Skip to content

Month: January 2016

Petty is the new manly by @BloggersRUs

Petty is the new manly
by Tom Sullivan

How is Donald Trump’s enemies list coming? Being a superior businessman, he’ll not want Obama’s FEMA camps to go to waste. Fortunately, with Trump’s rather prodigious enemies list, he won’t lack for people to house in them.

It seems the would-be next leader of the free world somehow got into a Twitter feud with actor Samuel L. Jackson. Jackson told an interviewer for an in-flight magazine that he’s a better golfer than Trump:

Who’s the better golfer?

“Oh, I am, for sure,” Jackson says, then smiles. “I don’t cheat.”

Trump denied having played golf with Jackson.

Then a friend of Jackson’s backed him up:

So then Trump accused the guy he’d never played golf with of cheating at it:

And of having a girlie-man swing:

Is this kind of puerile stuff what we can expect of Trump as president? I think so. Calling Trump a cheat is one thing, but nobody’s better than Donald at anything. Nobody. He won’t have it.

Trump already has a long (if informal) enemies list going back some years. Add to that Seth Meyers, the New Hampshire Union Leader, and pretty much anybody else who takes a swipe at the thin-skinned manly man. Oh, and Scotland.

Jackson told his side of the golf story to Seth Meyers.

DHS Predicted Armed Standoffs In August. Why didn’t FBI or DOJ Act? @spockosbrain

DHS Predicted Armed Standoffs In August. Why didn’t FBI or DOJ Act?

by Spocko

In August 2014 I predicted that if the FBI and DOJ didn’t act following the actions by  Bundy supporters in Bunkerville, Nevada in April, armed stand-offs like the current one in Oregon would happen.

I’m pretty good at predicting the future, but I don’t expect people to listen to a time traveling Vulcan. But why didn’t they listen to the Department of Homeland Security?

Bundy supporter and armed protester Eric Parker
from central Idaho aims his weapon from a bridge
next to the BLM’s base camp near Bunkerville, Nev
April 12, 2014 Photo Jim Urquhart -Reuters via KLAS-TV 8

In August 2014 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put out a report, titled “Domestic Violent Extremists Pose Increased Threat to Law Enforcement and Government Officials,”

Bill Morlin from the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote about it.,

The report found that Cliven Bundy’s militia-backed standoff with Bureau of Land Management agents in April galvanized “some individuals, particularly militia extremists and violent lone offenders, to actively confront law enforcement officials, increasing the likelihood of violence.” Furthermore, the report adds, “this perceived success likely will embolden other militia extremists and like-minded lone offenders to attempt to replicate these confrontational tactics and force future armed standoffs with law enforcement and government officials.”

I understand the PR “optics” of not wanting a blood bath at the Bundy Ranch. But I don’t understand the failure to arrest people months later. Was it a law enforcement/prosecution issue or a PR concern? Did they want to bust them for additional crimes that were indefensible to the anti-government movement?

I didn’t know the reason they didn’t act back in August so I wrote my friend David Neiwert from the Southern Poverty Law Center, asking:

“I’m thinking of doing a follow up on how the Bundy Ranch protesters were treated at the time and then afterwards vs. how the Ferguson protesters are being treated now and will be afterwards.”

He explaining that “the federal law-enforcement agencies involved in the Bundy Ranch standoff and its aftermath are seriously pursuing federal criminal cases against the men who were aiming their loaded weapons at federal agents on April 12.” (He wrote about the investigation in May for Hatewatch.)

I was going to call the FBI but figured I’d get a “No comment, active investigation, blah, blah, blah. are you a registered alien Mr. Spocko?” The FBI are professionals and I didn’t want to tip off the guys they were investigating, since I know they read everything I write. However, Ryan Lenz, from SPLC, did check in with the Feds in October and there was still no movement.

If some people from the Bundy ranch did get arrested Fox News would happily whip up multiple stories from the jailed suspects about “government over reach” and arguing, against video evidence, that the poor patriots “totally didn’t point their guns at Federal officers!”  


