The American Spectator

Darin| 5.6.09 @ 7:52AM

Look up the definition of Fascism and look at what the Obama administration has been doing. You'll see a disturbing parallel. The takeover of Citi and GM are cases in point.

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.6.09 @ 7:56AM

Don't look now but the only thing that the current administration thinks that is not too big to fail is democracy.

Robert Rosencrans| 5.6.09 @ 8:12AM

If the Obama cap and trade program is approved, the economy will most likely take a nose dive few will ever forget. Few governments which work solely from the concepts of deceit are successful. Healthy economic programs and honesty from government go hand in hand.

From the beginning, the Obama administration has deceived the voting public, promising tax cuts for 95% of the public, while secretly planning on a stealth tax for all through an ill thought out cap and trade program. The tax cuts that 95% of the public received were meaningless tax cuts anyway.

The Obama White House is staffed with tax cheats and left wing zealots, none of whom have much credibility at anything.

In essence, few who work in the White House understand or even care about the wonderful dynamics which make the potentials in the American system work together.

They are more interested in walking down the pathways of secular humanistic movements, promoting abortion and establishing a statist monolithic movement which worships the falsehoods of global warming.

I disagree with the author that there are signs of economic recovery. They are false signs and they have been observed before.

Here is a great article that explains the relationship between the dollar, government spending and GDP.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/04/whatever_gdps_path_dont_expect.html
On the GDP front, it’s easy to see why some might presume a recovery that won’t be, but that will show up in this most Keynesian of economic measures that presumes real output can be measured within country borders. Indeed, government spending will surely increase this measure of output, but as most intuitively understand, governments cannot create economic growth. More realistically they can rob the economy of growth thanks to taxing and borrowing money from the private sector. No growth will occur, probably the opposite, but unreliable GDP figures will suggest recovery.

Even more problematic when it comes to GDP is the faulty way in which it measures trade. When massive amounts of imports reach our shores, meaning the trade “deficit” is increasing, this is one of the surest signals of economic growth. That’s the case because production and consumption are ultimately identical, and when imports flow our way, that’s a sign that we’re being rewarded for our productivity with more imports. But with our trade deficit at a 9-year low, meaning imports are declining, this unfortunate signal of our wilting productivity will paradoxically add to GDP growth. In short, what so many economists deem “recovery” in fact signals the opposite.

To develop a sense of what economic “recovery” will feel like, it would be best to look back to Jimmy Carter’s presidency. With the dollar regularly testing new lows alongside weak imports and heavy government spending, the U.S. economy experienced under Carter what author William Greider described as “one of the longest and most expansive periods of economic growth in postwar history.” It’s also true that percentage job growth under Carter hit postwar records.

So while job and GDP measures of growth showed expansion under our 39th president, markets saw something entirely different. Not fooled by Keynesian measures of output, investors bid up shares during Carter’s presidency a paltry 24 percent. And in real terms, investors lost a great deal of ground given the inflationary dollar that paradoxically added to GDP growth.

More modernly, job growth under President George W. Bush was similarly impressive, plus he regularly pointed to a 52-month expansion in GDP terms as a way of talking up the economic portion of his presidency. The problem there was that neither the markets nor voters were fooled, just as they weren’t under Carter. The S&P fell 36 percent during Bush’s presidency.

In truth, the dollar was in steady decline throughout his two terms, and as Carter’s term in office proved, GDP statistics can’t whitewash over the economic realities wrought by currency decline that effectively robs voters while retarding economic growth. Notably, the dollar’s debasement was a boon for firms in the energy sector, and it was energy sector health that made the total market look healthier than it actually was.

Indeed, as of last May, when the S&P was 40 percent higher than it is at present, profits within S&P firms were the worst they’d been in a decade. If not for the earnings of ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, S&P profits would have shown their biggest declines since Bloomberg data analysts began compiling earnings data. By last year the energy sector accounted for 15 percent of the S&P’s total capitalization, and this explains why a relatively high S&P average of 1473 coincided with a great deal of unhappiness among the electorate.

The broader lesson from all this is that stocks do well when the dollar is strong and gold is falling, and they do really well when the dollar is strong and stable. At present the dollar is weak and gyrating, so no matter what the faulty measures of GDP may suggest in the coming quarter, any future recovery is something investors and workers alike should curb their enthusiasm about.

Inflation rarely if ever correlates with strong stock markets, and worse, the chance for a noticeable economic recovery was most likely stolen from us last fall. It was then that the federal government stepped in to block out the very company failures (and resulting unemployment) that if allowed to occur, would have authored a greater recovery. As awful as unemployment and bankruptcy are, both are economically cleansing for allowing debased assets and capital to reach better overseers, all the while creating a happy process whereby healthy firms are able to hire skilled workers on the cheap.

Instead, Congress and both the Bush and Obama administrations foisted bailouts on a country whose voters did not want them. The alleged “security” offered us has shown up in growing government oversight of the banking sector that promises to politicize the latter while giving American citizens a form of economic paralysis.

So while esoteric data may well point to economic recovery beginning in the fall, the reality will likely feel a lot different. In short, we’ll only feel economic recovery through rising market indices and in ways intangible once the toxic asset that is the dollar is strengthened alongside a humble Washington that steps aside and allow markets to work. Absent that, what some deem recovery will be the kind of growth that show

Darin| 5.6.09 @ 8:16AM

Hi David,
"State of Fear" by Michael Crichton and "The Whole Truth" by David Baldacci are good reads. Of course, a poor "stupid conservative" such as me does have a hard time because there aren't any pictures.

While I do listen to talk radio a bit, it's only because they relay things other media refuses to report. Like asking where are the pictures by the recent Air Force One-like flyby which panicked New Yorkers. I also find interesting items in the Wall Street Journal (again, hard for me to read because there are so few pictures).

Tenn Slim| 5.6.09 @ 8:18AM

ALL
OBNA has one goal, end the USA Capitalistic system ASAP. He and the Progressive Agencies of Soros and Co. are hard at it.
Goal achievement prediction, early 2010, when the Newest Crisis will be upon us. IE: a manufactured Crisis to keep the Dems in power in the 2010 election.
end

Dave| 5.6.09 @ 8:41AM

Well blow me down and call me spotty! Dave Mathews actually said something that was intelligent:

"Capitalism is already dead. Capitalism died in August 2007. "

You, sir, are absolutely right.

Fuk all libs| 5.6.09 @ 8:47AM

Commies will pay a severe pounding, as in a civil war, because it is already happening and in the end a new capitalist nation will reemerge. Want REAL freedom and prosperity? Take up arms and eliminate all socialist libs who dont know a fuch about freedom, are running this nation into the ground, and lets take back this country NOW

Chuck| 5.6.09 @ 8:57AM

I was inclined to comment, but I won't participate in this site's reader forum, on any subject, until the owners and editors have the good sense to blackball David Mathews. I mean, c'mon, what possible positive purpose is served by providing a platform for this profoundly mean and stupid person to parade his psychoses?

Deborah D| 5.6.09 @ 8:59AM

Excellent, if horrifying, article, Mr. Ferrara. I do believe all of this is a purposeful act by the Obama Administration. Never in my lifetime have I seen a presidency so hell-bent on destruction as this one. And, never in my lifetime have I ever seen such an American news media so happy to put the blinders on the one hand and cheer through the megaphone on the other. No wonder the media is dying in this country. The country knows they're either lying or delusional (just like The One).

Ran| 5.6.09 @ 9:11AM

Mr Ferrara,
Thanks for bringing Newt's recovery plan to our attention.

I apologize for scrambling together loose ends, below. My concern is that the pieces of the puzzle emerging form a pattern. Economic recovery and health are anathema to that pattern.

