What's new

top of the heap to third world status in one generation

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran

Daniel Ellsberg Calling on Us to Stop Nuclear War​

The Pentagon Papers whistleblower, who has a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, is urging a ceasefire in Ukraine. “This is not a species to be trusted with nuclear weapons,” he tells Marjorie Cohn.

T
he legendary Daniel Ellsberg has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. In a March 1 email to friends, Dan wrote, “I’m sorry to report to you that my doctors have given me three to six months to live … it might be more, or less.” He will turn 92 on April 7.

Dan displayed uncommon courage in 1971 when he publicized the 7,000-page top-secret Pentagon Papers while working at the Rand Corporation. As a consultant to the Department of Defense, Dan drafted Defense Secretary Robert McNamara’s plans for nuclear war.

In his book, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, Dan wrote that the Pentagon Papers exposed the “secrets five presidents had withheld and the lies they told” about U.S. decision-making in Vietnam. “This truth telling set in motion a train of events, including criminal White House efforts to silence or incapacitate me.” The government’s illegal efforts to silence Dan resulted in the dismissal of the charges against him and his codefendant Anthony Russo. “Much more important,” Dan noted, “these particular Oval Office crimes helped topple the president, an act that was crucial to ending the war.”
In 2014, Dan gave a keynote speech at the 45th reunion of the Stanford Anti-Vietnam War movement. At the reunion, he explained how the United States came dangerously close to using nuclear weapons during the Vietnam War. In 1965, the Joint Chiefs recommended to President Lyndon B. Johnson that U.S. forces hit targets up to the Chinese border. Dan thought their real aim was to provoke China into responding and then the U.S. would cross into China and demolish the communists with nuclear weapons.
Now, Dan is urging the world to again avoid nuclear annihilation.
Actions That Helped End the Vietnam War
“When I copied the Pentagon Papers in 1969, I had every reason to think I would be spending the rest of my life behind bars. It was a fate I would gladly have accepted if it meant hastening the end of the Vietnam War, unlikely as that seemed (and was),” Dan wrote in his March 1 email.
Dan’s courageous actions did help to end that war, which claimed the lives of more than 3 million Vietnamese people and 58,000 Americans. In an email responding to Dan’s revelation of his terminal cancer diagnosis, Bui Van Nghi, secretary general of the Viet Nam-USA Society, wrote,


The Pentagon Papers “remain today the most vital discussion of a war from the inside,” journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in a recent tribute to Dan. Hersh broke the story of the My Lai Massacre, which the U.S. government covered up for a year. It was a war crime committed by U.S. forces who murdered more than 300 elderly men, women and children during the Vietnam War.
Henry Kissinger, President Richard Nixon’s national security adviser, called Dan “the most dangerous man in America” for leaking the Pentagon Papers. Kissinger’s characterization became the title of an Oscar-nominated film about Dan.
Working Tirelessly to Prevent Nuclear War
Screen-Shot-2023-03-16-at-2.05.59-PM-1.png

The crater-scarred landscape of the Nevada Test Site, 2016. (National Nuclear Security Administration, Public domain)
For more than five decades, Dan has spent nearly every waking hour working for peace and trying to prevent nuclear war. In spite of his diagnosis, Dan continues the struggle to avoid a nuclear holocaust. “I will continue, as long as I’m able, to help these efforts,” he wrote in his March 1 email.
“I feel lucky and grateful,” he noted, “about having a few months more to enjoy life with my wife and family, and in which to continue to pursue the urgent goal of working with others to avert nuclear war in Ukraine or Taiwan (or anywhere else).”
“The current risk of nuclear war, over Ukraine, is as great as the world has ever seen,” Dan wrote. He warned that nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would result in “nuclear winter.” That means that

Alarmingly, in January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the Doomsday Clock at 90 seconds to midnight due largely to Russia’s war in Ukraine. This is “the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been.” The Clock is a universally recognized measure of vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change and other emerging technologies that could pose a threat.
“This is not a species to be trusted with nuclear weapons,” Dan told me in a telephone interview for this article.

