Does Ahmadinejad have it right????

0 votes

Check out this article
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080617080043.afcygse...

He may just be speaking the truth this time!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Pretty sad...

when we have to get the truth from a so-called "terrorist."

A terrorist....

Which country has this "terrorist" invaded and occupied? How many military bases does this "terrorist" have around the world?

agreed

imagine if Iran had warships next to Florida New York and military bases all around in Canada and Mexico!
Iran is surrounded on all sides by US military power.
Lets look at the map.

Website:
http://www.libertypoet.com/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
"How can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire?" - Dr. Ron Paul

mossad are the real terrorists

casa6969 google 911/mossad and get the truth

casa6969

destruction of the free market

interesting set of articles dmc4rp. Thanks for sharing. I hesitate though at the implication that the solution is to regulate the derivatives market. The derivatives market was developed to sidestep previous market regulation regarding credit insurance. What is to prevent that happening again? When I think about the origins of the derivatives market it is reflective of the flaws of our financial system.

Whatever the financial instrument, at the end of the day we have rising prises and inflationary monetary policy is inflationary monetary policy;
'regulating the market' or a particular financial vehicle, to me is code for suppressing market checks on inflationary practices. It is an attempt to further mask the symptoms of inflation.

The main laissez-fair checks on a are a bank's reputation, bank runs on unsound institutions, and a competitive financial sector. All of these mechanisms have been removed, suppressed, or perverted to remove the consequences of inflation, whereas the actual mechanism of inflation is fractional reserve banking.

mustangmom's post shows, a destruction of the free market exchanges in energy delivery.

The free market is just me and you consenting to exchange. Who is any third party to come in and tell us how to do it? Our money power has been taken from us and given to the Federal Reserve institution. This is in my view, is the single biggest tragedy of the destruction of the free market. Politicos will only listen to the one's holding the golden goose, or I should say the inflationary paper goose.

In this Ahmadinejad is right, the politicos are protecting the banks, deflecting scrutiny on them and blaming foreigners for our price troubles. Even his nation is wary of U.S. dollars, they want out. They feel like they're getting ripped off, because they are. The inflationary expropriation of wealth that happens in this country is a microcosm of what we do to the entire planet. Through the luxury of being able to print the world's reserve currency we get to export our inflation.

Meanwhile, further fueling price hikes in oil, the banks are attempting to recoup their losses with speculative futures in oil. Something that I see as ironic because I view it as a capital flight to a widely acknowledged sound commodity investment following the housing fall-out. It is ironic because I see the housing boom as the fallout of the dot com bubble where investment banks got burned on intangible software, and so redirected to the seemingly more tangible assets of real estate. Bottom line is this.., the financial institutions are perpetually over-exposing themselves to risk, because they run on fractional reserves, and they get to socialize any losses.

Meanwhile, the fallout is painted as the fruit of the unrestrained free market. No one mentions the capital structure of the market is not on a laissez-fair base to begin with. Participants in the market (e.g. everyone) either don't know, or have an interest in keeping it that way.

Then we've got Obama, who's stated solution to the problem of rising prices is to index the minimum wage to inflation...that's enough to stop me there. Then McCain has admitted, and it is quite evident, that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He says he's going to read Allen Greenspan's book to get an economics education. Everyone loved Greenspan because he gave everyone easy credit, now we're paying for it, and the only solution I hear being proposed from Kool-Aid land is more central economic planning.

This is the perversion of the free market...learn it, integrate it, see it, stop it.

Hi thewhitewhale,

You said, "I hesitate though at the implication that the solution is to regulate the derivatives market. The derivatives market was developed to sidestep previous market regulation regarding credit insurance. What is to prevent that happening again? When I think about the origins of the derivatives market it is reflective of the flaws of our financial system."

While I understand and empathize with what you are trying to say, that basically Greed is hard to regulate; it doesn't help for Congress to pass laws that encourage this type of extreme reckless behavior.

"Moral Hazards"--what's that?

The two singularly blatant laws passed by Congress which have allowed the derivatives market to mushroom are the following:

1. Former Senator Phil Gramm's Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 officially removed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating the derivatives and the credit default swaps markets (CDS--something that we are going to hear a lot more about next in the line of the credit default explosions, except they are going to make the subprime blowups look rather tame in comparison):

http://motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil...

2. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 by none other than Senator Phil Gramm again, and the other Congressional sponsors in crime, allowed investment firms to function and merge with commercial banks. Hence, now the oxymoron term "investment banks." There were pretty good reasons why the Glass-Steagall Act was passed by Congress in 1932 after the speculations which led to the Great Crash and the subsequent Great Depression: to prevent banks ("safe keeping of one's money and the preservation of one's capital") from selling investments ("engaging in speculation and other forms of financial gambling") which are clearly two opposite fiduciary responsibilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

So, it's not so much that regulations cannot work to stop and/prevent Wall Street Greed from metastasizing, it is the getting rid of legislations and enabling others to allow that Greed to flourish unceasingly and exponentially.

As regards to what can be done to the $692 trillion--$692,000,000,000,000--"notational value" derivatives market, I believe that we are way beyond "crossing the Rubicon" and will have to cross our collective fingers and wait for the house of cards to collapse....

The Fed/Plunge Protection Team is on 24/7 watch to prevent any blowups in the derivatives market, because they fully know that such a happening will collapse the entire economic system of the world. The cannibalization of Bear Sterns was in part to prevent their CDS' from blowing up:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/...

I guess it's no surprise that the former Senator is now the economic brain of McCain....

The real oil manipulation is....

with two unregulated market bourses or trading centers called the ICE and the NYMEX using toxic and catastrophic financial instruments called "derivatives":

http://engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Financial_Tsunami/Oil_Spec...

http://engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Financial_Tsunami/Oil_Spec...