With respect sir, this Administration's and Congress' policies are not about 'recovery' as such. They are about establishing about power without end.

This Administration and Congress are desperate to establish a permanent electoral lock by creating an electoral majority composed of political debtors.

Delay recovery? Why would these people want economic recovery at all? The health of the economy is perversely not what they need, but rather a large hurting dependency class too fearful to let go. They need junkies.

Recovery is exactly what must be avoided. A healthy economy breeds independence in the middle incomes - that is not an advantage to Nanny State political doctrine.

Matt Vadum today points out that ACORN may be eligible for billions of dollars of tax-payer money. Think corruption.

ACORN and their ilk will be needed to organize the next major assault on the Constitution: an invasion of the electoral process millions of newly minted Democrat-loyal voters.

Commenter Robert Rosencrans' point about the dangers of 'Cap and Trade' synch with the pattern - with the panicked effort to create a permanent, dependent majority. [Thanks Robert!]

Mentally retarded Masses| 5.6.09 @ 9:11AM

NAFTA, GAAT, Free Trade call it what you like, a nation of blind dumd down people who have no clue where they are going. Who think in shades of blue and red, designed for 4 year olds because that's how foolish people have become.

They think Obama is responsible for what happens in America, Obama is not in control, no more than Bush was.

While you are looking for another Puppet to lead you, while your constitution is torn up and thrown away, under Bush and Obama and Clinton before him. The Royal Institute of International Affairs, run's America from London.

The plan is for zero growth for America, and the distruction of the American middle class. And to destroy the American Industrial base hence NAFTA, GAAT, and Free Trade, and the Scam about Global warming. Carbon Tax, what do you think it will do to Industry?.
What they want is Global Genocide and you off the planet by 2050 eithey by starvation or Lab created Viruses to kill you and your children, and me and who ever else can be disposed of through Socialisation, and Communism, and death.

While Americans are busy fighting illegal wars, you are fighting the wrong ememy, you are blinded by lies, and lack the educational ability to see clearly, don't read the right books, and the Midea dazzle you with false News.

danny| 5.6.09 @ 9:27AM

obama and company are most certainly not delusional. they know exactly what they are doing. to think or hope they are delusional in my humble opinion is wishful thinking.

Indiana Alex| 5.6.09 @ 9:34AM

I think the biggest reason for the lack of recovery has to do with Federal Reserve monetary policy. The Fed is the key to causing this mess.

As for Obama, of course capital will flee. His desire to control the economy will dampen the recovery, and he will of course pressure the Fed to keep interest rates low, which will lead to inflation, higher interest rates, and lower growth.

And of course all of the government borrowing will mean less credit available to businesses.

It's a liberal's dream economy. The only problem is it has never worked. Ever. In the history of the world.

1Freeman| 5.6.09 @ 9:51AM

Mathews (you ignorant troll), the president who presided over the disastrous real-estate problem (it's author and the genesis of the global terror problem and the financial crisis of today) was your beloved rapist Clinton and his looser wife, Hillary. You remember him: he taught our children about oral sex not really being sex after all. Between Clinton and Carter the world is in peril as never before and apologists like you are trying to sweep it under the rug.

Mathews, you are as ignorant as anyone I have ever heard from. Move along little boy, your mommie has your hot chocolate ready.

GetUrGunsNow| 5.6.09 @ 10:22AM

Dave Matthews = Ignorant Fool. Also, Dave Matthews = first in line to be shot after the coming armed revolution.

lzreno| 5.6.09 @ 10:44AM

Dave Matthews, You have no actual concept of world history. Do you think that all the ills of our society are from Pres. Bush? So, just changing the President makes it all better, You sir, are a complete douchbag! I pray that soon the real Americans will wake up, and take back this Country, Restore it's Beautiful Freedoms, and send all of the selfish, arrogant, pantload, loser Gov't dependents to Never Neverland, where all the gumdrops are free, and no one will ever "hurt" again, blah,blah,blah. D.M. GROW UP! DO SOMETHING POSITIVE.......Run for Office!............No wait, on second thought, get a real job, hire the Illegals, pay for your neighbors healthcare, pay for their kid's college, invite the Gitmo residents to your home, etc., You Moron!

Emo| 5.6.09 @ 10:49AM

We're likely to get a bounce in GDP growth due to increased inventories soon. This also occurred in 1Q 2002. But unless demand increases and is sustained, it will be followed by poor growth in subsequent quarters.

The question needs to be not, "When will the recession end?" The question should be "What type of recovery will we have" Will it be like 1982-90 and 1991-2000 or like 1976-79? Given the Fed's recent bond purchases, I'd bet on the latter

Emo| 5.6.09 @ 10:52AM

Obama may in fact be speeding up the recovery. Business know that taxes are going up next year. Thus they may try to move as much economic activity into this year as possible to avoid higher taxes in 2011. So Obamas policies might mean more growth in 2010 and less in 2011

Bram| 5.6.09 @ 10:56AM

Obama is not "delaying" the recovery. There will be no real recovery as long as the Democrats are in control. Too much hostility towards business, too many plans for new taxes and regulations, too much uncertainty on what their next bad idea will be, too little incentive to invest, grow, and work. Too much unsustainable spending that can only be paid for with inflation.

I see businesses and individuals looking for ways to weather a long economic storm. This is going to get very ugly.

Bram| 5.6.09 @ 10:59AM

Emo - real recovery doesn't work that way. Businesses might make some short-term moves to take money out, but, they sure aren't making any real investment. No new factories, labs, whatever, that will take years to payback.

Jack| 5.6.09 @ 11:00AM

Excellent articla but it misses the point. The One does not care about a growing economy. The very fact that the economy is growing means the clueless (his voters like DM), will not be getting their share. The clueless only win when someone comes along to confiscate on their behalf.

Gill O'Teen| 5.6.09 @ 11:13AM

In a debate, The surest sign of an empty argument is to attack the person disagreed with. So far in this blog I have read such ad hominem attacks as “Peter Ferrara is a real idiot!” and Darin is, “a stupid conservative”; however, any attempt to present a coherent. logical refutation of their opinions is strangely missing. Surely, geniuses such as those opposing the views of Ferrara and Darin, can present a defense of obumassah-nomics with penetrating logic and indisputable evidence. Of course, there is the nagging possibility that a real idiot and a stupid conservative might, nonetheless, be higher up the intellectual food chain than a lemming about to plunge over the cliff of delusion.

Ed| 5.6.09 @ 11:14AM

Just about everyone I know, including myself, has stock market investments of one kind or another to fund our retirements. This is rapidly going down the tubes. There is no way that Obama, The Wise and Powerful Wizard, can fund Social Security to make up for this. So, those of us who are in their fifties and sixties can look forward to poverty in our senior citizen years. So, how does David Mathews, High Troll of the Realm, plan to fund his retirement?

The whole web wonders.

Mind Control is an Art& Sci| 5.6.09 @ 11:17AM

Carbon Tax is due to be introduced, can you imagine trying to manufacture goods and grow your company how hard that will be under this False Carbon Tax trickery, most will just give up and leave, leaving huge gaps in the American economy. And massive Unemployment, that is in the plans of the Royal Institute of Strategic Studies.

Even the United States Government has to be Brain washed to ensure he follows orders.

Ever heard of the Hudson Institute, and The The National Training Lab founded in 1930 Explicit purpose Brainwashing of Leaders in Government, a Psychology known as group dynamics.

The Government does not control the United States of America, they are selected long before you the ordinary man on the street ever hear of them. Obama is perhaps the most brainwashed than any, Yes we can, as a slogan, and people themselves were brainwashed into the slogan and were repeating it, yes we can.

