Banal Talk by Halfwits pushing horrific Ideas

Usually, very little happens in America during the month of August in a year that is not having a mid-term or presidential election. At least, this is the commonly held view, which is why journalists of opposite sides on the ideological spectrum accuse each other of running banal stories to fill the space on this “slow summer day.” But as usual, there is some truth and some falsehoods in the perception of that matter.

The corollary of this situation is that you don't need a slow or fast-paced day in any season of any year to see banal opinion pieces fill the space of little known as well as prestigious publications, be they in the print or the audio-visual business. This is because the quality of opinion pieces depends on the quality of the culture, and this does not change from season to season or even year to year. Culture takes a long time to go from one stage to another; and right now, it is going through a period of intellectual drought in America.

You can see an example of this in the piece that was produced by the editors of the Wall Street Journal under the title: “Putin's Westward March” and the subtitle: “Revisionist powers are rising as Obama and Europe fail to respond.” It was published in the Journal on April 19, 2014.

They begin the editorial in a manner that suggests they want to impress the reader with the power and the high quality of their intellect. This is how they do it: “Diplomacy is useful when it prevents bad outcomes.” And so, they proceed to explain themselves, but end up demonstrating how shallow, how lacking in energy and how contradictory they are. They do it to themselves by pointing the finger at one person, Obama: “diplomacy as practiced by President Obama...” then go on to name 4 groups of nations which, together, are producing close to 100 percent the diplomatic drama that is occupying world attention at this time: “this week's agreement among Ukraine, Russia, the EU and the U.S.”

And this is not all because the opening paragraph goes on to describe the agreement for which they express an unlimited amount of dislike by placing the blame for its production on the man for whom they harbor an unlimited level of contempt: their own President. And then, they make the fatal mistake of revealing the hidden reality of their inner sentiments … not realizing what they just did. It happens when they describe the agreement which, in their view, claims to “prevent war but largely advances Vladimir Putin's strategic objectives.”

What they mean to say is that if the choice comes down to having a war on the one hand, or seeing Vladimir Putin succeed at advancing his objectives on the other hand, they prefer to see a war that will involve the U.S., Russia, the EU, Ukraine and whomever else will be dragged into what will quickly become a war of the mushroom clouds; one that will make World War II look like the festive celebration of a joyful era.

So you want to know what it is that lurks hidden deep inside these people which makes them harbor horrific sentiments of this nature and this intensity. To that end, you go through the article in a slow and deliberate manner where you get the feeling that – sentence after sentence and paragraph after paragraph – you're only hopscotching from one banal idea to another banal idea. But when you come close to the end of the piece, you bump into what seems like the telltale of what you're looking for.

And the following is what hits you in the face like a baseball bat: “Obama's second term has been marked by the advance of powers seeking to rewrite the global order. Iran is attempting to do this on nuclear weapons, retaining a capability just short of exploding a weapon with a goal of dominating the Middle East.” In other words, the editors of the Wall Street Journal say they prefer to blow up the entire planet rather than see a situation – they can only speculate about – come true.

But what is the basis of that imagined situation? It is the so-called policy of ambiguity with regard to nuclear weapons that Israel is said to pursue. If you go by the logic of the Journal's editors, it means that Israel is now dominating the Middle East. But their fear of Iran supplanting Israel in this regard is so intense, they prefer to burn the planet and everyone in it rather than allow Iran to wrest that spot from Israel.

And there is only one way by which this nightmare can become reality in their view. It is that they see what they claim even Putin sees which is the following: “Mr. Putin sees Western leaders preoccupied with domestic concerns with no appetite for a great power showdown ... Until that changes, Mr. Putin will march on.”

Thus, having chosen to serve the people that elected them rather than serve the interests of Israel is what stirs the volcanic acid inside the belly of these charlatans. And this is what makes you ask the question: Who are they, and what are they made of?

The answer is that nobody would do such a thing but the Jews. And this brings to mind the reality that those who believe in that the lullaby known as “Protocol of the Elders of Zion” led to the Holocaust of an earlier era, must now try to imagine where this true horror story will lead.

A Three pronged boneheaded Illusion

Seeing each of his illusions shot down in flames one after the other, John R. Bolton is reviving an old illusion which, to my knowledge, was not his. The illusion is to do away with the idea of Palestine altogether (originally a vague Golda Meier notion) by giving the 20 percent that is left of the land to both Jordan and Egypt following the Jewish looting of the 80 percent.

