"The greatest spending administration in all of history"

Did Hoover really subscribe to a "hands-off-the-economy," free-market philosophy? His opponent in the 1932 election, Franklin Roosevelt, didn't think so. During the campaign, Roosevelt blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, boosting the national debt, choking off trade, and putting millions on the dole. He accused the president of "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible," and of presiding over "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history." Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, charged that Hoover was "leading the country down the path of socialism." 8 Contrary to the conventional view about Hoover, Roosevelt and Garner were absolutely right.

The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in June 1930. It came on top of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which had already put American agriculture in a tailspin during the preceding decade. The most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war. Professor Barry Poulson describes the scope of the act:

The act raised the rates on the entire range of dutiable commodities; for example, the average rate increased from 20 percent to 34 percent on agricultural products; from 36 percent to 47 percent on wines, spirits, and beverages; from 50 to 60 percent on wool and woolen manufactures. In all, 887 tariffs were sharply increased and the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items. A crucial part of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was that many tariffs were for a specific amount of money rather than a percentage of the price. As prices fell by half or more during the Great Depression, the effective rate of these specific tariffs doubled, increasing the protection afforded under the act. 9

Smoot-Hawley was as broad as it was deep, affecting a multitude of products. Before its passage, clocks had faced a tariff of 45 percent; the act raised that to 55 percent, plus as much as another $4.50 per clock. Tariffs on corn and butter were roughly doubled. Even sauerkraut was tariffed for the first time. Among the few remaining tariff-free goods, strangely enough, were leeches and skeletons (perhaps as a political sop to the American Medical Association, as one wag wryly remarked).

Tariffs on linseed oil, tungsten, and casein hammered the U.S. paint, steel and paper industries, respectively. More than 800 items used in automobile production were taxed by Smoot-Hawley. Most of the 60,000 people employed in U.S. plants making cheap clothing out of imported wool rags went home jobless after the tariff on wool rags rose by 140 percent. 10

Officials in the administration and in Congress believed that raising trade barriers would force Americans to buy more goods made at home, which would solve the nagging unemployment problem. But they ignored an important principle of international commerce: Trade is ultimately a two-way street; if foreigners cannot sell their goods here, then they cannot earn the dollars they need to buy here. Or, to put it another way, government cannot shut off imports without simultaneously shutting off exports.

An Unfriendly Climate for Business

From the White House on the heels of the Wagner Act came a thunderous barrage of insults against business. Businessmen, Roosevelt fumed, were obstacles on the road to recovery. He blasted them as "economic royalists" and said that businessmen as a class were "stupid." 36 He followed up the insults with a rash of new punitive measures. New strictures on the stock market were imposed. A tax on corporate retained earnings, called the "undistributed profits tax," was levied. "These soak-the-rich efforts," writes economist Robert Higgs, "left little doubt that the president and his administration intended to push through Congress everything they could to extract wealth from the high-income earners responsible for making the bulk of the nation's decisions about private investment." 37

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

__________________

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/18/business/fed.php

Published: March 18, 2009

WASHINGTON: The Federal Reserve sharply stepped up its efforts to bolster the economy on Wednesday, announcing that it would pump an extra $1 trillion into the financial system by purchasing Treasury bonds and mortgage securities.

Having already reduced the key interest rate it controls nearly to zero, the central bank has increasingly turned to alternatives like buying securities as a way of getting more dollars into the economy, a tactic that amounts to creating vast new sums of money out of thin air. But the moves on Wednesday were its biggest yet, almost doubling all of the Fed's measures in the last year.

The action makes the Fed a buyer of long-term government bonds rather than the short-term debt that it typically buys and sells to help control the money supply.

The idea was to encourage more economic activity by lowering interest rates, including those on home loans, and to help the financial system as it struggles under the crushing weight of bad loans and poor investments.

