Egypt's Revolution (Poll added)

[Phatscotty]

I see, so we are now supposed to exclude anyone who has any ties to Islam as "harmful terrorists" or.. what, exactly is it that you are attempting to assert here.

First, show me where anyone said we should exclude anyone who has any ties to Islam...

...the Muslim Brotherhood is not on any of our watch lists. They once did embrace violance.. the specific act of overthrowing the Egyption government. However, that has not been the case for decades. They now are probably less a threat to us than many Christian right groups.

So, is there anyway that the Muslim Brotherhood will kill Mubarak? Should they? Do you think the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to kill Mubarak? no?

I know you're pretending to be presenting deep and incisive questions, but it's just ill-disguised Islamophobia.

Why is that? Do assassinations never happen in Islamic countries? Does the Muslim Brotherhood want to shake hands with Mubarak and ask him to leave nicely?

Anwar Sadat Assassination

And just to respond to your expected response, No, Anwar is not just a region where libs won't let you drill in Alaska...

Oh, and in a completely unrelated fit of Islamophobia, Egypt Vice President survives assasination attempt..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX3qk1AfAog

[BigBallinStalin]

so to recap:

(1) Player said: Muslim Brotherhood has no ties to terrorism and is not on any watch list
(2) Saxi said: In fact, Muslim Brotherhood Gaza chapter is a proscribed terrorist organization on multiple nations watch lists.
(3) Player said: "I knew all that!" + [various name calling / fist-shaking]

END OF LINE

You accuse me of not reading and then proceed to distort what I said.. typical of you.

I never said the Muslim Brotherhood has no ties to terrorism. I said it is not a terrorist organization now and is not on the US watch list. Also those "ties" to Hammas have to do with Hammas being the duly elected power in Palestine. We may not like the choice, but denying the Palestinien people thier votes is to dismiss democracy.

Have you ever wondered about the methods used during those elections?

[Iliad]

First, show me where anyone said we should exclude anyone who has any ties to Islam...

...the Muslim Brotherhood is not on any of our watch lists. They once did embrace violance.. the specific act of overthrowing the Egyption government. However, that has not been the case for decades. They now are probably less a threat to us than many Christian right groups.

So, is there anyway that the Muslim Brotherhood will kill Mubarak? Should they? Do you think the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to kill Mubarak? no?

I know you're pretending to be presenting deep and incisive questions, but it's just ill-disguised Islamophobia.

Why is that? Do assassinations never happen in Islamic countries? Does the Muslim Brotherhood want to shake hands with Mubarak and ask him to leave nicely?

Anwar Sadat Assassination

And just to respond to your expected response, No, Anwar is not just a region where libs won't let you drill in Alaska...

Oh, and in a completely unrelated fit of Islamophobia, Egypt Vice President survives assasination attempt..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX3qk1AfAog

It's nice seeing you projecting your ignorance onto others, but yeah I know quite a bit about Anwar Sadat. And the situation now and during Sadat's time was quite different.

Anwar Sadat also suffered great unpopularity to the point of riots, due to his unpopular economic reforms that were meant to make Egypt a more inviting place for investors and have more foreign trade. Unfortunately the burden of these reforms was put on the working class, who promtly began to voice their displeasure and striking until it escalated to the point of riots, the Bread Riots being quite infamous, and Anwar Sadat backed down on his reforms and the riots went down. Notice how it wasn't this unpopularity that caused his assasination.

His assasination came from his very great involvement in creating a Palestine-Israel peace treaty and this very much angered the fundamentalists. He even cracked down and illegally arrested many religious groups, however he missed the block that was planning to assasinate him and did. What separates Mubarak and Sadat is that Mubarak has not been doing anything to royally piss off the extreme Islamists. Therefore it is unlikely that a small unaligned Muslim block would assasinate him as there are no actions inciting them to do it and there would not be any gain for them.

Assasinations do happen in countries, usually in authoritarian countries where people do not have peaceful ways like voting to change the direction in which the country is heading and have to resort to actions of force such as political unrest or outright assasination. Mubarak being assasinated is a possibility, depending on his actions and whether he will try to remain president.

