@ggersh Plant your gardens now. Get to know your neighbors. Stockpile some cash and necessaries. Get your money out of the big banks, and eliminate all the debt you can.

#1.1 Me thinks that is saud falls, that would be the
"black swan"

amerika is tied to the hip with KSA and will defend it
to it's death, if the house of saud falls, so does the empire

now neither is a bad thing but what exactly
would come next?

@Mark from Queens
If this is the same type of deals that sunk Greece, then we know what we are in for. And as the article states, this was done behind our backs without our consent. Therefore, we shouldn't have to pay off these MotherF'ckers deals.
But as dkmitch wrote:

Without a real and free press, we will have nothing but war, Trump, and a dying society and planet.

When this crap hits the fan, will that be enough to wake people from their slumber and get them to rise up and overthrow this illegal government that has literally sold our country to the highest bidder?
If the answer is yes, then our window for doing this is rapidly closing because of the militarized police and mercenary contractors on standby ready for us to do this.

#4.1
is an unbelievable story about Sovereign Wealth Funds, these massive, aggressive hedge fund-type cash repositories in the Middle East.

I literally couldn't believe what I was reading. That they were being sold, by American investment bankers, the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Not just that, but a toll highway in Indiana, the Chicago Skyway, stretches of Florida highway, parking meters in Nashville, Pittsburgh, LA and other cities, ports in Virginia, California infrastructure projects.

Couldn't cut and paste any passages, so I'm looking at the chapter in my book.

But did find this epilogue that further talks about this kind of scam that the people of this country either have no idea about or have been so conditioned not to be outraged, and instead have Fox News tell them they should be indignant about welfare recipients.

“Looting Main Street” is about the Jefferson County, Alabama, financial disaster, which shows how the same sorts of financial scams that undermined Greece were devised and executed in small-town America. Here we’re dealing with crime in the baldest conceivable sense of the word: small-town officials literally bribed with cash and gifts to stick taxpayers with billions in crappy, toxic loans. The theft was so overt that in one case, one bank (JPMorgan Chase) actually paid millions toanother bank (Goldman Sachs) to back off the deal—as obvious a case of anticompetitive behavior as you’ll find. And again, when disaster strikes, it’s not the bankers who suffer, it’s the ordinary people who live in the Birmingham, Alabama, area who see their city stripped down and sold for parts.

.

About the public's reticence to understand the enormous viciousness of the Economic Terrorists of Wall St's criminality:

...think for instance in comparison about the American attitude toward the sale of drugs. Street dealing is a strictly economic activity voluntarily undertaken by two consenting adults. It’s against the law here, but one could make the argument that that’s purely an accident of history; it’s not illegal everywhere in the world, and selling some of the same drugs one hundred years ago was legal even in this country. But in the last century or so, the sale of narcotics in America has been broadly criminalized and a massive police apparatus has grown up around this now-illegal business, which very conveniently is often the chief commercial activity driving the economies of poor and nonwhite neighborhoods.

That selling drugs and taking drugs is not widely considered inherently wrong is proven by the fact that large majorities of the population,including at least a few presidents, have guiltlessly engaged in the activity. If you’re white and have money, the chances are very good that you smoked pot from high school on and dabbled at least occasionally inharder stuff somewhere along the line. But do you think of yourself as a criminal? Absolutely not. It just happens to be widely understood thata certain type of nonviolent economic activity is technically illegal inour society and if you want to be sure of avoiding punishment for engaging in it, you can’t do it openly if you’re on the campus of Harvardor Penn State, and probably not at all if you live on a heavily patrolledstreet in the Bronx or East St. Louis.

...after the crisis hit, and the whole country was rocked by job losses and foreclosures and soaring commodity prices, the general public was still, overwhelmingly, hesitant to demand punishment forthe people responsible. From coast to coast, the mere suggestion thatpowerful bankers should go to jail for technical infractions like lying to investors and hiding losses and front-running client trades met an im-movable wall of public skepticism. “Are those activities really crimes?” people continually asked. “Isn’t that just being greedy? Can you really put people in jail for trying to make money?”

