Friday, 30 September 2011

CORVI VATICANI - DOPO LA LETTERA CONTRO BERTONE ORA ARRIVA QUELLA PER IL CARDINALE VALLINI, ACCUSATO DI UNA GESTIONE ACCENTRATRICE DELLA DIOCESI ROMANA, AL LIMITE DEL “MILITARESCO” - MA CHI PRENDE DI MIRA I PRINCIPALI COLLABORATORI DI RATZINGA? - VELENI CARSICI CHE CHISSÀ DA DOVE PROVENGONO - LA GENDARMERIA HA IN MANO L’INCHIESTA MA È COME TROVARE UN AGO IN UN PAGLIAIO…

RIINA, SENZA VASELLINA - DOPO ANNI DI OSTINATO SILENZIO, IL BOSS DEI BOSS RACCONTA AI MAGISTRATI LE SUE VERITÀ SULLA MAFIA (PER MANDARE QUALCHE PIZZINO AD AMICI E NEMICI) - “CIANCIMINO E SPATUZZA USANO LA GIUSTIZIA PER I LORO INTERESSI” - “IO SONO STATO VENDUTO DA QUALCUNO CHE AVEVA INTERESSE A FARMI ARRESTARE. MANCINO E POCHI ALTRI SAPEVANO DOV’ERO” - “ANDREOTTI SI BACIAVA CON ME? MA CHE ERA, LO SCEMO D´ITALIA?” - “PERCHÉ VICINO VIA D´AMELIO CI SONO I SERVIZI SEGRETI QUANDO SCOPPIA LA BOMBA DI BORSELLINO?”…

NAPOLITANO PRONTO A BOMBARDARE LA LEGA: “SE CON LA SECESSIONE SI PASSA AI FATTI LO STATO INTERVERRÀ” (E NEL GIORNO DELLE FIRME CONTRO IL PORCELLUM CHIEDE UNA NUOVA LEGGE ELETTORALE) - DOPO IL “MANIFESTO” EMMA DÀ L’ULTIMATUM AL GOVERNO: “ORA RISPOSTE O VIA DAI TAVOLI” (IL COMUNISTA FERRERO: “CONFINDUSTRIA PEGGIO DI BERLUSCONI”) - LA CISL DI BONANNI SI AGGREGA ALLA MARCEGAGLIA - VERSACE “DELUSO” DAL BANANA: “SOLO CHIACCHIERE” (E PIERFURBY LO CORTEGGIA)…

1.: U.S. ABM Options: Pre-Emptive Strike, Retaliation, Interception From: Rick Rozoff

2.: NATO: Afghan Civilian Deaths Caused By Air Strikes Up 19% From: Rick Rozoff

3.: Afghan War: NATO 2011 Death Toll Continues To Rise From: Rick Rozoff

4.: Pakistani Parties Show Rare Unity In Opposition To U.S. Threats From: Rick Rozoff

5.: Czech Republic: 225,000 Attend 18-Nation "NATO Days" From: Rick Rozoff

6.: Adjutant General Of Illinois Receives Polish Army Medal From: Rick Rozoff

7.: Estonia Pursues "Total Defense" Against Russia From: Rick Rozoff

8.: Germany Hosts Warplanes For NATO Response Force 2012 Exercise From: Rick Rozoff

9.: Obama, Uzbek President Discuss Afghan War Supply Routes From: Rick Rozoff

10.: Libya: Over 9,000 NATO Combat Flights, 24,346 Sorties From: Rick Rozoff

11.: NATO Missile System Interim Capability By May Summit: Chief From: Rick Rozoff

12.: NATO, Oil/Gas: GUAM Ministerial Held During Eastern Partnership Summ From: Rick Rozoff

13.: Clinton: Uzbekistan Key Supply Hub For Afghan War From: Rick Rozoff

14.: NATO Trains Azerbaijan's Officer Corps From: Rick Rozoff

15.: Video/Song: "Humanitarian NATO" From: Rick Rozoff

16.: Russian Envoy Accuses NATO Of Gross Violation Of UNSC Kosovo Resolut From: Rick Rozoff

17.: Exploiting R2P To Bomb Nations, Overthrow Regimes Unacceptable: Russ From: Rick Rozoff

18.: Libya Still Smouldering: BRICS Vs NATO On Military Operations In Syr From: Rick Rozoff

La guerre de Libye, une «cause juste»? Partie I: Désinformation, censure et partilité médiatiques

Bulletin électronique Mondialisation.ca

URL de cet article: http://www.mondialisation.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26845

