Goldman Sachs behind every market crash since 1920s

From:http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/rolling-stone-expose-goldman-sachs-behind-every-market-crash-since-1920s/

Goldman Sachs has played a crucial role in creating every market bubble since the 1920s -- and has profited from not only the bubbles, but from the crash that followed as well, says a new expose in Rolling Stone magazine.

An article in the July 9-23 issue of the magazine, written by Matt Taibbi, lists five asset bubbles that the 140-year-old investment bank helped create -- and one that Taibbi asserts the firm is currently working to make happen.

The five bubbles the article says Goldman was central to creating are the Wall Street stock bubble in the 1920s, which led to the Great Depression; the tech-stock bubble of the late 1990s, which ended in the 2001 recession; the housing bubble of the past decade, which resulted in the current economic crisis; the oil price run-up last summer, when oil shot up to $140 a barrel, likely helping tilt the entire world into recession; and what Taibbi describes as "rigging the bailout," when Goldman Sachs' well-placed alumni inside the U.S. government engineered last fall's bank bailout in such a way that the company profited massively.

Taibbi writes that Goldman Sachs has traditionally been a late arrival to market bubbles, getting in once others have started the trend, but, once in, the company quickly ramps up the bubble, predicts its bursting, and then hedges its bets so as to make money from the bubble crash.

The article, which is not yet officially available online, adds one more bubble to the list: the "global warming bubble," or specifically, the proposed cap-and-trade legislation that would allow companies to trade pollution credits on an open market.

Taibbi's argument suggests the Wall Street bank may well want to turn climate change policy into yet another Wall Street casino game.

Because emissions caps will continually be reduced, Taibbi argues, pollution credits will constantly be growing in value, and Goldman Sachs wants in on the ground floor.

Taibbi writes: "The plan is (1) to get in on the ground floor of paradigm-shifting legislation, (2) make sure that they're the profit-making slice of that paradigm and (3) make sure the slice is -- a big slice. Goldman started pushing hard for cap-and-trade long ago, but things really ramped up last year when the firm spent $3.5 million to lobby climate issues."

On his blog, Taibbi has begun a discussion of the public reaction to his article. Some commenters have suggested that Taibbi's understanding of high finance is limited, accusing him of misreading Goldman Sachs' actions.

UPDATE:Rolling Stone has now put the article online. Here it is.

-- Daniel Tencer

Attention Organic And Local Food Consumers, Livestock And Horse Owners:

I am posting here straight from StopAnimalID.org, because this issue is so important, and I don't want to miss anything.
----

The USDA plans to make every owner of even one horse, cow, pig, goat, sheep, chicken, or pigeon register in a government database and subject their property and animals to constant federal and state government surveillance, and the animal owner will have to PAY for the privilege of owning animals!

To learn more about the ramifications of this Government decree and how it will affect everyone, not just farmers and animal owners, navigate our site and visit our forum.

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is a national program to identify and track livestock animals, including poultry, horses, cattle, goats and sheep for the purpose of disease containment. NAIS plans to use RFID and GPS technology to track animals, and requires every farm or “premises” be registered with government agencies, even if that premises houses a single animal. While NAIS’s purported goal of disease containment appears to be beneficial, the requirement for American citizens to register privately-owned property for tracking and monitoring purposes has very serious implications for our privacy, rights and freedoms.

StopAnimalID.org is the online manifestation of a grass roots refusal to submit to the latest grasping for control of what was once a government of We The People, but has now become a government of Them, The Agri-Conglomerates. This website is a means for like-minded individuals to band together and discover they are not alone in opposing this abuse of privacy and property rights.

Our agenda, perhaps obviously enough, is to stop the National Animal Identification System. We hope to do this by first raising awareness among the public. To do this we will compile a wealth of data regarding the NAIS in an easy to peruse format online. We will also provide printable materials to put the basics of this issue and what it means into places where it will count most, such as feedstores, farm supply stores, farm auctions, etc.

Secondly, we will facilitate communication and interaction via our forum, email and contact lists. We will seek to build an online community where like-minded individuals can go to review current events, their current personal and group tactics and actions and analyze both our successes and defeats.

