Archive for Martie 14, 2010
Ce ar trebui sa faca statul cu banii mei?
Ne confruntam cu un paradox aparent. Pe de o parte, avem un stat slab, in care institutiile functioneaza prost sau chiar contrar scopurilor cu care au fost create, iar pe de alta, avem un guvernamant mult prea extins, cu un aparat greoi si suprapopulat, care are ambitia sa controleze si sa reglementeze aspecte fundamentale ale vietii individuale, de la optiunile in privinta sanatatii si educatiei cetatenilor pana la obiceiurile de consum. In pofida faptului ca o buna parte a economiei este privata, statul pastreaza parghii constand in constrangeri si stimulente care ii permit sa controleze in buna masura cine, ce si cum produce in Romania, cine, ce, cum si unde vinde. Aceasta prapastie dintre incapacitatea statului de a-si indeplini functiunile constitutionale si pretentia de a patrunde pana in cele mai ascunse colturi ale societatii, mascata pana acum fie cu bani, fie, pur si simplu, prin abuz, a devenit, dupa declansarea crizei economice, vizibila in profunzimea ei inspaimantatoare.
(Auto)intitulat “institutie fundamentala” a democratiei romanesti, Parlamentul este, in realitate, un simplu mecanism de supervizare si/sau de trafic de influenta. Legislativul nostru legifereaza prost si prolix atunci cand nu se rezuma la statutul de supervizor al legislatiei, reglementarilor si normelor care se fac in cu totul alta parte. Parlamentul Romaniei accepta, de exemplu, practica aprobarii tacite, prin care daca un text de lege nu intra in dezbaterea plenului pana la o anumita data este considerat “din oficiu” adoptat.
Problema este ca, din punct de vedere constitutional, un asemenea oficiu nu exista. O lege adoptata in acest fel este conceputa de un grup de birocrati ai Guvernului, validata de un numar minim de parlamentari in comisiile de specialitate, care de obicei nici macar nu o citesc daca nu au un interes personal, dupa care se intoarce la Guvern unde aceiasi birocrati redacteaza o serie de norme de aplicare care, de regula, sunt mai voluminoase decat legea insasi care reprezinta, de fapt, legea in esenta ei functionala.
In felul acesta, Parlamentul se sustrage principalei sale functii constitutionale, lasand actul fundamental al legiferarii in sarcina unei elite birocratice necunoscute care scapa oricarui control democratic. Starea Justitiei este alarmanta. Nu numai ca nu isi indeplineste functia pentru care a fost creata – sa imparta dreptatea – dar, in realitate s-a transformat in opusul sau. Sistemul este o casta inchisa, virtual nereformabila, care si-a asumat puteri discretionare, executive – distributia veniturilor bugetare – si legislative – modificarea prin hotarari judecatoresti a fondului legilor in baza carora ar trebui sa judece. Justitia a ajuns pamant sfant pentru infractori, azil si industrie a spalarii de pacate penale pentru interlopi si corupti.
Dupa cum s-a vazut in timpul grevei magistratilor, celelalte puteri ale statului au fost tinute prizoniere de acest sistem de tip mafiot, fara vreo putere asupra lui si fara mijloace de reactie. Nici in privinta raporturilor dintre celelalte puteri lucrurile nu stau deloc mai bine. Ce stim pana acum este ca o majoritate parlamentara poate demite un guvern pentru ca s-a intamplat. Tot ceea ce vine insa dupa aceea este o nebuloasa, dupa cum ne-a aratat criza politica de dinaintea prezidentialelor, cand, practic, nu a existat nici o institutie capabila se rezolve disputa constitutionala dintre Parlament si presedinte. Aici nu este importanta nici persoana lui Basescu, nici a celorlalti protagonisti. Important este ca avem o problema institutionala si ca asemenea blocaje pot aparea oricand cu oricare alti actori, iar Constitutia nu ofera iesiri.
