Sunday, 21 September 2008

Closer to the edge

The political establishment continues to assure us that we need more immigrants because they are, they insist, “good for Britain” and “help to boost out prosperity”. Yet after ten years of what virtually amounts to an open door, allcommers welcome, immigration policy, following on from thirty years of “light touch” regulations on immigration, we are hurtling into recession, with inflation galloping ahead and unemployment rising.

For decades we have been told that our health service would collapse without third world immigration, and now, by coincidence or not, we have standards of hygiene in out health service which is not much different to a third world country.

Beyond the issue of hygiene, which may, as I say, be a coincidence, far from assisting the health service, mass immigration is putting more strain on it.

As someone who has recently been required to accompany a relative who has had need of the health service, I have yet to visit an NHS waiting room where we, as white indigenous Britons, were not in the minority. From the array of national costumes one is inevitably confronted with when visiting any NHS hospital within a fifty mile radius of an airport, it is clear that a significant number of those benefiting from NHS treatment have not been in the country long enough to have contributed towards it.

Does anyone believe that as many health tourists would get in if we had proper immigration controls?

The added strain does not just come from health tourism, those immigrants who have settled here place added strain on our infrastructure and services, like everyone else, immigrants get older, those who arrived on the Empire Windrush are in their 80's now, and unlike the Poles, they did not go home, neither did those who followed, and those who came after them. We now have many thousands of immigrant pensioners ending their days in Britain, many of whom are dependant upon the Health Service. I would not begrudge any one treatment they need and have paid taxes for, but it is an open question as to whether, as a group, the immigrant community have made a contribution equal to the strain they place on services.

For example. immigrants still (allegedly) make up around 10% of the population, yet almost a quarter of all births in Britain are by immigrant mothers, and I doubt that many of them went private. It would seem that if we do need immigrants working in the NHS it is to cope with the additional demand on it caused by uncontrolled immigration.

In other areas, I have written frequently about the impact which the open door policy has had on crime, particularly, street crime, rape and knife and gun related assaults. However, on the other side of the coin, we have seem efforts to increase ethnic recruitment into the police service result in millions of pounds of tax payer's money being paid out to people who have made claims of racial discrimination, because tribunals are so dogged by political correctness they demure from calling many of the claimants the charlatans they are.

The downside of immigration is evident in so many areas, another unspoken problem is the disproportionate number of state dependant single mothers who are either immigrants themselves or who have been abandoned by fathers who are.

The terrorist threat we all face, and on account of which so many of our civil liberties have been stripped from us comes either from immigrants or the British born children of first and second generation immigrants, most of whom have been radicalised and funded by people not born in this country.

Tell me again how immigration benefits Britain?!!

If it is not immigration itself, the ideology which tell us it is a good thing can be every bit as damaging. Just this last week we have seen a financial crisis unparalleled since the Wall Street Crash of 1929, which, in part, ushered in the Great depression of the 1930's, and as a result of which hundreds of billions have had to be pumped into the global economy, and huge multi billion dollar corporations have had to be effectively nationalised, whilst major banking institutions have either collapsed or have been taken over.

Surely you say, that was caused by white spivs and speculators, she can't try and blame the world financial crisis on immigration ....can she?

Well, not exactly, perhaps not immigration to Britain, or at least not yet.

However, let us look at the root cause of the latest crisis, the sub prime mortgage fiasco in America, whereby loans were given to people who self evidently could not repay them. There were certainly faults after the event, whereby those loans were repackaged and sold on as something other than what they were, however, the original fault and the cause of the ensuing problems was the initial coal face lending, which was unquestionably business incompetence bordering upon madness.

Why did this happen, and why did banks think it was a good thing to do? The answer may lie in who was doing the lending, and who they were lending the money to.

The two huge mortgage lenders who the American government have been forced to rescue were Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae otherwise known as Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and the Federal National Mortgage Administration. But who or what were Freddie and Fannie? The very word federal should give you a clue that there were not mortgage lenders as you and I know them, and indeed they were nothing like Bristol and West.

Those of you who think all corporations are the same may find this clip enlightening, it shows Dan Mudd the Chief Executive of Fannie Mae addressing the US Congressional Black Caucus, an organisation to which Fannie Mae has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars over the last decade or so.

Mr Mudd doesn't sound like a conventional banker does he? That is because he is not, he is a man on a mission, Fannie Mae, like Freddie Mac saw themselves not so much as businessmen but as social engineers and in recent years their activities have been less to do with business as they have with ideology. Here, and here and here are further examples of the unconventional activities of Fannie and Freddie, which make what happened a little easier to understand.

