Project Armageddon:Tullett Prebon(major UK investment firm)Thinks The Unthinkable(systemic collapse)

[stockholmer]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/project-armageddon-tullett-prebon-thinks-unthinkable

When noted English financial firm Tullett Prebon releases a report titled "Thinking the Unthinkable", which just happens to be the last part of its Project Armageddon series, you know it will be good. While the report is UK-centric, and focuses primarily on the particulars of the English economy (thus making it required reading for our British-Isle based readers), the overarching observations are more than applicable in any place that has too much debt, too little cash flows, and not enough growth. So basically every "developed world" country. From the executive summary:"Project Armageddon was established to examine the possibility that both sides’ warnings are correct but that neither side’s prescriptions will work. We conclude that Britain’s debts are unsupportable without sustained economic growth, and that the economy, as currently configured, is aligned against growth. Radical solutions are required if a debt disaster is to be averted. All macroeconomic options have been tried, and have failed. The only remaining options lie in the field of supply-side reform. Unfortunately, public opinion may be inimical to the scale of reform that is required."

Bingo: this is precisely the same big picture summary of what ails the US right about now. We eagerly await for someone to undertake the creation of Project Armageddon for the US: we are confident it will not be that much different.

Project Armageddon - The Final Report

http://www.scribd.com/doc/63007201/Tullett-Prebon-Project-Armagedon-Aug-2011

[Sanity Claws]

1. supply-side reform?

What does this mean? Is it an indictment of supply-side economics?

Why doesn't anyone speak up in favor of Keynesian economics?

[stockholmer]

3. in favour of Keynesianism? lolol, perhaps because it has been disastrously wrong for decades (as has

the Chicago school.) Neo-classical economics has been simply overwhelmed in its predictive capabilities due to the utterly huge level of market manipulation by the global monetary systemic controllers. Now, please do not take my posting of this article above for a tacit approval of what they lay out. I merely provide for grist for the mail, and also the enormity of the situation.

The tragedy of it all is that false framing, massive political posturing, and deliberate mis-representations and attributions have led up to a point where both the false-left (ie USA Democrats) and false right (ie USA Republicans) have come to be associated with completely bastardized versions of economics. BOTH parties are, at their core, fascistic corporatists, and simply maintain a continuity of agenda of wealth and power consolidation for their banking and multinational corporate overlords.


Fascist scum like the Koch brothers have misappropriated certain parts of Austrian economics, taking out the parts that show disastrous failures in certain Keynesian models, but NEVER giving up their pure intent of oligarchy. Remember, Austrians, real Austrians, are much, much more into predictive theory, NOT political false posturing. Most people who try to do even a semi-deep dive into our global madness get gate-kepted by false dogma before they realize this.¨

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The same misappropriation occurs from the left, and clouds what actually happened during the seminal Progressive era. I tend to agree with New Left historian Gabriel Kolko in his book "The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916."

In it, he lays out a case for the rise of modern corporatist system during the Progressive Era. This in turn, allows for the violation a large principle – No socialization of losses and privatization of gains (ie the confluence of big business and big government in mutual reinforcement).

http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservatism-Gabriel-Kolko/dp/0029166500

Kolko was soon joined by other New Left historians such as William Appleman Williams in challenging the reigning "corporate liberal" orthodoxy. Rather than "the people" being behind these "progressive reforms," it was the very elite business interests themselves responsible, in an attempt to cartelize, centralize and control what was impossible due to the dynamics of a competitive and decentralized economy.

