Welcome to 2012, the "Beginning of the End for Illuminati Gangsters"...
(to watch on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TExy-8ci7CA)
This year will be a year to remember as it goes down in history as the year of change, endings, and new beginnings. While I have no clue what exactly will take place, the gangsters "tank tanks" say it will be on a spiritual nature. Maybe God will come down and spank these evil Illuminati children over his knee... wouldn't that be fun to watch? He He He!
But seriously, what do you think it will be? I personally think it will be "Disclosure" as the president will finally announce on live television the existence of aliens like John F. Kennedy was going to do in the 1960's before the Illuminati murdered him. Why you ask? Well, as you should know by now, the Illuminati always tell us what they are going to do to us before they do it. It's one of their "moral codes", if you want to call it that? Recently, they have given us sheep another clue as to what's coming in this year's Christmas card from the White House.
Yes, that is a UFO in the background hovering near the White House. Now sending out Christmas cards from the White House, to people on their list that requested one, isn't something new. They have been doing it for many years now. And, if I had to guess, they have a well equipped team of staff members that pick the perfect picture each year... with an unlimited budget I'm sure too. After all, the massive printing of money by thug Ben Bernanke isn't going to the public (us sheep) of course. It's going to the crooks on running the country first and then to pay the salaries of government officials. Well, staff members that doing the job of creating and mailing out the Christmas card every year aren't exactly hurting for funding I'd bet.
So, this tells me that the UFO in the picture was left there on purpose to warn us sheep of "Disclosure" coming soon. When? I don't know of course, but probably this year. Come on'... it's the end of the Mayan calendar after all. So, you know something BIG is planned. These gangsters are going to go out with a BANG of course... just like everything else they do in life if BIG, I'd say something BIG is going to happen this year.
On to Lindsey Williams...
(to watch on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rQ8pDbCWPM)
Lindsey has just came out with a new interview with Alex Jones where he stated that the Evil Illuminati Gangsters plan to collapse the Dollar by 40% this year! Yeah... 40%, and they plan to do it overnight basically. It will likely happen over a weekend and they will declare a bank holiday several of the days of the follow week so everyone is trapped and can't get their money out of the banks... or the stock market! This is what FDR did back in the 1930's, and exactly what the murdering thieves plan to do again. President Roosevelt tricked the public into turning in their $20 Dollar Gold Coins for $20 Dollar of paper money at the local banks several months leading up to the Dollar Devaluation. They were told that the country needed the gold for the war and that they need the people to be patriotic and help with funding by surrendering their gold for paper. Of course many of the sheep did...
Then, just a few months later, FDR declared a "Bank Holiday" over some planned weekend and then when they finally re-opened the banks, the $20 gold coin now costed $35 to buy back! Talk about pissing people off! The public was furious, but of course it was too late then as they had been tricked and there was nothing they could do about it. Well guess what... Lindsey's source says they plan to do it again this year.
Yes, I know, Lindsey could be feed dis-information and this not actually happen... just like oil hasn't went to $150-$200 per barrel as he said last year. But, he never said it was "definitely" going to happen in 2011 (although the tone of his voice hinted at it). He said that he was told that the gangster would take oil to that price point before the end of 2012... so he's not wrong yet. He also said that we have the power to stop these gangsters, (which is why he's telling us all this information), as they don't always get what they want. They were delayed and backed off on raising the price of gasoline in 2011 because so many of us sheep are "waking up"... and they don't like that one little bit!
In fact, they are doing everything they can to stop it and keep us sheep minded controlled and stupid. A recent article here (http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/bill-clinton-free-speech-needs-to-be-more-consensus-driven-we-need-to-go-back-to-the-big-3-networks) shows big time Illuminati Gangster Bill Clinton going around telling us sheep that we need to get back to "The Big 3 TV Networks", as too much information is bad for us! LOL! What a lying thug he is! Sounds like they are scared to death because we sheep are listening to their minded controlled TV media outlets anymore and are finally discovering the truth about them.
Back to Lindsey...
Lindsey goes on to say that he's elite gangsters source told him to go listen to a speech that Ben Bernanke did back on November 21st, 2002 at National Economist Club in Washington D.C. when he was only a Fed Governor and not the Fed Chief Bankster. Here is thelink... (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021121/default.htm) to that speech and I'm including the actual copy of it below... just in case it disappears, if you know what I mean.
Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke
Before the National Economists Club, Washington, D.C.