9781408889299-us.jpg

The Doomsday Machine book by Daniel Ellsberg
In a March 2 program called “Nuclear Dangers: The Ukraine War One Year Later,” sponsored by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Dan expressed alarm about how the war could escalate, especially given Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s effort, backed by the U.S., to expel Russia from all areas, including those it has held for eight years. Dan is doubtful that negotiations will ever begin if Zelenskyy continues to insist that every Russian troop leave Ukraine before negotiations can occur. If the U.S. were to enter the war “directly with its pilots and combat troops and missiles … I believe that Putin would very likely carry out his threat to initiate tactical nuclear war … even with a high probability of escalating … which would threaten all of humanity with nuclear winter,” he said.
“Every person in the world has a stake in preventing that from happening,” Dan noted during the March 2 program in which Noam Chomsky and Richard Falk also participated. Chomsky noted, “Either there will be a diplomatic solution or there will be species suicide.” Falk called this an “apocalyptic tipping point in human history.”
Those who make the nuclear weapons and the investment banks that finance them “have never been interested in limiting them. Their only interest is to have better ones,” Dan told me. Those same people “have never been interested in keeping Russia from having H-bombs [hydrogen bombs], ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles] or MWHs [multiple warheads] at the cost of giving up ours.”
To reduce the risks of nuclear war, “it is essential that members of NATO press the U.S. and others to renounce the atrocious NATO backing of the first-use of nuclear weapons,” Dan said.
President Joe Biden’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review inexcusably allows the first use of nuclear weapons and says that “nuclear weapons are required to deter not only nuclear attack, but also a narrow range of other high consequence, strategic-level attacks.”
“Contrary to public understanding,” Dan wrote in his book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, “[the] strategy has not been a matter of deterrence of nuclear attack on the United States, but rather the illusionary one of improving first-strike capability.”
US-Russia Treaties Renounced or Suspended
Glassboro-meeting1967-scaled.jpg

Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin, with U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson at the Glassboro, New Jersey, summit in June 1967 where the U.S. first proposed an ABM treaty. (Yoichi Okamoto, Wikimedia Commons)
Dan noted in The Doomsday Machine, “The arsenals and plans of the two superpowers represent not only an insuperable obstacle to an effective global anti-proliferation campaign; they are in themselves a clear and present existential danger to the human species, and most others.”
The anti-proliferation regime was dealt the ultimate blow in February when Russia suspended participation in the New START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty]. It was the only remaining nuclear arms reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia that had not been suspended or renounced. Russia and the United States together possess about 90 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads.
New START was signed by President Barack Obama and then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in 2010. It puts a cap on the number of strategic nuclear warheads that the U.S. and Russia may deploy and provides for inspections of each other’s countries three times a year. The treaty also requires regular communication between the U.S. and Russia to avoid accidents or misunderstandings.
[Related: SCOTT RITTER: Reimagining Arms Control After Ukraine]
In December 2001, President George W. Bush withdrew the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that it signed with the Soviet Union in 1972. The cornerstone of the Cold War nuclear arms control regime, the ABM treaty stated that in order to reduce offensive nuclear forces in the U.S. and Russia, both countries would have to agree to limit anti-ballistic missile defenses.
Bush said that “the hostility that once led both our countries to keep thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, pointed at each other” had ended when the Soviet Union disbanded. He claimed that the treaty was impeding U.S. ability to protect against “future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks.”
Putin said the U.S. withdrawal from the treaty, a cornerstone of international security, was “a mistake.”
Richard_Nixon_and_Leonid_Brezhnev_sign_ABM_treaty_and_SALT_agreement_in_Moscow-scaled.jpg

