Monday, January 31, 2011


The Continuing Argument Over Fiscal Policy

leadimage

01/31/11 Tampa, Florida – I note that a Bloomberg.com article reported that Jean-Claude Trichet – whom I refer to as “socialist moron Keynesian euro-trash halfwit,” but which everyone else refers to as European Central Bank President – is said to have said, while “speaking on behalf of the world’s central bankers,” that “the global economy has recovered better than expected, boosting inflation pressures in emerging markets.” Hahaha!

What Mr. Trichet literally said is that, “It’s clear that it is extremely important that we all keep control of inflation expectations, and that calls for appropriate decisions,” which is actually a relief, because I hate it when something is extremely important, yet not in control, like when my wife is so mad at me about something that is, apparently, extremely important, yet her anger is so uncontrolled in that she is stammering in rage “You…you…you…!”

And if I try to help her by asking, “What in the hell are you stammering about, now?” oddly enough, she gets worse! And her eyes kind of bug out, too! I mean, I can’t win here!

You can see the kind of crap that I have to put up with all the time!

And it doesn’t get any better with this Trichet character, either, as he says that it is clear, and that it is extremely important, to “keep control of inflation expectations” which, in this case, is apparently achieved by saying lying, stupid things like how the economy has recovered “better than expected,” which is only true if you expected the world to erupt in anarchist flames where everything gets destroyed in a hyperinflationary catastrophic bankruptcy that sweeps around the world while flying saucers invade the Earth and enslave us all, or Democrats invade the Earth and enslave us all, one’s as bad as the other, probably.

And so, explains Mr. Trichet, the “recovery,” which is better than expected, is why price inflation is up! Hahaha!

And the lie of a recovering economy makes it suddenly OK that the poor, and everyone else, for that matter, slip a little closer to starvation because rising prices for food and energy consumes all their income?

What kind of crazy, demonic government is that? The same kind as America has, that’s what kind! Hahaha!

And that – that! – is why I am a proud Tea Party member who wishes us the best, and who laments the fact that it is Far, Far Too Late (FFTL) to do anything, like a car going 90 miles an hour sailing off a cliff after careening crazily down a perilous and steep mountain road.

As the car sails though the air, two guys inside are arguing, one saying, “More spending!” and the other saying, “Less taxes!”

Now, there are those that do not understand that such examples of Real Mogambo Humor (RMH) are very, very subtle, and thus not suited to the masses, who do not see the glaring, obvious connection between comparative economic virtues of more spending or less taxes and the prospect of a speeding car going over a cliff and smashing onto the rocks below, everyone inside screaming in fear all the way down, until the sudden stop kills everyone in a horrible, gruesome death milliseconds before the car bursts into flames, destroying everything, including whatever the car landed upon, probably an endangered species of some kind, or somebody’s mailbox, which aren’t cheap.

And when people gather around to see what happened, they will ask, “What happened?” If they did, then I would tell them that two guys in the car went over a cliff because they were arguing about fiscal policy when they should have been, instead, in total agreement to complain about the Federal Reserve creating so freakishly much money!”

If I did, I am sure that they would look at me with those same blank looks of incomprehension and befuddled stupefaction that are on the faces of the people in the security video that shows I am peacefully standing in line, waiting for a cashier, and I am exercising my First Amendment rights by passing the time saying to the cashiers as I waited, “Take your time, morons! The longer you wait to ring up my sale, the utility of my purchase is still new and undiminished, even as my money becomes more worthless, losing purchasing value with every tick of the clock – tick tock, tick tock, tick tock! – because the foul Federal Reserve is creating $100 billion of new money Per Freaking Month (PFM)!”

I expected, as I always expect, someone to say, “Well said! Well said, handsome, intelligent stranger to whom the bewildering world of economics seems but children’s toys!”

Well, they didn’t. So you can see on the video where I tell them, “The Federal Reserve is creating money out of thin air so that the corrupt government can borrow the money and spend it, which increases the money supply, which distorts everything, leading to weird bubbles and busts, mostly busts, fads and flops, mostly flops, and inflation, inflation, inflation that is going to eat you alive!”

This is when the security video shows the security guard coming over and asking me to leave, which I do, but not before saying, in my most melodramatic Mogambo eloquence and with a theatrical dismissive wave of my arm, “You have been warned, earthlings!”

It’s too bad that the video does not have a sound track, and thus there is no official record of my voice trailing off into the distance, saying, “So buy gold and silver, you morons! Gold and silver!”

I hope I did some good!

China’s Urban Underground Dwellers

China’s Urban Underground Dwellers

leadimage

01/31/11 Stockholm, Sweden – In a city of about 20 million, it’s no surprise Beijing has more than its fair share of housing challenges. However, a solution that’s become common for many average wage earners is not one you would probably guess they’d consider first… living underground in a 30-square mile network of air defense basements. The bunkers were originally built as shelter to protect citizens in the event of foreign air raids, and the Telegraph estimates that “as many as a million people live in small, windowless rooms that rent for £30 to £50 a month.” For the time being, despite China’s rising wealth, the homes are some of the only affordable housing options available to Beijing’s migrant laborers.

According to the Telegraph:

“In a Beijing suburb, beneath one of the thousands of faceless residential tower blocks that have carpeted the city’s peripheries in a decade-long building frenzy, one of Beijing’s ‘bomb shelter hoteliers’, as they are known, agrees to show us his wares. Passing under a green sign proclaiming ‘Air Defence Basement’, Mr Zhao leads us down two flights of stairs to the network of corridors and rooms that were designed to offer sanctuary in the event of war or disaster.

“‘We have two sizes of room,’ he says, stepping past heaps of clutter belonging to residents, most of whom work in the nearby cloth wholesale market. ‘The small ones [6ft by 9ft] are 300 yuan [£30] the big ones [15ft by 6ft] are 500 yuan.’

“Beijing is estimated to have 30 square miles of tunnels and basements, some constructed after the Sino-Soviet split of 1969, when Mao’s China feared a Soviet missile strike, and many more constructed since to act as more modern emergency refuges. [...] ‘Some 80pc of our tenants are girls working in the wholesale market and the rest are peddlers selling vegetables or running sidewalk snack booths,’ he adds. ‘There are dozens of similar air defence basement projects in residential communities. In this area, they say 100,000 live underground.’”

Time will tell whether or not there is a bubble in China real estate. On the one hand, there are fewer mortgages in China than in the US, and therefore less of that type of home ownership speculation. On the other hand, the article points out that a very basic small apartment, about 860 square feet, now costs over 2,000,000 yuan, while the typical monthly salary is about 4,000 yuan. This means, “the average person would take 50 years to buy such an apartment, assuming they saved every penny they earned.” You can read more details, and arrive at your own conclusion, by visiting the Telegraph’s coverage of the underground world that hints at China’s coming crisis.

The Meddling of Global “Thinkers”

The Meddling of Global “Thinkers”

leadimage

01/31/11 Baltimore, Maryland – Now here’s something interesting. Every year, Foreign Policy magazine produces a list of the Top 100 Global Thinkers in the World. We picked up the list…looking for our own name.

But wait…

The key is that these are “global” thinkers. They’re not just thinkers, in other words, they are people who are thinking about how people on the other side of the planet should conduct their business.

We were suspicious even before we looked at the list. “Foreign Policy”? We’re against it. Why should we worry about things that don’t concern us?

“Well… You can’t put your head in the sand,” you might reply. “You have to be concerned, because things that happen overseas do affect you.”

Yes, that is true. They affect us. But so does the price of whiskey, the traffic on the Beltway, and the weather. None of them is worth thinking about. We can do nothing about them. And it would be indecent for us to try.

Imagine if we took an interest in the whiskey distiller’s business. What could we do? Try to force him to lower his prices? Try to show him how to operate more efficiently – as if we could know? Set up a buyers’ cartel to negotiate for lower prices? At best, we’d be wasting our time. At worse, we might succeed! Then, whiskey producers would be responding not to market forces…but to meddlers’ forces. What a mess that would be!

Meddling with things close at hand is bad enough. Meddling with things far away is worse. Remember our Daily Reckoning dictum: ignorance increases by the square of the distance. The farther you get away the harder it is to tell what is going on. The details disappear. All you can make out are the rough outlines. Shadows…reflections…silhouettes… In the darkness, you step on every rake and fall into every hole.

The next thing you know, you are calling for “reforms” in countries you’ve never even visited…setting the price of China’s money…and invading Iraq.

But let’s look at who Foreign Policy magazine thinks are the 100 Top Global Thinkers.

Uh oh. In the first and second place are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Hmmm… They’re smart guys. But what makes them “thinkers”? What have they been thinking about? And what are their thoughts on the subject?

FP says they are there, not for their contributions to the wealth of mankind, but for their philanthropic activities. Wait a minute. What’s philanthropy got to do with thinking?

Okay… We’re stumped on that one… So, who’s the number 3 thinker? Barack Obama! Hold on… This is getting silly. Have you ever heard Barack Obama come up with an original thought? Or any kind of thought worthy of the word? No. That’s not his thing. He’s a politician. Politicians are not thinkers. They may be doers…but they’re not thinkers. Obama gives us plenty of empty expressions and hollow words – “change you can believe in”…“hope”… “winning the future” – but real thoughts? Original ideas? Nope.

Generally, politicians are not thinkers. Occasionally, you get a politician who pretends to be a thinker – such as Princeton University chief Woodrow Wilson. But he almost invariably turns out to be a jackass and a fool.

There must be exceptions – Marcus Aurelius and Thomas Jefferson come to mind. But they seem ill-suited to the political profession and probably should have eschewed public office in the first place.

So let’s keep moving. There must be someone on this list who is a real thinker.

Let’s look back at last year…let’s see…who was FP’s top thinker?

Ben Bernanke!

Well, that does it for us. What’s the matter with these people? Can’t they tell the different between tired hacks with worn-out, crackpot ideas…and real thinkers?

The Foreign Policy editors should do some real thinking of their own. Then, maybe they’d mind their own business.

Operation Vigilant Guard: Foreign Troops Training To Confiscate Guns of ...

Max Keiser: The Coming Global Currency - Alex Jones Tv 1/4

The Riots In Egypt And The Price Of Oil

The Riots In Egypt And The Price Of Oil

As if the world economy did not have enough problems already, now the riots in Egypt threaten to send the price of oil soaring into the stratosphere. On Friday, the price of U.S. crude soared 4 percent. A 4 percent rise in a single day is pretty staggering. The price of Brent crude in London closed just under the magic $100 a barrel mark at $99.42. The incredibly violent riots in Egypt have financial markets all over the globe on edge right now. Any time there is violence or war in the Middle East it has a dramatic impact on financial markets, but this time things seem even more serious than usual. Many believe that we could see an entirely new Egyptian government emerge out of this crisis, and the uncertainty that would bring would make investors all around the globe nervous. Financial markets like predictability, peace and security. If Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's 30 year reign is brought to an end, it will severely shake up the entire region, and that will not be good news for the global economy.

