Chairsatan Bernanke - Meet President Paul?

Tyler Durden's picture




 
0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 02/12/2011 - 21:44 | 956759 holdbuysell
holdbuysell's picture

Just on the possibility that he could, at minimum, marginalize the Fed and give the US back the ability to print its own money (as Lincoln had to in order to finance the Civil War), I would vote for him.

Sat, 02/12/2011 - 22:04 | 956802 ghostfaceinvestah
ghostfaceinvestah's picture

Agreed, we need another Old Hickory.

Sat, 02/12/2011 - 23:43 | 956970 tellsometruth
tellsometruth's picture

agreed

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 09:03 | 957378 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Oh, getting rid of the Fed - how brilliant!

Let me complete that sentence:

Now since the mere prospect of "President Paul" sends shivers of mortal terror down the spine of every ...

  • ... working American who thinks that rich hypocrites suffering from 'austerity' in their country clubs cannot possibly feel the real pain of being unemployed?
  • ... college graduate who thinks that dramatically rising youth unemployment would escalate into a 'lost generation' under ronpaulian government inaction?
  • ... small business owner who thinks that gold standard magnified deflation perpetually redistributing wealth to those who hoard or inherit gold is unfair to those who chose the wrong parents and are trying to produce something real?
  • ... farmer who thinks that Ron Paul abolishing anti-monopoly laws and eliminating farming subsidies would make the agrobusiness versus small farms fight a very one-sided affair? Bye-bye small independent farms and hello big monopolies? Hello even higher food prices?
  • ... elderly who thinks that Ron Paul cutting (and eventually eliminating) Medicare and Social Security would push them into poverty and would expose them to death by curable but too expensive to treat illnesses?
  • ... bank account holder who thinks that Ron Paul eliminating the Fed and FDIC would expose them to much severe boom and bust cycles and would expose them to losing their life's savings to bank crashes?
  • ... ordinary investor who thinks that Ron Paul eliminating the ban on insider trading, fiduciary duty of banks and other government financial regulations would be a perpetual payday for Wall Street?

An important reminder, Ron Paul does not think we need any financial regulation:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/12/17/ron-paul-i-dont-think-we-need-...

Wow! I'm sure Wall Street is readying the Ron Paul Campaign contribution coffers already. He is really their man - he just does not realize it yet. Ron Paul might even be willing to implement what Wall Street has lobbied for for decades, for free?

There would be one good aspect of Ron Paul being elected President: apparently after the roaring twenties and the Great Depression and 7+ million Americans dead due to the depression we need another, fresh reminder is needed to show what libertarian anti-regulatory laissez-faire policies and the gold standard really brought to the average American ...

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 09:14 | 957412 The Profit Prophet
The Profit Prophet's picture

Interesting theories you have there Paul...........at least "Mr. Paul" openly proclaims his libertarian economic views.  Perhaps you can enlighten us on the wisdom of promoting extended low interest rate monetary stimulus in an environment of a completely unregulated OTC derivatives market.....and please include an explanation of how Keynes' theories accounted for modern financial innovations designed to increase liquidity exponentially. 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 10:23 | 957459 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

Interesting theories you have there Paul...........at least "Mr. Paul" openly proclaims his libertarian economic views.

Unfortunately, history has taught us that honest idiots in power are way more dangerous than sleazy but intelligent bastards.

But yes, he is honest and consistent about his views.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on the wisdom of promoting extended low interest rate monetary stimulus in an environment of a completely unregulated OTC derivatives market.....and please include an explanation of how Keynes' theories accounted for modern financial innovations designed to increase liquidity exponentially.

I could go on and on about how the current system should have blown up numerous times since 1934 when the gold standard was abolished.

Alas, it keeps muddling through in a much more civilized fashion than the Gilded age has suffered through its "Panic of 1893", "Panic of 1907" and "Great Depression" periods of boom and bust cycles.