However you were engaged in a simle case of fearmongering about the Islamists in Egypt, no doubt inspired by similiar fearmongering on Limbaugh, Beck or somewhere on Fox News.

[Phatscotty]

Wrong, overreaching. I simply wished to engage in a discussion about the possibility of an assassination, before an assassination possibly occurs. I further expounded the show, from what I percieved as challenges that assasinations in the middle east are rare or something, that they are actually quite commin, even in Egypt's history.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wrong, overreaching. I simply wished to engage in a discussion about the possibility of an assassination, before an assassination possibly occurs. I further expounded the show, from what I percieved as challenges that assasinations in the middle east are rare or something, that they are actually quite commin, even in Egypt's history.

To add another dimension to the argument for both of you guys:

Mossad is also involved in several assassinations (and attempts) against many key leaders in many Middle Eastern countries and abroad, so we can't just look at Islamic extremists.

[Phatscotty]

Wrong, overreaching. I simply wished to engage in a discussion about the possibility of an assassination, before an assassination possibly occurs. I further expounded the show, from what I percieved as challenges that assasinations in the middle east are rare or something, that they are actually quite commin, even in Egypt's history.

To add another dimension to the argument for both of you guys:

Mossad is also involved in several assassinations (and attempts) against many key leaders in many Middle Eastern countries and abroad, so we can't just look at Islamic extremists.

Of course. I have already seen arabic video posters saying the driver of this truck is Mossad.

However, only asking, if he were killed, would the Muslim Brotherhood be happy or sad? Any opinions?

[saxitoxin]

so to recap:

(1) Player said: Muslim Brotherhood has no ties to terrorism and is not on any watch list
(2) Saxi said: In fact, Muslim Brotherhood Gaza chapter is a proscribed terrorist organization on multiple nations watch lists.
(3) Player said: "I knew all that!" + [various name calling / fist-shaking]

END OF LINE

You accuse me of not reading and then proceed to distort what I said.. typical of you.

I never said the Muslim Brotherhood has no ties to terrorism. I said it is not a terrorist organization now and is not on the US watch list.

And you are incorrect.

If part of the Muslim Brotherhood is on a watch list it is correct to say the Muslim Brotherhood is on a watch list. Hamas is self-identified as a regional branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

If you need a picture-diagram please don't hesitate to let me know. This is not a question of fact, it's a question of simple language-comprehension.

Very simple language comprehension ...

[saxitoxin]

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich had a great editorial on Al-Jazeera about the reality of the CIA/Zionist-instigated revolt in Egypt. This is the same dirty trick the Obama-Bush regime tried to pull in Iran to undermine their democratically elected government, or that the Clinton regime successfully orchestrated in Serbia.

Citing Egypt's jobless and inordinate poverty, they would have us believe that the American 'social media', Twittter in particular, has prompted and aided the protests. They would have us believe that in spite of the fact that the Egyptians cry over the price of wheat, they have cell phones and access to social media. We are to accept that the poor, hungry, and jobless Egyptians are revolting against their lot by 'tweeting' in English. Their access to modern technology aside, we are told to accept that the knowledge of English among 80 million Egyptians is so strong that they can 'tweet' -- fully comfortable with Twitter abbreviations and acronyms. Else, we are to believe that Egypt is busy 'tweeting' in Arabic even if Twitter does not lend itself to Arabic anymore than it does to Persian.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/ ... ning!.html

(I should note, in interest of my ego, I said the same thing a few pages back.)

END OF LINE

[Ray Rider]

A couple of short, insightful articles by an independent journalist in the Middle East:

The Middle East is a tragic place. It is a region governed by violence, and it always has been. I was a witness to the non-violent and broadly liberal Cedar Revolution during the Beirut Spring that ousted the occupying Syrian military dictatorship, but Lebanon has been effectively reconquered by proxy. Some Middle Easterners, bless them, have opted to take the gun out of politics, yet they remain pushed around and lorded over by their more ruthless neighbors who have no intention whatever of laying down arms.

