Why has everything that occurs in the world turned into some kind of conspiracy? Peter wonders who pulled the trigger? It's the Lone Ranger, who else?

It's because people can't think for themselves and taking someone elses point of view is the easy way out.

Just hearken back to WMD when everyone that had a pulse believed there were secretive weapons programs in Iraq that were dedicated to developing them. As it turned out, most everyone's intell was wrong due to a ruse propaganda system Saddam had in place to keep the dags at bay.

Next thing you know, it was a conspiracy by the Bush Administration to manufacture a reason to take the regime down. Even the ones who agreed that the intell was beyond dispute came to change their position for cover. This is senseless.

Conspiracy about everything imaginable is just laziness to avoid finding out the truth and it plays into some peoples desire of a certain result.

The failure of being able to entertain conspiracy theories or, at the very least, establish intent, is reflective of an unwillingness to connect the dots. Beyond this, it demonstrates a reluctance to ask 'why'. 'Why', if used properly, remains a useful tool in attempting to reconcile differences and paradox. It invariably opens up a higher dimension; one, in which it then becomes possible to explain what appears to be a series of seemingly incongruous events. Why, for example, does the Left consistently oppose any strengthening of our energy infrastructure while at the same time decrying the high cost of energy and the foreign entanglements that result? The answer becomes obvious when you ask 'why.' You are now forced to confront the possibility that it's neither about energy nor foreign policy. It's all about curbing America's bite; America's influence which it regards as somehow threatening, polluting and evil. Why is the Left so adamant in its opposition to religion while at the same time promoting its own religion, Marxism, with a fervor that puts Islamists to shame? It’s because it’s not about religion; it’s about power. Why does the Left seek to curb the power of the U.S. while at the same time amassing power for itself? It’s because to the Left the U.S. means nothing. The Left’s vision is global. It can well afford to sacrifice one country (or a couple) to achieve its goal of global justice (as they would put it in press releases) which actually translates into nothing less theatrical than global dominance.

Spence, if you should happen to read this, I do understand your skepticism. No one wants to believe that there’s an elephant in the room dirtying up the place and smashing things; most would find it disgusting to see the emperor naked. There’s still such overwhelming confidence in America throughout the world. Even our enemies have come to find comfort in knowing that America will always be there to blame things on.

(I hadn’t intended to run on like this.) There is now enough evidence that Obama doesn’t like America and the Americans who elected him. Everything he does (now without opposition) must be seen through this lens. Otherwise specter of sheer incompetence darkens the landscape in the form of a cloud of black swans for which any explanation trails off into meaningless stammering.

I have been diligent in monitoring discussions on the "Why?" of the market crash, and the initial efforts were mostly technical: mortgages, derivatives, interest rates, etc., none of which explained much. The world's biggest economy does not just fall down one sunshiney day. Consequently, I welcome a discussion of the role of human factors in the biggest economic crunch of our time. Some context is required to understand what happened.

If you spend money foolishly or make a bad investment, the result is the same; you are out $X. If you borrow money and spend it foolishly or make a bad investment with it, you are in much worse shape; not only do you have nothing to show for it, now you owe $X and your future financial activity is constrained.

LBJ's War on Poverty cost $6.6 trillion over a thirty-year period. Poverty barely moved, and certainly was not defeated. The WoP was terminated in a morass of waste, fraud, corruption, and sleaze. Not only did $X = $6.6 trillion, but the money went to the national accounts and from there to the national debt on which interest is paid. A modest 3% interest rate on the national debt during the years since the WoP was implemented shows that the WoP accounts for more than the entire national debt just two short years ago. Just as the mortgage follies were kicking into high gear, in fact. A $9 trillion dollar debt in 2007 was manageable in a rising economy, but it severely constrained our freedom of productive actions in a crunch.

The big surprises of the 2008 crunch was how little it was anticipated, and that there were remarkably few prior indicators. The economy was doing quite well except for mortgages and Detroit autos. The DOW P/E ratio was a benign 22 at the peak in late 2007. (In comparison, the DOW P/E ratio was a nosebleed 45 and the NASDAQ was an astronomical 65 when they started down in Clinton's last year, numbers that virtually guaranteed a crash, and the crash came.) The NASDAQ lost $2.5 trillion, half it's value, in the year before Clinton left office, and the DOW and S&P soon lost trillion more, but the economy recoverd rapidly. In contrast, the total mortgage losses recently are still under $1 trillion; a large action in 2000 triggered a small reaction, but a small action in 2008 triggered a huge worldwide reaction. Why? That is the whole question.

The fall of the markets coincided quite closely with the rise of Obama's prospects in the presidential race. Obama was widely perceive as a Marxist, a fact that meant little to young people, his strongest demographic, and was seen as a positive by leftist professors, financiers (Soros, Buffett), the media (Evan Thomas, Chris Matthews), and media stars (Oprah, Barbara).

Obama had an entirely different meaning for investors, a generally conservative lot, who were interested in protecting their assets. The better Obama did in the campaign, the faster the markets fell; there were major market drops when Obama secured the nomination, when he was nominated, when he was elected, and when he was inaugurated. Investors do not willingly leave thier assets exposed, certainly not to a known hazard such as Marxist ineffficiency and corruption.

And here we are. The Obama Administration dispatched it's talking heads to reassure everyone that the recovery is on the way (Larry Summers on Meet the Press yesterday, July 2, for example) but this is almost certainly a waste of hot air. The main argument for the end of the recession seems to be that recessions always come to an end. But that is not true, of course.

The Great Depression was extended for eleven long, miserable, heart-sick years by faulty government policy. The Japanese recession that began in 1991 was ended eighteen years later by the the recent markets meltdown, when the recession became a full-blown depression.

Governmental policies determine the outcome of recessions. Booms that precede recessions generate excesses in the economy. Recessions sooner or later are ended when excesses are squeezed out of the economy. Obama is furiously adding excesses to the economy: stimuli, energy restrictions, health care. Obama is ignoring all restraints, and is heading toward a command economy not unlike that of the Soviet Union where all production and prices were mandated by bureaucrats, and the government takes direct control of major portions of the economy, and of peoples' lives. ("Soviet" literally means committee, the bureaucrats' milieu.)

Every crisis in recent American history has been initiated by Democrats: Vietnam, the Carter recession that followed seventeen years of economic stagnation after LBJ's Great Society/War on Poverty, the NASDAQ Bubba Bubble, the Mortgage Follies, and now the worldwide markets crash. Republicans clean up the Democratic messes, and the Democrats then promise to spend more money to buy more votes. Even for a productive nation like the USA, there will be an end point to this process, and it looks very much like the end point will be similar to the collapse of the Soviet Union, or at least the stagnation of Europe and Japan.

You just validated my point. I won't go down the list, but, in general, the answers to your "WHYS" are more complex than just a simple "THE INTENT OF THE LEFT IS TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD"

It's a perception thing... not a denial. Conspiracy theorists are the ones who deny the facts.

I think the PotUS is all right with America. He certainly speaks to Her greatness and indomitable spirit.

type this in your browser>

I-WANT-MY-BAILOUT-MONEY (mp3)

Remember some one said we tax payers would get $800? yeah right!