The current system is the worst (except all the alternatives), it's messy but it tries not to leave the elderly rotting in poverty and illness, it does not force them to beg for 'charity' of the rich, it does not let a whole generation of youth get lost (without a fight) just because they were born in a wrong phase with a boom and bust cycle:

http://projects.flowingdata.com/images/0730suicide-epidemic.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan

So yes, beyond the reasons I listed above we have very real historic reasons to be deeply worried about libertarian 'free for all, big fish eats small fish' capitalism and gives us reasons to be very worried about the concept of the gold standard that would hard-code the perpetual growth of the accumulated wealth for the wealthy ...

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 10:35 | 957488 par4
par4's picture

1934 gold standard abolished? Bretton woods pegged dollar to gold at $35 to the ounce. Yes?

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 10:47 | 957500 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yup, this guy would rather die of liver failure than throwing up every now and then.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:02 | 957514 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Tell that to the 7+ million Americans who died from effects of malnutrition during the Great Depression and ask them how they liked the libertarian heaven of 'throwing up every now and then' ...

And to preempt your usual lie that the "Fed caused the Great Depression", here's a few facts:

The Fed did not actually expand the monetary base and did not "print easy money" - remember, the US was still on the gold standard until 1933/1934:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?bgcolor=%23B3CD...

Note how the monetary base was largely constant, following gold reserves.

What enabled the roaring twenties was the anti-regulatory laissez-faire environment offered by two republican administrations - combined with a post-war "this time it's different!" zeitgeist. Banks gave easy credit on margin - to buy stocks, which as we know can only go up in price, right? :-)

Once that house of cards collapsed the administration watched as literally thousands of banks went bankrupt as more and more people withdrew their funds (and put it into their safes) and more and more debtors (and over-leveraged banks) got squeezed by debt deflation.

What got the US out of the deflationary spiral? Going off the gold standard in 1933/34 (confiscating gold and then repricing gold), printing a lot of dollars and the government spending them - combined with a more active Fed and FDIC to ensure that people cannot lose their hard deposits in a bank crash.

European countries (the US crisis was quickly exported to Europe as well and expanded into a world economic crisis) dropped the gold standard as well - those who dropped it earlier got off better - those who dropped the gold standard later (like France, the last holdout) had a prolonged crisis.

You can see how the US monetary base increased after the gold standard was dropped, dramatically.

Unemployment also started going down when the gold standard was dropped:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SlVu0t0KqXI/AAAAAAAAFxo/rzSqiWrqGu...

And here's a full-blown painful recession with the gold standard fully place (the 'Panic of 1893'):

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_VgJQTp0Bsf0/TUXXtHR_P9I/AAAAAAAAAHY/tOUr4y8watA/sl...

It was an ugly, almost decade-long affair to recover from a simple panic. Not some quick 'throwing up' ... And the busts went on and on, in quick succession.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:12 | 957537 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Sorry, you are intellectually inconsistent.  Either Bernanke is competent, or is incompetent.  Which is it?  You don't get to pick and choose to fit your current state of cognitive dissonance.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:17 | 957547 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

When it comes to implementing monetary easing to fight deflation then Bernanke is pretty competent - albeit he is somewhat isolated due to not enough fiscal spending, so the US job market is in a worse shape than the German or Chinese job markets.

What was your point? You did not state any.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:00 | 957604 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yes I did.  You just refuse to see it because it destroys your argument.  Either Bernanke was right in that the Fed caused the Depression (meaning laissez faire was not at fault--something that is widely understood by those who actually LOOK at the policies of the Hoover administration, a man who came into office decrying laissez faire, and was in fact such a socialist buffoon that Roosevelt campaigned against his intrusion into the economy!), or he was wrong, and as such his whole theory of how economics works is wrong, so perhaps he shouldn't be in charge of the economy.  Not an invalid assertion, as he has YET to make a correct economic prediction.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:09 | 957711 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Either Bernanke was right in that the Fed caused the Depression

No, the point is that the Fed could have done more in avoiding it.

