Faber: Nations Will Print Money, Go Bust, Go to War…We Are Doomed

Former Argentine president says Bush told him ‘the best way to revitalize the economy is war.’

Oliver Stone’s new documentary South of the Border, which interviews several left-wing leaders of Latin American countries, has unearthed a startling new allegation from Argentina’s former president Néstor Kirchner. During his interview with Stone, Kirchner said he once discussed global economic problems with former President George W. Bush. The former Argentine president says that when he suggested a new Marshall Plan, referring to the WW II-era European reconstruction plan, Bush “got angry” and suggested that “the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats.” Instead, Kirchner says, Bush suggested that “the best way to revitalize the economy is war”:

KIRCHNER: I said that a solution for the problems right now, I told Bush, is a Marshall Plan. And he got angry. He said the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats. He said the best way to revitalize the economy is war. And that the United States has grown stronger with war.

STONE: War, he said that?

KIRCHNER: He said that. Those were his exact words.

STONE: Is he suggesting that South America go to war?

KIRCHNER: Well, he was talking about the United States: ‘The Democrats had been wrong. All of the economic growth of the United States has been encouraged by wars.’ He said it very clearly.

Watch it:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/28/argentine-prime-bush-war/
 
Quote from bearice:

Former Argentine president says Bush told him ‘the best way to revitalize the economy is war.’

Oliver Stone’s new documentary South of the Border, which interviews several left-wing leaders of Latin American countries, has unearthed a startling new allegation from Argentina’s former president Néstor Kirchner. During his interview with Stone, Kirchner said he once discussed global economic problems with former President George W. Bush. The former Argentine president says that when he suggested a new Marshall Plan, referring to the WW II-era European reconstruction plan, Bush “got angry” and suggested that “the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats.” Instead, Kirchner says, Bush suggested that “the best way to revitalize the economy is war”:

KIRCHNER: I said that a solution for the problems right now, I told Bush, is a Marshall Plan. And he got angry. He said the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats. He said the best way to revitalize the economy is war. And that the United States has grown stronger with war.

STONE: War, he said that?

KIRCHNER: He said that. Those were his exact words.

STONE: Is he suggesting that South America go to war?

KIRCHNER: Well, he was talking about the United States: ‘The Democrats had been wrong. All of the economic growth of the United States has been encouraged by wars.’ He said it very clearly.

Watch it:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/28/argentine-prime-bush-war/
More...

I always said that the REAL reason America went into Iraq was because the economy was flagging and Bush didn't want to face reelection in a down economy.

So.. he lied about WMD as an excuse to start a war with Iraq. (Remember Treasury Secretary O'Neil? In a TV interview he once said, "in my first cabinet meeting with Bush, he said, 'We are going into Iraq. You find me a reason.'") Reelection was more important to him than all of the lives lost and the balooning deficit. The Bush presidency left a gaping wound which will never heal.

You Bush lovers need to face up to the fact... Bush was a selfish ASSHOLE. And without Bush's abuse of his power, we likely would never have elected an even BIGGER ASSHOLE WHO IS DOING EVEN GREATER DAMAGE TO AMERICA! :mad:
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

I always said that the REAL reason America went into Iraq was because the economy was flagging and Bush didn't want to face reelection in a down economy.
More...
I think George Bush meant big wars like World War 3. Iraq war is nothing.
 
Quote from bearice:

I think George Bush meant big wars like World War 3. Iraq war is nothing.
More...

Iraq was PLENTY. (1) It gave the Congress the green light to deficit spend on the war and goose the economy with borrowed money, as they never hold back on the purse strings if there is actual fighting, and (2) It gave Bush the misdirection he needed to deflect Americans' minds from the economy.

Many seem to believe that because WW II brought America out of the Depression, a WW III will do the same. I think not. Our circumstances are much different now.
 
So because a left wing South American politician tells a reporter that Bush said this.......it must be true, right?

Please
 
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

He's not exactly had an easy job. He underestimated the problems in housing and banking, but he has responded "ok". Contrary to what Faber says, the US has yet to show any signs of hyperinflation or a Zimbabwean fate for the currency - in fact the dollar has rallied massively against the Euro and pound, and US Treasuries have yielded 3-4% for the last year.

If Faber judges a central banker by the performance of the currency and government debt, then by all rights he should be praising Bernanke not describing him as the worst central banker ever. He should also admit he made a terrible call on his short Treasuries and short dollar positions, and give an update on whether he has exited, admitting he was wrong, or whether he is still trying to top-pick both those bull markets.
More...

IMO shorting treasuries is the proper long-range position unless you think interest rates will stay at historic lows forever. I would not be at all critical of anyone who is short Treasuries so long as their perspective is long term. Rate increases lie ahead.
 
Misthos, the process of inflation or deflation are in actuality entirely monetary. To understand them any other way is to conflate an overarching process with all the noise of idex price behavior.

Price change and inflation are different things. Price change is always taking place as you document to some degree in your last post, but these changes that arise from some technological discovery or supply demand imbalance always revert to the mean...albiet after some time and with some economic dislocation. Inflation or deflation on the other hand changes the mean that prices revert to over time.

Index measures are always reflecting the noise and prior monetary mistakes of the past, even conflicting mistakes, so that the index is rough indicator that does not accurately reflect what is happening currently. You have to look at both the index and the bond rates and the commodity prices discounted by long moving averages to sift through the noise and begin to see the trend as inflation or deflation.

To make such a change there has to be change in expectation about the future...about the likely future price of assets...and this expectation must rise to a consensus among individual economic actors. This is completely different than issues of supply/demand imbalance or technology advancing which would effect individual goods or sets of goods or in the extreme a sector or even a fundamental price element such as energy. Inflation requies an expectation of inflation by a consensus of economic actors such that they negotiate all long term contracts based on that new expectation...Do you see the difference, even a supply demand imbalance in oil will not effect the price of all things and it would be brought back into balance over time. The revealed truth of Moore's law does not change expectations about how to negotiate your next labor contract or long term lease.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top