Blame Government, Not Greed – and, Please, Ignore Central Banking

Blame Government, Not Greed – and, Please, Ignore Central Banking

Friday, October 14, 2011 – by Staff Report

There is no mystery where the Occupy Wall Street movement came from: It is an offspring of the same false narrative about the causes of the financial crisis that exculpated the government and brought us the Dodd-Frank Act. According to this story, the financial crisis and ensuing deep recession was caused by a reckless private sector driven by greed and insufficiently regulated. It is no wonder that people who hear this tale repeated endlessly in the media turn on Wall Street to express their frustration with the current conditions in the economy. Their anger should be directed at those who developed and supported the federal government’s housing policies that were responsible for the financial crisis. – Wall Street Journal

Dominant Social Theme: Look here, look here … It’s government policies, see! Don’t look THERE. Don’t look at central banking. Look away from there. Look here … at government.

Free-Market Analysis: Peter Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has had a high profile of late, publishing several articles in the Wall Street Journal (see excerpt above) blaming government rather than the private sector for the 2008 meltdown.

When the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), he tells us, reported in January that the 2008 crisis was caused by “lax regulation, greed on Wall Street and faulty risk management at banks and other financial firms, few were surprised.”

Wallison differs. The crisis wasn’t the fault of the private sector, he writes. It was the fault of the government. Unfortunately, when Wallison states it was the government’s fault, he has a fairly specific idea about “government.” His government analysis seems to leave out the leading cause of the disaster – central banking policies.

It is central banking’s money creation and low interest rates that created the fuel for this last catastrophic bust that has – evidently and obviously – virtually ended the dollar reserve system. But that’s not Wallison’s emphasis.

He’s obviously in the business of helping create the power-elite meme that public and private institutions were responsible for the current meltdown – but not central bank monetary price fixing. That would be hitting too close to home. Here’s some more from his latest article at WSJ:

Beginning in 1992, the government required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct a substantial portion of their mortgage financing to borrowers who were at or below the median income in their communities. The original legislative quota was 30%. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development was given authority to adjust it, and through the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations HUD raised the quota to 50% by 2000 and 55% by 2007 …

It is certainly possible to find prime borrowers among people with incomes below the median. But when more than half of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie were required to buy were required to have that characteristic, these two government-sponsored enterprises had to significantly reduce their underwriting standards. Fannie and Freddie were not the only government-backed or government-controlled organizations that were enlisted in this process. The Federal Housing Administration was competing with Fannie and Freddie for the same mortgages. And thanks to rules adopted in 1995 under the Community Reinvestment Act, regulated banks as well as savings and loan associations had to make a certain number of loans to borrowers who Save Like 2K Mary O’Grady and Mary Kissel on how New York’s economy and budget depend on Wall Street …

The loans were made to borrowers with blemished credit, or were loans with no or low down payments, no documentation, or required only interest payments. Of these, over 70% were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie or some other government agency or government-regulated institution. Thus it is clear where the demand for these deficient mortgages came from. The huge government investment in subprime mortgages achieved its purpose. Home ownership in the U.S. increased to 69% from 65% (where it had been for 30 years). But it also led to the biggest housing bubble in American history.

This version of history is convincing only to those who don’t understand the corrosive nature of the business cycle itself. Central bankers create booms and busts by constantly conducting monetary stimulation. The booms occur spontaneously in different parts of the economy and act as fuel for the euphorias that then turn into disasters.

Wallison himself points out that the genesis of his version of events was 1992; the business cycle actually turned twice before the sub-prime mortgage disaster was actuated. It’s a simplistic analysis he offers, therefore, designed to focus attention on government rather than on the elite’s financial war chest – its money printing via central banking.

The Anglosphere power elite, as we regularly mention, will do ANYTHING to deflect blame away from central banking. There is no justification for having a handful of people deciding on the price and quantity of money that the economy needs. It’s price fixing, an economically illiterate activity.

Wallison surely knows this; he’s an educated man and a sophisticated economic analyst. Yet he tries to turn our attention away from this fundamental flaw in Western finance by refocusing on rules and regulations.

Wallison DOES have a point, of course. Laws can aggravate and redirect bubbles. But it is central banks that provide the fuel for these serial disasters. One can, thus, actually see history being built (and rewritten) in the millions of mainstream commentaries (Wallison’s included) about the current economic crisis. In the US, Democrats blame private market “greed.” Republicans (like Wallison) blame “government.”