Derivatives are not the problem

Derivatives are no different than any other insurance product and they have a place. The problem comes when we regulate these exchanges and the Fed bails out bad trading firms and bad business. If we allow derivative firms to fail when the take on bad risk and lose money then the firms will be less inclined to take on as much risk. The bail out is the issue not the derivatives. I have had a derivative trading company for over 10 years. We trade on the CBOE, CME, AMEX and NYMEX. The products we trade have a place as they provide the system with liquidity and as a risk management tool. Unfortunately all of our trades are guaranteed by the Fed so even if we blow out the trade will be made good by the Fed at the tax payers expense. That is where the system breaks down.

Well

Doesn't this play right into the hands of the people (elites) controlling the dollar. He gets what he wants with the establishment of the Amero, right?

Yes, he's right. I grew up

Yes, he's right. I grew up in the 'oil fields' of west Texas. My dad, my uncles, my husband, the entire family worked in the 'fields' in one capacity or another. Anyone who has worked in the oilfields knows and has known that there is NO oil shortage.

My husband also worked foreign for over 20 years as a consultant to several different companies.

This government has been busily destroying our ability to search for oil or to produce it once it's found since the 70's. In the 80's their policies put five western states into a depression. Families from all those states that were connected to anything having to do with oil had to relocate or starve.

OPEC told us in the 70's..straight out..if you think this is a 'shortage' wait and see what we have in store in the years ahead. The response of our government was simply to tighten down more on the oil companies whom they are now blaming for this situation.

Which is all part of the plan

to flatten the American economy to line up with the world and to drain the money that was here into the pockets of the elite.

May 21, 2008 Earlier today,

May 21, 2008

Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee summoned top executives from the petroleum industry for what Chairman Pat Leahy thought would be a politically profitable inquisition. Leahy and his comrades showed up ready to blame American oil companies for the high price of gasoline, but the event wasn't as satisfactory as the Democrats had hoped.

The industry lineup was formidable:
. Robert Malone, Chairman and President of BP America, Inc.;
. John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company;
. Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation;
. John Lowe, Executive Vice President, Conoco Philips Company; and
. Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation.

Not surprisingly, the petroleum executives stole the show, as they were far smarter, infinitely better informed, and much more public-spirited than the Senate Democrats.

One theme that emerged from the hearing was the surprisingly small role played by American oil companies in the global petroleum market.

John Lowe pointed out:

I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments.

We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world's available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible.

Stephen Simon amplified:

Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.

To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.

Because foreign companies and governments control the overwhelming majority of the world's oil, most of the price you pay at the pump is the cost paid by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone else.

Last year, the average price in the United States of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was around $2.80. On average in 2007, approximately 58 percent of the price reflected the amount paid for crude oil. Consumers pay for that crude oil, and so do we.

Of the 2 million barrels per day Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the United States, 90 percent were purchased from others.

Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is "gouging" consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.

The last theme that was sounded repeatedly was Congress's responsibility for the fact that American companies have access to so little petroleum.

Shell's John Hofmeister explained, eloquently:
While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China, subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation's consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations.

Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.

Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.

According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.

When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.

As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.
The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exploration and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development.

Later in the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch walked Hofmeister through the Democrats' latest efforts to block energy independence:

HATCH: I want to get into that. In other words, we're talking about Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. It's fair to say that they're not considered part of America's $22 billion of proven reserves.

HOFMEISTER: Not at all.

HATCH: No, but experts agree that there's between 800 billion to almost 2 trillion barrels of oil that could be recoverable there, and that's good oil, isn't it?

HOFMEISTER: That's correct.

HATCH: It could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel?

HOFMEISTER: I think those costs are probably a bit dated now, based upon what we've seen in the inflation...

HATCH: Well, somewhere in that area.

HOFMEISTER: I don't know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be cracked. And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of supply against the demand.

HATCH: I guess what I'm saying, though, is that if we started to develop the oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework of over $100 a barrel and make a profit.

HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.

HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.

HOFMEISTER: Yes.

HATCH: But they're stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here. We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to do that, in at least Colorado.

HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to the American consumer.

The committee's Democrats attempted no response. They know that they are largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want the price to rise even further. Consequently, they have no intention of permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would both increase this country's energy independence and give consumers a break from constantly increasing energy costs.

Every once in a while, Congressional hearings turn out to be informative.

Evil Oil Companies? What?

Like most problems in this country the government is not the solution - it is the problem!!

You be the judge as to why our gasoline prices are high.
===========================================

The real problem, I understand

is the dollar artificially being manipulated by the Feds. Apparently oil is abundant, even from our current sources.

Now why do the democrats want the price of oil to go up? What is their angle? I know there is all the environmental (false) concern that they probably simply use as the reason for not drilling.

It is the establishment/elites that want the dollar to fall, causing the price of everything to go up, including gasoline.

Explained

Here's the answer to why.

Sure, petroleum costs are high because it costs more to obtain oil. And yes, the prices are being held artificially high through careful control of the dollar by the current sitting administration. But here's what you need to realize...

We're being groomed to accept $5/gal gas (amongst other things). Do you think that with all the pressure that the government has created for itself to 'do something' that it'll take long before the off limits areas in our own country are drilled? And how much less will each barrel cost to produce then? And do you honestly believe that the prices will drop at the pump or anywhere else when that happens? And better still...what happens when the Fed creates the next depression thru deflation? Do you think that the prices will adjust down then?

We're nothing more than slaves to the globalists. We work, they prosper...

Did you honestly expect anything but a dog & pony show from Congress on this?

No, we don't. =(

______________________
*** God bless Ron Paul ***
* Ron Paul For President *

______________________
*** God bless Ron Paul ***
* Ron Paul For President *