Another one bites the Dust: Australia turns nose up at the dollar

It appears the jig is up America, your chickens are coming home to roost. Australia is the latest nation to opt out of the dollar in trade and now will conduct trade in the yuan. This is just another nail in the coffin for the dollar as we know it.

Brazil, South Africa, even Japan are getting out of trading exclusively in dollars. But what do we do about it? How do we keep these latest traitors, these damn barbequing Aussies from going through with this? Do we convince the American people kangaroos are secretly hiding dirty bombs in their pouches and are training to enter the US and set them off?

The problem is more and more nations are trading amongst themselves without the dollar. We can’t just attack the entire world. OR, maybe this (sic) IS THE PLAN? Why else are we spending the same amount in military expenditures as the rest of the world combined and refusing to make any cuts to it?  

And here all along you thought these wars over the last 30 years were for freedom, fighting terrorism, nukes and/or WMD’s. Wars are a win-win for America. It keeps the population always at war, thus easier to manipulate. It promotes growth for so many sectors in private enterprise (especially banking) and above all it protects American hegemony. From the end of the cold war to Kuwait to Iraq and soon to be Iran it’s all been single pieces in a larger puzzle – the petrodollar. From the Federal Reserve Bank of New York:

 The recycling of petrodollars into the U.S. financial markets has supported activity here by allowing for higher consumption and investment spending than otherwise would have occurred. The concomitant cost has been a further expansion of the U.S. economy’s already sizable net international liabilities.

As we enter the golden age of globalization, we must accept the old proverb to be true; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

American companies wanted to establish markets and dominate the globe with its dollar and to a large degree it has; OPEC still uses the dollar but the rest of the world isn’t down with it anymore. In doing so, American business and its government have built and educated the world in finance and trade. Now they are turning around to see who has been dangling the strings. And they don’t like it.

As we turn each page of history we see empires rising and falling. Nobody has stood the test of time. It’s been a good run America but the grip we’ve had on the world is loosening. When the dollar starts to tumble it will trigger a REAL economic catastrophe and the rest of the world knows it; 2008 wasn’t that long ago in the history books.

This will have a direct impact on our debt, trade deficit, standard of living… basically EVERYTHING and ANYTHING “uniquely American”.  

Circling The Drain. The death of the American family and its middle class; now two incomes be damned. (Part 2 of 2)

This 

The second part of the blog entry entitled: How to fix the economy: throw your wife back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant is optional



This is the most complicated aspect of working mothers in the workforce and the part that would be considered third-rail politically; the economic impact. I feel to date, this might be the most important topic I have talked about on this blog because it affects all of us on so many levels. I would like to think after reading this you would agree.

The confusing aspect of this, as mentioned in Part 1, is not intertwined in the complexity of the argument. On the contrary, it lies in the simplicity of it; yet it’s not even in the discussion of what ails our economy?

When it comes to children being cared for outside of the home, its hard to find clear cut data that points out positively home is better, thus I’m sure someone could call it subjective. Now it's common sense having one parent home works better but I like to deal in absolutes rather than conjecture. What is totally objective is the impact of working parents (and to a degree women in general) on the economy. This all can be traced back to two words: supply and demand.

Obviously, with any prospering nation, the population has been on the incline since its inception. Thus, there have always been more than enough people looking to work. If we compare our population today (315 Million) to 1960 (180 Million) we can see a 75% increase in population in 53 years. In 1960, there were 69 Million Americans employed. Today, there are 155 million Americans employed. That’s a 125% increase in Americans working today from 1960. If we include real unemployment numbers in one of the worst economic recovery’s in history (said to be about 22 million more Americans) that 125% climbs over 150%.

Adjusted for population and time, we have seen the true workforce expand more than 25% in 53 years. Even with the staggering unemployment, we are seeing 49% of our population in the workforce compared to just 38% in 1960. As we know, women entering the workforce deserve the spotlight here, but with all these added workers, are we getting our money worth?

From almost every statistical standpoint the answer is simple. No. And it doesn’t end there. First, this is what the employment history looks like men versus women over the last 60 years.









