Bill Gross Compares Ben Bernanke To Satan, Calls For A Bondholder-Citizen "Exorcizing" Comintern

Tyler Durden's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Michael's picture

When did Bill Gross get religion?

Groundhog thought of the day.

The pain, suffering, and severity of the final phase of the economic collapse increases by 5% to 10% each month that goes by without curbing the banking cartel activities. For example, If Ron Paul had been elected president in 2008 and put his plans in place, we would have had a mild depression and would have been well on our way to recovery by now just like Iceland.  If the complete and total economic collapse happened today, the depression will be 2 to 3 times worse. If things continue the way they are, the economic collapse that is a mathematical certainty will make the great depression look like a picnic.

Salinger's picture

When did Bill Gross get religion?


perhaps he  got a call from an Oncologist

Michael's picture

Egyptian Revolution Update.

The real fight club breaking out in Cairo square. Anderson Cooper of CNN got smacked in the head 10 times and fled the scene.

Oil workers pro Mubarak were order to go and protest for the dictator. The revolution is getting interesting.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

For example, If Ron Paul had been elected president in 2008 and put his plans in place, we would have had a mild depression

How about using the USA as an example, instead of some far-away small island isolated in the Atlantic, and fact check a real US recession which occurred during the "gold standard", when there was no Federal Reserve yet?

If you check the "Crash of 1893" recession:

Then you will realize that Ron Paul is delusional: "ronpaulian" US recessions were deep, long, painful and ugly under the "no Fed" gold standard.

And that recession was just one of many that occured in that era. Raw, unbuffered boom and bust was frequent back then, and recoveries were painful.

What was true back then was that rich idiots who picked the right parents weathered these periods of "libertarian austerity" in their country clubs, enjoying the proceeds of a deflating family money/gold with no real work performed, when the rest of the country was suffering from unemployment and when many depositors lost all their life savings deposited in crashed banks (there was no Fed FDIC in those years).

If you want to see that again, if you want the "Panic of 1893", the "Panic of 1907" and similar very painful periods of history again you must either be an idiot or you must be a sadist.


Robert Neville's picture

So allowing economic pressure to build by kicking the can down the road while elites rob wealth from the middle class is somhow preferable? The great depression occurred on the Feds watch. The collapse that is coming will be because of Fed actions.  There is no free lunch. There will always be economic cycles. No one is smart enough to central mange an economy.

JLee2027's picture

There is no free lunch.

+++ Indeed.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

The great depression occurred on the Feds watch.

This is another one of those libertarian delusions.

The Great Depression occurred under a much different, passive "libertarian Fed": there was no FDIC and the gold standard was still kept intact during much of the Great Depression: the price of gold was fixed at $20.67.

In 1934, under Roosevelt, the Fed's regulatory powers got vastly expanded - and there were no similar depressions for 70+ years, neither have the painful boom and bust cycles repeated. Nor has any depositor lost all life savings to a bank crash in the past 70 years.

You thought the dotcom bust was bad? You haven't seen real busts then ... just look at the graph I linked to.

Say what you want about abuses of the financial system (and I'd agree with most of those complaints) - but historic data shows that the booms and busts got much better with a central bank in place.

Just like the relative number of car-wreck deaths and severe injuries was reduced since seatbelts became mandatory.


Michael's picture

How Much things cost in 1933
Average Cost of new house $5,750.00
Average wages per year $1,550.00
Cost of a gallon of Gas 10 cents
Average Cost for house rent $18.00 per month
Vacuum Cleaner $17.75
A loaf of Bread 7 cents
Newport Boulevard Ladies Hat $1.69
A LB of Hamburger Meat 11 cents
Silk and Rayon Stockings 39 cents a Pair
Plymouth 6 Car $445.00
Health Building Tonic 89 cents
Campbells Vegetable Soup 10 cents
1933 Vintage Radio $52.00
Average Laborers Wage $20.00 per week

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


So with a year's wage they could buy about 20 thousand loafs of bread in 1933.

Today you can buy about 20 thousand loafs of bread, from the average income of 2009.

(Depending on the quality of the bread it might be less or more loafs of bread.)

The standard of living improved dramatically compared to 1933, and not just for everyday necessities: there's running water, good roads, clean air in most cities and a very advanced medical system that will serve as a 'birthright' service to every US citizen starting at around 2014.

And the US does not have 25% unemployment and does not have thousands of banks gone bankrupt with all depositor money lost.

