chycho

The following is an update of “10 of the Most Important Economic Events of the Last 10 Years: Collapsing the Economy in the Buildup to World War III ”, which in turn was an update of “7 of the Most Important Economic Events of the Last 7 Years: Collapsing the Economy in the Buildup to World War III.”

For those who have been following this series, minor updates were made to events 1 through 10 and the Implications section, and event 11, the Short selling ban, was added. I also reformatted the piece and have supplied permalinks for ease of reference.

Since 1999, the following events have either caused or been the symptom of the present economic crises:

1) Year 1999: Introduction of the euro to world financial markets (permalink)

2) Year 2000: Collapse of the Dot-com bubble (permalink)

3) Year 2000: Iraq dumps the US dollar and switches to the euro (permalink)

4) Year 2005: Rewriting the U.S. Bankruptcy Law (permalink)

5) Year 2006: Discontinuance of M3 (permalink)

6) Year 2006: Iran moves from US dollars to the euro (permalink)

7) Year 2006/07: Subprime Market Collapses (permalink)

8) Year 2007: Run on The Bank in the US and UK (permalink)

9) Year 2007: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran (permalink)

10) Year 2008: US comptroller general and head of the Government Accountability Office resigns (permalink)

11) Year 2008: US and UK impose Short selling ban (permalink)

Implications: Expansion of War or New Sustainable Paradigms? (permalink)

1) Year 1999: Introduction of the euro to world financial markets

In 1999 the euro was introduced as an accounting currency (travelers' checks, electronic transfers, banking, etc.) and then launched as physical coins and banknotes on 1 January 2002. The euro replaced the former European Currency Unit (ECU) at a ratio of 1:1. However its value quickly began to drop, reaching a low of 0.8252 relative to the US dollar on 26 October 2000. This proved to be a solid support level for the next two years, and in 2002 the euro began its appreciation reaching a high of 1.60 on 23 April 2008 relative to the US dollar.

click to enlarge source

Aside from consolidating power for the new European Union, the euro added liquidity and flexibility to the financial markets, which in time has made the euro a very attractive and safe investment as a major global reserve currency. Two of the main reasons why the euro was introduced are:

1. A new power had to be created to fill the vacuum left behind by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The challenge to US hegemony could not be done on a military level. Therefore it had to be done on an economic level. The euro was created to challenge the US dollar as the preferred reserve currency. Since its inception, it has gained market share while the US dollar has lost market share. According to third quarter reports for 2007, US reserve currency market share is 64.6% and the euro is at 25.8%. Less the 1998 levels of Swiss and French francs, and German marks, this means that the euro has gained 9.3% of the global reserve currency market in less then 9 years, and this trend is accelerating, even though the European Union seems to be quite concerned about the rapid rise of the euro.
2. It was predicted that the United States would not be able to survive the collapse of the Soviet Union since its existence was fatally connected with that of the former Russian Empire. As a result the euro was created to provide a safe haven for the transfer of wealth. As of the beginning of 2007, within five short years, euro notes in circulation have exceeded the value of circulating US dollar notes. Considering that the US dollar, at its most recent low, was devalued by approximately 50% since reaching a high relative to the euro in 2000 (euro gaining approximately 100%), we can only assume that the transfer of wealth has been going smoothly and that this trend will continue, especially since Banks have been shifting funds out of the US and into Europe in response to US government policy that a weaker dollar is good for American exports. (More on the euro and the US dollar below).

2) Year 2000: Collapse of the Dot-com bubble

The dot-com bubble, which had its climax on 10 March 2000 with the NASDAQ peaking at 5132.52, was a period during which “stock markets in Western nations saw their value increase rapidly from growth in the new Internet sector and related fields.” Aside from being a stock market bubble, numerous other reasons caused the correction that occurred in the value of shares across-the-board in the technology sector. Three of these were:

1. During the peak of the NASDAQ bubble, margin debt was at an all time high. Investors and speculators were borrowing against their holdings to be able to purchase additional stocks. When the correction occurred, the value of their securities dropped, which meant that they were required to deposit funds or securities into margin accounts to maintain margin requirements set by their brokers. This in turn created a chain reaction. To cover margin calls, stocks were sold, reducing their value since there were more sellers than buyers, which in turn reduced the value of securities in margin accounts, which in turn resulted in additional margin calls which caused more selling. This was one of the main reasons for the rapid decline in stocks in the year 2000.