Conclusion: Both explanations resolutely ignore monetary excitation. In the pre-Internet era we would not be nearly as aware of the manipulations inherent in this dialogue. But technology has given us the ability to see clearly how the conversation is pursued and manipulated. This is yet another reason why the Internet Reformation proceeds and expands.

http://www.thedailybell.com/3084/Blame-Government-Not-Greed-and-Please-Ignore-Central-Banking

Posted by byrresheim on 10/15/11 03:31 AM

Posted by josejoe on 10/14/11 02:18 PM
i often wonder if i am the only one who believes ‘government’ is a product of the people with the deepest pockets. if it wasn’t for the ability of our richest corporations to ‘buy government’ maybe government as designed could work. big money loves it fine-why change anything? if there are any ideas,short of outright violent revolution, i’d love to hear’em!.

Funny you should mention violent revolution. The sacred cow here seems to be the french revolution.

While everybody knows about the gouilotine in Paris and judges according to his preferred ideological blinders, nobody seems to mention the vendée or Carnot’s massacres in Lyon. Par for the course that from ’89 to ’71 the french had only five years of what even vaguely resembles democracy – that too is never mentioned, just as a quarter of a century of european wars and generalized bloodshed coming from the revolution and its heirs is never mentioned.

Should we now take a cursory look at the glorious red revolution in Russia?

Login To Reply

Posted by byrresheim on 10/15/11 03:10 AM

Posted by mijama on 10/14/11 10:55 AM
Actually, I blame government because without its violently enforced monopoly, it would be impossible to inflict central banking on entire populations.

You are absolutely right. Now, who gave government the idea to enforce that monopoly?

Login To Reply

Posted by davidnrobyn on 10/15/11 02:15 AM

Posted by Bischoff on 10/15/11 12:34 AM
The USD is the US Dollar. It is lawful money of the United States valued at 1/42 of an ounce of gold as of January of 1971.

The FRN is the Federal Reserve Note. It is issued with the USD accounting standard. In August 1971, Nixon suspended redemption of USD denominated currency which included the FRN.

The FRN was given “legal tender” protection with the Coinage Act of 1982.

When I write USD/FRN, I mean to point out that we are dealing with an “irredeemable” currency denominated in USD accounting standard, the value of which floats.

In other words, financial statements can no longer be
evaluated using the “fixed standard” of lawful money of the U.S. Instead, the meauring standard is that of a “rubber band”, because the FRN, though carrying the USD accounting standard, changes value in a manner agreed upon between the Saudis, the US Treasury and the Fed.

The Constitution defines the dollar as 371.25 grains of fine silver. As far as I know, this has never been amended. Therefore, any attempt to define the dollar in terms of gold would seem to be at least extra-Constitutional, if not unconstitutional. I’m really astounded that our 19th century forebears had the chutzpah to do so in a time when the Constitution was held in much higher regard. I’m not necessarily against a gold standard, understand, but there’s this small matter of a previous Constitutional definition…

Login To Reply

Posted by memehunter on 10/15/11 01:52 AM

Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 10/14/11 06:19 PM
Dave Jr said: “it does not HAVE to be an ongoing debasement unless government is able to continously grow.”

To which I will quote: “There can be no such thing as “limited government,” because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power.”- Joseph Sobran. Regards, onebornfree.

I agree with you here. A relevant quote from Guido Hulsmann’s “Ethics of Money Production” (Chap. 7):

“Inflation can certainly also exist in a hypothetical society
in which the government does not in the slightest way interfere
with the production of money. The crucial point is that in
such a case there are no legitimized institutions of inflation.
Being a criminal activity, inflation has to flee the light of day
and lingers only at the edges of such a society. As long as the
citizens are free to produce and use the best money available,
therefore, sound money prevails, whereas debased money
and fractional reserves lead a fringe existence. Inflation can
then cause occasional harm for individuals, but it cannot
spread far and last long. Only the government has the power
to make inflation a widespread, large-scale, and permanent
phenomenon, because only the government has the power to
systematically prevent the citizens from spontaneously adopting
the best possible monies and money certificates. Unfortunately,
as we shall see, this is exactly what governments have
done in the past. The resulting damage has been immense, not
only in terms of material wealth, but also in terms of the moral
and spiritual development of the western world.”

