Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

[ASH]

Re: Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

Perhaps the answer to what the US must ultimately do to extricate itself from the deep hole of debt into which it has plunged has already been suggested on these pages many times, but for the sake of me I cannot remember what the answer(s) was.

I guess EJ has written about infrastructure buildout, and he or others have turned to new forms of energy to replace reliance on oil. It seems all these things are going to cost more money, and most of the money to build new things in the US comes from borrowing, thus it seems to me either endeavor will just dig the hole deeper and deeper (maybe until it reaches China, and then those of you left can jump down in the hole and become Chinese, or maybe deep within that hole a new energy form to replace oil will be found).

Seriously, does ANYONE, including all you lurkers out there, have any realistic answers to how the US will ever recover from all this? Hudson's suggestion above, despite whatever anyone sees wrong with it, at least I presume could be an answer, and unless someone has a better one, then perhaps his is best.

No razzing, as this is a big question, and the tentative scenario presented below is off the top of my head!

I think there will be default through a mixture of inflation, bankruptcy, and populist legislation. The external debts of the United States government, denominated in dollars, will most likely be discharged by creating more dollars. Some portion of the internal debts of the United States government "to itself" (i.e. mandatory entitlement spending) will be abrogated by legislation, and the rest discharged by creating more dollars. Some portion of individual consumer debt will be transfered to the government and discharged as above through a series of bail-outs; the remainder will be defaulted upon through the mechanism of bankruptcy (with populist legislation reversing the recent changes to bankruptcy law and making bankruptcy easier).

Wholesale default will render the dollar next to worthless, leading to social unrest, and justifying "emergency" economic measures. During the period of emergency and a non-functional national currency, we will see rationing, price controls a la WWII, and state control of most "vital" productive industries. Foreign trade will be based on a different reserve currency (which we must buy with exports and sell for imports). Gradually, the government will introduce a new medium of exchange that is probably linked in some way to the system of rationing -- and by extension -- to shares of the economy's productivity. After some degree of social stability is achieved, state control of the economy will recede to be replaced by a market economy based upon the "new dollar". In the process of dismantling the system of rationing and state control of industry, the "new dollar" will probably turn back into a fiat currency, and the merry cycle can begin anew.

Is this crazy?

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

No razzing, as this is a big question, and the tentative scenario presented below is off the top of my head!

I think there will be default through a mixture of inflation, bankruptcy, and populist legislation. The external debts of the United States government, denominated in dollars, will most likely be discharged by creating more dollars. Some portion of the internal debts of the United States government "to itself" (i.e. mandatory entitlement spending) will be abrogated by legislation, and the rest discharged by creating more dollars. Some portion of individual consumer debt will be transfered to the government and discharged as above through a series of bail-outs; the remainder will be defaulted upon through the mechanism of bankruptcy (with populist legislation reversing the recent changes to bankruptcy law and making bankruptcy easier).

Wholesale default will render the dollar next to worthless, leading to social unrest, and justifying "emergency" economic measures. During the period of emergency and a non-functional national currency, we will see rationing, price controls a la WWII, and state control of most "vital" productive industries. Foreign trade will be based on a different reserve currency (which we must buy with exports and sell for imports). Gradually, the government will introduce a new medium of exchange that is probably linked in some way to the system of rationing -- and by extension -- to shares of the economy's productivity. After some degree of social stability is achieved, state control of the economy will recede to be replaced by a market economy based upon the "new dollar". In the process of dismantling the system of rationing and state control of industry, the "new dollar" will probably turn back into a fiat currency, and the merry cycle can begin anew.

Is this crazy?

Not crazy, ASH, and rather thoughtful by my standards. I think a lot of people need to be asking themselves how will all this play out, and what they should be doing with their personal actions to possibly protect themselves and their families. I think people, meaning we peons, need to be sorting through what sort of BS the politicians keep spouting, and for those given to the probably useless endeavor of writing their elected officials, they should asking those jaybirds what is their plan, if any.

[metalman]

Re: Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

No razzing, as this is a big question, and the tentative scenario presented below is off the top of my head!

I think there will be default through a mixture of inflation, bankruptcy, and populist legislation. The external debts of the United States government, denominated in dollars, will most likely be discharged by creating more dollars. Some portion of the internal debts of the United States government "to itself" (i.e. mandatory entitlement spending) will be abrogated by legislation, and the rest discharged by creating more dollars. Some portion of individual consumer debt will be transfered to the government and discharged as above through a series of bail-outs; the remainder will be defaulted upon through the mechanism of bankruptcy (with populist legislation reversing the recent changes to bankruptcy law and making bankruptcy easier).