So your numbers are supporting my arguments.


More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

I just double checked your figures and it appears that according to other sources a loaf of bread was 9 cents in 1933 in other areas of the country:

That would make it about 16 thousand loafs of bread from a year's wage.

But prices fluctuated back then too so it's hard to tell conclusively.


Sancho Ponzi's picture

It is 'loaves of bread', not loafs. Loaf is what you see when you look in the mirror.

ColonelCooper's picture

Please NEVER use yahoo answers as a source.  That insults everybody, yourself included.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


When I posted that link I checked various other sources as well and the numbers are scattered but the Yahoo result look correct.

Please ONLY criticize a data source if you can show that it's wrong :-)


Michael's picture

How many loves of bread can the 22% unemployed, according to shadow stats, buy?

Today, the concentration of privately held wealth at the top is at its highest peak since 1929.

Top 10% of income earners take 60% of all wages, or something like that.

The standard of living thing is overrated.


More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture



How many loves of bread can the 22% unemployed, according to shadow stats, buy?

How much was unemployment in 1933 according to shadow stats, if the official stats were 25%? How many loafs of breads could they buy, living in the "Hooverville" shanty town:


How many people got to live in one of the hooverville's because they lost all their savings in the thousands of bank crashes?

You are really out of touch with how life was back in the Great Depression or during the "Crash of 1893" ...


Michael's picture

Check out the Obamavilles on youtube. Todays depression will not be televised.

Obamaville Tent City

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


You really need to check your facts. Millions of unemployed Americans were living in Hoovervilles:

The video you linked to did not show any large-scale dwellings at all, it showed a couple of tents and quickly went to close-ups, presumably not to ruin the sensational story by showing the real size of the area :-)

How can you possibly compare that to Hoovervilles?


Michael's picture

43+ million on food stamps. Unemployment welfare checks and section 8 hide what you are not willing to see. The economy is going to collapse. It is a mathematical certainty. Then again, you ain't seen nothing yet.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Amazing, so a 2010 insurance system that works and keeps people with at least some income and keeps them fed until they find a job you equate to the 1933 situation of millions of americans living and often starving in shanty towns with no sanitation and no income whatsoever?

Wow, to not see the difference you must be a really cruel, heartless person.


Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

7,000,000 Americans died during the Great Depression of starvation and the effects of malnutrition.  And, then 90% of the population was rural.  Now 90% of the population is urban.  This will not be pretty!

ColonelCooper's picture

That was the driving force behind my comment about not feeding the world.  Of course 90% of that 90% don't understand that the shit they eat produced by "Monsanto" is only a slower acting poison than the takeout food they rely so heavily upon.

ColonelCooper's picture

I agree with much of your comment.  The problem is we bought it with a credit card. 

REAL unemployment may not yet be 25%, but it is much greater than the 9.5% clapdrivel we're handed.

How many banks have closed so far?  How many are on a watch list?  If the government would have bailed out the banks with borrowed money during the Great Depression, how many would have closed?  Where does the FDIC insurance money come from?  Oh yeah.  That same credit card.

Look.  I will agree with you that the lifestyle of the American people is MUCH better than it was a century ago.  But I ask you to speak to the sustainability of that. 

I am not saying a gold standard is the answer, but as I see it, our currency needs to be pinned to SOMETHING with tangible value rather than faith.  The only advantage to gold or silver is that the faith has lasted centuries instead of decades.  As time goes on, I'm coming to the conclusion that both sides are wrong.  Perhaps I am transforming into Mako, but with either solution, nobody wins.  We cannot feed, house, and clothe the people on our planet while energy dwindles and costs rise.

Please don't counter with the modern agriculture solution.  The minority feeding the majority who have been conditioned not to contribute, with genetically modified poison crops and chemically treated water may be "life", but is just a slow shitty road to dying anyway.  People who live in slums and are fed shitty food for generations are becoming that hamster your kids wanted so bad, but after a month or two is now just a chore.  I'm not trying to sound cruel, but it IS that third rail of sociology that nobody wants to talk about.

You offer intelligent arguments as to why and how the standard of living is better today; few would dispute that claim.  But please then, explain how the path we're on can be maintained.  It seems to be the missing link to your argument, which seems focused on how goldbugs (for lack of a better word) are just wrong.  Tell us then, how you are right?  Long term, not for the next five years. 


Michael's picture

At the very least, our money must be printed by the US Treasury under the supervision of congress.