Also from Hulsmann’s book, chapter 10:

Long before the age of banking, Oresme stressed the scandalous
quantitative aspect of inflation protected by legal-tender
laws:
“. . . Again, if the prince has the right to make a simple alteration
in the coinage and draw some profit from it, he must
also have the right to make a greater alteration and draw
more profit, and to do this more than once and make still
more. . . . And it is probable that he or his successors would
go on doing this either of their own motion or by the advice
of their council as soon as this was permitted, because
human nature is inclined and prone to heap up riches when
it can do so with ease. And so the prince would be at length
able to draw to himself almost all the money or riches of his
subjects and reduce them to slavery. And this would be
tyrannical, indeed true and absolute tyranny, as it is represented
by philosophers and in ancient history.”

Login To Reply

Posted by Bischoff on 10/15/11 12:34 AM

Posted by turtle on 10/14/11 07:32 PM
Pardon my ignorance. What is USD/FRN?

Only FRN I know is the forward rate note. Don’t the saudis just quote in outright USD?

While I agree central banking has its own flaws, your point about blaming government agrees with my understanding of how the USD value is manipulated by the ESF (Exchange Stabilisation Fund) which is under the direct control of the US treasury (ie. government) and not the Fed. These ESF history videos argue that the Fed actually did an OK job at maintaining USD value until the ESF arrived in 1935.

Click to view link

Part 1 (9 mins) gives a quick introduction but the whole series 6 parts (1 hour) is worth it if you have the time.

The USD is the US Dollar. It is lawful money of the United States valued at 1/42 of an ounce of gold as of January of 1971.

The FRN is the Federal Reserve Note. It is issued with the USD accounting standard. In August 1971, Nixon suspended redemption of USD denominated currency which included the FRN.

The FRN was given “legal tender” protection with the Coinage Act of 1982.

When I write USD/FRN, I mean to point out that we are dealing with an “irredeemable” currency denominated in USD accounting standard, the value of which floats.

In other words, financial statements can no longer be
evaluated using the “fixed standard” of lawful money of the U.S. Instead, the meauring standard is that of a “rubber band”, because the FRN, though carrying the USD accounting standard, changes value in a manner agreed upon between the Saudis, the US Treasury and the Fed.

Login To Reply

Posted by Bischoff on 10/15/11 12:05 AM

Posted by nithsdale on 10/14/11 06:58 PM
The financial crisis was fueled by our government having to borrow consistently the last fifty years just to operate. It began with misappropriating “trust funds”, replacing money with “chits” and escalated to using treasury securities as “roll over” instruments never to be redeemed but just to mark another expansion of government borrowing.

The problems compounded because banking regulations require banks to have on hand secure funds with which to stem any problems that occur in our system but the government redefined those security funds as its own certificates, denying the use of gold and silver, even cash. As treasury certificates mounted as revolving “debts”, they were supplemented with Fed Reserve “credits” operating in the same revolving manner. In essence,our banks had no usable reserves for any crisis. When banks got into difficulty, the banking overseers just “merged’ the problem banks into new entities, ergo new corps to assume the problem.

In effect,the US government took Ponzi to new heigths. When Citibank, the worldwide oil funds transfer agent for OPEC, could not scare up enough physical dollars to settle OPEC accounts in early 2008 (all oil must be paid with “cash on the barrelhead”, not credits in a ledger et al), it turned to the US Treasury for redemption of necessary security funds. There were not enough physical dollars to accomplish this request… that is what sent Bush and Paulson to Congress to ask for lawful printing of all that TARP.

The government asked the banks to take the hit, to rescue Washington’s reputation and maintain its aura of stewardship. That is where Wall Street made a wrong “trade”. It assumed that the government would be appreciative of its compliance in this grave matter of obvious government insolvency but it made a big mistake. The Globalists saw their opportunity to move quickly to assert the time had come for a new supra government. Wall Street could not retrace its steps, so it became the battering ram not only here in the US but everywhere else. The Globalists also miscalculated. The interdependency of the worldwide banking system had already taken place, pushed by the Globalists and suddenly there was not a single financial instrument trading in the world that was worth the paper it was printed upon, if the problem was really examined. Henceforth, there has been nothing but deliberate fielded confusion while the Globalists try to figure out what their next move must be.