Wholesale default will render the dollar next to worthless, leading to social unrest, and justifying "emergency" economic measures. During the period of emergency and a non-functional national currency, we will see rationing, price controls a la WWII, and state control of most "vital" productive industries. Foreign trade will be based on a different reserve currency (which we must buy with exports and sell for imports). Gradually, the government will introduce a new medium of exchange that is probably linked in some way to the system of rationing -- and by extension -- to shares of the economy's productivity. After some degree of social stability is achieved, state control of the economy will recede to be replaced by a market economy based upon the "new dollar". In the process of dismantling the system of rationing and state control of industry, the "new dollar" will probably turn back into a fiat currency, and the merry cycle can begin anew.

Is this crazy?

decent thread on that topic here... What happens to stocks if the U$D goes the way of the old peso?

recall ej talked about a 'new dollar' someplace, but can't find the reference., maybe here... The Face of Inflation: Does the U.S. Have a "Peso Problem" revisited

[c1ue]

Re: Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

No razzing, as this is a big question, and the tentative scenario presented below is off the top of my head!

I think there will be default through a mixture of inflation, bankruptcy, and populist legislation. The external debts of the United States government, denominated in dollars, will most likely be discharged by creating more dollars. Some portion of the internal debts of the United States government "to itself" (i.e. mandatory entitlement spending) will be abrogated by legislation, and the rest discharged by creating more dollars. Some portion of individual consumer debt will be transfered to the government and discharged as above through a series of bail-outs; the remainder will be defaulted upon through the mechanism of bankruptcy (with populist legislation reversing the recent changes to bankruptcy law and making bankruptcy easier).

Wholesale default will render the dollar next to worthless, leading to social unrest, and justifying "emergency" economic measures. During the period of emergency and a non-functional national currency, we will see rationing, price controls a la WWII, and state control of most "vital" productive industries. Foreign trade will be based on a different reserve currency (which we must buy with exports and sell for imports). Gradually, the government will introduce a new medium of exchange that is probably linked in some way to the system of rationing -- and by extension -- to shares of the economy's productivity. After some degree of social stability is achieved, state control of the economy will recede to be replaced by a market economy based upon the "new dollar". In the process of dismantling the system of rationing and state control of industry, the "new dollar" will probably turn back into a fiat currency, and the merry cycle can begin anew.

Is this crazy?

ASH,

Have you read "The General's President" by John Dalmas?

It describes a depression in the USA via the mechanism of an energy shock a la 1976 - leading to the appointment of a President.

The situation you describe does leave out several major issues:

1) How does the US cope without its present $700B yearly trade deficit?
Where do the clothes come from? Semiconductors? Likely a fairly long list of medium durability essentials are 100% imported. Not to mention the 2/3rds of oil used today.

2) How do nationalized banks get back to the business of lending/creating credit?

3) How are US bases in foreign countries maintained and paid for? For that matter the entire US foreign military footprint like Iraq, Afghanistan, but also South Korea and Japan. Just abandoned?

Unfortunately in real life, unlike "The General's President", there isn't a magical new energy source in the form of Tesla matrices available. Or is that brewing in EJ's portfolio?

[ASH]

Re: Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

ASH,

Have you read "The General's President" by John Dalmas?

It describes a depression in the USA via the mechanism of an energy shock a la 1976 - leading to the appointment of a President.

Haven't read it.

The situation you describe does leave out several major issues:

1) How does the US cope without its present $700B yearly trade deficit?
Where do the clothes come from? Semiconductors? Likely a fairly long list of medium durability essentials are 100% imported. Not to mention the 2/3rds of oil used today.

2) How do nationalized banks get back to the business of lending/creating credit?

3) How are US bases in foreign countries maintained and paid for? For that matter the entire US foreign military footprint like Iraq, Afghanistan, but also South Korea and Japan. Just abandoned?

Unfortunately in real life, unlike "The General's President", there isn't a magical new energy source in the form of Tesla matrices available. Or is that brewing in EJ's portfolio?

1. This scenario assumes a highly unpleasant collapse of our ability to run a trade deficit. All of these items would become very scarce. There would still be imports, but only imports balanced by exports (because of the need to trade in a different reserve currency). I'm betting this would mostly be high-end manufactured goods exported to import absolute necessities (read energy). No more cheap manufactured goods. The standard of living would drop dramatically.