For years I asked Arabs and Israelis alike, "what's the solution?" Finally I had to stop. It is such an American question. I can't think of a single person I know who lives in the region who thinks there is a solution to the problems that ail it.

The Middle East is impossibly difficult for American presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike. The choices are between terrible options and even more terrible options, and it's not always obvious which is which. Should Barack Obama support an Egyptian dictatorship that shoots unarmed men and tortures dissidents who share American values? Or should he help shove aside an occasionally useful part-time ally knowing that dangerous Islamists might take his place?

The answer to that depends on what happens next, and we don't know what will happen next.

I do know this, though. If Egyptians are bound and determined to be ruled by Islamists, they cannot be held back forever. They might not ever get it out of their system until they see what it's actually like. They won't be dissuaded by dialogue, and they won't be dissuaded by prison. Islamism is like communism for some people. It looks good from a distance on paper, but up close and in person it's ghastly.

The citizens of Iran have learned the hardest way imaginable that Islamism is hell. When they overthrow their regime--and they will--the country will be more secular than it has ever been and the threat there will have passed. Egypt, I'm sorry to say, may require two revolutions before it matures--the first against secular military rule and the second against the Muslim Brotherhood. I hope it's not true, but if it is true there's not much Americans can do to stop it.

All this talk about whether democracy in Egypt will be a good thing or a bad thing just goes to show how misunderstood the word democracy is. Democracy refers not so much to elections but to liberalism in the general sense of the word.

If Egyptians elect the Muslim Brotherhood in a free and fair election, and the Muslim Brotherhood then rigs or even cancels every election that follows, Egypt will not be in any way shape or form a democracy. It will be a dictatorship that happened to have an election.

Mature liberal democracies have checks and balances, the separation of powers, equal rights for minorities, restrictions on the power and reach of the victors, and guarantees that those who lose will not be persecuted.

The Arab world doesn’t need a one-time plebiscite on whom the next tyrant is going to be. It needs liberalism. Egypt won’t get it from the Muslim Brotherhood, nor was Egypt ever going to get it from Hosni Mubarak.

I have no idea if Egypt will get it any time soon. Unfortunately, the profoundly illiberal Muslim Brotherhood is a powerful force to be reckoned with. Something like the Iranian Revolution in 1979 may well be replicated, but it isn’t the only possible outcome. Indonesia managed to overthrow Suharto without bringing a Southeast Asian Khomeini to power, and Albanians face no threat of an Islamist takeover even decades after removing Enver Hoxha.

[Pirlo]

Mubarak is an asshole, just like 20 other assholes in the middle east... it has been proved over the past 12 days that no one wants him as a president.

go to egypt or at least watch a fair news channel like (Euronews for example) and you'll see 80 millions in egypt hate him...

for 30 years, his government has been trying to feed sedition between muslims & christians (divide & conquer)... but actually no side likes that jerk.. now there are 2 millions egyptians in Tahrir Square in Cairo protesting against (the entire government icons & legends). they belong to all sects in egypt.

you will find the same problem in most countries. here in Jordan, the government feeds the sedition between native jordanians and the other jordanians who were forced to leave/ transferred from Palestine in 1948/1967.... like black & white people in USA.. like sunny & shite in Iraq.. same shit everywhere... your government deceives you and leads to over-love your nation so they can easily use you in the right time and send you to fight while they gain power & money... that's why my profile proudly states that Nationalism + Patriotism = BULLSHIT

one more thing, Mubarak has been always as shit as Saddam, however, it has been recently proved that he's way worse than Saddam.. but Uncle Sam won't get him in trouble.. guess why. because he's their good dog, plus, there is no much oil & natural resources to attract the greedy forces to take part, so why would anybody care? "we will not interfere in egypt's interior matters" - said Obama 10 days ago. doh

- Andrea the Charmer

[Ray Rider]

you will find the same problem in most countries. here in Jordan, the government feeds the sedition between native jordanians and the other jordanians who were forced to leave/ transferred from Palestine in 1948/1967.... like black & white people in USA.. like sunny & shite in Iraq.. same shit everywhere... your government deceives you and leads to over-love your nation so they can easily use you in the right time and send you to fight while they gain power & money... that's why my profile proudly states that Nationalism + Patriotism = BULLSHIT

I appreciate the views and opinions of someone who is closer to the situation than most of us who are far removed from the situation; although I disagree with your conclusion.

one more thing, Mubarak has been always as shit as Saddam, however, it has been recently proved that he's way worse than Saddam..