Investors responded with surprise and enthusiasm. The Dow Jones industrial average, which had been down about 50 points just before the announcement, jumped immediately and ended the day up almost 91 points at 7,486.58. Yields on long-term Treasury bonds dropped markedly, and analysts predicted that interest rates on fixed-rate mortgages would soon drop below 5 percent.
Multimedia
Interactive graphic: U.S. government's total bailout tab
» View
Today in Business with Reuters
Fed to pump another $1 trillion into U.S. economy
U.S. outcry forces chief of A.I.G. to give ground
U.S. extends its inquiry of offshore tax fraud

But there were also clear indications that the Fed was taking risks that could dilute the value of the dollar and set the stage for future inflation. Gold prices rose $26.60 an ounce, hitting $942, a sign of declining confidence in the dollar. The dollar, which had been losing value in recent weeks to the euro and the yen, dropped sharply again on Wednesday.

In its announcement, the central bank said that the United States remained in a severe recession and listed its continuing woes, from job losses and lost housing wealth to falling exports as a result of the worldwide economic slowdown.

"In these circumstances, the Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote economic recovery and to preserve price stability," the central bank said.

As expected, policy makers decided to keep the Fed's benchmark interest rate on overnight loans in a range between zero and 0.25 percent.

But to the surprise of investors and analysts, the committee said it had decided to purchase an additional $750 billion worth of government-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities on top of the $500 billion that the Fed is already in the process of buying.

In addition, the Fed said it would buy up to $300 billion worth of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months. That would tend to push down longer-term interest rates on all types of loans.

All these measures would come in addition to what has already been an unprecedented expansion of lending by the Fed. The central bank also said it would probably expand the scope of a new program to finance consumer and business lending, which gets under way this week.

In effect, the central bank has been lending money to a wider and wider array of borrowers, and it has financed that lending by using its authority to create new money at will.

Since last September, the Fed's lending programs have roughly doubled the size of its balance sheet, to about $1.8 trillion, from $900 billion. The actions announced on Wednesday are likely to expand that to well over $3 trillion over the next year.

Despite a trickle of encouraging data in the last few weeks, Fed officials were clearly still worried and in no mood to cut back on their emergency efforts.

Fed policy makers sharply reduced their economic forecasts in January, predicting that the economy would continue to experience steep contractions for the first half of 2009, that unemployment could approach 9 percent by the end of the year and that there was at least a small risk of a drop in consumer prices like those that Japan experienced for nearly a decade.

The Fed rarely buys long-term government bonds. The last occasion was nearly 50 years ago under different economic circumstances when it tried to reduce long-term interest rates while allowing short term rates to rise.

Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, has been extremely cautious in recent weeks about predicting an end to the recession, saying that he hoped to see the start of a recovery later this year but warning that unemployment, a lagging indicator, would probably keep climbing until some time in 2010.

In contrast to several recent Fed decisions, with the presidents of some regional Fed banks dissenting, the decision at Wednesday's meeting of the 10 members of the Federal Open Market Committee, the central bank's policy making group, was unanimous.

Jan Hatzius, chief economist at Goldman Sachs, said the Fed had adopted a "kitchen sink" strategy of throwing everything it had to jolt the economy out of its downward spiral.

But while Mr. Hatzius applauded the decision, he cautioned that the central bank could not solve the economy's problems by expanding cheap money.

"Even if the Fed could make interest rates negative, that wouldn't necessarily help," Mr. Hatzius said. "We're in a deep recession mainly because the private sector, for a variety of reasons, has decided to save a lot more. You can have a zero interest rate, but if you just offer more money on top of the money that is already available, it doesn't do that much."

Fed officials have been wrestling for months with the fact that lenders remain unwilling to lend and borrowers are unwilling or unable to borrow. Even though the Fed has been creating money at the fastest rate in its history, much of that money has remained dormant.

The Fed's action is an expansion of its effort to bypass the private banking system and act as a lender in its own right.