It appears there are no more moves to stabilize the downhill run of all western governments, their financial affairs so the Globalists have turned to deliberate unrest and riot in the problem areas to buy time for their next brain child, if they can find one. The first “rebellion” forays were used to keep the Islamic world at bay, those cash on the barrelhead guys, but today it is the major countries themselves – Britain, The USA and now Germany.

We are all on the rollercoaster and the Globalists are betting that the under 30’s, who love the mosh pits and the woodstocks, are the perfect shock troops to keep their world occupied while they try and come up with something!

@ Nithsdale

If by “those cash on the barrelhead guys”, you mean the guys who made a deal with the U.S. Treasury and Fed Chairman Volker at the Jamaica Conference to have their “petro” dollars turned into bullion or gold futures on recycle, I agree.

Login To Reply

Posted by Don on 10/14/11 07:48 PM

@Bischoff

Thanks for a most excellent description of the ruthlessly relentless nature of compounding interest! My OCD compels me to note that the mission of the education establishment (at least in 1647 when Massachusetts passed its “ye old deluder satan law” to create America’s first public schools) was to make students literate enough to read their Bibles.

Login To Reply

Posted by turtle on 10/14/11 07:32 PM

Posted by Bischoff on 10/14/11 04:34 PM
“Democrats blame private market “greed.” Republicans (like Wallison) blame “government.”

… .and both are the product of an education establishment which is supposed to warn Americans of a danger, before it strikes them down.

What danger, you ask… ??? The danger of being caught in a compound interest trap.

What is a compound interest trap… ??? Compound interest is an exponential mathematical function. If you borrow money at interest, and you fail to pay the interest for a long period of time, at a certain point in time, the interest will then compound to exceed the amount originally borrowed.

What is the significance of that… ??? Well, let me explain it in terms of post-1935 Fed central banking.

After 1935, Representatives of the U.S. House (at least 420 of 435 members today) are required to routinely enter “ear marks” into the annual congressional budget to pay for projects within their congressional districts. With this requirement, the 1935 Banking Act created a monetary system which relied on currency created by monetizing government debt. Since debt was needed to create this currency, the federal government ever since 1935 has operated with budget deficits for 95% of the time.

Ok, ok… .. I am coming to the point.

When the federal government, year after year runs a budget deficit, the interest payment due on debt becomes part of the annual budget deficit to be monetized the next year. The effect is COMPOUNDING of INTEREST.

The mission of the education establishment was to make you aware of how compound interest will destroy a central bank currency. Were you ever made aware of this in highschool or college… ??? I doubt it.

Now that the compounded interest on government debt exceeds the original amount of government debt, the Fed is unable to sell government debt to pay off previous debt. The interest on the new debt sold would increase the overall debt, instead of decreasing it.

This was the bind in which the Fed central bank found itself in 2008. The solution was TARP Troubled Assets Repurchase Program). It vacuumed up all defaulted mortgages and credit card debt within the banking system, and it monetized those. Once the monetization of defaulted mortgage and credit card debt was exhausted after a few months, the Fed had to resort to what we know as Quantitative Easing (QE).

It is Democrats, and RINO Republicans who are responsible for running the Fed central banking system since 1935. They still believe that Fed central banking can be revived. The mathematical Law of Compound Interest will prove them wrong.

The reason the public is not yet fully aware of the demise of the USD/FRN lies in the fact that the Saudi’s will quote crude oil in USD/FRNs only. All oil and energy transactions are conducted in USD/FRN, making the USD/FRN by default the world’s reserve currency.

To pay interest on the existing government debt, the Fed has resorted to “printing money out of thin air”, QE1… , QE2… , QE?…

In the light of what I just explained, can you see that for Democrats to blame private market “greed”, or for RINO Republicans to blame “government” without specifically pointing to Fed central banking operations, simply misses the point?

Pardon my ignorance. What is USD/FRN?

Only FRN I know is the forward rate note. Don’t the saudis just quote in outright USD?

While I agree central banking has its own flaws, your point about blaming government agrees with my understanding of how the USD value is manipulated by the ESF (Exchange Stabilisation Fund) which is under the direct control of the US treasury (ie. government) and not the Fed. These ESF history videos argue that the Fed actually did an OK job at maintaining USD value until the ESF arrived in 1935.

Click to view link

Part 1 (9 mins) gives a quick introduction but the whole series 6 parts (1 hour) is worth it if you have the time.