Bolton discusses the idea in an article that came under the title: “A 'three-state-solution' for Middle East peace” and the subtitle: “Reality calls for attaching Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan.” It was published in the Washington Times on April 16, 2014. The problem with this piece of writing is that you realize at the outset it is a dishonest piece like dishonesty can ever get. Look how he begins: “Obama's efforts to force a 'negotiated' settlement.” Hey, John, many of us became almost deaf having to hear the Jewish cry: Only negotiation will ... only negotiation will ... only negotiation will...

After accusing Obama of delivering on what the Jews have been demanding, he does the very Jewish thing of denigrating the delivery man, then sets the rules for a new game which he wants to see replace the old one. He predicts that the new one will also fail, and leaves it up to the reader to surmise that he will blame future failures on someone he picks randomly. It is logical horror of the most demonic kind.

Moreover, he now says he wants to play the game that the Jews always denied they were playing. Look how he does that: “U.S. policymakers have acceded to Palestinian insistence that a new state be created for them … These territories have no history of national identity or economic interdependence.” In other words, he now says that the Jews never wanted to see the establishment of a Palestinian state.

And yet, every time someone reached that conclusion, they vehemently attacked them, even called them antisemitic. But why the denial then and the admission now? Because the only excuse they could give then is the one they are giving now. It is the following: “These territories have no history of national identity or economic interdependence.” But if that was true for the Palestinians who lived on the land since the beginning of time, it was more so for the Jews who never lived there. Well, that's what the world was saying ... but the world is not saying it now because it got tired. And this is why John Bolton is taking the chance of admitting it at this time.

Still, he raises the logic of a case that is in his imagination, and here is how he does that: “The logic underlying the demand for a Palestinian state is the imperative of Israel's opponents to encircle the Jewish state, thereby minimizing its potential to establish defensible borders … using the Palestinian people as the tip of the spear against Israel.” When he says Israel's opponents, he means to say the Arab front-line states. However, he does not specify what exactly he accuses them of, or how they use the Palestinians like a spear.

Hoping to see him shed light on those questions, you keep reading the article, and discover something. It is not what you hoped for but something that is very much in the Jewish style. It is that to make more points than he could possible handle, he blows his entire thesis to kingdom come. And depending on your mental disposition at the time of reading the pertinent passage, you consider the discovery to be a good thing or a bad one. Look what that's all about: “After 1940, Jordan successfully governed the West Bank until 1967. Today … Jordan could resume sovereignty over the West Bank … Gaza is a harder problem, but incorporating it into Egypt is clearly a better solution.”

What was that again? Is he saying he wants to go back to the status quo ante which, a few moments ago, he was saying was but the tip of an Arab spear pointed at Israel? Wow! There is enough here to make you dizzy, my friend, but is there anymore surprises? Oh yes, oh yes; there is at least one more surprise to blow your mind. Guess what it is. Believe it or not, his gut feeling tells him that no Arab state would want to shoulder that burden, and so he has a suggestion. Look at the following and marvel: “Egypt and Jordan will be understandably reluctant to take control of the troubled territories...” So then what to do? Here is what to do: “...which therefore warrants significant international assistance for their efforts.” In other words bribe them.

Bribe them? Did you say bribe them? Who is going to bribe Egypt and Jordan to adopt the status quo ante, and go back to pointing the Palestinian spear at Israel?

Or maybe, John Bolton my friend, you're just full of it, and you don't even know it.

Behold the Practice of noxious Tricks

In some ways Rand Paul is more media savvy than his father, Ron Paul ever was when the latter practiced politics. In some other ways, Rand lags behind the old man. He is more savvy because he is more subtle, and not as brutally honest as Ron was. On the other hand, he is less savvy because he has not yet developed a sure method by which to get the destructive reporters off his back, something the father did a little better.

Rand Paul wrote an article in which he expresses the travails he is forced to endure at the hands of some members of the media. The article has the title: “Where I stand on Containing Iran” and was published in the Washington Post on April 15, 2014. Because it would be helpful to mention something about the state of the American media before getting into it, consider that every profession has peculiarities proper to it when it comes to giving off signs that something threatens it. The press is doing that now.