I’m wondering if the FBI was looking for other evidence to make people like Sean Hannity disown various “patriots” like they did with Bundy himself? Did they want to produce additional evidence showing the public that these are domestic terrorists?

I don’t want to second guess the FBI’s actions, but now might be the time to show the public that pointing loaded guns at law enforcement officers constitutes assault against an officer and is a federal crime. A crime that can carry a sentence of up to 20 years in prison when a deadly weapon is involved.

If the government doesn’t act, then the message sent is clear: It’s okay to bring guns to your protests. You will be taken seriously, you won’t be arrested now or later.  It looks like peaceful, non-violent protests are for suckers.

Based on this evidence, Maybe my friends in the anti-war movement and Occupy Wall Street should follow the exact model that was laid out in Nevada.


“But Spocko, you have to be white to not get shot!”

Really? I’m tired of people suggesting that the police and government won’t treat you the same as the Bundys if you are black or Muslim–and armed.  I’ll bet people of any color or religion can do this. You just need to follow the exact model of behavior that was laid out in Nevada.

(Of course since I pass for white, I won’t be able to test this model, but I’m totally sure it would be worth it to prove my point that these days armed protests work better than unarmed. I mean if Fox News and the entire right wing doesn’t get behind–and welcome–black and Muslim armed protests they would look like anti-American hypocrites.)

Is this reckless for me to suggest this? Based on evidence to date, who is more likely to be shot, tear-gased, beaten and arrested?  Unarmed non-violent protesters or armed, ready for violence, protesters?

Next up: Getting advice from the armed right wing

A new wave of left-wing armed protesters are blatantly defying the law and are pointing guns at duly elected state and local law enforcement officers. How do you recommend arresting them and taking their guns away, without causing a blood bath?” Then apply what we learn to them.

QOTD: Steve King (R-wingnut)

QOTD: Steve King (R-wingnut)

by digby

“I want to build an America that looks like Sioux County looks,” said King.

Huh. What does Sioux Country look like anyway?

As of the census of 2000, there were 31,589 people, 10,693 households, and 8,062 families residing in the county.The racial makeup of the county was 97.33% White, 0.20% Black or African American, 0.13% Native American, 0.59% Asian, 0.01% Pacific Islander, 1.20% from other races, and 0.53% from two or more races. 2.56% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.

Yep, that sounds like the America Steve King is trying to build.

Anti-teacher union crusaders also want to make all children worship Christianity in public schools

Anti-teacher union crusaders also want to make all children worship Christianity in public schools

by digby

I don’t know why I continue to be surprised by their deviousness. It’s utterly predictable,  But still. Check out this story by Sarah Posner in the Prospect about the latest supreme court challenge to bust the teachers unions:

A version of this article was originally published in the December 2015 issue of Clarion, the newspaper of the Professional Staff Congress-CUNY.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will take up Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case with profound implications for the future of public-sector labor unions, and the labor movement as a whole. At issue is the underpinning of public-sector unionism—that public employees who opt out of union membership can still be obligated to pay for their individual share of the services and collective bargaining they receive from the union. The Court could even decide to make union membership an opt-in rather than an opt-out proposition, allowing the public employees unions are required to represent to glean the benefits of representation without paying dues.

While the plaintiffs in Friedrichs base their claims on a free speech argument that many find dubious, tucked away in the case lies another, real First Amendment concern: the separation of church and state. The lead plaintiff in the challenge before the High Court is Rebecca Friedrichs, a teacher in California’s Savanna School District; she is joined in the suit by nine additional individuals, and one organization: the Christian Educators Association International (CEAI), which bills itself as an alternative to the “secular” teachers’ unions, and argues openly that the Constitution does not bar teachers from imparting their Christian faith in their classrooms.

Should those unions find themselves on the losing side of the Friedrichs case, an important bulwark against the incursion of religion in public schools will be undermined.