Adrian Nastase a crezut ca a rezolvat problema raporturilor dintre presedinte si prim-ministru cand a introdus in Constitutia modificata un text explicit care spune ca prim-ministrul nu poate fi revocat de presedinte, asa cum patise Radu Vasile. Ceea ce a iesit a fost chiar mai rau. Administratia – centrala si locala – este supradimensionata, ineficienta si, adesea, izvor de coruptie. Administratia nu este capabila sa indeplineasca una dintre functiile ei de baza – colectarea taxelor si impozitelor –, Banca Mondiala estimand nivelul economiei subterane undeva intre 20 si 40%. Aproape niciodata statul nu strange banii pe care ii prevede in proiectul de buget si este nevoit sa vina cu rectificari. Cand economia produce, banii se iau din alta parte, cand nu, cresc deficitele. De altfel, Executivul nostru nu executa, de fapt, nimic: programul de guvernare ramane de obicei litera moarta, desi este votat in Parlament, pentru ca nu este corelat cu o proiectie bugetara prin care sa se asocieze politicile si resursele.
Ce avem in schimb: sunt o puzderie de agentii si institutii care au pretentia sa controleze pana si cel mai insignifiant aspect al vietii, de la igiena personala la practicile alimentare
. De aici, nevoia de reforma a statului. Daca unii, precum presedintele Basescu, considera ca reforma statului trebuie sa inceapa cu reforma politica a Legislativului, altii indica spre reforma Justitiei, a administratiei sau a sistemului de pensii. Societatea Academica Romana sustine, bunaoara, ca nu putem decat sa ne fixam obiective politice modeste de regandire a ciclurilor electorale si recomanda un pact national pentru transparenta si impartialitate. Acesta ar elimina pe cat posibil arbitrariul in alocarea resurselor bugetare. Toate aceste initiative de reforma sunt legitime in masura in care domeniile vizate sunt, cum am vazut, in suferinta. Orice reforma a statului va esua insa daca nu porneste de la o intrebare simpla si fundamentala pe care ar trebui sa ne-o punem cu totii si pe care, in mod straniu, nu si-a pus-o nimeni pana acum: “Ce ar trebui sa faca statul cu banii mei?”.
Daca cele de mai sus nu sunt suficiente pentru a starni anxietate, atunci sa amintim ca in Romania nici Constitutia, nici vreo alta lege nu impun statului vreo limitare in privinta taxarii si impozitarii, nu fixeaza vreo obligatie in privinta domeniilor in care acesti bani sunt cheltuiti si nici vreo constrangere privind modul cum sunt cheltuiti. Puterea de taxare a statului roman este virtual absoluta si acest lucru este cu atat mai inspaimantator cu cat este un stat slab si supradimensionat.
Cristian Campeanu
sursa: romanialibera.ro
O ţară de consumatori
Producătorii români sunt isterizaţi de nepriceperea guvernului Boc de a relansa economia.
Am cumpărat pere. Nu din piaţă, ci de la un butic de la metrou. Trei pere cu 10 lei. Aveau etichete pe care scria „Modena”. Bune pere, le-am mâncat, că doar am dat o grămadă de bani. Nici pere nu mai suntem în stare să cultivăm.
Am aflat din presă că s-a închis Fabrica de Ţigarete de la Sfântu Gheorghe. Ce „Carpaţi” fără filtru se făcea aici, înainte de ‘89! Ţigările „Carpaţi” de Sfântu Gheorghe erau mai bune decât „Carpaţi” de Râmnicu Sărat (oribile!), dar mai slabe decât „Carpaţi” de Timişoara. (Mă rog, după gusturile mele.) Dar şi fabrica de la Timişoara a murit, care făcea parte din Societatea Naţională Tutunul Românesc (SNTR), firmă de stat, prăduită, călcată în picioare şi sufocată până şi-a dat duhul. Nici ţigări nu mai producem.
Ultima găselniţă a postului Realitatea TV, concursul „Coşul corect”, ne arată nişte persoane care aleargă prin hipermarket, aruncând în cărucioare produsele de pe rafturi. Câştigă cel care bagă în cărucior produse în valoare totală cât mai apropiată de 10.000 de lei. Un concurs de „doi lei” (aranjament de promovare pentru Carrefour) care urmăreşte (subtil) să ne trezească tentaţia de a ne cheltui şi ultimii bani din buzunare.