People in America is about the most Doped up, dumb downs of the entire planet, they think they are great, explain the trade deficit, the balance of payment deficit. Explain the reason you think what government says is true, why don't Americans have the ability to think for themselves. Why is your standard of education is the worst in the developed world, when you can explain that you are making progress, and when you stop swapping one idiot for another under Democrats and Republicans you have woken up.

The truth will set you free| 5.6.09 @ 11:27AM

Obama is the Guy you see you never see the people who run's America, Obama is the American Representitive, the role Obama plays has already been told to him, businesses must be destroyed to create poverty destroy the middle classes, close down big businesses, like GM, and Steel Plants and put these people out of work, many will never work again, because they know nothing else, this is not Obamas plan that is what the group of 300 wants forget Obama, he is there to take the rap for what he has nothing to do with.

Stop worring about Obama, and worry about how you will survive if at all into the next decades.

Bob| 5.6.09 @ 12:52PM

Ferrara continues to be a non-economist political hack. The fact is that Obama has been in office for less than 4 months and the actions he has taken are only beginning to see some preliminary effect. The major Republican talking point about his stimulus was that is spent too much and would not be effective for at least a year. How you can say his actions wouldn't be effective for at least a year and now blame him for the wrong actions is the height of stupidity.

Just as you don't turn the Titanic quickly, economies do not turn around quickly. Most economists last year (before Obama took office) were not looking for a turnaround in 2010. We are now looking for a turnaround a bit sooner.

Personally, I don't think Obama has had a lot to do with this turnaround as it is just a function of economic cycles. However, he has not had the time to hurt it either. You won't see the effect of Obama's policies for at least a year from now. And for the record, I think he is spending way too much.

But this doesn't change the fact that Ferrara is a hack who knows little about economics just trying to feed the lemmings on this blog.

Darin| 5.6.09 @ 12:53PM

When mentioning a "death of Capitalism in 2007," I ask the follow: who controlled Congress in 2007? Congress, not the President, controls the purse strings.

Tom Anderson| 5.6.09 @ 12:56PM

I simply don't understand why anyone even acknowledges David Matthews. He has demonstrated that he appeals to feelings and prejudices rather than intellect. What then is the point of attempting to counter anything he writes? Mr. Matthews is not able to respond to argument. His object, as is typical of today's progressives and liberals, is to bully people, not engage with them intellectually and morally.

SLG| 5.6.09 @ 1:05PM

Chuck, 'way above, said it all -- as long as Terminal Nutcases (never offering anything akin to a legitimate argument) like Mr. Mathiews continue to pollute these "pages" without immunity, forget it -- color me Gone.
The guy calling himself Bob is only marginally better -- if either would have anything specific, that might be different, but all they usually do is innuendo and name-calling.
That said, an additional observation, please: In Atlas Shrugged we read about a “banker with a heart of gold” who went out of business after lending to borrowers on the basis of their “need” rather than their ability to repay. Anyone who understands how the government’s “affordable housing” crusade led to an orgy of sub-prime lending can appreciate Ayn Rand’s foresight, and the Barney Frank types who fostered such supercilious lending… and that book was written over fifty years ago -- just now coming "true." If you can call it that...
Could be that President Obama is really Ayn Rand's Mr. Thompson (and Rahm Emanuel Cuffy Miegs)…... although, when speaking extemporaneously (off the TelePrompTer), one might think he is really the narcissistic version of (Kosinski's) Chance the Gardener.
And Dubya was supposed to be the dumb one?
Sure, he was a lousy president, but nowhere as bad as the sorry exhibition we're experiencing today. Truly scary.

SLG| 5.6.09 @ 1:20PM

Called our large-scale sporting goods people last night to see if they had any of Remington's 22 ammo delivered.
A shipment was coming in last night.
Just phoned (12:15pm) and they're sold out - ALREADY.
So much for confidence in the Obama-Holder regime, and the Merry Marxists in congress.

FWG| 5.6.09 @ 1:23PM

Davis M What did your moher feed you when you were a child to produce such an A--H---. You pull out your trite responses to every one of your replies. Unfortunatly they are the same tune played at different speeds. Grow up get a life

Jim| 5.6.09 @ 1:24PM

It's tiresome to hear George W. Bush run down by the right and the left.

He was never a true conservative, though many of us wanted him to be and hoped he would become.

However disappointing his expansion of government, he bolstered the economy with his tax cuts AND he kept the country safe so that we could live to argue about these things.

Bob| 5.6.09 @ 1:28PM

So, SLG, where are your "facts"? The market is up 21% from it's low and is clearly in a turnaround mode. If you want facts, here is a 3 year chart of the market:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=$indu&CP=0&PT=8

If you were going to make an argument based on facts, surely this chart would "prove" that Obama had a positive effect on the market. Is that a specific counterfact? Besides, most of the underlying economic factors regarding production, inventories, demand, housing, and jobs are showing a change in direction.

It took a long time for this recession to occur, and it will take a long time for it to get better. This is why Ferrara is a political hack. Rather than look at underlying economic factors, he makes assertions related to proposed debt levels. Historically, deficit spending doesn't effect the immediate economy -- it affects the people who must pay back the debt years later -- it is a spend now, pay later philosophy. Furthermore, prior to Obama, it was Reagan and Bush that created the greatest amount of debt. Here's a chart that shows that?

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

You'll notice that Ferrara doesn't use charts. That is a sure sign of a political hack. If you want to get a true picture, then look at charts and not selected data. For example, there are lots of misstatements about the growth of our economy with tax cuts/spending etc. Here is a chart of GDP over time. You should use the inflation adjusted red line:

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

It basically shows that tax cuts and spending increases don't effect economic output very much.

Now, SLG, do you have more facts????? People like Ferrara will not dare use an overview of data because it doesn't support their political point of view. The effect of Obama's spending will be seen by our children and grandchildren and is immoral in my opinion just as the debt creation by Reagan and Bush was immoral. I don't like debt no matter who creates it as a national policy.

Mattled| 5.6.09 @ 1:31PM

Bob,

How appropriate you comparing the Obama 4-months to the Titanic----love it man---keep it up!

Tim| 5.6.09 @ 1:34PM

Is Obama Delaying Economic Recovery?

Would economic recovery delay Obama?

Bush| 5.6.09 @ 1:38PM

Mattled, remember that Bush was in the wheelhouse and we've already hit the iceberg. Obama has just taken the helm of the salvage crew.

Mattled| 5.6.09 @ 1:47PM

Mr. Ferrara,

Enjoy your articles all the time. It's a shame that people like david-bob-mathews have NYT fish-hooks in their mouths and regurgitate DNC talking points.

Originality was never a strong suit for liberals---although eugenics are and perhaps should have been exercised in the case of the afore-mentioned.

Mattled| 5.6.09 @ 1:49PM

Rrrrriighhhtt---I feel better already that Obama is at the helm----he doesn't even know what a helm is.

He's still using AF-1 like Tom Hanks did the limo in "Big", pressing all the buttons while sucking on a Slurpee.

Mattled| 5.6.09 @ 2:01PM

Carter takes over in 1977---Blames Ford
Reagan takes over in 1981---Takes charge (country in deep recession, "stagflation"---had to come up with a new term for Carter's ineptness BTW)
Clinton takes over in 1993---Blames Bush I (we were already out of recession)
Bush II takes over in 2001---Takes charge (we were in a recession from Clinton)
Obama takes over in 2009---Blames Bush II and keeps blaming and blaming and blaming. Blames Reagan while being compared to Reagan (part of his Sybil-Like qualities)

Post-presidency, Carter and Clinton----keep trashing present and past Republican presidents.