“Many public-school educators believe that they must make their schools God-less under the banner of ‘separation of church and state,’” CEAI’s executive director, Finn Laursen, has written, “to the extent that an environment is created that is hostile to religion.”

The teachers’ unions, Laursen maintains, “have such control that student needs become secondary” to those of the union. In that “hostile” public-school environment, according to Laursen, “the sin nature [sic] of mankind is accepted and even promoted.” There are “forces are at work,” he writes, that aim to “control the minds of our children by systematically promoting such things as sexual orientation being genetically driven and same sex marriage being acceptable under the banner of tolerance.”

There’s lots more about the Koch sponsored law firm that’s handling this case pro-bono.

There’s always a hidden agenda and long term strategy in this stuff. Whatever happens in our elections the battles in the courts over economics, corporate power, unions and “social issues” is going to be bruising over the next several years. These cases have been in pipeline for a very long time, and the courts have been fairly successful stacked with conservatives. A few more GOP appointees to the federal bench and things could really get dicey. The hardcore right wing legal community is as extreme as Ted Cruz.

Update: A report from a Cruz Rally:

Cruz currently leads all other Republicans in Iowa and has cracked the 30 point level in most poll averages – more than three points ahead than second-place finisher Donald Trump.

A family band garbed in red, white and blue kicked off the heavily produced affair, performing original Christian songs with lyrics such as “I wish kids prayed in school before classes” and “kids need a mom and a dad.”

“From the schoolhouse to the courthouse, they’re silencing His word. And now it’s time for all believers to make our voices heard,” they sang at one point.

.

As ye sow so shall ye reap, Trumpie

As ye sow so shall ye reap, Trumpie

by digby

Heh:

London’s calling, Donald Trump, but you may not like what Westminster has to say.

The quixotic but popular push to ban the Republican presidential candidate from the United Kingdom is set to be debated in Parliament, a spokeswoman for the House of Commons told CNN.

The debate has been scheduled for January 18 in Westminster Hall, where any member of Parliament is allowed to participate.

An online citizen’s petition to ban Trump from the United Kingdom garnered more than 568,000 signatures, well above the 100,000 threshold required for a measure to be considered for a debate, since being filed on December 8.

The petition says that because the country has banned entry to people for “hate speech” before, “the same principles should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the UK.”

Last week, the UK government released a statement reaffirming that Home Secretary Theresa May has the power to “exclude a non-European Economic Area national from the UK if she considers their presence in the UK to be nonconducive to the public good.”

The statement did not clearly state whether her office would apply that criteria to Trump.

“The Home Secretary has said that coming to the UK is a privilege and not a right,” the official comment reads. “She will continue to use the powers available to prevent from entering the UK those who seek to harm our society and who do not share our basic values.”

It’s a legit question in my mind. There is a big Muslim population in the UK and Trump visiting could easily be a pretext for some kind of attack. Why should the government take such a chance just to host some fatuous blowhard?

.

Another unpreventable act of nature #nothingwecandoaboutflyingbullets

Another unpreventable act of nature

by digby

Yet another person killed by the terrible weather we’ve been having. There’s little we can do to prevent these acts of God unfortunately:

A 52-year-old elementary school teacher who was injured by a stray bullet in Richmond on Jan. 2 remains in the hospital in critical condition, according to police.

The woman, who teaches fourth grade at Berkeley’s Cragmont Elementary School, was shot in the face Saturday night as she was driving on Cutting Boulevard near 22nd Street a little after 6 p.m., according to Lt. Felix Tan of the Richmond Police Department. The woman was knocked unconscious by the shot and crashed her car, according to Winifred Hess, a friend. The teacher’s car crashed into another car, injuring a female passenger, said Hess.

“The victim was driving her vehicle with her partner on Cutting Boulevard when she was caught in gunfire between two individuals,” said Tan. “Unfortunately, she was in the middle of it. She was completely innocent.”