Login To Reply

Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 10/14/11 06:59 PM

Posted by Dave Jr on 10/14/11 06:30 PM
That is a good point, but to the degree we resign resistance; to that degree we accept tyranny.

You don’t have to “resign resistance”, or “accept tyranny”. All you have to do is start to look for direct ways to increase _your_ freedom that do not depend on the consent of [even] one other person, or on the attainment of completely unrealizable goals [such as getting rid of government currency debasement systems, or limiting a government.]

The key to your freedom is always in acting alone to improve _your_ life, never with Quixotic group movements that ultimately will fail to achieve your freedom for you, simply because you are not a group, but one unique individual with your own values, needs, wants . Regards, onebornfree

Login To Reply

Posted by nithsdale on 10/14/11 06:58 PM

The financial crisis was fueled by our government having to borrow consistently the last fifty years just to operate. It began with misappropriating “trust funds”, replacing money with “chits” and escalated to using treasury securities as “roll over” instruments never to be redeemed but just to mark another expansion of government borrowing.

The problems compounded because banking regulations require banks to have on hand secure funds with which to stem any problems that occur in our system but the government redefined those security funds as its own certificates, denying the use of gold and silver, even cash. As treasury certificates mounted as revolving “debts”, they were supplemented with Fed Reserve “credits” operating in the same revolving manner. In essence,our banks had no usable reserves for any crisis. When banks got into difficulty, the banking overseers just “merged’ the problem banks into new entities, ergo new corps to assume the problem.

In effect,the US government took Ponzi to new heigths. When Citibank, the worldwide oil funds transfer agent for OPEC, could not scare up enough physical dollars to settle OPEC accounts in early 2008 (all oil must be paid with “cash on the barrelhead”, not credits in a ledger et al), it turned to the US Treasury for redemption of necessary security funds. There were not enough physical dollars to accomplish this request… that is what sent Bush and Paulson to Congress to ask for lawful printing of all that TARP.

The government asked the banks to take the hit, to rescue Washington’s reputation and maintain its aura of stewardship. That is where Wall Street made a wrong “trade”. It assumed that the government would be appreciative of its compliance in this grave matter of obvious government insolvency but it made a big mistake. The Globalists saw their opportunity to move quickly to assert the time had come for a new supra government. Wall Street could not retrace its steps, so it became the battering ram not only here in the US but everywhere else. The Globalists also miscalculated. The interdependency of the worldwide banking system had already taken place, pushed by the Globalists and suddenly there was not a single financial instrument trading in the world that was worth the paper it was printed upon, if the problem was really examined. Henceforth, there has been nothing but deliberate fielded confusion while the Globalists try to figure out what their next move must be.

It appears there are no more moves to stabilize the downhill run of all western governments, their financial affairs so the Globalists have turned to deliberate unrest and riot in the problem areas to buy time for their next brain child, if they can find one. The first “rebellion” forays were used to keep the Islamic world at bay, those cash on the barrelhead guys, but today it is the major countries themselves – Britain, The USA and now Germany.

We are all on the rollercoaster and the Globalists are betting that the under 30’s, who love the mosh pits and the woodstocks, are the perfect shock troops to keep their world occupied while they try and come up with something!

Login To Reply

Posted by Dave Jr on 10/14/11 06:30 PM

Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 10/14/11 06:19 PM
Dave Jr said: “it does not HAVE to be an ongoing debasement unless government is able to continously grow.”

To which I will quote: “There can be no such thing as “limited government,” because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power.”- Joseph Sobran. Regards, onebornfree.

That is a good point, but to the degree we resign resistance; to that degree we accept tyranny.

Login To Reply

Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 10/14/11 06:27 PM

Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 10/14/11 06:19 PM
Dave Jr said: “it does not HAVE to be an ongoing debasement unless government is able to continously grow.”

To which I will quote: “There can be no such thing as “limited government,” because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power.”- Joseph Sobran. Regards, onebornfree.

“There can be no such thing as “limited government,” because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power.”

And besides which, even if governments _could_ somehow be limited to specific functions, they would still end up spending more than they took in regardless – they are not businesses, you know, in fact they are the antithesis of business, as you should well be aware. Regards, onebornfree.

Login To Reply

Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 10/14/11 06:19 PM

Posted by Dave Jr on 10/14/11 02:41 PM
It is true that the cost of government as well as any other service has to be absorbed in price. But it does not HAVE to be an ongoing debasement unless government is able to continously grow. The only way to stop the continous growth of government or banking centralization is to take away the printing press. Or more accurately, quit accepting their scrip.