2. I haven't imagined that level of detail yet.

3. This scenario assumes an end to our overseas military bases and operations -- not by choice, but by necessity. If things get to the point where we utterly destroy the dollar, there is no way we can support our present posture. Hardware probably not abandoned, but a lot of it sold. Bases turned over to host countries. The collapse of the dollar essentially implies the (temporary) collapse of American power.

[metalman]

Re: Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

Haven't read it.



1. This scenario assumes a highly unpleasant collapse of our ability to run a trade deficit. All of these items would become very scarce. There would still be imports, but only imports balanced by exports (because of the need to trade in a different reserve currency). I'm betting this would mostly be high-end manufactured goods exported to import absolute necessities (read energy). No more cheap manufactured goods. The standard of living would drop dramatically.

2. I haven't imagined that level of detail yet.

3. This scenario assumes an end to our overseas military bases and operations -- not by choice, but by necessity. If things get to the point where we utterly destroy the dollar, there is no way we can support our present posture. Hardware probably not abandoned, but a lot of it sold. Bases turned over to host countries. The collapse of the dollar essentially implies the (temporary) collapse of American power.

Although the U.S. economy maintained its rapid growth during most of the 1990s and 2000s, it was progressively undermined by fiscal mismanagement and a resulting sharp deterioration of the investment climate. The GDP grew about 4 percent annually during the administrations of President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) and during that of his successor, President George W. Bush (2001-2009), except for a brief recession following the collapse of the stock market bubble in 2000. But asset prices fluctuated wildly during the decade, with booms and busts in the stock, bond and real estate markets.

Fiscal profligacy combined with the 2008 oil shock exacerbated inflation and upset the balance of payments. The balance of payments disequilibrium became unmanageable as capital flight intensified, forcing the government in 2008 to devalue the dollar by 30 percent.

Although a bubble in bond and real estate prices from 2001 to 2006 allowed a temporary recovery, the windfall from sales of financial assets to foreign central banks also allowed continuation of the Bush administration's destructive fiscal policies. In the mid-1980s, the U.S. went from being a net exporter of goods and to a significant importer. Sales of financial assets became the economy's most dynamic growth sector. Net foreign purchases of U.S. financial assets grew from 50% of issuance in 1996 to nearly 80% in 2005. Rising foreign borrowing allowed the government to continue its expansionary fiscal policy. Between 2001 and 2006, the economy grew more than 4 percent annually, as the government spent heavily on the military and the real estate and financial sectors provided more than 50% of private sector employment.

This renewed growth rested on shaky foundations. The United States' external indebtedness mounted, and the dollar became increasingly overvalued, hurting exports in the late 2000s and forcing a second dollar devaluation in 2010. The action effectively ended the U.S. dollar's status as a reserve currency. The portion of import categories subject to controls rose from 10 percent of the total in 2008 to 24 percent in 2010. The government raised tariffs concurrently to shield domestic producers from foreign competition, further hampering the modernization and competitiveness of U.S. industry. As unemployment rose to more than 20%, government policies to limit immigration fueled further increases in wage rates and inflation.

The macroeconomic policies of the 2000s left the U.S. economy highly vulnerable to external conditions. These turned sharply against the U.S. in the late 2000s, and caused the worst recession since the 1930s. By mid-2010, the U.S. was beset by rising oil prices, higher world interest rates, rising inflation, a chronically overvalued dollar, and a deteriorating balance of payments that spurred massive capital flight. This disequilibrium, along with the virtual disappearance of the U.S. international reserves--by the end of 2010 they were insufficient to cover three weeks' imports--forced the government to devalue the dollar three times during 2012. The devaluation further fueled inflation and prevented short-term recovery. The devaluations depressed real wages and increased the private sector's burden in servicing its dollar-denominated debt. Interest payments on long-term debt alone were equal to 28 percent of export revenue. Cut off from additional credit, the government declared an involuntary moratorium on debt payments in August 2013, and the following month it announced the nationalization of the U.S. private banking system.

Face of Inflation - 2006

[ASH]

Re: Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

Face of Inflation - 2006

Well, there you go!