Have you seen how violent these protests have become? Cars and buildings are on fire all over the place. Even the headquarters of Hosni Mubarak's political party was burned down. The Egyptian military has been deployed on the streets of Cairo. Protesters have been showering government forces with stones, firebombs and anything else that they can find to throw. Security forces have been using rubber bullets, water cannons and tear gas to try to disperse the protesters but those efforts seem to be doing little good. Deaths and injuries are being reported all over the place. There are even rumors that the wife and son of Hosni Mubarak have already left the country.

At this point, Mubarak has gone on national television and has announced that he has asked his cabinet to resign. That is an absolutely stunning move, but it is doubtful that the protesters will be satisfied. All over Cairo protesters continue to chant for Mubarak to resign.

The following is a short compilation of some raw video from the riots in Egypt....

These riots in Egypt come on the heels of violent uprisings in Algeria and Tunisia. In fact, it seems like virtually the entire Middle East is in a very foul mood right now. Riots have been reported in Lebanon, in Jordan and in Yemen over the past few days.

Some of the rioting has been motivated by economic factors, but unfortunately all of this rioting is only going to make the global economic situation even worse. Concern over all of these riots is driving up the price of oil and driving up the prices of agricultural commodities. These higher prices are going to make it even harder for the poor people in the Middle East to afford food.

But also it must be acknowledged that much of this rioting is being done for very deep political and religious reasons as well. Many westerners are cheering the protests in Egypt because they envision the protesters to be some sort of "freedom fighters". But the vast majority of these protesters do not desire "American-style democracy". The Muslim Brotherhood is one of the groups at the heart of these protests. The government that they intend to set up would not give "liberty and freedom for all". Rather, it would be a hardline Islamic government based on Shariah law. According to Wikipedia, the Muslim Brotherhood bills itself as the "world's most influential Islamist movement", and their goal is to impose their version of Islam on society....

The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state"

So unless your version of "freedom" includes being forced to live like the Taliban, then you probably would not enjoy the "liberty" that the Muslim Brotherhood wishes to impose on you.

Coptic Christians all over Egypt are already being slaughtered even with a relatively pro-western president in power. On New Year's Day, an attack on a Coptic Christian church in Egypt killed 21 people. The following is how one eyewitness described the scene to a reporter from the New York Times....

“There were bodies on the streets,” said Sherif Ibrahim, who saw the blast’s aftermath. “Hands, legs, stomachs. Girls, women and men.”

Once a radical Islamic government is installed in Egypt it will be open season on all Christians.

Yes, there is a whole lot of blame to be passed around to other nations, organizations and individuals in the Middle East for things they have done as well, but that does not excuse the horrific persecution of the Coptic Christians in Egypt.

We have to call a spade a spade. We cannot condemn some forms of tyranny and persecution and then make excuses for other forms of tyranny and persecution just because those doing it are on "our side".

Replacing one form of tyranny (Mubarak) with an even more repressive form of tyranny (The Muslim Brotherhood) is not something that those who love liberty and freedom should be celebrating.

In any event, everyone should be able to agree that these events are going to severely rattle world financial markets that were already very nervous about 2011.

If these violent riots in Egypt and other countries in the Middle East keep going on, the global price of oil and the global price of food will continue to soar.

Not that oil and food were not going to be heading in that direction anyway. Yesterday I wrote about the warning signs for the global economy that we are starting to see. Wheat and corn have absolutely skyrocketed in price over the past 6 months. The UN had already been projecting that we would see a 30 percent increase in the global price of food in 2011 even before these riots.

If you add rampant political instability into the mix, there is no telling how bad food inflation could get this year.

Many experts have already been forecasting substantial food shortages throughout the world this year based on all the extreme weather we have been having. So what is going to happen if something causes those food shortages to be even worse than anticipated?

We live in very interesting times my friends. The globe is becoming an increasingly unstable place. Even nations that seemed perfectly stable just a few months ago can erupt in rioting at almost any moment.

People around the world are getting angry. Thanks to the Internet, people are able to circumvent official government propaganda more easily than ever before. This is making it harder and harder for governments to control people.

Egypt tried to regain some of that control during the riots by shutting down cell phones and by shutting down the Internet but it did not work.

Let's just hope that Egypt can soon find peace and that the changes that are made in the Egyptian government are good for freedom and liberty.

Share and Enjoy:

Warning Signs

Warning Signs

Do you see all of the warning signs that are flashing all around you? These days it seems like there is more bad economic news in a single week than there used to be in an entire month. 2011 is already shaping up to be a very dark year for the world economy. The price of food is shooting through the roof and we have already seen violent food riots in countries like Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia. World financial markets are becoming increasingly unstable as the sovereign debt crisis continues to get worse. Meanwhile, the number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits is up, foreclosures are up and poverty continues to spread like a plague throughout the United States. What we are starting to see around the globe is a lot like the "stagflation" of the 1970s. All of the crazy money printing that has been going on is overheating prices for agricultural commodities and precious metals, but all of this new money is not doing much to help the average man or woman on the street.

Do you remember what the economy was like in America during the 70s? We had high unemployment and high inflation at the same time. It was horrible. Well, all the warning signs are there for a stagflation repeat. Unemployment is at epidemic levels and it isn't showing any signs of decreasing much any time soon. Meanwhile, the crazy money printing that the Federal Reserve and other central banks have been doing is starting to cause significant inflation. The price of oil is about to cross the 100 dollar a barrel mark and the UN is forecasting that the global price of food is going to increase by 30 percent by the end of the year.

So, yes, there are some really, really good reasons to be incredibly concerned about the global economy in 2011.

Meanwhile, the only solutions that our global leaders seem to be offering are more money printing, more government debt and more financial control by international organizations.

The truth is that we have a real mess on our hands. The following are 20 economic warning signs that should be of great concern to all of us....

#1 Over the past seven days, the price of wheat has risen by 11 percent as concerns about food shortages continue to grow around the world.

#2 The price of corn is up a staggering 94 percent since last June.

#3 The United Nations is projecting that the global price of food will increase by 30 percent in 2011.

#4 According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits rose last week to the highest level since last October.

#5 According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, of the 14 million Americans "officially" unemployed in December, 30% of them had been unemployed for one year or longer.

#6 Beginning in the month of March, the U.S. Postal Service will begin shutting down up to 2,000 post offices across the United States.

#7 In an absolutely stunning move, Standard & Poor's has downgraded Japanese government debt from AA to AA-.

#8 72 percent of the major metropolitan areas in the United States had more foreclosures in 2010 than they did in 2009.

#9 Approximately 5 million homeowners in the United States are at least two months behind on their mortgages, and it is being projected that over a million American families will be booted out of their homes this year alone.

#10 According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Social Security system will run a deficit of 45 billion dollars this year. When the new payroll tax breaks are factored in, the projected "Social Security deficit" for this year swells to 130 billion dollars.

#11 The U.S. money supply has been rising at a pace that is absolutely unprecedented.

#12 Right now, money is flowing out of bonds at an absolutely staggering pace.

#13 The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics says that the price of food increased 50 percent faster than the overall rate of inflation during 2010.

#14 According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, visits to soup kitchens are up 24 percent over the past year.

#15 During the last school year, almost half of all school children in the state of Illinois came from families that were considered to be "low-income".

#16 Those living in the town of Discovery Bay, California will soon not be permitted to use cash to pay for any public services. Could this be another disturbing step in the direction of a cashless society?

#17 French President Nicolas Sarkozy says that the IMF should be given the power to enforce new rules that would be designed to prevent "global economic imbalances" from happening.

#18 The U.S. government is currently borrowing about 40 cents of every single dollar that it spends.

#19 According to the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. government will have the biggest budget deficit ever recorded (approximately 1.5 trillion dollars) this year.

#20 It is being projected that the U.S. national debt will increase by $150,000 per U.S. household between 2009 and 2021.

So is there any good news?

Well, yes there is.

U.S. Representative Ron Paul has introduced a new bill to audit the Federal Reserve. Let us hope that the move to audit the Fed fares better in the 112th Congress than it did in the 111th Congress. It would be wonderful if the American people could actually learn what has been going on inside the Fed all this time.

But mostly the news about the global economy is really bad. There have been some people that have been warning for decades that all of this money printing and all of this government debt would eventually catch up with us. Now we have almost reached the moment of reckoning that the doomsayers have been warning about for so long, and it is going to be really painful to go through it.

Thanks to the greatest debt bubble in the history of the world, we have been living beyond our means for decades. When "times were good" it was not because either the Republicans or the Democrats were doing something right. The truth is that both political parties have been horribly addicted to government debt. The debt-fueled prosperity that our politicians purchased for us is starting to come to an end, and an economic implosion is coming that most Americans will never see coming.

But hopefully most of the readers of this article are much wiser than the average American. The warning signs are there. Now is the time to take action and get prepared.

Shut Down The Federal Reserve

Shut Down The Federal Reserve, Break Up The Big Banks And 16 Other Ideas Barack Obama Could Have Proposed If He Actually Wanted To Fix The Economy

How do we fix the economy? That is a question that tens of millions of Americans are asking right now. Republicans are harshly criticizing the empty economic proposals being put forward by Barack Obama and the Democrats, but the Republicans don't seem to have any real solutions either. There is talk of cutting taxes a little bit more, reducing federal spending a little bit and getting rid of a few useless federal regulations but doing any of those things would essentially be like spitting into Niagara Falls - the effect would not really be noticeable at all. As this column has documented over and over and over, the economic and financial problems that we are facing are so enormous that radical solutions are needed. In essence, what we need is not an "economic bandage" or two - what we need is major reconstructive surgery. If dramatic action is not taken, our economy is going to completely collapse.

Is anything that Barack Obama is currently proposing going to help fix the economy? No, of course not. As I wrote about the other day, Obama's address to the nation was packed with empty promises and a whole lot of inspirational nonsense. There were no real solutions to the very real problems we are facing.

So is there anything that we could do to actually start fixing things?

Yes, but the solutions are radical. They would cause quite a bit of chaos. They would not be easy for people to accept.

But the truth is that our economy and our financial system have terminal cancer. If something radical is not done quickly we are going to lose the patient.

