Who crashed the planes into our economy?

[leftofthedial]

I think it's a MIHOP.

[LakeSamish706]

1. And a very well planned one at that. The question is, Why? What is to be gained...

by bringing the US to it's knees?

[Bolo Boffin]

3. "a very well planned one" -- would you mind sharing your reasons and/or evidence for this?

The U.S. is hardly alone in being brought to its knees here. Nation-states are hardly alone.

[leftofthedial]

5. stealing all the money

then bankrupting everyone else

makes one pretty powerful, que no?

[LakeSamish706]

6. Amazing how quickly it seemed to all fall apart as well... What was it...

September, and the shit hit the fan? It is my personal opinion that this was a planned execution as a last kick in the teeth by the Bush Administration.

[LARED]

8. How was the money stolen? nt

[leftofthedial]

9. a number of ways...

no-bid war profiteering contracts,

giant bales of twenties that just went missing,

suckering of naive consumers into unsustainable debt by predatory lenders, then that debt being sold, resold, derivatized and sold and resold again as assets,

eight years of 24X7 theft at every level and by every possible mechanism

[LARED]

10. So why do this in order to collapse the economy on purpose?

For the sake of argument lets assume you are correct. What is to be gained by collapsing the economy?

[leftofthedial]

11. collapsing the economy is the side-effect of the theft,

not necessarily the goal.

[LARED]

12. Now I'm confused, You stated in the OP

"I think it's a MIHOP."

Please explain.

[leftofthedial]

13. The causes of the economic collapse were carefully planned and executed,

in order to enrich a few people beyond all imagining. The primary goal was the theft of enormous amounts of wealth. The known secondary effect, which magnifies the advantage of the primary, is to drive hundreds of millions into poverty.

The restoration of, well, feudalism, has been the goal of "conservatism" since the end of feudalism 800 years ago or so.

[LARED]

14. So who are these "few people" that are getting

enriched beyond all imagining?

It seems to me most of the super rich are taking it on the chin financially (in relative terms)

[leftofthedial]

15. if one follows the money for the last generation,

it is the (approximately) 400 wealthiest families on earth. Wealth has been concentrated as never before in their hands. This was not an accident. Investigations far beyond my means (or indeed tha capabilities of anyone here) would be needed to name each name.

[CJCRANE]

16. And it isn't over yet...

once the market/economy hits rock bottom look for these entities to go in and buy everything up*.

On edit: *or technically speaking they will "provide much-needed capital".

[LARED]

19. I heard a news report this morning

that Warren Buffet (the second wealthiest man on earth) lost about 40% of his personal portfolio due to the financial problems. I find it hard to believe Mr. Buffet (a significant player in the financial and political realm) planned a personal loss of that magnitude.

[leftofthedial]

27. I imagine there are plenty of things you find hard to believe.

And many that ARE hard to believe.

I don't know Mr. Buffet, so I can't comment as to his plans, losses or status.

One must also consider (though I have no idea if this relates to him personally) if it is preferable to a predatory capitalist to have 10 trillion dollars in a world in which the majority of people are economically independent, or to have 6 trillion dollars in a world in which the median income is close to zero and people will do anything to keep from starving.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Please find any capitalist, predatory or not....

who has ten or even five trillion dollars. Thio just gets sillier and sillier.

[leftofthedial]

30. the question was a hypothetical.

make it one trillion versus 600 million if you're happier with that.

(although you and happy don't seem too compatible)

[defendandprotect]

38. I doubt he planned it, but someone planned it . . . .

We have always been taught that "capitalism is about competition" ---

It's not -- capitalism is about killing the competition.

I'd also suggest that the more complicated and interconnected ways of investing

that are new recently. may have left some pitfalls for people like

Buffet to fall into? Certainly, I doubt that Buffet was monitoring his own

investments, personally. And, there is more than enough dishonesty/corruption

to go around to effect everyone. It wouldn't be the first time that auditors and

investors have alone or in conspiracy hit up a wealthy guy!

Remember, when Lloyd's of London went down a few years ago, the royal Camilla

got caught in that. Merrill Lynch could be gone in this roll-over.

I doubt Ken Lay thought that his corrupt adventures in energy would lead to his

imprisonment; but had he lived, I'm sure that's where he'd be. On the other hand,

he may be in Canada or Portugal living the high life?