Bush I, Bush II, Reagan, Ford---nada. Republicans all class, Democrats all ass.
It's like John Wayne (Republican presidents) vs. The View (Democrat presidents).

John Wayne takes charge. Barbara Walters, Joy Behar and Whoppie Goldberg p+moan for months

Robert Rosnencrans| 5.6.09 @ 2:17PM

Well I see Bob is here lying again. He claims the market is up 21% from it's low, implying that Obama is somehow responsible but what he left out is that he himself admitted in another post yesterday that it's up only 5 or 7% since the day after Obama's inauguration depending on which gauge you use, either the DJIA or the S&P 500.
That' hardly constitutes a market recovery and there are many real economists who are more worried now then ever.

Here's a good article by someone who actually knows what they are talking about as opposed to an anonymous internet shill. By the way, the link has graphs and charts for the simple minded who have to see the colors and bars, etc.
http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/why-you-should-be-worried-about-the-bond-market-14757.aspx
Sentiment everywhere is improving. In fact, I was astonished to hear such bullish talk from the likes of Anthony Bolton and Crispin Odey this last week. Their records and experience dwarf mine, but I see an intermediate top coming in the stock markets more or less now. In fact, I think we may have made it on Monday.

What's more, I am observing a worrying trend in the bond market, both for US Long Bond (the 30-year US Treasury) and for UK gilts. Even now, after months of attention due to the Bank of England's quantitative easing plans, I suspect that few people – or politicians for that matter - are really that interested in government bonds. But, believe me, the last thing we need right now is a collapse in the bond market.

Unfortunately, it could be just around the corner...
Is this stock market rally over?

Looking first at the stock market, it's worth reminding ourselves that bear market rallies of 20% or more are perfectly normal. This first chart from Tom Denham of www.Elliotwave.com shows how there were seven rallies of 19% or more in the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929–32. Note how fast and violent they all were.

Dow Jones Industrial Average

In other words, this phenomenal rally we have seen in stock markets since March 8th is, both in its size and duration, a perfectly normal occurrence in a rotten bear market.

This next chart from Flint Stephens at MarketOwl.com is also worth considering. It shows the S&P 500 from March 2000 until October 2002. Even though the index lost 48%, there were four rallies of 18% or more.

S&P 500

Why do I think this rally should peter out now? Looking at the S&P 500, rising some 36% from early March to Monday's high at 910, this has been one of the greatest two-month rallies ever seen. Rallies of this magnitude should at least retrace. Volume levels are down, which would suggest a loss of momentum. What's more, there is a great deal of resistance in the 900 to 950 area. It took several attempts to rally through this level in 2002 and it also proved the stumbling block in December last year, and January this year.

Enjoying this article? Sign up for our free daily email, Money Morning, to receive intelligent investment advice every weekday. Sign up to Money Morning.

I have drawn some lines on the chart of the S&P 500 since the highs of October 2007. There is a clear channel in place and we are hitting the top of it. It's a long way to the bottom. I'd love to know what Bolton and Odey are seeing that I am not, but in terms of risk-reward, stock markets must be a sell here. It's May, for goodness sake. How many times do we need to learn the lesson, 'Sell in May and go away'?

S&P 500 weekly
Banks' problems are far from over

We might need some bad news to upset sentiment. And it may already be coming. After hours last night, Reuters reported that the Bank of America has been deemed by its government stress test to need as much as $34bn of extra capital. Meanwhile, General Motors announced in a filing with the SEC that it is issuing 60 billion new shares, a move which, if it meets with US Treasury approval, would dilute common shareholders into oblivion. Those titbits might kick things off.

But perhaps more worrying are concerns over the bond market. The Federal Reserve has been buying into the US government bond market with the aim of lowering interest rates across the economy. But despite its plan – announced in March - to buy $300bn worth of T-bonds to keep rates down, long bond yields have actually gone up (yields rise as prices fall). Could this trend of rising prices, which has been in place since the early 1980s, finally be over? Here is a chart of long bond prices since 1979.

US 30-year T-bonds

Here it is in close-up, since 2006. After that colossal spike-up in late 2008, which some are arguing was the blow-off top to mark the end of the bull market, we appear to be moving lower. It is now sitting on its 52-week moving average. There is a lot of support from 122 to 112.

US T-bonds

The massive provision of credit or 'liquidity' from the US government has helped this recent stock rally. But if government's own long-term borrowing costs go up, so – in the long run - will rates across the rest of the economy. This could add to the pressures on the US housing market, just as it seemed to be stabilising. Add to this mix the problems that may still lie ahead in credit cards, corporate loans and the commercial property market, and you can see that the problems of the banks, and the wider economy, are far from over.
Are higher interest rates just around the corner?

A collapsing bond market means higher interest rates. At the moment those in debt are not suffering too badly – those with tracker rate mortgages, for example, are sitting pretty at the moment. But higher rates will decimate anyone with any debt, be they individuals, companies or governments. They are the last thing the economy needs just now.

Now the Fed is still able to borrow in the shorter term at low rates, so this may not have an immediate impact. But the drop in bond prices in the last five months is an early warning sign that markets will only prop up even the world's largest economies for so long.

Those who want to short the long bond might consider the US-listed exchange-traded fund, TBT. But with the bond market already having made a big move down, I do not see now as a good entry point. Keep an eye on this market though and await a pull back before entering.

Tom Paine| 5.6.09 @ 2:25PM

Lincoln, the first Republican president, had this to say about the role of government in our lives:

"The leading object of government is to elevate the condition of men -- to lift artificial weights from all shoulders -- to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all -- to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life."

Sounds like good, wholesome, old-fashioned liberalism to me, and it sounds an awful lot like Obama's governing philosophy.

Marc Jeric| 5.6.09 @ 2:32PM

Ladies and gentlemen - please, let us all agree to ignore those bloviating gasbags infecting these pages, like David and Bob; let them enjoy their hateful marxist outbursts in isolation and silence.

Bob| 5.6.09 @ 2:37PM

Well, it looks like Rosencran's ability to not think for himself continues. Can he post a response without referencing an article? I doubt it.

With regard to that article, I not only agree with it but have said much the same. Since Rosencrans comprehension is limited, he didn't catch that fact. Further proving his comprehension is limited, I was making the argument that Obama has little to do with the economy right now, either up or down. What I said was that IF you want to use the type of data that Ferrara, the hack, used to make his case, I could show the same type of non-relevant chart to show Obama was effective. This was a tongue in cheek way to show that Ferrara's statements were spurious. But Rosencrans is not sophisticated enough to understand because he only posts other people's thoughts and does not think for himself.

He does take up a lot of room here, however.

Stan Redmond| 5.6.09 @ 2:41PM

Two things. First, YES! Obama is delaying economic recovery. Not in his eyes though. Obama is "rebuilding" the economy in his own image using failed communist and Keynesian methods. In his mind and millions of his supporters a bad economy is the way things should be because the misery is equally shared by all and there are no rich greedy people anymore. They're all broke.

Two. If stimulus packages of any sort worked on the economy why would we have a bad eceonomy? Bush Jr. stimulated and the economy kept going down. Obama, stimulates even more, economy still goes down. We have stimulated the economy to the tune of trillions with welfare payments and poverty programs. The lesson not learned by politicians is IT FAILS EVERY SINGLE TIME!!! Let the market work itself out, keep the government out of our pocketbooks, and Americans will keep the economy moving just fine.

Pete| 5.6.09 @ 2:44PM

"to lift all artificial weights from all shoulders..." does not sound at all like what is happening - I see the opposite in government regulation and expantsion of influence. I would further argue that the term "race of life" implies competition, another thing that is clearly not being promoted by the current ruling class.

