In its latest economic outlook released on Monday, the OECD said the level of uncertainty surrounding the U.S. economy was high and risks were heavily tilted to the downside.
"Negative spillovers from the turmoil in European markets could be greater than expected and have the potential to derail the recovery in activity and renew fears among financially fragile households and businesses," it said.
So far, analysts and some Federal Reserve officials have played down concerns that the euro zone debt crisis, which has roiled financial markets, will hit the broader economy hard....
Maybe so, yet he also attended church services held in the US Capitol. As I said, a flake. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html A fascinating webpage, esp. given its publisher.
The date of Plumer's work seems to be 1865, so in context, the subject is unsurprising. Lincoln's fears were well founded – the Confederacy was a money–printing tyranny, contrary to what its many Christian sympathizers think.
Neil wrote: I must've missed it, for I usually skim over Jim's posts, as they are repetitive when they are not mistaken. His claim that we are a Masonic nation contributes to this. I suspect it is still not commonly understood, on both sides of the Atlantic, that Parliament was quite divided over the American question. So I don't think TJ needed royal favor to secure a loan. The more I learn about Jefferson, the more he strikes me as a flake, particularly after I read David McCollough's bio of John Adams.
Mr. Jefferson was a deist, but in reading some of his thoughts he logically prophesied President Obama's right to be appointed the rod of God's Retributive Providence (see Plumers 'Jehovah Jireh a Treatice on Providence' a must read for the coming hard realities) which will continue unless the Church and State repent of those deeds that have cumulatively brought the Divine displeasure.
I must've missed it, for I usually skim over Jim's posts, as they are repetitive when they are not mistaken. His claim that we are a Masonic nation contributes to this.
I suspect it is still not commonly understood, on both sides of the Atlantic, that Parliament was quite divided over the American question. So I don't think TJ needed royal favor to secure a loan.
The more I learn about Jefferson, the more he strikes me as a flake, particularly after I read David McCollough's bio of John Adams.
Neil wrote: Is being a slave to a state bank any better? At any rate, the Fed is a hybrid, part public & private, a compromise typical of Congress. I would say it is formally private (a sop to 1900's conservatives), but functionally subordinate to public policy to a unique degree. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." - Thos. Jefferson. Then why did he borrow so much from such "villains" that he died in hock? BTW, at one point this champion of American liberty owed $13000 to English creditors!
Neil, did you ever read Jim's link that he posted some time ago about the ongoing connection to the British Monarchy, maybe that explains TJ's good connections, for such an apparently poor loan risk?
A reminder: No one forced those people to take out loans. The debtor who signed the papers made a vow, and is responsible for payment regardless of the lender's foolishness; if he cannot, he is a thief, not a victim.
And those firms that got under water trading those securities are no less so. They should be liquidated at least (perhaps the "corporate veil" should be pierced here), not bailed out by pain-phobic politicians. It seems to be fear of pain which drives our whole culture, from bottom to top. This may explain church degeneracy as well.
This power was transferred from Congress to private bankers in 1913.
A few businessmen created a derivitive market, trading people's home loans like commodities. Then when the derivitive market created a bubble and then crashed the real estate market, they went to Congress and demanded trillions in dollars. When people began foreclosing and court proceedings, the banks could not legitamately prove ownership because they had traded out loans in groups---with the home-owner never knowing their home was being traded like marbles on a playground. Now the people owe trillions to these businessmen, while they teach their children about the old days of oligarchies and the newer enlightened age of today.
Pensive wrote: Until the U.S. declares bankruptcy, we're slaves to these private bankers.
Is being a slave to a state bank any better? At any rate, the Fed is a hybrid, part public & private, a compromise typical of Congress. I would say it is formally private (a sop to 1900's conservatives), but functionally subordinate to public policy to a unique degree.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." - Thos. Jefferson. Then why did he borrow so much from such "villains" that he died in hock? BTW, at one point this champion of American liberty owed $13000 to English creditors!
"The fed now owns more US debt than China and is the number one holder of US bonds. Do you see why I often say that the US government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Federal Reserve?
"As of Sept 28th the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet lists $1.665 trillion in US Treasury securities compared to runner up China’s at $1.1483 trillion. In layman’s terms, that means that the Federal Reserve now owns the largest portion of the total US public debt (which is about $10.3 trillion out of the whole $15 trillion pie)."
Dr. Alan Cairns | 3/9/2009
COMMENTS | 
frank: "
lurker
from the same article....
'yes, we baptize babies. unmistakably..."