November 21, 2002Deflation: Making Sure "It" Doesn't Happen Here
Since World War II, inflation--the apparently inexorable rise in the prices of goods and services--has been the bane of central bankers. Economists of various stripes have argued that inflation is the inevitable result of (pick your favorite) the abandonment of metallic monetary standards, a lack of fiscal discipline, shocks to the price of oil and other commodities, struggles over the distribution of income, excessive money creation, self-confirming inflation expectations, an "inflation bias" in the policies of central banks, and still others.Despite widespread "inflation pessimism," however, during the 1980s and 1990s most industrial-country central banks were able to cage, if not entirely tame, the inflation dragon. Although a number of factors converged to make this happy outcome possible, an essential element was the heightened understanding by central bankers and, equally as important, by political leaders and the public at large of the very high costs of allowing the economy to stray too far from price stability.With inflation rates now quite low in the United States, however, some have expressed concern that we may soon face a new problem--the danger of deflation, or falling prices. That this concern is not purely hypothetical is brought home to us whenever we read newspaper reports about Japan, where what seems to be a relatively moderate deflation--a decline in consumer prices of about 1 percent per year--has been associated with years of painfully slow growth, rising joblessness, and apparently intractable financial problems in the banking and corporate sectors. While it is difficult to sort out cause from effect, the consensus view is that deflation has been an important negative factor in the Japanese slump.So, is deflation a threat to the economic health of the United States? Not to leave you in suspense, I believe that the chance of significant deflation in the United States in the foreseeable future is extremely small, for two principal reasons. The first is the resilience and structural stability of the U.S. economy itself. Over the years, the U.S. economy has shown a remarkable ability to absorb shocks of all kinds, to recover, and to continue to grow. Flexible and efficient markets for labor and capital, an entrepreneurial tradition, and a general willingness to tolerate and even embrace technological and economic change all contribute to this resiliency.A particularly important protective factor in the current environment is the strength of our financial system: Despite the adverse shocks of the past year, our banking system remains healthy and well-regulated, and firm and household balance sheets are for the most part in good shape. Also helpful is that inflation has recently been not only low but quite stable, with one result being that inflation expectations seem well anchored. For example, according to the University of Michigan survey that underlies the index of consumer sentiment, the median expected rate of inflation during the next five to ten years among those interviewed was 2.9 percent in October 2002, as compared with 2.7 percent a year earlier and 3.0 percent two years earlier--a stable record indeed.The second bulwark against deflation in the United States, and the one that will be the focus of my remarks today, is the Federal Reserve System itself. The Congress has given the Fed the responsibility of preserving price stability (among other objectives), which most definitely implies avoiding deflation as well as inflation. I am confident that the Fed would take whatever means necessary to prevent significant deflation in the United States and, moreover, that the U.S. central bank, in cooperation with other parts of the government as needed, has sufficient policy instruments to ensure that any deflation that might occur would be both mild and brief.Of course, we must take care lest confidence become over-confidence. Deflationary episodes are rare, and generalization about them is difficult. Indeed, a recent Federal Reserve study of the Japanese experience concluded that the deflation there was almost entirely unexpected, by both foreign and Japanese observers alike (Ahearne et al., 2002). So, having said that deflation in the United States is highly unlikely, I would be imprudent to rule out the possibility altogether. Accordingly, I want to turn to a further exploration of the causes of deflation, its economic effects, and the policy instruments that can be deployed against it. Before going further I should say that my comments today reflect my own views only and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Board of Governors or the Federal Open Market Committee.Deflation: Its Causes and Effects Deflation is defined as a general decline in prices, with emphasis on the word "general." At any given time, especially in a low-inflation economy like that of our recent experience, prices of some goods and services will be falling. Price declines in a specific sector may occur because productivity is rising and costs are falling more quickly in that sector than elsewhere or because the demand for the output of that sector is weak relative to the demand for other goods and services. Sector-specific price declines, uncomfortable as they may be for producers in that sector, are generally not a problem for the economy as a whole and do not constitute deflation. Deflation per se occurs only when price declines are so widespread that broad-based indexes of prices, such as the consumer price index, register ongoing declines.
The sources of deflation are not a mystery. Deflation is in almost all cases a side effect of a collapse of aggregate demand--a drop in spending so severe that producers must cut prices on an ongoing basis in order to find buyers.1 Likewise, the economic effects of a deflationary episode, for the most part, are similar to those of any other sharp decline in aggregate spending--namely, recession, rising unemployment, and financial stress.
However, a deflationary recession may differ in one respect from "normal" recessions in which the inflation rate is at least modestly positive: Deflation of sufficient magnitude may result in the nominal interest rate declining to zero or very close to zero.2 Once the nominal interest rate is at zero, no further downward adjustment in the rate can occur, since lenders generally will not accept a negative nominal interest rate when it is possible instead to hold cash. At this point, the nominal interest rate is said to have hit the "zero bound."
Deflation great enough to bring the nominal interest rate close to zero poses special problems for the economy and for policy. First, when the nominal interest rate has been reduced to zero, the real interest rate paid by borrowers equals the expected rate of deflation, however large that may be.3 To take what might seem like an extreme example (though in fact it occurred in the United States in the early 1930s), suppose that deflation is proceeding at a clip of 10 percent per year. Then someone who borrows for a year at a nominal interest rate of zero actually faces a 10 percent real cost of funds, as the loan must be repaid in dollars whose purchasing power is 10 percent greater than that of the dollars borrowed originally. In a period of sufficiently severe deflation, the real cost of borrowing becomes prohibitive. Capital investment, purchases of new homes, and other types of spending decline accordingly, worsening the economic downturn.
Although deflation and the zero bound on nominal interest rates create a significant problem for those seeking to borrow, they impose an even greater burden on households and firms that had accumulated substantial debt before the onset of the deflation. This burden arises because, even if debtors are able to refinance their existing obligations at low nominal interest rates, with prices falling they must still repay the principal in dollars of increasing (perhaps rapidly increasing) real value. When William Jennings Bryan made his famous "cross of gold" speech in his 1896 presidential campaign, he was speaking on behalf of heavily mortgaged farmers whose debt burdens were growing ever larger in real terms, the result of a sustained deflation that followed America's post-Civil-War return to the gold standard.4
The financial distress of debtors can, in turn, increase the fragility of the nation's financial system--for example, by leading to a rapid increase in the share of bank loans that are delinquent or in default. Japan in recent years has certainly faced the problem of "debt-deflation"--the deflation-induced, ever-increasing real value of debts. Closer to home, massive financial problems, including defaults, bankruptcies, and bank failures, were endemic in America's worst encounter with deflation, in the years 1930-33--a period in which (as I mentioned) the U.S. price level fell about 10 percent per year.
Beyond its adverse effects in financial markets and on borrowers, the zero bound on the nominal interest rate raises another concern--the limitation that it places on conventional monetary policy. Under normal conditions, the Fed and most other central banks implement policy by setting a target for a short-term interest rate--the overnight federal funds rate in the United States--and enforcing that target by buying and selling securities in open capital markets. When the short-term interest rate hits zero, the central bank can no longer ease policy by lowering its usual interest-rate target.5
Because central banks conventionally conduct monetary policy by manipulating the short-term nominal interest rate, some observers have concluded that when that key rate stands at or near zero, the central bank has "run out of ammunition"--that is, it no longer has the power to expand aggregate demand and hence economic activity. It is true that once the policy rate has been driven down to zero, a central bank can no longer use its traditional means of stimulating aggregate demand and thus will be operating in less familiar territory. The central bank's inability to use its traditional methods may complicate the policymaking process and introduce uncertainty in the size and timing of the economy's response to policy actions. Hence I agree that the situation is one to be avoided if possible.
However, a principal message of my talk today is that a central bank whose accustomed policy rate has been forced down to zero has most definitely not run out of ammunition. As I will discuss, a central bank, either alone or in cooperation with other parts of the government, retains considerable power to expand aggregate demand and economic activity even when its accustomed policy rate is at zero. In the remainder of my talk, I will first discuss measures for preventing deflation--the preferable option if feasible. I will then turn to policy measures that the Fed and other government authorities can take if prevention efforts fail and deflation appears to be gaining a foothold in the economy.
As I have already emphasized, deflation is generally the result of low and falling aggregate demand. The basic prescription for preventing deflation is therefore straightforward, at least in principle: Use monetary and fiscal policy as needed to support aggregate spending, in a manner as nearly consistent as possible with full utilization of economic resources and low and stable inflation. In other words, the best way to get out of trouble is not to get into it in the first place. Beyond this commonsense injunction, however, there are several measures that the Fed (or any central bank) can take to reduce the risk of falling into deflation.
First, the Fed should try to preserve a buffer zone for the inflation rate, that is, during normal times it should not try to push inflation down all the way to zero.6 Most central banks seem to understand the need for a buffer zone. For example, central banks with explicit inflation targets almost invariably set their target for inflation above zero, generally between 1 and 3 percent per year. Maintaining an inflation buffer zone reduces the risk that a large, unanticipated drop in aggregate demand will drive the economy far enough into deflationary territory to lower the nominal interest rate to zero. Of course, this benefit of having a buffer zone for inflation must be weighed against the costs associated with allowing a higher inflation rate in normal times.
Second, the Fed should take most seriously--as of course it does--its responsibility to ensure financial stability in the economy. Irving Fisher (1933) was perhaps the first economist to emphasize the potential connections between violent financial crises, which lead to "fire sales" of assets and falling asset prices, with general declines in aggregate demand and the price level. A healthy, well capitalized banking system and smoothly functioning capital markets are an important line of defense against deflationary shocks. The Fed should and does use its regulatory and supervisory powers to ensure that the financial system will remain resilient if financial conditions change rapidly. And at times of extreme threat to financial stability, the Federal Reserve stands ready to use the discount window and other tools to protect the financial system, as it did during the 1987 stock market crash and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Third, as suggested by a number of studies, when inflation is already low and the fundamentals of the economy suddenly deteriorate, the central bank should act more preemptively and more aggressively than usual in cutting rates (Orphanides and Wieland, 2000; Reifschneider and Williams, 2000; Ahearne et al., 2002). By moving decisively and early, the Fed may be able to prevent the economy from slipping into deflation, with the special problems that entails.
As I have indicated, I believe that the combination of strong economic fundamentals and policymakers that are attentive to downside as well as upside risks to inflation make significant deflation in the United States in the foreseeable future quite unlikely. But suppose that, despite all precautions, deflation were to take hold in the U.S. economy and, moreover, that the Fed's policy instrument--the federal funds rate--were to fall to zero. What then? In the remainder of my talk I will discuss some possible options for stopping a deflation once it has gotten under way.
I should emphasize that my comments on this topic are necessarily speculative, as the modern Federal Reserve has never faced this situation nor has it pre-committed itself formally to any specific course of action should deflation arise. Furthermore, the specific responses the Fed would undertake would presumably depend on a number of factors, including its assessment of the whole range of risks to the economy and any complementary policies being undertaken by other parts of the U.S. government.7
Let me start with some general observations about monetary policy at the zero bound, sweeping under the rug for the moment some technical and operational issues.
As I have mentioned, some observers have concluded that when the central bank's policy rate falls to zero--its practical minimum--monetary policy loses its ability to further stimulate aggregate demand and the economy. At a broad conceptual level, and in my view in practice as well, this conclusion is clearly mistaken. Indeed, under a fiat (that is, paper) money system, a government (in practice, the central bank in cooperation with other agencies) should always be able to generate increased nominal spending and inflation, even when the short-term nominal interest rate is at zero.
The conclusion that deflation is always reversible under a fiat money system follows from basic economic reasoning. A little parable may prove useful: Today an ounce of gold sells for $300, more or less. Now suppose that a modern alchemist solves his subject's oldest problem by finding a way to produce unlimited amounts of new gold at essentially no cost. Moreover, his invention is widely publicized and scientifically verified, and he announces his intention to begin massive production of gold within days. What would happen to the price of gold? Presumably, the potentially unlimited supply of cheap gold would cause the market price of gold to plummet. Indeed, if the market for gold is to any degree efficient, the price of gold would collapse immediately after the announcement of the invention, before the alchemist had produced and marketed a single ounce of yellow metal.
What has this got to do with monetary policy? Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.
Of course, the U.S. government is not going to print money and distribute it willy-nilly (although as we will see later, there are practical policies that approximate this behavior).8 Normally, money is injected into the economy through asset purchases by the Federal Reserve. To stimulate aggregate spending when short-term interest rates have reached zero, the Fed must expand the scale of its asset purchases or, possibly, expand the menu of assets that it buys. Alternatively, the Fed could find other ways of injecting money into the system--for example, by making low-interest-rate loans to banks or cooperating with the fiscal authorities.
Each method of adding money to the economy has advantages and drawbacks, both technical and economic. One important concern in practice is that calibrating the economic effects of nonstandard means of injecting money may be difficult, given our relative lack of experience with such policies. Thus, as I have stressed already, prevention of deflation remains preferable to having to cure it. If we do fall into deflation, however, we can take comfort that the logic of the printing press example must assert itself, and sufficient injections of money will ultimately always reverse a deflation.
So what then might the Fed do if its target interest rate, the overnight federal funds rate, fell to zero? One relatively straightforward extension of current procedures would be to try to stimulate spending by lowering rates further out along the Treasury term structure--that is, rates on government bonds of longer maturities.9 There are at least two ways of bringing down longer-term rates, which are complementary and could be employed separately or in combination. One approach, similar to an action taken in the past couple of years by the Bank of Japan, would be for the Fed to commit to holding the overnight rate at zero for some specified period.
Because long-term interest rates represent averages of current and expected future short-term rates, plus a term premium, a commitment to keep short-term rates at zero for some time--if it were credible--would induce a decline in longer-term rates. A more direct method, which I personally prefer, would be for the Fed to begin announcing explicit ceilings for yields on longer-maturity Treasury debt (say, bonds maturing within the next two years). The Fed could enforce these interest-rate ceilings by committing to make unlimited purchases of securities up to two years from maturity at prices consistent with the targeted yields. If this program were successful, not only would yields on medium-term Treasury securities fall, but (because of links operating through expectations of future interest rates) yields on longer-term public and private debt (such as mortgages) would likely fall as well.
Lower rates over the maturity spectrum of public and private securities should strengthen aggregate demand in the usual ways and thus help to end deflation. Of course, if operating in relatively short-dated Treasury debt proved insufficient, the Fed could also attempt to cap yields of Treasury securities at still longer maturities, say three to six years. Yet another option would be for the Fed to use its existing authority to operate in the markets for agency debt (for example, mortgage-backed securities issued by Ginnie Mae, the Government National Mortgage Association).
Historical experience tends to support the proposition that a sufficiently determined Fed can peg or cap Treasury bond prices and yields at other than the shortest maturities. The most striking episode of bond-price pegging occurred during the years before the Federal Reserve-Treasury Accord of 1951.10 Prior to that agreement, which freed the Fed from its responsibility to fix yields on government debt, the Fed maintained a ceiling of 2-1/2 percent on long-term Treasury bonds for nearly a decade. Moreover, it simultaneously established a ceiling on the twelve-month Treasury certificate of between 7/8 percent to 1-1/4 percent and, during the first half of that period, a rate of 3/8 percent on the 90-day Treasury bill.
The Fed was able to achieve these low interest rates despite a level of outstanding government debt (relative to GDP) significantly greater than we have today, as well as inflation rates substantially more variable. At times, in order to enforce these low rates, the Fed had actually to purchase the bulk of outstanding 90-day bills. Interestingly, though, the Fed enforced the 2-1/2 percent ceiling on long-term bond yields for nearly a decade without ever holding a substantial share of long-maturity bonds outstanding.11 For example, the Fed held 7.0 percent of outstanding Treasury securities in 1945 and 9.2 percent in 1951 (the year of the Accord), almost entirely in the form of 90-day bills. For comparison, in 2001 the Fed held 9.7 percent of the stock of outstanding Treasury debt.
To repeat, I suspect that operating on rates on longer-term Treasuries would provide sufficient leverage for the Fed to achieve its goals in most plausible scenarios. If lowering yields on longer-dated Treasury securities proved insufficient to restart spending, however, the Fed might next consider attempting to influence directly the yields on privately issued securities.
Unlike some central banks, and barring changes to current law, the Fed is relatively restricted in its ability to buy private securities directly.12 However, the Fed does have broad powers to lend to the private sector indirectly via banks, through the discount window.13 Therefore a second policy option, complementary to operating in the markets for Treasury and agency debt, would be for the Fed to offer fixed-term loans to banks at low or zero interest, with a wide range of private assets (including, among others, corporate bonds, commercial paper, bank loans, and mortgages) deemed eligible as collateral.14 For example, the Fed might make 90-day or 180-day zero-interest loans to banks, taking corporate commercial paper of the same maturity as collateral.
Pursued aggressively, such a program could significantly reduce liquidity and term premiums on the assets used as collateral. Reductions in these premiums would lower the cost of capital both to banks and the nonbank private sector, over and above the beneficial effect already conferred by lower interest rates on government securities.15
The Fed can inject money into the economy in still other ways. For example, the Fed has the authority to buy foreign government debt, as well as domestic government debt. Potentially, this class of assets offers huge scope for Fed operations, as the quantity of foreign assets eligible for purchase by the Fed is several times the stock of U.S. government debt.16
I need to tread carefully here. Because the economy is a complex and interconnected system, Fed purchases of the liabilities of foreign governments have the potential to affect a number of financial markets, including the market for foreign exchange. In the United States, the Department of the Treasury, not the Federal Reserve, is the lead agency for making international economic policy, including policy toward the dollar; and the Secretary of the Treasury has expressed the view that the determination of the value of the U.S. dollar should be left to free market forces.
Moreover, since the United States is a large, relatively closed economy, manipulating the exchange value of the dollar would not be a particularly desirable way to fight domestic deflation, particularly given the range of other options available. Thus, I want to be absolutely clear that I am today neither forecasting nor recommending any attempt by U.S. policymakers to target the international value of the dollar.
Although a policy of intervening to affect the exchange value of the dollar is nowhere on the horizon today, it's worth noting that there have been times when exchange rate policy has been an effective weapon against deflation. A striking example from U.S. history is Franklin Roosevelt's 40 percent devaluation of the dollar against gold in 1933-34, enforced by a program of gold purchases and domestic money creation. The devaluation and the rapid increase in money supply it permitted ended the U.S. deflation remarkably quickly. Indeed, consumer price inflation in the United States, year on year, went from -10.3 percent in 1932 to -5.1 percent in 1933 to 3.4 percent in 1934.17 The economy grew strongly, and by the way, 1934 was one of the best years of the century for the stock market. If nothing else, the episode illustrates that monetary actions can have powerful effects on the economy, even when the nominal interest rate is at or near zero, as was the case at the time of Roosevelt's devaluation.
Each of the policy options I have discussed so far involves the Fed's acting on its own. In practice, the effectiveness of anti-deflation policy could be significantly enhanced by cooperation between the monetary and fiscal authorities. A broad-based tax cut, for example, accommodated by a program of open-market purchases to alleviate any tendency for interest rates to increase, would almost certainly be an effective stimulant to consumption and hence to prices. Even if households decided not to increase consumption but instead re-balanced their portfolios by using their extra cash to acquire real and financial assets, the resulting increase in asset values would lower the cost of capital and improve the balance sheet positions of potential borrowers. A money-financed tax cut is essentially equivalent to Milton Friedman's famous "helicopter drop" of money.18
Of course, in lieu of tax cuts or increases in transfers the government could increase spending on current goods and services or even acquire existing real or financial assets. If the Treasury issued debt to purchase private assets and the Fed then purchased an equal amount of Treasury debt with newly created money, the whole operation would be the economic equivalent of direct open-market operations in private assets.
The claim that deflation can be ended by sufficiently strong action has no doubt led you to wonder, if that is the case, why has Japan not ended its deflation? The Japanese situation is a complex one that I cannot fully discuss today. I will just make two brief, general points.
First, as you know, Japan's economy faces some significant barriers to growth besides deflation, including massive financial problems in the banking and corporate sectors and a large overhang of government debt. Plausibly, private-sector financial problems have muted the effects of the monetary policies that have been tried in Japan, even as the heavy overhang of government debt has made Japanese policymakers more reluctant to use aggressive fiscal policies (for evidence see, for example, Posen, 1998). Fortunately, the U.S. economy does not share these problems, at least not to anything like the same degree, suggesting that anti-deflationary monetary and fiscal policies would be more potent here than they have been in Japan.
Second, and more important, I believe that, when all is said and done, the failure to end deflation in Japan does not necessarily reflect any technical infeasibility of achieving that goal. Rather, it is a byproduct of a longstanding political debate about how best to address Japan's overall economic problems. As the Japanese certainly realize, both restoring banks and corporations to solvency and implementing significant structural change are necessary for Japan's long-run economic health. But in the short run, comprehensive economic reform will likely impose large costs on many, for example, in the form of unemployment or bankruptcy. As a natural result, politicians, economists, businesspeople, and the general public in Japan have sharply disagreed about competing proposals for reform. In the resulting political deadlock, strong policy actions are discouraged, and cooperation among policymakers is difficult to achieve.
In short, Japan's deflation problem is real and serious; but, in my view, political constraints, rather than a lack of policy instruments, explain why its deflation has persisted for as long as it has. Thus, I do not view the Japanese experience as evidence against the general conclusion that U.S. policymakers have the tools they need to prevent, and, if necessary, to cure a deflationary recession in the United States.
Sustained deflation can be highly destructive to a modern economy and should be strongly resisted. Fortunately, for the foreseeable future, the chances of a serious deflation in the United States appear remote indeed, in large part because of our economy's underlying strengths but also because of the determination of the Federal Reserve and other U.S. policymakers to act preemptively against deflationary pressures. Moreover, as I have discussed today, a variety of policy responses are available should deflation appear to be taking hold. Because some of these alternative policy tools are relatively less familiar, they may raise practical problems of implementation and of calibration of their likely economic effects. For this reason, as I have emphasized, prevention of deflation is preferable to cure. Nevertheless, I hope to have persuaded you that the Federal Reserve and other economic policymakers would be far from helpless in the face of deflation, even should the federal funds rate hit its zero bound.19
In the interview Lindsey gives with Alex Jones he states that Ben Bernanke has already done 4 out of 5 of the things listed that he said he would do if he was appointed Fed Chief... which of course the gangsters loved his plans, as is why he's the Fed Chief right now. Here are all 5 things that Bernanke said he would do...
- If I am every faced with a depression, I will lower the interest rates to zero.
- I will buy securities from the bank to expand the Federal Balance Sheets.
- I will increase the money supply.
- I will buy our countries' debt (qe1, qe2, qe3)
- I will devalue the dollar by 40%.
As you can see, 4 out of 5 of them have already been done. Number 5 is next on the list and Lindsey said his source told him it would happen this year. I have no reason not to believe him on this as the facts are the facts... and Bernanke has already done 4 of the 5 listed, so why would he stop there? Our plan as traders (gamblers) is to try and be short before the crash... right? Ok, I'm going to need everyone's help on this one.
Here's the plan to catch the crash!
I 100% believe that there will be insiders that are told at the last minute when they are going to crash the dollar, and I'm sure those insiders are going to purchase a ton of "puts" on the UUP and the Dollar Futures. This will likely show up on a Friday (or a few days earlier in the week) and we should be able to see that in the volume for that day. I need your help to keep very close eye on the volume of the dollar and related indexes and futures over this coming year.
Get a screen shot of it too, just in case the gangsters try to hide it by taking it down. They could also do this large purchase on some exchange we don't follow or see... therefore we won't know it's been purchased. But, I believe their will be plenty of thugs that tell their buddies about it, and someone will take a large short position in the dollar that shows up on our volume charts. We should also look at gold, silver and oil too, as I'm sure there will be some large positions taken there too.
This will likely be the way the gangsters get oil up to $150-$200 per barrel, as gradually rising the price has caused too much resistance from the public. Doing it overnight with a currency devaluation will likely be the way it's done. I don't know if anyone will be able to stop them from doing this as supposedly the so called good guys (the White Dragon Society) also wants a crash in the market too. Not because they want to hurt the public of course, but to clear out all the fraudulent derivatives in the market before they reset the financial system and inject all the trillions of dollars they have sitting on the sidelines.
You can't blame they for not wanting to just hand over their money to the Illuminati gangsters that created this mess. Ben Fulford still says that they are making big progress in cornering and arresting these gangsters... which is probably true. It goes well with what Lindsey Williams said that the year 2012 will be the "Beginning of the End" for the New World Order. Maybe Ben's "White Dragon Society" really is making progress toward stopping these murders?
I have 3 new updates from Ben Fulford here, as I've been off for vacation (working on other blogs really) while Ben keeps posting away.
Here's my summary of his posts...
- Kim Jong II was murdered and the Rothschild Illuminati faction wants to put in their stooge Kim Jong Un so they can control North Korea.
- They want to unite North and South Korea.
- Illuminati trash Henry Kissinger has contacted a White Dragon Society representative and asked for "negotations" because of the collapse of the banking system. (LOL... go save us sheep some trouble and stick a 457 in your mouth and pull the trigger Henry).
- The talk is that Citibank, J.P. Morgan and Bank of America are among the doomed entities.
- George Bush, Bill and Hilary Clinton, Donald Rumsfeld, James Baker, Frank Carlucci, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Paul Wolfowitz, George Soros, David and Jay Rockefeller, Warren Buffet, and other piece of sh*t cabal members are still trying to start WW3 with Iran (which Lindsey Williams also says they are planning to do).
- The first historic trades within the new financial system have taken place!
- There has been a fundamental split in the ranks among the families that own the large banks that…own the Federal Reserve Board…. They still do not plan to go quietly into the night.
- A source has told the White Dragon Society that George Bush Senior is no longer their leader and that their group supports White Dragon Plans for a plan to end poverty and stop environmental destruction.
Here is the post entitled "Kim Jong Il murdered as part of major Asian power battle" by Ben Fulford...
North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il was murdered Saturday as part of a major power struggle in East Asia, according to Asian secret society sources and Japanese military intelligence. The murder of Kim was followed by a series of arrests of senior police officials in Japan linked to North Korea as well as the ouster of six CIA agents, the Japanese sources say. The death has left Yasuhiro Nakasone, the top North Korean and Rothschild agent in Japan, without a power base, Japanese underworld sources say. In North Korea, meanwhile, there is now a succession battle taking place between the Rothschild faction, who want to place their trained stooge Kim Jong Un in power and set up a Rothschild central bank versus a military clique that wants independence from Rothschild control, Rothschild and Japanese underworld sources say. The action is Asia is linked to a worldwide takedown of the satanic cabal that has been trying to create a global dictatorship.
According to a Rothschild source who was recently in Korea, the Rothschild’s like the Swiss educated Kim Jong Un, because he would allow North and South Korea to be unified and would permit the opening up of the North Korean economy to Rothschild interests. Several senior Asian, US and Rothschild sources have, on many occasions, said they expect about 1 million Khazarian Satanist refugees from the United States to settle in North Korea once the financial crisis reaches its final stage. These same sources also say the Korean peninsula would then experience boom times as a result of the influx.
In any case, the battle in Asia is expected to heat up behind the scenes over the coming weeks as Khazarian slave politicians are purged from power in Japan. The Rothschild faction headed by David Rothschild in Geneva is making a push in Japan using the sadistic murderer former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, President of the Rothschild controlled World Court Hisashi Owada (father of princess Masako), former Finance Minister top bureaucrat Toyo Gyohten, Asian Development Bank President Haruhiko Kuroda and current top MOF bureaucrat Eijiro Katsu. They will find the usual thugs they relied on as enforcers no longer work for them but are now affiliated with the White Dragon Society or with Asian secret societies like the Black Dragon or the Red and Blue.
A White Dragon Society representative called the Rothschild office in Tokyo (81-3-5408-8045) and talked to Rothschild representative Kenji Miyamoto who refused to pass along any message to his Rothschild controllers. Here is the message: “surrender before it is too late.”
In fact, the signs of the collapse of Khazarian control are continuing to be seen in Europe and the US. In the US, Khazarian Nazi faction boss Henry Kissinger has contacted a White Dragon Society representative and asked for “negotations,” because of the collapse of the banking system. Kissinger is a major war criminal and mass murderer who needs to realize he is in no position to “negotiate” anything but a reduced sentence in exchange for a full confession.
In fact, it is a matter of simple mathematics to realize the Khazarian controlled Western banking system is doomed. Even if you take the latest BIS statistics on outstanding derivatives contracts of $707 trillion as of June 2011 at face value (the true numbers are in the quadrillions or more according to some sources) you can see the system is doomed. With world GDP at around $65 trillion, you have banks betting over ten times that amount against each other. Each derivative is a bet against a counterparty.
That means for every winner there is an equal loser. Some very big banks have certainly lost more money than exists in the real world.
Every year January is a month for settlements of accounts among major banking players. January of 2012 is going to be a very interesting month. The talk is that Citibank, J.P. Morgan and Bank of America are among the doomed entities. Then of course there is the universal disgust at Goldman Sachs that is not going to go away quietly.
US law enforcement agencies are continuing to zero in on Wall Street and the corrupt Washington political establishment but it looking increasingly likely that a financial system failure will appear before the slow wheels of justice grind inevitably towards the guilty parties. In Europe as well, the Khazarian control grid appears to be falling apart.
Most importantly satanic Pope Benedict XVI has been rejected by most senior clergy and is dying. The installation of Khazarian puppets in Greece, in Italy, at the head of the European Central Bank and as President of the European Union has failed to do anything to prevent the Euro crisis from accelerating. Moves to make the EU more dictatorial failed to affect credit ratings or change the financial reality that the EU is bankrupt.
In fact, CIA sources in Europe are now saying Germany has begun negotiations with Russia to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
This would mean a Russian/German controlled Europe and leave the French as junior partners.
The Khazarian satanic cabal is still considered unlikely and unwilling to go quietly into the night. They continue to try to start World War 3 with Iran and now Syria and they may well do something extremely nasty over the coming months unless they are stopped. For example, Japan is being threatened with a new set of Earthquakes and Tsunamis, this time targeting Tokyo.
If Tokyo is attacked, then the Monaco bank in the Canary Islands will be knocked into the ocean, according to very powerful but anonymous sources that have their own nukes and their own HAARP machines. That will create a 100 meter or more tsunami that will hit New York and Washington. People will have time to evacuate but hopefully the waves will remove the filth that has built up in Wall Street and Washington D.C.
In an effort to prevent such tragedies, US law enforcement agencies need to arrest the people who control the Pentagon payrolls: Donald Rumsfeld, James Baker, Frank Carlucci, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Paul Wolfowitz, George Soros and their fellow gangsters. The Joint Chiefs of Staff will then be able to keep meeting payrolls as they return the US to constitutional government of the people, by the people and for the people.
It is also worth pointing out again to the Khazarian Satanists that their money is no longer backed by anything and is thus worthless. Without money, they can no longer pay their thugs and bully boys. Suddenly, they will realize they are just weak old men with very few real friends.
All in all though, there will be more turmoil in the coming weeks as the cabal continues its death throes.
For Ben's post entitled "OCCUPY THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM – BREAKING NEWS RE THE 99% ACTIVATING THE NEW", I'm just going to include a link to it HERE. His posted entitled "Major realignment of power taking place in Asia”… Humanity can free itself simply by deciding collectively to do so." is listed below...
There has been a major change in the power balance in Asia during the past week or so following the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, according to Asian intelligence sources. The biggest changes are happening in Japan where a series of arrests of bureaucrats, police officials and politicians has begun. One prominent casualty has been former Japanese Finance and Economy Minister Heizo Takenaka who has been arrested and is underground “vigorous questioning,” according to Japanese military intelligence sources. Takenaka is apparently singing like a canary, the sources said. If this information from highly placed sources is correct, Takenaka will be explaining why he handed over control of Japan’s commercial banks to foreign oligarchs, including the Rockefeller and Bush clans. The situation in the Korean peninsula is also now headed for the biggest change since the Korean war in the 1950’s the sources say.
North Korea, as always, remains a difficult place to report about because of the cloak of secrecy hanging over the peninsula. However, Japanese right-wing sources, a North Korean agent in Japan and others claim that Kim Jong Il was killed about two years ago by a Swedish prostitute who gave him a stroke-causing poison. Since then, a communal leadership has been ruling while using two Kim Jong Il look-alikes. Both look-alikes have now been killed so the collective leadership decided to go ahead and announce the new regime with Kim Jong Un as its nominal leader.
Two of the sources also claim that Kim Jong Un is actually the son of Megumi Yokota, a Japanese national who was kidnapped and taken to North Korea when she was 13. The evidence both sources cited is that Yokota was the younger Kim’s companion when he was studying in Switzerland. This author has previously heard from multiple North Korea watchers and one North Korean opera singer that Yokota is now a senior North Korean agent who has no wish to return to Japan. Perhaps soon there will be enough disclosure from North Korea to ascertain if this is true or not.
As mentioned last week, Rothschild family sources are claiming that North and South Korea will be unified with North Korea taking a leading role in the new political regime. In exchange, a Rothschild central bank will be set up in the Korean peninsula and a major development drive will take place there. There will also be about 1 million refugees arriving there from the United States. The US military will also be asked to leave the peninsula, these sources say.
One public sign of a major change has been an agreement between China and Japan to directly trade each other’s currencies announced during Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda’s visit there this week. These days about 60% of Japan/China transactions take place via the US dollar.
In Japan, leaders of the old regime, including former Prime Minister’s Yasuhiro Nakasone and Junichiro Koizumi are said to be struggling to maintain their power bases amidst the ongoing arrests. Many of the officials being arrested are being charged with illegally using Bank of Japan funds for private purposes, the sources claim.
The changes in Asia will have strong repercussions in Europe and the US in the New Year. The Europeans are still finding it impossible to get investments in government bonds from the rest of the world. This is why the announcement of a 489 billion Euro infusion of money by the European Central Bank failed to lower Italian government bond interest rates below the unsustainable rate of 7%.
The situation among the major European and US money center banks is expected to get critical towards the end of January when these large institutions are supposed to settle accounts with each other.
The word from CIA officers involved in the situation is that Citibank, Deutschebank, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan may not survive. Goldman Sachs is controlled by J. Rockefeller, these same sources claim.
What is certain is that there has been a fundamental split in the ranks among the families that own the large banks that in turn own the Federal Reserve Board. There is still an arrogance about these people that is difficult for the average human to fathom. They still do not plan to go quietly into the night.
However, a Gnostic source has told the White Dragon Society that George Bush Senior is no longer their leader and that their group supports White Dragon Plans for a plan to end poverty and stop environmental destruction.
They are opposed to bloodline dynastic rule and promise major havoc in Europe and North America next summer when the warm weather makes large demonstrations viable.
For the year 2012 the White Dragon Society proposes a major campaign to end poverty and stop environmental destruction followed by a huge global party. They also propose “ending the world” on December 21st, 2012. They would then “restart” the world on December 25th, 2012 in the old calendar by renaming it as January 1st of the year zero.
The battle to remove the old criminal elite will have to end in victory for humanity, though, if we are to make this possible. Humanity can free itself simply by deciding collectively to do so.
Ok, this post is probably one of the longest ones' I've done in a long time, so I'm going to move on to the markets now... finally!
The first week or so of January we could see some light volume chop as traders figure out which way they think the market will go. I think we are going to have a year similar to 2008 where the early part of the year started the decline slowly and picked up steam in October when it crashed in a large Wave 3 down move. We should see the same thing this year but the Wave 3 down will be much larger! The first Wave 3 down was inside a larger Wave 1 down, where as this next Wave 3 down will be inside a larger Wave 3 down.
Yes, we should see that Wave 3 of 3 of 3 of 3 etc... later this year!
(to watch on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivO-vg3-Oxg)
Remember the talk of China's "October Surprise"... that has now faded away on the internet. People thought it was going to happen this past October of 2011, but it sure looks like it's going to be this coming October, 2012. From what I see in the larger time frame charts, and confirmed by Lindsey's source of a Dollar Collapse, I'd say we will see the "Crash of All Crashes" happen this coming fall of 2012.
As for January, it's hard too tell right now as the light volume could allow them to push the market up to the 1320 spx area to hit the downward sloping trendline starting at the 1370 high in May, connecting to the 1356 high in July and now coming in around that 1320 area. Or, we could start selling off right where we are right now from bad news coming out of Europe (or some other news we don't know about yet?). While I want to say that we are going down this week, I know how the gangsters manipulate the market and fool the masses... ie, us sheep!
Then there is Lindsey's comment that we won't crash during the first 2 months of the year. Of course what he calls a crash and what I call a crash are totally different. I'm sure he's talking about a HUGE 2,000-3,000 point crash, while I'll be happy to see a 500 point down day... that's a crash day too me! Counting the Elliottwave's in the short term charts we can easily see a wave 3 down coming this week, but EW is always just guessing in my view. It's too easy for them to manipulate the count to some other count and make us look like fools again.
But, I do believe there will be less manipulate in the market this year as more and more pressure is being put on these gangsters, which tells me their secret printing of "Quantitative Easing 4, 5, or 6?" is only going to give the market the counter bounces as it heads lower all year long. More and more hole are showing up in the over all economy and plugging them all with funny money isn't going to work this year. Other countries are joining together and trading with their own currencies between each other, and no longer using the Fed's worthless dollar that Bernanke keeps printing.
The gangsters know that the money they are printing is not being accepted by the world as it used too be, and that's causing them big problems. They even "secretly" gave $600 Billion to support the Euro on Christmas Day when us sheep where enjoying the holiday's. Of course they did it that way so we wouldn't notice... just like they mentioned that they couldn't find a missing $2 Trillion Dollars on September 10th, 2001. They knew no one would paying attention to it after the 911 staged attack... because THEY were they one's that did it!
We also have China and Japan signing the largest trade agreement ever... agreeing to trade with each other with their own currency, and no longer use the Dollar. All these signs clearly point a lower market this year. Yes, they could push it higher short term, but I do see the gangsters losing control of this market later this year. They know that they will have too eventually just let it collapse, as they can't hold it up forever. Of course they will likely short it and make money from the crash... after all, they are murdering, lying, thieving, gangsters!
I'm going to focus more on other sectors this years, as trying to forecast the S&P500 is extremely hard when it's the MOST manipulated of all the markets. I'll be looking at the dollar and gold, as well as the euro and possibly some individual stocks too. These gangsters seem too have a harder time manipulating things that are heavily traded all over the world... like gold. While I'm sure they still manipulate it some, it appears to follow the charts much better then others.
Ok, that's enough for now gang. It's a very long post, but the first one of the year... so I won't be doing them all like this. I'll end it here as I'm only guessing about what's going to happen in the market this week. Simply put, the market looks ready to rollover on Tuesday and sell off all week long. Will it? I just don't know? Again, it's just too easy for the gangsters to manipulate the market up during the coming light volume... therefore I'm just guessing (based on the charts of course).
Good luck everyone, and Happy New Year!