The shooting was the second of the day in Richmond and it prompted community members to hold a city-wide rally against gun violence the next day, Jan. 3.

The only thing she could have possibly done to prevent this would have been to carry a gun herself and shoot the assailants before they shot her, amirite?  But that would have been tough since it was a stray bullet that came out of nowhere.

Oh well.  It’s the work of Mother Nature, just like earthquakes and floods. Nothing we can do because a society awash in gun violence is something over which humans have no control.

.

Why is Rahm Emmanuel handing his notorious police force instruments of torture?

Why is Rahm Emmanuel handing his notorious police force instruments of torture?

by digby

I wrote a piece for Salon today about his dubious decision to give more tasers to the nefarious Chicago police force. I go over the familiar ground about how these devices are commonly misused by cops all over the country, as tools for torture and punishment devices. And then I explain why it’s a particularly bad idea to deploy them in Chicago:

Let’s not mince words: This is torture. It’s always excruciatingly painful and often deadly. People have even been tasered to death while restrained in chairs in their cells.
Which brings us back to Chicago, a city which has been slower to fully deploy the common use of the taser until now. (But, just for the record, the data show that 90 percent of all taser deployments that do occur in the city are against African Americans males. Imagine that.) There are good reasons why Chicago hasn’t been a big taser city compared to others: It suffered one of the most heinous police corruption scandals in American history and it wasn’t only about money, it was about police abuse and torture, including the use of electro-shock to coerce confessions.
The torture practices began in the early ’70s but didn’t really come to light until the 1980s, when a police lieutenant by the name of Jon Burge was accused of shooting pets, handcuffing subjects to stationary objects for entire days, and holding guns to the heads of minors in pursuit of a man suspected of killing a police officer. This caused a political uproar and several lawsuits but it wasn’t until 1989 that the public became aware of the extent of the torture that Burge and his men had perpetrated for years on suspects while in custody:
Burge and other Chicago Police officers allegedly used methods of torture that left few marks. They were accused of slamming telephone books on top of suspect’s heads. There were also three separate electrical devices that Burge and his detectives were accused of using: a cattle prod, a hand cranked device, and a violet wand. They allegedly used a Tucker telephone, an old-style hand cranked telephone which generated electricity, and attached wires to the suspect’s genitals or face. According to veteran sergeant D. J. Lewis, this is a method of torture common in the Korean War, and usually results in a confession. Burge has denied ever witnessing such telephone torture procedures. The violet wand was said to be regularly placed either on the anus, into the rectum or against the victim’s exposed genitals. They also used stun guns and adapted hair dryers. Burge and officers under his command also allegedly engaged in mock executions, in putting plastic bags over heads, cigarette burnings and severe beatings. At one point he is alleged to have supervised the electrical shocking of a 13-year-old boy, Marcus Wiggins.
Burge and his men were all eventually cleared of those charges in civil trials and Burge went back on the job. A flurry of lawsuits and pressure from the press and international organizations such as Amnesty International resulted in the city finally deciding to review the issue, and Burge was finally fired.
By 1999, numerous death row convictions were called into question due to Burge and his cronies’ record of using torture to coerce confessions and the police department and local government’s unwillingness to confront the problem. In 2000, Republican Governor George Ryan halted all executions after it was found that 13 death row inmates had been wrongfully convicted as a result of these practices. The problem was found to be so pervasive, and confidence in the integrity of the system so damaged, that in 2003 Ryan commuted the death sentences of 167 death row prisoners. He pardoned four who had been shown to have been wrongfully convicted through confessions obtained by torture.
By 2006, it was clear that all along the trail of this torture scandal were city and county officials, including former mayor Richard Daley, who were found to have either covered up or turned a blind eye to what was happening for many years. Many lawsuits were filed and the city was held culpable for more than 20 million dollars in damages.
Burge quietly retired to Florida on his police pension, until 2008 when US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald indicted him on federal charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in one of the civil cases. He was convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison. He was released in 2014.
As you can see, this is not ancient history. The torture lasted for decades, the cover-up even longer. The repercussions from this horrific scandal continue to this day. Just last spring, Rahm Emanuel himself initiated a $5.5 million fund to compensate victims who can prove they were tortured by Jon Burge. And he officially apologized on behalf of the city.
But that was hardly the end of it. In February of 2015, The Guardian’s Spencer Ackerman revealed that a Chicago police detective and Naval Reserve officer had tortured dozens of minority suspects during his police career and took his expertise to Guantanamo after 9/11, personally handling one of the most notorious interrogations that ever took place at the prison. One marine prosecutor said that he’d “never seen anyone stoop to these levels.”
This past October it was revealed that between 2004 and 2015, the Chicago PD detained and brutally interrogated over 7,000 prisoners in a secret detention facility without access to counsel:
That place was and is scary. It’s a scary place. There’s nothing about it that resembles a police station. It comes from a Bond movie or something,” said attorney David Gaeger, whose client was detained at Homan in 2011 after a marijuana arrest.
Today, Chicago is mired in the midst of yet another police scandal over the wanton killing of African American citizens and yet another coverup by the police department and city officials. Reforms are long overdue. But considering all that history, one would hope the civilian authorities would recognize that without a wholesale reorganization and reform of the department, passing out electro-shock devices to an agency with such an extreme propensity to use torture is a very, very bad idea.
Some law enforcement agencies could theoretically use tasers responsibly in the manner for which they were designed. The Chicago Police Department is not one of them. Its culture is clearly rotten to the core.