   In 2007, this was one of the main fears of what was happening to the markets. Last year, the amount of margin debt hit a record $285.6 billion in January on the New York Stock Exchange “raising concerns on Wall Street about what might happen if a major correction occurs.” Those concerns raised in 2007 have proven to have been valid. Bank writedowns from subprime mortgages resulted in margin calls, which at the beginning of 2008 were predicted to cost mortgage lenders $325 billion. Of course now, towards the end of 2008, we have come to realize that that was an extremely low estimate.

2. From 1999 to early 2000, the Federal Reserve had increased interest rates six times, increasing the Fed Funds Rate from 4.75% to 6.5%, an increase of over 35%. This meant the end of cheap money for investors, venture capitalists, and technology companies whose lifespan was measured by their burn rate. In essence, the Federal Reserve brought an end to Greenspan`s irrational exuberance, or more accurately stated, the end to expansion of wealth. A self-induced prophecy, many have argued.

   During the boom, companies were able to bypass banks and raise capital through private venture capitalists. This meant that banks, which in the past were able to acquire shares in companies seeking startup money, were no longer getting in at rock bottom prices. Many individuals during this period created wealth by investing in multiple high-tech companies. Even if 1 out of 10 proved to be a success, those who had invested were easily made independently wealthy. This went against established banking and investment practices and forced the Federal Reserve, a centralized private bank that sets the monetary policy for the United States, to increase interest rates until an adjustment in the markets occurred.

   The belief is that interest rates were increased rapidly to induce a crash, consolidating assets, and increasing the powers of the elite in our centralized governments.

3. Standard & Poor's composite price-earnings ratio (real prices divided by the 120-month average of trailing real earnings) was at 46 even after the March correction in 2000. Until the NASDAQ boom, “the highest it had ever been (the data go back to 1871) was 33, in September 1929 -- the month before the crash.” The dividend yield on the Standard & Poor's index stood at 1.1%, the lowest ever. “The previous low was 2.6% in January 1973, just before the 1973-74 crash.” Margin debt had also increased 87% in the previous year, hitting $265.2 billion. In 2000, all of this was a very good indication that at some point a correction would have to come.

   As stated above, margin debt in 2007 was higher than that of 2000, which could explain what we are witnessing now in the markets, and why the 2008 market crash is forcing people to postpone their retirement by almost 6 years.

click to enlarge source

The Dot-com bubble crash wiped out approximately $5 trillion in market value of technology companies from March 2000 to October 2002 in paper wealth on the NASDAQ alone. The peak was $6.7 trillion in March 2000 and the trough was $1.6 trillion in October 2002. “It was the largest stock market collapse in the history of industrial capitalism.” However, exit rates of dot com firms were “comparable with or perhaps lower than exit rates of entrants in other industries in their formative years. Five year survival rates of Dot Com firms approach 50%,” a testament to their strength and importance.

One of the main consequences of the crash was that it slowed the exponential dissemination of information that was taking place though the Internet. “The bursting of the dot-com bubble marked the beginning of a relatively mild yet rather lengthy early 2000s recession in the developed world.”

3) Year 2000: Iraq dumps the US dollar and switches to the euro

The following article, “The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq”, which was written before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, lays forth an argument that the war in Iraq was not just about oil but about the currency in which oil is traded. It is mandatory reading for anyone who wants to understand the basic concepts of American foreign policy, economics, and its military operations around the world. This article states that the principle reason why the United States invaded Iraq was because Saddam Hussein in the year 2000 went ahead with his plans to stop using the U.S. dollar in its oil business and started using the euro.

Iraq switching from the U.S. Petro-dollar to the euro meant that countries would no longer be obligated to buy oil in U.S. dollars, so they would no longer have to maintain their U.S. dollar reserves.

Since reaching a double top in the year 2000/01, the US dollar devalued relative to the euro by as much as 50% by April 2008.

click to enlarge source

Even though Iraq’s dumping of the US currency is no longer an issue since the United States is now occupying Iraq, many countries continue to sell the dollar, converting their reserves to other currencies. Some of these countries are: Iran, Sweden, Cuba, U.A.E., China, Russia, India, Indonesia, North Korea, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Syria, and many more.

