining possibly what constitutes “the rich” or “fair share.” Politicians and demagogues comparison might discuss these issues for as prolonged or as brief as they might desire, though whatever turn they determine on is certain to be arbitrary, save for a usually design finish that such concepts are unfit to quantify.
Given a communistic tenure of schools, roads, streets, parks, medical institutions, libraries, schools and universities, how is one to be means to calculate any person’s use – “fair share” – of each? What share of a highway belongs to a sold taxpayer? What use is “fair share”? How many books in any given library go to a specific chairman and that specific books? Who owns a walls and who owns a library’s carpets? Does a chairman profitable some-more in taxes possess some-more of a roads, libraries or schools than a chairman who pays less? What of a chairman who pays no taxation during all? What of a chairman who desires to use his explain on a gymnasium, and of zero else? Does a state university connoisseur owe a sold use to a taxpayer that subsidized or paid for a operation of a university? A standard instance of who “fair share” proponents see a universe is given to us by US Sen. Elizabeth Warren:
There is nobody in this nation who got abounding on his own. Nobody. You built a bureau out there? Good for you. But we wish to be clear: we changed your products to marketplace on a roads a rest of us paid for; we hired workers a rest of us paid to educate; we were protected in your bureau since of military army and glow army that a rest of us paid for.
As communistic concepts go, the thought of a “fair share” is simply a repetition of a “from any according to his abilities, to any according to his needs” idea. The initial doubt that poses itself is who is “the rest of us,” and how most did any of “the rest of us” minister to a finish of providing a products and services Warren talks about? Furthermore, how are we to know that “the rest of us” get a marketplace lapse on their investment in a open roads, schools, military and firefighting forces? In presenting a emanate like that, we learn that we are incompetent to perform a vicious charge of mercantile calculation.
We will not even try to right all that is wrong with Mrs. Warren’s matter and reasoning, only some of it. (Here we will omit that fact that a infancy of taxes in a US and Canada are paid by a really tiny commission of a population.) According to Warren’s logic, a trowel creation businessman who never attended a university, and built adult his business by his possess work, astuteness and sacrifice, saving and correct investment, still reaps a advantages of a university he never attended, by trait of a fact that someone who did can now be employed by a trowel builder as an accountant. While loyal that a trowel builder reaps a advantages of a accountant’s services, if he is hiring a accountant, it contingency follow that a businessman is profitable for those services. Once a trowel builder puts a university connoisseur underneath his employ, a initial pays a second for a services he performs for him.
Despite their external disagreement in how they amassed their abilities, a university connoisseur is no opposite from a trowel builder who schooled his trade outward a educational system. The university connoisseur went to propagandize for 4 years and amassed knowledge. The trowel builder paid for his training possibly by a routine of tutelage or by hearing and error, or maybe even attended a trowel creation school. Either way, a trowel builder gave adult some of his possess assets or gain in sequence to find some-more fit ways of producing a some-more commercial product.
If a connoisseur was paid to be prepared by trait of taxpayer subsidies, and afterwards paid to allot his knowledge, he is investing zero and gaining everything. Who owes what to whom here? Is a trowel maker—a taxpayer—part of “the rest of us” or is it a taxation immoderate university graduate? If a products and services listed by Warren are paid for by taxes, afterwards contributing to a taxation revenues of a bureau creates one a member of “the rest of us”—the physique of people that paid for a products and services in question. Yet, still we can't calculate to what border a trowel maker’s taxes paid for a accountant’s education, and what apportionment of a trowel maker’s taxes contributed to highway construction.
What is a “fair share” that a university connoisseur owes to a trowel maker? Here we need to extend a scope, and ask “What is a ‘fair share’ that a trowel builder owes to a baker for a construction of a roads?”; “Why not have trowel builder compensate a baker for a use of a road?”; “What is a ‘fair share’ that an portly alcoholic owes to a health-nut?” and so on. While it is probable to calculate a university graduate’s extrinsic value product in his duty as an accountant employed by a trowel maker, it is not probable to calculate how most this trowel builder contributed to a training and preparation of this sold university graduate. The same element can be practical to roads, libraries, military and glow departments and any other “public” good or service. It follows that a “fair share” doctrine is an indefinable domestic apparatus dictated to be used as needed, when needed, by bureau seekers. It is not a process to be sought in sequence to move equivalence underneath a law or mercantile prosperity, as it is a judgment that runs opposite a element of private property.