Am devenit nişte consumatori controlaţi de retaileri şi manipulaţi de reclame şi promoţii. Nu ne mai interesează să producem. Am obosit. Suntem istoviţi de cât de mult am muncit în ultimii 20 de ani ca să privatizăm ţara.
E mai comod să importăm, să comisionăm, să distribuim şi să vindem. Ce produc alţii, ieftin şi performant, noi cumpărăm scump şi la mâna a doua. O ţară de consumatori. Ne-am pierdut reflexul construcţiei, al proiectării sau al concepţiei. Viaţa noastră este simplă: consumăm.
N-am văzut vreun premier sau vreun ministru care să se fi concentrat pe o strategie de relansare a producţiei. Miniştrii guvernului Năstase, asemeni comisionarilor lacomi, au prăduit din „plusvaloare”, miniştrii lui Tăriceanu au pus taxa auto şi s-au fudulit cu „economia care duduie” (de importuri!), iar cei ai lui Boc sunt neputincioşi să gestioneze criza. Ne-a cuprins o stare generalizată de paralizie şi lehamite. Producătorii români (cei care mai supravieţuiesc) sunt copleşiţi şi isterizaţi de nepriceperea guvernului Boc de a relansa economia. Vor închide sau îşi vor vinde afacerile pe nimic. (Dacă vor avea cumpărători.) Rămân multinaţionalele să facă legea în toate domeniile importante ale României: alimentar, financiar-bancar, farmaceutic, comunicaţii şi energie. Vom trăi şi vom consuma după planurile şi strategiile acestor multinaţionale. În talk-show-uri şi seminarii găsim o explicaţie fandosită: globalizarea.
Scenariul potrivit căruia am fost primiţi în Uniunea Europeană pentru a deveni o piaţă de desfacere s-a adeverit. Altă soartă nu avem decât să trăim din fonduri comunitare, să ne împrumutăm de la FMI şi să consumăm toţi banii. Dar cu atenţie, să nu ne stea în gât.
Petre Barbu
sursa: adevarul.ro
Economy Kept On Life Support While Global Governance Is Organized
Winter is slowly melting away here in the U.S., and Spring will soon be upon us. Wall Street is currently flush with delight at the year long run of the stock market (driven by fiat bailouts), which at first glance appears to be doing quite well, though international incidences such as those in Dubai and Greece have revealed how shaky the market actually is in the face of any unhealthy news. In the meantime, the dollar, recently on the edge of detrimental value loss, has made a semi-miraculous recovery in the span of a few months, especially as the Euro suffers. Official employment numbers, despite the continuous loss of jobs monthly, have somehow fallen and are for the moment stabilized. Is it time for America to dust off the old credit cards and return to the wild and rollicking carefree spending days of pre-2007? Perhaps not…
While the mainstream media puts on the recovery song and dance, the fundamental problems of the collapse remain the same, and in some cases are growing ever more precarious. Subsections of the public, unaware of the real issues at hand, are holding a misguided jubilee in the tranquil eye of a hurricane, wrongly assuming that the storm has passed.
The world is breathing a hasty sigh of relief at the beginning of 2010, but what are the facts behind the current “peaceful” economic moment? In this article, we will examine whether or not the good news is legitimate, or, if are we being lulled into a false sense of security…
Job Market Statistics Manipulated
At the beginning of the year, official unemployment stood at around 10%. This number of course does not include those people who are off unemployment benefits and still have not found jobs, or those people who are underemployed. The Labor Department then announced their intention to revise their “birth/death ratio” method of calculating job loss, which would supposedly add a whopping 800,000 lost jobs to their books that were hidden before:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/04/news/economy/jobs_outlook/
Directly after this news was released, markets braced for a substantial increase in the unemployment percentage. Yet, by some act of magic, the unemployment percentage fell to 9.7%!