These were great American institutions, they play a part in the majority of all US mortgage lending, but they didn't behave like mortgage lenders. What happened in America was the equivalent of what would happen if Ken Livingston and Lee Jasper had been put in charge of Bradford & Bingley, just on a far more massive scale.

Money was lent to people because they were black or because they were immigrants, whether or not they could repay the money was irrelevant if things went wrong the white guys would bail them out, which is, of course, what we did.

Of course there was more to the recent financial crisis, as ever with the stock market one can never underestimate financial institutions ability to self destruct, speculators misbehaved, causing the regulator to temporarily ban the practice known as short selling, which enables cynical people to bet on a company's failure. Furthermore, the ratings agencies did nothing to help the situation, when, for instance they downgraded AIG the single act which almost pushed one of the world's largest corporations into bankruptcy.

However, all that was after the event, at the very root of the crisis was sub prime lending, which could also be called politically correct, or equal opportunity lending.

The media will have you believe that the primary motive was behind excessive sub prime lending was greed and sharp practice, which are certainly part of the story but they are far from being the whole story. The driving force which led us into this crisis was that same ideology which worships multiculturalism and tells us that mass immigration leads to prosperity.

It defies logic, ignores facts and ridicules truths and has embedded itself like a malicious trojan in almost every aspect of our culture, and, not for the first time it has brought us close to the brink of disaster.

5 comments:

teacher.paris said...

"I think we need to start re-evaluating our relationship with the United States of America, with a view towards bringing that relationship to an end.

America gives us nothing except ridicule, hatred, contempt and oppression. America ignores our interests, laughs at us and reviles us, picks our pockets, discriminates against us with affirmative action and racial quotas, and kicks us in the teeth when we try to protest or petition for the redress of just grievances. America rigs the electoral process so that no one without ten million dollars in the bank should even think about running for office, and so that only criminals, incompetents, and mentally unbalanced mediocrities can win. America passes laws that give foreigners who are in our country illegally, and perverts who literally wallow in their own filth during sexual acts, a preferred and privileged status over us."
Harold Covington

captain jack aubrey said...

"Americans today are told that their children have no more right to this country than the child of someone from Guadalajara or Guangdong. Why die for such a place? No one washes a rental car, no one bleeds for a rental country...."

William Wallace said...

Anyone who is willing to pay the price of gaining understanding, may gain understanding of the present predicament by reading the revealing info below:

WHY THE PRESENT UPHEAVEL?

Anyone with basic financial literacy/acumen knows that a bubble will eventually burst as a 'correction' becomes necessary

Everyone in the industry knew full well for years that there was a massive excess of credit in the global economy - a "credit bubble" - everyone knows what happens to bubbles eventually

This credit bubble was created deliberately - by policy decisions of the central banks (eg Fed) - easy money policies and lax regulation. This crisis was man-made and the shake-up will see 1/3rd of banks being acquired by bigger banks. The end result will be a concentration of power in the hands of the elite - making them ever more powerful. This time of discontinuity is a time of great opportunity for the elite/money masters. The misfortune of many is the fortune of a few.

When you already have a system based on a) fiat money, and b) fractional reserve banking (instead of full reserve banking), then one can understand how it can be easily manipulated and abused

if you want to understand why we are in the present situation then read these two essays:


Urgent need for reform of monetary system (by Dr Cleon Dkousen)
http://www.nccs.net/monetary_reform1.html

Gold and economic freedom (by Alan Greenspan)
http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

Milton Friedman also published papers revealing how silver was de-monetised in the late 1800's (the US used to have a bi-metal standard) and in the 70's Nixon drove the final nail in the coffin of the gold standard (thereby de-monetising gold) and now the money supply is unrelated to any commodity whatsoever . De-monetising silver was described by congressmen who spoke out against it as the 'biggest crime of taht century" as they knew that inflation would increase and working men would become slaves to the money masters

All these changes and plans resulted in massive power in the hands of a few - those who own and control the Fed and major banks

did this good fortune for the elite come about as a result of coincidence or luck? hardly...as the above essays reveal, it was all planned

these truths are never discussed at university courses in macro-economics - for obvious reasons (who controls/influences curriculum content in each nation? - clue "General Board of Education" founded by Rockefeller, and other Foundations, think tanks and donors - ie money controls curriculum content)

The gold standard had been around for hundreds of years - and worked! Fiat money has only been around since the 1970's and failed (unprecedented levels of inflation) - economics professors either feign ignorance of why this is so (out of fear - they are toeing the party line), or are genuinely ignorant of why inflation has skyrocketed for the 20th century (ie creation of Federal Reserve) and especially since the 70's. If you mentino the gold standard or silver or bi-metalism or any sensible idea in an economics class teh professor will no doubt have a smarmy reply to shut you up.