While 88% of sidestep supports underperformed in 2012, no doubt relying on attempted and loyal research of elemental valuation, macro-economic trends, and flows (as against to a 12-inch ruler), it would seem one immature guy by a name of Ken Griffin is doing rather well. As Bloomberg reports, a Citadel LLC account owner (now gated given 2009) usually purchased his second oppulance oceanfront skill in Palm Beach Florida in reduction than dual months. In fact, Griffin bought a dual lots for a sum of $79.6mm. The compact-and-bijou residence of a small 6,055 block feet was built in 1988 and formerly sole for $29mm in May 2011, was Zestimated during $33.75mm (by Zillow), definition Mr. Griffin usually ‘overpaid’ by a small $8mm as he snipped it adult a smidge underneath $42mm. The grander house, of a perfectly reasonable 9,111 block feet formerly sole for $20mm in May 2000, was Zestimated during $21mm, and was bid during $38mm by a deal-making Citadel founder. It seems, given Citadel’s 21% lapse by November, that being a Fed’s purported peaceful HFT-router-of-last-resort in times of ‘market’ need, has the large rewards – yet all that silt would usually get annoying.
40 Blossom Way – looks like a purify adult is in order…
The implications of a US debt predicament are not good accepted in many circles, and it is not widely oral about in a media and during critical domestic debates. The irony is that a US debt is so poignant that it plays a staggering purpose in financial and complicated domestic strategy. The debt poses good risks relocating forward, and nonetheless it is referred to in customarily a vaguest of terms.
Here is given a US debt contingency grow each year and given it is mathematically unfit for it to continue forever.
Before we can know given a debt must grow each year, here is is a visible representation, to scale, of how most a stream debt is station at. Each high uniform mainstay in a credentials of a design next refers to a lift of $100 bills built one on tip of another. Each “tower of debt” consists of 10 x 10 fork-lift palettes that strech out into a sky and are aloft than a aged World Trade Center buildings. These towers of debt paint $US 16.394 trillion. However, by a time we arise adult to review this, it will be incomparable than that. DemonOcracy does good work on visible illustration of a US debt levels.
Why did a US debt grow to these proportions?
Short answer: the US supervision spends some-more than what it receives in revenue. In 2012, a US sovereign supervision expects to accept $2.5 trillion in revenue, while a sum spending carried out by a sovereign supervision is $3.8 trillion. The disproportion ($1.3 trillion) is debt piled onto of a prior debt.
To put $1.3 trillion into context, it is approximately $3,56 billion a day. To make matters worse, a stream debt does not take into care sovereign obligations such as amicable security, Medicare, pension, and retirement health promises. According to David Walker, former controller of a US, when these unfunded programs are combined to a huge debt, it stands during $70 trillion and growing–that is $10 million per minute!
Seventy trillion dollars is over 4 times a debt in a design on your left, dwarfing a stream US GDP; in fact, it is approximately a world’s annual GDP in 2011. For a stream perspective of a US debt, see a debt time here.
The supervision allows for a debt to continue to grow by adding new debt on tip of aged debt and compounded interest. Instead of profitable behind a debt, a supervision only borrows some-more to cover prior interest. The seductiveness payments on a debt is over $1 billion a day. When “Uncle Sam” takes out a loan, it is called a bond (I.O.U.). These holds are purchased by investors, banks, and foreigners. These holds are a guarantee to compensate collateral and interest. What “Uncle Sam” does, essentially, is compensate his investors with his credit label and emanate new loans to cover interest.
Talk about myopic finances with no discipline.
Compounded seductiveness has authorised a debt to grow exponentially, and has reached, in my opinion, unsustainable levels where a debt is reaching during a straight apportionment of a “hockey stick” formation.
Compound seductiveness is a eighth consternation of a world. He who understands it, earns it … he who doesn’t … pays it.
- Albert Einstein
How does a US supervision concede a US debt to grow?