The Fed and the Treasury are starting a joint venture this week called the Consumer and Business Lending Initiative in their latest effort to thaw the still-frozen credit markets. The program will start out with $200 billion in financing for consumer loans, small-business loans and some corporate purposes.

Fed officials have said they hope to expand the program next month, possibly to include the huge market for commercial mortgages, and both the Fed and Treasury hope the program will eventually provide up to $1 trillion in total financing.
------------------
Here we go! The incredible shrinking dollar....


OR IF YOUTUBE DECIDES TO SENSOR THIS VIDEO AGAIN, GO HERE:

http://www.disclose.tv/viewvideo/289...ge_of_collaps/

Prices really are not rising. The dollar is loosing its value, therefore its costing you more dollars to buy essentially the same amount of anything. I would expect to see this trend to continue after following all this.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-consumer-prices-rise-04-apf-14675456.html

Wednesday March 18, 2009, 3:42 pm EDT

Consumer prices rise 0.4 percent in February
Consumer prices rise in Feb. by largest amount in 7 months as gasoline, clothing prices jump

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. consumer prices rose in February by the largest amount in seven months as gasoline prices surged again and clothing costs jumped the most in nearly two decades.

But the increase appeared to ease many economists' concerns about dangerous price movements in either direction. The recession is expected to dampen any inflation pressures for at least the rest of this year, while the slight uptick in prices over the last two months also has made the possibility of deflation more remote.

The Labor Department reported Wednesday that consumer inflation rose 0.4 percent in February, the biggest one-month jump since a 0.7 percent rise in July. Two-thirds of last month's increase, which was slightly more than analysts expected, reflected a big jump in gasoline pump prices.

Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, rose 0.2 percent in February, also slightly higher than the 0.1 percent rise economists expected.

The Federal Reserve, meanwhile, said Wednesday it would spend up to $300 billion to buy long-term government bonds, a new step aimed at lifting the country out of recession by lowering rates on mortgages and other consumer debt. The central bank also will spend another $750 billion on mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, bringing its total purchases of those securities to $1.25 trillion.

At the same time, the Fed left a key short-term bank lending rate at a record low of between zero and 0.25 percent.

Fed policymakers also expressed concern about deflation, despite Wednesday's report on consumer prices. The Fed said there is "some risk that inflation could persist for a time below rates that best foster economic growth and price stability."

Falling prices may sound good to consumers, but can actually make a recession even worse by dragging down Americans' wages, and clobbering already-stricken home and stock prices. Dropping prices already are hurting businesses' profits, forcing them to slice capital investments and lay off workers.

"Consumer inflation in the first two months of the year is starting to look more normal than the extremely depressed numbers" late last year, Michael Feroli, economist at JPMorgan Economics, wrote in a research note.

Still, Jay Bryson, global economist for Wachovia Corp., said prices will remain under pressure for the next year or more as unemployment increases and consumer spending stays sluggish. That could prompt businesses to cut prices in an effort to spur sales.

"I don't think we're out of the deflationary woods at this point," he said.

Stocks jumped on Wall Street after the Fed's announcement. The Dow Jones industrial average rose more than 70 points, while broader indicators also increased in late afternoon trading.

Over the past 12 months, consumer prices have risen just 0.2 percent. That was up slightly from a reading of zero for the 12 months ending in January, which had been the smallest annual change in more than a half-century.

Separately, the deficit in the broadest measure of U.S. trade fell sharply in the final three months of last year as oil prices dropped and the recession reduced U.S. consumers' demand for overseas goods. Economists expect the improvement in the U.S. current account to continue this year, but mostly due to rapid falls in imports.

Exports also are falling as the global economy slows, eliminating what had been a crucial source of sales for U.S. manufacturers early last year.

Gas prices surged 8.3 percent last month after a 6 percent rise in January. Both gains came after several months of huge declines in prices at the pump.