Dave Jr said: “it does not HAVE to be an ongoing debasement unless government is able to continously grow.”

To which I will quote: “There can be no such thing as “limited government,” because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power.”- Joseph Sobran. Regards, onebornfree.

Login To Reply

Posted by Dave Jr on 10/14/11 04:59 PM

Posted by haha on 10/14/11 04:00 PM
“Money is backed by productivity, that is the reality whether we like it or not.”

This looks like a variant of Say’s law : Demand must be backed by Productivity!

Using money and demand interchageably is the problem we have now. FedGov can print and use it to demand. They don’t even have to try to be productive (offer services) anymore. In fact they are becoming more and more destructive.

Money is neither supply nor demand, but an instrument for transaction.

Without money, all we have is barter. But, don’t we first need to produce something to barter with?

Login To Reply

Posted by Bischoff on 10/14/11 04:34 PM

“Democrats blame private market “greed.” Republicans (like Wallison) blame “government.”

… .and both are the product of an education establishment which is supposed to warn Americans of a danger, before it strikes them down.

What danger, you ask… ??? The danger of being caught in a compound interest trap.

What is a compound interest trap… ??? Compound interest is an exponential mathematical function. If you borrow money at interest, and you fail to pay the interest for a long period of time, at a certain point in time, the interest will then compound to exceed the amount originally borrowed.

What is the significance of that… ??? Well, let me explain it in terms of post-1935 Fed central banking.

After 1935, Representatives of the U.S. House (at least 420 of 435 members today) are required to routinely enter “ear marks” into the annual congressional budget to pay for projects within their congressional districts. With this requirement, the 1935 Banking Act created a monetary system which relied on currency created by monetizing government debt. Since debt was needed to create this currency, the federal government ever since 1935 has operated with budget deficits for 95% of the time.

Ok, ok… .. I am coming to the point.

When the federal government, year after year runs a budget deficit, the interest payment due on debt becomes part of the annual budget deficit to be monetized the next year. The effect is COMPOUNDING of INTEREST.

The mission of the education establishment was to make you aware of how compound interest will destroy a central bank currency. Were you ever made aware of this in highschool or college… ??? I doubt it.

Now that the compounded interest on government debt exceeds the original amount of government debt, the Fed is unable to sell government debt to pay off previous debt. The interest on the new debt sold would increase the overall debt, instead of decreasing it.

This was the bind in which the Fed central bank found itself in 2008. The solution was TARP Troubled Assets Repurchase Program). It vacuumed up all defaulted mortgages and credit card debt within the banking system, and it monetized those. Once the monetization of defaulted mortgage and credit card debt was exhausted after a few months, the Fed had to resort to what we know as Quantitative Easing (QE).

It is Democrats, and RINO Republicans who are responsible for running the Fed central banking system since 1935. They still believe that Fed central banking can be revived. The mathematical Law of Compound Interest will prove them wrong.

The reason the public is not yet fully aware of the demise of the USD/FRN lies in the fact that the Saudi’s will quote crude oil in USD/FRNs only. All oil and energy transactions are conducted in USD/FRN, making the USD/FRN by default the world’s reserve currency.

To pay interest on the existing government debt, the Fed has resorted to “printing money out of thin air”, QE1… , QE2… , QE?…

In the light of what I just explained, can you see that for Democrats to blame private market “greed”, or for RINO Republicans to blame “government” without specifically pointing to Fed central banking operations, simply misses the point?

Login To Reply

Posted by Jackson on 10/14/11 04:04 PM

Posted by josejoe on 10/14/11 02:18 PM
i often wonder if i am the only one who believes ‘government’ is a product of the people with the deepest pockets. if it wasn’t for the ability of our richest corporations to ‘buy government’ maybe government as designed could work. big money loves it fine-why change anything? if there are any ideas,short of outright violent revolution, i’d love to hear’em!.

The evil that ensues from government intervention in the marketplace is croneyism. Political contributors who get politicians elected become their cronies and the beneficiaries of government intervention. The cronies, however, are not limited to corporate donors. Payback goes to the large, well funded and well organized unions – particularly the public sector unions. Payback also goes to other large blocs such as specific ethnic groups and, of course, the enviros.