David J| 5.6.09 @ 2:55PM

In a word, "yes".
Obama wants the entire nation to look like Detroit. He is hard at work bringing us all down to that level, and he absolutely will not stop until we are all just as well off as the folks in Detroit, Michigan.

David J| 5.6.09 @ 2:55PM

In a word, "yes".
Obama wants the entire nation to look like Detroit. He is hard at work bringing us all down to that level, and he absolutely will not stop until we are all just as well off as the folks in Detroit, Michigan.

ben| 5.6.09 @ 3:01PM

Tom Paine| 5.6.09 @ 2:25PM
"The leading object of government is to elevate the condition of men -- to lift artificial weights from all shoulders -- to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all -- to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life."

Sounds like good, wholesome, old-fashioned liberalism to me, and it sounds an awful lot like Obama's governing philosophy.
-----------------------------------
How is Obama lifitng artificial weights from off our shoulders? Isn't the debt he's given to us an artificial weight he's placed on our shoulders?

How is Obama clearing the path for laudable pursuits for all? Doesn't the increased regulations or rules clutter up the path?

I feel like I'm living in bizarro world. Every dem argument is exactly the opposite of reality. Every dem policy does exactly the opposite of it's stated goal.

DLM| 5.6.09 @ 3:10PM

Let's be honest here, of course he's delaying economic recovery for the intent of more government power:

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry:
fas·cism:
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition (ACORN perhaps? Returning wealth to it's 'rightful' owners??)
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control (maybe firing the head of GM?? Shafting bondholders at Chrysler?)

Tom Paine| 5.6.09 @ 4:22PM

DLM -

You are a jackass. If you knew anything about 20th century history, you'd change your tune.

Robert Rosencrans| 5.6.09 @ 4:41PM

Well, I see Bob is here proving he's an idiot again. After making a post with an external link he implies that because I have an external link I can't think without one. If he simply looks up my first post it doesn't have an external link.
Bob, I believe you're trying to create a stupid bubble and you're doing it well.

Mattled| 5.6.09 @ 5:39PM

A few days ago Roberta (Bob) insulted Mr. Lord , after Mr. Lord posted a thoughtful response to BOB.

Now he calls Mr. Ferrara a hack.

I said it before and I'll say it again; based on his lack of respect, his so-called analogies and responses warrant no response or respect. Ignore her (Yes, BOB, we know you're a woman--nothing wrong with that other than you have no self-confidence) and she will go away.

That's what happens to women who can't get a date and can't help themselves around the fridge or a bag of Cheetos.

They project, just like any good Hitlerberal type.

Jeff Nordlander| 5.6.09 @ 6:14PM

DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL

Jim| 5.6.09 @ 6:59PM

Tom Paine,
You are the idiot, not DLM, try to find some use (not at taxpayers expense) for your life other than cut and paste responses on TAS.

S.L. Toddard| 5.6.09 @ 7:25PM

It's not possible to take a Bush supporter seriously when they rail against government spending, for obvious reasons. But this silly, partisan-fueled bit of play-acting-at-conservatism reminded me of questions recently asked to the phony conservatives pretending to protest big government at their anti-Obama "tea party" rallies:

1. If you're so horrified by debt and spending, where were your tea parties when George Bush was adding $4 trillion to the federal deficit?

2. If you're so outraged by the bailouts, where were your tea parties when the bailouts were first instituted by Henry Paulson and George Bush last fall?

3. If you're so troubled by pork, where were your tea parties when the number and cost of congressional earmarks rose spectacularly in each year of Republican congressional rule between 1996 and the end of the Republican majority in 2006?

It's sad, in a way, because this massive spending should be opposed. People should take to the streets in outrage about the bailouts. People should be marching on Washington to strip the federal budget to a fraction of what it is. But people who voted for *George W Bush*? I doubt I have to explain how obscene and hypocritical the idea is, that neoconservative *Bush supporters* should protest massive federal expansion and debt spending. And they ruin it for the rest of us who opposed massive federal expansion, gargantuan pie-eyed liberal social programs, irresponsible debt spending when Bush was behind it and still oppose it now. You know - honest conservatives, rather than the disingenuous hypocrites who twice elected a big government, free-spending, social-program starting, bailout-drunk GOP socialist and only began protesting these things when a Democrat started doing them.

Honestly, is there anything worse?

S.L. Toddard| 5.6.09 @ 7:36PM

fas·cism:
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual

* like a proponent of American exceptionalism?

and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader,

* like the eradication of habeas corpus, domestic spying, secret black-site gulags - that sort of thing?

severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

* like spying on journalists, spying on protesters, sending the FBI to raid and arrest both protesters and journalists?

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

* like launching unilateral wars of aggression, pushing the unconstitutional "unitary executive", egregious violations of the constitution, the institution of a KGB-like domestic spying program to spy on law-abiding American citizens?

I think that definition has it about right, don't you?

ACynic| 5.6.09 @ 8:43PM

I am astounded that anyone responds or even reads anything Dave Mathews writes.
He is simply a provacateur that gets a kick out of raising the hackles of those with whom he disagrees, though I must admit he does a good job of eliciting angry retorts.
There are many well written and thought out comments on this website and ignoring folks like Mr.Dave Mathews will provide more informative and intelligent commentary.
Ignore the guy (if he is a guy).

Normally I post as Bob| 5.6.09 @ 9:24PM

Very interesting article.

I think however that too little attention was given to the industry take overs.

What they are revealing in the way they are handling the auto industry is frightening. At tax payer expense the unions were just given GM and Chrysler.

I keep reading my constitution and still can't seem to locate where the power to do any of this is granted.

John II| 5.6.09 @ 10:52PM

Mr. Ferrara suggests more than once that Mr. Obama may be delusional. Perhaps. But Obama's declared intent to raise taxes even higher on corporations suggests to me something else.

We know what happens when taxes are increased on productive corporations. Even in those happier instances when productivity and employment are not driven down, the big businesses simply pass the higher taxes on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. In other words, nothing good comes of the tax increases, and quite a bit of bad happens. We know this.

Now, here's a thought experiment. Either Obama and his handlers and media shills know the consequences of increasing taxes on corporations (i.e., know who really gets hurt), or Obama and his handlers and media shills don't know the consequences.

If they don't know, they are dangerous and toplofty fools. If they do know, they are dangerous political vandals.

In either case, you and I, to employ the vernacular, are screwed.

Old Texican| 5.7.09 @ 12:42AM

I'm sorry guys
Tom Paine and David Mathews et. al. are simply so much fun to make fun of. (Grin)
Now to adult business:
There probably WILL NOT BE an economic recovery in my lifetime. Just perhaps that might be good in a way. I have enough ground to grow a crop, and enough ammo to shoot enough poor little bambies to feed my grandkids.
(One thought: a CHEAP pump up BB gun can kill enough birds to feed a family comfortably if they can grow some beans as well.) ...But I digress.

NO economic recovery just might remind Americans that freedom goes right along with prosperity. We Americans might even remember that for another two hundred years or so after these clowns are removed from office.

But oh! in the meantime we are going to have some interesting times. Please recall that NO TYRANT has managed to subdue an armed population. As far back as history can recall, the "peasantry was not allowed to have edged weapons." To you "history challenged" persons I refer you to the early English quarter staff. It was the only non edged weapon discovered to whip the poo poo out of a trained swordsman. (Little John/ Robinhood...remember?)

Now, there are some sixty million armed Americans not including military personel. Speaking of which, most of those military personel cherish and defend freedom and would not fire on fellow patriots.