Two incidents should be mentioned to illustrate that last point. The first was the time when a young woman – most likely a girl barely past the age of puberty – stood up and asked then President Bill Clinton what kind of underwear he was using. The second was the time when a reporter – most probably a plant sent by the hate-generating Jewish propaganda machine – stood up and told President Obama to say something about the subject of sexual harassment in Egypt.

Aside from the fact that the two incidents allude to the genitals, which is a huge preoccupation of the America culture at this time, they have something else in common. They demonstrate that familiarity breeds contempt. The first incident says that the young and immature in a society are eager to know how much the powerful icons of the nation are in tune with their daily preoccupations such as appearance, personal relationships and of course, matters of sex. If you lower the barrier too much between those who govern and those governed, you get this sort of embarrassing but otherwise benign moments.

As to the second incident, it demonstrates that if you lower the barrier between those who govern, and the foreigners who say they want to be their friends, two kinds of characters will be discerned. There will be the good friends who will remain on their side of the fence and deal respectfully with the host. And there will be the bad ones who will crash through the fence and ransack the property of the host with merciless savagery akin to that from the Stone Age.

These are the two extreme manifestations, and there exist all sorts of shades between them. One of these is the sort that Rand Paul has been subjected to so far. There is no doubt that the girl of the first example got her benign idea when she sat with her peers and discussed the opportunity she will soon have to ask the President a question. And there is no doubt that the reporter of the second example got his malignant instruction from the operators of the Jewish hate machine. These people work to cement the principle that the first duty of an American President is not to look after his people but to fulfill the needs of the Jews. And right now, the Jews need to see a world that loves Israel and hates all other nations, including Egypt of course.

And this is what the Jewish hate machine is doing to Rand Paul at this time. It is beginning to shape his psychology so that a few months from now, when he will be running for the Presidency of the United States, he will make the independent decision of becoming their man on the campaign trail, thus encourage the other candidates to do likewise and bite each other's back to become the favorite dog of the Jewish master. And that master will want the winner of the election to be his man in the White house so that the world will know America does not belong to the American people; it belongs to the Jews anywhere in the world they happen to live.

The big issue preoccupying the Jewish hate machine these days being Iran, this is what their hatred must cover at this time, and this is where the operators of the machine try to maneuver Rand Paul. Their aim is to get him into a corner from which he will not be able to come out without giving them what they want – or else look like a total incompetent, and lose the election to a more obedient dog.

What is left to do now is read Paul's defense of himself as he lays it out in the article. Then watch how things will proceed over the coming months and years, thus acquire knowledge and experience as to how these people do the things that assures them temporary success at the start of every adventure, but ends up placing them on the road to annihilation.

Sick Fantasy of Israel's UN Ambassador

This is the season of the Jewish Passover, a time when the Jews get together and sit in a circle for the three thousand three hundred and twentieth time to hold their annual hate-Egypt puking contest so as to see which of them merits being called the biggest puker of them all, and be appointed honorary chairman of the Jewish hate spewing machine for the coming year.

It looks like this time; the honor has gone to Ron Prossor who happens to be the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations. And so, he started fulfilling his hate purveying duty by writing an article which he published in the April 17, 2014 edition of the Wall Street Journal under the title: “The Middle East War on Christians” and the subtitle: “Muslim-majority nations are doing to followers of Jesus what they did to the Jews.” Being the ambassador at the UN, however, compelled him to puke out his hatred against all the Arab nations, not only against Egypt.

There are all sorts of filth in the stuff he is delivering this year; some of which deserves a response and some not. So let's begin with the one demonstrating that the worst enemy of the big, fat liar is his own ignorance. Prossor says this: “Today, Israel is the only country in the Middle East with a growing Christian population. Its Christian community has increased from 34,000 in 1948 to 140,000 today.”

Being the great, big Jewish ignoramus that he is, he just shot himself in the foot. And this is because there are 66 years between 1948 and this year which is 2014. Also, the ratio between 140,000 and 34,000 is 4.12 to 1. Thus, when you take the 66th root of 4.12, you find that the Christian population in Israel has been growing at an average annual rate of 2.17 percent. That is growth comparable to the world average but low when compared to that of the Middle East.

Now contrast those numbers with Egypt. The population of this country was 17 million in 1948, of which 1.5 million were Christians. According to the latest census, the population had grown to 85 million of which 8.5 million were Christians. This means that the general population grew at an average annual rate of 2.47 percent which is normal for the Middle East. As to the Christian population of Egypt, it grew at the average annual rate of 2.66 percent which is higher than the normal for the region, and way above that of Israel.