4) Year 2005: Rewriting the U.S. Bankruptcy Law

After years of lobbying, the “dream bill for credit card and financial service companies” finally came into effect in the United States. Three years ago the financial institutions that were preparing for the coming crash were able to lobby Congress to pass the ‘Bankruptcy Bill.’ This law that took effect in 2005 created what is now widely referred to as Debt Slavery and is “the biggest rewrite of U.S. bankruptcy law in a quarter century”.

The Bill was conveniently introduced at a time when US household debt was at an all time high.

click to enlarge source

Those who were wise enough to realize what the implications of the Bill would be, declared bankruptcy before it took effect. Those unfortunates who have been caught unaware are now just realizing that corporations, whose debts are wiped clean when they declare bankruptcy, have more rights then they do. Unfortunately, since personal bankruptcies have been surging, many people are finding out about their slave status the hard way.

In essence, passing of this Bill meant that people became second class citizens relative to corporations in the United States.

5) Year 2006: Discontinuance of M3

“On March 23, 2006, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System” ceased publishing the M3 monetary aggregate. The M numbers (M1, M2, and M3) are “components of the United States money supply”, which “show the amount of dollars in circulation”.

click to enlarge source

“M1 is the most volatile, equivalent to cash on the loose. M2 is less volatile, equivalent to savings account deposits. M3 is least volatile, equivalent to Rich Folks Money which they park.” One of the most important things that the M numbers are used for is to measure inflation. Clearly, the data indicates that “there has been substantial money growth since 2000.”

If there is more money in circulation then it becomes devalued. The downside of devaluing a currency is that it can cause inflation and force the government to increase interest rates. But there are positive effects.

As the Federal Reserve states, “a key effect of devaluation is that it makes the domestic currency cheaper relative to other currencies. There are two implications of a devaluation. First, devaluation makes the country's exports relatively less expensive for foreigners. Second, the devaluation makes foreign products relatively more expensive for domestic consumers, thus discouraging imports. This may help to increase the country's exports and decrease imports, and may therefore help to reduce the current account deficit.”

However, not knowing how much money the Banks are printing means that there is no longer an accurate indication of how much currency is in circulation. This basically means that we are playing Monopoly with people who can take money out of the bank anytime they want, because they are the bank. This should be raising alarm bells across the United States the way it has done across the world, as the dumping of the US dollar by most countries indicates. After all, why would anyone want to hold on to a currency that can lose more than 67 percent in five-years relative to its peers?

With the discontinuance of M3 and the apparent flooding of US dollars into the economy by creating money "Out of Thin Air", the U.S. currency has been devalued to the point where “central banks and finance ministries (of other countries) are setting up obstacles to keep the falling dollar from threatening company profits and economic growth.” The ultimate question is, how long are other countries going to be able to keep the American economy from collapsing in on itself, specially since there is "talk of worst recession since the 1930s."

6) Year 2006: Iran moves from US dollars to the euro

At the end of 2006 Iran announced that they would “use the euro instead of the US dollar in the country's budget for the next Iranian year.” This announcement is at least an order of magnitude more significant than Saddam Hussein saying that Iraq would start selling oil in euros.

If the United States was willing to invade Iraq to prevent oil from being traded in any other currency than the dollar, then it would be logical to assume that they will also confront Iran regarding their plans to permanently and absolutely phase out the US dollar.

The United States now finds itself between a rock and a hard place, because they will either need to invade, bomb, or enforce sanctions against Iran along with any other country that decides to stop using US dollars in their oil exports, or they will have to watch the complete collapse of their economy and the devaluing of the Federal Reserve currency known as the US dollar.

click to enlarge source

On 17 February 2008, Iran accelerated its plans to eliminate the US dollar from its finances when the first phase of Iran's oil and petrochemical bourse in Kish Island was inaugurated, paving the way for “all major currencies of the world” to be used in future oil transactions. The implications of what this means to world financial markets can not be over emphasized. Further information regarding this unprecedented economic crisis for the United States at: “The Implications of the opening of Iran’s Oil Bourse: The Final Nail in the Coffin for the American Empire.”

Where this will lead is yet to be determined but we now know that the United States is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives, both American and foreign, and is willing to execute the leaders of sovereign countries to prevent them from switching from US dollars to the euro.

7) Year 2006/07: Subprime Market Collapses

“Subprime lending , also called B-paper, near-prime, or second chance lending, is the practice of making loans to borrowers who do not qualify for the best market interest rates because of their deficient credit history. The term also refers to paper taken on property that cannot be sold on the primary market, including loans on certain types of investment properties and certain types of self-employed individuals. Subprime lending is risky for both lenders and borrowers due to the combination of high interest rates, poor credit history, and adverse financial situations usually associated with subprime applicants.”

In the US the competition between these lenders became so fierce that “when the rates were getting too low, they switched to competing by way of advance ratio versus selling price.”

“In other words, if lender ‘A’ was offering 90% financing, lender ‘B’ would go to 100% financing, then lender ‘C’ would advance 100% of selling price plus costs, then to 105%, etc. We have seen the U.S. equity lenders now go to 130% of selling price, giving back 10-15% to the purchasers to help buy furniture, large electronic products, groceries, while the remaining 15-20% was eaten up in fees.”

Why would a lender risk giving someone 130% of the value of a property, especially if the people are considered to be high risk? Fractional-reserve banking of course: a system that has been established to allow financial institutions to “loan their customers many times the sum of the credit reserves than they hold.” It’s a pyramid scheme in which everything continues to work until the bottom falls out, and the bottom has fallen out in the United States where “States have subprime exposure between 18% to 30%” and early payment defaults are rising. This problem with the subprime mortgage market is intensifying with the US and UK housing market crashes.

Just how bad is the housing bubble? The diagram below paints a clear picture of what is about to hit the United States and a few other Western countries.

click to enlarge source

The following animated documentary contains further information on our present monetary system, and is a great introduction to fractional reserve banking: Money As Debt (47:07)

With this kind of banking system where money is created from debt, is it any wonder that the International Monetary Fund is warning that “house prices in the UK are overpriced by as much as 40 per cent and the bubble might burst” in Britain as well as other European markets as it has in the United States.

An important thing to keep in mind is that even though our centralized government representatives would like us to believe that the subprime mortgage crisis was not expected, the truth is that it was expected and authorities knew that a multi-billion dollar crime was being committed.

In 1999 the New York Times reported that the easing of credit requirements on loans would mean that Fannie Mae would be “taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's… ‘If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.’” This was reported in 1999.

In 2004, “Long before the mortgage crisis began rocking Main Street and Wall Street, a top FBI official made a chilling, if little-noticed, prediction: The booming mortgage business, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, was starting to attract shady operators and billions in losses were possible. ‘It has the potential to be an epidemic,’ Chris Swecker, the FBI official in charge of criminal investigations, told reporters in September 2004. But, he added reassuringly, the FBI was on the case. ‘We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,’ he said.”

How unfortunate that they failed because the same people whose reckless practices triggered the global financial crisis are onto a similar scheme that could cost taxpayers tons more .

8) Year 2007: Run on The Bank in the US and UK

“A bank run is a type of financial crisis. It is a panic which occurs when a large number of customers of a bank fear it is insolvent and withdraw their deposits,” and this is exactly what happened to Countrywide in the United States and to Northern Rock in Britain, the financial capital of the world, in August and September of 2007.

“The queues that formed outside Northern Rock, the country's fifth-biggest mortgage lender, represented the first bank run in Britain since 1866. The panic was prompted by the very announcement designed to prevent it. Only when the Bank of England said that it would stand by the stricken Northern Rock did depositors start to run for the exit. Attempts by Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the exchequer, to reassure savers served only to lengthen the queues of people outside branches demanding their money. The run did not stop until Mr Darling gave a taxpayer-backed guarantee on September 17th that, for the time being, all the existing deposits at Northern Rock were safe.” This was in essence the same scenario that played out with Countrywide.

These banking crises in the US and UK are not individual anomalies that just became realized. Banks in the rest of Europe are also facing a crisis and all indications are that this “Force 5 economic-hurricane” is gaining strength, which the multi-trillion-dollar bailout of the US financial system indicates.

The following documentary is worth viewing to fully understand the causes and implications of what is taking place: ZEITGEIST, The Movie: Part 3 of 3 (47:05)

9) Year 2007: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran

In a Zogby Poll released 29 October 2007, the “majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon.”