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/jobs_picture_20100205/
How is this possible? Well, those of us who were hoping for greater Labor Department transparency (including myself) should have known better. With the Labor Department, two-plus-two NEVER equals four…
As the EPI article above indicates, while the government has reportedly changed their dubious “birth/death ratio” method, they also at the same time changed their “home survey” method. This survey is meant to give the Labor Department an overall view of unemployment percentages, but now the government has sharply reduced the number of households they actually survey, making the results more volatile and easier to manipulate. This why even though nearly a million jobless people were added to the unemployment rolls, the government was still able to report a drop in unemployment percentages. Sound like a dirty trick? Yes, it is…
According to the EPI’s estimates, which are probably still conservative, over 11 million jobs would need to be created in order to bring employment rates to pre-2007 levels. This is called the “jobs gap.” To fill the jobs gap by 2013 (which is about the time frame that the government has suggested it would take for a full recovery) the U.S. would need to generate over 400,000 jobs a month for the next three years! As I think most of you can see, this is not going to happen. Last month according to official numbers the U.S. lost another 36,000 jobs. Jobs are not being created, and will not be created anywhere near the 400,000 a month mark required for a three year recovery.
Also not often reported is the span of weeks at which those who are unemployed have to wait until they find another job. This “lag time” in-between jobs has grown markedly higher in recent months as the chart below shows:
In January of this year alone, 6.3 million people (over half of those unemployed) had been without a job for more than 6 months. This is an astonishing number, and it shows just how out of touch MSM reports of recovery are. Anyone who has been unemployed for more than just one month knows how tense and uncertain such a situation makes life. Imagine the misery of a 6 month hiatus from steady work, not able to fully support ones self and not knowing when you’ll be able to again. The Labor Department, nor the media, seems to take the factor of ‘duration’ into account when considering whether employment is actually in recovery. Nor do they take into account the fact that most of the jobs lost over the past two years were high paying and specialized, while most of the scant few jobs created have been low paying service sector positions.
What is most frightening about this information is that it reveals deliberate mishandling of statistics. Instead of being more open about unemployment numbers, the government is moving to hide them further. But why would they escalate secrecy on the economy?
The Day The Dollar Died
Last week, Li Ruogu, chairman of Export-Import Bank of China, a lender tasked with supporting the country’s foreign investments, stated that China would continue to support the dollar and that reports of a break from U.S. treasuries were “absolute nonsense.” Investors in treasuries this week seemed to take the comment as a good sign that the dollar’s place as world reserve currency is assured. However, one might ask why it was suddenly so important for China to comfort treasury markets?
Interestingly, statements of China’s “affection” for the dollar have come right after their central bank decided to dump $34 billion in U.S. treasuries. Along with other nations, the U.S. suffered the worst one month treasury dump on record so far at $53 billion:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Foreigners-cut-Treasury-apf-1402391707.html?x=0
This follows a treasury dump last year by China of $25 billion, after which we predicted that such dumps would occur more frequently and in larger amounts. Apparently, we were right:
http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=105
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/91421/6734461.html
Initially, it was reported after their latest dumping of U.S. bonds that China had lost its position as the number one investor in U.S. debt, placing Japan in the top spot. Strangely, only days later this report was rescinded after the Treasury released a statement claiming that China did indeed dump $34 billion in bonds, but, they were still the number one investor in T-bills:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100217/tbs-us-economy-finance-bonds-china-japan-ec2362a.html
How is this possible? According to the Treasury, they “forgot” to include Chinese treasury holdings in third markets such as Hong Kong and Britain. This is very strange. Who holds these extra bonds and what are they doing sitting in foreign venues? Is it not convenient that these bonds appeared from thin air just as news of China’s treasury dump was hitting the bond market? And now we suddenly have a Chinese finance official attempting to reassure the world that China still wants T-bonds while at the same time they are trying to get rid of them? If this behavior seems confusing it is because this is what occurs when governments lie big; no matter how good they are at it, they can’t make the facts add up.
If one examines Treasury Auctions month-to-month, they would find that “Primary Buyers” of treasuries (who have to buy treasuries when no one else is buying) now dominate auction sales. Indirect buyers, who cannot be tracked, also make up a large portion of competitive bids on treasury bonds. It is suspected that most of these indirect buys are made by the Federal Reserve itself in order to prop up the dollar. The article below explains the process succinctly:
http://community.nasdaq.com/News/2010-02/Something-Very-Strange-Is-Happening-With-Treasuries.aspx
The bottom line is that foreign governments are NOT buying treasuries at volumes necessary to keep the U.S. afloat amidst its ever climbing national debt, and in some cases, they are now trying to quietly and gradually dump what they have so as to not arouse immediate suspicion from the markets. In fact, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve seem to be helping them do this!