When the government borrows money for extreme events, it borrows money from itself, We the people, at 0%.

ColonelCooper's picture

Thank you for helping to make my point.  You OFFER to the discussion by throwing out possibilities of change.  Muscleman needs to offer some new ideas; I would bet that his junk ratio would plummet as he is not a cut and paster, and doesn't jump into the insult throwing.

He likes to call himself a contrarian; we need that in order to work through ideas.  But it is a fine line between trolling and arguing without bringing anything to the table. 

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

I posted this reply further below as well, but let me repeat it, because it's relevant to the argument you make here:

What I did in this thread was that I pointed out that the "solution" that was suggested is absurd on its face and led to much worse results in the past.

What do I need to "offer" in addition to stating the obvious that please do not make the situation worse than it already is?

Your goals might be noble, but now I'm going to be blunt: you wont improve the situation if your logic is broken, if the premises are false, if the conclusions are flawed and if your memory of history is short ...

The road to hell is paved with good intentions ...

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Btw., I do have suggestions about how to improve the financial system.

Firstly, get rid of the government provided subsidy given to commercial banks called the "Reserve Lending Window".

Instead create a central clearing entity (computerized, no human discretion allowed) that handles "money" all electronically, with a single 'interest rate' attached to the system as a control parameter.

Then get rid of the bank special status monopoly altogether: everyone would be able to run a "bank" simply by having an account with the central clearing entity. Every citizen would have an account there, and every company.

This type of "electronic money" has special properties: the central clearing entity can set a rate that applies to all deposits. This rate can be positive (increases the amount of M0, a mild stimulus) or even negative if needed, if the economy has overheated. Negative yields would be coupled with a "redistribute equally amongst citizens" function, to remove the deflationary effect on the economy - i.e. M0 would still be constant in this 'negative yield' case.

Banks can still exist and offer deposits but would have to do so on their own risk and customers would have no deposit insurance if they deposited with such a bank. (I.e. banks could still offer accounts similar to today's brokerage margin accounts: high risk, high reward, but no automatic guarantees.)

This monetary structure would solve a whole range of problems with the monetary systems we have today. It has far, far better qualities than any rigid gold standard or "create your own money" Ron Paul solution. Bank crashes would literally not exist. Bail-outs would not exist (at least for the financial system). Both boom and bust could be handled symmetrically via the interest rate.

It's not realistic though to implement this, it's IMO too detached from traditional notions of money and could be circumvented via off-shore banking.


ColonelCooper's picture

The idea has considerable merit; the other big flaw is that as long as human nature programs the computers there will always be manipulation. 

Thank you for the response.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Sure, but once the system has been in place for some time there will be more and more resistence against manipulation.

Just like bank account balances today very rarely get manipulated downwards by the bank - there's an angry person behind that shrinking bank account after all ...


ronin12's picture

"We cannot feed, house, and clothe the people on our planet while energy dwindles and costs rise."

I call BS on this, the resources and means are there.

Think about the massive concentration of wealth that exists, the massive misallocations of capital and the massive amounts of people who sit around and do jacksh*t.

The resources (human, technological and natural) certainly are there to clothe and feed the population.



ColonelCooper's picture

Read the rest of the post.  Perhaps the statement you quoted from me is flawed in its literalness (is that a word;), but again, the MINORITY cannot FEED the majority without recompense for eternity.  And as the poor population grows while the people who feed them shrink, the "on a long enough timeline.." phrase becomes applicable.  I'm talking about a sustainable system of life for another 200 years, not the next ten. 

Michael's picture

Our goals for a sustainable system of life for another 200 years should include different measures of growth. Not just digitally inflated numbers on a balance sheet. Understanding exponential functions should suggest maximum growth rates of 1% or less as a goal.

ColonelCooper's picture

The biggest obstacle I see is trying to create a level of growth that can keep pace with the world's population growth, AND not implement a fractional reserve; it will be the death knell of any change.

Earlier, Muscleman quoted the phrase, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions", and I agree.  We have completely tried to factor out the cruel reality of nature in society.  We keep old people alive on feeding tubes for years, babies born months premature have a good chance of survival, we feed and provide medicine to third world countries who breed faster than their ecosystems can support them.  I'm not passing judgement, or advocating population control, or genocide or anything of the like.  But the harsh truth is that it is those same good intentions that have fed, housed and clothed every possible person, which have subverted a natural selection process that used to solve a large part of the problem with a horrible efficiency.

