December 28, 2007
Money, Money, Money
With the global economy teetering on a precipice, I wanted to get the view from London as to our prospects. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the International Business Editor for the Telegraph, brings to the situation an incredibly well-informed, extremely intelligent, moderately conservative perspective. He makes fair points — putting a positive analysis to work, where possible. Yet even Ambrose has hair-raising things to say about the financial markets, some of which you may not have heard (I hadn't) elsewhere. And this show is partly a twofer. In the last few minutes we talk about Ambrose's courageous reporting on the Vince Foster death, back when he was the Telegraph's Washington correspondent. (For more on the Foster story see Sam Smith's helpful chronology.) Total runtime an hour and fifteen minutes. Enjoy!
Comments
Another very informative interview. He seems to think that high oil prices are due mainly to speculation, whereas I'm inclined to believe they are a function of Peak Oil. Which, of course, makes the outlook even bleaker. Since most economists don't take into consideration the fact that natural resources are limited, it appears to me that we have now a perfect storm poised out there. Happy new year!
Posted by: jtruett.pip.verisignlabs.com
|
December 28, 2007 3:18 PM
Great guest! Lots of material covered.
From my understanding of what Ambrose said, it seems like it is the central banks that are once again responsible for the upcoming crash. They inundate the market with cheap money (leading to aberrations in the market such as sub-prime), which will now be followed by a reduction in money supply. The old bubble-bust trick. The only presidential candidate willing to confront the Fed's scam is Ron Paul to my knowledge. And maybe also Mike Gravel. What is Edward's position on this?
Ambrose also makes the case that OKC bombing and Vince Foster's were clearly covered up. The question remains, why? Inside job anybody? It's a shame Ambrose doesn't go as far as to speculate about the who/what/why, but I guess I don't blame him, otherwise his opponents would rush to label him a with the dissent stifling 'conspiracy theorist' etiquette.
Posted by: Kevin M. | January 4, 2008 9:24 AM