Because I think he is un-electable as President.
OTOH, I do not think Romney would be a bad President, especially for the 1%, banks, brokers and big business, in general. Private Equity in the White House. Yup, thats the ticket!
I'm going out on a limb here, I'm predicting Obama gets reelected for reasons I've stated before.
I hope Obama does win the election because even Romney has already spoken of replacing Bernanke. I don't think that would be a good idea at all. The republicans need to learn how to appeal to the masses if they are to win.
He denies reality and is merely kicking the can.
This is a man, let us not forget, who proclaimed…
•In 2005, on the question of a speculative bubble building in housing as a result of cheap credit, that “these price increases largely reflect strong economic fundamentals.”
•In 2007, as the market started to turn, “we do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system.”
•In January of 2008, two months before the nationalization of GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, “They will make it through the storm.”
•And in June of 2009 that, “The Federal Reserve will not monetize the debt.”
And now, despite all evidence to the contrary, Mr. Bernanke thinks he can pull the economy out of the very mess into which he helped to steer it. He thinks he can deliver prosperity to a nation by punishing savers and inducing malinvestment — gross capital misallocation — on a scale so grand that die-hard proponents of Social (In)Security must be starting to blush.>>
But be that as it may, it makes my decisions a little easier in terms of investment since history does repeat itself anytime monetary policy is conducted in such a manner.
Bonds and Cash are trash and we can throw the concept of real economic growth in most of the OECD out the window now as capital looks to escape elsewhere and/or gets put into inflation hedges rather than adding to the means of production.
Gold and oil aren't where they are now just because of rising cost pressures that are the result of a great global economy where demand is causing the pressures. Far from it.
Nope, the pressures are only partly due to tightness of certain materials and commodities (in the EM's)but the bigger impact is from the Fed as Bernanke debases the USD and any other currency that follows suit or maintains a linkage to it.
Bernanke is a monetary metal's best friend and my guess is 2012 will be a great year for the miners.
As to just how a greater misallocation of capital and a higher rate of inflation than what we've seen in the last number of years (when most lost ground) helps the 99% in the US is beyond me.
$100 oil ( give or take) looks assured now as does more expensive imported goods even though a weak economy and this is largely Bernanke's doing.
The man is an economist and political columnist. He has no firsthand knowledge of 9/11 whatsoever.
Why do you give him (or any of those other alt. media figures, short wave radio talk-show hosts and fiction writers you mention) any credibility whatsoever in this regard?
If you want to be a skeptic, why not be skeptical of them? After all, PB, we are looking for facts, not opinions. You tarnish your own argument by relying on such dubious sources.
AM and short-wave radio star Alex Jones is not the type of minor, pseudo-intellectual, publicity-seeking, political-documentary journalist that holds any credibility with me whatsoever.
If he has something important to contribute, why not just come forth? This is a PR stunt.
If he had something important to add to our understanding about the single most important day/event so far in the 21st century, dont you think he would bother to mention something about it on his web-site?
<<< Our understanding of 9/11 is quite robust in terms of evidence, analysis and debate. >>>
That's because it's what the US media want the public to swallow.
Listen to Alex Jones evidence and analysis and you might come away with a different view than the media paints.
To my eternal shame, I believed the hokum we were fed about WMD in Iraq. So I can be gullible. I believed b/c Colin Powell told the U.N. it was so. Maybe he lied. Maybe he was misled. He sure got it wrong...
I applaud skepticism. I also applaud a rational assessment of credible evidence - as opposed to belief in rumor and innuendo from dubious sources.
The WMD in Iraq fraud was based on exceptionally limited intelligence -- they admitted as much at the time. Our understanding of 9/11 is quite robust in terms of evidence, analysis and debate.
I suspect that you are not so gullible on any other subject. I am the opposite. I am gullible about almost everything except governmental myth making during assassinations, overthrows and bogus wars.
My very last post on this...
IMO al Qaeda and its minions are responsible for 9/11, my conclusion based on the great preponderance of the evidence.
Of course, some crucial info/actions may have been missed, ignored, hushed, obscured, buried. But nothing you have presented convinces me that Israel may be responsible (something you call *plausible*), nor that US officials new about, aided, or encouraged the event, nor that they engaged in a wholesale conspiracy to hide and subvert the truth.
As for Phillip Zelikow: he is an fairly accomplished academic and historian with diverse experiences and interests focused on foreign policy, security, intelligence, etc. He is a neo-con Republican who worked for the Bush Administration, originally at the behest of Conde Rice.
To call him an expert at creating and maintaining public myths is basically calling him a PR executive for politicians -- nothing unusual.
Through Zelikow, the Bush Administration guided the official version of events as catalogued in the Report of the Commission. But whatever spin was put on the report does not change the fundamental conclusion.