Why would an attack on Iran be considered an economic event? Because war is the perfect consuming machine and a racket. “It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives”, so stated Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.

click to enlarge source

The US economy was on the verge of collapse before 911 and again before the invasion of Iraq, but it was saved thanks in large part to the wars. “What do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the economic recovery in the United States have in common? More than one might expect, to judge from the last couple of rounds of US growth figures (2004).”

How much did the Iraq war contribute to boosting the economy? “During the second quarter of 2003, when the war in Iraq was in full swing, some 60 per cent of the 3.3 per cent GDP growth rate was attributable to military spending.”

“The war has been a large part of the justification for the Bush administration to run ever-widening budget deficits, and those deficits, predicated largely on military spending, have in turn pumped money into the economy and provided the stimulus that low interest rates and tax cuts, on their own, could never achieve.”

This however has run its course and the American economy has taken a serious downturn. As is the case with delaying the inevitable, the present economic crisis is much graver than it was pre-Iraq, hence a bigger intervention is required to rejuvenate the American economy with its cannibalistic corporate structure.

Thanks to these wars, US debt is at historic levels, $10.6 trillion and counting, and all indications are that it is going to go a lot higher. (NOTE: The US debt clock does not include the additional liabilities from the Bailouts nor the nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

click to enlarge source

So what does this ever-widening budget deficits mean? The above chart is a “projection of the US budget” for the near future. “These are the US government’s own projections—and we all know they have every incentive to accent the positive. If this is the best they can do at this point, then you know things are not just bad, they are calamitous.

“This glimpse at the future clearly shows that the debt of the US will, in the foreseeable future, go from being a troubling yet manageable fraction of the economy to being several times the size of economy. That can’t happen without serious repercussions.

“The US government will be spending money they don’t have, which means creating more of it out of thin air and diluting the value of all the dollars that came before. It doesn’t take a Harvard MBA to know that the kind of deficits projected above guarantee a persistently weak dollar, higher inflation and higher interest rates going forward.”

So how does a collapsing empire as large as the United States recover from such disastrous fiscal policy? If history is any indication, a World War is the only solution. “The Great Depression ended as nations increased their production of war materials at the start of World War II. This increased production provided jobs and put large amounts of money back into circulation.” Hence in large part, WWII helped to bring about the end of the great depression.

Unfortunately however it was not the general public that benefited from the war. “World War II spending often required a conversion of plants designed for civilian good production into military factories and back again over the 9 year period. Substantially higher federal tax rates that were paid by the majority of households imposed much stronger fiscal drags on the benefits of the spending. Finally, less of the military spending was earmarked for wages and use of locally produced inputs, which reduced the direct stimulus to the local economy.” In essence, World War II just helped to consolidate corporate assets for the privileged few.

This attack on Iran will be nothing short of World War III which happens to be the mantra of the neocons who, with their corporate connections, would have everything to gain while the human race would have everything to lose, specially considering that this global war to save the American Empire is about to begin with the use of Nuclear weapons.

Unwittingly, the American populace is beginning to support the US administration’s plans to attack Iran, but they fail to realize that the decision to start World War III is solely an economic one to prevent the banking institutions from collapsing.

10) Year 2008: US comptroller general and head of the Government Accountability Office resigns

David M. Walker, The Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office, in February announced that he would resign in March to lead a new foundation focused on long-term public policy challenges … “Walker, 56, has repeatedly warned that the government faces a long-term fiscal crisis as the baby-boom generation retires, driving up spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”

“As GAO chief, Walker has warned that the government is ignoring threats to the nation’s long-term fiscal security.” The latest audit of the federal debt has revealed that “deficit spending and promised benefits for federal entitlement programs have put every man, woman, and child in the United States on the hook for $175,000.” This is exclusive of the personal debt that each person may carry. In the following interview, Walker explains the seriousness of the situation.

Walker’s resignation six years prior to the end of his 15 year term is a few orders of magnitude greater than the Chief financial officer (CFO) of the largest corporation in the world resigning. The position is so crucial to the functionality of the corporate structure of the United States of America that it’s subject to Senate confirmation.

“The selection process is somewhat unusual. A commission made up of congressional leaders presents the president with at least three candidates for the job. The commission is made up of: the Speaker of the Houses, president pro tempore of the Senate, the Senate majority and minority leaders, the House majority and minority leaders, and the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Oversight and Government Reform committees.

“The president chooses one of the three candidates for the job. His nominee must be approved by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs panel and then confirmed by the Senate.” This, indeed, is one of the most difficult and important positions in the United States.

