PDA

View Full Version : Republicans and "Free Market" Zealots Bring Disaster to America


35Pete
April 2nd, 2008, 7:27:54 PM
Free market in quotes by PCR. Don't you guys be ashamed to admit you were duped about this "free market" bull shit. I was. Hey. We live and learn.

anEin. Pay attention buddy. ;)


Empire On The Brink


Republicans and "Free Market" Zealots Bring Disaster to America

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

March 12. Crude oil for April delivery hit $110 per barrel. The US dollar fell to a new low against the Euro. It now takes $1.55 to purchase one Euro.

These new highs against the dollar are the ongoing story of the collapse of the US dollar as world reserve currency and corresponding collapse of American power.

Each new decision from the insane Bush regime pushes the dollar a little further along to oblivion. The same Fed announcement that boosted the stock market on March 11 sent the dollar reeling and the price of oil up. The Fed’s announcement that it and other central banks are going to deal with the derivative crisis by monetizing $200 billion of the troubled instruments signaled more dollar inflation.

Of course, something needed to be done to forestall an implosion of the financial system, but a less costly alternative was at hand. The mark-to-market rule could have been suspended in order to halt the forced sale and write down of assets and to provide time in which to sort out derivative values, which are higher than the fire sale prices.

More pressure on the dollar resulted from the decision to award the European company, Airbus, a $40 billion contract that could reach $100 billion to build US Air Force tankers. In simple terms, that means another $40 to $100 billion added to the US trade deficit, and a loss of $40 to $100 billion in US Gross Domestic Product and associated jobs.

Of course, the Bush regime had to award the contract to Europe as a payoff for Europe’s support of the Bush regime’s wars of aggression in the Middle East. Europe is not going to provide Bush with diplomatic cover for his wars and NATO troops for his war in Afghanistan without a payoff.

Here is the picture: The US economy, which has been kept alive by enormous debt expansion that has over-reached its limit, is falling into recession. The traditional way out by expanding the supply of money and credit is blocked by the impaired banking system, the levels of consumer debt, the collapsing value of the US dollar, and rising inflation.

The Bush regime is attempting to bypass the stalled credit expansion by sending Americans $600 checks, money that will mainly be used to reduce existing credit card debt and not to fund new consumption.

...more....

http://counterpunch.com/roberts03132008.html

sukie
April 2nd, 2008, 7:32:22 PM
Pete isn't it a good thing that Boeing didn't get the defense contract?

35Pete
April 2nd, 2008, 7:40:33 PM
Pete isn't it a good thing that Boeing didn't get the defense contract?

We shouldn't be building tankers in the first place as a.) we don't need them, b.) we can't afford them.

That said, that's a big chunk of traditionally US manufactured stuff going offshore.

The point is sukie that intelligent people MUST know that this is NOT GOOD for our economic situation. You just have to wonder why they do it anyways.

Maybe someone here can help me with the specifics. I believe it was Henry Kissinger that said 30 years ago that it will be necessary to substantially reduce the standard of living for the average American. Or maybe it was David Rockefeller at his swell Trilateral Meeting. But I have to ask, why would he say something like that?

sukie
April 2nd, 2008, 7:45:54 PM
In a surprising reversal for the Boeing Company, the Pentagon on Friday awarded a multibillion-dollar contract for refueling tankers to a partnership between Northrop Grumman and EADS, the European parent of Airbus.

The deal, which puts a critical United States military contract into the hands of foreigners, at least in part, calls for spending up to $40 billion on the first phase of a multidecade program to replace the nation's aging aerial tanker fleet, which dates back to the Kennedy and Eisenhower era. The fleet, which now numbers about 535 refitted Boeing 707's and DC-10's is one of the largest but oldest fleets of jets in the world. Yet the tanker planes are essential to keeping Air Force and allied fighter jets, bombers, cargo planes and other military aircraft in the air when on critical missions far from airports where they can land to refuel.

And replacing these tankers — essentially flying gas stations that offload their fuel in mid-air — has been the Air Force's top priority since 1996, when the government first proposed acquiring new planes. Eventually, the contract is expected to be valued at $100 billion, as the Air Force spends the next several decades acquiring new tankers at a rate of about 15 a year. It is expected that nearly 400 new refueling planes will be needed.

Yet for more than a decade the Air Force's effort to modernize the fleet has been thwarted by global politics, Washington scandals and an aggressive attack by Senator John McCain, now the presumptive Republican nominee for president.

In the end, the scandal lead to the departure of Phil Condit, the chief executive of Boeing, the resignation of James Roche, the secretary of the Air Force, and the imprisonment of two Boeing executives, one of whom was the former Pentagon acquisition official that had worked on the program. Another Air Force acquisition officer who was working on the program later committed suicide.

The Air Force, short on cash and wanting to acquire the planes as fast as possible, proposed an arrangement to Congress in late 2001 under which the Pentagon would lease the Boeing 767s in a multiyear sole-source contract that would keep Boeing's aging 767 production line alive.

But just as the Air Force was about to sign that deal, it came under sharp attack from Senator McCain, a former pilot and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. McCain denounced the deal as a sweetheart arrangement between Boeing and the Air Force that would shortchange the taxpayer and that was arranged with insufficient scrutiny and oversight.

...more...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/29/business/29cndtanker.php

anEinherjer
April 2nd, 2008, 7:47:28 PM
More pressure on the dollar resulted from the decision to award the European company, Airbus, a $40 billion contract that could reach $100 billion to build US Air Force tankers. In simple terms, that means another $40 to $100 billion added to the US trade deficit, and a loss of $40 to $100 billion in US Gross Domestic Product and associated jobs.

Well this part couldn't possibly be any more incorrect unless he said we were selling the tankers to the martians.

But, from later in the opinion piece:

The bottom line: US power is enfeebled.

Some of us are okay with this. Some of us don't mind this at all. But some of us don't buy his doom and gloom predictions either. Might as well call him Paul Craig Malthus/Ehrlich while we're at it.

"Free market" is right. It'd be nice to have such a thing.

35Pete
April 2nd, 2008, 7:57:55 PM
Well this part couldn't possibly be any more incorrect unless he said we were selling the tankers to the martians.

This statement is bizarre anEin. Not only completely incorrect, but bizarre. That's like saying US products designed and manufactured overseas are not imports just because corporate is in NY, Chicago, or Indianopolis.

But, from later in the opinion piece:



Some of us are okay with this. Some of us don't mind this at all. But some of us don't buy his doom and gloom predictions either. Might as well call him Paul Craig Malthus/Ehrlich while we're at it.

Was RWR's Assist Secretary of The Treasury anEin. That doesn't necessarily make his opinion automatically correct, but he's not spouting hyperbole via political rhetoric based on populism either.

Yes. I would like to see us knocked off of our arrogant perch and become an "ordinary nation" again. Maybe then we might go back to our roots, which were something to be proud of. Losing the war in Iraq would be a good start.

"Free market" is right. It'd be nice to have such a thing.

Spot dead on. I don't know why hard core conservatives equate corporatism to free market capitalism. They actually admire predatorial and ballsy unethical business practices. What I don't get is that they cheer it on even as another inch is shoved in their cheeks. Now THAT is bizarre!


...