www.Mondialisation.ca


La guerre de Libye, une «cause juste»? Partie I: Désinformation, censure et partilité médiatiques par Julie Lévesque
Le 29 septembre 2011
Mondialisation.ca
Très peu de temps après être entré en fonction, [Ronald] Reagan a annoncé la création d’un groupe spécial pour étudier « le problème libyen » […] Un plan a rapidement été rédigé par la CIA, lequel a été révélé par Newsweek en août 1981 : « un stratagème coûteux, de grande envergure et en plusieurs étapes pour renverser le régime libyen » et obtenir ce que la CIA appelait la déposition « absolue » de Kadhafi. Le plan réclamait un programme de « désinformation » destiné à embarrasser Kadhafi et son gouvernement; la création d’un « contre-gouvernement » pour contester sa prétention au leadership national; ainsi qu’une campagne paramilitaire progressive constituée d’opérations de guérilla à petite échelle. (William Blum, Killing Hope, Common Courage Press, 2004, p.283.) Campagne de désinformation, création d’un contre-gouvernement et campagne paramilitaire comportant des opérations de guérilla, ces trois étapes élaborées en 1981 par la CIA pour renverser le régime libyen ont bien été mises en œuvre en 2011. Drapée dans de faux idéaux « d’intervention humanitaire », une guerre d’agression menée par les forces de l’OTAN a dévasté un pays entier et anéanti tous ses progrès. Bien qu’archaïque et utilisé presque systématiquement contre les régimes résistant aux intérêts occidentaux, ce modus operandi en trois étapes continue de faire ses preuves dans le cas de la Libye, surtout grâce à la complicité des grands médias. Ce stratagème s’accompagne de censure et de diffamation envers ceux qui condamnent l’opération « Unified Protector » de l’OTAN, vouée, selon son nom, à « protéger les civils libyens ». Les médias dominants sont ou complètement aveugles et dans l’ignorance totale ou ils participent volontairement à cette opération occidentale clandestine vouée à installer des dirigeants serviles. Quoi qu’il en soit, ils font de la propagande de guerre, ce qui constitue une violation du droit international. Désinformation, censure et partialité Les médias ont d’abord affirmé sans le démontrer que Kadhafi avait réprimé dans le sang des manifestations pacifiques et qu’il s’apprêtait à massacrer une population sans défense réclamant la démocratie. En réalité, le gouvernement libyen faisait face à une rébellion armée, soutenue clandestinement par les services de renseignement occidentaux, un fait amplement documenté dans les médias indépendants. En utilisant une technique traditionnelle de diabolisation, les médias ont nourri le mensonge en s’appuyant sur le caractère farfelu du dirigeant libyen. Les médias dominants ont propagé l’idée suivante : « Kadhafi est un fou sanguinaire, il doit être renversé ». L’exemple suivant est tiré d’un article du 2 avril dénonçant le biais des médias en faveur de la rébellion. La plupart des tyrans trouvent des prétextes nobles pour massacrer ceux qui les contestent. Kadhafi, lui, affirme sans la moindre gêne son intention de déclencher un carnage illimité. À ses yeux, aucun prix n'est trop élevé pour se maintenir au pouvoir. (Agnès Gruda, Le devoir de protéger, Cyberpresse, 5 mars 2011. C’est l’auteure qui souligne.) Les faits concernant la Libye ont été complètement substitués par la désinformation et les attaques ad hominem. La Libye, avant les bombardements de l’OTAN, avait l’indice de développement humain le plus élevé d’Afrique. Elle se classait au 56^e rang, devant l’Arabie Saoudite (60), la Russie (71), le Brésil (75) et la Turquie (76). Au lieu de nous parler de son bilan positif sur le plan des droits humains, louangé par l’ONU, les médias ont martelé que Kadhafi était un monstre qui commettait des crimes contre l’humanité, sans jamais amener de preuves concrètes que son armée s’attaquait à des civils sans défense. La diabolisation de Mouammar Kadhafi a remplacé les faits pour justifier une intervention militaire en appui à une insurrection armée dite démocratique. « Démocratie » et « insurrection armée » ne sont pas des concepts compatibles. Pourtant l’absurdité du concept « rebelles armés prodémocratiques » n’est jamais soulignée ni questionnée dans les médias dominants. Cela démontre la puissance de la propagande : une affirmation répétée et propagée par les autorités devient vérité en dépit de son illogisme et de sa fausseté. De plus, dans une absence totale de neutralité, les médias nous présentent la propagande des « rebelles démocrates » comme source d’information fiable et la remettent rarement en question. Un article du Journal de Montréal, le plus grand quotidien francophone d’Amérique, annonçait le 26 août dernier : « Un autre Canadien a été tué en Libye, a annoncé vendredi le Conseil libyen canadien sur sa page Facebook. » (Kelly Roche, Un Canadien perd la vie en Libye, Journal de Montréal, 26 août 2011.) D’emblée, on peut se demander : depuis quand Facebook est une source d’information fiable? Ensuite, qu’est-ce que le Conseil libyen canadien? C’est un fait avéré que les services de renseignement et l’armée des États-Unis utilisent les médias sociaux comme Facebook à des fins de propagande et de surveillance, et il faudrait s’étonner que d’autres pays n’en fassent pas autant. En février 2011, on révélait que « HBGary Federal [avait] obtenu un contrat du gouvernement étasunien pour développer un logiciel pouvant créer une multitude de faux profils dans les médias sociaux afin de manipuler et d’influencer l’opinion publique sur des sujets controversés en faisant de la propagande ». (Darlene Storm, Army of Fake Social Media Friends to Promote Propaganda, Computer World, 22 février 2011.) Dans le manuel de l’U.S. Air Force, on trouve un schéma expliquant bien la dynamique entre les médias indépendants, les médias sociaux et les médias de masse, ainsi que l’importante influence des médias sociaux sur l’opinion publique. Un minimum de rigueur journalistique exige des sources fiables et Facebook n’en est pas une. Par ailleurs, en deux clics ont peut constater que le site du Conseil libyen canadien et son compte Facebook ont été mis en ligne en mars 2011, au plus fort de la propagande contre Kadhafi, et qu’ils ne contiennent aucun nom. On ne dit pas qui est à l’origine de ce conseil. Pas de numéro de téléphone, seule une adresse courriel comme coordonnée. Même anonymat pour son partenaire, l’organisation caritative Canadian Libyans for Relief and Prosperity (Les Libyens canadiens pour l’aide et la prospérité). La section About Us (À propos) demande des informations comme votre nom, votre adresse courriel et votre site web plutôt que de décrire l’organisme et de renseigner sur ses membres. À la désinformation, aux sources douteuses et à la censure s’ajoute la sympathie notoire des médias envers les opposants de Kadhafi, comme dans ce reportage du Globe and Mail (vidéo ici) : J’étais dans un hôpital à Misrata et j’ai discuté avec les pauvres gars qui revenaient du front à Zliten, une ville à l’est de Tripoli […] C’était une manœuvre vraiment brillante, frapper Tripoli simultanément à trois endroits, vraiment, à l’est, à l’ouest et de l’intérieur vous voyez, durant le mois du Ramadan, les émotions sont vives […] cela signifie que les portes du paradis sont ouvertes à ceux qui sacrifient leur vie pour une cause noble […] rompre le jeûne […] au moment où le taux de glycémie des troupes de Kadhafi étaient peut-être à son plus bas et qu’elles étaient peut-être somnolentes […] le moment était très bien choisi. (Graeme Smith, The Globe's Graeme Smith on Libya, the Globe and Mail, 22 août 2011. C'est l'auteure qui souligne.) Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, correspondant de Mondialisation.ca à Tripoli, et les journalistes indépendants Julien Teil et Mathieu Ozanon, ont fait un reportage à Zliten démontrant la dévastation causée par les bombardements de l’OTAN. Ce bombardement, qui a fait des milliers de victimes civiles, dont un grand nombre étaient des femmes et des enfants, avait pour but d’ouvrir la porte à la « brillante manœuvre » des rebelles glorifiés plus haut par le Globe and Mail. Les attaques des rebelles et les bombardements de l’OTAN font des victimes civiles, mais elles ne sont jamais dénoncées, voire mentionnées dans les médias mainstream (médias dominants). On ne nous montre pas les femmes et les enfants morts ou blessés par ces bombardements. On ne parle jamais de massacre ou de carnage relativement à ces attaques. Les rares fois où des exactions des rebelles sont signalées, elles font tout au plus l’objet de critiques anodines, d’avertissements timides quant aux conséquences néfastes sur la crédibilité du Conseil national de transition représentant les rebelles. Lorsque des cadavres aux mains ligotées ont été retrouvés, laissant très peu de doute quant aux auteurs de ces exécutions sommaires, on disait qu’il était « impossible » de savoir qui les avaient assassinés : TRIPOLI, Libye (AP) — Les corps sont éparpillés sur un espace vert près de Bab al-Aziziya, complexe de Mouammar Kadhafi, allongés face contre terre comme s’ils faisaient une sieste, étalés dans des tentes. Certains ont les poignets liés par des attaches en plastique. L’identité des morts est incertaine, mais selon toute probabilité, ce sont des activistes ayant improvisé un village de tente en solidarité avec Kadhafi à l’extérieur de son complexe, défiant la campagne de bombardement de l’OTAN. Il est impossible de savoir qui les a tués, mais leur découverte évoque le spectre du massacre de non-combattants, de détenus et de blessés. (Associated Press, Libya: Bodies Raise Specter Of Mass Killings In Tripoli, Hunffington Post, 25 août 2011. C'est l'auteure qui souligne.) Dans une incohérence totale, on minimise le crime et l’on tente clairement de semer le doute sur ses auteurs. Les cadavres n’ont pas du tout l’air de « faire une sieste » comme le suggère l’article. Par ailleurs, si, « selon toute probabilité », ce sont des partisans de Kadhafi, comment peut-il être « impossible de savoir qui les a tués »? Le simple bon sens voudrait que « selon toute probabilité », ce soit les opposants de Kadhafi. Enfin, ces images, loin d’« évoque[r] le spectre [d’un] massacre », semblent plutôt en être la preuve. Sur TF1, on a pris soin de dire que de telles atrocités étaient commises d’un côté comme de l’autre. Seules quelques poches de résistances subsistent mais actes de torture et violences se multiplient dans les deux camps. (Libye : les rebelles progressent, Kadhafi en Algérie?, TF1, 27 août 2011. C'est l'auteure qui souligne.) Dans cet article, on montre des cadavres ensanglantés. La photo accompagne une déclaration du chef du Conseil national de transition (CNT), le contre-gouvernement libyen : Le conflit en Libye a fait «plus de 20 000 morts» depuis le début mi-février de l'insurrection contre le régime de Mouammar Kadhafi, a déclaré jeudi Moustapha Abdeljalil, chef du Conseil national de transition (CNT), l'organe politique de la rébellion. (Agence France-Presse, Le conflit en Libye aurait fait « plus de 20 000 morts », Cyberpresse, 25 août 2011. C'est l'auteure qui souligne.) Le langage utilisé ne démontre aucune prudence à l’égard de cette affirmation : le chef politique des rebelles a déclaré que le conflit a fait plus de 20 000 morts. Il aurait été plus juste de dire que selon lui, le conflit a fait 20 000 morts. D’où viennent ces chiffres? On ne nous le dit pas. En outre, l’angle de l’article porte à croire que les forces de Kadhafi en sont responsables : Interrogé sur la possible présence d'armes chimiques dans le pays, il a assuré ne rien craindre d'elles: « en tant qu'ancien membre du régime, je sais bien que ces armes sont périmées », a-t-il dit. (Ibid.) Les déclarations du régime libyen, en revanche, font à peine l’objet d’une couverture médiatique et lorsqu’elles sont mentionnées, elles servent davantage à discréditer le régime. [Les gens du régime] étaient totalement dans le déni. Le porte-parole du gouvernement et ministre des communications Moussa Ibrahim […] reprochait aux rebelles et surtout à l’OTAN 1300 morts disait-il, à Tripoli, de sorte que les hôpitaux ne pouvaient pas fournir […] Ibrahim disait « ils sont en train de détruire notre belle ville paisible […et] demandait à l’OTAN d’arrêter les bombardements afin que les deux partis, rebelles et gouvernement, puissent négocier, ce qui n’est vraiment pas réaliste […] (Marc Laurendeau, C’est bien meilleur le matin, Radio-Canada, 22 août 2011. C'est l'auteure qui souligne.) Selon cette analyse, la diplomatie n’est pas réaliste. Demander à l’OTAN de cesser des bombardements intensifs parce que les hôpitaux sont bondés n’est pas réaliste. Selon son communiqué du 24 août, l’OTAN avait fait 20 121 sorties aériennes et 7 587 missions de frappes depuis le début de l’opération « Unified Protector » en Libye. En date du 28 septembre, un mois plus tard, le nombre de sorties se chiffrait à 24 140 et celui des sorties de frappes à 9010, soit 4019 sorties et 1423 sorties de frappe en un mois. Aucun chiffre sur les victimes de ces frappes, aucune image des dégâts dans les médias. Les médias dominants occidentaux sont partiaux, désinforment et censurent. En ne montrant pas l'ampleur des massacres commis par les forces de l'OTAN et les rebelles, en leur donnant le beau rôle dans cette guerre meurtrière et dévastatrice, les médias font de la propagande de guerre. Julie Lévesque est journaliste et chercheure au Centre de recherche sur la Mondialisation.