More fallout from George W. Bush’s disastrous presidency

More fallout from George W. Bush’s disastrous presidency

by digby

I’m listening to GOP vote stealer Ben Ginsburg go on and on blaming President Obama for this possible H-Bomb test in North Korea. Apparently, the Republicans forget that it was their macho hero George W. Bush who sat idly by and let North Korea get the bomb:

On Oct. 4, 2002, officials from the U.S. State Department flew to Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea, and confronted Kim Jong-il’s foreign ministry with evidence that Kim had acquired centrifuges for processing highly enriched uranium, which could be used for building nuclear weapons. To the Americans’ surprise, the North Koreans conceded. It was an unsettling revelation, coming just as the Bush administration was gearing up for a confrontation with Iraq. This new threat wasn’t imminent; processing uranium is a tedious task; Kim Jong-il was almost certainly years away from grinding enough of the stuff to make an atomic bomb. 

But the North Koreans had another route to nuclear weapons–a stash of radioactive fuel rods, taken a decade earlier from its nuclear power plant in Yongbyon. These rods could be processed into plutonium–and, from that, into A-bombs–not in years but in months. Thanks to an agreement brokered by the Clinton administration, the rods were locked in a storage facility under the monitoring of international weapons-inspectors. Common sense dictated that–whatever it did about the centrifuges–the Bush administration should do everything possible to keep the fuel rods locked up.

Unfortunately, common sense was in short supply. After a few shrill diplomatic exchanges over the uranium, Pyongyang upped the ante. The North Koreans expelled the international inspectors, broke the locks on the fuel rods, loaded them onto a truck, and drove them to a nearby reprocessing facility, to be converted into bomb-grade plutonium. The White House stood by and did nothing. Why did George W. Bush–his foreign policy avowedly devoted to stopping “rogue regimes” from acquiring weapons of mass destruction–allow one of the world’s most dangerous regimes to acquire the makings of the deadliest WMDs? Given the current mayhem and bloodshed in Iraq, it’s hard to imagine a decision more ill-conceived than invading that country unilaterally without a plan for the “post-war” era. But the Bush administration’s inept diplomacy toward North Korea might well have graver consequences. President Bush made the case for war in Iraq on the premise that Saddam Hussein might soon have nuclear weapons–which turned out not to be true. Kim Jong-il may have nuclear weapons now; he certainly has enough plutonium to build some, and the reactors to breed more.