To see what else has been happening in the Middle East, and what Ron Prossor says about it, let's look at another passage where this time, he shoots himself in the other foot. Here it is: “At the turn of the 20th century, Christians made up 26% of the Middle East's population. Today, that figure has dwindled to less than 10%. Intolerant and extremist governments are driving away the Christian communities that have lived in the Middle East since their faith was born.”

For one thing, we know that the Christian population is not dwindling in Egypt because it is, in fact, increasing. Therefore, it must be dwindling somewhere else. Does he say something about that? Yes, he does in some places, and does not in other places. Where he does is where he can place the blame on where the blame does not belong. Where he does not is where the blame can directly be traced to the very people who have been committing crimes against Christians since they crucified the Prince of Peace. They are the intolerant and extremist Jews who have been hurting the Christian communities that have lived in the Middle East since their faith was born.

Look what Prossor is doing. First, he says: “For 2000 years, Christian communities dotted the region, enriching the Arab world with literature, culture and commerce.” Then he says: “Over the past 10 years, nearly two-thirds of Iraq's 1.5 million Christians have been driven from their homes. Many settled in Syria before once again becoming victims.” Thus, we see that for 2000 years things were going well in the Middle East. But then, 10 years ago or thereabout, something happened in Iraq that changed the situation. What was that?

Well, what happened in Iraq was the war that the so-called “children of Holocaust survivors” planned for, and got a mindless American President to launch on innocent Arabs precisely to do to Iraq what Israel did to Lebanon a few years earlier. It was to start a sectarian civil war that pitted Christians against Muslims, and then pitted Shiites against Sunnis. The result has been that Lebanon went from being a majority Christian population to a majority Muslim population thanks to World Jewry. And then, these people turned their attention to Iraq from where the troubles spilled into Syria. Everywhere you look, my friend, you see Jews crucify Christians, and now crucify Muslims too.

Meanwhile, the latest numbers compiled by the Forbes Magazine concerning the richest people in the world have come out. They show that the number of Christian billionaires has increased in Egypt despite the fact that there has been a revolution in the country, and despite the fact that Egypt is not an oil rich country. So here you have it, an increasing Christian population that is getting richer despite all the odds. And that's because there are no Jewish traitors left in Egypt.

No wonder the venom producing engine in the belly of the Israeli ambassador to the UN is working overtime. But no matter how much of it he showers over the human race, Egypt will continue to take it all in its stride. With that, it is showing to the world that the Jews can talk all they want about having the ability to produce “a series of plagues” to inflict on this country or that one ... all that is nothing more than the sick fantasy of a castrated eunuch.

The Time has come to regulate the Insurers

Ben Nelson who is the CEO of America's National Association of Insurance Commissioners has written an article detailing the problems he believes could arise as a result of the drive to regulate the insurance industry by the Central Bank which is known as the Fed. The title of the article is: “Dodd-Frank Comes for the Insurers” and the subtitle is: “Bank-style regulation on the industry will encourage risky behavior.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on April 15, 2014.

The thrust of his argument is that the independent States of the American Union have done well regulating their insurance businesses for nearly 150 years, and that the current drive to put the Central Bank – which is a federal level institution – in charge of regulating those businesses will cause problems that did not exist before. And the reason why this would happen, he says, is that the federal institution will apply the one-size-fits-all concept whereas the States allow for the tailoring of the requirements by which risk is managed, to suit each situation.

Practically, risk is managed by allocating a level of capital that was shown by experience to be necessary to cover the demands made on a financial institution under a worst case scenario should something go wrong. The banks have one level dictated to all by the Fed. As to the insurance companies, they have different levels, each corresponding to what a company is insuring … such as life, health, property or casualty. And where or how the company is investing the money … such as bonds that range in risk and yield from the very high to the very low.

All this will disappear, says Ben Nelson, if the Fed takes over and imposes on the insurance companies the kind of regulations it now imposes on the banks according to the Dodd-Frank legislation. He sees an irony in how this drive came about, and sees trouble ahead because the insurance companies will be inclined to take measures that will render the industry riskier than before.

The irony is that the failure of the insurance company AIG is what launched the drive to regulate the industry, he says. But AIG had two divisions, he goes on to say. One division was federally regulated; the other state regulated, and it was the federally regulated that failed, he asserts. The trouble with this assertion is that it is only a statement and not an argument whose validity could be measured if only the writer had bothered to contrast the two kinds of regulation to show why the federal regulation led to the failure while that of the state did not.