The following are 16 ideas that Barack Obama could have proposed if he actually wanted to fix the economy....

#1 We Must Shut Down The Federal Reserve

If you are not willing to accept this, you may as well not read the rest of the solutions. The truth is that the U.S. government will never be able to solve the national debt problem until the Federal Reserve is shut down. The U.S. government should nationalize all Federal Reserve assets and start issuing currency that is completely and totally debt-free.

Under such a system, it is conceivable that U.S. budget deficits could be eliminated entirely and that over time the entire U.S. government debt could be retired.

One of the biggest threats of going to such a system would be inflation, but remember, the United States has only had a major, ongoing problem with inflation since the Federal Reserve was created back in 1913. The U.S. dollar has lost well over 95 percent of its value since the Federal Reserve was created, and so it is hard to imagine that we would do even worse without the Federal Reserve.

In any event, it is the fundamental right of any sovereign nation to be able to issue and control its own currency. This right was given to the U.S. government by the U.S. Constitution and it is time for the U.S. government to reclaim that right.

#2 We Must End Trade With All Nations That Allow Their Citizens To Be Paid Slave Labor Wages Or That Do Not Respect Basic Human Rights

This would dramatically reduce the "outsourcing" of our jobs and our industries almost overnight. The truth is that it was never a good idea to put American workers in direct competition with hundreds of millions of workers that are making slave labor wages on the other side of the globe.

Trading with nations that have a similar wage structure to ours and that respect basic human rights (Canada, for example) is a very good thing. However, all of the "free trade" agreements that politicians from both parties have been pushing down our throats for decades are literally wrecking the U.S. economy.

Since 2001, over 42,000 factories have been shut down in the United States. This proposal would go a long way towards stopping the bleeding, and if some of these countries are willing to raise their wage levels significantly then we would be able to resume trade with them in the future on a much more level playing field.

#3 We Must Radically Reduce The Size Of The Federal Government

Our big, fat government is a big, fat drain on our economy. We have millions of paper pushers that don't contribute much of anything of real value.

Not only that, but some of the things that the U.S. government wastes money on are absolutely mind blowing. There is a reason why our founders insisted that we have a very limited government. It is time to get back to those principles.

The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the U.S. government budget deficit for this year will be nearly $1.5 trillion.

Talk about ridiculous!

I estimate that we could easily cut the size of government in half without hampering how effective it is.

We could start by abolishing the Department of Education. After that, there are several dozen other government agencies and institutions which are worthy candidates for elimination.

#4 We Must Provide Temporary Jobs For The American People During The Economic Transition

If the Federal Reserve is shut down and the size of the federal government is cut in half, it would cause quite a bit of economic chaos. During this transition it will be important to help people survive.

Instead of just passing out a bunch of handouts, a better alternative would be getting the American people working on something constructive.

During this time, the U.S. government could use all of the untapped labor of the unemployed to build massive infrastructure projects.

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, we need to spend approximately $2.2 trillion on infrastructure repairs and upgrades just to bring our existing infrastructure up to "good condition".

So there is certainly a lot to do.

These jobs would just be temporary until new manufacturing facilities are set up and jobs in private industry are plentiful again.

Having the American people produce something of value is better than just handing them endless unemployment checks.

#5 We Must Ban All Short Selling

When you allow greedy individuals the opportunity to make lots of money by betting against the U.S. economy, it gives those individuals an incentive to make sure that those bets pay off.

Yes, this proposal is controversial, but it just makes sense. If people want to make money, it should be because a company is doing well and not because someone is failing.

#6 We Must Ban Virtually All Derivatives

Once upon a time, derivatives were for hedging risk, but that is not what they are primarily being used for anymore.

Now derivatives are being used to bet on almost anything that you can possibly imagine.

Our financial markets have been turned into a gigantic financial casino.

The derivatives bubble is somewhere in the neighborhood of one quadrillion dollars and it could burst at any moment.

These weapons of financial mass destruction must be banned.

#7 We Must Break Up The Big Wall Street Banks

The big Wall Street banks have far too much power and far too much control. They have come to dominate our entire financial system.

In a capitalist system, too much power concentrated in too few hands is not a good thing. The corruption that has gone on at many of these institutions is absolutely unbelievable.

These banks need to be broken up into much smaller pieces for the good of our country.

#8 We Must Initiate A Massive Law Enforcement Crackdown On Our Financial Markets

As noted above, the corruption that has been going on down on Wall Street has been absolutely sickening. We need a massive law enforcement crackdown on all of this fraud in order to restore faith in the financial system.

Just one small example of this corruption happened during the recent housing crash. Goldman Sachs sold mortgage-related securities that were absolute junk to trusting clients at vastly overinflated prices and then made huge profits betting against those exact same securities.

So do you think that Goldman Sachs or any of the other major players on Wall Street will ever receive more than a slap on the wrist for all the things that have gone on in recent years?

Of course they won't - unless the American people start demanding it.

#9 We Must Order U.S. Oil Companies To Use Untapped Oil Reserves In The United States And We Must Aggressively Develop Alternative Energy Sources

Right now, the price of oil is pushing up towards 100 dollars a barrel. If oil passes that mark, it is going to put tremendous inflationary pressure on the entire global economy.

Sadly, there is no need for such a high price for oil. There are vast, vast reserves of oil that are virtually untapped inside the United States. These are mostly in the western states and up in Alaska. We have enough to supply very cheap oil to the entire country for decades.

The U.S. government needs to order these oil companies to quit playing games and to start pumping this oil.

However, it is undeniable that we also need to develop alternative energy sources. In fact, we should set up a "Manhattan Project"-style team to aggressively pursue this goal.

In the past, U.S. oil and car companies have blatantly repressed alternative energy projects. The U.S. government should tell U.S. corporate executives that if they ever even think of doing such a thing again that they will be locked away so fast that it will make their heads swim.

#10 We Must Stop Paying Farmers Not To Grow Food

Instead of paying farmers not to grow food, we need to find ways to encourage them to grow as much food as possible. A horrible global food crisis is coming and we are going to need huge stockpiles of everything.

#11 We Must Secure The U.S. border With Mexico

Illegal immigration costs the U.S. economy tens of billions of dollars (conservatively) every single year. We need to secure the border and make sure that all of our immigrants are coming through the "front door".

#12 We Must Shut Down The IRS

Did you know that the United States has only had an income tax for less than 100 years? For most of our history, the U.S. government got along just fine without taxing personal income.

The IRS is massive waste of time, energy and resources. There are many alternatives that could easily replace the income tax and the ridiculous tax code that we have right now.

For example, a flat tax or a national sales tax could both potentially work, although both have their problems.

Personally, I am convinced that we could have a system that would not require any taxation of income by the U.S. government whatsoever.

Just imagine how much time, how much energy and how many resources would be saved!

#13 We Must Slash Red Tape And The Miles Of Ridiculous Regulations

In the United States today, you almost have to be insane to start up a new business. When you consider all sources of taxation, U.S. businesses face one of the highest overall levels of taxation in the entire world. Not only that, but U.S. businesses face miles and miles of absolutely ridiculous regulations and red tape.

As I wrote about in a previous article, if you want to do business in the United States today, you better be prepared for a regulatory nightmare....

If you plan to start a business in America today, you better get a hold of a good lawyer. In fact, if you want to be safe, you better get a small army of lawyers. You are going to need an expert on the federal regulations that apply to your business, you are going to need an expert on the state regulations that apply to your business and you are going to need an expert on the local regulations that apply to your business.

There are going to literally be thousands of regulations that apply to any business started inside the United States today. There is no way that you will ever be able to learn them all. Not only that, but the truth is that your lawyers will only be aware of a small fraction of them.

Until the regulatory environment in this country dramatically changes, companies are going to continue to be motivated to leave the United States.

#14 We Must Conduct A Massive Law Enforcement Crackdown On The Health Care Industry

It should not cost $30,000 for a one day stay in the hospital in this country.

The truth is that the American people are being ripped off big time.

We need to conduct a massive law enforcement crackdown on all the big hospitals and all the big health care companies.

We need to conduct a massive law enforcement crackdown on all the big health insurance companies.

We need to conduct a massive law enforcement crackdown on all the big pharmaceutical companies.

We also need massive medical malpractice reform.

Not only that, we also should end the monopoly of the AMA immediately. We need to reintroduce honest, legitimate competition back into the medical system.

In addition, we need to make sure that natural health practitioners are able to compete on a fair and equal basis in this country.

As I have written about previously, the health care industry in the United States has become all about making as much money as possible.

That must change.

#15 We Must Stop Trying To Police The World

We will always need a very strong military force, but it is absolutely ridiculous that we have troops stationed in approximately 130 different countries today.

This is a tremendous drain on our national resources and we are spread way too thin militarily. It is about time that many off these other countries started protecting themselves for a while.

#16 We Must Pull Out Of The United Nations And We Must Dramatically Reduce Foreign Aid

The United Nations is a massive waste of time, energy and resources. We should have pulled the plug on that ridiculous globalist organization long before now.

In addition, we need to dramatically cut back on foreign aid until we get our own house in order. We should only help the most desperate nations until we get our own economy back on track.

#17 We Must End All Of The Ridiculous Police State Measures Which Are Chasing Tourists Away From Our Soil

Tourism is a very, very important industry to the United States. But today, all of the incredibly intrusive police state measures that the past few administrations have introduced are chasing millions of tourists away and are ruining our national reputation.

For example, there are many cultures around the globe where it would be unthinkable to have anonymous security goons feel up the private areas of women and children before they are allowed to get on an airplane. Rather than put up with such nonsense, millions of tourists are simply going to choose to spend their money somewhere else.

#18 We Must Seize The Assets Of The Ultra-Wealthy Individuals And International Banks That Have Been Committing Fraud Against The U.S. Government For Decades

Once the Federal Reserve is shut down, it will be important to hold those that have been defrauding the U.S. government responsible. Once a full audit of the Federal Reserve is conducted and evidence of criminal activity is uncovered, those involved should be arrested and all of their assets should be seized and frozen pending trial.

If the things that have been going on inside the Federal Reserve are ever fully exposed, it will make the whole Bernie Madoff scandal look like a nickel and dime operation.

But that is why there has never been a full, comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve since it was created back in 1913. The American people are not supposed to see what happens inside that institution.

Unfortunately, even though economic times are a little rough, things are still good enough that the vast majority of Americans are not ready to start demanding the kind of radical changes listed above.

Not only that, but the kind of radical changes listed above would be fought against by the establishment every step of the way. Those with money and power are not going to step aside just because "justice" demands it.