As we can see, women have almost doubled their numbers, while men in the workforce have fallen about fifteen percent since 1960. With the influx of all these new workers over time, it’s only natural to expect that a “rising tide lifts all boats” scenario would exist but that just doesn’t seem to be the case. Despite the fact that the US has more billionaires than anywhere else on the globe, despite the fact that the average net worth of the newly elected 113th Congress is 966k; the average American family has been stuck in neutral for 40+ years.

Nothing paints this picture more vividly than what has happened and will continue to happen to the middle class. Like the time you left the bath running too long, low-interest rates/created new money has been filling up the economy. By the time you do notice and go to shut the faucet off, you find the handle is stripped (as there is no end in sight to new money with record low-interest rates). And no matter what you do, we cannot keep up with rising costs (inflation via new money).

You work and work and work some more. Your spouse goes to work; your youngest kids are off to daycare while your teenager competes with those without a high school diploma for jobs. Debt, credit, 2nd job... it doesn’t matter; whatever it takes, you will use any bucket you can find. You throw every bucket you can into that tub to keep it from spilling over, to keep from falling under that median. To keep that American dream still afloat. The fear of being poor is a great motivator. But to no avail.

As we can see below the median income has been relatively unchanged for Americans over the last 40+ years. In fact, today, real household income is LESS than it was in 2000, adjusted for that inflation. Meanwhile, the median income for males in this country is LESS today than it was in 1973. Does this sound like a 'dream' or progress? Women have gained roughly 80% in median income in this span but it's still substantially less than men (there goes that richer sex theory).










The destruction of the middle class is taking place before our very eyes. We have more people getting rich but substantially more getting poorer. I suppose this is “better for everyone” too? And this lunacy isn’t just limited to Time Magazine either. All media seems to be nothing but a mouthpiece for this propaganda. As I said yesterday, we know it’s not better for kids and more specifically the family and as we can clearly see here it’s been no blessing for the overwhelming majority of Americans economies either.









Let’s re-cap. We work long hours. We are flooding the job markets over the last 50 years with record number job seekers, turning upside down our outlook on work and family in our culture in the process. All of this just to keep a foot in the middle class or otherwise known as: ‘living the American dream’. But inflation (read theft) through loose (read suicidal) monetary policy and cost of living has not just made this 'dream' impossible but in turn nothing short of a nightmare.

If this sobering fact of our economy wasn’t enough, we also have the reality that nationally; this situation is even worse. In fact, this is how the banksters and those at the top of the pyramid power structure want it. After all, all this work and no gain by the masses have to go somewhere, right?

It wasn’t until 1982 that we as a nation reached a national debt over 1 Trillion (1,142,034,000,000.00). That took 191 years to reach that numerical milestone. Thirty years later, we have surpassed the 16 trillion dollar ceiling. As I have pointed out before, interest rates are at record lows to finance this gargantuan debt, thus we don’t necessarily have to feel the direct pain associated with such outlandish debt. But that doesn’t indicate there isn’t damage. The public debt side of the national debt has risen 140% since 2007, from 5.1 trillion to 11.9 trillion today. 140% in just six years.








And for all this debt, we know GDP has grown, but really has it?






As we can see, our growth,  like our economy, both micro and macro is nothing but an illusion. A dirty trick, made possible by the complacent yet complicit public. So eager, to be dictated by emotion, so much so that sound logic is actually discouraged and looked down upon. Have you seen the savings rates at your local bank? Check out a CD. You’d make a better investment buying scratch off lottery tickets than let your savings be ravaged by the fractional reserve banking system who rely on ‘kick the can down the road’ politicians who spend more time whoring for re-election than legislating. Or you know… what they were elected for in the first place.


You think it's bad, now? Wait until the FED start's raising rates again (if that's even possible).

This isn’t about women staying home and men working. The reality of men staying home while a woman works is not something that is concerning. What is concerning to me and should be to you is the reality of the American family. How one income is no longer able to support a family (regardless of the sex) and how we have been conditioned to accept this as the norm! As we can see, we are just barely staying afloat with two incomes, in the meantime causing major damage to the fabric of the family structure. What happens 30 years from now?