SPIEGEL ONLINE - INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER
Compiled on Friday, September 30, 2011, 05:52 PM CET

This mail includes the latest edition of the SPIEGEL INTERNATIONAL
newsletter.

For daily insights on Europe and the world, visit
http://www.spiegel.de/international#ref=nlint

If you are unable to click on any of the links below, please copy and
paste the address into your Web browser's address bar.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
PORTRAIT OF A MAN POSSESSED
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Search for the Real Ratko Mladic
He stands accused of some of the worst crimes known to criminal law. But
former Bosnian-Serb military leader Ratko Mladic doesn't think he has to
answer for anything -- not even for the wartime suicide of his daughter.
There are many in Serbia who would agree.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,784851,00.html#ref=nlint

--------------------

Photo Gallery: The Long Shadow of Ratko Mladic
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-72571.html#ref=nlint


------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOURNALISTIC SUCCESS, ECONOMIC FAILURE
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can Free Web Content Save The Guardian?
The Guardian has been losing money for years. But whereas the New York
Times has begun charging for online content, the British daily has
staked its future on giving away its journalism for free. The media
world is watching with bated breath.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,789108,00.html#ref=nlint

------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANWAR AL-AWLAKI
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Death of Jihad's English-Language Mouthpiece
Anwar al-Awlaki was one of al-Qaida's most important propagandists and
influenced a number of attackers and jihadists, including two Germans.
Now the Yemeni and US governments have confirmed that he has been killed
in an air strike along with a second US citizen.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,789427,00.html#ref=nlint

------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS CAN'T BE TRUSTED
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barroso Calls for More Power for EU Institutions
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said in an
interview that the EU's institutions need to be strengthened to
stabilize the euro zone, arguing that national governments can't be
trusted to take determined action. Meanwhile, former German Finance
Minister Peer Steinbrück says it's time to openly admit that Greece is
practically bankrupt.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,789300,00.html#ref=nlint

------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WORLD FROM BERLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Europe Can Breathe Easier' after Crunch Vote
On Thursday, Chancellor Angela Merkel showed once again that she could
deliver the goods when she achieved a convincing parliamentary majority
in a crucial vote on expanding the euro rescue fund. German commentators
say the vote is a step in the right direction but warn that further
obstacles lie ahead.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,789355,00.html#ref=nlint

------------------------------------------------------------------------
COUCH FOR HIRE
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Airbnb Shakes Up German Accommodations Market
Airbnb is a revolutionary online platform that lets people offer and
book lodgings in private homes around the world. The for-profit
couch-surfing service is alarming the German hotel industry.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,789111,00.html#ref=nlint

--------------------

Photo Gallery: The Airbnb Revolution
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-73455.html#ref=nlint


------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACK TO BAVARIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tradition Reigns at Munich's 'Other' Oktoberfest
Bavarian folk music, old-fashioned carnival rides and a beauty pageant
unlike any other. At Munich's 'other' Oktoberfest, the city has found a
way to keep the beloved festival true to its traditional roots.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,789197,00.html#ref=nlint