Doing a “right thing” is customarily domestic self-murder for politicians. Cutting output to compensate a bills to compensate down a debt will make a economy implode. Instead, a supervision in energy continues a daily activities and promotes new amicable programs to foster reelection. Almost half of a spending finished by a US supervision goes to entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, amicable security). If any cuts are carried out in this sector, we can design riots on a travel (approximately28%of a US race are baby boomers and 80% of investments and laws are carried out by this comprehensive demographic.) Cuts to entitlements are rarely unlikely!
The continual discuss on lifting a debt roof is all about a supervision mismanaging a income and not being means to control it–much like a child with no discipline. Since debt is being mismanaged, it has caused many distortions in a markets, and nonetheless a debt is authorised to grow given of a US Congress. The debt roof has been increasing 10 times given 2001. If a debt roof were indeed a ceiling, a marketplace and debt distortions would have imploded a economy–an implosion required for a economy to revive a balance and repay all inefficiencies.
“Too large too fail” is comprehensive nonsense.
Paying behind investors, dear wars, entitlements and bailing out a “financial terrorists” (who caused a crisis) all supplement to a inhabitant debt and to a dysfunctional economy that continues to work until a debt will stop to grow. The problem with this complement is that it combined significantly some-more credit (someone is a creditor to all a debt) than “cash” income (money in your wallet). Every time debt expands, a credit supply also expands. (Read Fractional Reserve Lending on how income is created.)
According to a FED, the Total Credit Market Debt Owed (TCMDO) is approximately 53$ trillion and 2.4$ trillion in a loyal income supply (M1). In other words, income income is approximately 4.5% of credit (TCMDO/M1).
The outcome to a economy is that “boom” durations are frequency driven by cash money, as income income is considerate in propinquity to credit. Credit is what drives a markets, and it is this same credit that “busts” a markets as well, in times of credit contraction. In sequence for debt to expand, someone contingency be lending a US this money. At a moment, a lenders are China, Japan, and a OPEC countries.
But given do they continue to buy this debt?
Because they have too.
The US Dollar is a haven banking of a world. You need it to buy oil, a critical member of any economy. Since other countries like China can't imitation US dollars during their leisure, they have to get it from somewhere. They get it from trade with a US. The US buys products in Asia and a rest of a universe with US dollars, and in spin these same dollar surpluses are used to buy oil and US bonds, creating a most indispensable synthetic direct for US dollars.
This is also how a huge US 558$ billiontrade deficit in 2011 was financed. The US has been in a trade necessity given a 1980?s and it continues a grow as jobs and production are being mislaid to some-more rival nations. The trade necessity also accounts for a inhabitant debt. The financing of a debt creates synthetic direct for US holds that helps reduce a seductiveness rate and coincidentally helps to lift a debt levels even higher.
The list next shows a heading unfamiliar holders of US debt, that are China and Japan, followed by a OPEC countries. These are a categorical financiers of a US trade deficit.
But here is a Achilles’s heel for a US debt scheme:
In sequence to say and ceaselessly enhance a debt, a US dollar needs to sojourn a haven currency. In sequence for there to be continual direct for these dollars and debt instruments, a US dollar needs to say a omnipotence over competing currencies. Any hazard to a dollar needs to corrected immediately. or else certainty in a US dollar will be fast eroded and a successive tsunami of US dollars abroad rushing into a US will means hyperinflation as never seen before.
William R. Clark’s glorious book, Petrodollar Warfare, treats this emanate precisely, going in abyss into a Petrodollar fall and how a US maintains a dollar leverage with a stream imperialistic unfamiliar policy. This gem of a book is a clear review for anyone wanting to know how a US truly maintains a energy on a universe stage.
Undoubtedly, a border of US debt would never have been probable had a US dollar not been a haven banking and had there been reduction enlightened tellurian trade policies to yield a channel for a placement of dollars. (You can also review some-more about a Petrodollar here.)
Why contingency a debt grow each year?
