Financial waterboarding
George W. Bush stirred up international outrage last week when his memoir Decision Points revealed that he ordered waterboarding for three 9/11 terrorists. As Barack Obama and the Federal Reserve prepared to waterboard the world economy with 600 billion new dollars prior to the Seoul G-20 meeting last week, the president drew harsh international criticism too for the financial chaos his monetary team is creating.
Obama’s financial waterboarding victims include the following:
Emerging market economies—The Federal Reserve cannot control where the money goes that it pumps, or “waterboards,” into the market. The Fed, of course, would like the money to find its way into the American economy. But because interest rates are so low in the United States, many major investors are putting billions of dollars into countries where higher yields can be found. This outflow of cash into places like Brazil is causing commodities prices to rise in those countries while reducing the competitiveness of their export products.
China and Japan—The largest holders of U.S. Treasury debt rightly fear that the value of their holdings will depreciate significantly when the Fed-generated low U.S. interest rates return to normal. Moreover, we should recognize that the United States is playing a dangerous game with its largest creditor. International money manager Axel Merk said last week, “QE2 [$600 billion waterboarding] is akin to the Fed placing a gun to China’s head, telling them to revalue their currency.”
Bond market—Although interest rates have been low, the bond market has benefited over the past 18 months thanks to Federal Reserve bond purchases designed to stimulate the economy (the Fed pumps money into the financial system by buying bonds). In other words, bonds respond to supply and demand forces. When the Fed creates false demand for bonds by printing money, bond prices go up. When the Fed’s bond buying program ends, look for bond prices to return to earth and possibly crash, causing another international financial crisis.
Pension funds—Historically, pension funds have loaded up on government and corporate bonds because they provide a reliable income stream. With interest rates so low, pension funds aren’t receiving a good yield these days. Although bonds have appreciated in value, those prices are artificially inflated due to Federal Reserve purchases. When interest rates return to normal levels look for longer-term bonds, and the pension funds that hold them, to lose significant value. Defined benefit pension plans—those that promise a fixed amount of monthly income upon retirement—are in danger. In fact, many organizations, public and private, have had to cough up extra cash to meet pension shortfalls caused by Fed-induced market volatility and low interest rates.
American taxpayers—Most state and local government employees, 84 percent, have lucrative defined benefit pension plans. According to one study, those plans are already underfunded by $1 trillion–$3.2 trillion. When interest rates increase, there’s a good chance those plans will be even further under water. Guess who will be on the hook to make up for the shortfall?
American voters—The electorate voted for a Republican Congress in order to cut bogus stimulus programs, but the untouchable Fed will overwhelm the voters’ desires by pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy.
Grandma—Her certificates of deposit bear artificially low interest. In some cases, interest earnings aren’t covering the fees generated by her financial products. Grandma is losing ground.
Wal-Mart shoppers—According to a pricing survey released last Thursday, prices at Wal-Mart, which has thousands of stores around the world, are rising at an annualized rate of 3.6 percent. A jug of Tide Original laundry detergent was the biggest gainer in the 86-product survey. Believe it or not, the Federal Reserve is trying to make prices rise because it believes a modest amount of inflation (2 percent) is a good thing. Again, the Fed is playing a dangerous game because prices could spike due to the unprecedented amount of money it’s creating.
World leaders are rightly concerned about the monetary torture the Obama administration is inflicting on the worldwide economy. The United States should end its practice of financial waterboarding before hundreds of millions of people get hurt.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top36 Comments to “Financial waterboarding”
This next year, wont be any fun…
Report comment to moderator
And now we have to deal with lead paint in our reusable grocery bags…made in China. They’re gonna git us one way or another.
Report comment to moderator
I think the long-term pensions have to be renegotiated.
Report comment to moderator
I think China will have an uprising before too long. Chinese are just as opinated as we are
Report comment to moderator
I noticed a lot of price increases at WalMart this year.
They don’t have decent prices anymore. They’ve never had good prices on detergent. Food prices are WAY UP.
Sometimes Target has better prices than WalMart–but not all Targets are created equal. There are 4 Targets that I can access (2 in Tempe) and they never have the same prices unless it’s on sale. I have traveled to more than one in the same day–it probably wouldn’t take me more than an hour to travel to all 4.