The dire scenario that occurred to me (no doubt cribbing from others) was intended as speculation about a balls-to-the-wall dollar apocalypse -- what happens if things are allowed to come to a head. However, I'm not sure that growing indebtedness ultimately has to culminate in across-the-board and total default, a period of command economy, and launch of a new currency. It is only necessary that enough debt be destroyed to return the present order to a more-or-less functional condition. If some of the mechanisms of default operate early enough, and gradually enough, then a managed partial default seems a lot more likely than a complete reboot of the system.

My sense is that what we're really talking about is the necessity of a reduction in our standard of living. The federal government is bankrupt only if you assume that its entitlement commitments will be honored in full. If you count the entitlements, the federal debt is $54 trillion; if you only count what the government owes to outside parties, the debt is more like $5 trillion. Will the system be allowed to crash as we try to default on the $54 trillion by destroying our currency -- with no practical benefit to those receiving their promised entitlements in a worthless currency -- or will the laws change to pare down those entitlements to a level that our productivity can support? One way or the other, dealing with the federal debt boils down to accepting a lower standard of living for those who receive government services and entitlements (or who must pay taxes to provide same).

Then there's the debt of the consumer. People are going to go bankrupt, and some people are going to get bailed out in such a way as to devalue the currency. The individuals (savers) and entities (banks and foreign investors) who are owed these debts are going to get screwed. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this process has to go to completion... not every loan must be canceled out. Further, as it becomes apparent that there's no real profit in making loans -- either because of the danger of outright default or because of the danger that the loan will be repaid in devalued currency -- access to consumer credit will become tight. Loans from overseas will be hard to come by, and the current account deficit will diminish. This will eventually shut down the borrow-overseas-to-buy-overseas engine responsible for our large current account deficit, while simultaneously forcing Americans to consume no more than they produce. Again, we're talking a significant drop in the standard of living.

So, even if it's clear that the debt in society will be unsupportable, I don't think it's clear that the process of destroying that debt must be abrupt and complete. I'm familiar with the basic argument that debt-based money must eventually lead to a crisis, because the money which is created cannot cover the interest. That logic would seem to require eventual default... but not necessarily total default.

[marvenger]

Re: Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

What the hell does that mean? What put it to sleep? central banks? where's the alternative monetary system you suggest? how do you get it implemented?

As j4f2h0 said if we forget the way we currently live there's frickin heaps of solutions. Even I could probably come up with some viable ones. If by some nonexistant objective measure you could determine that mine was the best solution then people would support it. But there aint such a measure. So why the hell would anyone support my proposal even if it was any good. It comes down to politics and convincing enough people that if they follow you they're going to get a better deal by following you. that's how systems get put in place.

The founding fathers created a great nation but even they couldn't protect their nation from politics and vested interests.

Vested interests is the end result of capitalism and doesn't make it capitalism anymore until the next crisis and something resembling capitalism can be put in place again. or fascism or socialism or some other ism yet to be invented.

[jk]

Re: Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

I think there will be default through a mixture of inflation, bankruptcy, and populist legislation. The external debts of the United States government, denominated in dollars, will most likely be discharged by creating more dollars. Some portion of the internal debts of the United States government "to itself" (i.e. mandatory entitlement spending) will be abrogated by legislation, and the rest discharged by creating more dollars. Some portion of individual consumer debt will be transfered to the government and discharged as above through a series of bail-outs; the remainder will be defaulted upon through the mechanism of bankruptcy (with populist legislation reversing the recent changes to bankruptcy law and making bankruptcy easier).

Wholesale default will render the dollar next to worthless, leading to social unrest, and justifying "emergency" economic measures. During the period of emergency and a non-functional national currency, we will see rationing, price controls a la WWII, and state control of most "vital" productive industries. Foreign trade will be based on a different reserve currency (which we must buy with exports and sell for imports). Gradually, the government will introduce a new medium of exchange that is probably linked in some way to the system of rationing -- and by extension -- to shares of the economy's productivity. After some degree of social stability is achieved, state control of the economy will recede to be replaced by a market economy based upon the "new dollar". In the process of dismantling the system of rationing and state control of industry, the "new dollar" will probably turn back into a fiat currency, and the merry cycle can begin anew.