------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPIEGEL PUB QUIZ
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brewing Up a Storm
It's been an alcohol-sodden couple of weeks for news, what with vintners
missing their grapes under mysterious circumstances and Berlin breweries
devising peculiar new products. And let's not forget the world's biggest
booze-up, Munich's Oktoberfest. Why not pour a glass of your favorite
tipple and pit your wits against the SPIEGEL Pub Quiz?

http://www1.spiegel.de/active/quiztool/fcgi/quiztool.fcgi?id=59135#ref=nlint

--------------------

Another Round? The SPIEGEL Pub Quiz Archive
http://www.spiegel.de/international/topic/pub_quiz/#ref=nlint


------------------------------------------------------------------------
PICTURE THIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why the Long Face?


http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,789441,00.html#ref=nlint

1- COME NELLE PEGGIORI FAVOLE DI PHOTOSHOP, ISABELLA FERRARI, SIGNORA QUARANTASETTENNE CHE LOTTA PER NOI E PER IL CORPO DELLE DONNE, NELLO SPOT DELLA MUTANDA YAMAMAY FIRMATO NIENTEMENO CHE DALL’IMPEGNATISSIMO REGISTA PAOLO SORRENTINO, È TALMENTE RITOCCATA CHE LE HANNO PHOTOSHOPPATO NON SOLO LE RUGHE, CELLULITE E LE EVENTUALI “MANIGLIE DELL’AMORE” MA, NELLA FOGA MACELLAIA DEL LEVIGATO COME UNA VASCA DA BAGNO, HANNO CANCELLATO ANCHE L’OMBELICO!
2- EPPURE I PUBBLICITARI AVEVANO ANNUNCIATO, TRIONFANTI, CHE L’ATTRICE “HA RIFIUTATO I RITOCCHI, PER MOSTRARSI QUELLO CHE È”. CIOÈ, UNA MUTANTE DEL TERZO TIPO?
3- ANCORA! DAL CASSETTO PRENDE UN REGGISENO BIANCO MA NE METTE SU UNO NERO!
4- SUL WEB: “HANNO TAPPATO L'OMBELICO CON LA PELLE AVANZATA DALL'ULTIMO LIFTING”
5- NEGLI SPOT IN ONDA, IL PEZZO INCRIMINATO DELLA POVERA ISABELLA È STATO TAGLIATO. MA, DIVERSAMENTE IL VIDEO DI YOUTUBE NON È STATO CANCELLATO (PER ORA)

O poeta e um fingidor

O poeta e um fingidor

Autopsicografia

O poeta e um fingidor.
Finge tao completamente
Que chega a fingir que e dor
A dor que deveras sente.

E os que leem o que escreve,
Na dor lida sentem bem,
Nao as duas que ele teve,
Mas so a que eles nao tem.

E assim nas calhas de roda
Gira, a entreter a razao,
Esse comboio de corda
Que se chama coracao.

De Fernando Pessoa

Ricardo Gama

SPECIALE

Vapore delicato

» Flan di erbette e piselli con salsa di pomodoro

» Won ton con verdure in caponata

» Involtini di sogliola con salsa ai gamberetti

» Verdure alle erbe aromatiche con formaggio quark

» Coppette ai mirtilli

RUBRICHE	CINQUE IN TAVOLA Idee con il pollo Un saporito protagonista di primi e secondi, ottimo con gli ingredienti più vari	CUCINA REGIONALE Salento: Cucina povera ma gustosa
	SCUOLA DELLA SETTIMANA Farine per il pane Tutte le varietà di un'indispensabile materia prima, garanzia di fragranza e gusto

Is Another Depression Possible?: A Comparison of "The Great Depression" and "The Great Recession"

Is Another Depression Possible?:

A Comparison of "The Great Depression"

and "The Great Recession"

By Devon DB

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26818

Global Research, September 28, 2011

In 2007, the world became engulfed in the largest economic slump since the Great Depression. The crisis was so damaging it was coined “the Great Recession” and there was much comparison of the recession to the Great Depression of the 1930s in the mainstream media. However, what many failed to do was an in-depth analysis of both the Great Depression and the Great Recession, to compare and contrast to two. Thus, this article will be a comparison of both economic downfalls, ending in an analysis of the current economic situation America finds itself in and asking the question if another Great Depression is possible.

The decade prior to the 1930s, the US was in a time of great economic boom known as “The Roaring Twenties.” Yet while the nation’s income rose about 20% (from $74.3 billion in 1923 to $89 billion in 1929), the majority of this wealth went to the richest as can be seen by the fact that “in 1929 the top 0.1% of Americans had a combined income equal to the bottom 42%” [1] and that the disposable income per capita rose 9% from 1920 to 1929, while the top 1% enjoyed a massive 75% increase in per capita disposable income. This greatly increased wealth disparity and led to a imbalance in the US economy where demand wasn’t equal to supply and thus there was an oversupply of goods as “those [the poor and the middle class] whose needs were not satiated could not afford more, whereas the wealthy were satiated by spending only a small portion of their income,” [2] which caused the US to become reliant on three things to keep the economy afloat: credit sales, luxury spending, and investment by the rich. However, the major flaw of an economy based on credit sales, luxury spending, and investments was that all three of those activities depended upon people’s confidence in the economy. If confidence were to lower, then those activities would come to a halt and with it the US economy.