The only cure is to keep government out of the market.

Login To Reply

Posted by haha on 10/14/11 04:00 PM

Posted by Dave Jr on 10/14/11 12:40 PM
Interesting video. Another good diagnosis of the problem but an impossible solution. Money has to be backed by something or it has no value and therefore will inevitably devalue to zero (hyperinflation).

Money is backed by productivity, that is the reality whether we like it or not. That is why gold can be money, because it requires productivity to produce it.

Any productive entity has the right to create money by extending credit/accepting debt in exchange for their production. Government as well as banking are services at best, and can not manage a money supply without disasterous results, no matter how well their intention.

“Money is backed by productivity, that is the reality whether we like it or not.”

This looks like a variant of Say’s law : Demand must be backed by Productivity!

Login To Reply

Posted by Dave Jr on 10/14/11 02:41 PM

Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 10/14/11 12:55 PM
My thoughts exactly. And, furthermore, if you have a government in the first place then you _must_, sooner or later, have some type of system in place for continual, systematic debasement of the authorized currency, simply because it is impossible [except maybe, for the very short-term] for any government to spend less than it takes in.

Once a government is created, it is impossible for it/them to run at a profit as a business has to do in order to survive- ongoing currency debasement is an absolute necessity for any/all governments.

I say [to anyone who believes in governments but opposes currency debasement via its centralized banking systems]: get over it, you simply cannot have one without the other; ongoing currency debasement is essential to all governments, if you want a government in the first place then this [i.e. ongoing currency debasement] is simply a part of the price you must pay for it [along with welfare, standing armies, and “you name it”] .

If the Federal Reserve were ever eliminated, mark my words, as long as there is a US government, another government-run, handy system for currency debasement would simply replace it, as surely as night follows day.

Getting involved with groups supposedly trying to get rid of the Federal Reserve is a complete waste of any freedom-seeking individuals precious time; precious time that might be far more effectively used to look for ways to increase that individuals personal freedom regardless of the ongoing evils/effects of centralized banking systems worldwide. Regards, onebornfree.

It is true that the cost of government as well as any other service has to be absorbed in price. But it does not HAVE to be an ongoing debasement unless government is able to continously grow. The only way to stop the continous growth of government or banking centralization is to take away the printing press. Or more accurately, quit accepting their scrip.

Login To Reply

Posted by josejoe on 10/14/11 02:18 PM

i often wonder if i am the only one who believes ‘government’ is a product of the people with the deepest pockets. if it wasn’t for the ability of our richest corporations to ‘buy government’ maybe government as designed could work. big money loves it fine-why change anything? if there are any ideas,short of outright violent revolution, i’d love to hear’em!.

Login To Reply

Reply from The Daily Bell
Don’t believe violent revolution makes things better …

Posted by spekulatn on 10/14/11 01:37 PM

Posted by spekulatn on 10/14/11 01:34 PM
Mr. Breitbart weighs in on OWS,

SNIP]]

The true purpose of the Occupy movement appears to be further economic and governmental destabilization, at a time when the world is already facing major financial and political challenges. By embracing the Occupy movement, President Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and their union allies may be supporting an effort to harm both the domestic and global economies; to create social unrest throughout the democratic world; and to embrace other radical causes, including the anti-Israel movement. Ironically, the emails suggest that the President and the Democrat Party may soon find their friends in the Occupy movement to be a political burden. The email below calls for the Occupy movement to begin ‘executing higher-risk actions, civil disobedience and arrests,’ and suggests: ‘We must draw a line, disavow the Democrats explicitly, make our messaging a little uncomfortable.’

END SNIP]]

Click to view link

From the same site a new post,

SNIP

On August 10, 2011, the hacker group ‘Anonymous’ announced that it would join the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. That’s what sparked my interest in monitoring #OccupyWallStreet.

I reached out to a colleague and asked if he would be interested in studying the protest with me. At first, it seemed disorganized, and we believed it would only be a few hundred protestors.

As we engaged in monitoring its growth, we recruited other people to help us begin the collection of data available via social media. We began mapping out key players, and monitored Anonymous’s efforts to organize protests in the San Francisco Bay area public transportation system (#opBART) in order to detect patterns and key influencers.

END SNIP

Click to view link

Login To Reply

1 2 Next

One response to “Blame Government, Not Greed – and, Please, Ignore Central Banking

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s