Finally, we will provide the information needed to effectively combat the juggernaut that is the NAIS, which bears down on us. From editorials to links to analysis of the law and meetings and public hearings. We will seek to publicize the names and addresses of people in positions that make them important to contact. We will push this data into as many hands as we possibly can and fight this issue at the grass roots, online and if needed eventually in the courts.

But to succeed StopAnimalID.org needs the particpation of every single Citizen of these United States who still values freedom and the use of their private and personal property, not to mention their own privacy. Whether you own livestock or not your help is needed. We must have your participation, contribution and effort to succeed in spreading the word, raising consciousness and empowering this movement. Join the fight today. This may be one of the biggest issues of your life.

Dying Bees and Cell Phone Radiation: Follow up

If you're like me, you like to know how things work.
I immediately started wondering what kind of radiation was interfering with bees, and how much is too much for our little winged friends to handle. I started wondering what other kinds of frequencies that we use increasingly for modern convenience might be interfering with the bees, and many other animals, including ourselves.

I found a great article on one of my favorite sites- HowStuffWorks.com:

How Cell-phone Radiation Works

I found the additional info about Radio Frequency radiation being able to HEAT human tissue very interesting.
Walmart was one of the first stores to heavily employ RFID chip technology to track products. Could it all be part of a grand scheme just to fry us alive?
Probably not, but I couldn't resist the chance to fire a free shot at Walmart.

I found a little more info about RF radiation and its effects on livestock here:

"The environmental effects of radio frequencies are also largely unclear. Migrating birds have been known to fly right into cell phone and other communications towers. Some blame the radiation emanating from such towers for disorienting the birds and undermining their navigational abilities. Others chalk such incidents up to poor visibility associated with bad weather and nothing more. Some farmers have observed that cows grazing near cell towers are more likely to experience still births, spontaneous abortions, birth deformities and behavioral problems, not to mention general declines in overall health. Moving cattle herds away from such towers has reportedly led to immediate health improvements."

http://environment.about.com/od/environment/a/cell_phones.htm

I can't help but wonder: The entire Circle of Life is a complex framework of organisms and earth; What are the large scale effects of tech-generated radiation on Global Warming?
Sure, if bees can't pollinate plants, we'll have less plants, and less carbon will be sequestered (kept out of the atmosphere). This is HUGE!!!

Also, I am wondering if RF frequencies can add small amounts of heat to the general airwaves, and if those can "build up, and in turn heat up the atmosphere, further enhancing the carbon effect in Global Warming? I'll have to research this one further.

All in all, I think there is a large body of information that suggests we need to end of love affair with technology or not only perish, but wipe out the ACTUAL ABILITY TO LIVE.

It won't just be that some people die, and some live, as we all like to think, so that the stats are always in our favor. It will be that we have wiped out or polluted beyond usability, the things that we absolutely NEED in order to stay alive as an organism.
Game Over.

Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?

While attending the PA Renewable Energy Festival last year, I found that bees are disappearing in record numbers. This is alarming because without bees, our food production will be grossly effected. Bees pollinate crops, crops become food, you see where I'm going with this? Until now, the reasons included GMOs, mites, disease, pollution, etc. But, it seems that cell phones may play a large part. Imagine that every time you use your cell phone, you are increasing the price of your food!

Link:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/wildlife/article2449968.ece

Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?
Scientists claim radiation from handsets are to blame for mysterious 'colony collapse' of bees
By Geoffrey Lean and Harriet Shawcross
Published: 15 April 2007

It seems like the plot of a particularly far-fetched horror film. But some scientists suggest that our love of the mobile phone could cause massive food shortages, as the world's harvests fail.

They are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre mysteries ever to happen in the natural world - the abrupt disappearance of the bees that pollinate crops. Late last week, some bee-keepers claimed that the phenomenon - which started in the US, then spread to continental Europe - was beginning to hit Britain as well.

The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers, like so many apian Mary Celestes. The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.

The alarm was first sounded last autumn, but has now hit half of all American states. The West Coast is thought to have lost 60 per cent of its commercial bee population, with 70 per cent missing on the East Coast.

CCD has since spread to Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. And last week John Chapple, one of London's biggest bee-keepers, announced that 23 of his 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned.