[SDuderstadt]

22. So, tell me....

how, exactly, did the "400 richest families" bring down the economy?

[defendandprotect]

39. Think it might help you to review the causes of the

first "Great Depression" ---

I'm sure there were many intrigues but I recall reading that Bank of America

started some nasty rumors about Merril Lynch's solvency --

Henry Ford also gave some assist to bank failures --

And, think about it, only a contrived economy can be brought down ---


Didn't Brown the other day point to the US as the starting point of these

problems -

And, certainly, it was de-regulation of capitalism, corporations and financial

markets which brought us to this point -- BUT DO YOU SEE ANY ONE WAVING THE

WHITE FLAG OF RE-REGULATION ????????????? I don't!


Additionally, more than two years ago, Elliot Spitzer saw the mortgage problem

looming and got all the governors together to stop it before it escalated.

Bush objected and put a stop to it. And, we're all aware of what subsequently

happened with Spitzer!!!

[AZCat]

40. Please - enlighten us.

What were, in your opinion, the causes of the Great Depression?

[defendandprotect]

41. IMO . . . ?

No . . . not my opinion.

But, I was looking for some info for you but got distracted cause my toaster/oven

just died. Back later.

[defendandprotect]

43. Keep in mind that capitalism has failed repeatedly, over and again --

There are many possibilities for the Depression which include manipulation, rumor and panic --

Meanwhile, here's something on Ford which someone else at DU passed on to me recently . . .

Shenanigans involving Ford were a direct precursor to the Michigan banking panic that spread nationwide. The nation was already in a Depression, but these incidents at once threatened to bottom out everything ... complete collapse ... and left FDR with an even bigger problem than that with which he was already going to inherit.

It involves Senator James Couzens, a former Ford business associate, investigating bad Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) loans. The Guardian Banking group of Detroit, one of two major banking groups, had applied to the RFC for a $60 million dollar loan to cover its deposits. Ford had around $7 million in deposits in one of the group's banks and was asked, as the largest depositor, to put up his deposits as collateral against the loan. That is, if that loan turned out bad, Ford would be responsible for at least $7 million of it. Interpersonal conflict between Couzens and Ford took hold of the negotiations as well as Ford's seething hatred of bankers in general. (He, of course, didn't hate them enough not to use their expertise or take their money when they were making money. He just hated them when they weren't doing what he wanted them to do or asking anything of him.)

At length, Ford refused stating, variously reported, that he hoped the banking group failed. (The story of this initially comes from a lengthy examination of the crisis by an individual deeply involved in the negotiations and who aided FDR in his transition and coming up with the bank holiday plan and subsequent restructuring that pretty much saved everything. Last name was Sullivan, but I can't remember the first.) Meanwhile, he was going to take out not only his 7 million, and ensure collapse, but also his $20 million in deposits with First National Bank, which was the major bank in the other main banking group, the Detroit Bankers Company. The law that governed the RFC's operation was such that it could not forestall the effect of such a massive withdraw of capital. (This was Hoover's RFC, which was run very poorly, not FDR's.)

The damage to confidence from Ford's actions was done.

This is all greatly simplified, but at length this led to the nationwide bank panic that FDR inherited when he took office. These were the panics of song and story that led to so many failed banks all at once, literal runs on banks, massive personal panic, etc. In short, it made The Crash look somewhat tame by comparison.

[AZCat]

45. Thank you for replying.

I'm sorry to hear about your toaster oven.

While Ford may have been an incorrigible prick, I don't understand how he would have benefited from causing such a failure (other than whatever pleasure he took from harming someone else).

[defendandprotect]

47. Thanks --

My toaster oven problem is symbolic of what's going on --- capitalist scams

on consumers. Toilet paper rolls keep shrinking - same with paper towels.

Almost no product is worth buying. We're told dentists are being advised to stop

thinking about fillings that last more than 6-7 years! Etc, etc, etc.

Inflation in prices/deflation in assets.

I think how the Recession/Depression scams are run is good topic for discussion,

but I can't right now find the info on Bank of America re Great Depression nor present

and vs Merrill Lynch. It's around somewhere and there are other people here who have

much more info on this since I've only begun to look at it.