What is probably going to happen is that the "establishment politicians" that the establishment has bought and paid for are just going to continue to propose half-baked solutions to our problems as this country continues to tumble towards economic oblivion.

So what do all of you readers think? Is there hope that someday we will see some real economic solutions implemented in this country?

Silicon Valley comes to Davos

Silicon Valley comes to Davos

by M. B. | DAVOS

ALTHOUGH the best-known leaders of corporate America, starting with Jeff Immelt of GE, were noticeable in Davos by their absence, Silicon Valley was out in force, and determined to make news. Your correspondent was at dinner with Reid Hoffman when he interrupted the conversation to say that the firm he had founded, LinkedIn, had filed to go public five minutes earlier, and that he could not discuss it any further as he was now in the job-networking website's pre-IPO quiet period.

Andrew Mason, the founder of Groupon, a discounting website, was also in Davos, enjoying his first 15 minutes of fame for running what by some measures is the fastest-growing start-up in the history of the universe.

So too was Barry Silbert, the founder of Second Market, which has been letting Facebook insiders sell their shares at rapidly escalating prices. There was much debate among the Silicon Valley crowd about whether Second Market has a big future, by allowing founders of startups to bank some money without going public or selling the firm, or a gloomy one, with its main source of business drying up as, now seems inevitable, Facebook looks like going public next year at the latest.

In recent years, Google has been the main provider of Silicon Valley coolness at Davos, not least through its legendary Friday night party. Whereas the McKinsey party on the Thursday night has thrived because it never changes—always giving Davos Man and Woman plenty of opportunity to work up a sweat by flying in the usual terrific band—Google has relied, fittingly, on innovative party curation. But this year's party was too similar to last year's, including the same over-loud music, fishy food served by waiters in costume and obnoxious bouncers.

Unlike in some previous years, there was not even a sighting of the Google Guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, strutting their stuff on the dance floor: they both followed the trend for top American executives staying home this year.

Bono's return was the only significant appearance of a genuine celebrity, though for many Davos People the most exciting "celebrity" sighting was of Sean Parker, the founder of Napster, a pioneering music-sharing website—though this was mainly due to what he describes as a "character with the same name as me" in a film about the early days of Facebook that he enthusiastically denounced during Davos, "The Social Network". The next big thing in tech, according to Mr Parker? "Synchronistic communication", whatever that is.

Just before meeting Mr Parker, your correspondent interviewed Daniel Ek, the Swedish founder of what is regarded as the heir to Napster, a music sharing site called Spotify. This is that rare thing, a hot European tech start-up. American music lovers will be pleased to learn that Spotify should soon be available on their side of the Atlantic.

Although nobody was talking about Google this year, there was scarcely a conversation in Davos that did not mention Facebook—and the social-networking monster did not even fulfil its responsibility to throw a party. Events in the outside world helped, with Facebook being credited with a crucial role in the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. The firm was not represented by its controversial boss, Mark Zuckerberg, but by its two top female executives—itself somewhat revolutionary for the still male-heavy Davos stage.

Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook's chief operating officer, personified the shift away from Google, as she had previously attended Davos as an employee of the search firm, where she had held a similar role. Randi Zuckerberg, Mark's sister and Facebook's marketing supremo, also broke new ground on Davos panels by being a pregnant female executive in her 20s—though sadly the impending new arrival meant that she could not repeat her legendary past performance of Son of A Preacher Man in the smoky Piano Bar where so many Davos attendees congregate after all the other parties are done.

The Davos conversations about the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt highlighted a tension that was present in many of this year's discussions about technology. More than ever, there was agreement that social media are dramatically disrupting many traditional arrangements around the world, in business and in politics. Yet there was also a growing sense that this may not be an entirely good thing. Yes, the change of government in Tunisia was celebrated enthusiastically, putting in power executives from firms familiar to Davos Man such as Sungard and Fidelity. But, after the obligatory condemnation of a government turning off the internet, there was much debate about how to feel about events in Egypt, and the prospect of a Facebook-enabled rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The battle of Cairo is over, or is it?

The battle of Cairo is over, or is it?

by M.R. | CAIRO

I KNEW it was truly over when I came home to find a neighbour in a panic. He had smelled a fire nearby. We traced its source soon enough, after climbing to the roof of my building. Smoke drifted from the garden of the villa next door, where workers had recently been digging a peculiarly deep hole, as if for a swimming pool. In a far corner of the garden stood rows of cardboard boxes spilling over with freshly shredded paper, and next to them a smouldering fire.

More intriguingly, a group of ordinary looking young men sat on the lawn, next to the hole. More boxes surrounded them, and from these the men extracted, one by one, what looked like cassette tapes and compact discs. After carefully smashing each of these with hammers, they tossed them into the pit. Down at its bottom another man shovelled wet cement onto the broken bits of plastic. More boxes kept appearing, and their labours continued all afternoon.

The villa, surrounded by high walls, is always silent. Cars, mostly unobtrusive Fiats and Ladas, slip in and out of its automatic security gates at odd hours, and fluorescent light peeps through shuttered windows late in the night. This happens to be an unmarked branch office of one of the Mubarak regime's top security agencies. It seems that someone had given the order to destroy their records. Whatever secrets were on those tapes and in those papers are now gone forever.

Perhaps it is because Mr Mubarak has been in power for so long, and because his government has for so long defied the mounting loathing felt for it by so many of its citizens, that I had hesitated to conclude, until witnessing that little episode of house cleaning, that Mr Mubarak's reign was finished. But in fact there was already plenty of evidence that the end had come. The day before, dubbed by protest organisers the Friday of Fury, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Egyptians had pretty much stripped what remained of any aura of power or legitimacy from Mr Mubarak's government.

Almost instantly after the final prostration of the weekly noon prayer huge demonstrations broke out in nearly every one of Egypt's big cities. Everywhere the same scenarios unfolded, as peaceful marchers collided with ranks of riot police and, in a rising wave of anger and determination, eventually overcame them. Mr Mubarak's men, it must be said, put up a good fight. Central Security, the black-clad, padded and helmeted crowd control corps, is one of the biggest and best equipped forces of its kind anywhere. Its estimated 150,000 men, mostly military conscripts, come under the command of the Ministry of Interior, whose total manpower is thought to be more than a million. They proved disciplined and ruthless in the face of crowds that, in several different parts of Cairo, numbered thousands and even tens of thousands of people.

On the Qasr al Nil bridge, which spans the Nile between Cairo's opera house and the headquarters of the Arab League, Central Security police clashed for four continuous hours with a column of protesters that stretched for two miles, blocking it from joining other columns converging on Tahrir, or Liberation Square, the city's heart. Their ferocious pop-popping deluges of teargas flooded the oncoming crowds in an almost continuously blinding, choking cloud. Volleys of plastic bullets and grapeshot scattered the front lines of protesters again and again, and the security forces charged in repeatedly, batons crashing, accompanied by armoured vehicles shooting their water cannons.

In the past, the sheer scale, power and ferocity of the riot police had easily overcome any challenge. This time, such tactics did thin the ranks of protesters, chasing off the elderly, or families who had cheerfully, even joyously marched to that point with their children. But a remaining hard core of unarmed youths not only endured the repeated onslaughts. Again and again they countercharged, hurling rocks, screaming in rage and seemingly oblivious to danger. In the course of the afternoon these protesters overran the bridge three times, only to be beaten back by Central Security's immensely superior firepower.

Hundreds were injured in this oddly Medieval-looking battle, many critically. In the end the police simply withdrew in silence, hungry, exhausted and unquestionably beaten. The equally exhausted protesters tramped across the bridge and into Tahrir Square, overturning and torching abandoned police vehicles. Into the night swarms of youths filled its rubble-strewn space, erecting barricades and shouting in savage pride through the lingering shroud of teargas.

The full toll of that afternoon's multiple battles is not yet known, and perhaps never will be. The number killed, many by gunshots, is certainly in the scores, the number injured in the thousands. It was through blood, bravery and self-sacrifice that Egypt's youth won their victory, a victory so complete that by nightfall Friday, uniformed police vanished entirely from streets all across Egypt. Some, such as traffic police, simply slipped out of uniforms and stayed at home. Others, such as guards at embassies and museums, appear to have received orders to vacate their posts.

In a police state such as Egypt, the sudden evaporation of security is a serious matter, particularly when accompanied by a mood of exultation mixed with raging fury. In some poorer districts of Cairo and on the more thinly populated outskirts of the vast city of 16m, mayhem ensued. Along with it came a rash of rumours that the looting, vandalism and banditry were at least in part staged, in a suspected bid to frighten citizens into staying at home, and into accepting whatever new order the remnants of the regime attempt to impose.

It is true that when army units first moved into the city centre they were mobbed by cheering crowds. Yet it remains unclear whether the army, which Mr Mubarak emerged from, and from whose ranks he packed every level of his administration, is acting as a truly neutral force. Will it seek simply to secure a political space for a new civilian government to emerge, which is what the vast majority of Egyptians demand? Will its top officers attempt to take power for themselves? Or does the army remain loyal to Mr Mubarak, and is it complicit in the hasty plan that the president and his henchmen have devised, through his appointment of his intelligence chief, General Omar Suleiman, as vice president and the former air force chief of staff, General Ahmed Shafik, as prime minister?

To many Egyptians Mr Mubarak's manoeuvre looks suspiciously like a smokescreen, designed to keep the levers of power "in the family" and allow him a graceful exit. General Suleiman, on taking oath before Mr Mubarak as the only vice president he has named after 30 years in power, conspicuously saluted to his boss before shaking his hand. But on the tanks rolling into Tahrir Square in a show of securing order, demonstrators still defiantly sprayed graffiti restating their demand: "Down With Mubarak".

Undistinguished in other ways, and clearly out of touch with his people, Mr Mubarak does have remaining qualities. He is tough, thick-skinned and stubborn. Perhaps I am still wrong, and it is not completely over. Maybe another battle will be needed, soon, before he falls for good.

Hu's counting

Hu's counting

by S.C. | HONG KONG

DURING his state visit to America last week, President Hu Jintao of China offered some familiar banalities and worthy pieties, as this week’s Banyan remarks. But he also made a couple of hard, quantitative claims. In a speech on January 20th, President Hu said that cheap inexpensive imports from China had saved American consumers $600 billion over the past decade (2001-2010) and that exports to China had created over 14m jobs around the world.

Those figures were probably provided by the Ministry of Commerce, but I’ve no idea how they were calculated. (The figure of 14m jobs made an earlier appearance in a 2009 piece in the People’s Daily.) In this blogpost and a sequel, I’ll see if I can make sense of President Hu’s arithmetic.