May 26, 1972: U.S. President Nixon and Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev signing the ABM Treaty and Interim Agreement on Strategic Arms Limitation in Moscow, culminating two and a half years of detente-era negotiations. (Richard Nixon Presidential Library, Public domain, Wikimedia Commons)
In 1987, the United States and the Soviet Union adopted the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), to eliminate missiles on hair-trigger alert for nuclear war due to their short flight times. This was the first time the two countries agreed to destroy nuclear weapons. The treaty outlawed nearly 2,700 ballistic or land-based cruise missiles that had a range of about 300 to 3,000 miles.
But, in 2019, President Donald Trump suspended the U.S. obligations under the treaty and Russia pulled out of the treaty the following day.
Courage to Inspire Us All
The whistleblowers and truth tellers who have followed in Dan’s footsteps include Chelsea Manning, Katharine Gun, John Kiriakou, Edward Snowden, Daniel Hale, Reality Winner and publisher Julian Assange. Dan is one of the co-chairs — with Chomsky and Alice Walker — of Assange Defense.
“Every empire requires secrecy to cloak its acts of violence that maintain it as an empire,” Dan testified at the Belmarsh Tribunal on Jan. in support of Assange, who faces 175 years in prison for exposing U.S. war crimes. “If you’re going to use the [Espionage] Act against a journalist in blatant violation of the First Amendment,” Dan stated, “the First Amendment is essentially gone.”
In 2008, when I served as president of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), Dan delivered the keynote address to the guild’s convention in Detroit. He warned of the dangers of unchecked executive power, stating, “The U.S. president is not a king.”
Dan is a brilliant, intense, compassionate man with a remarkably curious mind. I can’t count the times he has called me for analysis of the legal ramifications of the U.S. government’s illegal action du jour. I am proud to call him my friend.
What does Dan’s diagnosis portend? “As the most important American truth teller/whistleblower and nuclear weapons analyst of the last 50 years, it’s hard to imagine a world without him,” investigative reporter Barbara Koeppel, who has written about Dan in several articles, told me.
We must honor Dan’s extraordinary legacy by committing ourselves to the struggle to protect the world from nuclear annihilation.
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace, and the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues. She is co-host of “Law and Disorder” radio.
This article is from Truthout and reprinted with permission.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Post Views: 7,394
Tags: ABM Treaty Barbara Koeppel Chelsea Manning Dan Ellsberg Doomsday Clock Marjorie Cohn National Lawyers Guild New START Noam Chomsky President Vladimir Putin Richard Falk Whistleblowers


Is the content evolving into something more strange , line by line ? The line was not there when I first posted.
 

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran

Daniel Ellsberg Calling on Us to Stop Nuclear War​

The Pentagon Papers whistleblower, who has a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, is urging a ceasefire in Ukraine. “This is not a species to be trusted with nuclear weapons,” he tells Marjorie Cohn.

T
he legendary Daniel Ellsberg has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. In a March 1 email to friends, Dan wrote, “I’m sorry to report to you that my doctors have given me three to six months to live … it might be more, or less.” He will turn 92 on April 7.

Dan displayed uncommon courage in 1971 when he publicized the 7,000-page top-secret Pentagon Papers while working at the Rand Corporation. As a consultant to the Department of Defense, Dan drafted Defense Secretary Robert McNamara’s plans for nuclear war.

In his book, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, Dan wrote that the Pentagon Papers exposed the “secrets five presidents had withheld and the lies they told” about U.S. decision-making in Vietnam. “This truth telling set in motion a train of events, including criminal White House efforts to silence or incapacitate me.” The government’s illegal efforts to silence Dan resulted in the dismissal of the charges against him and his codefendant Anthony Russo. “Much more important,” Dan noted, “these particular Oval Office crimes helped topple the president, an act that was crucial to ending the war.”
In 2014, Dan gave a keynote speech at the 45th reunion of the Stanford Anti-Vietnam War movement. At the reunion, he explained how the United States came dangerously close to using nuclear weapons during the Vietnam War. In 1965, the Joint Chiefs recommended to President Lyndon B. Johnson that U.S. forces hit targets up to the Chinese border. Dan thought their real aim was to provoke China into responding and then the U.S. would cross into China and demolish the communists with nuclear weapons.
Now, Dan is urging the world to again avoid nuclear annihilation.
Actions That Helped End the Vietnam War
“When I copied the Pentagon Papers in 1969, I had every reason to think I would be spending the rest of my life behind bars. It was a fate I would gladly have accepted if it meant hastening the end of the Vietnam War, unlikely as that seemed (and was),” Dan wrote in his March 1 email.
Dan’s courageous actions did help to end that war, which claimed the lives of more than 3 million Vietnamese people and 58,000 Americans. In an email responding to Dan’s revelation of his terminal cancer diagnosis, Bui Van Nghi, secretary general of the Viet Nam-USA Society, wrote,