The dollar is, in effect, dead, but disinformation and market manipulation, mainly by the private Federal Reserve, is being used to reanimate it for appearances. The result is the conjuring of a kind of “zombie currency,” a Weekend at Bernie’s currency that the Fed props up with strings and pulleys to fool everyone at the party.
The most obvious question here is, why go through so much trouble to keep the dollar around at all?
World Government And The SDR
Since the “Great Recession” began, economic forums and conferences such as the G20, and the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland have spoken of little else except the formation of a centralized world economy and the establishment of a legal body that has the power to run it. At the Davos “workshops,” economists and others present ideas for world governance as if they were the originators of the concept. It may not be surprising to most of us that there is rarely if ever anyone who participates in the WEF meetings that supports the restoration of national sovereignty. In fact, nearly all the participants seem to assume that a world government is the solution to all our ills. It is also important that like the G20, government officials from all over the world attend, including those from the U.S., and that very often the policies developed at these forums end up in legislation and mass media here at home. Meaning, the laws and propaganda supporting forced globalization and world government are fine tuned at the meetings and then brought to America for mass consumption. Below are a couple video examples of Davos workshops:
It is important to recognize what exactly is being presented in these two videos because they reveal much about our current economic circumstances. The goal of the G20 and the WEF, as they have stated on numerous occasions, is to dissolve national sovereignty. If they had their way, America as we know it would not exist, along with the Constitutional framework that is meant to protect our liberties. To achieve this end, a carefully engineered breakdown of the U.S. dollar is being enacted.
As we have shown, U.S. treasuries auctions have tanked and those long term treasuries already held by foreign nations are being slowly cast off. So far, the Federal Reserve has propped up the dollar by purchasing T-bonds in the place of foreign banks who no longer want them. By continually monetizing this debt, the Fed will inflate an incredible bubble in the treasury market. When will this bubble burst? The key lay in the rules governing Special Drawing Rights.
Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) are securities much like treasury bonds. Their value is determined by a basket of international currencies including the Dollar, the Euro, the Yen, and the Pound Sterling. The IMF claims that SDRs are not technically considered currency, but SDRs serve nearly all the functions of a currency except that they are not available to the general public (yet). It walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but the IMF would rather not call it a duck. In the end, the SDR is a world reserve currency, and its purpose is to topple the dollar.
Not long after the economic meltdown began, the IMF announced that they would begin the unlimited printing of SDRs. In 2009, within the span of a few months, SDR circulation went from $21 billion, to nearly $204 billion, and this is only the amount they have admitted to:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/tad/extsdr1.aspx
Governments across the world have purchased SDRs, while at the same time dropping U.S. treasuries. China in particular has shown sharp interest in the SDR as a replacement for the U.S. dollar:
It may be prudent to mention that China’s heightened dumping of U.S. treasuries began right around the time that the IMF began mass printing SDRs. And, even more disconcerting, the U.S. Treasury also quintupled its supply of SDRs in August of 2009:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/US%20INTL%20RESERVES.jpg
Being that the U.S. dollar is supposedly the undisputed world reserve currency, why would the U.S. Treasury have any need to buy SDRs at all? Would this not be redundant? Unless, the Treasury knows that the dollar will not remain the world reserve currency for much longer….
Now we get to the tricky part…
The IMF has instituted new rules governing the SDR and those countries who trade it (called “member countries”). Drafting the “Fourth Amendment” governing SDR allocation, the IMF now requires member nations to retain a “special allocation” of the currency much higher than previous allocations. Countries who keep their SDR supply above the required level receive interest payment on their excess. Countries that fall below the required level have to PAY interest on the shortfall. That is to say, if the U.S. were to allow its SDR reserves to fall below the level demanded by the IMF, we would be punished monetarily. Also, under current rules, the interest rates of the currencies that make up the SDR help to determine the interest rates of the SDR.
The IMF claims it only acts as an “intermediary” between countries wishing to trade in SDRs, but since the IMF is the creator and printer of SDR’s, this would ultimately make them the controller of the SDR market, not some outside intermediary.