Total energy costs rose 3.3 percent in February, almost double the 1.7 percent January rise. But energy prices are still down 18.5 percent from a year ago. Home heating oil and natural gas prices both fell in February.

Clothing costs shot up 1.3 percent in February, the biggest one-month rise since a 1.5 percent increase in March 1990. The gain likely reflected a rebound from steep discounts offered in January as retailers were clearing store shelves after the worst holiday season in decades.

Food costs dipped 0.1 percent last month but are still up 4.7 percent over the past year. Prices for meat and dairy products fell, while fruits and vegetables rose, according to the Labor Department report.

General Mills Inc. said Wednesday that its profit fell 33 percent in the quarter ending Feb. 22, partly due to higher costs compared to a year ago for commodities like corn and fuel oil.

Airline fares fell 2.6 percent last month, the biggest drop since November, but new car prices rose 0.8 percent.

Elsewhere, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday that the current account deficit, which includes investment flows and other transfers as well as trade, fell to $132.8 billion in the final quarter of last year from a revised $181.3 billion in the third quarter. That was the lowest since the fourth quarter of 2003 and below what analysts expected. The deficit dropped 7.9 percent to $673.3 billion last year.

The U.S. finances the deficit by borrowing from foreigners, so a smaller deficit reduces the need for such borrowing. The current account deficit increased for five straight years before falling slightly in 2007.

The report on consumer prices followed a report Tuesday that inflation at the wholesale level rose a slight 0.1 percent in February.

Only last summer, officials at the Fed had started to worry that a surge in energy costs could spread to other areas of the economy and boost inflation to unacceptable levels. But after the financial crisis struck in the fall, the Fed switched signals and is now aggressively fighting a deepening recession.

Inflation is not expected be a problem for some time to come given the prolonged recession, which is already the longest downturn in a quarter-century.

AP Economics Writer Christopher S. Rugaber contributed to this report.

And slowly, American citizens begin to wake from ignorance...

Looks like the US dollar will eventually not be a major competitor on the world market. Which means China will eventually dump all dollars, and the world will look to another major currency to invest in. The dollar is going down folks, I dont blame other countries. When you see extravagent spending, printing worthless paper to fund bail outs, and saturating the market with money created out of thin air... You have a BIG problem. Its not only China calling for a new currency, but Russia also: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/600/42/375364.htm

China calls for new reserve currency
By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing

Published: March 23 2009 12:16 | Last updated: March 24 2009 00:06

Original article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7851925a-17a2-11de-8c9d-0000779fd2ac.html
China’s central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.

In an essay posted on the People’s Bank of China’s website, Zhou Xiaochuan, the central bank’s governor, said the goal would be to create a reserve currency “that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies”.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Brown seeks to build G20 consensus - Mar-23UN panel calls for council to replace G20 - Mar-22Alphaville: Currency ‘ugly contest’ - Mar-24City braced for wave of protest - Mar-23Opinion: Peripheral care should be the central concern - Mar-22In depth: G20 - Mar-05Analysts said the proposal was an indication of Beijing’s fears that actions being taken to save the domestic US economy would have a negative impact on China.

“This is a clear sign that China, as the largest holder of US dollar financial assets, is concerned about the potential inflationary risk of the US Federal Reserve printing money,” said Qu Hongbin, chief China economist for HSBC.

Although Mr Zhou did not mention the US dollar, the essay gave a pointed critique of the current dollar-dominated monetary system.

“The outbreak of the [current] crisis and its spillover to the entire world reflected the inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system,” Mr Zhou wrote.

China has little choice but to hold the bulk of its $2,000bn of foreign exchange reserves in US dollars, and this is unlikely to change in the near future.

To replace the current system, Mr Zhou suggested expanding the role of special drawing rights, which were introduced by the IMF in 1969 to support the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate regime but became less relevant once that collapsed in the 1970s.

