Clear here for an analysis of the derivatives and corporate credit financial markets, which the author is describing as something that will "dwarf" the sub-prime loan crash.

I'm reading it right now myself.

Here is another article on the plight of the Interest rates: keep the rates low to soften the blow on over-extended borrowers, or jack the interest rates up so that bonds and treasuries are saleable to the foreigners who are losing their shirts when the dollar's value falls on the international markets. Click here. It's a lot easier to read than the first article, which is very technical and abstruse.

Here's the money quote

Superpower America is a ship of fools in denial of their plight. While offshoring kills American economic prospects, “free market economists” sing its praises. While war imposes enormous costs on a bankrupt country, neoconservatives call for more war, and Republicans and Democrats appropriate war funds which can only be obtained by borrowing abroad.

By focusing America on war in the Middle East, the purpose of which is to guarantee Israel’s territorial expansion, the executive and legislative branches, along with the media, have let slip the last opportunities the US had to put its financial house in order. We have arrived at the point where it is no longer bold to say that nothing now can be done. Unless the rest of the world decides to underwrite our economic rescue, the chips will fall where they may.

Dr. Paul John Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan administration. He is credited with curing stagflation and eliminating “Phillips curve” trade-offs between employment and inflation, an achievement now on the verge of being lost by the worst economic mismanagement in US history.

Honesty and integrity stand far above any loyalty to a political party.

Thank you bartcop

From today's Cal Majority by Sean Barry.

"What should the Republicans do if they want to keep the White House in '08? Grit their teeth, swallow their pride and nominate John McCain, and have him pick Mike Huckabee as his running mate, writes David Broder. McCain-Huckabee may not win California, but the least you can say about these two is that they have integrity, and a sense of humanity. Aint going to happen though."

And this is from the "dean" of Washington DC conventional thinking, David Broder. Broder is an ancient columnist opinion writer for the Washington Post that gets syndicated throughout the circuit of national newspapers as the "common wisdom" (the Sacramenton Bee is one of these.)

Here's how Broder begins his piece:

If the Republican Party really wanted to hold on to the White House in 2009, it's pretty clear what it would do. It would grit its teeth, swallow its doubts and nominate a ticket of John McCain for president and Mike Huckabee for vice president – and president-in-waiting.

Those two are far from front-runners. They trail Mitt Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire and lag behind Rudy Giuliani in national surveys of Republican voters. But, in a series of debates, including last week's CNN/YouTube extravaganza. McCain and Huckabee have been notable for their clarity, character and, yes, simple humanity.

From everything I have heard on the campaign trail, it's obvious that they are the pair who have earned the widest respect among the eight Republican candidates themselves.

Whoa, Debra Saunders agrees with Broder. This means that the push is on from the minions attached to the fax machine -- so it can't be traced, email is more vulnerable because it resides in the memory of the receivers machine. The wicked lying witch of The San Francisco Chronicle is trying to salvage her own reputation after being a cheerleader for bad ideas and palpitating over the corrupt morons in her party for too long. Will some real conservative please stand up? This woman is bankrupt. Nothing she says or has said is worthwhile.

Click here to read a conservative Libertarian discuss the Homegrown Terrorist Prevention Act. This act will prevent nothing, as the above article explains but what it does is very scary. Notice how the national media has said nothing about this, not a peep, which is even more scary.

The Act was signed 400-6 by weak-kneed Legislators who don't read the bills they sign. Democratic apologist Jane Harman sponsored the bill.

(NEWSFLASH to anyone reading -- I am not a Democrat. I am not a liberal or a socialist either. I fervently believe in a free market and democratic society. I am an American steeped in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James Madison. Ya dig.)

The Act creates a roving commission of 10 commissioners selected by Congress who will hold hearings all across the country. People will be summoned to testify and prove they are "real" Americans. Assets can be frozen and anyone who helps the defendent can also have their assets frozen. Worse, after 18 months, these commissions will become privatized and private corporations will be performing these functions.

This happened during French Revolution when Robespierre and the Radical Jacobins set up the Committee of Public Safety to purge the non-patriots from the French streets. After 2 years and tens of thousands of guillotined citizens the "Reign of Terror" ended.

In our country, the HUAAC (House Un-american Activities Committee) was set up in the 1930's by a Russian spy and a Southern racist (its true, look it up) to investigate communism in America. In the 1950's when the alcoholic Senator Joe McCarthy terrorized innocent victims in the State department, whole groups of people were called up. Many people were blacklisted and lost their jobs because of the hysteria -- Lucille Ball was one, J. Robert Oppenheimer another -- for no substantive reason.