The Pentagon Papers “remain today the most vital discussion of a war from the inside,” journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in a recent tribute to Dan. Hersh broke the story of the My Lai Massacre, which the U.S. government covered up for a year. It was a war crime committed by U.S. forces who murdered more than 300 elderly men, women and children during the Vietnam War.
Henry Kissinger, President Richard Nixon’s national security adviser, called Dan “the most dangerous man in America” for leaking the Pentagon Papers. Kissinger’s characterization became the title of an Oscar-nominated film about Dan.
Working Tirelessly to Prevent Nuclear War
Screen-Shot-2023-03-16-at-2.05.59-PM-1.png

The crater-scarred landscape of the Nevada Test Site, 2016. (National Nuclear Security Administration, Public domain)
For more than five decades, Dan has spent nearly every waking hour working for peace and trying to prevent nuclear war. In spite of his diagnosis, Dan continues the struggle to avoid a nuclear holocaust. “I will continue, as long as I’m able, to help these efforts,” he wrote in his March 1 email.
“I feel lucky and grateful,” he noted, “about having a few months more to enjoy life with my wife and family, and in which to continue to pursue the urgent goal of working with others to avert nuclear war in Ukraine or Taiwan (or anywhere else).”
“The current risk of nuclear war, over Ukraine, is as great as the world has ever seen,” Dan wrote. He warned that nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would result in “nuclear winter.” That means that

Alarmingly, in January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the Doomsday Clock at 90 seconds to midnight due largely to Russia’s war in Ukraine. This is “the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been.” The Clock is a universally recognized measure of vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change and other emerging technologies that could pose a threat.
“This is not a species to be trusted with nuclear weapons,” Dan told me in a telephone interview for this article.

9781408889299-us.jpg

The Doomsday Machine book by Daniel Ellsberg
In a March 2 program called “Nuclear Dangers: The Ukraine War One Year Later,” sponsored by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Dan expressed alarm about how the war could escalate, especially given Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s effort, backed by the U.S., to expel Russia from all areas, including those it has held for eight years. Dan is doubtful that negotiations will ever begin if Zelenskyy continues to insist that every Russian troop leave Ukraine before negotiations can occur. If the U.S. were to enter the war “directly with its pilots and combat troops and missiles … I believe that Putin would very likely carry out his threat to initiate tactical nuclear war … even with a high probability of escalating … which would threaten all of humanity with nuclear winter,” he said.
“Every person in the world has a stake in preventing that from happening,” Dan noted during the March 2 program in which Noam Chomsky and Richard Falk also participated. Chomsky noted, “Either there will be a diplomatic solution or there will be species suicide.” Falk called this an “apocalyptic tipping point in human history.”
Those who make the nuclear weapons and the investment banks that finance them “have never been interested in limiting them. Their only interest is to have better ones,” Dan told me. Those same people “have never been interested in keeping Russia from having H-bombs [hydrogen bombs], ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles] or MWHs [multiple warheads] at the cost of giving up ours.”
To reduce the risks of nuclear war, “it is essential that members of NATO press the U.S. and others to renounce the atrocious NATO backing of the first-use of nuclear weapons,” Dan said.
President Joe Biden’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review inexcusably allows the first use of nuclear weapons and says that “nuclear weapons are required to deter not only nuclear attack, but also a narrow range of other high consequence, strategic-level attacks.”
“Contrary to public understanding,” Dan wrote in his book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, “[the] strategy has not been a matter of deterrence of nuclear attack on the United States, but rather the illusionary one of improving first-strike capability.”
US-Russia Treaties Renounced or Suspended
Glassboro-meeting1967-scaled.jpg

Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin, with U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson at the Glassboro, New Jersey, summit in June 1967 where the U.S. first proposed an ABM treaty. (Yoichi Okamoto, Wikimedia Commons)
Dan noted in The Doomsday Machine, “The arsenals and plans of the two superpowers represent not only an insuperable obstacle to an effective global anti-proliferation campaign; they are in themselves a clear and present existential danger to the human species, and most others.”
The anti-proliferation regime was dealt the ultimate blow in February when Russia suspended participation in the New START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty]. It was the only remaining nuclear arms reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia that had not been suspended or renounced. Russia and the United States together possess about 90 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads.
New START was signed by President Barack Obama and then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in 2010. It puts a cap on the number of strategic nuclear warheads that the U.S. and Russia may deploy and provides for inspections of each other’s countries three times a year. The treaty also requires regular communication between the U.S. and Russia to avoid accidents or misunderstandings.
[Related: SCOTT RITTER: Reimagining Arms Control After Ukraine]
In December 2001, President George W. Bush withdrew the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that it signed with the Soviet Union in 1972. The cornerstone of the Cold War nuclear arms control regime, the ABM treaty stated that in order to reduce offensive nuclear forces in the U.S. and Russia, both countries would have to agree to limit anti-ballistic missile defenses.
Bush said that “the hostility that once led both our countries to keep thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, pointed at each other” had ended when the Soviet Union disbanded. He claimed that the treaty was impeding U.S. ability to protect against “future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks.”
Putin said the U.S. withdrawal from the treaty, a cornerstone of international security, was “a mistake.”
Richard_Nixon_and_Leonid_Brezhnev_sign_ABM_treaty_and_SALT_agreement_in_Moscow-scaled.jpg

May 26, 1972: U.S. President Nixon and Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev signing the ABM Treaty and Interim Agreement on Strategic Arms Limitation in Moscow, culminating two and a half years of detente-era negotiations. (Richard Nixon Presidential Library, Public domain, Wikimedia Commons)
In 1987, the United States and the Soviet Union adopted the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), to eliminate missiles on hair-trigger alert for nuclear war due to their short flight times. This was the first time the two countries agreed to destroy nuclear weapons. The treaty outlawed nearly 2,700 ballistic or land-based cruise missiles that had a range of about 300 to 3,000 miles.
But, in 2019, President Donald Trump suspended the U.S. obligations under the treaty and Russia pulled out of the treaty the following day.
Courage to Inspire Us All
The whistleblowers and truth tellers who have followed in Dan’s footsteps include Chelsea Manning, Katharine Gun, John Kiriakou, Edward Snowden, Daniel Hale, Reality Winner and publisher Julian Assange. Dan is one of the co-chairs — with Chomsky and Alice Walker — of Assange Defense.
“Every empire requires secrecy to cloak its acts of violence that maintain it as an empire,” Dan testified at the Belmarsh Tribunal on Jan. in support of Assange, who faces 175 years in prison for exposing U.S. war crimes. “If you’re going to use the [Espionage] Act against a journalist in blatant violation of the First Amendment,” Dan stated, “the First Amendment is essentially gone.”
In 2008, when I served as president of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), Dan delivered the keynote address to the guild’s convention in Detroit. He warned of the dangers of unchecked executive power, stating, “The U.S. president is not a king.”
Dan is a brilliant, intense, compassionate man with a remarkably curious mind. I can’t count the times he has called me for analysis of the legal ramifications of the U.S. government’s illegal action du jour. I am proud to call him my friend.
What does Dan’s diagnosis portend? “As the most important American truth teller/whistleblower and nuclear weapons analyst of the last 50 years, it’s hard to imagine a world without him,” investigative reporter Barbara Koeppel, who has written about Dan in several articles, told me.
We must honor Dan’s extraordinary legacy by committing ourselves to the struggle to protect the world from nuclear annihilation.
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace, and the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues. She is co-host of “Law and Disorder” radio.
This article is from Truthout and reprinted with permission.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Post Views: 7,394
Tags: ABM Treaty Barbara Koeppel Chelsea Manning Dan Ellsberg Doomsday Clock Marjorie Cohn National Lawyers Guild New START Noam Chomsky President Vladimir Putin Richard Falk Whistleblowers


Is the content evolving into something more strange , line by line ? The line was not there when I first posted.
 

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
In the Reply box top line there is a symbol with 3 Dots. Click on the 3 Dots and a dropdown menu appears. The 'S' is the "Strike through" command.

Click on the 'S' and the Strike through disappears.
:D
Thank you most kindly.
 

GOT_BUD?

Weed is a gateway to gardening
ICMag Donor
Veteran

Tudo

Troublemaker
Moderator
ICMag Donor
Veteran

The Everything Bubble and Global Bankruptcy​

March 26, 2023

The resulting erosion of collateral will collapse the global credit bubble, a repricing/reset that will bankrupt the global economy and financial system.