To keep a debt-servitude model going. To boost mercantile activity in a republic handling in this form of system, we need to boost a spin of credit and so debt grows in tandem. This is self serving: if debt is the “fuel” to boost mercantile activity, seductiveness payments will spin incomparable and larger, until eventually it reaches a indicate where debt can no longer be increased. This indicate is famous as a Minsky moment–when there is no net advantage to additional debt.
Adding debt, both open and private, creates an sourroundings of slavery among a race while a banks are generating additional profits. Through their lobbyist groups, a financial terrorists emanate enlightened laws to keep people deferential with debt.
Real estate, for instance, is a heavily subsidized investment; such subsidies tempt people to squeeze genuine estate and as a result, people are unwittingly operative for a banks. In a genuine giveaway market, people save income for a purchase.
The word “save” is apropos primitive in this debt slavery paradigm, a model that was build on silt and cards and that can and will eventually collapse. The foundation, of course, is certainty in a US dollar.
So there we have it, in a “creditopia” world, if debt does not expand, a economy can't grow and jobs can't be created. In sequence to boost debt, foreigners have to ceaselessly financial a ever flourishing debt by purchasing supervision holds and offered consumer products to a US. In turn, a US contingency boost a spin of consumption, diminution savings, and discharge a hazard of any republic posing a risk to a US dollar hegemony. Is this a symbiotic or a parasitic relationship? Is is positively a attribute that can't grow forever. It poses an mercantile risk for ALL nations due to a interconnectedness of a tellurian economy.
While a cost of vital has turn a problem for some in a US (courtesy of a Fed’s inflationary policies) it’s turn a genuine calamity for many in a rising markets where as most as 50% of income is spent by consumers on food.
As a result, we’re commencement to see some-more and some-more workers perfectionist compensate raises.
Farmworkers perfectionist aloft salary in South Africa’s biggest list grape-growing segment resumed protests currently in a deficiency of new talks between a government, labor unions and a categorical farmers organization.
About 150 people protested peacefully nearby a building city outward Worcester in a Western Cape province, perfectionist that a smallest salary be increasing to 150 rand a day ($16.92) from 70 rand. In Stofland, on a hinterland of De Doorns, about 50 people marched by a streets of a allotment singing songs and carrying banners of a United Democratic Front, a polite rights group.
Spreading protests and sharpening final from Indonesia’s labor groups could check or even derail spending on a country’s overburdened infrastructure, attention leaders warned.
Jakarta’s administrator concluded to boost a smallest salary in a collateral by 44% this week. As other regions are approaching to follow suit, a populist pierce could trigger aloft salary and acceleration and daunt investment in Southeast Asia’s largest economy, contend some analysts and executives. Unions contend workers merit aloft wages, improved advantages and improved pursuit insurance as a country’s economy blossoms.
There is no denote this trend will be ending. Once salary start to arise aggressively is when acceleration unequivocally starts to take reason in a system. This routine has begun and will accelerate in a entrance months.
With food prices already high, a Chinese Government is unfortunate to channel a country’s frustrations towards an outmost problem rather than face prevalent polite unrest.
Thus distant a concentration of this has been Japan (the long-?standing brawl over who indeed owns a Senkaku islands). But with a Fed now announcing QE 3 and QE 4 (which will pull food prices even higher), we will see a resurgence in a US/ China conflict: some-more accusations of banking manipulation, trade wars, and other domestic issues.
In plain terms, a Fed has handed China another problem (even aloft food prices). Don’t design China to omit this. Indeed, with aloft food costs on hard, China won’t be means to rivet in another large turn of stimulus, no matter what a “experts” suggest.
Indeed, in late Dec during a Central Economic Work Conference a new celebration personality Xi Jinping literally settled that China would not be posterior expansion rates by stimulus.
On that note, we’ve recently published a FREE Special Report surveying how and because to buy bullion. It’s patrician Bullion 101: Everything You Need to Know About Investing in Gold and Silver Bullion… and it explains what a mot glass common bullion coins are, how to buy them, and what questions to ask a creditable dealer.
You can download a giveaway duplicate of this news at:
Known underneath a central misnomer Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), North Korea is an inscrutable, unpredictable, armed-to-the-teeth thorn in usually about everyone’s side, a renegade prepared to throw nukes, starve a possess people, or reason out an olive branch, usually to wrench it back. But now something is going on that reeks of a dreaded phrase, “this time, it’s different”: tip discussions in Germany.