What has transpired with Walker jumping ship and in the first three months of 2008 is nothing short of the beginning of the greatest consolidation of wealth in the history of the United States. Walker’s resignation has removed the last obstacle for those controlling US fiscal policy to readily make available cheap money. The Federal Reserve has already lowered the Primary Discount Rate from 6.25% to 1.25% since August of 2007. What has followed is a blank check to bailout and buyout banks, defusing a global financial Chernobyl in the derivatives markets some have argued, while at the same time impoverishing American citizens.

Walker’s resignation has been an amazing event, a harbinger of what is to come, but has virtually received no coverage in Western Mainstream Media!

11) Year 2008: US and UK impose Short selling ban

The clearest sign that a system is collapsing is when the rules of the game change, while the game is at play.

In September 2008, both the US’s Securities and Exchange Commission and the UK’s Financial Services Authority put a temporary ban on short-selling. This interference in the financial markets by UK and US regulators “will have repercussions far far beyond our imaginations.”

In short, the Short selling ban was market manipulation for which the end result is that market integrity has been lost, forever, because it means that these same regulators will, in the future, change the rules anytime they want, without warning, for the benefit of the elite. Would you continue to invest your life savings in such a game? I didn’t think so.

Why did this ban make my eleventh most important economic events list while the hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts and the nationalization of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae by adding an additional $5.5 trillion to the US national debt didn’t? Because the short selling ban means that the multi-trillion dollar derivatives market has now been deemed to be ‘incompatible’ with the current economic system.

As the pending lawsuits against UK’s Financial Services Authority indicates, those who control trillions of dollars in the global markets are not happy about the rules changing in the middle of the game. And I don’t blame them, would you be happy about it?

With the credit crunch and the disappearance of liquidity from the markets, the rules of the game are changing.

Centralized banks and financial institutions around the world are at present trying to prevent a rapid global economic meltdown - the key phrase here being 'rapid', since a meltdown is all but certain. The game has changed, the only question that remains is if the change will wipe out the established economic system or will the transition be moderate enough for centralized powers to consolidate assets?

Many investors, both large and small, will now flee markets in which the rules are changed at the whim of those in power. They will look for greener pastures where there is potential for profit and established rules and regulations without deception.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that it is our technological evolution that is bringing about this economic metamorphosis that we see manifesting itself as a global financial crisis. It is also this same technological evolution that is introducing new markets to investors, and has the potential to create a sustainable economy for our collective.

The Implications: Expansion of War or New Sustainable Paradigms?

So what are the implications of all this?

In a 2007 lecture, Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winning American investigative journalist, stated that he feared what would happen if American citizens began to believe the propaganda from the US administration now that the rhetoric to attack Iran has changed from preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons to stopping them from killing American troops in Iraq. He stated that this change in tactics seemed to be working and Americans were now starting to support an attack on Iran. As the Zogby Poll indicates, Hersh’s fears are becoming realized.

It should be clear by now that the US economy is in a recession and headed for a very hard landing, due in large part to the subprime crisis and the inevitable end to fractional reserve banking. Unfortunately, as the expansion of current wars into the European continent indicates, most of our ‘elected’ officials and economists believe that the short term solution to saving the banking theocracies from completely collapsing, with a crisis of this magnitude, is to wage war. However this strategy has the reverse effect, and completely collapses an economy if the war drags on by mushrooming the national debt and depleting the resources of the warring nations. This kind of economic lifeline has two major consequences: First it devastates the populace and the environment, and second it consolidates assets for the elite.

There is also one major setback to the expansion of the current wars, it will bring about World War III. But then again maybe that is what the US economy needs to stay alive, a World War: The Perfect Consuming Machine. After all it was World War II that decisively ended the great depression, and since most economic indicators are worse now then they were then, it would be reasonable to assume that the United States will start World War III for nothing other then to continue the American lifestyle, maintain the banking plutocracy, and consolidate world assets into the corporate coffer.

If World War III, the minimum expected death toll for which is 200 million, is allowed to take place to save the banking institutions from collapse, then it is a true sign of corporate economic intelligence and control. However this will not resonate well with humanity, but then again, corporations are anything but human and war is everything but humane, which is why we are in desperate need of a new sustainable paradigm.

chycho