“Regime change” in the United States entails a paradigm shift away from free enterprise capitalism and the establishment of a socialist government ...will make it forever impossible for the U.S. to reinstate the free enterprise capitalist system, as every political and social act will be dictated by the elite in Washington."It would be really interesting to do some investigation into the origins of the the "mark to market" accounting rules change. Who initiated the idea? Who promoted it? I would not in the least be surprised that a puppetmaster like George Soros was behind it, because only someone like him could fully appreciate the devastating effects it would have. I emphasize "fully".
"Such “regime change” was facilitated by the government’s stealth regulatory change on November 9, 2007, from "hold to maturity" accounting to “mark-to-market” accounting, which caused the collapse in private sector capital formation and access to credit in 2008 and 2009..."
"Without the mark-to-market regulatory change, the markets would not have collapsed and we would still have a booming economy. Instead, we have a loss of over $10 trillion in private sector wealth and a shifting of private sector ownership and control of capital to the government and Fed... "
Many people could see it would be "bad". But not many could predict the detailed consequences and timing of events. I would bet hard money that Soros was positioned to make a lot of money on the collapse when it finally happened -- and I'm sure he could pull the strings of Bush's treasury chief Paulsen (a Democrat) to trigger the crisis once he determined the conditions were ripe. (If you go public with a request for a trillion dollars to "save" the economy, I submit that you know you're going to trigger a wave of selling and destroy it.)
As I said, it would take someone of Soros's sophistication to know that "mark to market" rules would cripple American businesses and precipitate a severe banking crisis. If Soros made a boatload on the collapse, I'd bet our intelligence agencies could determine that very quickly, and it would be a smoking gun for going after him -- if you didn't have a communist in the White House, a communist in the Justice Department, etc.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cregime-change%E2%80%9D-of-socialist-control/
Obama’s “Regime Change” of Socialist Control
By Pieter Samara | June 17, 2010
Cap & Trade, involving a Chicago carbon exchange and other companies that Obama and/or his associates may have financial interests in, was all but dead in the water until the BP oil blowout crisis renewed “hope” that he could revive it again.
With all the solutions available from the private sector and from around the world since day one, to deal with the oil spill, President Obama has stalled on allowing any of these going forward for the following reasons:
To increase the power of government over the private sector. To allow the private sector to solve the problem would defeat and undermine Obama’s assertion that only government and government-owned companies, bureaucracies and labor unions can provide the solution. Obama sees the private sector as inherently evil, as reflected in the fact that he refused to meet with BP to establish a working relationship with the company to cut through all the bureaucratic red tape.
While BP attempts to cap the Deep Water Horizon well, it has to be remembered that the government forced BP to drill at a depth of 5,000 feet, one of the deepest wells ever drilled, creating the crisis. BP had wanted to drill at a depth of 500 feet. The result of the blowout has been that the government, Obama, and Democrats in Congress have threatened and talked down BP and its efforts. On the one hand, they require BP to obtain approvals from the government to move forward, while on the other hand they vilify the BP president and CEO during Congressional hearings, due to the government’s own delays.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration failed to grant requested waivers to the 1920 Jones Act that would allow foreign ships and skimmers to enter U.S. water, refusing international assistance from 33 countries and stalling and minimizing Louisiana’s creation of sand barriers, as well as stalling numerous private sector solutions that the Administration has refused to take heed of. One such example offered on May 3 was from Dr. Henry Crichlow, the leading oil blowout specialist worldwide, who developed the blowout engineering after Gulf War I for 800 or more wells in Kuwait, who provided quick relatively inexpensive solutions to either recover the oil with the Crichlow connector from the pipe a mile down or to “Kill the Spill” completely.
As part of the orchestration of the crisis, liberals in Congress threatened to put BP into receivership, while Obama played to the radical left with a threat to take over BP’s assets, if they could not force BP to allocate $20 billion in an escrow for a government appointee to administer. The result was that despite BP’s balance sheet, the U.S. government has succeeded to cause a FITCH downgrade of BP’s unsecured debt from AA to BBB, with BP shares losing a market cap value of $90 billion. The Obama Administration demanded that BP make payments it had already agreed to make, thus financially weakening the very company the government asserts it wants to be able to shoulder the burden of the fines, the oil cleanup and claims of lost revenues for the Gulf states.