North Korea is seeking a recommendation of German economists and jurists, a German paper FAZ was told by a source, an educational and one of a reputed experts who has been participating in these hush-hush discussions.
“There is a master plan,” he said. North Korea is formulation to open adult a economy to unfamiliar investors in 2013. They’re quite meddlesome in complicated investment laws. But they’re not looking during a Chinese indication with a special mercantile zones for unfamiliar investors. Instead, they’re looking during a “Vietnamese blueprint,” a source said, where a supervision comparison unfamiliar companies and investors. The recommendation of German experts would pave a approach for German companies and investors. The captivate of a familiar. North Korea had a bustling attribute with comrade East Germany.
But special mercantile zones for unfamiliar investors are already underneath approach in North Korea along a Chinese border, including during Rason city, that North Korean officials hyped final Sep during an investment discussion in China as “North Korea’s Shenzhen,” and a islands of Hwanggumphyong and Wihwa in a Yalu river, that would turn a “blessed land for investors to get rich.” There would be incentives, such as duty-free imports and a 14% income-tax rate.
Irresistible. Xiyang Group, a vast Chinese mining company, invested $40 million in North Korea to build an iron-ore mine. But a supervision sabotaged a deal, stole a knowhow, and seized a mine, Xiyang claimed final fall. It was a “nightmare” using a place. North Korean managers, when in China, demanded top-shelf alcohol, cars, and pricy prostitutes. Accusations that a North Korean side met with opposite accusations. The investment competence be lost. So a Chinese are leery. But they know how to trip in and take advantage of opportunities [It Wasn’t Supposed To Be This Way: Chinese Oil Companies Apparent Victors in Post-Saddam Iraq].
There have been other signs—or hopes of signs—of an opening. Kim Jong-un, who was announced Supreme Leader in December, 2011, announced in his New Year’s residence final Tuesday, a initial such residence by a Supreme Leader in 19 years, that 2013 would move a “radical rerouting” of a country’s mercantile policies. Agriculture and light attention would be during a center. He had a vision: “An critical emanate in putting an finish to a multiplication of a nation and achieving a reunification,” he said, “is to mislay fight between a north and a south.”
The assent offer was mostly brushed off as small rhetoric. Similar written gestures had been done before usually to disintegrate into barb launches, chief tests, and assertive tirades. But a other divided country, Germany, had successfully reunified. It was costly for West Germans, and a sea change for East Germans. Dissatisfaction in some circles led to a not-always tongue-in-cheek outcry, “We wish to have a Wall again.” But Chancellor Merkel is from former East Germany—perhaps a model, or an illusion, for Kim Jong-un, who is young, worldly, and ambitious.
He went to school underneath an alias in a German-speaking partial of Switzerland nearby a collateral Bern. From 1993 to 1998, he attended a private “International School” where English was a propagandize language, afterwards continued until 2000 during a open propagandize where German was spoken. Poor grades and absenteeism stubborn his experience. He flunked healthy sciences, hardly upheld math and German—pretty good for a child in a unfamiliar nation where his classes were hold in two unfamiliar languages.
So, how critical could Kim be in perplexing to open adult his nation and essay for reunification? Now even former administrator of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, and Google Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt are streamer to North Korea. Neither publicly emitted his intentions. The State Department expressed a opposition. There were rumors—likely a pretext—that they’d try to disentangle tellurian rights activists as Kenneth Bae, an American who’d engaged, according to promotion outfit, Korean Central News Agency, in “hostile acts opposite a republic.”
The US invulnerability attention would energetically dispute any fortitude of a Korean dispute as it would discharge a vital vital concern—and a compared resources effect. South Koreans, if they demeanour during Germany, competence consternation if they can even afford to compensate for reunification. And a Chinese have their possess concerns, including a undisguised fall of a North Korean regime, and a disharmony it would bring.
But a Chinese won’t be discouraged. They’re on a query for healthy resources. Even in places like Africa, where China is going after oil, it surpassed a US and Europe as largest trade partner. Read…. China in Africa: Partners in a Year of the Snake.