I know some people boycott WalMart, but you know, with all their faults, they still hire people. When you boycott WalMart, you make it hard for the people working at WalMart.
And if you dig hard enough you would probably find that many other stores have something about them you wouldn’t like at all.
Report comment to moderator
Yes! Because we all deserve the lowest prices! They’re practically guaranteed in the Constitution!
Report comment to moderator
We should fine the Chinese companies that send us goods with lead in them. They never seem to learn that lesson.
Report comment to moderator
Apparently Wishing is arguing that there is no moral distinction between physically torturing someone and making policy decisions that have an adverse effect on others.
Now that we understand Wishing’s view of the value of human life, we’d hope that he’d employ the same standard to abortion.
Report comment to moderator
RSD failed to grab the metaphor.
Report comment to moderator
Folks, what should we blame, ignorance or deceitfulness, for telling us that the FED is a tool of Obama, and that the objects of FED policies are Obama’s “victims”?
The former chairman, Alan Greenspan is warning that 8 million homes which were financed by conventional, 20%-down mortgages (i.e. not sub-prime) are on the verge of “tipping” (his word) into default and foreclosure.
Fortunately, the current fed chairman, Ben Bernanke (who is Bush’s appointee, not obama’s), is doing everything he can to lessen this present peril, which could result in unimagined devastation and despair.
Lee Wishing’s alternative would be to liquidate, liquidate, liquidate.
Report comment to moderator
Oops, please strike the comma after “peril”. thanks!
Report comment to moderator
I find it interesting that president Wilson, the president who passed the law enacting the FED and the current fractional banking system, regretted this action later in life. He saw how we had surrendered the control of the dollar to the banker.
Report comment to moderator
“I noticed a lot of price increases at WalMart this year.”
It’s gonna get worse…
“is doing everything he can to lessen this present peril, which could result in unimagined devastation and despair.”
Fix the present peril with manipulation and your only increasing the long term damage. And who among those 8 million will see any of that 600 billion the FED just printed? Not a soul. The money isnt going to the consumer.
Report comment to moderator
Please don’t be a post drawing a moral equivalence between torturing human beings and following a financial policy you disagree with…
*click*
Sure enough.
Report comment to moderator
THORN – in order for something to “get worse” first it has to get bad. Right? Core inflation has been the slowest in decades. September consumer prices rose 0.1%. According to inflation calculator, year to year is 1.8%. If this is bad, and I do think it’s very bad, this is because because the economy would be better off with a modest amount of inflation. So, you speak the truth without realizing it. When you say things are gonna get worse, worse would be deflation. That’s a real danger, unfortunately.
Report comment to moderator
More inflation will just drive up prices and will have disastrous effects in the long term because that 600 billion dollars are backed by debt, not by anything of value, not even anything of no value.
Report comment to moderator
“Core inflation has been the slowest in decades.”
Which means it isnt deflating either, so why the fear induced 600 billion?
Inflation even a modest amount, slowly devalues your money.
Report comment to moderator
Inflation does more than “just drive up prices”. It can also increase velocity and the quantity of production, because it signals demand. Buyers like to wait until after prices start to rise before they buy, since rising prices are reassuring.
Money is never as important as income (you want both of course).
Policies that increase income are good for money, because they facilitate savings by reducing the need to invade capital and by raising the return on money (interest rates).
Report comment to moderator
“Inflation does more than “just drive up prices”. It can also increase velocity and the quantity of production, because it signals demand. Buyers like to wait until after prices start to rise before they buy, since rising prices are reassuring.”
Rising prices are never reassuring to the consumer.
Gas prices tripling before the housing bubble burst is a prime example as to why inflation, especially on necessary goods, is detremental to the health of the economy.
Policies that force higher income and prices have only led to the downfall of business and/or the consumer.
GM having to pay high income to its employees, left no room for stability when their sales dropped off.
In other words, if you hamper the consumer, you hamper business. You can not sustain jobs or industry, when the consumer cant buy. You have to lead by enabling the consumer, for business will easily follow and upon sound economic growth…not inflation.
Inflation has never brought us out of depression or recession. It has never led to sustained economic growth.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, we’re told to buy low and sell high, but most of us buy rising and sell falling. Rising prices usually signal an increase in volume.