The massive inequality in wealth was not solely in terms of socioeconomic status, but also extended to corporations as well. During the first World War, the federal government subsidized farms in earnest as they wanted to feed not only Americans, but also Europeans. However, once the war ended, so did subsidies for farms. The government began to support the automobile and radio industries, with help from then-President Calvin Coolidge in the form of pressuring the Federal Reserve to keep easy credit, as to allow for both industries to easily be heavily invested in.

In the 1920s, the profits of the automobile and its connected industries such as lead, nickel, and steel skyrocketed, so much so, that by 1929 “a mere 200 corporations controlled approximately half of all corporate wealth.” [3] The automobile boom also led to the creation of hotels and motels which in turn led “Americans spent more than a $1 billion each year on the construction and maintenance of highways, and at least another $400 million annually for city streets” [4] in the 1920s. In addition to the massive success of the automobile industry, the radio industry also preformed exceptionally well as “Radio stations, electronic stores, and electricity companies all needed the radio to survive, and relied upon the constant growth of the radio market to expand and grow themselves.” [5]

This dependence on two main industries to support the entire US economy led to quite serious problems as in the case of depending on the spending habits of the upperclass to support the economy, if the expansion of either the radio or automobile industries slowed down or halted, the US economy would meet the same fate.

Still further, there was wealth inequality on the international banking scene. After World War 1, the Americans lent their “European allies $7 billion, and then another $3.3 billion by 1920” and by 1924 “the U.S. started lending to Axis Germany,” eventually “climbing to $900 million in 1924, and $1.25 billion in 1927 and 1928” [6] The Europeans then used the loans to buy US goods and thus were in no shape to pay back the loans. One must realize that after World War 1, virtually all of Europe was hit hard economically by the war and thus unable to make any goods with which to sell, yet the US played a role as well due to its high tariffs on imports, thus increasing the difficulty in which Europe could sell goods and pay off its debt.

Yet, the massive wealth inequalities domestically were not the only problems that led to the stock market crash, financial speculation was rampant also, which allowed corporations to make huge amounts of money. As long as stock prices continued to rise, the corporation itself became near-meaningless. “One such example is RCA corporation, whose stock price leapt from 85 to 420 during 1928, even though it had not yet paid a single dividend.” [7] This was a serious fundamental problem in the stock market as many forgot that if stock prices increase extremely quickly, a bubble is being created and sooner or later it will burst. This speculation greatly distorted the values of corporations. Usually, the stock price somewhat correlates with the performance of the company, but due to the rampant speculation, companies that were doing horribly could now seem as if they were great investments, all based on the increase in their stock price.

A factor that led to rampant speculation was the ability to buy stocks on margin, which allowed for one to buy stocks without actually having the money. Due to this, investors could potentially get extremely high returns on their investments. Buying stocks on margin was quite easy as the process

functioned much the same way as buying a car on credit. Using the example of [the RCA corporation], a Mr. John Doe could buy 1 share of the company by putting up $10 of his own, and borrowing $75 from his broker. If he sold the stock at $420 a year later he would have turned his original investment of just $10 into $341.25 ($420 minus the $75 and 5% interest owed to the broker). That makes a return of over 3400%! [8] (emphasis added)

This massive speculation led stock prices to incredibly high levels, with “the total of outstanding brokers' loans [being] over $7 billion” [9] by mid-1929.

The stock market bubble soon burst as on October 21, 1929, prices began to fall so rapidly that the ticker fell behind. Prices fell even further due to investors fears which led them to sell their shares. The speculation and wealth inequality caused a major undermining of the entire market which led to the wealthy ending their spending on luxury items and investing, as well as “[the] middle-class and poor stopped buying things with installment credit for fear of loosing their jobs, and not being able to pay the interest,” [10] and with it the US economy came to a griding halt. The lack of spending led to a nine percent decrease in industrial production from October to December 1929. This led to job losses, defaults on interest payments, and the destruction of the radio and automobile industries as inventory grew due to no one having the ability to purchase anything.

Internationally, loaning had already come to an abrupt halt earlier in the decade because “With such tremendous profits to be made in the stock market nobody wanted to make low interest loans” [11] and trade quickly ended as the US increased already high tariffs and foreigners quit purchasing US goods.

A topic that is rarely mentioned in regards to the Great Depression is the role of the Federal Reserve. The Fed played a major role in why investment purchases collapsed dramatically. The main problem was that in the onset of the Great Depression, there was rampant deflation. This was caused by the fact that the M1 money supply had reached a peak in 1929 and went downhill from there, yet the Fed didn’t see this. Instead, they saw “only the statistics on the monetary base, the currency in circulation plus the funds held as reserves by the banks with the twelve Federal Reserve Banks,” [12] which showed that the monetary base had been steadily increasing since about 1929. Thus, since the Fed saw that the money supply was increasing, they found no reason to act, when in reality, the M2 money supply was decreasing rapidly. However, in the late 1920s, the Fed acted to end speculative banking and wound up applying more restrictive monetary policies than thought. This resulted in banks closing en masse, which the Fed initially welcomed, yet this caused

the banks and the banking public [to become] alarmed. Some people withdrew their funds from the banks. The banks became worried about withdrawal of deposits and even runs on banks. The banks reacted by holding reserves in excess of what the Fed required. [13]

This massive withdrawal of funds emptied the coffers of banks, thus causing the aforementioned deflation. The Fed’s actions, along with the stock market crash, led to a 90% decrease in investment purchases, cutbacks in the labor force due to business not being able to sell anything, and a downturn in consumer spending.