Scrape away the complexity and every economic crisis and crash boils down to the precarious asymmetry between collateral and the debt secured by that collateral collapsing. It's really that simple.

In eras of easy credit, both creditworthy and marginal borrowers are suddenly able to borrow more. This flood of new cash seeking a return fuels red-hot demand for conventional assets considered "safe investments" (real estate, blue-chip stocks and bonds), demand which given the limited supply of "safe" assets, pushes valuations of these assets to the moon.

In the euphoric atmosphere generated by easy credit and a soaring asset valuations, some of the easy credit sloshes into marginal investments (farmland that is only briefly productive if it rains enough, for example), high-risk speculative ventures based on sizzle rather than actual steak and outright frauds passed off as legitimate "sure-fire opportunities."

The price people are willing to pay for all these assets soars as the demand created by easy credit increases. And why does credit continue increasing? The assets rising in value create more collateral which then supports more credit.

This self-reinforcing feedback appears highly virtuous in the expansion phase:
the grazing land bought to put under the plow just doubled in value, so the owners can borrow more and use the cash to expand their purchase of more grazing land. The same mechanism is at work in every asset: homes, commercial real estate, stocks and bonds: the more the asset gains in value, the more collateral becomes available to support more credit.

Since there's plenty of collateral to back up the new loans, both borrowers and lenders see the profitable expansion of credit as "safe."

This safety is illusory, as it's resting on an unstable pile of sand: bubble valuations driven by easy credit. We all know that price is set by what somebody will pay for the asset. What attracts less attention is price is also set by how much somebody can borrow to buy the asset.

Once the borrower has maxed out their ability to borrow (their income and assets-owned cannot support more debt) or credit conditions tighten, then those who might have paid even higher prices for assets had they been able to borrow more money can no longer borrow enough to bid the asset higher.

Since price is set on the margin (i.e. by the last sales), the normal churn of selling is enough to push valuations down. At first the euphoria is undented by the decline, but as credit tightens (interest rates rise and lending standards tighten, cutting off marginal buyers and ventures) then buyers become scarce and skittish sellers proliferate.

Questions about fundamental valuations arise, and sky-high valuations are found wanting as tightening credit reduces sales, revenues and profits. Once the "endless growth" story weakens, the claims that bubble prices are "fair value" evaporate.

As defaults rise, lenders are forced to tighten credit further. The first tumbling rocks are ignored but eventually the defaults trigger a landslide, and the credit-inflated bubble in asset valuations collapses.

As valuations plummet, so too does the collateral backing all the new debt. Debt that appeared "safe" is soon exposed as a potential push into insolvency. When the bungalow doubled in value from $500,000 to $1 million, the trajectory of valuation gains looked predictably rosy: every decade housing prices went up 30% or more. So originating a mortgage for $800,000 on a house that looked to be worth $1.3 million in a few years looked rock-solid safe.

But the $1 million was a bubble based solely on easy, abundant, low-cost credit. When credit tightens, the home is slowly but surely repriced at its pre-bubble valuation ($500,000) or perhaps much lower, if that value was merely an artifact of a previous unpopped bubble.

Now the collateral is $300,000 less than the mortgage. The owner who made a down payment of $200,000 will be wiped out by a forced sale at $500,000, and the lender (or owner of the mortgage) will take a $300,000 loss.

Given the banking system is set up to absorb only modest, incremental losses, losses of this magnitude render the lender insolvent. The lender's capital base is drained to zero by the losses and then pushed into negative net-worth by continued losses.

The collateral collapses when bubbles pop, but the debt loaned against the now-phantom collateral remains.

This is the story of the Great Depression, a story that's unloved because it calls into question the current series of credit-inflated bubbles and resulting financial crises. So the story is reworked into something more palatable such as "the Federal Reserve made a policy error."

This encourages the fantasy that if central banks choose the right policies, credit bubbles and valuations detached from reality can both keep expanding forever. The reality is credit bubbles always pop, as the expansion of borrowing eventually exceeds the income and collateral of marginal borrowers, and this tsunami of cash eventually pours into marginal high-risk speculative vebtures that go bust.