Consumers who worry about losing their jobs are obviously less motivated by low prices than by the fear of losing their homes. Very low consumer price inflation is a sign of low nconsumer confidence. Rising prices signal improvements in job security. When prices begin to rise, consumers lose the incentive to defer purchases and finally buy.
But what do you think of my first question on this thread? Why does Lee Wishing tell a falsehood about Obama’s control of the Fed? I can only theorize that right wingers hate Obama so much, they don’t want the Fed to do anything to help him, even if it helps the economy. Isn’t this a fair question?
Report comment to moderator
“Rising prices usually signal an increase in volume.”
No they signal most often, either a high demand, or a low volume in reality.
If prices rise according to actual economic growth, then it is not inflation.
“Consumers who worry about losing their jobs are obviously less motivated by low prices than by the fear of losing their homes.”
Because they are slave to the lender. This is THE major problem with building an economy around credit and debt.
However, your agrument is flawed. During the gas price hike, people had to worry more about paying for gas, than their current homes. They had to get to work. They had to transport goods. Gas went up due to speculation of high demand vs. low supply futures. NOT HIGH VOLUME. It didnt increase the volume by raising prices. It crippled our economy.
“Why does Lee Wishing tell a falsehood about Obama’s control of the Fed?”
Your saying Obama has no influence? That Benarke is not apart of his economic team? That he isnt going to be the one to spend the 600 billion in monopoly money? In the least Obama isnt saying no and is encouraging it. He’s telling everyone else to join in…frankly, I dont think Mr. Wishing is out of line. If Obama were to stand up and say to Benarke, “dont you dare”. Mr. Benarke would cease and desist.
Report comment to moderator
Like most economists, Obama approves of standard monetary interventions by the Fed in economic circumstances like ours. The only economists who are telling the Fed no are a small handful who know better but who get paychecks from Republican institutions.
The president is not supposed to say yea or nay the Fed. Bernanke is not part of Obama’s economic team. Bush II never said no to him, though he appointed him, and it’s silly to expect Obama to say no.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s the conservative theory of money:
PY=MV
P is price
Y is the flow of spending (the amount produced and sold)
M is bank reserves, cash, liquid assets
V is the velocity of money
When PY falls, it threatens a fall in production and sales and a rise in unemployment.
During falling PY, otherwise known as recession, the standard policy of Milton Friedman recommends boosting M.
So long as V doesn’t move in the opposite direction, standard Fed intervention will stabilize nominal spending and save us from depression and joblessness.
The dangling factor in this scenario is V, how fast people spend their cash.
Milton Friedman classically maintains that the primary determinator of velocity is the nominal interest rate. The higher the interest rate, the faster you want to spend your money, and the higher the velocity. Holding cash is expensive when interest rates are high. On the other hand, the lower the interest rate, the more you delay purchases and shop around, without giving up too much interest earnings.
As interest rates rise, prices rise, signaling that it’s time to spend.
Report comment to moderator
” Bush II never said no to him, though he appointed him, and it’s silly to expect Obama to say no”
Why is it silly for a separate individual to act with more wisdom? Bush was criticized for his spending…and yet you most likely voted for Obama, who was Bush times 10 in spending. Neither should be cherished for failing to issue restraint, and both fall by their own merits. And frankly, one should learn from others mistakes. This is why History has typically been taught in schools.
Report comment to moderator
It’s silly to criticize Obama for not overthrowing policies that are endorsed by all economists except the handful who get their paychecks from right-wing political groups.
Economists in general might be wrong, like the medical practice of blood-letting was wrong, but until the consensus is replaced, it’s silly to fault people for following the generally accepted practice as currently understood.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, with respect, I think your reply to my criticism of Lee Wishing’s (and now your) false claim about Obama running the Fed, only illustrates the problematic role of counterfactual assertion in Evangelical political rhetoric.
I’ve learned a lot about right wingers on this blog. Until recently, I would have concluded that y’all are just liars. However, the use by ethically sensitive people of counterfactual assertion is today so rampant that something else is going on, besides simple mendacity. Evangelicals somehow believe that the declaration of their emotional truth is so critical that empirical details no longer matter. They have to talk the way they are talking, because they are in the grip of a fever. The spirit of prophecy is upon them. They have no duty to supply cogent explanations to the trampling swine, liberals who are all to blame in the first place.