There was a video here recently on FDR, where he points to corrupt practices of

capitalists/elites . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x279812


And from one of my replies on that thread:--

"Organized money" --- ah . . . so true!

"Enemies of peace, currency crisis, business monopolies, reckless banking, class-antagonism,

sexualism,warprofiteers" --- !!!!

Certainly these latest attacks by the GOP on the New Deal and the de-regulation which they

bought have played a major part in organizing this latest round of failure and bailouts.


As for your comments on Ford . . . it is why so many fail to see how destructive the very

concepts of "Manifest Destiny" and capitalism are. No one easily reaches the conclusion

that it is destructive to the point of suicide. However, when you look at pollution of

the planet and Global Warming, you have to reach that conclusion.

There's a comment I always recall by a woman from the Bikini Islands --- after we nuked

the Bikini Islands . . .

"Americans are really smart about really stupid things."


Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system intended to move the wealth and

assets/natural resources from the many to the few and it is highly successful at doing

that. Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime.

Later --

[Anarcho-Socialist]

31. I disagree with the feudalism part of your post

I doubt that feudalism is the goal since as productive activity it is far less efficient (profitable) than the capitalist mode of production.

The last 8 years have been a part of a more gradual shift to state monopoly capitalism. What we consider "conservatism" today is a reflection of the economic values of classical liberalism but merged with traditional social conservatism.

[defendandprotect]

37. Sad but wonderfully stated . . . .

Looked for your JOURNAL . . . don't you have one?

[CJCRANE]

18. It's a chance for the have-mores to cash out of the system

and consolidate their winnings (helped of course by the bank bailouts which replaced the billions they should have lost).

Once the economy hits bottom then it's time to push the reset button. Something new will begin to take it's place (it could be the much-touted "green economy"). Then the have-mores cash in and provide the much needed capital for the new economy to grow.

(That's my theory anyway).

[Bolo Boffin]

20. So they cause the banks to lose billions so that the government will replace it

knowing at the time that Hank Paulson was dead set against moral hazard and doing any such thing and he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into capital injections, etc.

Tell me, is it possible for these "have-mores" to ever, ever, ever fuck up? Is it ever time to execute the next phase of their fiendish plan but, oops, the peanut butter they had for lunch had salmonella and crap is running down their pants legs and they miss the exact timing for execution? Or do they have a computer program that automatically executes the next phase of the fiendish plan when world conditions are right, like a sell order at a brokerage?

[CJCRANE]

21. Ever heard of "too big to fail". They know what they're doing

and they always come out on top.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Mm-hmm.

Adult versions of what's going on are available. You might try checking them out.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[reinvestigate911]

46. it is no longer a mystery as to how they accomplished it

after the true identity and the exact methods of the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html">predatory lenders' partner in crime are exposed.
and it's also easy to understand why they needed http://www.opednews.com/articles/Elliot-Spitzer--The-First-by-Tom-Dennen-081109-323.html">the first patsy in the meltdown to be "disappeared" before the actual meltdown received serious press attention.

but how people can fail to connect the dots and understand that the http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/03/bailout-money-instead-of-stabilizing.html">bailout money is just going to line the pockets of the wealthy is beyond me.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders: "My question to you is, will you tell the American people to whom you lent $2.2 trillion of their dollars?"

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: "No."

there is no "conspiracy theory" here. this is outright theft.
and if what crane posits is not true, then why are people http://www.cnbc.com/id/29532023">pushing for prosecutions over the way the meltdown was handled?

[reinvestigate911]

48. further to the point, and in true problem-reaction-solution form

lou dobbs reports on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tasAu_gkmDQ">obama and brown setting up for the new world order

[Bolo Boffin]

50. "lou dobbs reports on obama and brown setting up for the new world order"

Dude. I think you will find another website more conducive to your belief system.

[reinvestigate911]

52. now you're a detractor of global democracy?

you confound me.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. ....

Now I'm a detractor of global democracy? Are you even trying to make sense?

[reinvestigate911]

59. "Dude. I think you will find another website more conducive to your belief system."

and i think a sanitized version of reality is more conducive to yours... but wait, what's this?!
there seems to be some encroachment from the mainstream news affiliates!
maybe it's time to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britain-brown3-2009mar03,0,6506674.story">wake up and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5822265.ece">smell the http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101368681">new world order?