I’ve received great help in this endeavour from Raphael Auer of the Swiss National Bank and Princeton University. In a paper* last year with Andreas Fischer, also of the Swiss National Bank, Mr Auer estimated the impact of low-wage competition on 325 American manufacturing industries—everything from cat food to artificial funeral wreaths.

Isolating the effect of foreign competition on prices can be tricky. If American demand goes up, for example, it will drive up prices and suck in imports. One might therefore falsely conclude that more imports equals higher prices.

After dealing with this problem, Messrs Auer and Fischer estimate that whenever Chinese imports increase their market share by 1 percentage point, American producer prices fall by 2.5%, a more pronounced effect than many previous studies had found.

According to Mr Auer, China claimed a 3.7% share of the average market in 2001, rising to 8.6% in 2006, when their data end. Imports from the Middle Kingdom have grown by about 28% in the four years since, even as America’s total imports have grown by only 4%. So let’s assume that China has enlarged its share of America’s manufacturing markets to 10.6%.

That would mean that China’s penetration of American markets has increased by 6.9 percentage points from 2001 to 2010 or 0.69 points a year. If each point reduces prices by 2.5%, then this expansion has cut prices by about 1.7% a year.

What does that add up to in dollars and cents? American manufacturing sales averaged $4,512 billion a year in the last decade, according to the Annual Survey of Manufactures, including over $13 billion of cat and dog food in 2005. The calculations above suggest these shipments might have cost $4,590 billion if China had failed to encroach on these markets. This implies savings of about $78 billion a year, or $780 billion over the decade.

This is all heroically back-of-the-envelope stuff. But by this reckoning, President Hu’s estimate looks quite plausible, even conservative. In my next post, I’ll look at his claim that exports to China have created more than 14m jobs around the world.

* "The effect of low-wage import competition on U.S. inflationary pressure," Journal of Monetary Economics, May 2010

Is the long wait over?

Is the long wait over?

by J.D. | LONDON

FOR some background to the unrest sweeping through Egypt, you might want to look at our special report on Egypt, published six months ago. In it, Max Rodenbeck, The Economist's Middle East correspondent, argued that after 30 years of economic progress but political paralysis, change was in the air. The report chronicles the economic hardships that most Egyptians endure on a daily basis, the way a rotten education system lets them down, and the elaborate charade that is elections in Egypt. It also points out that despite concerns in the West that democracy might bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power, a fear encouraged by Egypt's government which has long set itself up as a bulwark against Islamism, the religious wave that swept the country in the 1970s no longer has the revolutionary power it did then. At the end, the report ponders what might come after the end of Mr Mubarak's reign. That question might be answered sooner than anyone thought.

Professor Cornpone

Ethanol lobbyist Newt Gingrich and us—and the future of the GOP

The last time these columns were lambasted by a presidential candidate in Iowa, he was Democrat Richard Gephardt and the year was 1988. The Missouri populist won the state caucuses in part on the rallying cry that "we've got to stop listening to the editorial writers and the establishment," especially about ethanol and trade. Imagine our amusement to find Republican Newt Gingrich joining such company.

Associated Press

The former Speaker blew through Des Moines last Tuesday for the Renewable Fuels Association summit, and his keynote speech to the ethanol lobby was as pious a tribute to the fuel made from corn and tax dollars as we've ever heard. Mr. Gingrich explained that "the big-city attacks" on ethanol subsidies are really attempts to deny prosperity to rural America, adding that "Obviously big urban newspapers want to kill it because it's working, and you wonder, 'What are their values?'"

Mr. Gingrich traced the roots of these supposed antipathies to the 1880s, an observation that he repeatedly tendered "as an historian." The Ph.D. and star pupil of futurist Alvin Toffler then singled out the Journal's long-held anti-ethanol views as "just plain flat intellectually wrong."

Mr. Gingrich is right that ethanol poses an intellectual problem, but it has nothing to do with a culture war between Des Moines and New York City. The real fight is between the House Republicans now trying to rationalize the federal fisc and the kind of corporate welfare that President Obama advanced in his State of the Union. We'll dwell on this problem not merely because Mr. Gingrich the historian brought it up, but because it and he illustrate so many of the snares facing the modern GOP.

***

Mr. Gingrich was particularly troubled by our January 22 editorial about food inflation, "Amber Waves of Ethanol," saying that we "at least ought to use facts that are accurate." For the record, we cited figures from the Agriculture Department showing that four of every 10 rows of corn now go to ethanol, up from about one of 10 a decade ago.

A Gingrich spokesman said that what his boss meant to say is that this redistribution has a "negligible" effect on global food costs, especially compared to "higher fuel and energy prices and rampant speculation in the commodities markets."

Here's how he put in Des Moines, with that special Gingrich nuance: "The morning that I see the folks who are worried about 'food versus fuel' worry about the cost of diesel fuel, worry about the cost of commodities on the world market, worry about the inflation the Federal Reserve is building into our system, all of which is going to show up as higher prices, worry about the inefficiencies of big corporations that manufacture and process food products—the morning they do that, I'll take them seriously."

The morning Mr. Gingrich read the offending editorial, if he did, he must have overlooked the part about precisely those concerns. He must have also missed our editorial last month raising the possibility that easy money was contributing to another asset bubble in the Farm Belt, especially in land prices. For that matter, he must have missed the dozens of pieces we've run in recent years critiquing Fed monetary policy.

Of course, the ethanol boom isn't due to the misallocation of resources that always stalks inflation. It is the result of decades of deliberate industrial policy, as Mr. Gingrich well knows. In 1998, then Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer tried to kill ethanol's subsidies for good, only to land in the wet cement that Speaker Gingrich had poured.

Yet today this now-mature industry enjoys far more than cash handouts, including tariffs on foreign competitors and a mandate to buy its product. Supporters are always inventing new reasons for these dispensations, like carbon benefits (nonexistent, according to the greens and most scientific evidence) and replacing foreign oil (imports are up). An historian of Mr. Gingrich's distinction surely knows all that.

***

Given that Mr. Gingrich aspires to be President, his ethanol lobbying raises larger questions about his convictions and judgment. The Georgian has been campaigning in the tea party age as a fierce critic of spending and government, but his record on that score is, well, mixed.

As Speaker in 1995, he thought he could govern from Congress, refused to bargain with President Clinton and after a veto was forced to retreat in a way that hurt Bob Dole and nearly cost the House majority. In 1997, he did manage a balanced-budget deal with Mr. Clinton, but the price included phony Medicare cuts on doctors and a new entitlement for children's health care.

Mr. Gingrich stepped down after the GOP lost House seats in 1998, but he re-emerged in 2003 to campaign for George W. Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit. His personal contribution was to promote the bill's modest market fillips as epic virtues that lesser minds couldn't grasp. Instead, the bill damaged the GOP's fiscal credibility, while Democrats have since rolled back medical savings accounts and private insurance options for seniors.

Now Republicans have another chance to reform government, and a limited window of opportunity in which to do it. The temptation will be to allow their first principles to be as elastic as many voters suspect they are, especially as Mr. Obama appropriates the language of "investments" and "incentives" to transfer capital to politically favored companies. Many Republicans have their own industry favorites, and such parochial interests could undercut their opposition to Mr. Obama's wider agenda.

So along comes Mr. Gingrich to offer his support for Mr. Obama's brand of green-energy welfare, undermining House Republicans in the process. In his Iowa speak-power-to-truth lecture, he even suggested that the government should mandate that all new cars in the U.S. be flex-fuel vehicles—meaning those that can run on an ethanol-gas mix as high as 85%—as if King Corn were in any danger of being deposed.

Yet there are currently dozens of flex-fuel models on the market, and auto makers already get a benefit if they sell them, via the prior fuel-economy mandates that did so much to devastate Detroit. The problem is consumers rarely want to pay more for flex-fuel cars when they get 25% to 30% fewer miles per gallon with E85, according to Energy Department data.

***

Some pandering is inevitable in presidential politics, but, befitting a college professor, Mr. Gingrich insists on portraying his low vote-buying as high "intellectual" policy. This doesn't bode well for his judgment as a president. Even Al Gore now admits that the only reason he supported ethanol in 2000 was to goose his presidential prospects, and the only difference now between Al and Newt is that Al admits he was wrong.


Syria Strongman: Time for 'Reform'

Syria Strongman: Time for 'Reform'

DAMASCUS—Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who inherited a regime that has held power for four decades, said he will push for more political reforms in his country, in a sign of how Egypt's violent revolt is forcing leaders across the region to rethink their approaches.

Carole Al Farah for the Wall Street Journal

Syria's President Assad told The Wall Street Journal that Middle East revolts show a need for change in the region, but his nation is 'stable.'

In a rare interview, Mr. Assad told The Wall Street Journal that the protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen are ushering in a "new era" in the Middle East, and that Arab rulers would need to do more to accommodate their people's rising political and economic aspirations.

"If you didn't see the need of reform before what happened in Egypt and Tunisia, it's too late to do any reform," Mr. Assad said in Damascus, as Egyptian protesters swarmed the streets of Cairo pressing for the resignation of longtime President Hosni Mubarak.

The Syrian strongman, who succeeded his father, has always kept a tight leash on his country and tolerated little protest. His regime has also maintained a close partnership with Iran and militant groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

WSJ's John Bussey and Sudeep Reddy on the political and economic impact of the continued unrest in Egypt, and how it may bring on reforms in Syria. Also, Farnaz Fassihi from Beirut on how the Egyptian violence has inspired opposition forces in Iran.

While much of the region's unrest has hit countries that have developed alliances with Washington, his remarks indicate that the ripple effects of the Egyptian unrest will reach out to Middle Eastern leaders who are both friend and foe of the U.S.

Syria's response is particularly important because, while Mr. Assad's ties with the U.S. are strained, the Obama administration has been trying to pull his allegiances away from Tehran toward Washington.

But his remarks in the interview suggest that maybe harder in the wake of the Egyptian unrest. Mr. Assad said he will have more time to make changes than Mr. Mubarak did, because his anti-American positions and confrontation with Israel have left him in better shape with the grassroots in his nation.

"Syria is stable. Why?" Mr. Assad said. "Because you have to be very closely linked to the beliefs of the people. This is the core issue. When there is divergence…you will have this vacuum that creates disturbances."

Mr. Assad said he would push through political reforms this year aimed at initiating municipal elections, granting more power to nongovernmental organizations and establishing a new media law.