Why in the dickens do you think that the clowns in office want to build another military loyal only to them. (Americorps or whatever). Just like the SS in Germany, they will be the scum of the earth.
There are a couple of posters here who will join them. (grin)
But see...in Germany all the peasants were disarmed. OOPS, here we are not.
Please, Americans don't let them "REGISTER THEN CONFISCATE" the old rusty shotgun or rifle in your closet. Those old rusty guns are NOT recorded...or the records are lost.

Please understand me here. I am setting myself up as a target writing this. I wanted to write it anyway so you would not feel alone in your determination.
I am talking about deterence if I spelled that right .
NO FOREIGN COUNTRY OR TERRORIST GROUP...could ever successfully invade America.
Stop and think about it. If only one out of ten Armed Americans said hell no...that's SIX MILLION SNIPERS who know their local lay of the land.
I would purely pity any would-be invader. Guess what? I do purely pity any would-be tyrant that wants to try us on for size.
Interesting times!
Bottom line: either we defeat these clowns in office or the times become much more interesting.
Just say NO.

Socialism in the making| 5.7.09 @ 11:57AM

One in Five is a Republican, the Republicans is becoming extint. The new Swine flu out break will make all Americans Glad for Obama's proposal of health care for all.

If someone does not have health care, they could infect you. It's great how the government run rings around the people, and they still can't think.

Fear will get you all to sign up to things you claim to reject. You don't like Socialism, don't worry you will soon be writing about how great it is.

in SoCal| 5.7.09 @ 2:28PM

Obama proposes a budget of 3.6 Trillion. He also proposes budget cuts of 17 Billion. Those cuts are .47 percent of the budget. .47 percent of a dollar is less than half a cent. Is that savings?

Don't worry about the money| 5.7.09 @ 3:10PM

Why worry about what Obama is spending, the dollar is only worth 4 cents, and that is the ink and the paper.

$4Trillion so what it's monopoly money, you and your children will happily pay it all back, from future tax, that you will not be able to generate. You will be fighting in Iran, or Pakistan, or india, or Afgahanistan, or Saudi, or China, who knows, you will be too busy trying to stay alive from slavery to a system that finds it's citizens dispicable enough to prefer them out of the country in harms way, fighting to Keep the Queen of England Rich.

Paul Crowley| 5.7.09 @ 3:38PM

=>President Obama and the Punjab

It is tiresome to hear President Obama mis-pronouncing the name Pakistan, as he did the whole time during his pseudo-On The Job Training (OJT) of February 2007-November 2008.

Obama’s: Pah-kee-stawn.

The name Pakistan was concocted by the India Office of the British government at Whitehall, in the 1930s.

This was pre-1970s-onward standardization of international spelling and pronunciation (a standardization of the “trans-literation,” if one prefers).

For example: In British Bengal, Cawnpore hadn’t been renamed Kanpur, yet, at the time that Pakistan was concocted, as it is now spelled in India (a virtually identical pronunciation of both spellings: The former the anglicized spelling, pronounced phonetically, and the latter the new international standard: a is pronounced ah and u is pronounced oo).

Pakistan is not pronounced as Pah-kee-stawn.

An Anglo-African American as intelligent as Obama is, should do better.

S.L. Toddard| 5.7.09 @ 3:43PM

1. If you're so horrified by debt and spending, where were your tea parties when George Bush was adding $4 trillion to the federal deficit?

2. If you're so outraged by the bailouts, where were your tea parties when the bailouts were first instituted by Henry Paulson and George Bush last fall?

3. If you're so troubled by pork, where were your tea parties when the number and cost of congressional earmarks rose spectacularly in each year of Republican congressional rule between 1996 and the end of the Republican majority in 2006?

Obama is not the problem| 5.7.09 @ 3:44PM

The delusionals who thinks America can ever pay back it's debts to the rest of the world. America can only print more money. Inventing money out of nothing.

Every man woman and child in America is paying the INTEREST on the debts generated, by your TAX, and TAX has to be incresaed year on year. Hence every TAX dodger has to be caught. No matter where they are Banking in the world.

If not, America will default on her debts. America debt is growing by the minute, and the printing press keeps on printing and the Fed is laughing, because all they have to provide is the paper, and the Ink.

They will soon stop printing and do plastic, easier to be recycled, than Micro chip you, and you don't want to pay your Tax, they just shut down your chip so you can't buy food to feed yourself or your family.

What they plan for you they have already done to Black people, now they plan to include all people.

What they are doing to the Palestinians, they already done to the Jews in Germany.

What is happening in the Middle East they did under British Colonialism.

The true debt is about 600 Trillion, it's a world wide debt One morning the News will be we own the world, because of what the world owes us, including all credit card debt, all debt has to be backed by something real, but what people is borrowing is bits of paper, that goes up and down on the stock exchange, and some one is fiddling the books THE RICH MERCHANT BANKERS, have got you fooled.

Can't Pay your Mortgage, dont worry we take the house, can't pay your Business loan we take the business, cant pay your housing tax that is fine too we take that too, they get what is real for bits of paper they invented as money.

The American dollar is going to end up like the Zimbabwe economy, Broke.

The bad news is coming| 5.7.09 @ 3:53PM

Paul Cowley.

You cirtainly know your History, got to give it to you. You know so much you are the kind of person I would like to meet. It's all about colonialism past and present.

Time to look for the truth| 5.7.09 @ 4:14PM

Shock and Ore by G W BUSH.
Sept 11th Under G W Bush on his own citizens, was just the start to get you people signed up for war on terror. Some people who knew in advance made a huge fortrune out of it, so much money it broke the Banks of the United States.

An invisible war that the government can counger up almost anywhere and send people out to die. Fighting over bull S..t. If Terror was real against the United States would they not need their troops at home to deal with the threat?.

Why is all your borders open? Who would have been willing to die if they were told the truth? The American Government have been testing poisons on Americans from the 1947, some included soldiers.

Many of the former Nazi Scientist went to America changed their names and worked for the American Army Labs engeneering gasses, viruses, and toxic gasses to kill people, they were first tried out on their own citizens.

Hitlers plan to control Europe has gone world wide, we have United States of Europe, and Canada and America Mexico will form one Block. The problem is the Muslim world who want nothing to do with it, so it's been done by force. That is what these Middle East wars are about, and resources, that is what Americans are fighting and losing their lives over to make moner for the super rich, while they leave their children fatherless and motherless. You want the truth you have to find it. Don't take what people tell you seek and you shall find. Nobody is planning to Attack America it's a fantasy.

Paul Crowley| 5.7.09 @ 4:16PM

=>"In British Bengal, Cawnpore hadn’t been renamed Kanpur, yet"

Sorry. Bad phrasing.

There was actually no renaming at all.

Kanpur is just a different spelling of the SAME name.

The name of the city hasn't changed at all. It has the same name that is pronounced the same way, when spoken, as it has always been pronounced in the spoken word.

Same name; pronounced the same way. The previous spelling was just Cawnpore.

Just different spellings, and different rules of pronunciation associated with each different spelling, leading to the same spoken pronunciation.

Obama could get Kanpur close enough, no doubt: Cawn-Poor, or Cawn-Pore (Cawn rhyming with pawn), or Con-Poor (con rhyming with Ron, the nickname of Ronald).

Obama would probably butcher the old spelling, Cawnpore, though: Cawn-Po-Ray, perhaps (with Po rhyming with row, as in “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” and Ray rhyming with stay, as in the order given a dog).