I'm curious why you think Mubarak is worse than Saddam? Under his rule, over 150,000 Kurds were massacred in the Anfal campaign and around 5,000 were killed by chemical weapons (another 10,000 survived but were forced to live with lasting damage from the chemicals on their bodies). In addition, he was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Shiites, marsh Arabs, and, during the war with Kuwait, millions of barrels of oil being dumped in the Gulf (causing an environmental disaster). What has Mubarak done that compares with this? I've of torture, suppression of dissent, etc. which is horrible, but is no different than most other nations in the area and doesn't seem even close to what Saddam was responsible for. I'm genuinely interested in hearing what Mubarak's crimes are, since they don't seem to be very widely known.

but Uncle Sam won't get him in trouble.. guess why. because he's their good dog,

What can the US do? The US has been pushing for change and freedom in Egypt (as evidenced by Condoleeza Rice's speech there a while back), but Egypt has been one of the most stable of the Arab countries of the region. If the US pushed too hard, it might have caused a regime change ending in chaos or a worse government taking power (which may still happen). The biggest mistake the US has made with Egypt, in my opinion, is the billions of dollars in aid and military armaments which have been sent there for years. We have no idea who will control the army a month from now, and depending on the result, US allies may have to fight against it in the near future (like what happened with the US aid sent to Iraq before the first gulf war).

plus, there is no much oil & natural resources to attract the greedy forces to take part, so why would anybody care? "we will not interfere in egypt's interior matters" - said Obama 10 days ago. doh

Why should they interefere? The US has attempted to export democracy a few times in the last couple decades and it has met with resounding condemnation from most of the rest of the world. If the US were to send troops to help the protesters in Egypt, they would be condemned for invading another sovereign nation. Even if the US troops would be welcomed by the Egyptians and applauded by the rest of the world, the US is in no condition economically to be spending vast amounts on another military campaign. Not only that, but what alternative are the protesters putting forward? Nothing, as far as I can tell. They want Mubarak out (which is good; he deserves to be ousted); but there's no viable alternative, no organized party endorsing freedom, constitutional reform, and democracy which could fill the void of his absence.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wrong, overreaching. I simply wished to engage in a discussion about the possibility of an assassination, before an assassination possibly occurs. I further expounded the show, from what I percieved as challenges that assasinations in the middle east are rare or something, that they are actually quite commin, even in Egypt's history.

To add another dimension to the argument for both of you guys:

Mossad is also involved in several assassinations (and attempts) against many key leaders in many Middle Eastern countries and abroad, so we can't just look at Islamic extremists.

Of course. I have already seen arabic video posters saying the driver of this truck is Mossad.

However, only asking, if he were killed, would the Muslim Brotherhood be happy or sad? Any opinions?

Who? Mubarak? Of course they'd be happy--along with many others. He's a gutless dictator that has banned their political parties (along with others), and has unfairly imprisoned and tortured many political opponents.

[BigBallinStalin]

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich had a great editorial on Al-Jazeera about the reality of the CIA/Zionist-instigated revolt in Egypt. This is the same dirty trick the Obama-Bush regime tried to pull in Iran to undermine their democratically elected government, or that the Clinton regime successfully orchestrated in Serbia.

Citing Egypt's jobless and inordinate poverty, they would have us believe that the American 'social media', Twittter in particular, has prompted and aided the protests. They would have us believe that in spite of the fact that the Egyptians cry over the price of wheat, they have cell phones and access to social media. We are to accept that the poor, hungry, and jobless Egyptians are revolting against their lot by 'tweeting' in English. Their access to modern technology aside, we are told to accept that the knowledge of English among 80 million Egyptians is so strong that they can 'tweet' -- fully comfortable with Twitter abbreviations and acronyms. Else, we are to believe that Egypt is busy 'tweeting' in Arabic even if Twitter does not lend itself to Arabic anymore than it does to Persian.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/ ... ning!.html

(I should note, in interest of my ego, I said the same thing a few pages back.)

