I remember pretty clearly my shock over the attacks of 9/11, not because they happened, but because somewhere around 4:00 PM on the same day, politicians were already lining up in front of the cameras to share their thoughts with the public about what should be done to prevent such an attack from occurring. To a man, the ideas involved separating the general public from its freedom. By the time the first commercial flight resumed, the FAA had not only banned plastic cutlery but was also scoffing at the very idea that pilots should be armed. Most disheartening was the credulity offered to the very same bureaucrats who were unable to prevent the attacks.
So, within a few days of the attacks, the FBI was already installing their “carnivore” units in various ISPs. FISA, though not yet passed, was essentially enforced and the PATRIOT Act, written long before the attacks were planned, was hastily brought before Congress and passed with little debate and only a smattering of dissent. Virtually every solution presented by our “representatives” involved limiting the freedoms of all of us. There really aren't words strong enough to condemn people who would punish innocent people for their own shortcomings. However, “monster” will do here. They are monsters, with all of the requisite gnashing of teeth and destruction one expects from monsters.
It isn't necessary to rehash the events of seven years ago in great detail. The point is, we should easily recognize a load of horse manure by now. You don't have to be a scholar of U.S. history or an equestrian enthusiast to recognize a pattern. Saddam Husein could assemble a nuclear or biological attack within 75 minutes…..oh…well…that wasn't quite true but aren't you glad we've maimed and killed millions to keep you safe? The innocent people we stripped of their liberties are just part of the costs to maintain a safe society. Or so we're told.
And now here comes ye another crisis! To the thanks of potential bomb fodder all over the middle east, the central planners here in the U.S. have decimated the dollar as part of their alleged attempt to prop up the U.S. economy in the aftermath of the attacks of 2001. If you'll recall, shortly after the attacks, George W. Bush's monstrous advice was that we stop grieving immediately and rush out to the nearest Walmart and buy something, anything. It was our patriotic duty, after all, to pretend that our government was actually competent, leave all the decisions to them and keep this economy going.
Do not save, be a spendthrift. Such times call for a shopping spree! To further assuage the populace concerned over a slump in housing starts, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac corporations were “reformed”. It was alleged that this would mitigate downstream risks to the economy while continuing to ensure that everyone had an opportunity to achieve the “American dream of home ownership”, whether they could afford it or not.
Banks and lending institutions were told not to worry about credit ratings and employment histories. Between the two corporations, they would have a buyer for their sub-prime loans on Wall Street. Normally, risky loans would be hard to re-sell. Now, the message was, “make all the risky loans you want to make because you'll always have a market for them.” It had the desired effect. I have talked to several mortgage professionals in the past decade who told me that commonly the only requirement for loan approval was detecting the presence of condensation on a reflective device.
The last mortgage I received was in 2000 and at the time it was still common practice for an underwriter to work with you to ensure that there were no problems with your credit. Credit histories were put under a microscope. This was especially true if you were seeking a low interest rate. On top of the incentive to make bad loans, the Fed kept interest rates low. This had the effect of pumping huge amounts of cash into the system which was not earned or saved by anyone. It was merely created into existence by the millions of debt instruments generated during the resultant housing boom. Well, now we're seeing the result of what Alan Greenspan once called “irrational exuberance” – though he was speaking of a different bubble at the time.
This is not to say that there weren't any responsible banks. There were some banks which refused to make risky loans. I also don't mean to imply that the housing bubble only started when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “reformed”. The bubble was already showing signs of bursting in 2001. But the actions taken in 2003 prolonged the inevitable. They also have had the unfortunate effect of turning what may have only been a modest correction into one that could take down a good number of companies whose corporate officers threw all caution to the wind and their investors with them. Obviously they were of the mind that there could be no bad consequences for their actions. Heaven forbid that somebody other than their own personal acquaintances are able to benefit from their poor decisions.
Now come the monsters in their best suits (friendly with those afore-mentioned company officers) and with their best method-acting skills on display (We're Doomed! Run for your lives!), to tell us that we must listen to them because only they know how to get us out of this mess. How, you ask? Well, by giving up more of our freedoms, of course.
Now, I was raised to believe that there was no such thing as a dumb question but I have come to the conclusion that there is at least one exception to that rule. When the question is “what's your solution?” and it is directed at an agent of the State who's just proclaimed an emergency, then it is truly a dumb question. There is only one answer to that question and no matter what flowery prose emanates from the agent's mouth, it always equates to “give me more power and accept less freedom.” There are no exceptions to the saying, “You can dress up a pig and put lipstick on it, but it is still a pig.”
So, after the disappearance of four major investment firms, one giant insurance company, two pseudo-private mortgage institutions and several hasty mergers into this crisis, the number of dollars required to keep the whole business afloat cannot even be calculated by anyone claiming expertise. The same people who sat in front of the Congressional Finance and Banking Committees and swore up and down that the economy was sound, are now saying that the situation has gone completely out of control.
Well, isn't that odd? That was rhetorical. No, it isn't odd. It is par for the course. The only reasonable conclusions one can draw from this is that these “experts” who run our monetary system (and there should be no one running it but us) are either grossly incompetent, or are blatant liars. I lean to the latter.
Secretary of the Treasury Paulson wants Congress to deliver him dictatorial powers over all things financial. Not only does he not want any agency oversight, he doesn't want any judicial oversight. Hmmmmmm…. Now why in the world would he want that, if his interest was your financial well-being?
Let's see. Perhaps, the provision in the AIG bailout, the one which gives investment firms the power to raid their customer's portfolios (must register) in order to raise capital for themselves could cause a few lawsuits. People objecting to outright thievery do not help to make the fascist wheels turn. Perhaps, if the Secretary were to send out treasury agents to seize the property of average citizens to pay the debts this government has incurred on their behalf, his plans could be thwarted. Were some federal judge to get religion and rule in favor of some poor citizen, it would make things too messy.
Nor would it do, if the Treasury Secretary suddenly announced that the U.S. Dollar was dead and was being replaced with the Amero, effective immediately, should Congress assert its Constitutional power to coin money and the Federal Reserve be damned.
You may want to study events which took place during the Great Depression should you think that these possible scenarios are implausible. They are not just plausible, they border on likely. Monsters Inc., even if it doesn't intend to raid your home to finance the empire, could, given the proper authority. That alleged authority is being debated in the Congressional house now. I am not sure that telling oneself, “Oh, they wouldn't do that!”, is going to suffice this time. They would, they have and more than likely they will if they are given the opportunity. They obviously don't need anything but the fear of the people. Congress cannot give them the authority to do what they want, because Congress does not possess that authority itself. But that will not stop them. They're monsters, and there's only one way to deal with monsters: shine the light on them and run them out of your closet. Whatever you do, don't show them your cookies.Tweet