Report comment to moderator
#26 THORN,
You said: “This is why History has typically been taught in schools.”
I would add that your statement is valid up to about 70-80 years ago. History has since been the tool for revisionism to produce young cultural marxists as we attract to this blog that argue against God’s way of doing life.
Obama has driven the Fed to this point of madness and theft due to his lavish spending and false hope that government will bail us out of what government created to begin with. We seem to be on an accelerated trajectory to a banana republic status.
Two excellent links are:
1. http://visiontoamerica.org/story/quantitative-easing-explained-so-all-can-understand-this-will-make-you-angry.html
2. http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/soundmanjay-344588-dont-cry-america-obamacare-socialism-argentina-ppspap-business-finance-ppt-powerpoint/
Report comment to moderator
“It’s silly to criticize Obama for not overthrowing policies that are endorsed by all economists except the handful who get their paychecks from right-wing political groups.”
So your going with the many who are getting their paychecks from Benarke?
If they were all getting paychecks to jump off a cliff, would you wanna get paid too, or would you have the wisdom to restrain yourself?
The only way a consensus gets replaced is when people stand against it. It doesnt change by doing nothing or riding along or encouraging everyone else to join in. And they are no less at fault.
Report comment to moderator
“Evangelicals somehow believe that the declaration of their emotional truth is so critical that empirical details no longer matter.”
Ah, so you dismiss clear example after example of history as my emotional fever?
Scroop, your the one invoking Spock and a veiled insult to a “right wingers” intelligence, rather than dealing with empirical facts.
Report comment to moderator
“I would add that your statement is valid up to about 70-80 years ago.”
Aye, when complusory education was enacted by the ideals of some socialists from the example of the Prussian system was it that used it for a means of control?
Report comment to moderator
And Scroop believes the Austrian school of thought are being bought off by rightwingers. This blog gets more humorous every day.
Report comment to moderator
A fact that’s not being dealt with straight by some here is the fact that the President doesn’t control the Fed.
One has to be a lot smarter than I in order to maintain that counterfactual, so intelligence is not an attribute I’d insult.
Report comment to moderator
#32 SM
The pres controls the Fed by three means; appointment of the head which Obama did by reappointment of Big Ben. By using the bully pulpit to engage the public and Congress. And by the interactions between the Fed and the Treasury which QE II is all about; without the the Treasury selling bonds through Goldman Sachs to the Fed there is no QE II.
Report comment to moderator
#32 SM
There is a fourth method the pres has to control the Fed. Request congress pass whatever law he desires to regulate what the Fed can or can not do since this poor-excuse-for-an-enterprise was created by Congress to begin with.
Report comment to moderator
This is the economic basis of our liberal, Progressive, Marxist friends:
Was the purpose of all that stimulus money…the massive wealth transfer…to FIX the economy or was something else going on? Here’s the Keynes quote:
“By a continuous process of inflation [ie: QE and QE II], governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens…and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some…. The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose.” –John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) From “Economic Consequences of the Peace” 1920
Words like “confiscate” and “destruction” are not inadvertently used here. Keynes had to know exactly what he was saying. Isn’t it logical to assume that this administration also knows what it’s doing in adopting Keynes as their economic guru? [Ron Paul has certainly been calling the Feds hand on this issue]
We the people are being used and abused in a grand scheme that, intended or not, will destroy America. Want more? Try a quote from the billionaire progressive and Democrat supporting, “Mr. Moneybags”, George Soros:
“I have always harbored an exaggerated view of my self-importance. To put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes….”–George Soros from “The Alchemy of Finance” 1987
These are not men who care about opportunity for the average person. Gratification comes through the power to manipulation and control the masses to their own ends.
Praise God everyday and especially this Thursday for all He is allowing to happen. He is in control and we as a nation have earned whatever the consequences. God Bess.
Report comment to moderator
“A fact that’s not being dealt with straight by some here is the fact that the President doesn’t control the Fed.”
Direct control, no, but influence, very much yes.
On another page you argue bush is at fault for thousands of deaths in Iraq for simply opposing Saddam and Al Queda. He has no direct control over the opposing force or their bombing actions, yet you fault him.
At least be consistant with how you attribute blame.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!