[Bolo Boffin]

49. I wonder why Bernanke or Geithner might not do that...

From that heinous bastion of all things right wing, Josh Marshall's TPM:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/03/im_sure_the_knowledgeable_people.php

Let's say Geithner acknowledges that Big French Bank is a significant AIG counterparty. (Likely, but I have no direct knowledge.) BFB then issues a statement confirming this, but stating it was structuring deals for its clients, who bear all the risk on the deals, and who it can't name due to confidentiality clauses. Since everyone knows BFB specialized in setting up derivatives transactions for state-affiliated banks in Central and Eastern Europe, these already wobbly institutions start to face runs. In some cases this leads to actual riots in the streets, especially since the governments there don't have the reserves to help out. If you're Tim Geithner, do you risk it? Or do you grit your teeth and let a bunch of senators call you a scumbag for a few more hours?

Are there wealthy pockets being lined? Probably. But please don't pretend that no transparency means 100% malfeasance. There are real-world consequences to consider here.

[reinvestigate911]

51. "real-world consequences" like sheep being led to slaughter

while this is pure speculation, there is enough "chatter" in the MSM to make this -- at the very least -- a consideration.

what if "riots in the streets" is what was actually desired?

the greater, yet immediate scenario is our imploding economy:

• the problem is draining the public trust to prop up all these failing institutions
  
• the reaction is public outrage/rioting (i.e., the much http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu8Nd7xuix4">forecasted "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7905172.stm">summer of rage")
  
• the solution is a new global economic order (which has been called for by india, china, france, and germany)
  
  
  

[Bolo Boffin]

53. If "riots in the streets" was what was actually desired, they would be trumpeting the names!

Dude, pay attention. They aren't releasing the names of the counterparties to stop runs on Eastern and Central European banks in the Big French Bank model. Social chaos in these areas is NOT A GOOD THING. Where did World War I finally kick off?

You say what if they actually wanted it? Then they would release the names and let the chips fall where they may. They aren't doing that so it stands to reason that THEY DON'T WANT THAT.

[reinvestigate911]

56. so all the discussion on transparency and oversight before we handed over the money was just a rouse

[mrgerbik]

24. to fold it, and other countries into an IMF/World Bank global economic currency/ scheme...

if not it will be at LEAST the Amero imo

[SDuderstadt]

29. Do you realize that you just got duped by the "Amero" hoax?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/amero.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/nau.asp

[reinvestigate911]

35. like the hoax for a global central bank?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajsNReR1mG0">stop pulling the wool over your own eyes

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Do you have evidence for what you think?

Or is it, like, just your opinion?

[Bolo Boffin]

4. A "for example"

I think that you can trace this back to the 9/11 attacks. It's my vague opinion, though, and thus likely to be gross oversimplifications of the problem.

The 9/11 attacks, however, were great threats to the economy of the United States. I think the Bush Administration financial policies relied too heavily on the consumer ("Keep shopping") and housing bubbles to pull us out of that threat. At the same time, the financial sector went hog-wild with the complex financial instruments that are and surround mortgage-backed securities. So when the housing bubble burst, the house of cards came crashing down in various ways.

In the beginning of the recent Frontline on the meltdown (I'm halfway through it right now), they start with the rumors about Bear Stearns. I think that after the housing bubble burst, there was a period where everyone knew exactly what shit they were all personally in and were relatively certain that they were not alone. At that point, the short sellers starting looking around for the first sign of any weakness, and Bear Stearns turned out to be the first. It became a vicious cycle. Once they were marked, they were doomed -- and from what I understand, even though at the beginning of the rumors they were as good shape as anyone else in the market, they were still doomed. They were too slow to deal with a deadly situation, they were then denied any help, and the predators took them under. You might as well say that the herd instinct causing a pack of zebras to do the same when a pack of lions is stalking them, that this is MIHOP as well. It is the way it went down.