Again, think of the contrast with drug dealing. Man sells bag of dope on the streets of Harlem; an economic transaction between two consenting adults, with no third-party victims involved anywhere. But when a banker sells a million dollars (or ten or a hundred million dollars) of mismarked mortgage bank securities to a pension fund, youdon’t have two consenting adults. The buyer of the securities is obviously unaware that he’s acquiring an essentially counterfeit property, that his fund is going to lose that money. And there are third-party victims galore; all the pensioners or other investors are going to see their savings disappear.

But people still can’t wrap their heads around the idea that thishighly destructive transaction is a jailable offense. In the extreme formof the argument in defense of the bankers who engaged in that activity, it is said that these deals were legal because it cannot be conclusively proven that the bankers selling this dreck knew that the goods they were trading were worthless and dangerous.

The notion that these bankers didn’t know that what they were selling was toxic is, empirically speaking, absurd on its face—there were pools of mortgages that banks like Goldman were selling where more than 50 percent of the borrowers didn’t show ID when taking out their loans, and other pools where borrowers had collectively put less than 1 percent cash down on nearly a billion dollars of home loans. Not even the dumbest trader could ever genuinely believe that 60 percent or 70 percent of a pool full of borrowers with no ID buying houses with no money down could be investment-grade securities. But the defenders of these bankers still insist that there can’t be a crime without concrete proof of the bankers’ mental state when selling those properties.

Again, imagine a drug dealer busted for selling a bag of Drano instead of heroin arguing, with a straight face, that he didn’t know that his product was harmful to his buyers. Think that would go over well? And let’s say a dozen people end up sick and dying in the hospital because of the stuff he sold: can you imagine anyone arguing that said dealer stillcan’t be prosecuted without proof of his mental state? This is where we are with financial crime. Millions of people around the world lost huge chunks of their life savings to these deals, but still we insist that we cannot punish the dealer without knowing for sure what was in his head when he sold us that financial Drano.

@ChezJfrey @ChezJfrey I think there might be an actual shift happening in relations between the Clintons/Bushes and the Saudis, reflected in Zakaria's, um, a-ha moment:

#5.2 Pretty sure that your remark is exactly the reason Fareed had this 'epiphany' moment. "Oh, Saudi is bad!" The Trump resistance overruled the up-to-now, Saudi ally. The reason this is no big deal, is a day from now, he and his ilk can still flip-flop again on SA, back to "friends" and their mindless cheerleaders will never notice the difference.

@lizzyh7 She still thinks she's president and it's really been hard on her (cough, cough)

#10.1 but I can't help but wonder just what the Rump is going to look like if he makes it through 4 years. They all age, tremendously some of them, during their terms and looking at a picture of the Rump today he's not looking too great.

And you're so right, all that lying and triangulating apparently takes a big toll on them. Good, they deserve to not only look older but feel older.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

… which is different than "the Individual" era. The individual is the libertarian bootstrapper. It's what the Republicans want the poor and disabled to become. Miracle bootstrappers without a bit of assistance and starvation if they fail. A Great Society would simply take care of them and help them achieve their dreams. But Americans have learned that Great Societies are weak, like Norway, and they cost money. They don't want to be a society, or even a nation for that matter.

#10.1 The American people don't want a great society? This is the era of the individual?

No, that was the 80s and 90s. They kept it artificially alive by using 9/11 to rally everyone behind a sociopath because some people slaughtered about 3,000 of our civilians, many of whom had nothing to do with the decisions which caused them to want to bomb us in the first place.

But no. Since 2008, it emphatically hasn't been the age of the individual. OTOH, the American people no longer believe a great society is possible.