His government already made adjustments to ease the kind of economic pressures that have helped fuel unrest in Tunisia and Algeria: Damascus this month raised heating oil allowances for public workers—a step back from an earlier plan to withdraw subsidies that keep the cost of living down for Syrians but drain the national budget. Tunisia, Algeria and Jordan have also tried to assuage protesters by lowering food prices.

Mr. Assad's government, and that of his late father Hafez al-Assad, have been criticized as among the region's most repressive, detaining opponents without charges. This has stoked speculation in Western capitals over whether Syria could also face unrest. Syria's one-party political system and government-controlled media, meanwhile, are seen by many as more rigid than Egypt's or Tunisia's.

Mr. Assad acknowledged in the interview that the pace of political reform inside Syria hasn't progressed as quickly as he'd envisioned after taking power following his father's death in 1999.

Still, Mr. Assad indicated he is unlikely to embrace the sort of rapid and sweeping reforms being called for on the streets of Cairo and Tunis. He said his country needed time to build institutions and improve education before decisively opening Syria's political system. The rising demands for rapid political reforms could turn out to be counter-productive if Arab societies aren't ready for them, he said.

"Is it going to be a new era toward more chaos or more institutionalization? That is the question," Mr. Assad said. "The end is not clear yet."

Many diplomats and analysts believe Syria could serve as a barometer for the direction of the broader Middle East. Damascus's influence has grown in recent years as its alliance with Iran and the militant Islamist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah has opened the door to its renewed influence in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Iraq.

Still, Mr. Assad's rigid rule could leave him vulnerable to rising calls for democracy.

Damascus emerged this month largely victorious after a nearly eight-year struggle against the U.S. for influence inside Lebanon. The standoff was sparked by the 2005 murder of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which some Western officials believed was ordered by Mr. Assad's government. Mr. Assad has repeatedly denied any involvement.

"What pleases me is that this transition between the two [Lebanese] governments happened smoothly, because we were worried," said Mr. Assad. "It was very easy to have a conflict of some kind that could evolve into a fully blown civil war."

This month, the U.S. returned an ambassador, Robert Ford, to Damascus for the first time since Mr. Hariri's murder.

Mr. Assad said that while he sought closer ties to Washington, he didn't see this coming at the expense of his alliance with Iran. The Syrian leader said that he shares the U.S. goals to target Al Qaeda and other extremist groups, but that Tehran remains a crucial ally to Syria.

"Nobody can overlook Iran, whether you like it or not," Mr. Assad said.

On the Mideast peace process, Mr. Assad stressed that Damascus remained open to a dialogue with Israel to reclaim the Golan Heights region that the Jewish state occupied in 1967. But he said he didn't think Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would engage in the same way as his predecessor, Ehud Olmert. Mr. Assad insisted he and Mr. Olmert were close to forging a peace deal in 2008.

"No, [the peace process] is not dead, because you do not have any other option," Mr. Assad said. "If you talk about a 'dead' peace process, this means everybody should prepare for the next war."

The Syrian leader acknowledged his government is likely to continue to be at odds with the U.S. on key strategic issues.

Successive U.S. administrations have charged Damascus with smuggling increasingly sophisticated weapons systems to Hezbollah, including long-range missiles that could reach most of Israel. The U.S. has subsequently put in place economic sanctions against Syria.

Mr. Assad denied charges that his government directly arms Hezbollah.

He also indicated that his government was unlikely to give the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, wide access to investigate claims that Syria had covertly been developing nuclear technology.

"It will definitely be misused," said Mr. Assad, who denies Syria has been seeking atomic weapons.

Facebook, Twitter, and the Arab Revolutions

Facebook, Twitter, and the Arab Revolutions

by Gary North

The dictator of Tunisia was overthrown in less than one month after being in power for 23 years. There is no question about how opponents of his regime were able to topple it. Two words describe it: Facebook, Twitter. These two social networking sites enabled protesters to take to the streets, organize the opposition, recruit new protesters, and overcome the police force and the military.

There is no question that if the government had chosen to use machine guns to cut down the protesters, it probably would have succeeded in suppressing the revolt. If it had combined machine guns with switching off the Internet, it would have been able to cut the protest down, both literally and digitally. But to do that, the regime would have had to act extremely fast, and it would have risked coming under international condemnation. It would also have created a permanent opposition, ready to revolt again.

The opposition forces are now connected, yet not organized. This has never happened before in recorded history. The masses can communicate with like-minded people for the price of a computer and an Internet connection.

In the good old days of the Soviet Union in the 1960s, the leaders would have applied that degree of force without a moment's hesitation. But this is not the era of the Soviet Union. We are living in a digital age, and almost nothing can be concealed from the public for very long. If a tyrant is weak, this will become common knowledge. There are few Goliaths and a lot of Davids online.

It is the power of the communications networks, when coupled with a willingness on the part of protesters to gather in the streets, that spells a period of crisis for every autocratic regime on earth. The autocrats have seen in January 2011 that it is difficult to put a lid on any unorganized protests. The organizing did not come from some little group that can be infiltrated or arrested. This was as close to a spontaneous protest as anything we have seen in modern times.


The ability of the social networks to organize a protest almost overnight, because people of similar beliefs and commitments are in close communication with others, has completely changed the nature of political resistance and revolution. This system of revolution toppled a middle eastern dictatorship in less than a month. It threatens to topple two more before the end of February: Yemen and Egypt. We have entered into a new period political resistance.

DISCOUNT REVOLUTION

From an economic standpoint, this is easy to explain. When the cost of political mobilization falls, more is demanded. When people can mobilize thousands of protesters without any centrally directed agency and without any organization that can be infiltrated and subverted, they are in a position to impose enormous political damage on any existing regime, as long as the regime really is corrupt, tyrannical, and hated. When a dictator can control the society for 23 years, and get 89% of the vote when he runs for office, you can be confident that he is hated. It is corrupt. Nothing survives that long in a democratic society with 89% support.

The revolt that is taking place in Egypt is a direct result of the success of the revolt in Tunisia. The social networking organizations are again at the center of the revolt. There is a similar revolt going on in Yemen. Across the Arab world, it is becoming obvious that protesters have a tool available that will enable them to cause enormous discomfort for the tyrannical regimes of the region.

Regimes have established systems of control, including thought control, based on the price of communications in the era of print media. They can control paper, ink, and distribution. They cannot control telecommunications through the Internet without shutting down the Internet entirely. This is what Egypt did on Friday, January 28.

Because Egypt had fewer than a dozen major Internet service providers, the government was able to shut down the Internet at one time. The government also shut down landline telephone communications in some regions of the country. This was not simply an attack on the Internet. The government had to shut down other forms of telecommunications.

The difficulty that the government faces is obvious: it cannot continue to keep the Internet and landline telephone service from the general public. The modern economy is becoming increasingly dependent upon the Internet. It has already become highly dependent upon the telephone system. It is not possible for any government to intervene into the delivery of telecommunications services without creating enormous problems for the economy. Any government that attempts to do so on a long-term basis is going to find its tax revenues falling, more people becoming alienated from the government's policies, and more opportunities for troublemakers to increase the amount of trouble. At some point, the government will have to reestablish Internet services and landline telephone service. At that point, it will probably face an even more alienated population than when the protests began.

The governments of the world are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If they allow the Internet to stay up, and if the social networking systems continue to recruit people to go into the streets, a corrupt government will face a rapidly escalating crisis. Its legitimacy is being called into question, and the only way to restore order under these conditions is to begin to shoot people. Tear gas is no longer working.


Here is a video of the riots in Cairo. The government had an armored vehicle rolling through the streets, and it was firing canisters of tear gas. People were not only paying no attention, they were kicking the canisters across the street into areas in which there were no protesters.

I have been subjected to a very mild administration of tear gas, when I was a high school student, and a local police chief was showing a few of us what it was like. He had an aerosol container of it, and he held his finger on the button for only a few seconds. We were perhaps 10 feet away, and it was unpleasant. I cannot imagine anybody staying in the streets when the police are firing canisters. But that is what I saw in the video.


Governments have become fearful of bringing out the machine guns, for fear of international condemnation. Dozens of people will be videotaping the event and will immediately upload the videos to a satellite, which will spread around the world in a matter of seconds. The low cost of telecommunications is making it possible for protesters to expose the policies of their governments so that all the world can see.

Universally, governments do not want exposure of what they are doing. They want to control the flow of information, and they want to be able to spin it rapidly. They can do neither when the Internet is operating, because the images are out there so rapidly, and picked up by the news media so rapidly. The governments cannot spin away the visual information. They are caught in the situation attributed to Groucho Marx, when he declared to someone who had interrupted his meeting with an attractive young woman: "What are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes?"

The fact that this is taking place in the Arab countries indicates that the whole region is vulnerable to more revolutionary resistance. The telecommunications network is well developed in all of these nations, and the people who use them are educated. They have enough money to plug into the Internet. A lot of them are college graduates. Worse, they are unemployed college grads. They understand the media, and they are in social network arrangements, connection by connection, with thousands of similarly unemployed, equally educated people. Unemployed intellectuals who are young have always been a threat to established tyrants. These are the people who have relatively little to lose, and they think they have great deal to gain, by taking to the streets. When they are not shut down fast, they are emboldened. They assume that nothing can stop them, because tear gas and rubber bullets are not so great a threat.

When people around the world can see street protesters, this encourages thousands of other protesters, who had attempted to sit the fence, to get off the fence and go into the streets. There is safety in numbers. When they can see on television or on the web that there are thousands of people in the streets protesting, they assume that they will gain a degree of invisibility and anonymity if they join the protests. So, they leave the safety of their homes and join the protest movement. Because of social networking, this can take place so rapidly that government officials are unable to respond fast enough to put a stop to it before it is obvious that there are thousands of people in the streets.

The social networks can become a liability if the revolt fails to dislodge the existing regime. The government can use the Internet to track down those people who were activists in the early stage of the revolt. There is no way to hide your communications retroactively on Twitter and Facebook. The government is going to find out who sent out messages, and it will be able to trace the spread of these messages by means of the very technology that enabled the original protesters to recruit thousands of volunteers. But how many can the police arrest? There were too many protesters to put all of them in jail.

The people the government will have to investigate are highly educated, and have enough money to own a computer and be plugged into the Internet. These are exactly the kinds of people the government does not want to alienate. These people have connections, they have money, and they have time on their hands.

When you are talking about thousands of protesters going into the streets, you are talking about a protest without any organization. You cannot stop the organization when you cannot control a handful of the organization's leaders. The social network system enables rapid response protesting without any clear-cut chain of command. There really is no chain of command. That is the whole point of social networking. It is horizontal; it is not vertical. To stop something from spreading, the government has got to shut the entire system down.