Other apiarists have recorded losses in Scotland, Wales and north-west England, but the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs insisted: "There is absolutely no evidence of CCD in the UK."

The implications of the spread are alarming. Most of the world's crops depend on pollination by bees. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left".

No one knows why it is happening. Theories involving mites, pesticides, global warming and GM crops have been proposed, but all have drawbacks.

German research has long shown that bees' behaviour changes near power lines.

Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause.

Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: "I am convinced the possibility is real."

The case against handsets

Evidence of dangers to people from mobile phones is increasing. But proof is still lacking, largely because many of the biggest perils, such as cancer, take decades to show up.

Most research on cancer has so far proved inconclusive. But an official Finnish study found that people who used the phones for more than 10 years were 40 per cent more likely to get a brain tumour on the same side as they held the handset.

Equally alarming, blue-chip Swedish research revealed that radiation from mobile phones killed off brain cells, suggesting that today's teenagers could go senile in the prime of their lives.

Studies in India and the US have raised the possibility that men who use mobile phones heavily have reduced sperm counts. And, more prosaically, doctors have identified the condition of "text thumb", a form of RSI from constant texting.

Professor Sir William Stewart, who has headed two official inquiries, warned that children under eight should not use mobiles and made a series of safety recommendations, largely ignored by ministers.

Got Hurricane? (environmental action myths, and a conversation about what you can do)

If the threat of global warming seems harmless, talk to a victim of Hurricane Katrina, and ask them what they think about the following.

In September 2006 the journal Nature reported that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had blocked an internal report which concluded that global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions may be contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes.
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11336


This is not surprising, since it is coming from a government that has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol, an amendment to the international treaty on climate change, that assigns mandatory targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to signatory nations.

"The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified. The United States is as of 2005 the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.[39]"

Instead, "The United States has signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a pact that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Position_of_the_United_States

Also not surprising, the former chief of staff for President George W. Bush's Council on Environmental Quality and a former energy industry lobbyist Philip Cooney, altered descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists. The White House denied the charges.

Mr. Cooney has since resigned from his position with the White House, and joined Exxon Mobile Corp, the largest oil company in the world.

If you see a pattern here, and I'm talking about one that's as clear as a 75 degree January day in the northeast, then I suggest that you encourage the current administration to take action and ratify the Kyoto protocol, while taking steps to curb your personal consumption, and even more importantly, that of industry.

To educate myself further, I recently watched Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". Overall, I felt that the film was a good wake up call for the general public.
However, I had a few questions, and poked around cyberspace to get some more info on some ideas I had as a result of the film. I found the following article, which deeply disturbed me: http://www.gardenrant.com/my_weblog/2006/07/how_does_your_g.html

What was disturbing were the action items on Gore's "action" website, www.climatecrisis.net.
With all the scientific evidence featured in the film, why did the accompanying website seem more designed to offer "feel good" action items, rather than say, petitions to get the U.S. to finally sign the Kyoto Protocol, and other movements to change the standards for some U.S. industries that are major polluters?
WTF Mr. Gore, how you gonna do me like that?

Some of the things that disturbed me included buying compact flourescent lightbulbs, and "offsetting your carbon emissions" by making monetary contributions.

Here's why:

1. Compact flourescent bulbs contain mercury. Mercury poisons the hell out of the water supply, and our fish. It is law that you must dispose of these lightbulbs properly, and not in your household trash. And try not inhale vapors from a broken bulb!
Most people aren't aware of this. So, where do you throw them away? Good luck!
I have found that IKEA will accept used CF bulbs, so tote them to the nearest IKEA, if you have one, and then go buy halogen bulbs.

Currently, the best light bulb technology out there seems to be restricted to the Netherlands. Hopefully it will be for sale abroad soon.
"Pharox is the first 3.4-watt LED bulb that produces light comparable to an ordinary 40-watt bulb. Lemnis Lighting has managed to produce a bulb that emits a warm white light at a constant level of brightness, unlike others’ previous attempts. Moreover, the bulb is better for the environment than most LED equivalents because no mercury, phosphorous, lead or tungsten is used to give them a warmer colour.... The Lemnis technology reduces the bulb’s electricity consumption by 90 percent."
http://www.odemagazine.com/article.php?aID=4399

*While I'm at it, I'll mention that you can't chuck disposable batteries, either. Try taking them to Staples; they will take them and recycle them at many locations.