Today, the value of SDRs is based on a basket of four currencies – the US dollar, yen, euro and sterling – and they are used largely as a unit of account by the IMF and some other international organisations.

China’s proposal would expand the basket of currencies forming the basis of SDR valuation to all major economies and set up a settlement system between SDRs and other currencies so they could be used in international trade and financial transactions.

Countries would entrust a portion of their SDR reserves to the IMF to manage collectively on their behalf and SDRs would gradually replace existing reserve currencies.

Mr Zhou said the proposal would require “extraordinary political vision and courage” and acknowledged a debt to John Maynard Keynes, who made a similar suggestion in the 1940s.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e4c56948-1946-11de-9d34-0000779fd2ac.html

Dollar dips on Geithner’s ‘loose talk’
By Krishna Guha and Tom Braithwaite in Washington and Peter Garnham in London

Published: March 25 2009 14:19 | Last updated: March 26 2009 01:14

The dollar fell briefly on Wednesday after Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, appeared to suggest that the US was open to exploring a Chinese proposal to reduce reliance on the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

Mr Geithner told the Council for Foreign Relations that he had not studied the proposal by Zhou Xiaochuan, Chinese central bank governor, for greater use of special drawing rights – a synthetic currency maintained by the International Monetary Fund that represents a basket of actual currencies – in global reserves, but added: “We are quite open to that.”

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Short View: Who foots the bill? - Mar-25Lex: Global reserve currency - Mar-24Editorial: China’s plan to end the dollar era - Mar-24China calls for new reserve currency - Mar-24He said increased use of SDRs should be thought of as an “evolutionary” step rather than a step towards “global monetary union”.

The dollar fell 1.3 per cent against the euro as headlines saying “Geithner open to SDR currency” flashed across traders’ screens. With the currency falling, Mr Geithner’s interviewer – Roger Altman, a deputy Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration – gave Mr Geithner the chance to clarify.

The Treasury secretary said: “I think the dollar remains the world’s dominant reserve currency.” The dollar subsequently recovered much of its losses.

Treasury officials said Mr Geithner and President Barack Obama had both rejected the idea that a global currency could take the place of the dollar internationally and there was no change in policy. Analysts were nonetheless quick to chide Mr Geithner.

“If there is a lesson from today, it is that the dollar is on thin ice and any loose talk will be quickly punished,” said Chris Turner, strategist at ING Capital Markets.

Experts are uncertain about China’s proposal. “This is obviously not something that is going to happen for quite a long time,” said Morris Goldstein, a fellow at the Peterson Institute.

“The crisis does raise a lot of fundamental issues . . . and the reserve currency is one of them.”

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.18e9e5692442aa61d7510553b5ffc14 e.8b1&show_article=1

A UN panel of expert economists pressed Thursday for a new global currency reserve scheme to replace the volatile, dollar-based system and for coordinated steps by rich countries to stimulate their economies.
"A new Global Reserve System -- what may be viewed as a greatly expanded SDR (Special Drawing Rights), with regular or cyclically adjusted emissions calibrated to the size of reserve accumulations, could contribute to global stability, economic strength and global equity," the panel said.


As part of several recommendations to tackle the global financial crisis, the panel also noted recovery would require all developed countries, in the short term, to take "strong, coordinated and effective actions to stimulate their economies."

And it stressed the need to "lay the basis for the long-run reforms that will be necessary if we are to have a more stable and more prosperous global economy and avoid future global crises."

The commission, led by US economist Joseph Stiglitz, a frequent critic of globalization and unbridled free markets, is primarily aimed at finding solutions for developing countries.

On the monetary front, Stiglitz, the 2001 Nobel economics laureate, told a press conference here there was "a growing consensus that there are problems with the dollar reserve system.

He noted that such a system was "relatively volatile, deflationary, unstable and (had) inequity associated with it."

"Developing countries are lending the United States trillions dollars at almost zero interest rates when they have huge needs themselves," Stiglitz noted. "It's indicative of the nature of the problem. It's a net transfer, in a sense, to the United States, a form of foreign aid."

