Written by Jeff Nielson Tuesday, 25 February 2014 16:50
Few noises emitted by the U.S. (and Western) mainstream media have been as shrill or as sustained as the endless accusations that “China is a currency-manipulator”. Every time the renminbi falls in value versus the dollar (and sometimes merely because it doesn’t rise); we hear the U.S.’s political puppets burst into a familiar chorus. China is (supposedly) deliberately manipulating the value of the renminbi lower (versus the dollar) in order to make its own exports cheaper – and thus steal U.S. jobs.
This, in turn, has led to endless saber-rattling by the same puppets, threatening to punish China with assorted economic sanctions . We’ve seen so many episodes of this farce that those who follow U.S. political theater closely should have that script memorized.
First, the moment the renminbi slides by any significant amount; we have Republican drones hurling accusations at China because – true or not – it makes them appear “strong” when it comes to “protecting U.S. jobs”. Then we have the Democrat drones chiming-in with their agreement. Because whether or not they actually believe what they are saying; if they don’t echo the accusations, they know they will be painted by Fox “News” and the rest of the lunatic-fringe on the Right as being soft on protecting U.S. jobs.
Yet, incredibly, the moment the calendar clicked-over from 2013 to 2014, we see a brand-new paradigm. As “the Matrix (2013 version)” becomes the Matrix (2014 version); suddenly the mainstream media has new propaganda priorities. In this new paradigm, where the Federal Reserve is pretending to begin its long-promised Exit Strategy; portraying China as “a currency manipulator” is against the interests of the Master of Ceremonies, the One Bank.
Here’s how the Matrix (2014 version) works. For four years we were told by this same mainstream media that U.S. bond and equity markets were being (literally) “pumped up” by the exponentially increasing money-printing of the Federal Reserve. This was nothing more than stating the obvious. If you pump air into a tire, it will inflate.
Now, however, with the Federal Reserve pretending to let the air out of the tire(s), it needs to sell two, new, huge lies. First it must convince the Sheep (and the brain-dead “experts”) that “tapering” is actually taking place. This is a challenge, because back in September, this same Federal Reserve (and same, media propaganda machine) acknowledged that it could not throttle-back its money-printing – at all – because merely talking about doing so was putting too much upward pressure on U.S. long-term interest rates.
So three months later, at the end of 2013; the One Bank made a second attempt to sell the lie that the Fed could “taper”, reducing the principal fuel of the Treasuries market Ponzi-scheme (and U.S. equities market bubbles), without those bubbles bursting. What changed as the One Bank launched a second version of the same propaganda campaign, timed to coincide with the New Year?
The One Bank created a distraction this time: the (supposed) “crisis with Emerging Market currencies”, and the plunge in the markets of those nations which was (supposedly) caused by the crash in those currencies. How did the One Bank prevent U.S. interest rates from spiking as it made its second attempt to sell the lie of “tapering”? It did so by sabotaging confidence in all the other markets of the world – with the exception of its few, remaining friends in the Corrupt West.
Written by Jeff Nielson Saturday, 22 February 2014 15:31
Part I of this series laid out the three conclusions which would be established:
1) The U.S. economy is currently in the midst of a Greater Depression; the worst sustained economic collapse in the history of that nation.
2) Given this collapse; the U.S. does not have one of the world’s stronger economies, but rather it has the weakest economy of any/all major nations.
3) The downward spiral in this Greater Depression is, in fact, a terminal collapse. The final result of this economic devolution can only mean the transformation of the United States into essentially a “Third Word nation”.
The prequel to this provided part of the basis for the first conclusion. It began by showing how one could pretend that an economy which was actually shrinking rapidly was instead “growing” rapidly, by doing nothing more than falsifying one number: the rate of inflation.
This was followed by unequivocal evidence in the form of two pairs of charts. The first pair of charts showed how the U.S. government lies-with-numbers in the realm of employment. One chart, containing “adjusted” (i.e. falsified) data, showed the U.S. economy (supposedly) creating new jobs, month after month, year after year.
That first chart was/is the only data which the Corporate media ever shows to the general public. It was then followed by a second a chart, which the general public never sees. This second chart contains unadjusted data (i.e. data which cannot be falsified), which showed conclusively that the U.S. has been losing jobs, for virtually every month of the supposed recovery.
Similarly; the second pair of charts separated fact-from-fiction in the U.S. housing sector. While the propaganda machine attempts to peddle the myth that there is a “new housing boom” in the U.S.; the reality is that the housing depression which began back in 2007 continues, with (real) housing activity merely equaling the worst levels of any/all previous crashes in this sector.
This last installment will focus primarily on only two pieces of data. However, they are sufficiently persuasive to not only fully establish the first conclusion, but the second and third conclusions as well.
The first data concerns U.S. energy consumption. There are a number of unequivocal “truths” when it comes to economics, and the dynamics of our (modern) economies. One of these Truths is that growing economies require more energy. The source of such growth in demand is two-fold.
On the consumption side; any increase in consumption necessarily implies using more energy. First there is the energy used to produce the good or service; then there is the additional energy required for transportation – either transporting the customer to the good/service, or transporting the good/service to the customer. Thus even a rise in “on-line shopping” still implies using more energy.