A SPONTANEOUS REVOLT

This is changing the nature of social protest. This has finally produced a situation in which the old rhetoric of the revolutionaries is true: the revolution is a spontaneous work of the People. There is no clandestine group of conspirators who are organizing a conspiracy in such a way that it looks like a spontaneous insurrection. Governments can deal with that kind of revolutionary organization by infiltrating the organizations at the very top. They have done this for centuries. But when revolt really is the result of the spread of rhetorically effective communications in a decentralized system of telecommunications, the government cannot cut this off in advance. It cannot arrest the organizers in the days before the great plan was about to be executed. There is no great plan, and the government has no time to react.

By speeding up the mobilization process, and by flattening it out, the protesters have been able to topple one regime and threaten two more in a matter of a month. They were able to challenge the existing political structure of approval for autocrats who have held power for decades. The ruler in Yemen has been in power for 32 years. The ruler of Egypt has been in office for almost 30 years. Yet the social networks have brought these two regimes to the edge of disintegration in a matter of days. How can governments mobilize resources to head this off at the pass, when there is no pass?

We are therefore seeing a shift in the balance of power away from centralized government, which has control over most of the print media in the country, to broad masses of people with money and computers – people who are in no way dependent upon paper, ink, and paste to put up posters. The government can react rapidly to the older media, but it cannot react as rapidly as the social networks call out the anti-government troops. The government had the edge in speed back in the days of printed manifestos and posters. That world is gone.

So, as we watch the digits undermine the foundations of Middle Eastern autocracies, we get a picture of what is likely to come in the next generation. Every government in the world is now threatened by the visual power of street demonstrators. The protests will be posted on YouTube within minutes.

None of this existed six years ago. Governments have used money, recruiting techniques, propaganda techniques, and all the rest of it for the last hundred years in terms of a particular technology. That technology is the printing press. Martin Luther created a social and religious revolution in northern Europe by means of pamphlets, broadsides, and posters with cartoons almost 500 years ago. For almost five centuries, the technology of communication did not change radically. And then, without warning, the rise of the Internet began to shift the balance of power in the direction of citizens. With the advent of the social networks, there has been a quantum leap in the ability of protesters to register their protests publicly, with no comparable increase in response time by the authorities. Telecommunications are instantaneous, and they are delivered at no marginal cost to the participants. When the price of protesting falls, more of it will be demanded. This is what is taking place today.

The only defense against this is extreme poverty. We are not seeing anything like this in Zimbabwe. Hardly anybody has a computer in Zimbabwe. Only the very rich have access to the Internet. But as soon as price competition drives down the cost of getting connected, a government faces the kind of events that have taken place over the last three weeks. When there is widespread ownership of computers and widespread participation on the Internet, the social-networking capabilities of the Internet become a major threat to the government.

THE ISSUE OF LEGITIMACY

What is at stake is government legitimacy. When it becomes obvious to a growing minority of intellectuals that the government is corrupt, it is only a matter of time before these people begin to spread the word: the government is illegitimate. The only way that a government can keep control is to elicit voluntary compliance with its laws, rules, and official pronouncements. This can cease to work very fast.

A corrupt government is perceived as legitimate only because it is so expensive to get the word out to large numbers of people, especially people with educations and money, that the government is both corrupt and vulnerable. So, the only way for a despot to survive the kinds of things that have taken place in the North African autocracies is to extend political power, educational opportunity, and employment opportunities to the broad majority of the population. Western capitalist governments have been able to do this over the past century, but the autocracies have not been able to. They are the ones that are most at risk by the spread of the Internet and social networking. In other words, the best way to avoid revolution today is to have already created a system of political power in which large numbers of people believe that they have a stake in the system and a voice in the system.

The Arab world has never done this. The leaders seemingly are incapable of doing this. They will have to rethink the entire political order in order to avoid a series of protests comparable to what is taking place over the last month. They are going to have to reform their systems of government, or else those systems will be reformed for them. Yet an autocracy that grants greater democratic participation risks the very revolutionary violence that these three governments have experienced in January. The government never reforms fast enough and on a wide enough basis to satisfy those people in society who have called for government reform. Once it is clear that the government is capitulating to the demands of reformers, the more radical reformers are encouraged to believe that the system is toppling, and therefore they renew their efforts to topple the system. This has been going on since at least the time of the French Revolution. It will escalate.

Governments understand this process of escalating resistance in the face of limited domestic reforms. This is why they resist granting any kind of significant rights to large numbers of people. They see this as lighting a fuse that is going to lead to an explosion.

There is no way that any society can grow economically without adopting the Internet. This is the wave of the future, and educated people understand this. Arab governments want to participate in economic growth that is spreading across the Third World as a result of telecommunications. They are going to have to allow their citizens to buy computers and sign up for the Internet.

As the price of doing this gets less expensive, more and more people are going to take advantage of the opportunity. This brings money, entertainment, and many of the blessings of life that millions of people across the face of the earth have wanted to experience over the past 50 years or 100 years, and were unable to do so. So, we see the rapid escalation of the spread of this new technology. It brings benefits to large numbers of people, especially educated people. Yet, as we have seen, the spread of this technology leads to resistance against policies of these autocratic and formerly poverty-stricken nations. The richer these nations get, the more dangerous the intellectuals are.

I see no way out for the world's autocrats. One by one, these men are going to be challenged by large numbers of people who now have the means of extending the resistance. The means of economic growth now constitute a threat to the survival of every autocratic regime. Only if the autocrats become media-savvy demagogues can they hope to mobilize the people who now have access to computers and the Internet. They are going to have to appeal directly to those people if they want to avoid some sort of domestic political conflagration. Yet they have no skills in mobilizing these people, because it was not necessary in the past. Governments could buy off intellectuals, and they could also control the spread of ideas, because they had control over radio, television, and printing presses. They are losing control in all three areas. They are on the defensive in the social media.

So, the techniques of political control that have been developed over the last 200 years are being superseded rapidly by new technologies that are so inexpensive that there is no way governments can keep them from spreading. North Korea can keep them from spreading, of course, but North Korea is one of the most poverty-stricken nations in the world. Any nation that pulls the plug on the Internet and landline telephones is in effect putting a sign that says, "Welcome to the next North Korea." No government leader wants to do this.

CONCLUSION

From the point of traditional conservatism along the lines outlined over two centuries ago by Edmund Burke, and also from the point of view of traditional libertarianism as it was outlined by Leonard Read, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard, the development of the social networks is consistent with theory, and beneficial to the extension of liberty. The decentralized worldview of Burke, the decentralized worldview of Hayek and Mises, and the anti-government worldview of Rothbard all come together with social networking, YouTube, and e-mail.

Digital technology, because it is price competitive, penetrates the broad masses of individuals in the West. It is price competitive, and therefore is inherently decentralized. Everyone can have his own printing press in the new system. The ability of governments to control the spread of ideas is not keeping pace with the ability of the Internet to enable people to communicate ideas. The competitive system is asymmetric. This time, it is not asymmetric in favor of the government; it is asymmetric in favor of the citizens. They hold the hammer.

Yes, it is true that governments can temporarily take away the hammer. They can shut down the Internet. Anyway, small governments in the Middle East can do this. It is highly unlikely that the government could in the United States. The tendency of the system of telecommunications is to decentralize. The government that would dare to stop the spread of telecommunications is asking to lose the next election.

The Mideast Burns

The Mideast Burns

by Eric Margolis

When I wrote my latest book on the way America dominates the Mideast, I chose the title, American Raj, because this modern US imperium so closely resembled the famed Indian Raj – way the British Empire ruled India.

As I predicted in this book, and in a column last April, Egypt was headed for a major explosion. America’s Mideast Raj is now on fire. Whether it survives or not remains to be seen.

One cannot escape a sense that we may be looking at a Mideast version of the 1989 uprisings across Eastern Europe that brought down its Communist regimes and then the Soviet Union. Americans should be uneasy seeing crowds of Egyptians pleading for freedom and justice watched over by US-supplied tanks.

There are indeed certainly strong similarities between the old Soviet East Bloc and the spreading intifada across the police states of America’s Mideast Raj. Corrupt, repressive governments; rapacious oligarchies; high youth unemployment and economic stagnation; widespread feelings of fear, frustration, hopelessness and fury.

But there is also a big difference. The principled Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the Communist rulers of Eastern Europe, refused to turn their army’s guns against the rebelling people.

In Tunisia, where the current Arab uprising began, the army has so far stayed admirably neutral.

But in other Arab states now seething with rebellion – Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, Morocco, Libya, Jordan – there may be no such reservations. Their ruthless security forces and military could quickly crush the uprisings unless the soldiers refuse to shoot down their own people – as happened in Moscow in 1991.

As of this writing, Egypt’s 450,000-man US-equipped and financed armed forces are poised for action against that nation’s popular uprising, but its generals are undecided whether to shoot down their own people and earn universal hatred, overthrow President Mubarak’s regime, or openly seize power. Mubarak’s newly named vice president, Gen. Suleiman, controls the hated and feared secret police, or mukhabarat, but is unloved by the army.

Somewhere in the ranks of Egypt’s armed forces must be a group of officers like Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser and his Young Officers who seized power in 1952 to end foreign control of Egypt. Nasser, adored by most Egyptians was the first authentic native-born leader in 2,000 years. Look for a resurgence of Nasserism.


Washington is watching this growing intifada in its Mideast Raj with alarm and confusion. Ignore the Obama administration’s hypocritical platitudes urging "democracy." All of the authoritarian Arab rulers now under siege by their people have been armed, financed and supported for decades by the US. The US has given Egypt $2 billion annually, $1.4 billion of which goes to the military. Almost all the tanks and armored vehicles deployed in Cairo’s streets came from the US.

Washington has previously lauded Mubarak for "moderation" and "stability." These are code words for faithfully following US policies and crushing all opposition. Moderate opposition groups across the Mideast have been jailed and tortured, leaving only outlawed underground movements. The same thing happened in Iran.

Egypt’s armed forces were configured to keep Mubarak’s military regime in power, not to defend the nation’s borders. The US keeps Egypt’s armed forces short on munitions and spare parts so it cannot fight a war against Israel for more than a few days.

The brutal, sadistic secret police and other security forces of Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan and Yemen were all trained and equipped by the US or France. The CIA taught them "interrogation techniques," just as it did to the Shah of Iran’s secret police, Savak. We have reaped the whirlwind in bitter US-Iranian relations.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urges "restraint" on both sides. One supposes she means those being beaten by clubs, raped, or tortured by electric drills must show proper restraint. Washington simply does not understand that this kind of hypocrisy turns even more people in the Muslim world against the United States.