END OF LINE

It's so much that these revolts are instigated by the CIA or Mossad, it's just that the CIA and/or Mossad (like any other intelligence agency should) take advantage of an opportunity at the right time.

They observe, make plans, wait, and then engage. But, it's a balancing act: Throw too much fuel on the fire, and you burn down the entire forest.

The main cause of such revolts is from enough people rejecting the status quo, overcoming the freerider principle, and actually storming the streets demanding a change.

_______________________

Mr. Sepahpour-Ulrich is just speculating. Gambling with the future of a country by placing it in some CIA/Mossad-selected public figure's hands is a big gamble. Nothing's certain, many things can go wrong, and we'll have to wait and see if Mr. Sepahpour-Ulrich is absolutely correct if and only if the selected head honcho (or democratic institution) is actually hand-picked by the CIA and/or Mossad.

The bigger question is: Who's influencing who? I'm aware that many forces interact here, but to say that the CIA/Mossad/USA are the biggest influences may be stretching it.

[Phatscotty]

I believe this. Replace CIA/Mossad with Obama/Unions, we are on the same page. Mossad will be involved and probably already is, but I think Obama planted a few seeds in Cairo in 2009, and the unions are out taking credit for the revolution "citing their efforts over the last 2 years". Bill Ayers was there about 6 months ago also, and a couple other Obama pals.

"From the bottom up, and inside out"

This is why Obama supports Egypt rioters, but not Iranian protesters. Iran is already hostile to Israel.

This should be further supported by the reality of what Obama turning on the printing press has done to the value of the dollar, what that value has done to the availability of commodities like wheat and rice, and that lack of availability of said commodities to the people of Egypt, is what put them on the streets. Their food was taken away.

[BigBallinStalin]

This should be further supported by the reality of what Obama turning on the printing press has done to the value of the dollar, what that value has done to the availability of commodities like wheat and rice, and that lack of availability of said commodities to the people of Egypt, is what put them on the streets. Their food was taken away.

Not quite. Egypt's government is primarily responsible for its inability to feed its own people, and it has had such problems way before Obama was sworn in and way before things got crazy after 2008 and 2002-ish.

Egypt for the past several decades has had an ambitious "de-desertification" program that failed to be effective because the government itself is trying to see it through, and/or they're using the wrong tools to get the job done.

What they should've done is emulate a model like the Israelis' (kibutz and arable land reclamation methods), but that would require the government given more basic freedoms to the Egyptian people--which Egypt's government balks at or even fails to acknowledge.

[Phatscotty]

This should be further supported by the reality of what Obama turning on the printing press has done to the value of the dollar, what that value has done to the availability of commodities like wheat and rice, and that lack of availability of said commodities to the people of Egypt, is what put them on the streets. Their food was taken away.

Not quite. Egypt's government is primarily responsible for its inability to feed its own people, and it has had such problems way before Obama was sworn in and way before things got crazy after 2008 and 2002-ish.

Egypt for the past several decades has had an ambitious "de-desertification" program that failed to be effective because the government itself is trying to see it through, and/or they're using the wrong tools to get the job done.

What they should've done is emulate a model like the Israelis' (kibutz and arable land reclamation methods), but that would require the government given more basic freedoms to the Egyptian people--which Egypt's government balks at or even fails to acknowledge.

Yes, I agree. Did not mean to impose "only". Yes the dictator/gov't taxing/usurping/stealing a lot of money contributes to the problem as well.

However, the specific contributing action I am pointing at is Russia deciding not to send Egypt wheat. Just saying, if Russia was still sending the food, it wouldn't fix everything, but I would bet a lot less people would be in the street.

[BigBallinStalin]

This should be further supported by the reality of what Obama turning on the printing press has done to the value of the dollar, what that value has done to the availability of commodities like wheat and rice, and that lack of availability of said commodities to the people of Egypt, is what put them on the streets. Their food was taken away.