Michael's picture

Population numbers control themselves one way or another. I figure the planet can handle about 25 billion people.

Growth percentage should be an easy function of population numbers.

What I would really like to see is 1 tax total from the paycheck that includes all taxes owed by the individual.

A super computer can deal with disseminating the money to all the various entities. 

Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

Exactly!  How many technologies that could feed the world are being sat upon?!  Instead of helping mankind these globalist demons are poisoning our water, air and food.  They are eugenisists with the objective of reducing the world population by 90%.

destiny's picture

Enjoy it while it still lasts....

Clean air ??  hum.   Running water, yeah, not sure that what's in it is really all that healthy !   

Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

Haven't you heard!?  Sodium Flouride is good for you.  They put it in rat poison but it's good for human consumption.  That's why San Diego, the largest U.S. city not to have already done so, willl soon be adding it to their water supply.  Sodium Flouride causes sterility, dental flourosis (sp) and bone cancer amongst other maladies but it's good for you.  Your government cares for you and is here to help!

J K's picture

But the 1933 Vintage Radio only received AM stations!

LowProfile's picture

The GD was due to excessive leverage and fractional reserve lending.

...You dumb fuckin' idiot!

Robert Neville's picture

You are forgetting about the bust every ten years or so since WWII and that really big one in the seventies. I don't care what your government statistics say I lived through that Fed caused disaster. I have the feeling that the 70's will be the good old days by the time you and you ilk are done doinking over what's left of our country.

Michael's picture

We didn't have an Internet back then to get good information out with crowed sourced analysis of bubbles like we do now.

A competing currency that Dr. Paul advocates will go a long way in leveling the playing field.

Not just gold, but a basket of commodities can be used as currency backing. A loaf of bread can cost 10 cents with a precious metals backed currency.

Failure is an option from time to time in order to flush out stupidity. See how simple it can be?

attst487's picture

OMG! You mean to tell me that back when most grew their own food and were independent of reliance on an "economy" that there was little economic stability? Damn, how did they ever survive withhout debt? Alternatively, instead of losing deposits in crashed banks, now we lose our money to thriving banks before we even earn it, much less have a chance to deposit.

Pants McPants's picture

Guys, ignore this retard.  He's a troll.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Well, while I indeed post contrarian analysis here that many find inconvenient I'm not a troll: I linked to the hard data that I based my opinion on and I'm willing to admit when either the data I'm citing is wrong or the logic I use is faulty - and have done so in the past.


ms1408's picture

No, you don't post an analysis - you post a threat. A threat to lock me in jail unless I use your fiat crap.

ColonelCooper's picture

I don't think you are a troll, I just think that you don't offer any solutions along with your argument that we are wrong.  Your value as a contrarian dwindles as your message doesn't OFFER anything.

At least the anti fiat people are trying to make adjustments to a system that maybe didn't work perfectly, but perhaps could function better than before.  Freegold, and basket of commodities, just pinning the shit to tangible value are at least solutions that have enough merit to be considered.  Fiat?  It is always the same.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


I don't think you are a troll, I just think that you don't offer any solutions along with your argument that we are wrong.

Well, I pointed out that the "solution" that was suggested here is absurd on its face and led to much worse results in the past.

What do I need to "offer" in addition to stating the obvious that please do not make the situation worse than it already is?

Your goals might be noble, but now I'm going to be blunt: you wont improve the situation if your logic is broken, if the premises are false, if the conclusions are flawed and if your memory of history is short ...


ColonelCooper's picture

You may be blunt all you want, I'm a big boy.  But, "please do not make the situation worse than it already is?"  is no more an answer than a fixed gold standard.  Doing nothing will lead to disaster as great as collapse and a "do-over", it will just take a few more years.   Don't mistake my being civil and asking questions about a solution for having noble goals.  I am probably the least noble person here.  While I do what I can for others who can't, I am a selfish SOB, and really don't give a shit about the masses because I think they are doomed.  I am also fully aware that I am very likely part of "they", but I will try my damndest to not be.

They are doomed under a fixed gold standard, and they are doomed under our current system.  People have a tendancy to grow faster than wealth.  Nobody has found an answer to that. What I'm asking you, is what do you want to do about it?  From your answer, I can only assume: nothing.  Good luck with that.

ColonelCooper's picture

Got your post above.  If you would consistently include input like that with your criticism, people may argue with you, but I bet nobody would be calling you Troll anymore.