This Act will NOT prevent nuts and crazy people from doing anything. But what will it do? Read the conservative libertarian position from the link above to find out. Here is a brief snippet:

As should be clear from the vagueness of the definitions, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act could easily be abused to define any group that is pressuring the political system as "terrorist," ranging from polygamists, to second amendment rights supporters, anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, and peace demonstrators. In reality, of course, it will be primarily directed against Muslims and Muslim organizations. Given that, there is the question of who will select which groups will be investigated by the roving commissions. There is no evidence to suggest that there will be any transparent or objective screening process. Through their proven access both to the media and to Congress, the agenda will undoubtedly be shaped by the usual players including David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, and Frank Gaffney who see a terrorist hiding under every rock, particularly if the rock is concealing a Muslim. They and their associates will undoubtedly find plenty of terrorists and radical groups to investigate. Many of the suspects will inevitably be "anti-American" professors at various universities and also groups of Palestinians organized against the Israeli occupation, but it will be easy to use the commission formula to sweep them all in for examination.

The view that 9/11 has "changed everything" is unfortunately all too true. It has unleashed American paranoia, institutionalized mistrust of foreigners, and created a fantasy universe in which a US beset by enemies must do anything and everything to counter the alien threat.

Yes, it can happen here people. It is already happening here. Get your head out of your (ass) television and wake up.

with 5 years left in his term?

Come on now. How obvious does this have to be? But I admit, I did not know the entirety of the depravity at work. Turns out there are 3 probable reasons.

1. The change in the lobby law -- and possible further changes -- will occur at the end of the year. How soon does Mr. Lott get swooped up for a million dollar a year salary by a "lobby" firm -- which is another way of saying consiglieri.
2. A brewing connection with the very Veco Oil Alaskan tycoon Bill Allen who corrupted Ted Stevens and got enmeshed in the Feds bribery net.
3. Larry Flynt of Hustler magazine attests he has evidence of Trent Lott's extra-marrital affairs (via Prostitutes?)

Actually, what Lott can do is drop out of sight for a couple of years, and then step quietly into some lobby firm or get hired as part-time "consultant" with a million dollar a year salary, after the storm passes. He won't be held to the changes in the laws because he left in 2007, before the law takes affect.

And when you hear Lott at the press conference yakkin up the weak reporters salavating high hinnie-ness, Lott talks about perhaps dabbling into teaching just like his folks, getting all down-home folksie while he pretends to represent the common man. Then he brings up the "football team" at Ole Miss -- he knows his home-boys well.

What a slimy, weasel.

What has Trent Lott ever done for the people? Nothing. He's in this for the money. He has been a shameful Senator for Mississippi and represents a blemish (or skid mark) on the history of this nation.

Here is a translation of some of an article in Le Monde. [Click here]

China's savings finance consumer debt and the deficits of the the United States

Have poor countries become the new bankers to the rich nations? The spectacular growth of the reserves in Asian nations (1,400 million dollars from China alone at the end of the year 2007 ...), the accumulation of petro-dollars in the Persian Gulf nations and in Russia, the anticipated re-issuances of the debts of Argentina or Brazil [translator's note: which have traditionally been made by American banks] makes one think that developing nations will henceforth finance industrial nations.

"On the morality of the plan, this situation is rather shocking," judges Dominique Plihon, economics professor at Paris XIII and the president of the Scientific Council of Attac. The flight of capital towards the Northern countries in effect hitches the development of emerging economies who are far from being able finance their own needs to ameliorate their infrastructures.

This paradox is only partially true. The receipts of direct foreign investments published by the Conference of Nations United on Commerce and Development(CNUCED) attests to it: industrial nations received 857 millions of dollars of captial in 2006, but they also exported even more (1,022 millions). For developping nations, the situation is reversed: they have received more (379 millions) than they have exported (174 millions).

"In fact," Boris Cournede surmises (economist in the Political economy and money division of the Organization of Cooperation and Developing economies (OCDE), "The deficit with a running balance is an especially American Phenomenom. IN the United States, the deficiat will attain 842 millions of dollars this year. The interesting thing is that it is financed by China's commercial surplus and by oil-rich nations, when in other times, these dis- equilibriums would exist between developing countries.

This is confirmed by Patrick Artus, chief economist at Natixis ... "Latin America and the European Union are in a general equilibrium. The first ran deficits to finance their development, but the traumatism of the debt crisis was so hard that Latin American countries prefer no longer to have debts -- at the risk of slowing down their growth -- rather than revive the strict budgets and unemployment which result."

...

"WE have arrived at an astonishing situation" which has been going on for many years, commented Xavier Musca, a treasury director. Certain emerging countries, with China at the head, have invested massively in American Treasuries. China has financed a very large part of the colossal deficit of the [United States].

Economists call this a "credit crunch" but all that really means is that cash reserves are being drawn down in order to pay for goods and bills that are now more expensive because the value of dollars has depreciated. Businesses with assets in the millions and having to service debts are having increased expenses, and thus bank reserves are being drawn down, which makes less available for banks to extend credit. But banks get the double-whammy, because when the foreign exchange rates plummet,large businesses or persons with international portfolios suffer a percentage loss from assets that are valued in dollars.

I think we're in trouble. The markets have been wobbly all year, and with the oil prices spiking damn near $100, the costs of everything are going to accelerate, and this can't help the already bad economic situation.

Hold on to your ass, the real shit is coming.

Right now the French are damn near in revolt. Of course you probably don't know that because the American press is obsessed with stupidity like hormones sold to Baseball players in 2003 that was not illegal or against baseball rules at the time.

The train drivers just came off strike. The Fisherman are pissed because the price of gas is driving them out of business. And the students in 8 universities (and some faculty) are striking because a new law is allowing private funds to fund the schools.

When our government leaders pass bad laws (the bankruptcy bill, the medicare destruction bill, et cetera) we Americans passively get pissed, if we even know what's going on at all. We don't have a heritage of community and labor organizations like the French. We are organized by the Television.

Think about it. You know it's true.

Anyway, you gotta love the French because they don't just protest, they give the reasoning behind why they protest. Here's the reason why the French are protesting the Education privatization bill : (you'll have to trust my French translation) [from Le Monde]

"If one includes the main budget – which isn't supplemented –, the late payments to the teacher, researchers, and the other contracts, not much remains", detailed Bruno Julliard. "Especially for the student groups, the increased budget don't apply to things that specifically concern the students : cash, housing aide, and staff recruitment....

Furthermore the law implies that school will have to gain new functions for which the schools will have to recruit qualified personnel. The 2008 budget however includes nothing for these needs....

In his latest article, David Kay Johnson reports that 2 separate studies showed that "Retail electricity prices have risen much more in states that adopted competitive pricing than in those that have retained traditional rates set by the government."

The price spread grew from 1.09 cents per kilowatt-hour to 3.09 cents, her analysis showed. It also showed that in 2006 alone industrial customers paid $7.2 billion more for electricity in market states than if they had paid the average prices in regulated states.

This is the problem with ultra-market ideologues. They misunderstand the inherent power-relationships in society. Competition might make a better product, but it does not solve or even understand social stresses and situations at all. In fact, as the studies prove over a period of 16 years, competition can exascerbate social relations and make system integration and investment difficult because the priorities of profits and portfolios will overrule the long-term goals of society.

The neigh-sayers and true-believers will talk about gradual improvements or try to tie the higher prices to the overall energy situation, but again they miss the point. Energy is such an important commodity, that we shouldn't outsource energy production and distribution to private for-profit entities whose goals are to make money and accumulate customers. The funds are funnelled out of the communities who rely on them for their electricity, and thus don't get re- invested in the community. The capital-intensive nature of the energy business makes it a natural monopoly. There is no real competition possible because there will always be a small number of very large firms who have to collude or coordinate to avoid ruinous price wars.

The mantra of de-regulation was really just another way to allow other large corporations to get a piece of the action, and that's why the prices in deregulated states are 37% more than in the regulated states.

Gerald Ford in his recent book.

[REAGAN was] a superficial, disengaged, intellectually lazy showman who didn't do his homework and clung to a naive, unrealistic and essentially dangerous world view."

[Reagan was] "probably the least well-informed on the details of running the government of any president I knew."

Reagan allowed appointments up and down the federal bureaucracy who were incompetant, inferior, and corrupt. Fortunately there were occasional exceptions, but that was due to George Schultz and Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush. Reagan read speeches and had no idea what was going on in his administration. That's why Iran Contra happened.

From the ABC News Washington Post poll since 1980.

Percentage of Americans who Prefer a New Direction

• After Bush 75%
• After Reagan 55%
• After Clinton 47%

But they still drag him out like a funky, rotten old teddy bear they've had since they were 3 years old. Cause they are still 3 years old.