So the libertarian, non-interventionist Fed let the Depression happen - and that's a big difference ...

How that supports your view that the Fed should be more libertarian again I fail to see :-)

Or do you want to abolish the Fed altogether, letting the big banks be the ones who do the bailing out? They'd have power over vast areas of the economy and during busts they'd conveniently pick the winners and losers - like they did before the Fed was created ...

or he was wrong, and as such his whole theory of how economics works is wrong

You are such an intellectual simpleton, really. You see the world in black and white, good and evil, right and wrong.

The concept of someone not being right in one aspect of his argument while he might be right in others never occurs to you, right? :-)

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:19 | 957818 Dangertime
Dangertime's picture

"So the libertarian, non-interventionist Fed let the Depression happen - and that's a big difference"

This is where you err.

 

There is no such thing as a libertarian non-interventionist Fed.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:50 | 957978 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

There is no such thing as a libertarian non-interventionist Fed.

Well, lets drop the 'libertarian' qualifier then. I only wanted to point out that the doctrine of the freshly-created Fed (looked upon very suspiciously) was very different from the doctrine and mandate of the Fed today.

The Fed in 1929-30 was very cautious. The Fed today has 80 years of a track record of avoiding depressions and babysitting one of the most successful global economies of the last 100 years - and still it's being attacked ferociously.

Imagine yourself to be Fed Chairman in 1929 and raising the prospect of QE :-)

It was unthinkable.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 20:12 | 958414 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 

I've read a lot of your posts, and seen the other regulars point out your errors.  Repeatedly. Yet here you are again, posting the same old shite.

Just one example of your sophistry:

"The Fed did not actually expand the monetary base and did not "print easy money" - remember, the US was still on the gold standard until 1933/1934:

      http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?bgcolor=%23B3CD..."

Well, that's hardly surprising, is it? That's the BASE money supply. But money in a fractional reserve system is more than just the base money supply, isn't it, troll? If we look at M2, that expanded by 300% between 1913 and 1929. I'd call that quite an expansion, wouldn't you?

Being wrong is one thing. But people have pointed out your errors repeatedly. Given how well you articulate your sophistries, you are clearly sufficiently intelligent to know your arguments are specious.

Fuck off, you dishonest piece of shit.

 

Mon, 02/14/2011 - 11:20 | 959539 h3m1ngw4y
h3m1ngw4y's picture

the troll and paid shill is working overtime. i dont even care anymore to junk. just overread him

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:02 | 957872 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Switching terms, lying and sayng one thing is another, is intellectual dishonesty.  Libertarian central planners?  You are awash in contradictions.  A mass of cognitive dissonance.  Living death.

You can't argue against someone who constantly redefines terms to manufacture arguments.  You, and those like you who rule our country, have lead us to the brink of disaster and beyond, yet you blame all of the problems you have caused on the guys who aren't in power.  Those who allowed the Depression of 1920 to end immediately.  You LIE and say that Hoover was laissez faire when that is clearly not the case.

If you can't dazzle them with science, baffle them with bullshit.  That is exactly the course you have taken.  You lie and obfuscate the truth, and claim that there can be no truth.  Christ, you're like a Randian villain in the flesh.

Guess I'll just shrug, and let you kill yourself and everyone else who can't see you for what you are.  Enjoy your apocalypse.  You made it, and you deserve it.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 17:24 | 958146 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

I agree wholeheartedly with the "Living Death" part.

The apocalypse is coming, and I am worried for all of us who have tried to prepare; I hope those of you who caused it rot in Hell.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 20:03 | 958403 tellsometruth
tellsometruth's picture

Or do you want to abolish the Fed altogether, letting the big banks be the ones who do the bailing out? They'd have power over vast areas of the economy and during busts they'd conveniently pick the winners and losers - like they did before the Fed was created ...