This week, China's central bank chief Zhou Xiaochuan suggested the dollar could be replaced as a reserve currency by an International Monetary Fund (IMF) basket comprising dollars, euros, sterling and yen, saying it would not be easily influenced by individual countries.

But the UN panel warned that a two (or three) country reserve system "may be equally unstable."

It said a new Global Reserve "is feasible, non-inflationary and could be easily implemented, including in ways which mitigate the difficulties caused by asymmetric adjustment between surplus and deficit countries."

Stiglitz said his panel's experts were currently trying "to lay out the conceptual framework of how this might be done."

The issue of the world currency reserve is expected to be raised at the April 2 summit of the G20 club of developed and emerging economies.

On Wednesday IMF managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said that talks on a new global reserve currency to replace the US dollar were "legitimate" and could take place "in the coming months."

But US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner earlier defended the dollar as a key global reserve currency.

"I think the dollar remains the world's standard reserve currency, I think that's likely to continue for a long period of time," he said.

Among other recommendations, the Stiglitz panel proposed western aid to help developing nations out of the crisis, better market regulation, a reform of central bank practices and of international financial institutions, as well as the creation of a new structure such as a United Nations economic council.

It specifically called for immediate, additional funding for developing countries "just to offset the imbalances and inequities created by the massive stimulus and bail-out measures introduced by advanced industrialized countries."

It said the funds could come through the issuance of SDRs approved by the IMF board in 1997.

SDRs are an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement the existing official reserves of member countries and support the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system.

They are allocated to member countries in proportion to their IMF quotas.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

DECEMBER 29, 2008

MOSCOW -- For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media.

Igor Panarin
In recent weeks, he's been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. "It's a record," says Prof. Panarin. "But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger."

Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.

But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.

A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.

"There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

In addition to increasing coverage in state media, which are tightly controlled by the Kremlin, Mr. Panarin's ideas are now being widely discussed among local experts. He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country's top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S. The professor has also been featured on the Kremlin's English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today.

Mr. Panarin's apocalyptic vision "reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today," says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. "It's much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union."

Mr. Pozner and other Russian commentators and experts on the U.S. dismiss Mr. Panarin's predictions. "Crazy ideas are not usually discussed by serious people," says Sergei Rogov, director of the government-run Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, who thinks Mr. Panarin's theories don't hold water.

Mr. Panarin's résumé includes many years in the Soviet KGB, an experience shared by other top Russian officials. His office, in downtown Moscow, shows his national pride, with pennants on the wall bearing the emblem of the FSB, the KGB's successor agency. It is also full of statuettes of eagles; a double-headed eagle was the symbol of czarist Russia.

The professor says he began his career in the KGB in 1976. In post-Soviet Russia, he got a doctorate in political science, studied U.S. economics, and worked for FAPSI, then the Russian equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. He says he did strategy forecasts for then-President Boris Yeltsin, adding that the details are "classified."

In September 1998, he attended a conference in Linz, Austria, devoted to information warfare, the use of data to get an edge over a rival. It was there, in front of 400 fellow delegates, that he first presented his theory about the collapse of the U.S. in 2010.

"When I pushed the button on my computer and the map of the United States disintegrated, hundreds of people cried out in surprise," he remembers. He says most in the audience were skeptical. "They didn't believe me."

At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S.

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

"It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin.

Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia's biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt "a pyramid scheme," and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator.

Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama "can work miracles," he wrote. "But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles."

The article prompted a question about the White House's reaction to Prof. Panarin's forecast at a December news conference. "I'll have to decline to comment," spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter.

For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino's response was significant. "The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully," he says.

The professor says he's convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union -- 15 years beforehand. "When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him," says Prof. Panarin.

REASON 1: Deregulation

REASON 2: GREED