As to the measures which he says will make the industry riskier, consider this statement: “The company would have a perverse incentive to hold the riskier bond for a higher rate of return.” Well, this is a bogus argument because the insurance companies are in the business of assessing risk, and they run their operations based on what they find. The company that will throw caution to the wind because a new regulation was introduced will need a new CEO and not the absence of regulation. No, there is nothing to fear in this regard.

Nelson cites another example which, he says, will needlessly increase the risk to the insurance companies. But the truth is that the risk he mentions is here now, and will continue to be after the new regulation comes into effect. The problem he describes is associated with the bubble phenomenon. That is, when you hold assets whose value is rising, you are allowed to borrow more against them for the purpose of adding to the investment. And the more that you and other investors borrow, the more that you contribute to the size of a bubble that will surely form and grow. When the bubble bursts, as it must, no one escapes its ravages now, and no one will till something is done to curb the underlying cause which is excessive speculation.

The financial collapse that happened in 2008 happened because the financial industries were given the green light to do anything and everything they wanted while the Fed, which had the task of printing the money, was doing just that – printing money on demand and handing it to the captains of those industries. And these were the people who caused the bubble to form and burst, resulting in the near collapse of the American economy, and the pulling down of the rest of the world.

Had there been the kind of supervision that is in Dodd-Frank today, the near collapse would not have happened. But now, in addition to that supervision, stress tests are regularly performed on the banks, and different kinds of stresses will be devised to test the insurance companies for the different kinds of products they sell.

And the world economies will be safer when all this will come into effect.

When the intent is finally revealed

John Bolton is at it again describing the world that matters to us as being one of illusions. Here are his words: “the world of illusions that Obama and Kerry inhabit, a world populated with many leading figures in the American and European political, academic and media elites.” He writes these words in his latest article which came under the title: “The takeaway from the languishing Middle East peace process.” It was published on April 13, 2014 in the Pittsburgh Tribune.

To understand how he and his people think and operate, it helps to be familiar with the mentality of teenagers, and the way that they treat each other in a high school courtyard, for example, or a strip mall. They will pull pranks on one another, even double-cross each other, and then deny they did such a thing. They will go as far as protest they are offended by the accusation they are capable of committing such a cowardly act. And they will maintain the posture of denial till the victim of the prank has been so diminished, he or she cannot retaliate. And this is the time when the offending predator finally admits they pulled the prank that succeeded so well.

In that same manner, the Israelis and their Jewish supporters and mouthpieces in America who have been denying they were opposed to the idea of re-establishing the ancient state of Palestinian, are beginning to come out and admit what they felt about the subject, what they thought about it, and how hard they worked to pull off the job. Sometimes they admit to their deed openly and clearly; sometime they admit to it in a more subtle way. John Bolton is doing so now in his own peculiar fashion.

The first thing he does is announce “the negotiations' impending failure.” Later on he writes that “the sustained myth for decades has been that a lasting solution rests on creating a Palestinian state.” Further down, he tells why this can never happen: “Pursuing Palestinian statehood ignores the reality that no Palestinian institutions possess legitimacy, nor do they have any discernible capacity for sustained adherence to commitments and compromises.” Thus, the Bolton admission is in; he and his people never wanted to see the establishment of a Palestinian state, and they saw no manner by which this could happen.

And this admission has ramifications. It says that the negotiations between them and the Palestinians – those that were repeatedly sabotaged – were sabotaged by them. What they did after that was to whine, protest and blame the collapse of the talks on the Palestinians. But would they take credit for the failures, now that they decided to tell the truth? No they would not. Instead, they shifted the blame from the shoulder of the Palestinians to that of the Americans: “Our competence and influence are under question, Israel has been undermined and by misallocating our priorities, we have impaired our ability to resolve crises.” Conclusion: when dealing with Jews, everyone is to blame but they for the acts that they alone have committed. And if you try to pin a little blame on them, they accuse you of being so antisemitic; you undermine the glory of Israel.

And so, John Bolton recommends that the American Administration must now forget about “give peace a chance,” also forget about the borders between Israel and the Palestinian state – an entity they will never allow to rise. And they want the Administration to concentrate on the kind of government that should be in charge of what is called Palestinian territory but will soon cease to be Palestinian given that Jewish settlers from all over the world are stealing more and more of it under the protection of the American equipped Israeli army.