As I said, an Anglo-African American as intelligent as Obama is, should do better in pronouncing Pakistan. Especially one who is Commander-In-Chief of the urbanized-&-rootless American Hatfields, McCoys & Webbs trooping about in the British Commonwealth country, thereby facilitating the brutal de-culturization of its peoples and the development of Lines of Communications (in the military sense of the word), from the Persian Gulf and North Arabian Sea, across, the Indian peninsula, and north into Afghanistan.

The United Nations & WHO| 5.7.09 @ 4:52PM

2. 1972, BULLETIN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION,VOL.47, NO. 3, pp. 275-438 and Recommendations in the MEMORANDA pp. 259.

The EXACT clinical definitation of the AIDS Virus given and Recommendation to inject it into human beings and the actual injection by the WHO into over 100 million Africans in 1977 with AIDS tainted smallpox vaccine or vaccina.

The plot murder a population| 5.7.09 @ 5:09PM

The world is about to be Vaccinated again for Swine flu, but what is in the Vaccine?

I can't stress enough to people how dangerious these people who are behind the seens are. I am amazed why people even watch CNN, MBC, FOX News and the rest, and all these money grabbing criminals. Their intent is to kill as many people as possible, rithey by war, on terror when its the government who is following orders to kill the citizens of the world by means of poisons, chemicals causing cancer, viruses, WARS called war on terror. The victims don't have a clue that if you are fighting there is a chance you will be killed, by the people you are trying to kill.

Cancer causing viruses, have been un leashed on the people of the developing world. This new wave, I have no idea what they will be vaccinating people with, and to cause what, but what ever it is it will begin to kill people in Autumn. And long after that too.

Plot to kill you| 5.7.09 @ 5:15PM

The Development of the AIDS virus was funded in 1969 (three years before the request fo DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, sponsored by the Department of the Army, the Advanced Research Project Agency (now DARPA), and Defense Research and Engineeringr development by the World Health Organization) through funds obtained by the United States Defense Department. The Defense Department requested and received $10 million via House Bill 15090, which was reviewed in Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives during the ninety-first Congress in review of the Defense Appropriations for 1970.

Part Five of H.B. 15090 was entitled RESEARCH,.

Put your trust in no man| 5.7.09 @ 5:36PM

Look after yourself and your family. Stop the Republican Democrats nonsense, it's all crap.

York State Health Authority tried to do the right thing by closing down the bath houses the homosexuals frequented and the gay community complained so federal authorites forced them to reopen.

I’m sure the average person reading this kind of information will be shaking their head and asking WHY? How could they do such things and who decided on this policy? A multi-faceted answer is provided by researcher John Judge of Washington, D.C. (24 years experience) who says that "the government doesn’t just take one action with one cause. AIDS serves to change sexual habits and practices in this country to provide a renewal of Christian values, to continue a test of chemical-biological warfare agents, to get rid of third world population, and homosexuals in this country." There was a book in 1968 titled The Population Bomb, by Dr. Paul Ehrlich that had a very telling paragraph on page 17 that probably tells us the key thinking that was behind the decision. Dr. Ehrlich says "in summary, the worlds population will continue to grow as long as the birth rate exceeds the death rate; it’s as simple as that. When it stops growing or starats to shrink, it will ean that either the birth rate has gone down or the death rate has gone up or a combination of the two.

Paul Crowley| 5.7.09 @ 6:40PM

=>“Paul Cowley. You cirtainly know your History, got to give it to you.” [The bad news is coming| 5.7.09 @ 3:53PM]

Hi The bad news is coming:

Thanks for the compliment. But, I don’t deserve it. I’m purely a lay amateur.

To be honest. I made a mistake posting this comment here. It’s a follow up comment to a comment made in a comments section of a different essay (the one on Pakistan). I had intended to post this over there. :)

In the context of this essay and these comments, and your statement that “It's all about colonialism past and present:”

I’m not sure what you mean by this statement.

I think that it’s about conquests. Colonialism, in its various shapes and forms, especially that pioneered by the Dutch, French, English (the British, 1707 onward), and Scandinavians, has certainly been used.

To be honest, in the post-Cold War (1946-89) era 1989-present), then I think that it’s more about military-industrial development within the American-Anglo-French bloc of countries and Russia.

At the moment, and throughout the post-Cold War era (especially 1991-present), the industrial-military development of continental Asia has been a primary focus.

“Economic development” has clearly been military oriented (departments of State & Defense), in the post-Cold War (1946-89) era. The Industry and Finance (A.K.A. Business, post-1979-83) and militaries of the countries within the American-Anglo-French bloc are now highly integrated and interdependent (especially, 1998-present): The Multi-national corporations (MNCs) and military alliances. Military oriented “economic development” includes the American-European-Japanese development of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), 1993 to 2001.

Japan led the way with China, about 1972 onward, and then after the Tiannamen Square incident in 1989, late 1989-93, was virtually its sole defender in “The West” (back during the period that Japan was being sensationalized here and in Europe and being accused of being out to make an economic conquest of the world, through monopolization practices and manipulation of world finance and the U.S. Treasury: Back when Walmart still had its Buy American campaign going, and prior to its becoming a factory outlet for the People’s Republic of China, during the years of the Clinton administration and “Republican Revolution” congress, circa 1994-2001, and now for India).

“Economic development” has clearly been military oriented on the Indian peninsula (British commonwealth countries, Pakistan, and ESPECIALLY India). Japan led the way, 1971-89.

India has been an especial focus of much of American economic policy, and a beneficiary of it, 1993 onward, but especially, about 2001 to present (to the detriment of the average American).

The massive Indian petroleum refining capacity was in place by 1998. Now the Persian Gulf petroleum, and the seas to ship it, Strait of Homuz-North Arabian Sea-Bay of Bengal, that it requires is secure. Our new Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was decrying NAFTA while campaigning in the Midwest last year, following her re-styling of herself as a folksy populist. This was the same woman who’s been assuring the Indians of continued American co-operation in trade policy on her Senate junkets since 2005. Colin Powell did the same while he was Secretary of State.

The Multi-national corporations (MNCs) operating in India have been whining for at least the past six years or so that “we can’t do it all,” and calling for the Indian government to increase government public works spending for the development of infrastructure, including public education.

The MNCs are useful, but can’t do anything where this kind of infrastructure is concerned It requires top-down direction from a highly centralized government and government spending for this kind of infrastructure development on this size of scale.

Highly centralized government such as we have definitely have in the U.S.A., developed especially 1971-89, that Japan has always had, that India has always had, Britain has always had, the France and Germany have, and that all Communist Party governed countries have always had, among other examples (different styles, same result).

Government public works spending was massive in Japan, modernizing its infrastructure and building its military, during its pro-longed economic depression, 1990-2007 (I find modern Japan depressing. I can look at in contrast to 30-35 years ago, in the same manner that my late Father could contrast Times Square in 1946 with Times Square in 1971 (shocking change and unrecognizable in comparison).

The MNCs can no more bring about such development in India than they, or their American corporation predecessors, could here (Walmart did nothing, in this regard. It was our new interstate highway system, our new air-hub system, reformed rail system, modernized ports, sufficiently developed 1956-79, and the information technologies developed from science that was mostly produced by state-university-national labs system (military-generated)research and development that made such as Walmart possible, at all: All federal government projects.

The MNCs are useful, they and their pre-1980s predecessor corporations, certainly co-operated, and can be used for regulation and administration once its constructed, but can’t do anything of their own right where the actual development and construction of such infrastructure is concerned.

Their sudden about face and shift, from privatization, to “we can’t do it all” whining in India, about 2001 onward, should surprise no one.

No question that native-Indians (their leadership and their peon equivalents to us regular Americans) have been doing the skilled work in India. However, many lower-middle-class Indians have become arrogant crediting themselves too much.

