Mysterious Death of JFK
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Friday, July 27, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Global Financial Fraud & its Gatekeepers
By Naomi Wolf, The Guardian, July 15, 2012
The notion that the entire global financial system is riddled with systemic fraud—and that key players in the gatekeeper roles, both in finance and in government, including regulatory bodies, know it and choose to quietly sustain this reality—is one that would have only recently seemed like the frenzied hypothesis of tinhat-wearers, but this week’s headlines make such a conclusion, sadly, inevitable.
The New York Times business section on 12 July shows multiple exposes of systemic fraud throughout banks: banks colluding with other banks in manipulation of interest rates, regulators aware of systemic fraud, and key government officials (at least one banker who became the most key government official) aware of it and colluding as well. Fraud in banks has been understood conventionally and, I would say, messaged as a glitch. As in London Mayor Boris Johnson’s full-throated defense of Barclay’s leadership last week, bank fraud is portrayed as a case, when it surfaces, of a few “bad apples” gone astray.
In the New York Times business section, we read that the HSBC banking group is being fined up to $1bn, for not preventing money-laundering (a highly profitable activity not to prevent) between 2004 and 2010—a six years’ long “oops”. In another article that day, Republican Senator Charles Grassley says of the financial group Peregrine capital: “This is a company that is on top of things.” The article goes onto explain that at Peregrine Financial, “regulators discovered about $215m in customer money was missing.” Its founder now faces criminal charges. Later, the article mentions that this revelation comes a few months after MF Global “lost” more than $1bn in clients’ money.
What is weird is how these reports so consistently describe the activity that led to all this vanishing cash as simple bumbling: “regulators missed the red flag for years.” They note that a Peregrine client alerted the firm’s primary regulator in 2004 and another raised issues with the regulator five years later—yet “signs of trouble seemingly missed for years”, muses the Times headline.
A page later, “Wells Fargo will Settle Mortgage Bias Charges” as that bank agrees to pay $175m in fines resulting from its having—again, very lucratively—charged African-American and Hispanic mortgagees costlier rates on their subprime mortgages than their counterparts who were white and had the same credit scores. Remember, this was a time when “Wall Street firms developed a huge demand for subprime loans that they purchased and bundled into securities for investors, creating financial incentives for lenders to make such loans.” So, Wells Fargo was profiting from overcharging minority clients and profiting from products based on the higher-than-average bad loan rate expected. The piece discreetly ends mentioning that a Bank of America lawsuit of $335m and a Sun Trust mortgage settlement of $21m for having engaged in similar kinds of discrimination.
Are all these examples of oversight failure and banking fraud just big ol’ mistakes? Are the regulators simply distracted?
The top headline of the day’s news sums up why it is not that simple: “Geithner Tried to Curb Bank’s Rate Rigging in 2008”. The story reports that when Timothy Geithner, at the time he ran the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, learned of “problems” with how interest rates were fixed in London, the financial center at the heart of the Libor Barclays scandal. He let “top British authorities” know of the issues and wrote an email to his counterparts suggesting reforms. Were his actions ethical, or prudent? A possible interpretation of Geithner’s action is that he was “covering his ass”, without serious expectation of effecting reform of what he knew to be systemic abuse.
And what, in fact, happened? Barclays kept reporting false rates, seeking to boost its profit. Last month, the bank agreed to pay $450m to US and UK authorities for manipulating the Libor and other key benchmarks, upon which great swaths of the economy depended. This manipulation is alleged in numerous lawsuits to have defrauded thousands of bank clients. So Geithner’s “warnings came too late, and his efforts did not stop the illegal activity”.
And then what happened? Did Geithner, presumably frustrated that his warnings had gone unheeded, call a press conference? No. He stayed silent, as a practice that now looks as if several major banks also perpetrated, continued.
And then what happened? Tim Geithner became Treasury Secretary. At which point, he still did nothing.
It is very hard, looking at the elaborate edifices of fraud that are emerging across the financial system, to ignore the possibility that this kind of silence—“the willingness to not rock the boat”—is simply rewarded by promotion to ever higher positions, ever greater authority. If you learn that rate-rigging and regulatory failures are systemic, but stay quiet, well, perhaps you have shown that you are genuinely reliable and deserve membership of the club.