Yet Bush has neither threatened war nor pursued diplomacy. He has recently, and halfheartedly, agreed to hold talks; the next round is set for June. But any deal that the United States might cut now to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program will be harder and costlier than a deal that Bush could have cut 18 months ago, when he first had the chance, before Kim Jong-il got his hands on bomb-grade material and the leverage that goes with it.

The pattern of decision making that led to this debacle–as described to me in recent interviews with key former administration officials who participated in the events–will sound familiar to anyone who has watched Bush and his cabinet in action. It is a pattern of wishful thinking, blinding moral outrage, willful ignorance of foreign cultures, a naive faith in American triumphalism, a contempt for the messy compromises of diplomacy, and a knee-jerk refusal to do anything the way the Clinton administration did it.

And every single one of the Republicans who are running today would be even worse.

Read on. There’s more to the story. Once Bush let this happen with no response there wasn’t a whole lot anyone could do.  But don’t look to the political media to explain this properly to the people. If they go on as they have this morning it will be non-stop GOP blaming of Obama and Clinton. They don’t seem to remember any of this very recent history.

.

Explaining the obvious (and not so obvious)

Explaining the obvious (and not so obvious)

by digby

Now that we’re going into the stretch in Iowa and New Hampshire the punditry is getting thick. And you have to love pieces like this one:

With less than a month until the Iowa caucuses, there is a reason the Republican front-runner for president, Donald Trump, isn’t under attack: Everyone else is running for second place.

Other Republicans appear to have conceded the first place position to Trump — for now. But on Monday, Ted Cruz attacked Marco Rubio, whose Super PAC attacked Chris Christie, who in a speech attacked first-term senators (like Cruz, Rubio, and Rand Paul). Paul attacked Christie, and then Governor John Kasich of Ohio hit both Christie and Rubio. It’s clear now the fight is to be in the final round with Trump in the next few months.

The math makes sense. The only reason Trump, with about 30 percent of support in national and state polls, is leading the race is because the other 11 candidates split up the remaining 70 percent. If somehow the contest were between just Trump and “someone else” down the line, it would appear that “someone else” would easily take out Trump.

This has, of course, been obvious since oh, around July. I’m pretty sure we have all known at least since then that if Trump managed to keep his lead of 30-40% it would require the remaining field to consolidate around one other candidate to defeat him.

The game now appears to be in helping voters and donors answer the question: if not Trump, then who?

Yeah, no kidding.

But hey, maybe people are just now paying attention …

Meanwhile, the rumors are flying. Here’s a good pundit and analyst Ed Kilgore, unpacking one of the juiciest for us:

The late stages of the invisible primary would not be complete without reports of intrigue and skullduggery in Iowa, with campaigns forming tactical alliances against common enemies. We have one today from National Review’s Tim Alberta and Eliana Johnson, who report that supporters of the last two caucus winners, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, are so bitter at being eclipsed by Ted Cruz that they are conspiring to block the Texan and instead elevate Marco Rubio. There’s only one problem with that scenario: Under Republican caucus procedures, there’s no way the disgruntled social conservatives can achieve their alleged goal without damaging their own candidates, who will probably drop out if they don’t do surprisingly well in Iowa.

Kilgore explains that it’s only the Democrats who have that arcane system where you barter support at the caucuses which means that this report is even more intriguing that it seems on the surface:

Are Huck and Santorum zealots really so angry at Cruz that they’d screw over Huck and Santorum to help Rubio? That’s not at all clear. Yes, the campaigns of the two former caucus winners are going after Cruz hammer and tongs, trying to exploit Mike Allen’s pseudo-scoop about Cruz telling an audience in sinful New York that fighting same-sex marriage would not be a “top-three priority” (long story short: Cruz enclosed the issue in his top priority, defending the Constitution as he misunderstands it). But that’s because the Texan is obviously the primary obstacle to their survival in Iowa. Helping Rubio try to beat him by giving away any of their own meager support would defeat the whole purpose of the exercise.

The intrigue-within-the-intrigue is burnished by the fact that the only people on the record validating the part of the cabal involving surreptitious support for Rubio are (1) a 2012 Santorum supporter who’s now neutral, and (2) Craig Robinson, proprietor of influential web page the Iowa Republican, who’s not really a Christian right figure but who does for some reason seem to hate Ted Cruz. There is a quote from a Santorum campaign official saying that Rubio’s immigration record is “more honest” than Cruz’s, but that’s in the context of condemning both.

Kilgore says this story seems to have either been planted by the Rubio camp of is coming from Huck and Santorum staffers looking to get their guys to quit so they can go to work for Rubio. The latter seems likely since the NR reports that Huckabee’s campaign manager is close to the Rubio campaign manager.

In a field this big it’s not really all about winning is it? It’s about sustaining the jobs of all these political pros. And at this point none of them seem ready to give it up.

Normally, I’m all about waiting for the votes to come in. Calls for candidates to drop out always leave a bad taste in my mouth. If people are still voting for them and they want to stick with it either to spread their message or influence the party that’s their privilege. But in this case, with Trump and Cruz at the helm I can see why the party would exert some serious pressure to consolidate sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, “the party” barely exists anymore.

Pull up a chair. This is going to be a real doozy of a couple of months,

.

Why are the largest corporations in the world sitting on trillions in cash? by @Gaius_Publius

Why are the largest corporations in the world sitting on trillions in cash?

by Gaius Publius

As the value of money rises, the value of things goes down, and vice versa (illustration by Constance Heffron, Happy Days, 1951, Allyn and Bacon; source).

Why are the world’s largest corporations sitting on trillions in cash? Thom Hartmann’s answer is — they know a crash is coming.

The relationship between money and things

Before we look at Hartman, however, let’s consider the relationship between “money” and “things.” Money and the things that money buys are, by definition, on opposite sides of a kind of see-saw or teeter-totter. When “things” (goods, commodities, services) become more valuable — when their side of the teeter-totter rises — they cost more, and it takes more “money” (dollars) to buy them. That automatically means the value of money goes down, since it take more of it to buy something that used to cost less.

As a concrete example, if the price of a loaf of bread goes from $1 to $2, two things always happen — bread becomes more valuable (it costs more) and a dollar becomes less valuable (it buys less). This is a literal inverse relationship, unlike a lot of false inverse relationships you hear about (for example, less government = more freedom and vice versa.)

Most of us are used to a world in which money slowly becomes less valuable; in fact, this is the “normal” world most of the time. The cost of goods goes slowly up (we call that “inflation”), and the value of the dollar goes slowly down. We’ve been in this kind of world, an inflationary world, since the Great Depression ended.

The opposite is a period of “deflation,” in which the cost of things goes down (often suddenly and drastically) and the value of money goes correspondingly up (often way way up). In that world, the cost of a loaf of bread falls from $1 to perhaps 50 cents; at the same time, one dollar becomes twice as valuable. Deflationary times are associated with “hard times,” the Great Depression, for example, because falling prices are usually associated with times when people just can’t afford things at “normal” prices because they’re just too poor. If a baker just can’t sell bread for $1 per loaf, she’ll sell it for whatever folks can afford, and the price will fall.

When only the rich have money, spending slows and prices collapse.

Now do a thought experiment, and as you do, keep the teeter-totter relationship between money and things in mind. In “good times,” would you rather be rich in things or rich in cash? Things (goods), of course, since in inflationary times the value of things keeps going up and the value of money (cash) keeps going down.

So what would you rather hold in “hard times,” or if you thought hard times were coming? In “hard times” I want to hold cash and buy only what I need. Why? Because in deflationary times, cash increases in value while the price of things keeps falling. (In fact, in my very small way, I’ve been mainly “invested” in cash since before 2007 and plan to remain that way. I’m sure many of you are as well — something to remember as you read on. You’re not the only ones with that idea.)