.............in advancing the corporate liberalism idea whereby the old Progressive historiography of the "interests" versus the "people" was reinterpreted as a collaboration of interests aiming towards stabilizing competition . According to Grob and Billias, "Kolko believed that large-scale units turned to government regulation precisely because of their inefficiency" and that the "Progressive movement - far from being anti-business - was actually a movement that defined the general welfare in terms of the well-being of business" . Kolko, in particular, broke new ground with his critical history of the Progressive Era. He discovered that free enterprise and competition were vibrant and expanding during the first two decades of the twentieth century; meanwhile, corporations reacted to the free market by turning to government to protect their inherent inefficiency from the discipline of market conditions. This behavior is known as corporatism, but Kolko dubbed it "political capitalism." Kolko's thesis "that businessmen favored government regulation because they feared competition and desired to forge a government-business coalition" is one that is echoed by many observers today . Former Harvard professor Paul H. Weaver uncovered the same inefficient and bureaucratic behavior from corporations during his stint at Ford Motor Corporation (see Weaver's The Suicidal Corporation <1988>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Kolko

http://users.crocker.com/~acacia/kolko.html

http://miltenoff.tripod.com/Kolko.html

http://www.stateofnature.org/liberalElitesAnd.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few sources to back how Keynesians have failed:


Steve Keen (brilliant Australian economist who debunks neo-classicism)


http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/03/neoclassical-wage-restraint-madness/

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/07/15/no-one-saw-this-coming-balderdash/

-----------------------------------------------------------

To show you the multi-dimensional level of chess that psy-ops in the USA are played at, here is a Newsweek piece from 2007, by a one liberal, Jonathan Alter, who ATTACKS Paul Krugman, but on the issue of health care (Alter thinks that Obama will push a effective health care reform, something that Krugman (and this is one of few times I agree with Krugman) calls out as false.

Alter is stunning in his overall naivete, as the last 3 years have basically refuted all his assumption, BUT this in no way conversely validates the Keynesian Krugman either, as he has ALSO been staggeringly wrong over the last 10 years or so.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/12/18/why-krugman-is-wrong.html


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

more:

KEYNESIAN SOLUTIONS – AFTER TOTAL FAILURE – TRY, TRY AGAIN

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=20378


-------------------------------------------------------------

Dr Michael Hudson

http://michael-hudson.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------
Why is failed Keynesianism back in vogue?

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/40499302.html


----------------------------------------------------------------------




---------------------------------------------------------------

Henry Hazlitt and the Failure
of Keynesian Economics

http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/ebeling1104.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keynesian FAIL

http://aartedafuga.blogspot.com/2011/08/keynesian-fail.html

Keynesian Death Spiral

http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/%E2%80%9Ckeynesian-death-spiral%E2%80%9D/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Just a moment: you're saying Keynesianism is dead based on a WSJ Kevin Hassett article?

Kevin Hassett, of the AEI, advisor to McCain and Bush, and of Dow 36,000 fame?

:rofl:

:rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[stockholmer]

5. no, it is the cumulative evidence that they are dead wrong from all accounts, believe what you will

The facts in ALL that I posted add to that unmistakable conclusion.

Nice drive-by attempt at smearing, though.

Way to buy into the false left-right US political paradigm, btw. Apparently you missed the vast bulk of what I posted.




:rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl:

[stockholmer]

6. oh, BTW (and this is NOT what Hassett meant by his 36,000) but a 36,000 Dow in debased $'s is more

than possible, at the rate they are printing.

It is just that that 36,000 Dow will be worth a Dow 2,000 or 3,000 average in 1999 dollars.

[DJ13]

2. I disagree with this part

"The biggest obstacles to recovery are spurious moral absolutism, an unrealistic belief in ‘entitlement’,and the division of the economy into warring interest groups."

Pg 28


The group believing in their own "entitlement" above the welfare of the country arent the poor or the aged, as these types of reports like to claim, the worst is the entitlement of the well off who feel they have no responsibilities towards the rest of the country they live in.

[starroute]

7. So the writer wants to convince us class warfare is an illusion

And then stick it to the poor.

And it's *Keynsianism* he thinks has failed? What a laugh.

[socialist_n_TN]

9. That's what I got from a cursory glance at it

Just more bourgeoisie bullshit.

[MilesColtrane]

8. Still talking up your gold, hunh?