Whatever motivated Geithner’s silence, or that of the “government official” in the emails to Barclays, this much is obvious: the mainstream media need to drop their narratives of “Gosh, another oversight”. The financial sector’s corruption must be recognized as systemic.
Meanwhile, Britain is sleepwalking in a march toward total email surveillance, even as the US brings forward new proposals to punish whistleblowers by extending the Espionage Act. In an electronic world, evidence of these crimes lasts forever—if people get their hands on the books. In the Libor case, notably, a major crime has not been greeted by much demand at the top for criminal prosecutions. That asymmetry is one of the insurance policies of power. Another is to crack down on citizens’ protest.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Syria Roundtable! the corbett report.com
The Corbett Report updates
Interview 524 – Syria Roundtable with Nile Bowie and Eric Draitser
Posted: 09 Jul 2012 07:36 PM PDT
Eric Draitser of StopImperialism.com and Nile Bowie of nilebowie.blogspot.comjoins James Corbett for a wide-ranging discussion on possibilities for peace in Syria. We discuss Nile’s “Scenarios for Syria” article and talk about whether it is possible to imagine a non-violent (or less violent) resolution to the conflict. We also examine the geopolitical ramifications of what happens in Syria.
This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now
Who killed James Forrestal? by D.C. Dave
Who Killed James Forrestal? (short version)
by DCDave
Shades of Vincent Foster
The two highest-ranking government officials in the history of the American republic to have “committed suicide” are Deputy White House Counsel, Vincent W. Foster, Jr., on July 20, 1993, and Secretary of Defense, James V. Forrestal, on May 22, 1949. Actually, Forrestal was not a government official at the time of his death. He had been rather abruptly removed from office on March 28, and after almost immediately suffering some kind of breakdown, he had been kept against his will since April 2, a period of more than 7 weeks, on the 16th floor of the Bethesda Naval Hospital. Since he was no longer a government employee, it is unclear upon what authority he was being “cared for” at this U. S. military facility.
Equivocal Voice of Authority
It is perhaps a measure of how much more innocent a time it was in America in 1949 that, although such arguments against murder in the Forrestal case are far weaker than in the Foster case, the official suicide line seems to have gone generally unchallenged. Take, for instance, the reaction of the Forrestal family. Perhaps the person closest to James Forrestal in the whole world was his brother, Henry. This is from the obscure book, The Death of James Forrestal (1966), by Cornell Simpson, one of the few people who did question the suicide conclusion993, and Secretary of Defense, James V. Forrestal, on May 22, 1949. Actually, Forrestal was not a government official at the time of his death. He had been rather abruptly removed from office on March 28, and after almost immediately suffering some kind of breakdown, he had been kept against his will since April 2, a period of more than 7 weeks, on the 16th floor of the Bethesda Naval Hospital. Since he was no longer a government employee, it is unclear upon what authority he was being “cared for” at this U. S. military facility.
Though technically no longer a government official at the time of his death, Forrestal was a far more prominent and powerful man than Foster. Independently wealthy since his days as president of Dillon, Read, and Company on Wall Street, as Secretary of the Navy he had graced the cover of Time magazine on October 29, 1945. In September of 1947, even though he had opposed the legislation that created the department, Forrestal was made America’s first Secretary of Defense. Widely acclaimed as an extraordinarily dedicated and effective administrator, he rivaled Secretary of State, George C. Marshall, as the best known member of President Harry Truman’s cabinet.
Both Foster and Forrestal are said to have been suicidally depressed. Indeed, this is usually the first thing that will be mentioned when the matter of the death of either of these two men is brought up. The evidence that either of them was in such a disturbed mental state that he would resort to such an extreme solution is actually quite weak. In Foster’s case, it rests heavily upon the very doubtful authenticity of a disjointed, sophomoric note belatedly “found” in a briefcase that had previously been emptied out in full view of a number of people. In Forrestal’s case, the public was told in the very first press announcement of his death that he had stopped in the middle of copying over a classical poem, one that seems to welcome, in certain circumstances, the ending of one’s life. We have never been told how anyone knows that Forrestal actually wrote what he is said to have written, although author Arnold Rogow (James Forrestal, A Study of Personality, Politics, and Policy, 1963), the man most responsible for fixing in the public mind the notion that Forrestal was mentally unbalanced, has written, without the first bit of evidence for it, that Forrestal was seen writing it. Authors Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley (Driven Patriot, the Life and Times of James Forrestal, 1992) have also stated that Forrestal was seen writing it, but by a differentperson from the one cited by Rogow, although they give Rogow as their source. Curiously, nowhere on the public record are the actual would-be witness or witnesses themselves quoted directly on this matter.
Defenders of the official line on Foster’s death almost never refer to the known evidence. Rather, they allude to the “depression” as though it were a proven fact; they invoke authority, either the authority of the family, most of whom have publicly, at least, accepted the official conclusion, or of the authority of the various official “investigations” that have been made of his death; and they raise questions about the motive. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
Equivocal Voice of Authority
It is perhaps a measure of how much more innocent a time it was in America in 1949 that, although such arguments against murder in the Forrestal case are far weaker than in the Foster case, the official suicide line seems to have gone generally unchallenged. Take, for instance, the reaction of the Forrestal family. Perhaps the person closest to James Forrestal in the whole world was his brother, Henry. This is from the obscure book, The Death of James Forrestal (1966), by Cornell Simpson, one of the few people who did question the suicide conclusion:
At his home in Beacon, New York, Henry Forrestal stated to this author that James Forrestal positively did not kill himself. He said his brother was the last person in the world who would have committed suicide and that he had no reason for taking his life. When Forrestal talked to his brother at the hospital, James was having a good time planning the things he would do following his discharge. Henry Forrestal recalled that Truman and [new Defense Secretary Louis] Johnson agreed that his brother was in fine shape and that the hospital officials admitted that he would have been released soon. To Henry Forrestal, the whole affair smelled to high heaven. He remarked about his brother's treatment at the hospital, his virtual imprisonment and the censorship of his visitors. Henry Forrestal had never heard of such treatment and questioned why it should have been allowed. He further questioned why the hospital officials lied about his brother being permitted all the visitors he wanted.
He was bitter when recounting that from the first minute the officials had insisted the death was a result of suicide; that they did not even consider the possibility of murder even though there was no suicide note, though his brother acted perfectly normal when the corpsman saw him only a few minutes before his death, though the bathrobe cord was knotted tightly around his neck.
He considered it odd that his brother had died just a few hours before he, Henry, was to arrive and take James out of the hospital.
Then he repeated his belief that James Forrestal did not kill himself; that he was murdered; that someone strangled him and threw him out the window. Henry Forrestal went on to ask why the authorities did not have the decency to admit these things and then try to apprehend the murderer. He lamented the fact that the case was hurriedly hushed up in an apparent attempt to avoid a scandal.
He went on to say that he was a Democrat but nevertheless he blamed the Truman administration for covering up his brother's murder, for letting it happen, and for the way James Forrestal was treated in the hospital. He concluded that he was "damned bitter" about it all but did not know what he could do.
When family members of victims don’t agree with the official line, whether it be this case or the Oklahoma City bombing, TWA 800, Pan Am 103, the Martin Luther King, Jr. murder, or 9-11, we seldom hear much about it in our press. The Forrestal death is an outstanding example of that rule.
The press also typically gives great attention to the findings of any official body that has been appointed to make an investigation. The heavily-touted Warren Commission is the best-known instance of this phenomenon. In the Foster death it was first a report by Robert Fiske and then one by Kenneth Starr.
So what do we have with the Forrestal death? It’s the Willcutts Review Board, named for Rear Admiral Morton D. Willcutts, the head of the National Naval Medical Center. The Review Board took the testimony of all witnesses and finished its work on May 30. It was not until October 11, however, that its conclusions were released to the public, and here’s what was discovered, as related on page 15 of The New York Times of October 12, 1949:
That the body found on the ledge outside of Building 1 of the National Medical Center at 1:50 A.M. and pronounced dead at 1:55 A.M. Sunday, May 22, 1949, was identified as that of the late James V. Forrestal, a patient in the neuropsychiatric service of the United States Naval Hospital National Medical Center.
That the late James V. Forrestal died about 1:50 A.M. on Sunday, May 22, 1949, at the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, as a result of injuries, multiple extreme, received incident to a fall from a high point in the tower, Building 1.
That the behavior of the deceased during the period of the stay in the hospital preceding his death was indicative of a mental depression.
That the treatment and precautions in the conduct of the case were in agreement with accepted psychiatric practice and commensurate with the evident status of the patient at all times.
That the death was not caused in any manner by the intent, fault, negligence or inefficiency of any person or persons in the naval service or connected therewith.
That’s it, folks. NoticeThat’s it, folks. Notice what’s missing. There is no conclusion of suicide. They just tell us that Forrestal died from a fall from a high point in the building and that he had been depressed, but they don’t say who was responsible for the fall. They don’t even make mention of the dressing gown sash that was knotted tightly around the body’s neck, so they don’t have to explain it. There was no police investigation, so this is the official last word on Forrestal’s death. The findings upon which these conclusions are based were kept secret, and they remain secret to this day. If anyone did, indeed, witness Forrestal transcribing words from a poem onto a notepad shortly before he took his fatal plunge, it would be in the Review Board testimony. The authors Hoopes and Brinkley, in their extensive Forrestal biography, concealed from the readers the fact that this report has never been made public. Rogow mentioned the fact in passing in a footnote and made nothing of it, as though such things were routine and acceptable in this government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Finally, there is the matter of the motive and the likely suspects. It is no mystery at all who Forrestal’s greatest enemies were and who benefitted immensely from his death.
Strong Motives, Prime Suspects what’s missing. There is no conclusion of suicide. They just tell us that Forrestal died from a fall from a high point in the building and that he had been depressed, but they don’t say who was responsible for the fall. They don’t even make mention of the dressing gown sash that was knotted tightly around the body’s neck, so they don’t have to explain it. There was no police investigation, so this is the official last word on Forrestal’s death. The findings upon which these conclusions are based were kept secret, and they remain secret to this day. If anyone did, indeed, witness Forrestal transcribing words from a poem onto a notepad shortly before he took his fatal plunge, it would be in the Review Board testimony. The authors Hoopes and Brinkley, in their extensive Forrestal biography, concealed from the readers the fact that this report has never been made public. Rogow mentioned the fact in passing in a footnote and made nothing of it, as though such things were routine and acceptable in this government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Finally, there is the matter of the motive and the likely suspects. It is no mystery at all who Forrestal’s greatest enemies were and who benefitted immensely from his death.
Strong Motives, Prime Suspects
When someone dies violently and suspiciously, the usual question investigators want to answer is if anyone had a murder motive. Did the deceased have enemies? Had he been threatened by anyone? Was there anyone who stood to gain from his death? If so, did the party or parties in question have anything in their past to indicate that they might be capable of murder, and did they have the opportunity to commit the crime?
In Forrestal’s case, the answers are yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. For over a year he had been subject to a vilification campaign in the press the likes of which hardly any public official has ever had to endure in America. Leading the campaign, from the left and the right, respectively, were America’s two best-known and most powerful syndicated columnists, Drew Pearson and Walter Winchell. They painted Forrestal as a corrupt tool of Wall Street and the oil companies who put the interests of his cronies ahead of concern for the well being of refugees from European persecution. His big offense was that he was outspoken in his opposition to the creation of the state of Israel. The entire foreign policy establishment, led by Secretary of State Marshall, felt the same way, but the strong-willed Forrestal was the lightning rod for the supporters of Israel. He had received threatening telephone calls and he complained of being followed and electronically bugged. It has also been credibly reported that the Zionists attempted to blackmail him over the financial assistance that his investment banking firm, Dillon, Read, had given to the Nazis prior to World War II.
One might argue that because Israel had already been recognized by the United States by the time Forrestal died, and because he had been removed from the Truman cabinet and discredited by his breakdown and hospitalization, he was no longer a threat to the supporters of Israel. But he was a man of prominence, wealth, and determination who intended to buy a newspaper and to write a book that threatened to expose a number of Roosevelt-Truman administration secrets, especially related to the machinations that brought the United States into World War II and the wartime policies that advanced the interests of the Soviet Union. His voluminous diary was confiscated by the Truman White House and its full contents have never been revealed.
Most importantly, though, it was feared that he would continue to work against the interests of Israel. The animus toward Forrestal continues to the present day in Zionist circles, who continue to characterize this most able and dedicated of public servants as an anti-Semite and a nut.
If anyone within the Truman White House had anything to do with Forrestal’s death, the most likely suspect would be the shadowy string-puller David Niles, a man with connections both to the Zionists and to the Communists. The previously mentioned author, Simpson, sees him as a likely suspect primarily because of his Communist affinities, and Simpson provides us with a laundry list of outrages perpetrated by the Communists in pursuit of world domination. But one should not overlook the ruthless record of the Israelis, from the assassinations of Lord Moyne and Count Bernadotte and the bombing of the King David Hotel, all of which pre-dated the Forrestal death, right up to the more recent massacres in Qana and Jenin and the systematic assassination of Palestinian leaders.
And although the communists might well have had many infiltrators in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, no one has ever suggested that they dominate America’s news media. It is the news media that has vigorously sold the story that James Forrestal committed suicide and has kept silent about the fact that the only serious government investigation of the death has been kept secret from the American public. The news media also heavily publicized the books by Rogow and Hoopes and Brinkley, which sell the suicide line, but they published not one single review of the critical book by Cornell Simpson.
David Martin
May 28, 2003
Who said a Christian Can´t be a Mason? by Harmon R. Taylor
Who said a Christian
Can't be a Mason?
by
Harmon R. Taylor
The Hebrew word "Messiah" and the Greek word "Christ" both mean anointed; usually a consecrated person. When applied to Jesus, it means "God's anointed one." The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is the Christ in many places but the most definitive statements are found in Mark 14:61, 62; Matthew 16:15-17; and John 4:25, 26.
To deny that Jesus is the Christ is to condemn oneself to eternal damnation. 1 John 2:22, 23 says, "who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, the one who confesses the Son has the Father also." Revelation 21:8 says that the unbelieving and liars will all be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone.
Masonic tradition teaches the worship of the supreme God, the Great Architect of the Universe. Who is this God? Investigate the words of Albert Pike, 33rd degree Mason and author of Morals and Dogma, p.226:"Masonry, around whose altars the Christian, the Hebrew, the Moslem, the Brahmin, the followers of Confucius and Zoroaster, can assemble as brethren and unite in prayer to the one God who is above all the Baalim, must needs leave it to each of its Initiates to look for the foundation of his faith and hope to the written scriptures of his own religion.
God teaches in Exodus 20:3-5, that "You shall have no other gods before Me, you shall not make for yourself an idol...you shall not worship them or serve them..."
In Judges 1 and 2, the Israelites did not drive out the followers of false gods and God's verdict was, "They shall become as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you." (Judges 2:3) God's commandment to us as Christians is not only should we not be bound together with unbelievers, (2 Corinthians 6:14-17) but we should seek to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20) by preaching the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.
Freemasonry is in direct conflict with the Bible in that Masonry condones communal worship of a generic deity: "To respect all forms of worship, to tolerate all political and religious opinions; not to blame, and still less to condemn the religion of others; not to seek to make converts; but to be content if they have the religion of Socrates; a veneration for the Creator, the religion of good works, and grateful acknowledgment of God's blessings." (Morals and Dogma, p.333)
In order for Masonry to be acceptable to all faiths, it is necessary to relegate the Bible to a position of equality among all religious books: "The Book of the Law shall be an indispensable article of the lodge furniture. This book, however, need not necessarily be the Holy Bible; but according to the religious faith of the members of the lodge. It may be the Koran, the Zend Avesta, or the Vedas or Shasters. (The Freemasons Pocket Companion, p.44-45)
This statement, by implication, makes Jehovah God one god equal to many; an interesting situation for the Masonic Christian whose all-knowing God knows of no others (Isaiah 44:8).
The final straw is laid on the proverbial camel's back when the deity of Jesus is denied by Albert Pike. On page 524 of Morals and Dogma, he states, "We do not undervalue the importance of any Truth. We utter no word that can be deemed irreverent by anyone of any faith.
(Jesus, in John 14:6, declares Himself to be the Truth, exclusively.) In the same paragraph, Pike make the blasphemous statement,"And as little do we tell the sincere Christian that Jesus of Nazareth was but a man like us, or His history but the unreal revival of an older legend."
In one paragraph, he destroys the very foundation of Christian beliefs and then, as if he was totally oblivious to his own writings, states on the facing page, "Thus Masonry disbelieves no truth, and teaches unbelief in no creed, except so far as such creed may lower its lofty estimate of the Deity, degrade Him to the level of the passions of humanity" (Morals and Dogma, p.525)
The Gospel of the Bible is a gift to us from God and available to all who simply believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer, the one who died for sins and is resurrected. Christianity does not require a special meeting place to conduct secret rituals that are sealed with blood oaths. (Matthew 5:34-37; Luke 12:1-3) At your next lodge meeting, ask yourself if you are worshiping the Great Architect of the Universe, the God of all religions, or are you truly worshiping Jehovah God, the one true God of the Bible. If your answer is the latter, then you must ask yourself if your presence in the lodge is truly honoring and glorifying your God.
In answer to the question, "Who said a Christian can't be a Mason?", a modern paraphrase could be made from the words of God's prophet Elijah: "How long will you go limping with two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if the "Great Architect of the Universe" is God, follow him." (1 Kings 18:21)
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name (besides Jesus) under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. (Acts 4:12; Mark 4:9) mason4.htm
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Sovereign Man- Indonesia is Calling, anyone interested?
Sovereign Man
Notes from the Field
Date: July 5, 2012
Reporting From: Jakarta, Indonesia
[Editor's note: Sovereign Man Chief Investment Strategist Tim Staermose is filling in for Simon today.]
Fourteen years ago during the Asian financial crisis, Indonesia endured a currency collapse, a severe 2-year recession, and an embarrassing IMF bailout.
Western bureaucrats wagged their fingers incessantly at Indonesia, lecturing the country about the dangers of excess and fiscal irresponsibility.
How sweet the irony is. In a stunning rags-to-riches story, Indonesia contributed US$1 billion to the IMF last week in order to help bail out bankrupt Western nations.
As I've written before, unlike Japan, the US, and Europe -- which all seem to think the answer to an economic bust brought on by a debt-binge is to borrow and spend even more money-- Indonesia took its medicine when its economy collapsed back in 1998.
The government cut spending. The economy was de-regulated and thrown open to more foreign investment.
The banking system was restructured, and after a difficult and admittedly very painful two years, the foundation was laid for new economic expansion, which continues to this day.
To be sure, the 1998 collapse of the Indonesian economy cost the incumbent political elite here their cushy positions. President Suharto's three-decade long iron-grip came to an ignominious end. There were riots in the streets, and he was literally turfed out of office.
But so what? That's EXACTLY what was needed. Part of the renewal process should always be to ship out the dead wood.
Wandering the streets of Menteng this week, Jakarta's most up-market residential suburb, it's as though the Suharto era never existed. The street where he used to live is just another non-descript, quiet, residential street in this leafy inner-city suburb.
Ironically, US President Barack Obama spent some of his childhood in this same suburb of Jakarta.
Unfortunately, as he pulls out all stops to cling to power for a second term, the kind of tough decisions that could help the US emerge from its economic malaise have no chance of being made.
Lest anyone accuse me of being "anti-Obama" or, shock-horror, FOR the Republicans, let me state emphatically that the PROBLEM is not one side of the aisle or the other. In fact, whoever coined the terms "Demopublicans" and "Repulicrats," is right on the money in my book.
It's the ENTIRE system that's the problem. And that goes for nearly every Western, "free market," democracy out there.
I use the term "free market" reluctantly, because these economies are anything but. There has not been a true free market economy anywhere in the Western world for many decades.
The most important price of all -- that of MONEY -- is completely rigged by a small band of dark-suited men who sit around an impressive boardroom table and DECREE what interest rates should be. It is a farce.
Moreover, politicians from opposing sides of the political spectrum may disagree in public and harangue each other in the press.
But, at the end of the day, they're generally all members of the same club-- a cabal of privileged, self-righteous individuals who think they know how to spend your money better than you do.
This system has a vice grip on society, and nothing short of a revolution-- such as what Indonesia experienced in 1998-- will force any change.
That leaves most people with a rather interesting choice--stay at home in a declining, bankrupt, insolvent nation and hope that a social and political revolution comes quickly...
... or head to greener pastures, to a place that's stable, thriving, and has already swallowed its medicine.
Here at Sovereign Man, we strongly urge you to come on in. The water's fine, and the view is much better from this side.
Tim Staermose
Chief Investment Strategist
Sovereign Man
Notes from the Field
Date: July 5, 2012
Reporting From: Jakarta, Indonesia
[Editor's note: Sovereign Man Chief Investment Strategist Tim Staermose is filling in for Simon today.]
Fourteen years ago during the Asian financial crisis, Indonesia endured a currency collapse, a severe 2-year recession, and an embarrassing IMF bailout.
Western bureaucrats wagged their fingers incessantly at Indonesia, lecturing the country about the dangers of excess and fiscal irresponsibility.
How sweet the irony is. In a stunning rags-to-riches story, Indonesia contributed US$1 billion to the IMF last week in order to help bail out bankrupt Western nations.
As I've written before, unlike Japan, the US, and Europe -- which all seem to think the answer to an economic bust brought on by a debt-binge is to borrow and spend even more money-- Indonesia took its medicine when its economy collapsed back in 1998.
The government cut spending. The economy was de-regulated and thrown open to more foreign investment.
The banking system was restructured, and after a difficult and admittedly very painful two years, the foundation was laid for new economic expansion, which continues to this day.
To be sure, the 1998 collapse of the Indonesian economy cost the incumbent political elite here their cushy positions. President Suharto's three-decade long iron-grip came to an ignominious end. There were riots in the streets, and he was literally turfed out of office.
But so what? That's EXACTLY what was needed. Part of the renewal process should always be to ship out the dead wood.
Wandering the streets of Menteng this week, Jakarta's most up-market residential suburb, it's as though the Suharto era never existed. The street where he used to live is just another non-descript, quiet, residential street in this leafy inner-city suburb.
Ironically, US President Barack Obama spent some of his childhood in this same suburb of Jakarta.Unfortunately, as he pulls out all stops to cling to power for a second term, the kind of tough decisions that could help the US emerge from its economic malaise have no chance of being made.
Lest anyone accuse me of being "anti-Obama" or, shock-horror, FOR the Republicans, let me state emphatically that the PROBLEM is not one side of the aisle or the other. In fact, whoever coined the terms "Demopublicans" and "Repulicrats," is right on the money in my book.
It's the ENTIRE system that's the problem. And that goes for nearly every Western, "free market," democracy out there.
I use the term "free market" reluctantly, because these economies are anything but. There has not been a true free market economy anywhere in the Western world for many decades.
The most important price of all -- that of MONEY -- is completely rigged by a small band of dark-suited men who sit around an impressive boardroom table and DECREE what interest rates should be. It is a farce.
Moreover, politicians from opposing sides of the political spectrum may disagree in public and harangue each other in the press.
But, at the end of the day, they're generally all members of the same club-- a cabal of privileged, self-righteous individuals who think they know how to spend your money better than you do.
This system has a vice grip on society, and nothing short of a revolution-- such as what Indonesia experienced in 1998-- will force any change.
That leaves most people with a rather interesting choice--stay at home in a declining, bankrupt, insolvent nation and hope that a social and political revolution comes quickly...
... or head to greener pastures, to a place that's stable, thriving, and has already swallowed its medicine.
Here at Sovereign Man, we strongly urge you to come on in. The water's fine, and the view is much better from this side.
Tim Staermose
Chief Investment Strategist
Sovereign Man