Is this crazy?

i think we may have the first paragraph of yours, ash, without the second. no one has ever accused me of being an optimist, but i think a less gloomy scenario is poosible.

i think that most of us do not have a proper appreciation of the power of inflation. hudson writes about "the magic of compound interest," and the fact that normal economic growth cannot increase incomes as fast as interest-based rents compound. but acting to offset the magic of compound interest is the magic of compound inflation. if we get ej's postulated 100% inflation in 5 years [high, but not hyper, inflation], then the compounded debts are cut in half.

the current account deficit is already shrinking, and sharply, net of energy imports. energy imports are slowly receding as the economy slows. pump up the alt energy/conservation bubble and energy imports can drop further.

there's no need for a new currency; we'll just get used to different numbers. i bought my first new car, a bmw 1600, in 1970. it cost $3000. now a [much improved] more modern version is over ten times as much, and no one blinks. we didn't get a "new dollar," we just got much diminished purchasing power for the same dollar.



edit - entitlements and unfunded liabilities will be handled by keeping the inflation unofficial. if shadowstats style cpi figures were used, for example, social security payments would now be 40% higher.

[ASH]

Re: Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

i think we may have the first paragraph of yours, ash, without the second. no one has ever accused me of being an optimist, but i think a less gloomy scenario is possible.

I think you're right, jk. I kind of got caught up trying to imagine what a reboot after a complete currency collapse might look like.

My climb-down, after some more thought, is posted elsewhere in this thread.

[marvenger]

Re: Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

As Hudson points out in superimperialsm, the US became the dominant world political force after ww1, and set up sytems that concentrated the benefits of world economic endevour in the US. Isn't this justified in a dog eat dog world? is this capitalism?

What would the world look like under free trade? No one knows because it's never happened. there hasn't ever been a pure capitalism. There's always politics and self interest and self protectionism and concentration of benefits.

Steve Keen says you can't look at economies at the macro aggregate level, you have to look at it in the micro sense of how corporations and institutions and governments will evolve in their current environment and their self interest.

each group producing in their comparative advantage arenas creating a great place for everyone just doesn't happen in the real world becasue there is some other group exercising their more powerful self interest through the systems their supporters has set up. At all levels.

This creates instability. Instability that has been around since politics, since forever.

America has tried to control the world, very successfully so far through finance and the military. US controls finance, they control what gets financed, they control what's happening. If any oil rich countries don't play by the rules and allow US army positions in the country to prevent the wealth generated from creating any political movements to try something more in their own self interest, they get invaded, or you help arm different factions in the region to fight eachother so they aren't focused on interruptiong your own monopoly.

In south africa, apartheid was about preventing the black population gaining access to education and the institutions to act in their own self interest, and having a very large labout force to give white south africans the highest standard of living in the world at the time. IMO on some levels there isn't much difference between the US and the south african national party during apartheid.

My father left south africa 27 years ago when it was still peaches to be a white south african because he said if he was black he, like mandella, would have been a terrorist too.

Worlds a tough place tough, now with the end of apartheid, things still aren't stable and SA has the highest murder rate in the world by far. power vacuum in an uneducated population trying to raise the living standards of 10 times the original well looked after population isn't pretty.

Any similarities to the global situation?

[jimmygu3]

Re: Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

Well, there you go!

The dire scenario that occurred to me (no doubt cribbing from others) was intended as speculation about a balls-to-the-wall dollar apocalypse -- what happens if things are allowed to come to a head. However, I'm not sure that growing indebtedness ultimately has to culminate in across-the-board and total default, a period of command economy, and launch of a new currency. It is only necessary that enough debt be destroyed to return the present order to a more-or-less functional condition. If some of the mechanisms of default operate early enough, and gradually enough, then a managed partial default seems a lot more likely than a complete reboot of the system.

My sense is that what we're really talking about is the necessity of a reduction in our standard of living. The federal government is bankrupt only if you assume that its entitlement commitments will be honored in full. If you count the entitlements, the federal debt is $54 trillion; if you only count what the government owes to outside parties, the debt is more like $5 trillion. Will the system be allowed to crash as we try to default on the $54 trillion by destroying our currency -- with no practical benefit to those receiving their promised entitlements in a worthless currency -- or will the laws change to pare down those entitlements to a level that our productivity can support? One way or the other, dealing with the federal debt boils down to accepting a lower standard of living for those who receive government services and entitlements (or who must pay taxes to provide same).

Then there's the debt of the consumer. People are going to go bankrupt, and some people are going to get bailed out in such a way as to devalue the currency. The individuals (savers) and entities (banks and foreign investors) who are owed these debts are going to get screwed. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this process has to go to completion... not every loan must be canceled out. Further, as it becomes apparent that there's no real profit in making loans -- either because of the danger of outright default or because of the danger that the loan will be repaid in devalued currency -- access to consumer credit will become tight. Loans from overseas will be hard to come by, and the current account deficit will diminish. This will eventually shut down the borrow-overseas-to-buy-overseas engine responsible for our large current account deficit, while simultaneously forcing Americans to consume no more than they produce. Again, we're talking a significant drop in the standard of living.

So, even if it's clear that the debt in society will be unsupportable, I don't think it's clear that the process of destroying that debt must be abrupt and complete. I'm familiar with the basic argument that debt-based money must eventually lead to a crisis, because the money which is created cannot cover the interest. That logic would seem to require eventual default... but not necessarily total default.

Great thread. ASH, I'm really enjoying your posts.

I think it's likely that we will look back at these numbers in a decade or two and they won't look so bad. Look at data from the '70s and you'll see what I mean. Gas was $.70, the national debt was a couple hundred billion, and people were expecting TEOTWAWKI to come at any moment. Instead we got a couple nasty recessions, then the longest bull market in history.

The US will never opt for outright default as long as we can print the stuff. Inflation will continue indefinitely. We can and will adjust our consumption to live within our means. I see more people doing it every day. Yes, a 3000sf house is not in the cards for every family, but smaller homes are quite affordable in most areas. A 1200sf home can still be purchased for about 2.4x median annual income. That's $109k, a number that will sound ridiculously low in a few years (if it doesn't already).

The recession will get worse, then things will improve. But we'll always have inflation. And hopefully not too much war....

When employees are let go at my company (and most others, I assume), they are immediately escorted out by two security guards. I guess people can do crazy things in times of stress, like the lady who brought a gun to work after learning she was going to be fired (security found it).

I hope the US never gets "laid off" by the world. The security procedures would not be pleasant, and we have a lot more than a gun in our purse. :eek:

Jimmy

[Sapiens]

Re: Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

Total nonsense. Basically Walter Burien (who happens to be a total crackpot) doesnt understand fund accounting. He doesn't understand that government pension funds (such as Calpers) exist for the benefit of the pensioners, not the government.

Many of these pension funds have large investments that they use to pay for retiree pensions, and also as an investment to (hopefully) be able to pay for the retirees in the future. That doesnt mean that the government actually has all this extra income that they can do what they want with.

Go to his website and you can see all of his crackpot theories. I havent read the whole thing, but Im sure there is stuff on there about 9/11, chemtrails, fake moon landings, area 51, etc.

I got this from Walter in reply to your post:

nathanhulick:

Now that you have shown me you are a total idiot by your belligerent comments, you should know the background of who you blindly besmirch out of your own self centered arrogance and showing of self-indulgent ignorance. First of all there is not one word on my site per "chemtrails, fake moon landings, area 51".

911, I did put out an article being that I was a tenant at 1WTC from 1978-1980.

I was a registered CTA (Commodity Trading Advisor) 1978 - 1992 and have traded the Futures Market for over thirty years. Additionally, I was the National Sales Manager of: The US Trading Championship, Investing Championship, and Money Managers Verified Ratings 1982 -1992.

I was the only independent hired by Merrill Lynch when they started their first office in Morristown, NJ under Merrill Lynch Commodities Inc. in 1981.

I have three US Patents. My venture of CAFR1 started in 1998 of which was designed to bring forward disclosure of government's CAFR and the structure behing it. My national disclosure started June 8th of 1998. At that time a Google search yielded 12 hits. From that time I have done about 450 radio programs as well as generating front page features on about 25 independent publications not under the thumb of government censorship.

As of today a Google search on CAFR yields over 17,000,000 hits. My site is the first, #1. I was effective in my venture for public disclosure, but the syndicate censorship of the CAFR for open mention continues to this date. When you click on the News tab of Google for the same search, only 8 hits with zero (0) editorial comment. That has to be the biggest disparity in Google's data bank.

So you can take your crap comments you have made and stick them were the sun never shines.

To all others, look, read, and learn. Your futures depends on comprehending what I bring forward on my site. My most recent post can be read at:

http://CAFR1.com/CounterBalance.html

Yours truly,

Walter Burien

His handle here is CAFR1.

[nathanhulick]

Re: Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

I got this from Walter in reply to your post:



His handle here is CAFR1.

I suggest you do some more research on your friend Walter and/or his conspiracy theories.

[Sapiens]

Re: Michael Hudson: How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy

I suggest you do some more research on your friend Walter and/or his conspiracy theories.

Go ahead spill the beans, tell us all about him/his conspiracy theories.