Please be aware that none of these- batteries, nor lightbulbs, are renewable resources, and we need to seriously start thinking about this regarding ALL of our waste.
I recently watched a documentary on PBS about female factory workers in Mexico whose job it was to extract the recyclable materials from used car batteries. Sound great, right? WRONG. These factories just dumped the waste right into the villages, polluting the water and killing the people slowly. Remember that our waste always ends up in somebody else's back yard. It's not as easy as trying to get Mexico to pass tougher laws. Their government and our government work hand in hand to bring you cheap goods, and Mexicans jobs. In fact, the owner of one of these types of factories is wanted in Mexico for enforcement on charges brought for this kind of negligence, but can't be prosecuted because he fled to California and our government won't give him up.


2. Giving money to a green energy company that will supposedly replace the energy from a non-green energy company: How is that supposed to happen? Are the "non-green" companies going to actually stop making energy? Are U.S. consumers going to refrain from using double the energy, and actually switch to the green company, putting the "non-green" out of business? Where are the accountability and enforcement measures for this claim? I'd be very wary of programs that take your money and tell you that they are reducing your carbon emisisons to zero through offsetting, unless they can PROVE that all steps in the process will be followed.
The same goes for the planting of trees.
Research indicates that trees only really work to cool the planet if they are planted in the tropics.
"What we have found is in the so-called mid-latitude region where the United States is located and majority of European countries are located, the climate benefits of planting will be nearly zero," said ecologist Govindasamy Bala of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory...[In] the seasonally snow-covered regions [at even higher latitudes], planting new trees could be actually counter-productive," he told BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6184577.stm

So, if your program can tell you that your trees will be planted in the tropics, then go for it.
If your "green energy company" can tell you HOW it is exactly going to put a "non-green energy company" out of business, then go for it.
Otherwise, I urge you to consider more drastic personal measures.

I have recently read that organic gardens can do a lot to offset carbon emissions, because they sequester a large quantity of carbon in their soil.
http://www.sage.wisc.edu/newsarchive/meadows2.html

I can't find the article to quote the offset numbers, but if we switched our corn and soybean industry to solely organic means, we'd make a serious dent for the U.S.'s emissions, not to mention have healthier food and feed.


As I come across more things that you can do to impact the larger picture, I pledge to post them here.

I am going to experiment this year with the following smaller action items in my home. Maybe you will find them interesting, and maybe you will share your own previous adventures in them with me!

Growing as much organic greenery as I possibly can on my own second-floor entrance deck. It will include vegetables, flowers to attract bees and other beneficial critters (who we incidentally NEED to protect for pollination of our plants! Feral honeybees are almost extinct!), medicianl and edible herbs, and as much grass as possible.

I will continue to collect rainwater, using the Japanese method of catchment with a rain-chain that directs roof water into a discarded 3-gal Deer Park spring water jug (the kind with a faucet).

I also want to experiment with composting. That should be an interesting undertaking in a second-story rental. I'm looking into red worms.

Solar cooking and canning, with a DIY solar cooker.
Resource: http://solarcooking.org/plans/

Comment me and share what you're doing!

State-funded study shows the economic cost of Global Warming: BRILLIANT

There are still people who do not believe that global warming exists, or that if it does, it does not currently and/or will not have any real impact on our way of life as we know it. These people are usually those that have invested in the current way of living, either financially, or emotionally, and do not want to make changes.

Washington state has not only recognized this issue, but in addressing it realistically, has found a way to possibly convince those invested in the current system that would not listen before.
They outlined the ECONOMIC COST of global warming for the state, and showed an increase in every area of the study, beyond normal inflation.

BRILLIANT.

Money talks. Apparently even louder than 75 degrees in January in the Northeast. (you'd have to be deaf...nevermind)

An article on the study can be found here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/299234_climateecon11.html?source=mypi

A break-down of some of thes study's findings can be found here:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/economic_impacts.htm