@native "tie like mine" remark to mean that these guys are the same type of permanent bureaucracy, Deep State operatives that are well known in Russia. He seemed to be saying that we're the commies now.

He cracks me up, I love watching him speak.

#10.3
He has never denied this heritage -- he's proud of it. The "men in back suits" he refers to, have been his closest colleagues, and Putin's presumed virtue is that he has managed to bend them all to his will... by whatever means he has deemed necessary.

By the time Yeltsin's appointees and their Western co-sponsors had finished plundering Moscow's treasury, and selling off much of the defunct Empire's remaining assets, the KGB was one of the few powerful Russian institutions left standing. The fact that Putin arose from within its ranks is hardly surprising. Nor would this normally be held against him, in the eyes of most Russians... Russian history being way different from American history.

Putin was the insider guy who somehow beat the "Western" capitalists at their own game, by playing outside the rules and ruthlessly expropriating much of their ill-gotten gains... and then effectively re-distributing them... to great public acclaim. While at the same time he was gaining the support of most old-guard Communists, and most dispossessed Russian nativists as well.

And yes, I think he's also referring (albeit obliquely) to the largely hidden infrastructure of various powers-be that operate behind the political scenes in both Russia and the USA. He seems to be frankly admitting that they do in fact exist. And he also seems to be implying that it might be advisable for people to recognize that they exist.

@native
in 1991 when they broke the KGB and military codes to prevent the 1991 coup by the old guard Soviets and gave the information to Yeltsin.

US agents helped Yeltsin break coup

As soon as the coup started on 18 August 1991, the NSA, America's largest intelligence organisation, was able to decrypt conversations between the coup's two leaders, Vladimir Kryuchkov, chairman of the KGB, and Dmitri Yazov, the Defence Minister, taking place over a supposedly secure landline. President Bush ordered the information to be given to Mr Yeltsin but, fearing Russian reaction if word of American interference leaked out, broke the law by not telling Congress.

The information was of critical significance to Mr Yeltsin at a moment when both sides in Moscow were wooing various military commanders across the Soviet Union. Mr Yeltsin knew exactly who supported the coup and who opposed it.

An American specialist from the US embassy was sent to Mr Yeltsin's office in the Russian parliament building to make sure that his own communications system was secure.

The FSK (for-runner of the FSB) was created in 1992-3 out of the defunct KGB. One of the first things it did was work hand-in-hand with the CIA under Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates to oust the Russian communist hard liners from Parliament using force in 1993. This intimate relationship lasted until the Ames affair in 1994. This was about the time the FSB was signed into law by Yeltsin. Yelstin appointed ex-KGB Putin as head of the FSB in 1998.

(Take note that even when the Russians and Americans were working closely together, there were elements in the US that wanted to destroy the relationship. Russia HAD to remain the consummate enemy of America. I believe the CIA's Team B was responsible for throwing a wrench into the works at this time, but that's a whole other story.)

US and Russian Intelligence Cooperation during the Yeltsin Years

"I would like to give a toast. I believe you are all well aware of my background and views as a so-called cold warrior. It is not my wish to go down in history as the first director of central intelligence to come to Moscow to establish a liaison relationship between US and Russian intelligence. I am frankly uncomfortable with any suggestion that my visit might serve to legitimize or recognize the role of the KGB in a democratic Russia. No, I am here today because the relationship between our two countries demands that our intelligence agencies work together in areas of mutual interest. It is time to turn a page in our history, without forgetting our past and present differences, in order to eliminate the threats we face in this new era. I propose a toast for the security and the future of our two peoples."