Force Obama’s Cap & Trade bill and energy tax through Congress. Under the Obama policy of “don’t let a good crisis go to waste,” such stalling and delaying mentioned above allowed the crisis to get bad enough for Obama to have the “audacity” in his Oval Office speech to the nation to contrive and justify his Cap & Trade climate bill. Since the beginning of the blowout, the private sector and the States have been fighting with the Administration to get approvals to take action. However, the longer the Administration could stall, the worse the situation would become for BP, the States and Gulf coast businesses, exacerbating a crisis further by creating a moratorium on current and new shallow water drilling threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Cap & Trade, involving a Chicago carbon exchange and other companies that Obama and/or his associates may have financial interests in, was all but dead in the water until the BP oil blowout crisis renewed “hope” that he could revive it again. Cap & Trade is designed to increase the cost of energy to the private sector by more than 10 percent, lowering GDP in the process.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) studies have demonstrated that for every 1% reduction in the cost of energy there will be a 3% increase in manufacturing and industrial output. This occurred when President Reagan deregulated the oil industry, creating an economic boom. Obama is moving in the opposite direction—that of higher taxes and more federal government control on a permanent basis.
To effect “regime change” toward statism. Why would the Administration willfully let the Coastal region be damaged, destroying revenues and lives to create a crisis, as an “end justifies the means” call for Cap & Trade? The answer is that we just need to look at the cause of the systemic financial crisis itself, which was intended to achieve, as Mohamed El Erian, CEO of PIMCO, himself called it , “regime change” in the U.S. and globally. “Regime change” in the U.S. means an inexorable shift of control and ownership of private sector capital and productivity of the populous to the federal government and Federal Reserve.
“Regime change” in the United States entails a paradigm shift away from free enterprise capitalism and the establishment of a socialist government which assumes ownership and control of capital and human resources. Its projected culmination to a “New Normal” of slow economic growth and bigger government within four years will make it forever impossible for the U.S. to reinstate the free enterprise capitalist system, as every political and social act will be dictated by the elite in Washington.
Such “regime change” was facilitated by the government’s stealth regulatory change on November 9, 2007, from "hold to maturity" accounting to “mark-to-market” accounting, which caused the collapse in private sector capital formation and access to credit in 2008 and 2009, unless accompanied by government ownership or guarantees that allow such debt to be reclassified under the government’s sole right hold to maturity valuation.
Without the mark-to-market regulatory change, the markets would not have collapsed and we would still have a booming economy. Instead, we have a loss of over $10 trillion in private sector wealth and a shifting of private sector ownership and control of capital to the government and Fed. Thus, clearly, if the government and “special interests” are willing to orchestrate an unmitigated economic collapse allowing over $10 trillion in private sector savings to be lost to effect a “regime change” to a “New Normal” culminating in their total ownership and control of financial and human resources, then government stalling in its response to the oil spill to create a crisis to justify the resurrection of Cap & Trade to further such “regime change” is small potatoes by comparison.
To start the nationalization of oil and other major industries. An outright government takeover of BP and other oil companies could be the next phase of Obama’s “regime change” policy.
To read a longer version of the points covered in this article, please go to “Regime change <http://admc24-7city.com/files/V/the_new_normal_which_completes_the_regulatory_regime_change_that_started_november_9_2007_8.5x11_061710.doc> .”
________________________________
Pieter Samara is a citizen of the United States of America who currently lives in Bangkok, Thailand, and has been an entrepreneur his entire working career, developing and managing his own businesses. He is currently the CEO of Asset Development and Management Company Private Limited and Chairman & CEO of American Asset Acquisition Corporation.
Paul Hsieh writes (personal correspondence copied here with permission, http://blog.geekpress.com/):
ReplyDeleteI'd like to just make two points in response.
1) Ray Niles (a NYC-based Objectivist who is a professional hedge fund manager) has written a great article on mark-to-market accounting rules, including a discussion as to why it has been wrongly blamed for too much of the current financial crisis.
His paper is forthcoming in the George Mason University School of Law's Journal of Law, Economics, and Policy, Vol. 6, No. 2, Spring 2010, and is entitled "Eighty Years in the Making: How Housing Subsidies Caused the Financial Meltdown".
http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/06/ray-niles-article-on-housing-crisis.html
It's not yet available online, but he does have permission from the journal publishers to send out PDF copies. So if you'd like a copy, send him an e-mail. (Contact information in the NoodleFood link above.)