There is no way to thread the needle so credit-asset bubbles never pop. Yet here we are, watching the global Everything Bubble finally start collapsing, guaranteeing the collapse of collateral and all the debt issued on that collateral, and the rabble is arguing about what policy tweaks are needed to reinflate the bubble and save the global economy from bankruptcy.

Sorry, but global bankruptcy is already baked in. Too much debt has been piled on phantom-collateral and income streams derived from bubble assets rising (for example, capital gains, development taxes, etc.). The asymmetry is now so extreme that even a modest decline in asset valuations/collateral due to a garden-variety business-cycle recession of tightening financial conditions will trigger the collapse of The Everything Bubble and the mountain of global debt resting on the wind-blown sands of phantom collateral.

There are persuasive reasons to suspect global debt far exceeds the official level around $300 trillion, most saliently, the largely opaque shadow banking system. When assets roughly double in a few years, bubble symmetry suggests that valuations will decline back to the starting point of the bubble in roughly the same time span.

The resulting erosion of collateral will collapse the global credit bubble, a repricing/reset that will bankrupt the global economy and financial system.
global-debt7-22.png

household-wealth10-22.png


dot-com-bubble2.png


SPX13-23a.png


Charles Hughs Smith
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
Some people are very rich. Is that an accomplishment?
if they busted THEIR asses to get there, it is impressive. if their daddy left them hundreds of millions of dollars & they bullied competitors, stiffed their hired help, lied to banks to get loans, and cheated on their wives/taxes trying to keep looking rich, not so much. i mean, just how little business acumen could you possibly have if you went bankrupt running a casino ? i don't think being outlandishly wealthy would be much fun. most folks like that spend their days trying to amass more & trying not to pay taxes on what they got... "what good does it do you to gain the world, yet lose your soul?" :dunno:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gry

GOT_BUD?

Weed is a gateway to gardening
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Finally some good news.


Disney World board picked by DeSantis says predecessors stripped them of power

Board members picked by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to oversee the governance of Walt Disney World said Wednesday that their Disney-controlled predecessors pulled a fast one on them by passing restrictive covenants that strip the new board of many of its powers.

The current supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District said at a meeting that their predecessors last month signed a development agreement with the company that gave Disney maximum developmental power over the theme park resort's 27,000 acres in central Florida.

The five supervisors were appointed by the Republican governor to the board after the Florida Legislature overhauled Disney's government in retaliation for the entertainment giant publicly opposing so-called "Don't Say Gay" legislation that bars instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade, as well as lessons deemed not age-appropriate.

In taking on Disney, DeSantis furthered his reputation as a culture warrior willing to battle perceived political enemies and wield the power of state government to accomplish political goals, a strategy that is expected to continue ahead of his potential White House run.

The new supervisors replaced a board that had been controlled by Disney during the previous 55 years that the government operated as the Reedy Creek Improvement District. The new board members held their first meeting earlier this month and said they found out about the agreement after their appointments.

"We're going to have to deal with it and correct it," board member Brian Aungst said Wednesday. "It's a subversion of the will of the voters and the Legislature and the governor. It completely circumvents the authority of this board to govern."

In a statement, Disney said all agreements were above board and took place in public.

"All agreements signed between Disney and the District were appropriate, and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida's Government in the Sunshine law," the statement said.

Separately, Disney World service workers on Wednesday were voting on whether to accept a union contract offer that would raise the starting minimum wage to $18 an hour by the end of the year.

The agreement covers around 45,000 service workers at the Disney theme park resort, including costumed performers who perform as Mickey Mouse and other Disney characters, bus drivers, culinary workers, lifeguards, theatrical workers and hotel housekeepers.

Workers could see their hourly wages rise between $5.50 and $8.60 an hour by the end of the five-year contract if it's approved, according to union leaders.

A contract approved five years ago made Disney the first major employer in central Florida to agree to a minimum hourly wage of $15, setting the trend for other workers in the region dominated by hospitality jobs.

:ROFLMAO:
 

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites
Veteran
I’d be happy with it. Then people would be quoting me like I was Donald trump.

You'd have to say stuff dumber than George W... and have money like Trump... but act like Obama and deliver with certainty.

If you can I guarantee you will get the vote.

Sometimes I wonder how our country made it this far.
 
Top