One last thought. Consider debt in good times and bad. Most people will tell you, correctly, to hold less cash and more debt in good times, since you borrow a dollar that’s worth $1 at the time, then pay it back with a dollar that’s worth, say, 95¢. A pretty good deal, right? But debt in bad times is a very bad idea, because the math now works against you. You borrow a dollar that’s worth $1 at the time, but you have to pay it back with a dollar that’s worth $1.05, or worse, and that’s before you add in the interest.

Bottom line: If you think hard times are coming, hold the most cash and the least debt you can. Now on to Hartmann and something he wants to point out.

Thom Hartmann and “The Crash of 2016”

In his terrific book, The Crash of 2016, Thom Hartmann identifies something you’ve likely heard about but haven’t given much thought to. Modern mega-corporations are hoarding cash. Hartmann from Chapter 11 (my emphasis, so you notice how large the numbers are):

If you want to know which way the wind is blowing, keep an eye on the billionaires.

So what are the billionaires telling us just ahead of the Crash of 2016?

Well, in 2012, four years before the Crash of 2016, Moody’s Investors Service noted something peculiar. It noticed American companies are hoarding record amounts of cash.

For example, in 2012 Apple was discovered to be sitting on $137 billion worth of cash. Investors actually sued the company to make it pass some of that wealth down to shareholders.

But what Apple was doing was comparatively minor. Altogether, US companies stashed away $1.45 trillion in cash in 2012, a 10 percent increase from 2011.

They aren’t investing it, they aren’t expanding their businesses with it, they aren’t hiring more workers. They’re just sitting on it. They aren’t even paying taxes on it, since, as Moody’s discovered, 68 percent of all that cash is stashed overseas.

Wall Street is also hoarding enormous amounts of money. Dan Froomkin at the Huffington Post explained in July 2012, “The latest report from the Federal Reserve shows that big banks’ cash reserves peaked in the third quarter of 2011, but are still near their all-time high at just under $1.6 trillion—an astonishing 80 times the $20 billion they held in reserve in 2007.”154

But it’s not just in the United States; it’s all around the world.

The Wall Street Journal wrote on Europe’s banks holding cash at the end of 2012: “A dozen of Europe’s largest banks reported holding a total of $1.43 trillion of cash on deposit at various central banks.”

It adds, “That represents at least the sixth consecutive quarter that the banks have increased their overall central-bank deposits. Since the end of 2010, the banks have boosted the amount they are stockpiling at central banks by 84%.”155

The Institute of International Finance, a Washington-based organization, calculated that companies in the United States, United Kingdom, Eurozone, and Japan were sitting on nearly $8 trillion worth of cash.156

Altogether, the wealthiest people on the planet have as much as $32 trillion stashed away in overseas financial institutions, according to a study by the Tax Justice Center in 2012.

All of this is taking place just as the stock market was reaching historic new levels, and profits in corporate America reached the highest levels as a percent-of-GDP ever recorded. Yet, in early 2013, Money News reported that “a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks,” including Warren Buffett, John Paulson, and George Soros. …

If the economy really is doing so well, then why are the wealthy giving signs of the opposite, quietly leaving markets and just sitting on the sidelines?

The answer is they know what’s coming. They know 2008 was just the precursor, and 2016 will be the real catastrophe.

The billionaires are preparing for a series of economic shocks on the horizon, probably beginning in Europe and spreading across the planet …

Is a great crash coming in 2016? Predicting the future is almost as hard as predicting the past (just ask a historian), so I don’t claim to know if Hartmann is right about the timing. But I do know that a crash is coming, and I’m by far not the only one saying so.

Do the rich know something we don’t? They may not notice when torches and pitchforks reach critical mass, but I’ll bet they do know about economic crashes … sometimes. Something to think about.

(A version of this piece appeared at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP

.