Monday, 30 January 2012

Economic Collapse in the Western Nations - On the Edge with Max Keiser and Michael Hudson

Rather than bailing out the people (or insuring people's deposits) Governments are bailing out the banks with the people footing the bill for the bad investments. And the Banksters are stealing money outright - note the MF Global crime involving JP Morgan.

Hudson also talks about a return to the Gold standard system as Russia and China deal with Iran which helps to sink the paper funding driving the US War machine.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, January 30th, 2012.]


steven andresen said...


Hudson is saying that Paul makes a good argument to oppose military spending overseas, but he would not vote for him because of his more significant Austrian economic positions. Isn't this to say that both Paul and Obama have both a public and a private position. The public position is very attractive to many people...don't go to war, for example. But, for both, the private position is not very attractive...for Paul, it would be the presumption that business can run the economy much better than any government, so destroy government and let business do its thing.

Which is to say that, we may not like the system of slavery that business would likely create for us after we get rid of government, but that comes with the otherwise attractive expectation that business wont be promoting foreign military adventures with its slaves.

Is Hudson and Keiser correct when they claim that Paul is committed to this Austrian economic model?

And too, aren't I correct to point out how similar Paul and Obama are as two faced candidates?

steven andresen said...

In a race involving idiots and crooks, the best choice may well be to go with the racist, the lesser of three evils.

Spookypunkos said...


As I see it, the one crucial element missing from "the free for all" pro-corporate characterisation often attributed to Paul's ideology is the rule of Law.

In this way we know that fraud is a crime, and it would not go unchecked. Racketeering, and other scamming would be prosecuted. The rule of Law would be enforced.

Banksters would not get bailed out either - curtailing their risky strategies.

Also, in real terms Paul would not cut, or be allowed to cut social security (which someone can explain to him is a contract- a fund people pay into, and not supposed to be a drain on the State).

Paul would not go off and bomb Iran either.

I don't see Paul being two faced, or a wolf in sheep's clothing, like Obama is.

At the heart of the matter is the Constitution which is designed to protect the people from oppressive Government- and ALSO protect general liberties and freedom. I do not think that Paul would sit by if corporations walked all over the people.

After all it should be the Government's job to protect the people's hard won freedom.


steven andresen said...


What might be intended or wished for is much different than what happens or the way it will be in reality.

So, the Founders of the Confederacy may have had good intentions about making a free people unfettered by an oppressive central government...the kind they found controlled by northern interests. But, it turned out that the system they set up was not able to protect its people, including its black population from slavery.

It's this just the problem with Paul's candidacy? He tells us that he intends for us to live free, and he tells us how that's going to happen, but isn't he ignoring the real political forces arrayed against freedom?


Spookypunkos said...


To a degree I agree that he is not considering all the political/criminal forces arrayed against his election but I think he has some idea of what needs to be done when he is office (if that ever happens) so as to push back against the corporcracy.

I do think that following the rule of Law, having a DoJ that actually does something, will be a credible goal. A few bankers jailed for 20 years would help.

Refusing to wage war against Iran, and stopping the push for a "War on Terror", should be welcome.

Going back to Paul's election, and a reality check upon it, he might also privately consider the fact that he will be assassinated. I do not think Paul is completely oblivious to some of the possibilities you have raised.

However, we don't fully know the outcome of wht may occur. I would rather hedge with the intentions of the Paul campaign, and some likely retraints upon it, rather than settle for another fully controlled Mafia puppet.

I think that there would be some awareness of creeping slavery and corporatism in a Paul Administration rather than none. In my humble opinion I don't see the Nation plunging into a long term Confederacy. I think there is more awareness and a non-acceptance of such an outcome.

And note, in Paul's Libertarian world Unions are not discouraged. It's the people's right to organise themselves however they want. Also, the free Internet is encouraged.

Will corporations try to buy up everything ? Well, with much of the Power handed to State and Local Level, I think there would be strong resistance towards that outcome.

In the organic process that follows a Paul election it may be that steps will be taken so that the people do not end up being sold down the river. Presently they are slowly being boiled like frogs in a pot of warm water.

Spook !