Participation in the SDR market for now is voluntary. However, what we are witnessing here is the subtle positioning of the SDR as the only alternative in the event that the U.S. dollar fails, and once again, China is the key.
China’s Slow Dollar Dive
The argument is constantly made by mainstream economists that China could never drop its large supply of U.S. T-bills because if they tried, the dollar would collapse, virtually erasing the value of their dollar holdings. The suggestion that “they are as dependent on us as we are on them” is rampant in the MSM, but, if we throw in the wild card factor of the SDR, this all changes.
If the Chinese central bank along with certain others amass enough SDRs over an extended period of time while gradually selling off their T-bonds, the SDR’s could act as a cushion to prevent foreign central banks from losing a large portion of their wealth while the dollar sinks. In fact, in the event that the Federal Reserve raises interest rates on the dollar (perhaps in response to the heightened risk of a mass treasury dump) those holding SDR’s actually benefit, because the interest they receive on their SDR reserves will also go up:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/faq/sdrallocfaqs.htm
This would not absorb all of China’s losses in the event of a dollar collapse, but it would be a very effective stop gap, and ample incentive for them to continue dumping treasuries. I believe that this is the exact reason why the dollar and the Dow have been held up by the Federal Reserve for so long. They cannot allow a major dollar depreciation until the SDR is established on the world market as a ready substitute.
A good sign that this process might accelerate would be in the event that China de-pegs the Yuan from the Dollar and allows it to appreciate in value. This would signal that China is moving away from the traditional export arrangement with the U.S. Talks of a Yuan appreciation are already hitting the MSM:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/7386391/China-ready-to-end-dollar-peg.html
Investors in the U.S. will foolishly cheer a rise in the value of the Yuan, thinking that this will increase American exports to China. In reality, China will be preparing to dump the last of its U.S. bonds, and begin exports and imports with the new ASEAN trading bloc:
This new bloc has the potential to surpass profit margins in U.S. markets, especially in the face of extremely weak consumer activity in America. As the U.S. falters under sovereign debt pressure, China will be in prime standing with a ready supply of SDRs and an organized trading bloc to take up the slack of falling exports to the West.
Shock And Awe
The illusion of U.S. recovery seems to be paramount in the plan for Globalist centralization. Every scam imaginable has been fashioned to lure the public into a sense of false comfort. In my original observations on the economic collapse, I believed that we would likely see a “trigger” event in 2010, which would set off a “rolling breakdown” that would not fully climax for a few years. Now, I am not so sure. After examining the facts behind the implementation of SDRs as well as the potentially explosive situation in the treasury market, I believe that a “shock and awe” scenario is becoming more probable. The behavior of the Fed, along with that of the IMF seems to suggest that they are preparing for a focused collapse, peaking within weeks or months instead of years, and the most certain fall of the dollar.
As I think of it now, the advantages of a sudden financial flash flood are numerous. In a drawn out collapse, the Liberty Movement is given a tremendous time advantage, allowing us to double and redouble our membership while the public opinion of the Federal Reserve and the government in general would deteriorate. In a sudden breakdown, our time will be cut short, and the public will be distracted and fearful, desperate for an organized authority to offer any semblance of “order.” A slow collapse allows for the Liberty Movement to work peacefully within the system to build a third party capable of dethroning the current two party farce. A sudden collapse erases all political activity and opens the door to martial law and illegitimate government. And finally, a fast moving meltdown leaves a much stronger psychological impression; a catastrophic waking nightmare, instead of a slow grinding depression. A world government could never be brought about due to the “monotony” of a long slow economic burnout. Too many factors could present themselves in such an extended period that might interfere with the desired end result. Too many variables to calculate. In an abrupt collapse, the Globalists would need only to gage and influence the amount of fear in the populace to a sufficient boiling point then leap in with their intended solution to the problem; centralized global governance.
I feel that in either method, the Central Bankers will fail to reach their ultimate goal, but the prospect of a direct monetary break with limited warning does make the atmosphere much heavier. One can only prepare as much as possible mentally and emotionally, and keep his eyes wide open…