With these words, as best I can recall them, Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates ushered in a new chapter in the adversarial, turbulent story of US and Russian intelligence. The September, 1992 DCI visit co-hosted by SVR Director Yevgeniy Primakov and FSB (then FSK) Director Sergey Stepashin was not political theater, nor was it a naive event that ignored the bitter reality of confrontation.
...
When word reached Moscow that CIA traitor Aldrich Ames had been arrested on February 23, 1994, I secretly hoped to be expelled and declared persona non grata so I’d never have to work with Russian intelligence again. The Ames affair was a sensation in Washington. The CIA was being attacked by all sides of the political spectrum. It seemed only logical when Langley decided to sever liaison ties in the aftermath of the arrest of a Russian mole in the CIA. As usual, the emotional entanglements of espionage held both sides in a vise-like grip. Within days of the arrest, a senior CIA delegation announced its intention to visit Moscow in a last ditch effort to negotiate a solution that might avert mass, tit for tat expulsions -- and worse, if the Ames affair was allowed to escalate into a global, spy versus spy war waged in the shadows.

Senior CIA officer John MacGaffin headed the small delegation that descended on SVR headquarters at Yasenevo on the outskirts of Moscow. Traditional pleasantries were curtailed, as both sides got to the heart of the matter. “These things happen.” Primakov shrugged, trying to lighten the mood. “It’s the nature of the business.” MacGaffin flashed a disarming smile, before curtly countering, “Things will get ugly. That’s inevitable. The question is how can we contain the damage? How can we avoid an escalation that could harm the broader, bilateral relationship?”
...

American involvement in Russia and the subsequent rise of Putin is a fascinating story that very few Americans know about. If I had more time it would be worth a series of diaries. Especially in light of Shillary's rants about "Russia stole my lunch and my election."

#10.3
He has never denied this heritage -- he's proud of it. The "men in back suits" he refers to, have been his closest colleagues, and Putin's presumed virtue is that he has managed to bend them all to his will... by whatever means he has deemed necessary.

By the time Yeltsin's appointees and their Western co-sponsors had finished plundering Moscow's treasury, and selling off much of the defunct Empire's remaining assets, the KGB was one of the few powerful Russian institutions left standing. The fact that Putin arose from within its ranks is hardly surprising. Nor would this normally be held against him, in the eyes of most Russians... Russian history being way different from American history.

Putin was the insider guy who somehow beat the "Western" capitalists at their own game, by playing outside the rules and ruthlessly expropriating much of their ill-gotten gains... and then effectively re-distributing them... to great public acclaim. While at the same time he was gaining the support of most old-guard Communists, and most dispossessed Russian nativists as well.

And yes, I think he's also referring (albeit obliquely) to the largely hidden infrastructure of various powers-be that operate behind the political scenes in both Russia and the USA. He seems to be frankly admitting that they do in fact exist. And he also seems to be implying that it might be advisable for people to recognize that they exist.

@native Well, one of Putin's favorite things is to poke at the American belief that America is somehow a moral democracy and not a police state. That's why he gave Snowden asylum. As a commentator here said, "I think it was just too delicious for Putin to pass up." It's the irony that's delicious.

#10.3
He has never denied this heritage -- he's proud of it. The "men in back suits" he refers to, have been his closest colleagues, and Putin's presumed virtue is that he has managed to bend them all to his will... by whatever means he has deemed necessary.

By the time Yeltsin's appointees and their Western co-sponsors had finished plundering Moscow's treasury, and selling off much of the defunct Empire's remaining assets, the KGB was one of the few powerful Russian institutions left standing. The fact that Putin arose from within its ranks is hardly surprising. Nor would this normally be held against him, in the eyes of most Russians... Russian history being way different from American history.

Putin was the insider guy who somehow beat the "Western" capitalists at their own game, by playing outside the rules and ruthlessly expropriating much of their ill-gotten gains... and then effectively re-distributing them... to great public acclaim. While at the same time he was gaining the support of most old-guard Communists, and most dispossessed Russian nativists as well.

And yes, I think he's also referring (albeit obliquely) to the largely hidden infrastructure of various powers-be that operate behind the political scenes in both Russia and the USA. He seems to be frankly admitting that they do in fact exist. And he also seems to be implying that it might be advisable for people to recognize that they exist.