This book reveals how the world financial architecture and macro structure is controlled and how events are controlled :
"None dare call it a conspiracy"
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=NoneDare


Then there's the IMF, World Bank and other money master manipulators...this is a big subject and one must be familiar with the history of money for at least the last 200 years to understand the present worsening predicament, but the readings and links on this email are an excellent start

further reading:
www.fdrs.org
www.themoneymasters.com




Gold and Economic Freedom
by Alan Greenspan
Published in Ayn Rand's "Objectivist" newsletter in 1966, and reprinted in her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, in 1967.
An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense — perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire — that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.
In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society.
Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.
The existence of such a commodity is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value which was generally acceptable as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms and forgo the inestimable advantages of specialization. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible.
What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible. More important, the commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury. Human desires for luxuries are unlimited and, therefore, luxury goods are always in demand and will always be acceptable. Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations, but not in a prosperous society. Cigarettes ordinarily would not serve as money, but they did in post-World War II Europe where they were considered a luxury. The term "luxury good" implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron.
In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.
Whether the single medium is gold, silver, seashells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has significant advantages over all other media of exchange. Since the beginning of World War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange. If all goods and services were to be paid for in gold, large payments would be difficult to execute and this would tend to limit the extent of a society's divisions of labor and specialization. Thus a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.
A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks). But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security of his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: he has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.
When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth. When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one — so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the "easy money" country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.
A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World War I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.
But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline — argued economic interventionists — why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely — it was claimed — there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks ("paper reserves") could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.
When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates. The "Fed" succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market, triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.
With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain's abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed "a mixed gold standard"; yet it is gold that took the blame.) But the opposition to the gold standard in any form — from a growing number of welfare-state advocates — was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.
Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which — through a complex series of steps — the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.

teacher.paris said...

Simple problems demand simple solutions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY0cwk88BVQ

or

http://tinyurl.com/46o4hq

notareargunner said...

I asked Gay Gordon Marsden, MP Blackpool South, to investigate what you allege about health tourism,some twelve years ago. He refused.
Every single newsreel shows hospitals with just about only immigrant attendance, schools filled with immigrant children, television with a preponderance of immigrant presenters, and we are to be reassured that our future is safe in their hands? This government has learned nothing from recent history, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Rhodesia, Indonesia...do I need to go on?
And when I was serving in part of the UK being attacked by terrorist, forgive me if I have to remind the World that the IRA was sponsored in the main by Noraid, American dollars.

William Wallace said...

Why and How of this Credit Crunch Crisis

This is what the liberals/democrats/socialists dream of...the USSA = United Socialist States of America

"This transformation of the US into a country where there is socialism for the rich, the well-connected and Wall Street (ie, where profits are privatised and losses are socialised)"

how did this happen and who did it?


Part 1 – Excess credit in the global economy – why?

In recent history, observers have noted that the easy money policies of the Fed are creating a tidal wave of easy credit and this house of cards/fiat money system is inherently unstable. The Gold standard worked for centuries - in the few decades post the Gold Standard, the global economy has witnessed unprecedented inflation under the relatively new fiat money system

"Excess credit" is possible because:

a) money is disconnected from a stable commodity such as gold and/or silver.

Read what Alan Greenspan had to say about the Gold Standard:
http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

excerpt: "…With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain's abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed "a mixed gold standard"; yet it is gold that took the blame.) But the opposition to the gold standard in any form — from a growing number of welfare-state advocates — was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.
Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which — through a complex series of steps — the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."
AND,

b) fractional reserve banking (instead of FULL reserve banking) – whereby bankers are allowed to lend out more money than what they actually possess (if any other institution lent more than it possessed it would be financial fraud)

read: Urgent need for comprehensive reform of monetary system
(explains the fundamental flaws with the current financial system)
http://www.nccs.net/monetary_reform1.html


Part 2 – "property bubble" in the global economy?

This property bubble arose in tandem with the excess credit in the global financial markets (which, as explained, arose due to the two main reasons explained above).

sinister and race-based policies also contributed to the mortgage crisis:

In the Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton inspired USSA (united socialist states of America), welfare statists (Democrat Party…) interfered in the private economy

Read:
They Gave Your Mortgage To A Less Qualified Minority
by Ann Coulter
http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/09/24/they_gave_your_mortgage_to_a_less_qualified_minority?page=full&comments=true

a friend has provided further analysis:

"...Let's go back in time to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

"The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions. The CRA is enforced by the financial regulators."