We are seeing our wealth being vaporized at the expense of our families and our way of life. This leads to only one thing. As “we” Americans continue to be duped, dumped-on and mislead, don’t expect things to change. We are paving our inevitable road that leads into a cul-de-sac of serfdom. I think George Carlin said it best in his last HBO stand-up before his death:


"The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it."


So, wake up America, the wolves are already at the door.

How to fix the economy: throw your wife back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant is optional (Part 1 of 2)

This is a two part blog entry regarding how to fix our rigged economy despite 200 or so detractors at every avenue of every corner at both the micro and macro economic chess game. Enjoy.

Recently, I was at an ACL lab here in town waiting to have a routine blood panel. It’s been about four years since I have been to my family Doctor. I’ve been relatively healthy outside of a cold virus here and there so I have had no reason to go. This changed about two weeks ago when I got a letter from my doctor reflecting my noted absence.  Being a proactive individual (yet a habitual procrastinator) I figured it would be a good time to go and get a check-up.

So, a week later, there I am surrounded by CNN and an orgy of magazines. As I work my way through the titles I stumbled onto this Time Magazine cover-story, entitled:

The Richer $ex: Women are overtaking men as America’s breadwinners. Why that’s good for everyone.

This article was penned by Liza Mundy, whom also wrote the book: The Richer Sex: How the New Majority of Female Breadwinners Is Transforming Sex, Love and Family.

 
Now, it wasn’t until the last page of this piece before I realized it was from March 26, 2012 (mornings after a 12-hour fast is cruel and unusual punishment to this 6-1 235lb frame). With that being said, the article brought up a great point: women are becoming more assertive in the work force and in board rooms all across the country. And me being of the freedom of choice mindset; god bless.

Although the article did a decent job of pointing out the gains of women and the subsequent natural losses of men; I felt a bit empty inside however after finishing it up. This could have been due partly to my empty/gurgling stomach but nonetheless, it made me think and ask myself; while this is obviously great for one sex, is this really great for America as a whole? Are we all really 'better' for it? The short answer, I would say is this: it’s complicated. The long answer... its even more complicated.

On the surface, superficially, it’s obviously great. Nobody should be not hired based on anything but the ability to live up to, if not exceed, expectations of said job. Now, from a true Libertarian mindset this could get complicated because business owners should be able to decide what’s best for their business regardless of what is considered 'fair' but that’s another topic for another day.

What you and I consider to be the ingredients for functional/prosperous economy is always going to be different. From my viewpoint it’s simple. Sound money, home ownership, strong middle class & strong families are a cornerstone to a strong, free economy for all. We can scratch sound money off the table (thank you Federal Reserve, complicit banksters, elected and unelected political whores). What about Home ownership? We have seen that to a mixed bag at best, especially of late.

How about strong families?

According to this article, in 1960, five-percent of children were born to unmarried mothers; in 2010 there was 41%. Now social factors have to be taken into account. For example; people do not always marry before or after having children today, when in 1960 it was culturally looked down upon to not be married before hand. With that being said, the numbers are staggering. In the black community alone those numbers of children born to unmarried mothers are almost in the seventy percentile (67%).

Once these baby’s are born, more times than not, they are sent off to some form of childcare and with more and more women having children unmarried; it’s often out of the home in the hands of strangers.

May Saubier who authored: ‘Doing Time: What It Really Means To Grow Up In Daycare’ says in her book:

“A baby who spends five years at one center will lose one-third to almost half of her caregivers every twelve months or so.”

Not only do you lose the one on one relationship that comes with one parent at home to classes with sometimes a 10-1 child to caregiver ratio you also have to factor in the fact that 40+ hours a week that baby is out of the home not bonding with loved ones. If it wasn’t for weekends, you would have strangers raising a child as much as the parent(s).

This is not to say having your child in childcare outside of the home makes you a bad parent. Without work and income there is no stability. However, to say its “good for everyone” as the author of this Time article suggests in the subtitle, is incredibly shortsighted.