[go west young man]

7. I would refer you to page 11 of the PNAC document

"Rebuilding America's Defense's: Strategy,Forces,And Resources For A New Century." Link Here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

Kristol, Cheney and the NeoCon's had the plan but like all psychotic megalomaniacs they underestimated the battles and have become bogged down in the desert. The document clearly states that the U.S. must fight multiple wars and win them decisively. This has not happened. Like the the Russians they have poured the economy down a hole in the desert. Serious economist's who aren't beholden to the U.S. govt/media have pointed this out. Joseph Stieglitz for example. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/usa.iraq or http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/29/exclusive_the_three_trillion_dollar_war

Chomsky also goes into the implications of the war in article 11 of this ZNET interview. http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/11742

He says this: A senior defense analyst gave a simple gloss: others will "respect us for our toughness and won't mess with us." That stand has precedents that need not be mentioned. But in the post-9/11 world it gains new force. Are they right? Could be. Or maybe the world will blow up in their face, perhaps after a "decent interval," as it's called in diplomacy. Again, resort to large-scale violence has highly unpredictable consequences, as history reveals and common sense should tell us anyway. That's why sane people avoid it, in personal relations or international affairs, unless a very powerful argument is offered to overcome "the sickly inhibitions against the use of military force" (to borrow the phrase of Reaganite intellectual Norman Podhoretz, paraphrasing Goebbels).

Asia Times Online also has an interesting take: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DI19Ak01.html

What it really comes down to is the blustering idiotic fools in charge bit off more than they could chew. If Obama really does exist he must be patting himself on the back right now and telling himself he's a demented fucking genius. David has pulled the giant completely off balance. Adversely if the U.S. created the Osama myth and MIHOPed they must be kicking themselves for underestimating things. They have screwed us all either way.

[CJCRANE]

17. Yes. Terrorism was the theme for Bush's first term.

And the stockmarket/economy was in their sights for the second term (hence the terror alerts stopped and Shrub hit the ground running with his Social Security reform roadshow).

[jschurchin]

25. Bwahahahaha

Toooooooo funny. Thanks.

[leftofthedial]

33. You're welcome.

[mrgerbik]

26. MIHOP?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12053

[Anarcho-Socialist]

32. I'm sure the ultra-wealthy wished the bubble economy had continued beyond 2007

until today. The rich have lost some money on this, but they've gone cap in hand to national governments to bail them out so the losses they incurred are passed on to working people. I doubt the wealthy meant for this to happen, but their sheer greed and lack of government regulation simply forces the economy to this outcome.

The general pattern of outcome is that the ultra-wealthy reap most of the economic benefit of the boom years, but the lower 95% reap most of the losses in the bust economic cycle.

[defendandprotect]

36. Agree . . .

And, actually, I didn't realize until recently that the "Great Depression" was

also engineered to a large degree.

Well, here we are again!

And, we're bailing out the criminals!

We have to junk capitalism and MoveOn!

There's so much to do on that front -- like RE-REGULATING capitalism ---

going back to New Deal protections -- Glass Steagall -- Brettonwoods would also be nice!

[leftofthedial]

42. We need to regulate capitalism until it isn't capitalism anymore.

otherwise we're fucked in another 50 or 60 years.

[mrgerbik]

44. i agree but on the same note

regulation in some ways is why we got here in the first place. If by regulation you mean the breaking of huge monopolies, growth "caps" for big business and less red tape for ma and pa shops, then yes defiantly.

I think we should be careful as to not swing the pendulum too far in any one direction or I think we'll end up being worse off for it - somehow, the best bet is always the middle path (maybe even factor in a third or fourth path imo).

[defendandprotect]

55. We've got corporate-fascism now . . . our problem is to return to New Deal . . .

and to begin again to control corporations/capitalism rather than having them

control government. Our problem is that we have done too little in that progressive

direction and the ship is not only listing --- it's sinking!!

[mrgerbik]

57. agreed

what we are witnessing now in my opinion is the consolidation of wealth by a few power-hungry corpo-fascist groups. But again I think we need to stress the importance of level headed thinking in regards to allowing government to step in and buy up everything as well. Centralization of wealth and power by any group, regardless if it is by governments, corporations or banks is ultimatly bad for the rest of us.

We need to bring the power back to main street - where the real economy lies.

[defendandprotect]

58. yes --

[reinvestigate911]

60. elliot spitzer knows

but after the "airplanes" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html">struck their targets, http://www.alternet.org/workplace/107000/wall_street%27s_bailout_is_a_trillion-dollar_crime_scene_--_why_aren%27t_the_dems_doing_something_about_it_/">one is left wondering... who http://www.alternet.org/story/107340/">performed the controlled demolition?