So you want to know what the bottom line is for John Bolton. And he tells what that is – or at least he tries to. He begins with the notion that negotiations require the judgment of “cost-benefit” analysis. He says the cost of failure in the Palestine negotiations will be enormous because America's friends and foes will make a judgment based on what they see as a weak US presidency – the consequences of which the foreigners “understand far more clearly than Americans,” he says. And he mentions a list of other trouble spots in the world which, he insists, are being neglected. He does so oblivious of the fact that neglecting the world to some extend and concentrating on America's needs is what the American people are clamoring for.

But having said what the cost will be, Bolton fails to tell what the benefits, if any, might be. Still, he says he has an idea and makes the point that: “it is not possible for human beings to invest much time in negotiations and not divert attention from other problems.” Which is why he adds: “As American citizens consider who should succeed Obama, they must consider whether the prospective candidates live in the real world or in a world of illusion.” Translation: Vote for the guy that will sacrifice America for the glory of Israel because Israel is real and America is fast becoming an illusion.

Child-like Battles of the Financial Titans

Whether you look at the primitive societies that still inhabit the jungles of this planet, or you study the primitive societies of the Stone Age and those that came after them, you'll find that they all had some kind of code of behavior, some way to enforce the rules of the code, and a process by which an individual or a group could, for whatever reason, petition the enforcer to amend or rescind one or more of the rules.

In fact, all human societies have had rules and regulations, and had a process that has allowed for change to be introduced. Absent such process, those societies suffered a revolt that brought about a reformation of the existing order either peacefully or violently. What we take from all this is that having rules and regulations is the natural order of our species without which we could not function as a society. And because it is also in our nature to evolve, those regulations are allowed to match the evolution when a petition is duly submitted and processed.

But is there someone in that maze of individuals and groups who might challenge the need to make regulations of any kind at all? That is, could there be someone on this planet who wants to live their life absolutely free of any restriction – not while living alone on some deserted island but living in society and continuing to maintain the relationships and interactions they have with everyone else? The answer is yes, children under the age of six or thereabout want to live that kind of life.

That is not a problem, however, because the parents take care of this situation for a few years. They teach the children all about the rules and regulations that make civilized life possible. Good. But is that it, or is there a real problem somewhere? In fact yes, there is a problem or at least a potential for one. And the latest individual to advocate for a situation of no rules and no regulations is Peter J. Wallison who wrote about the idea in an article titled: “If You're Big and Move Money, Watch Out” and subtitled: “Unless Congress acts, the feds will say that all large financial firms pose a 'systemic' risk and need bank-like regulation.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on April 14, 2014.

Wallison tells of the 2008 financial crisis that prompted the world bankers to ask for the regulation of what has come to be called shadow banking. These are institutions that operate like banks but are not subject to any banking regulation. And so, the author of the article objects to the call by the bankers to regulate them – and he does so on the grounds that to do it will stifle risk-taking, dynamism, innovativeness and flexibility. And he predicts that in any case, such move will not make the economy safer.

He goes on to tell which institutions might fall into the category of being shadow banks, then tells why they should not be regulated by explaining what has transpired during the past few years. But when you look at his explanation, you realize that this is precisely why they should be regulated. Look what he says and marvel at his logic: “Shadow banking consists of all participants in the capital markets and the securities business not covered by supervision of risk-taking and capital requirements that characterize bank regulation.” And so you say to yourself: What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

But he goes on: “The capital markets and securities industry … financing of business and governments has grown three times faster than bank lending. By 2013, the capital markets' outstanding loans to these borrowers were $10 trillion while those of banks were less than $4 trillion, and the gap continues to widen.” In other words Peter Wallison says that the shadow banks are killing the legitimate banks, and he sees this development as being a good thing. And this is what prompts you, the readers, to interject: Hey, even my six year old is beginning to understand that this could never be the case! What kind of logic motivates that man Wallison?

Having failed to make a case as to why the unregulated should remain unregulated, he goes on to tell the history of the developments that brought the subject to the critical stage where it is now. And he ends this way: “If nothing is done by Congress and soon, we can expect that these institutions will disappear into the welcoming arms of the [regulating] Fed.”

To which we should all say amen; it’s about time.