Not quite. Egypt's government is primarily responsible for its inability to feed its own people, and it has had such problems way before Obama was sworn in and way before things got crazy after 2008 and 2002-ish.

Egypt for the past several decades has had an ambitious "de-desertification" program that failed to be effective because the government itself is trying to see it through, and/or they're using the wrong tools to get the job done.

What they should've done is emulate a model like the Israelis' (kibutz and arable land reclamation methods), but that would require the government given more basic freedoms to the Egyptian people--which Egypt's government balks at or even fails to acknowledge.

Yes, I agree. Did not mean to impose "only". Yes the dictator/gov't taxing/usurping/stealing a lot of money contributes to the problem as well.

However, the specific contributing action I am pointing at is Russia deciding not to send Egypt wheat. Just saying, if Russia was still sending the food, it wouldn't fix everything, but I would bet a lot less people would be in the street.

Why did Russia stop selling the food? I was reading from the Bloomberg weekly about recent massive shortages in wheat in Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, and a 1% increase in Europe. It's no wonder people are angry--it's because the price has gone up. The higher transaction costs for shipping wheat from the US or Australia will raise the prices.

I wouldn't say that Russia itself is mainly responsible for this. It's just massive shortages and higher transaction costs (a.k.a. market forces).

[patches70]

Why did Russia stop selling the food? I was reading from the Bloomberg weekly about recent massive shortages in wheat in Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, and a 1% increase in Europe. It's no wonder people are angry--it's because the price has gone up. The higher transaction costs for shipping wheat from the US or Australia will raise the prices.

I wouldn't say that Russia itself is mainly responsible for this. It's just massive shortages and higher transaction costs (a.k.a. market forces).

Yes, there are shortages. Even in the US. Food stocks are the lowest in decades, and the USDA has been fudging the numbers and estimates for a while now. It is not widely known or reported on, except in the farming circles, who know the truth.

There have been massive strains in the last three growing seasons, and all the while the USDA has been reporting record harvests, which is a lie. The USDA had a vested interest in doing this, to attempt to control prices.

Russia stopped all exports because of a massive drought that severely limited their harvests. If they sell their wheat they don't have enough to feed themselves. This food crisis is going to get worse. The countries that import their food are going to be hit first. The exports are going to make big bucks but eventually food stocks could get too low. The recent events in Australia are putting even more pressure on food stocks as well. Oz has had a lot of crop loss due to wet weather conditions.

In countries like Egypt, where the average person spends 50% of their income on food, any increase in food prices is devastating. In countries like the US were the average person only spends 15% of their income on food, they have a lot more room to wiggle on prices.

It has been the policy of many nations to subsidize agriculture. To keep prices as low as possible. This seems like a good idea on the surface, except for one serious problem.

When you keep prices artificially low on certain items, those items suffer from over consumption. Over consumption leads to shortages, which lead to crisis just as we are seeing now.

[Phatscotty]

This should be further supported by the reality of what Obama turning on the printing press has done to the value of the dollar, what that value has done to the availability of commodities like wheat and rice, and that lack of availability of said commodities to the people of Egypt, is what put them on the streets. Their food was taken away.

Not quite. Egypt's government is primarily responsible for its inability to feed its own people, and it has had such problems way before Obama was sworn in and way before things got crazy after 2008 and 2002-ish.

Egypt for the past several decades has had an ambitious "de-desertification" program that failed to be effective because the government itself is trying to see it through, and/or they're using the wrong tools to get the job done.

What they should've done is emulate a model like the Israelis' (kibutz and arable land reclamation methods), but that would require the government given more basic freedoms to the Egyptian people--which Egypt's government balks at or even fails to acknowledge.

Yes, I agree. Did not mean to impose "only". Yes the dictator/gov't taxing/usurping/stealing a lot of money contributes to the problem as well.

However, the specific contributing action I am pointing at is Russia deciding not to send Egypt wheat. Just saying, if Russia was still sending the food, it wouldn't fix everything, but I would bet a lot less people would be in the street.