Thus, due to a mixture of socio-economic and industrial wealth inequality, high tariffs on foreign imports, a stock market bubble, and poor economic management by the Federal Reserve, the United States descended into the Great Depression.

Initially, in the onset of the Depression, then-President Hoover decided against the government taking action to help individuals on the grounds that “if left alone the economy would right itself and argued that direct government assistance to individuals would weaken the moral fiber of the American people.” [14] However, when he was forced by Congress to intervene in the economy, Hoover focused his “spending [on stabilizing] the business community, believing that returning prosperity would eventually ‘trickle down’ to the poor majority,” [15] and thus began the first implementation of what would later be called in the ‘70s, “trickle-down economics.”

The public, being appalled by the lack of empathy from Hoover, voted Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) into office. Once in office, he began embarking on programs that would come to be known as “The New Deal.” However, this was not a deal concerned with easing the pain of the Depression on ordinary people, rather FDR “sought to save capitalism and the fundamental institutions of American society from the disaster of the Great Depression.” [16] While the popular view is that the New Deal was radically different from Hoover’s plan, in reality the two plans didn’t truly differ to much as while some social programs were implemented, overall FDR’s plan “tended toward a continuation of ‘trickle down’ policies, albeit better-funded and executed more creatively.” [17]

He never truly adopted Keynesian economics, which argued that the “government should use its massive financial power (taxing and spending) as a sort of ballast to stabilize the economy.” [18] This can be seen in the Agricultural Adjustment Act which paid farmers to produce less, however, this “did little for smaller farmers and led to the eviction and homelessness of tenants and sharecroppers whose landlords hardly needed their services under a system that paid them to grow less” [19], while also not addressing the main problem of the Depression: weak consumer spending. Overall, the Act benefited mainly moderate and large agriculture operations. Another example is the National Industrial Recovery Act. The National Industrial Recovery Act encouraged industries to avoid selling below cost to attract more customers, and while this was good for businesses in the short run, it “resulted in increased unemployment and an even smaller customer pool in the long-run.” [20] FDR’s overall goal, while he did aid in the creation of social programs such as Social Security and enacted many jobs programs, was to protect capitalism and the very institutions that led to the Great Depression.

Another topic that isn’t even mentioned in examinations of the Great Depression is the Depression’s effect on home mortgages. During the 1920s and early 1930s, the US experienced a housing boom, whose peak was around 1924 for single-family houses and 1927 for multi-family houses.[21] In 1928, when the Fed began cracking down on speculation, housing investments began to fall due to the sharp increase in interest rates. Housing debt had “increased rapidly during the 1920s and continued to grow even after housing starts had begun to decline and house prices had leveled off” [22] and due to deflation, housing debt continued to increase until 1932. While rising debt usually doesn’t pose a problem for households as long as they could make their loans payments, yet household incomes and wealth decreased greatly during the Depression, thus leading “loan delinquencies and foreclosures [to soar], fueled by falling household incomes and property values.” [23] It was extremely difficult for homeowners to keep their property as “Falling incomes made it increasingly difficult for borrowers to make loan payments or to refinance outstanding loans as they came due.” [24] However, the situation would improve as unlike the experience with the financial industry, the government stepped in to remedy the situation with the creation of agencies such as the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Bank System which aided homeowners in financing their mortgages.

Unlike the Depression, where falling mortgages were a side effect of the overall economic crash, in this current recession, mortgages played a major role in facilitating a near collapse of the global economy. Ordinary Americans found themselves able to purchase homes as credit was easily available. Yet due to predatory lending on the part of banks, the majority of these houses were being bought by people who couldn’t afford them and many homeowners would soon find themselves having underwater mortgages due to “one-year adjustable –rate mortgages (ARMs) with teaser rates for first 2-3 years of a mortgage” which “were set artificially low and then reset much higher.” [25] Due to credit rating agencies lowering the requirements for having mortgages rated AAA, the majority of these mortgages “were packaged into opaque securities and sold to public” and this “Subprime loans increased from 9% of new mortgage originations in 2001 to 40% in 2006.” [26] Yet at the end of 2006, events took a turn for the worse as mortgage payments decreased and with it the value of mortgage-backed securities.

The mortgage bubble burst left in its wake “destroyed household savings in the ensuring financial meltdown, forcing individuals to slash their spending,” [27] which led to a massive decrease in consumer spending and a long, painful recession. The housing bubble burst also had larger consequences as “The disappearance of cushion against future losses virtually froze the credit market.” [28] In addition to this, several large financial institutions such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns collapsed, thus prompting the government to intervene, though not on the behalf of the American people.

Just as in the Great Depression, the US government’s main goal was to protect the very institutions that caused the financial crisis instead of dealing with them. There were cries from leaders of the financial and political elite that massive companies such as AIG were “too big too fail,” thus the US government embarked upon a $700 billion bailout. However, the true cost of the bail out is more like $839 billion as

the $700 billion [was] in addition to an $85 billion agreement on a bailout of the insurance giant American International Group, plus $29 billion [was] support that the government pledged in the marriage of Bear Stearns and JPMorgan Chase. On top of all that, the Congressional Budget Office [said] the federal bailout of the mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could cost $25 billion. [29]

This money was paid to the corporations by the US taxpayer. While the financial institutions stated that they needed to money to survive, once gotten, corporations used to bailout money to stabilize their corporations, but also to hand out massive bonuses to corporate executives. [30] This bailout did not address the root causes of the financial meltdown: incompetence of the US government in regulating the financial industry, massive financial speculation, and predatory lending.