There was also an English study, released in 2009, that centered around 12,000 British schoolchildren. The study determined: mothers who worked full-time had the unhealthiest followed by those who worked part-time. The study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health went on to state that:

“Currently, approximately 60% of women with a child aged five or younger in the UK or USA are employed. For many families the only parent or both parents are working.” 

Now you might look at this study and say what does 12k students in England have to do with the 315 million people here in the states. Statistically the sample size is small but I would also think, just based on common sense, that a parent in the home as opposed to a parent not in the home just works better. It would more often than not, lead to better choices all across the board.

There was also a revelation regarding Head Start, which is primarily a low income based program for pre-school aged children.  A Congressional mandated study of the Department of Health and Human Services (that fund Head Start) found that there was no benefit to the program for kids. In fact, in some cases it was actually a negative influence. But don’t allow those facts get in the way of this 8 Billion dollar job’s program. Don’t take my word for it either; this column by Mary Katharine Ham (Hotair.com) neuters this failure quite efficiently enough.

 Do we see a connection yet?

We have more and more mothers not marrying at alarming rates. However, we still have a healthy birth rate. We also have more women entering the workforce, more so than ever before and the kids home alone or in daycare are at a sided disadvantage versus kids with one parent who is always at home. Yet, it’s said to be “good for everyone”? I must confess, from the kid’s standpoint – I would emphatically disagree.


Part 2 tomorrow centering on the economic impact.

Stealing is legal, just ask those that got shoved off the cliff.

What can I say, I’m flabbergasted. Are these crooks in Washington really going to assume the American public is that dumbed down to see through this guise? Uh… never mind.

Let’s call it what it is. This idea that Republicans failed in the “fiscal cliff standoff” is pure poppy-cock. This notion that the Democrats somehow “won” is equally a failure if we value logic and reason. For what we seen these last two days has been what the American people have wanted for years now… compromise.

The federal government finally compromised. Republicans and Democrats finally crossed the isle. With its legislative and executive branches all on board, despite all its fury, anger and alleged partisan indignation, the deal was struck. Just like the bailouts before it, along with every other hot potato-political topic involving money; the sides "somehow" came to an “agreement”. On the outside this looks like a victory for the people, and it would be if it wasn’t such an absolute charade.

This was nothing more then a WWE broadcast, the winners and losers were already predetermined. When push came to shove everyone got what they want: more for them and their sugar daddy's and you footing the bill. The fiscal cliff was likening to a pay per view event, where afterwards, backstage the heel and the face toasted champagne and laughed all the way to the bank in their stretch limos and learjet's. Meanwhile the poor bastards who bought tickets returned home in their minivans and via subways, still in awe and totally oblivious of exactly how the farce that was just performed before their very eyes. 

Here’s the impact:

Almost all of the Bush Tax Cuts are permanent, while this helps everyone who pay tax; it helps the wealthiest substantially more.

Wheres the cuts on defense spending?

The Payroll tax cut that saved everyone who works in our nation an average of anywhere between $500-$2,000 has ended (which is good for Social Security in the long run) thus acting as a tax increase from last year for everyone earning a paycheck. This will essentially raise the taxes for anyone making fewer than 100k by 2%.

Wheres the entitlement restructuring? 

We have also seen the definition of "rich" get a facelift, as “rich” is anyone making over 400k per year. They will see their taxes rise from 35% to 39.6%. This is hardly the 250k cap that Obama sought re-election on.

And last but not certainly least... the dreaded “Death Tax”.

From the Republican perspective, one of the biggest hold-ups in this “fiscal cliff deal” was the death tax or estate tax. It was 35% as of 2012 on Estates valued at five- million or more. The President wanted 45%. They reached a deal at 40%, splitting the difference. Now, in case you are wondering why you don’t know what this is or why you’ve never heard the particulars, its because it doesn’t affect you. That is unless you have an estate valued at $5 million or more.

As of 2010, courtesy of the Federal Reserve board, only 4.4% of American households had financial assets exceeding $1 million, much less $5 million. According to the IRS, the estate tax will only affect about 3k families. With the additional five percent of taxation of those that are required to pay, the liability may rise slightly, but with the exemptions staying the same, there will be no new cap, thus the limits stay the same.