Egypt, as this column has long said, has long been a ticking bomb. Half of 85 million Egyptians subsist below the UN’s $2 daily poverty level. A third of all the Arab World’s people are Egyptian. A well-connected oligarchy grows rich while the rest of the country struggles for basic food.

In fact, the US Congress still supplies Egypt with large amounts of wheat and other foodstuffs. Israel thus holds a whip hand over Egypt by being able to get its supporters in Congress to shut off food aid to Egypt, an act that would provoke massive food riots as occurred in the 1970’s. Small wonder Husni Mubarak is Israel’s closet ally in the Arab world.


Mubarak has ruled Egypt with an iron fist since the assassination of another US-installed leader, Anwar Sadat, in 1981. All violent and peaceful opposition to Mubarak’s regime has been crushed. But now Mubarak’s time is running out. Nobel-Prize Laureate Mohammed al-Baradei has agreed to lead a resistance coalition that includes the Muslim Brotherhood, the best-organized movement in Egypt.

The Brotherhood is not an Iranian-style extreme Islamic movement, contrary to alarms being spread by neocons and the often poorly-informed US media.

In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood has long eschewed politics to concentrate on social, religious and educational issues. If anything, it has been ultra-conservative, even stodgy and timid. But it also represents the Washington’s best potential ally if Egypt’s military regime falls. We should not be misled by self-serving warnings about Islamic bogeymen.

So far, none of the intifadas across the Arab world have produced effective leadership. But this could soon change. The most important North African Islamic movement leader and theorist, Rashid Gannouchi, just returned from exile to Tunisia, where the intifada began.

Further inflaming Arab opinion, the bombshell "Palestinian Papers" leaked to al-Jazeera has exposed Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority as an eager collaborator with Israel and its West Bank occupation. The endless Israeli-Palestinian "peace talks" are shown to be a fraud. Israel’s Mossad and its Palestinian Quislings have worked closely to destroy the militant but democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza.

We also learn from these papers that in 2008, US State Secretary Condoleezza Rice actually proposed shipping millions of Palestinian refugees to Latin America. This after Israel, financed by the US, imported one million Russian settlers, many of them not even Jewish. One is reminded of British proposals in the 1930’s to move Germany’s endangered Jews to Kenya.

The Mideast uprisings are poorly understood by most North Americans. The US media frame news of the regional intifada in terms of the faux war on terror, and a false choice between dictatorial "stability" and Islamic political extremism. Much of what’s happening is seen through Israel’s eyes, and is distorted. Burning Cairo should show how misguided we have been in our understanding of the Arab world.

Platitudes aside, there is little concern in the US about bringing real democracy and modern society in the Arab world. Washington still wants obedience, not pluralism, in its Mideast Raj, and primacy for Israel in the Levant. As with the British Empire, democracy at home is fine – but it’s not right for the nations of the Arab world.

Asia Today: Egypt Turmoil Hits Asian Markets

AM Report: Opposition Gains Strength in Cairo

News Hub: Middle East Unrest Unnerves Markets

News Hub: Egypt Unrest Inspires Iranian Opposition

Opposition Ramps Up Pressure on Mubarak

Opposition Ramps Up Pressure on Mubarak

[1egypt0131] Felipe Trueba/European Pressphoto Agency

Egyptian soldiers and civilians in Tahir Square, central Cairo, Monday.

CAIRO—A coalition of opposition groups called for a million people to take to Cairo's streets Tuesday to ratchet up pressure on President Hosni Mubarak to leave.

American and other world leaders were intensifying calls for an orderly transition to a democratic system as demonstrations against Mr. Mubarak's administration continued into a seventh day.

WSJ's John Bussey and Sudeep Reddy on the political and economic impact of the continued unrest in Egypt, and how it may bring on reforms in Syria. Also, Farnaz Fassihi from Beirut on how the Egyptian violence has inspired opposition forces in Iran.

After another day of protests, President Mubarak struggles to cling to power while Mohamed ElBaradei steps in to lead the opposition. The Wall Street Journal's Margaret Coker reports from Cairo.

U.S. Issues Call for "Real Democracy" in Egypt

2:30

After days of treading a fine line, the U.S. has repeated its insistence for Egypt's leaders to install a democratic system of government. WSJ's Julian Barnes says it's another step by the administration to distance itself from the Mubarak regime.

The pressure came as state television announced that Mr. Mubarak has sworn in a new cabinet, replacing one dissolved as a concession to the unprecedented antigovernment protests.

In the most significant change, the interior minister—who heads internal security forces—was replaced. A retired police general, Mahmoud Wagdi, was named to replace Habib el-Adly, who is widely despised by protesters for brutality shown by security forces.

Mr. Mubarak has retained his long-serving defense minister, Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, and his foreign minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit.

The coalition of opposition groups, dominated by youth movements but including the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, said it wants the march from Cairo's central Tahrir Square to force Mr. Mubarak to step down by Friday.

Spokesmen for several of the groups said their representatives were meeting Monday afternoon to develop a unified strategy for ousting the long-serving Egyptian leader. The committee will also discuss whether Nobel peace laureate Mohamed ElBaradei will be named as a spokesman for the protesters, they said.

The army had an increased presence in Tahrir Square Monday, and the curfew has been tightened. Heavy traffic jams developed downtown as the army closed major routes, apparently in a new effort to control the crowds.

Protesters began streaming into Tahrir Square in large numbers as a military helicopter circled over the square, swooping low over the crowd gathered there.

Earlier, Egypt's opposition groups lined up behind the moderate Mr. ElBaradei, a prodemocracy advocate and former head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, as their best chance to oust Mr. Mubarak.

Photos: Monday Protests

Khaled Desouki/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

A succession of rallies and demonstrations, in Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and Algeria have been inspired directly by the popular outpouring of anger that toppled Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. See how these uprising progressed.

On Sunday, the nation's military closed ranks with the government leadership but allowed protests to continue raging in the streets.

The moves continued to sharpen the country's clash over whether Mr. Mubarak would resign. Events here present difficult choices for the U.S., which has been attempting to push for both the stability that the military offers and the sweeping political changes demanded by the opposition. There was no indication that the two sides would meet or hold discussions.

State television showed footage of Mr. Mubarak with his newly appointed vice president, former intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, meeting Egypt's top army commanders Sunday. The images appeared to be a bid to show that control of the armed forces was still in the hands of Mr. Mubarak and his regime.

Fragmented opposition groups, including the powerful Muslim Brotherhood, put aside sometimes strident differences to unify behind Mr. ElBaradei, who often tangled with U.S. officials when he led the U.N. agency inspecting Iran's nuclear program. His entry in Egyptian politics is more recent. He came to Cairo last week only after the protest movement had gathered steam on its own.

Egypt's opposition groups have had a checkered past, with ideological divides and personal animosities sapping them against the might of the Mubarak regime. For now, their solidarity appears to be holding. Mr. ElBaradei's endorsement by the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest and best-organized opposition force, amounted to a historic display of unity between the country's secular and Islamist opposition forces.

The umbrella organization that organized the protests formed a steering committee on Sunday under Mr. ElBaradei to pressure the regime for more political concessions, according to senior Brotherhood leaders.

Mr. ElBaradei said in televised remarks that he looked forward to working with the military to help establish order and forge Egypt's new political future. In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation, he said: "The first step is [Mubarak] has to go…The second step is we have to have a government of national salvation in coordination with the army. The third step is the army has that horrible task of ensuring security." He warned the U.S. that its failure to disavow the current government was causing it to "lose credibility by the day."

Regional Upheaval

Public acknowledgment of the crucial role the military would play in any transition appeared to be an attempt by Mr. ElBaradei to win over a key pillar of the regime. Since a military-led coup seized power in 1952, the military has wielded considerable power, but in recent decades has kept a relatively low political profile.

The military on Sunday dramatically increased its control over security and political affairs. The army assumed control of the Ministry of the Interior, which oversees the country's internal security forces, loathed by many Egyptians for their brutality. Top army officials, including the defense minister, made appearances around the capital Sunday, meeting with troops and shaking hands with people gathered for demonstrations.

Despite the public displays of power, major question marks surrounded the Mubarak regime. It was unclear how unified the top leadership was; how deeply divisions ran within the military hierarchy; and the extent of cooperation between the military and the police force.

Mr. ElBaradei made his first appearance in the city's central Tahrir Square on Sunday evening, where tens of thousands of protesters massed. The Interior Ministry's headquarters just a few blocks away was the site a day earlier of violent clashes between protesters and what appeared to be the last vestiges of internal security forces left on the country's streets. The military appeared to come to the protesters' aid, sending four armored personnel carriers to face down police.

While U.S. officials cautiously distanced themselves from Mr. Mubarak and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for transition to a "real democracy," the Egyptian military still came in for praise. "They are acting professionally," said Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman for Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "They are supporting the institutions of government and that is the proper role of the military."

The military has enjoyed broad respect among Egyptians, and appears to have gone to great lengths to avoid antagonizing citizens since deploying in the streets. But it showed no clear signs of reaching out to the opposition leadership. Military factories control significant chunks of the nation's economy, giving its leaders a vested interest in controlling the pace and extent of any political reforms.

Egypt's armed forces are the 12th largest in the world, according to the International Institute for Security Studies, and receive $1.3 billion in annual U.S. aid. One dramatic display of military might Sunday afternoon came when two F-16 jets flew over the Nile and the center of the capital.

Still, signs of disorder—including widespread outbreaks of looting and reports of mass prison breaks from at least five different detention facilities since Friday—threaten to erode the military's standing if it doesn't impose order. The army has yet to take firm control of the streets in the absence of the police, leaving many Egyptians worried and wondering why.

In an interview with WSJ's John Bussey, former Ambassador to Egypt Edward Walker discusses the demonstrations in Egypt and what new form of leadership could emerge from the protest movement.

Security issues led the U.S. State department to organize emergency charters to help U.S. citizens who want to evacuate, beginning Monday. Sketchy reports have said more than 100 people have been killed during protests since Friday.

Throughout the capital, looting was a growing problem. As night fell Sunday, Cairo residents, armed with steel pipes and two-by-fours, organized neighborhood watch groups to fend off roving bands.

Many opposition leaders and analysts accused the military of allowing the chaos as part of a larger strategy to discredit popular protests.

Others believe that the military is incapable of restoring order or unwilling to jeopardize its popular standing by taking on the potentially unpopular role of a police force. State television announced that regular police forces would return to the streets Monday, but wouldn't deploy in the city's central Tahrir Square, apparently to avoid friction with protesters.