In other words, the government forces the bank to give loans to people who can't afford them. "Fair lending" based on geography, income, race, etc.

The CRA was signed into law against the advice of pretty much the entire banking system which was against it. It was signed into law by the 95th Congress of the United States, which was controlled by Democrats in both chambers. Jimmy Carter was the president at the time, two years into his term, also a Democrat.

This is what ultimately set the stage for what's going on today. Lending money to people who can't afford to pay it back.

Clinton Administration

Link: http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

"The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being."

"...The Clinton administration's get-tough regulatory regime mattered so crucially because bank deregulation had set off a wave of mega-mergers, including the acquisition of the Bank of America by NationsBank, BankBoston by Fleet Financial, and Bankers Trust by Deutsche Bank. Regulatory approval of such mergers depended, in part, on positive CRA ratings. "To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do."

* Special Note: Notice mention of the radical group ACORN? This is the organization that Barak Obama worked for as a "community organizer" for many years before running for the senate. It is this experience with ACORN that Rep. Steven Cohen (D-Tenn) was talking about recently. In case you missed it, Cohen said in a House floor speech last Wednesday, "If you want change, you want the Democratic Party. Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about; Pontius Pilate was a governor." Since this time several others have made smiliar comparisons to Obama and Christ.

"...Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones."

"...It will take a Republican president to change or abolish CRA, so firmly wedded to it is the Clinton administration and so powerfully does it serve Democratic Party interests."

The CRA had already been signed into law by Jimmy Carter and a Democratic Congress. Clinton basically turned up the heat on enforcement. His additional changes did not require congressional approval. Republicans had just barely attained a slight majority in '95 but they were powerless to do anything about the CRA at that point.

* Also Note: As part of Clinton's changes banks were given an implicit guarantee that Washington would bail them out if they ran into financial difficulity, a.k.a. socialism. This is perhaps the most amazing part of the whole thing. See, the companies were not stupid. They don't want to make the risky investments. They know this is a bad idea. So with the laws in place forcing them to give out "fair" loans they are then faced with two choices: 1) Get out of the loan/real estate business, 2) Potentially lose a lot of money. So Clinton gave them a no-loss guarantee. So then with a no-loss guarantee and a mandate to give out loans to people who couldn't afford them it was party time. They started handing out loans like druken sailors.

And this was all compounded by the internet bubble. Because of the tech bubble which Clinton coincidentally benefefitted from the economy was soaring. Lots of money was being invested all over the place, real estate values were going up-up-up all over the country. With a rush on the housing market because of practically free loans this shot property values up even higher than they already were. Those laws of supply and demand... so initially everybody was making money off of each other's investments. And the lending industry which had been wildly corrupted by the CRA was taking advantage of all this, issuing more loans, flipping properties and stuffing their pockets with cash... all protected by their buddies in Washington who were of course getting their part of the loot.

Bush Administration

Link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

We can fault Bush for being a poor leader with regard to the CRA, and I do. He did not do enough and was late in the game. But Bush does deserve some credit for "trying." At a minimim he deserves credit for not making it worse. In 2003 the Bush Administration recommended "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." This change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."

Ultimately Congress has to make these changes. Bush urged a change and the Republicans in Congress largely supported it. The Democrats across the board were against the changes along with some liberal Republicans.

These are the facts of what led us to where we are today.

"This transformation of the US into a country where there is socialism for the rich, the well-connected and Wall Street (ie, where profits are privatised and losses are socialised)"

This "Socialism for the Rich" was brought to you by the Democrats primarily, and then also reinforced by the gutless Republicans who have done nothing about it afterwards. And of course it is ultimately the fault of the entitlement mentality that 1) elected the leaders that did this, 2) took on debt that they themselves couldn't afford.

"This is the biggest and most socialist government intervention in economic affairs since the formation of the Soviet Union and Communist China. So foreign investors are now welcome to the USSRA (the United Socialist State Republic of America) where they can earn fat spreads relative to Treasuries on agency debt and never face any credit risks (not even the subordinated debt-holders who made a fortune yesterday as those claims were also made whole)."

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/18/marketturmoil.creditcrunch

And in recent months who is to blame for the bailouts and lack of action - not President Bush, but the Democrat controlled Congress who has been bailing these companies out since they gained control in January 2007. It was also the Democrats that stonewalled action since Bush got in office.

And that is not to say Republicans don't share in the blame, they do, but it's a much, much smaller share. This whole problem was created by wealth redisribution schemes created by the Democrats. And ultimately, as Walter Williams points out, it is ultimately the Congress that has all the power to fix such things.

Link: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/08/Stubborn%20Ignorance.htm