What does it all mean? I’m not telling you anything you already don’t know. It is what it is. This idea that there is a real tangible difference between these two parties …is make believe. The only real differences are on the margins and that is by design. From abortion, death-taxes, tax-break for billionaires, tax-breaks for multinational conglomerates, gay-rights, funding public television, praying in schools, you name it. Basically, anything that doesn’t benefit the bulk of the populous & affects less then 10% of the population is a heated, highly-contested debate.

I don’t despise anyone for their success nor do I feel they should be punished because of it. As being of  Libertarian mindset, how could I?  However, the middle class has been exploited by the wealthy elite who then help run elite corporations that are gaming the system, all the way from General Electric to G.M and everyone in between. Meanwhile the small businesses, who make up the bulk of US employment, continue to be stifled with red tape, over regulation and are continuously outmaneuvered by big business lobbying efforts. And not to be outdone, it cuts both ways.

There are a growing number of people on the bottom of the pyramid, who are out to hustle every organization and opportunity they can. Look no further then - Supplemental Security Income (Social Security Retirement Survivors and Disabilities Income is for those who have paid into it) because they are “too depressed to work” or have kids that are born one day early (purposely) so they qualify for 18 years as a premature baby. I got story's for days on that topic.

Before you utter the words “class warfare”, read the writing on the wall. This fiscal cliff deal did nothing to hurt those at the top or the bottom, just everyone in between. The rich were not hit hard nor was those too poor to pay taxes, with their 6-10k tax refunds on $13,000 in income.

One of the paramount reasons Obama was elected in the first place was his promise of transparency. You can at least say that’s one campaign promise he lived up to. The middle & working class, the backbone of this country, is under siege and its right out in plain sight. So if you are looking for politics for an ally on either “side” you might need to look again because the only thing these two parties have compromised on is you. They say jump, you say how high.

The token FEMA "critique starlet" (Dr Paul) takes his final bow.

As we all know by now, unfortunately, we had another unexpected natural disaster last week, this time in a vast multi-state reach, covering much of the Midwest and into parts of Tennessee. This was a deadly storm that took many lives resulting in tear jerking tragedies. Like this heart wrenching story, where a 15^th month old survived the initial trauma from being thrown by a twister into a nearby field. Her entire family perished that day; both parents and two siblings. Sadly, she suffered the same fate just a few days later. Or like this 36-year old mother, who lost both of her legs; in order to protect her children.

The economic impact of this storm will be in the hundreds of millions, if not approaching the billion dollar range when its all said and done. This will require all hands on deck including those at FEMA. With that said, it appears, like every Tornado and Hurricane season, a reporter (or I should say reporters), tap Congressman Dr Ron Paul on the shoulder to ask him his view on the role of government in the event of natural disasters. This is by no accident.

Dr Paul's response was already prerecorded and written on their notepad, all the crossing of the t’s and dotting of the I’s was already done. That is because Dr Paul’s consistency, can and will always allow, a lazy reporter to get a cheap story that will attract buzz, with little effort in terms of leg work. All they need him to do is go on record and their story is complete, a Presidential candidate says something off the beaten path; It’s a win-win for the reporter and his publisher.

Here is the problem with this.

Does Ron Paul believe FEMA should exist? No.
Does he believe in the federal government having a hands on role in natural disasters? No. 
Is FEMA one of the worst bureaucracies in government in terms of lack of accountability and waste? YES. 

Why does Dr Paul feel this way? Its because the constitution doesn’t specifically allow for it to be funded… period. It’s that simple. So why do they cherry pick this story? Because, asking him what role we have in building up an empire then the subsequent invading of other country’s or allowing the FED Reserve to manipulate interest rates, creating bubbles, isn’t a story. Even though the amount of wealth, blood and treasure those “programs” waste are astronomically higher and oh yeah; neither are written in the constitution either (sorry neo-conservatives, what we have isn’t a defense, its clearly offense).