As they had during the Depression, the Federal Reserve played a role in bringing about the recession. Their main goal was to try “to artificially prop up those markets [of bad debt and worthless assets] and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of their actual market value.” [31] To this end, the Fed provided $16 trillion to domestic and foreign banks in the form of secret loans and bought mortgage-backed securities that were in reality, completely and totally worthless. [32] In addition to this, many of the people on the board of directors at the Federal Reserve also had connections to corporations that received bailout money.

For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed's board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed's emergency lending programs.

In another disturbing finding, the GAO said that on Sept. 19, 2008, William Dudley, who is now the New York Fed president, was granted a waiver to let him keep investments in AIG and General Electric at the same time AIG and GE were given bailout funds. One reason the Fed did not make Dudley sell his holdings, according to the audit, was that it might have created the appearance of a conflict of interest. [33] (emphasis added)

Thus, there was a very cozy relationship between the Federal Reserve and the banks that received bailout funds. This only serves to show the revolving door relationship between the two groups and how the Fed’s actions were subject to the interests of the large banks.

However, these are not the only actions the Fed took that helped to create the financial crisis. Their role goes back even further, almost a decade. In the early 1990s, Congress played a large role in trying to increase the amount of homeowners by passing the Home Ownership & Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), which planned to address concerns of “reverse redlining” which was“the practice of targeting residents of specific disadvantaged communities for credit on unfair terms, and in particular by second mortgage lenders, home improvement contractors, and finance companies.” [34] To achieve these ends, the Act called for the establishment of residential mortgage loans which were fixed so that it would be easier for low-income home owners to repay their loans. The Act also gave the Fed the ability, not only to ensure that HOEPA was carried out, but also to

exempt specific mortgages or categories of mortgages from any or all of the HOEPA requirements, or prohibit additional acts or practices in connection with any mortgage (not just “high cost mortgages”) that the Board determines are unfair, deceptive, or designed to evade HOEPA, or that are made in connection with a refinancing of a mortgage loan that the Board finds to be associated with abusive lending practices, or that are otherwise not in the interest of the borrower. [35]

However, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan refused to curb predatory lending as he touted a kind of laissez-faire economics and argued that the market would take care of itself. This refusal to attack predatory lenders would come back in later years in the form of the current financial crisis.

Many thought that with the election of Barack Obama, he would fulfill his much touted goals of “hope and change” to restore the US, yet this did not occur with America’s foreign policy, nor did it occur with America’s economic policy. Obama’s economic team consisted of former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin who was the “chairman of Citigroup Inc.'s executive committee when the bank pushed bogus analyst research, helped Enron Corp. cook its books, and got caught baking its own” and also “was a director from 2000 to 2006 at Ford Motor Co., which also committed accounting fouls and now is begging Uncle Sam for Citigroup- style bailout cash.” [36] Two former Citigroup directors, Xerox Corp. Chief Executive Officer Anne Mulcahy and Time Warner Inc. Chairman Richard Parsons, were appointed to his economic team. Both Mulcahy and Parsons have shady pasts as not only were “Xerox and Time Warner got pinched years ago by the Securities and Exchange Commission for accounting frauds that occurred while Mulcahy and Parsons held lesser executive posts at their respective companies,” [37] but both were directors at Fannie Mae when that company was breaking accounting rules. To round out the group, former Commerce Secretary William Daley was appointed and at the time of his appointment, Daley was “a member of the executive committee at JPMorgan Chase & Co., which, like Citigroup, is among the nine large banks that just got $125 billion of Treasury's bailout budget.” [38] Thus, it was no surprise to anyone who was paying close attention to the financial crisis and Obama’s economic team that instead of attacking the root causes of the crisis, instead these advisors opted for a massive stimulus package of almost $800 billion. The situation had long been one where the patients were running the asylum.

While the stimulus undoubtedly saved millions of jobs, it didn’t fulfill its main objective: stimulate the economy. The debt ceiling debacle would serve to only make the situation worse as the Republicans wanted solely austerity measures implemented and the Democrats capitulated, almost without a fight. Both parties began to create in the public’s mind the idea that the only way to rein in the deficit was for austerity measures to be implemented. However, these austerity measures will only serve to exacerbate the situation as the IMF stated that implementing austerity measures “will hurt income in the short term and worsen unemployment in the long term.” [39] Thus, the $2 trillion that the government plans to cut in social programs will only serve to make an already horrid situation even worse.

Currently, America’s fiscal situation is in tatters. While the stock market is doing well, the real problem is unemployment, which is on a level that hasn’t been seen since the Great Depression [40] and things are not going to get better soon. This becomes a serious problem as without employment, people don’t have money to spend and America’s economy “is predominantly driven by consumer spending, which accounts for approximately 70 percent of all economic growth.” [41] (emphasis added)

Another Depression is possible due to the fact that while things may seem to have calmed down for now, the deep, structural problems within America’s economy still exist, are still active and therefore still have the potential to do major damage in the future. Economist Nouriel Roubini stated that another crisis is already manifesting itself in developed nations. [42] The only thing that the bailouts served to do was delay the inevitable: the bailed out corporations will fail due to their own risky practices and they will bring the US and world economies down with them.

Notes