Why did Russia stop selling the food? I was reading from the Bloomberg weekly about recent massive shortages in wheat in Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, and a 1% increase in Europe. It's no wonder people are angry--it's because the price has gone up. The higher transaction costs for shipping wheat from the US or Australia will raise the prices.

I wouldn't say that Russia itself is mainly responsible for this. It's just massive shortages and higher transaction costs (a.k.a. market forces).

2 reasons. 1-speculators, but you can not have #1 without #2, loose fiscal policy, deteriorating/fluctuating currency, and negative interest rates, otherwise known as the US printing Press/QE. All that money was flushed out into the world, and it's blowing up bubbles in commodities, just like it always does in the end. First it was tech, then a bigger bubble in RE, now its in commodities, growing exponentially everytime.

What happened in the Nasdaq and Real Estate is happening to Food and Energy.

This is a good example I saw on TV, on MSNBC. But I like Dylan Ratigan so tough

SCHULTZ: Let’s bring in my colleague, Dylan Ratigan. He’s got his own show right here on MSNBC week days at 4:00, formerly of CNBC and Bloomberg News. Thanks for coming in tonight, Dylan. I appreciate it.

DYLAN RATIGAN, HOST, "THE DYLAN RATIGAN SHOW": It’s a pleasure.

SCHULTZ: I know that you have talked a lot about speculators and what has happened on Wall Street but this has really been a tsunami in the food world, which has caused a lot of havoc around the world.
Tell us, these price hikes, strictly due to speculation?

RATIGAN: No. First, I want to compliment you on your reporting, Ed. I think you just did an exquisitely good job of describing the contributing factor that financial speculation has been in the spike not just in food prices but also in energy prices.

Unfortunately, there are other factors also in the financial community that are even more sinister. There’s a mathematical certainty, Ed, that is this: all the paper currency in the world, all the money, all the paper, must by definition equal the value of all the commodities, because a commodity is equal to what the value of the currencies are in the world.

In order to cover up the massive bank theft that’s been perpetrated in this country in 2008, the Federal Reserve, under the guidance of first President Bush and now President Obama as you know, Ed, has been printing trillions of new dollars and people, smart financial planners, have been concerned about the debasing effect that has on our currency. Well, as a direct result of the Federal Reserve’s money printing, to cover up our bank theft, that has been an additional factor in causing commodity prices to explode higher.

So, in addition, to the speculative aspects that you describe so well, a by-product of the Federal Reserve and the White House and the Treasury’s decision to go with money printing as a way to prop up our economy, is driving food prices higher."

Notice something missing?

How about the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, both signed into law by former President Bill Clinton?

Not a peep! It all really does come back to Glass-Stegal

[Phatscotty]

okay, and according to patches, drought.



Wheat is up more than anything else. We are both right

[PLAYER57832]

Setting aside all those charts, the truth is that world agricultural policy toward "efficiency" really means destroying local food bases and the broad income of many smaller farmers. In short, "efficiency" on the large scale is very inefficient if your goal is to keep an economic system going, not just make a few people as rich as possible.

[Baron Von PWN]

okay, and according to patches, drought.



Wheat is up more than anything else. We are both right

For Russia it was mostly the drought. It was their worst drought in many many years, and they were also hit with massive wildfires which also affected agriculture. In response the Russian government banned wheat exports.

[BigBallinStalin]

Setting aside all those charts, the truth is that world agricultural policy toward "efficiency" really means destroying local food bases and the broad income of many smaller farmers. In short, "efficiency" on the large scale is very inefficient if your goal is to keep an economic system going, not just make a few people as rich as possible.

Well, that's why effectiveness is taken into account alongside efficiency.

Typically, one can be efficient and sometimes be effective, but if one is effective, the efficiency almost always follows.

[Phatscotty]

[saxitoxin]

Now leading in the polls for Egypt's next President ... Gen. Ahmed Shafik, former Prime Minister to Mubarak who once said "Hosni is like a father to me."

LOL at the US-backed Egyptian "Revolution"

I will now accept people to line-up in front of Saxi and present me with tributes.