America’s and Europe’s losses have been India’s gains (although the overwhelming majority of India’s vast population has gained nothing, and is not benefiting, at all).

At any rate, India is a country to watch, especially its explodoing military (which, along with NATO, SEATO, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the other British commonwealth countries, and Dutch-French economic satelites, needs to be considereed where total size of the American military-industrial capabilities are concerned).

I think that it’s about conquests.

Post-Cold War (1946-89) era foreign polices of our government (departments of State & Defense) have driven our domestic policies. American and allied governments have driven economic development” which has clearly been, and continues to be, military oriented. The military-industrial capabilities of the American-Anglo-French bloc are now staggering.

Old Texican| 5.7.09 @ 7:39PM

Hi guys
I just love monikers, (user names), with a message
such as "Don't Worry About The Money" etc.
I know I can simply scroll down and ignore them.

Conversly, if I am in a whimsical mood, I can indulge a chuckle or two at the whack-outs. When one thinks seriously about it, tin foil hats can be rather becoming.
(By the way, Stoddard...screw you, ignoramus)
Heh!

Just wanted to post today to let youall know that I did not get the knock on the door last night. I'm still here, though perhaps through simple inefficiency.....hmmm.

Paul Crowley| 5.7.09 @ 7:43PM

=>“you are the kind of person I would like to meet..” [The bad news is coming| 5.7.09 @
3:53PM]

Hi The bad news is coming:

I’d probably enjoy this. I’m always happy to meet new people.

I’m an easy man to talk to.

But, I'll concede, that I can be yappy at times. I warned a car salesman about this last year: She kept tagging alongside after I told her that I wasn't going to buy that day, so not to hesitate to leave if she saw another prospect. She kept with me, and so long as she did, I had lots of questions and a few comments. . .

However, believe it or not, I’m a very good listener; in fact, a better listener than talker.

S.L. Toddard| 5.7.09 @ 8:39PM

"By the way, Stoddard...screw you, ignoramus"

Ah, ad hominem. How revealing. I don't suppose you'd care to answer the following?

1. If you're so horrified by debt and spending, where were your tea parties when George Bush was adding $4 trillion to the federal deficit?

2. If you're so outraged by the bailouts, where were your tea parties when the bailouts were first instituted by Henry Paulson and George Bush last fall?

3. If you're so troubled by pork, where were your tea parties when the number and cost of congressional earmarks rose spectacularly in each year of Republican congressional rule between 1996 and the end of the Republican majority in 2006?

I'm curious, when you faux-conservatives read those questions and you answer, to yourselves, "I did nothing. Instead, I voted twice for a big government, free-spending, social-program starting, bailout-drunk GOP socialist" does your hypocrisy shame you, or are you the cynical sort, fully aware that you don't give a fig for conservative principles but instead vote for whichever party is promoted on neoconservative talk radio?

Republicans who voted for Bush voted in favor of big-spending big government, of massive social programs and the unprecedented expansion of the size, scope and power of the federal goverment. Now you pretend to oppose these things. I'm just wondering if any of you are embarrassed is all.

You should be.

You got to laugh| 5.7.09 @ 9:29PM

Old Texan.

Don't worry about the money, well are you? you made me laugh. The tin foil hat, well my advise is watch and see.

I am never wrong so far. Most people have been consumers for so long, with their credit card, never had to worry about nothing.

The main problem in America most people from state to state dont know what is going on in the next state inside America, most don't care.

Vasy Majority don't even get the news, or at least the real News.

Many don't even have the internet. Some are on Drugs and alcohol and live in their own world.

What is happening in America does have an effect on the rest of the world, and that's why things have to change. You cant have a group of people who is not even concious running the world.

This is a major world problem, not to narrow minded people but the rest of the concious world.

ds80| 5.8.09 @ 6:14PM

"By the way, Stoddard...screw you, ignoramus"

Hey, S.L. Toddard ... I thought one's particular sexual whims were just fine and dandy with Liberals. So why do you take offense as someone wanting to screw an idiot?

You miss the point. The Tea Parties were a result of the honest, hard working, long suffering **productive class** finally saying enough is enough: after Bush and Republican complicity in a huge run-up of the deficit (including earmarks), after the initial TARP bailout, after a whole host of other America-destroying policies of both political parties that has slowly been accumulating for decades.

What have you been listening to? Where have you been getting your information? Conservatives were the LOUDEST voices decrying Bush's expansion of government.

Did you attend a Tea Party? The one I attended had fed-up Americans of all political stripes. Here's a tip: you really want to be on the side of the mob when the ramparts are stormed.

S.L. Toddard| 5.8.09 @ 7:22PM

"Conservatives were the LOUDEST voices decrying Bush's expansion of government."

Indeed, they were. But then again, *conservatives* opposed George W Bush steadfastly throughout his long, sad, disastrous presidency. Bush supporters - neoconservatives, or anti-conservatives but quite obviously by no means *actual* conservatives- were supporters of big-spending big government, of massive social programs and the unprecedented expansion of the size, scope and power of the federal government - as they demonstrated conclusively and inarguably by voting a big-government socialist into office twice.

I see, though, that you yourself are a real conservative. For whom did you cast your vote when you opposed Bush's big government faux-conservatism at the ballot box, I wonder?

"The Tea Parties were a result of the honest, hard working, long suffering **productive class** finally saying enough is enough"

Yes: enough is enough - now that a Democrat is doing it. That's the whole point - it's hypocrisy, as stark and obscene as it gets. Bush's approval ratings among Republicans were sky-high throughout his presidency. It is only on the alt-right, amongst the paleo and Old Right conservatives, that any real opposition was voiced. Certainly there was no substantial opposition to his being elected or re-elected in these pages, or in the pages of any other establishment neoconservative propaganda machines.

But back to my question: For whom did you cast your vote when you opposed Bush's big government faux-conservatism at the ballot box (where it mattered)? And this last election, when John McCain ran on a platform which would continue the big government socialistic neo-"conservatism" of his predecessor, for whom did you vote then?

Grumbling to oneself about Medicare programs between bouts of flag-waving and hero-worship as our great Warrior George W Bush pranced around in his pretty pilot costume does not really count as "opposition", does it.

Christainity Hyjacked by Pagan| 5.9.09 @ 10:18AM

Till America come to terms with obvious facts, like Britain & America was one people, they are not a seperate country. They have no rights in America they are British people who stole a land they have no right to. They did not go there to live and shair the land they killed the people who lived there. Canada the same thing again, when the Bible speaks about Britain and America it speaks of them as one of the Beast of Revelations, it speak of them as the two horns, but in fact they are seen as two seperat country but they are the same, the same criminal mind set. They rose up out of the sea, both are two Island.

Britain and America will be killed off, because they have done nothing that is good in the world.
They support Satan, a system that tries to do what is opposite to gods laws wrote their own laws.
They do not support the 10 Commandments, nor does the Pagans in Palestine, who claim to be Jews. The Bilbe speaks about them, Revelation 2 Verse 9. And speaks about them else where.

They say God bless those who bless them, it's the opposit of what God said, they are not Hebrews. These people in Israel are Pagans from Russia, Ashkanazi Jews, people who adopted a religion, to avoid persecution. They are not Semetic, they are not Jews they are Pagans.

Claire Solt| 5.12.09 @ 11:04AM

Democratic politics is all about patronage. There are pittances for voters and boatloads of cash for the movers and shakers. One noted that the government gave Chrysler the same amount as the union now get from it. The bankrup;cy is a money laundering scheme.

kon| 5.16.09 @ 10:05PM

niggers die cunt's taking america like africa Nazi Return to power.

Lingerie| 9.12.09 @ 11:07PM

sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie