Episode-753- Call in Friday 9-30-11 — 21 Comments

  1. Indeed the ”Domsday prepper” really is really made to make preppers looks like morons.

    Making a youtube series properly showing preparedness would indeed be great.

    Kind of Off Topi:

    I made some cabage canning and I had it opened and tasted today … I used a saturated brine to keep bacteria out and it was kind of awful, lucky maybe next time.

  2. Dear jack,

    In light of your comments regarding the protesters, I must ask, do you personally think there is ever a good time for people to protest? And what kind or style of protest do you think is ok? Or do you not agree with any of them? I find your implication that these people are being goaded by agent provocateurs into rioting to then enforce a greater crackdown rather baseless. Do you have a source for this?

    The protest was originally sponsored by adbusters, out of Vancouver, a known leftist publication with a strong dislike of the government and multinationals. I strongly doubt they would ever seek to do anything to increase government power.

    It seems that many critiques of the protesters stem from the fact that they are hippies with poor organizational skills. Though they may be leaderless, they shouldn’t be lambasted for trying to bring attention to the massive corruption on wall street. If you don’t wish to support them fine, but do you have any better ideas for changing the status quo? You can say protest doesn’t work and it’s just a ploy, but what are people supposed to do? Our country is dying, our rights are being stripped away, and our constitution has been displaced by the ever growing power of the executive branch.

    The fact that its taken this long to have any riots of any kind, is testament to the apathy, fear and complacency that most of the American populous is afflicted with. Unless these things change we will soon find ourselves living in an alien land, one bearing no resemblance to the America of yesterday. Yes, in a protest it takes everyone and not just some ragtag group of young people. But it has to start somewhere. Lest we wish to go the way of Rome, if we haven’t already.

    • @Cody s. On a lot of things one chiefly being the comments made by the protesters themselves which say things like we are protesting “corporate greed” along with capitalism, global warming, war, etc. etc. etc. a laundry list a mile long. In other words what are you protesting is answered with “everything”.

      Tell you what

      What is an appropriate way to protest? In accordance with law and not disrupting public thoroughfares first of all, how about that one?

      When do you protest?

      When you can actually articulate clearly what you want, how about that? I mean these people “protesting Wall Street”, what do they want done, do you know? Basically they want it shut down, do you even understand what that means?

      As for how I know the goal is to create riots and use these people as stooges, after it happens you won’t have to ask.

      • Here is the “demands” or rather the Declaration of the OWS.

        Some of this is what I agree with (such as the harming our food supply) most of the rest is vague sound bites. “THEY” are at fault. But who “THEY” are is never defined beyond “Wall Street”.
        When you try to find out what the OWS’ers want done…well “to fix things”. No suggestions other than some saying “government”. Of coures they then complain that the government is not fixing things because it does not answer to the citizens…but the OWS expects the government to do all the fixing.

        (Here is a hammer, just keep hitting yourself in the head till it stops hurting.)

        • Jack may have a point, but I say that mainly because I have seen similar types of articles from and from Webster Tarpleys podcast. Jack hasn’t really given enough specifics and I am hoping Alex Jones may do that, but I have been away up in the woods with no internet for a few days. I am still trying to get a clue as to what is really going on with this, but it is conceivable that there is some underhanded attempt to make real dissatisfaction with wall street impotent in some way .. Alex Jones pointed that out with the Arab uprisings ..
          I didn’t initially see that with the Wall Street protests as there is some differences, but maybe I was wrong ..

          I do think though that perhaps govt can have a role to play. Mainly I agree with Lyndon LaRouche that the glass stiegel act should be reinstated that separates speculative investements from regular banking. This was in place since the great depression and was eliminated by Bill Clinton and a number of Republican congressmen, Phil Graham being one I believe. I also think exotic financial instruments (credit default swaps) should be banned and made illegal and those seemed to have emerged around the same time as glass stiegel was done away with. If the protesters do not include those in their demands, then that may serve as evidence that their movement is somewhat suspect. I will also throw in that I think NAFTA and other such trade agreements should be scraped.

          On the thing about protests and so on. Greenpeace had often compared their disruptive movements to the tea party throwing British tea in the ocean .. I guess it really depends on circumstances and what the issue is. non violent protests seemed to have emerged with Ghandi and he has many admirers, but it is not clear if he did not do anything disruptive and it is not clear if the media is totally corrupt and just ignores your protest if non violent protest can always be effective ..

          Also note that it seems I heard that gay rights activists in CA where allowed to stop traffic and jam up the roads and the police did nothing. It seems like police response to certain things is often measured. During the G20 they where very repressive, during katrina, they let things get out of hand as well as in London etc ..

        • in addendum to my previous post, perhaps I might have heard on democracy now someone say that alot of people are not familiar with specifics like glass stiegel and having that as a demand was claimed might confuse people, but at any rate if and webster tarply say that these protests may be ineffective in some way, I feel I need to take notice of that and listen to what they might have to say on that which I have yet to do in any real depth. Alex Jones had a rebroadcast of an old episode on Sunday and I did not catch the Friday show ..

        • @surfvivor, here is all you need to know.

          “I believe it is the role of the government to use force”

          Just one quote directly from one of the protesters.

          I am not going to give a lot of details on this, if you fall for it the truth will be hard to swallow. Listen to the idiots and their own words.

        • Jack, I am watching some of that video, I don’t agree with what some of the people in the video are saying. I believe yes Obama should be impeached and certainly I believe in the second amendment that the govt should not be the only entity to be able to use force and I am against the wars going on.

          That woman saying that she wants Obama to have another term seems like the wrong thing to say.

          On the other hand, some people in the Tea Party I agree with on some things, other things maybe I don’t but it seems possible you are right that these people may be like a rent a mob or directed in some way. A few of their general sentiments I may agree with, that is I may agree with the problems but not the solutions ..

        • I meant to say I may agree with some people’s view of yes there is a certain problem, but I may not agree with their solutions and certainly the people in that video seemed to be on some wrong or very questionable solutions and not the solutions I mentioned in my post (reinstate glass stiegel, ban credit default swaps, get rid of NAFTA) etc ..

        • @survivor,

          It isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with what is said. I find myself agreeing with most things fricken Obama says in a speech, it is the agenda I have an issue with.

          “America should be a place where everyone has a chance to succeed”. Well NO SHIT! O says that all the time.

          The agenda is the problem, the agenda of these people is SOCIALISM. Now if you want socialism and force from government in an attempt to make all equal then that is what these people are all about.

          I have listened to may interviews with these Occupy people and I find many of their statements to be true and many to be idiotic as well. Neither matters, what they want and WORSE what the likely result will be is the issue.

          The results here only two are possible…

          1. They get bored and go back to their lives and continue to vote column a vs column b as though that matters, sponge of society, sponge off their parents, rack up student loans to bitch about, etc.

          2. The movement takes foot, many other “useful idiots” show up, riots ensue, crack downs come, government gets bigger and stronger, rights are lost, business is further empowered as the fascist bond between corporations and government grow under the guise of “stiffer regulations”. In the end we loose and the “useful idiots” loose too. They will still be paying Sally Mae for the rest of their lives, still pay taxes into a failed system and Corporate American will still own them.

          There is a solution, sleeping on a public street and asking for the government to fix it, isn’t it though.

          The real force behind all of this are people like George Soros and most of the useful idiots don’t even know his name much less who he is.

        • Jack,

          I don’t know exactly what the answer is, but wall street and bankers perhaps succeeded or been successful in some sense. If lying and corruption is legal or nothing is done about it, I am not sure where that would lead to. It’s not that I think everything should be completely equal, but in the case of those folks it’s way out of balance. If nothing is done on the other hand, bankers power may continue to grow. This is unrelated to these protesters as there may be some element of political conspiracy (Soros?) at play here that I am not sure about and certainly there are forces at work that are farther to the left of me as I consider myself a moderate in many ways ..

          The interviewer said something in a similar vein, that is all violence is wrong. but if you are violent and there is no one to say that your violence is inappropriate and there are consequences (with a threat of violence) then there is nothing to stop you. In some sense bankers are violent as the dalai lama has said along the lines “sometimes words are actions may seem smooth and eloquent, yet they are very violent” .. all that however plays into interpretations and political views ..

          Attitudes towards violence in Buddhism are enormously complex. There are some traditions that argue aggression, and killing in particular, is always wrong. But there are others which argue that killing can be good, when executed by a spiritually skilled practitioner who can do so with the right motivation. Tibetan Buddhism falls squarely into the latter tradition, and previous incarnations of the Dalai Lama have been such practitioners. The 13th, for example, modernised the Tibetan army.

          What the present Dalai Lama argues, in his message of support, is that violence and non-violence are not always what they seem. “Sweet words” can be violent, he explains, when they intend harm. Conversely, “harsh and tough action” can be non-violent when it aims at the wellbeing of others. In short, violence – “harsh and tough action” – can be attitudinally non-violent. So what should we make of that?

        • Jack, the thing with Obama may be that he points out certain problems, but he is insincere all the way and has no intention of really solving those problems or he is just gaming the system for political gain . The solutions he may have pointed to before he was elected or the problem analysis at that time was different from after he was elected

        • so Jack, it seems like we are talking conspiracy here .. otherwise if I try to explain to my mother or someone else what is going on, it makes no apparent sense otherwise unless I explain the Soros part

  3. So if you refi your home, how does that affect your taxes? I mean, if you’re writing off your mortgage intrest, you’d be paying more taxes if you refinance, correct? I guess if you save more on your monthly payments than you would on your tax returns, it would be worth it. It’s something that i’ve thought about but since I’ve only owned a home for 2 years I haven’t been presented with the opportunity to refinance.

    • Keep in mind that the tax savings is a fraction of the interest paid, so regardless of whether your tax bracket is 15% or 99%, you always spend more in interest than you save in taxes, so there is no benefit to paying more interest just for the tax benefit.

      The interest deduction has the effect of lowering your interest rate, and thus is a subsidy, but it’s not a money-maker.

      • @rjmjr,

        Precisely! Folks you don’t have a mortgage for a tax deduction, you take the deduction because you already have a house payment and it is there.

        THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a profitable deduction. If you ever want another deduction, send me any amount of money you want to deduct, I will send you an invoice for “consulting fees” you take the deduction and I will pay the taxes.

        Such thinking has been handed down to the middle class because those in control want you in debt. There is MO MATHEMATICAL logic here, if there was businesses would be in business to produce a loss.

  4. That’s some solid advice about prepping a house to sell. Another thing I did that helped me avoid a lot of extra work was a different approach to human nature. When I retired from the Army in Washington State, and was going to move back to Texas, I needed to sell my house and 2 acres quickly. I went to my best neighbor and told them I was bugging out. Since I had such a good rapport with them, I said I was offering them the chance to pick their new neighbors. If they had family or friends that were looking for a place, or even wanted to buy it themselves as a rental property, they would get first shot at the place before I put it on the market. THEY found a buyer FOR me. 🙂 I moved the house at my asking price, and the neighbors got their friends to move in right next to them. Everyone was happy.

    Most times, we don’t get to pick our neighbors. Given the chance, there are some who will jump at the opportunity. It worked for me.

  5. RE: TV shows making preppers look like morons and crazy weirdos.

    There was a British dude I saw on a TV news commentary show about 7 years ago. He was commenting on how strange Michael Jackson had become. (For anyone not aware, back in the early 2000’s, Jackson’s public image shifted from his being the King of Pop to his being guilty of some really disturbing factual events, as well as his being the center some even more disturbing accusations. And the operant word here is “disturbing.”) And as the British dude described how much of a train wreck Michael Jackson’s life and public image had become, he used a term I’d never heard before. He said “Michael Jackson has devolved into a sort of a Victorian freak show.” And the British dude went on to explain that a “Victorian freak show” is exactly the sort of enterprise which exploited Joseph Merrick, more famously known as “The Elephant Man.” People will pay money to gawk at any sort of an incomprehensible spectacle of disturbing weirdness. And Michael Jackson, in his opinion, had become precisely that sort of a freak show attraction –like Joseph Merrick– able to draw a crowd paying six pence per gawk. But instead of a cruel huckster mercilessly imprisoning him for years and keeping all the profits of the freak show for himself, it was the news outlets all exploiting Michael Jackson’s infamous journey off the edge of reason, and reaping the benefits of high viewership from Michael Jackson’s trials, foibles, missteps, and overall weirdness.

    Also, there’s that TV show Hoarders. As far as I’m concerned, that show is exploiting some very mentally ill people, and so I think it’s unethical at its core and even downright predatory. I say it’s predatory simply because –unlike Michael Jackson– these people would never have been thrust into the public spotlight if not for the producers of Hoarders actively sniffing them out and persuading them –persuading people who are already obviously not fully glued together and therefore not fit to make such decisions– to reveal their dark secret to the world on camera. But in spite of how horrible that TV production is, people DO tune in to watch that particular “Victorian freak show” with amazing regularity. And so the producers of that show are constantly on the lookout for the most heinously trashed-out houses as potential shoots for the next show, with no one to stop them.

    And so I think this National Geographic producer making the TV show about doomsday preppers is copying the same principle of trying to provide the public with yet another specimen for this growing trend toward “Victorian freak show television,” focused upon seeking out spectacles of disturbing weirdness. And because he only wants to utilize the undeniably strange and fringe-y preppers, he too is (I believe) exploiting people whose mental stability is questionable, and so by my reckoning he’s likewise being totally unethical.

    I can’t condone this sort of predatory TV production. This guy Jack mentioned in today’s podcast –the National Geographic producer– Jack said to that producer “The most you can get out of this show is maybe one season.” And the guy responded to Jack “One season is all I need.” And to my ears, what that answer REALLY means is: [i]”I only need to make one successful TV season to put into my resume and advance my career.”[/i] Thus, he is, IMO, far worse than merely a bad tele-journalist who knowingly distorts the truth –he is a soul-less, inhuman predator.

    I wish the networks (broadcast and cable alike) would take the ethical high ground and refuse to do shows which exploit people who obviously need serious psychological help. But the networks are all scrambling for “content” nowadays, and so if this is what people are willing to tune-in to (like people willing to pay 6 pence back in late-1800’s Victorian London to gawk at the wretched prisoner name Joseph Merrick), then the networks will continue to crank this stuff out. Ethics mean nothing when money is at stake. So I believe we’re sadly going to see much more Victorian freak show TV in the years to come.

  6. Jack, I don’t know if this is related to that one listener’s question about a possible future sell-off of public lands and national parks to private buyers, but here’s what happened in the Arizona State Assembly back in 2009 after the financial crisis of 2008 wrecked the economy of the Southwest.

    The state entertained the possible sale of the Arizona State House and State Senate Buildings in Phoenix (as well as dozens of other state-owned public real estate assets) for over $700 million. Their hope was to temporarily rent the buildings from their new landlords, and then later buying the buildings back again at an extreme loss all around. The whole point wasn’t profit, instead it was the desperate need for a quick infusion of capital.

    It seems they did succeed at the sale, and the buy-back, and all that money juggling. And then in 2010, they went ahead and put those buildings up for sale a second time.

    So could this be a future trend?

  7. I locked in 3.9 on a 30 year a week ago. I’m in the process of finishing the refi. I’m looking at a $200 a month in savings, which I’m just going to put towards the loan. This will make the loan a 23 year loan and will save us over 100K in interest payments. We were less than a year in on our current loan, but couldn’t pass up this opportunity.