2) With respect to any of the bad market activities, I think it may be an error to focus too much on specific personalities (such as a George Soros or whomever).
In Atlas Shrugged, Rand identified the much deeper problem as reflected in one of Hank Rearden's musings on the Steel Unification Plan:
...[Rearden] knew that the specific reason behind the Plan was Orren Boyle; he knew that the working of an intricate mechanism, operated by pull, threat, pressure, blackmail—a mechanism like an irrational adding machine run amuck and throwing up any chance sum at the whim of any moment—had happened to add up to Boyle's pressure upon these men to extort for him this last piece of plunder. He knew also that Boyle was not the cause of it or the essential to consider, that Boyle was only a chance rider, not the builder, of the infernal machine that had destroyed the world, that it was not Boyle who had made it possible, nor any of the men in this room. They, too, were only riders on a machine without a driver...
Yes, Obama is a bad guy and he can (and will) do tremendous harm to our country. The same goes for Soros or any of the other people that conservatives like to point to. But where conservatives err (and where Objectivists offer a crucial intellectual advantage) is in identifying the fundamental causes of our problems, which is a bad philosophy put into practice by people.
Obama and Soros are just like the Orren Boyles in that passage -- they are the chance riders of the current "infernal machine". If they weren't around, a different set of chance riders would be trying to exploit the system and causing us harm.
Yes, we should speak out against bad individuals.
But to be effective, we have to do so as part of an effort to stop the whole "infernal machine", including attacking the bad ideas that underlie their agenda. Unless we do so, we will merely sound like conspiracy theorist conservatives -- and we'll be correspondingly ineffectual.
(Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Robb himself is doing this; I'm just using his e-mail to make this broader point.)
- PSH
I agree with everything Paul says -- fundamentally, it's the bad ideas you must address. At a strategic level, if you don't attack the wrong ideas, and don't promote the right ideas as antidotes, taking down this or that individual (even someone as influential as a Soros) will not win you permanent victory -- remove this bad guy or that one, someone else will rear his ugly head, like Jason in Friday the 13th (a movie I've never seen).
ReplyDeleteThat said, these types of people do offer a means to bring people's attention to the right ideas, though at a more tactical level there is definite value in neutralizing the "leaders" of the bad ideas because they accelerate the promotion of the right ones. For a really extreme example, in WWII, the wrong (evil) ideas of the Nazis had to be combatted at an intellectual level, but of course you *had* to literally fight them on the real battlefield, not just the battlefield of ideas, or everyone would soon be marching lockstep and singing the Hoerst Wessel song.
There *are* leaders and manipulators behind what's going on today -- it's not just an ad hoc effort-- and awakening the populace to their existence has more than tactical value. There's also strategic value: making people more aware of the "leaders" (even when there isn't a single "Dr. Evil") helps raise attention to the threat, and makes people more attentive to the right ideas needed to combat the threat (as the Tea Party now evidences). If we can see the Democrats defeated soundly enough in the next election, and eventually get someone reasonable and patriotic enough in the White House, I really would like to see is an awakening of the police (ie FBI) and intel agencies to the near-term tactical dangers and treat the communist conspiricists to some serious "Cold War" treatment, because this could help buy us time for promoting the more fundamental ideas that will make the cancer of Totalitarianism whither.
Part of what happened over the last 50 years is that unfortunately the communists brilliantly spun HUAC and McCarthy so that anyone who asserted communist plots was automatically labeled and belittled with the pejorative of a being a "conspiracy theorist", and dismissed as a loon. And I think this even was true in government. (Just like the CIA analyst who desperately tried to raise awareness of Al Qaeda was dismissed by his own agency; or the Phoenix FBI agent who desperately tried to bring to the attention of the D.C. office the fact that AQ was taking flying lessons for airliners, without learning to land. Etc.) After the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a greatly diminished effort to investigate communists.
To retiterate, however, I agree you *must* stay focused on the end goal of promoting the right ideas (esp., individual rights in a political context) and not get too obsessed with baseless conspiracy theories, which by definition don't have adequate factual basis. However, if you have facts or reasonable "probable cause" for looking into a potential conspiracy, I'd say -- go after the SOB's with everything you can, expose them, make them a cause celebre. The communists are somewhat seductive targets because they have a long history of creating real conspiracies. And given that they now run the White House, I'm content to use them as a frightening wake-up call for others, who too often (in my opinion) underestimate the danger we are now facing, and too ready to label Obama a simple socialist.