Now, as Ron Paul has said many times, he has a prioritized pecking order in which he would see programs and departments eliminated and/or trimmed down; specifically aiming at the most costly and unconstitutional programs or agencies we have. Do you know where FEMA would rank on that list?

First, you would have to look to see where FEMA's budget comes from and that would be none other then Homeland Security. How fitting, an agency that was created in 2002 overseeing another program that was initially funded and created in 1979. Hardly constitutional and it fits the exact model and voting record of the self described “defender of the constitution”, but I don’t want to defeat my own point before I have even made it, so I will ignore that tidbit.

Last year, FEMA spent about 13 Billion dollars. That is a big number but it terms of our budget? Is it? It is roughly 0.003% of our budget. I would assume clearly, Dr Paul would look elsewhere for the cuts. Why not start with the national debt? Sure, we couldn’t pay off the 15 Trillion, but what about that 250 Billion interest payment on that debt? Imagine the savings if we actually started to balance the budget annually?

Why not defense? The funding for defense, as I have reported numerous times, is outright offensive and hardly a defense department. Its become a slush fund for big business and a "global force for good", their words, not mine. There is not any justification i can understand in fighting rouge terrorists who claim no allegiance to any nation on principal, let alone for the amount we have spent, and to boot - in this economic environment. The Department of Defense’s base budget has increased 81% nominally and 43% inflation adjusted since 9-11. Throw in the Nuclear budget, and that spending itself has increased 21% (inflation adjusted) since 9-11.

Imagine the savings if we knocked those back to the 2001 levels or at least cut them in half? Or, what about the 1.3 Trillion spent in endless wars in the Middle East? Surly we could find savings there. We are talking about saving TRILLIONS, not to mention lives on both sides and actually using our defense to I don’t know, maybe even defending our own borders? Now that is a novel approach, eh? Using the National Guard to actually guard the nation, as opposed to fighting wars across the globe? Who knows, maybe even providing assistance, logistics and overall support for natural disasters would be available??

Quit these wars, bring the troops home. Let them spend their money here. Let’s have a real stimulus package. We are up to our ears in debt. Trillions and trillions of dollars and no end in sight for these wars. Then we could take care of our people. Matter of fact, I have even proposed on many of these programs that I don’t fully endorse because technically they are not permissible under the constitution. But taking care of sick people and the elderly and children I have nothing against that… IF YOU CUT THE SPENDING. - Ron Paul

Those are places where Ron Paul would start. Even though FEMA is one of the worst bureaucracies in terms of waste and inefficiency, its small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, it would not be a top priority. Cutting FEMA or asking about the role of food stamps surly create emotional responses, but in reality these issues are not what is draining us. In a vacuum, those are philosophical questions that would make an interesting debate… but we are living in a time where the stakes couldn’t be higher as we fight to remain solvent, vacuum type thinking is irrelevant. We need solutions to problems and until we start asking the right questions, we will never have those debates; thus we will never fix the real problems.

"Republicans are starting to realize you cant say “oh, lets cut money for food stamps but not the food stamps for the military industrial complex” because its just not going to work. - Ron Paul

So, the next time a reporter wants to tap Dr Paul on the shoulder for a quick story when hurricane or tornado season comes around, he wont be around. He is retiring form congress at 76 years old. He, as I write this, is well behind on Super Tuesday; thus he will not be our next President. They will have to find someone else to do the work for them. Maybe, they could go out and do actual reporting. Cover the minutes from the FED meetings. Maybe go out and find Stephanie Decker, the mother who lost her legs and bring her story to the masses. Or maybe seek out these heroes from Branson Missouri, who risked their lives in order to save others in the face of a deadly tornado or the hundreds of others  if not thousands from this past week who saved lives.

There are plenty of stories waiting to be told, they just need to be reported. If that’s not juicy enough, cover the destruction of our dollar and our nation through crony capitalism, fractional reserve banking and a debt driven economy that results in war and more spending (debt) to finance it. That, however, may not make it past their publisher or editors desk. We can’t have people actually learning how bad off things really are, now can we?