No bailing out is what most of the people wanted in in the fall of 2008...quick fire sale less dangerous than years of stagflation with risks of hyperinflation in endless attempts of bailouts... but the congress was told the world would have ended martial law yadyayda

The question is do you not believe this credit crunch was intentionally constructed by allowing Bear Stearns to happen and Lehman to fail with the BK laws in the UK?


Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:46 | 957669 SheHunter
SheHunter's picture

Let me tell you my point More Critical.  What we have now is working far less than you expound. We DO have masses of underemployed and unemployed youth. We DO have masses of elderly people who cannot live on their government pittance. We DO have masses of able, younger adults out of work recieving so few coins from the government that they house up togaether, go back with parents or move into a park.  So with all that occuring anyway and steadily increasing I say BS and enough is enough and what we have now is not working.  RP will not do away with the programs you list in your first blog.  He would not be allowed to even if he did want to- the senate and house would not allow a clean sweep of these programs.  So, with the undeniable recognition that what we have now is not working...and with the knowledge that our huge government care programs would not be obliterated overnight and likely not ever ...what is your reluctance to wiping some of the tarnished slate clean?

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:12 | 957715 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

What we have now is working far less than you expound.

I don't see 7 million dead and I don't see hundreds of thousands of children (along millions of adults) living in Hoovervilles either.

You may want to see the busts and panics of the gold standard - I don't.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:30 | 957739 Dr Hackenbush
Dr Hackenbush's picture

meanwhile, in this century, the FRB system (which began w/gold) has grown into the worst money system ever thrust upon mankind, and getting exponentially worse.  Ridding the debt  system would allow a represenative gvmt to actually help the poor, elderly, middle class, blah, blah, instead of the bankers and crony politicians.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:53 | 957780 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

meanwhile, in this century, the FRB system (which began w/gold) has grown into the worst money system ever thrust upon mankind, and getting exponentially worse.

I do not share that view. I see that civilization improved leaps and bounds, and I see that given enough political will the federal debt can not only grow slower but can be reduced in absolute terms:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?bgcolor=%23B3CD...

Most of the 'exponential' thing we are seeing is civilization getting interconnected more and more. There's more business per capita, more communication per capita, there's more people to begin with. That inevitably brings growth with itself and it inevitably needs more money to represent all that trade proportionally - and that's good, not bad.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:41 | 957840 Dr Hackenbush
Dr Hackenbush's picture

if we can't agree that massive rising debt in a top down money system inhibits a government from performing basic functions, i.e., helping poor, then we've come as far as we can.  The neo-liberal expansionism, in the long run, has only done well to preserve political lives.  It has created a world where synthetic growth cycles, fueled crazy use of critical resources, just for the sake of creating resources in order to pay off debt.  It's a train laying its own track.  In a finite universe, stable growth/ stable currency, would be far-far better, and no one has to starve to death, anywhere.  

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:56 | 957988 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

if we can't agree that massive rising debt in a top down money system inhibits a government from performing basic functions, i.e., helping poor, then we've come as far as we can.

Well, but didn't this happen 10 short years ago:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?bgcolor=%23B3CD...

?

I.e. the federal debt can be paid down, given the political will.

The US is a very rich country with 15 trillion dollars per year income, with natural resources / mineral rights alone worth hundreds of trillions of dollars - and it's still printing the currency that it is indebted in.

A debt of 14 trillion dollars may sound a lot but in relative terms it's not that bad really.

To put it differently: the US has grown so much that its sheer economic output could pay down the total federal debt of 1980 within 1 month.

Yes, debt goes up 'exponentially' but so does productivity, size and global value ...

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:35 | 957749 SheHunter
SheHunter's picture

Agreed.  Our hundreds of thousands of poor are less visible. They are living in parks and deserted industrial buildings and in deserted school buses behind the Quality Inn in Rawlins WY (to name one loction) and beneath the Elko NV overpass at the second exit (to name another location).  Our starving and abused children are living in housing for the poor neigborhods and in deserted warehouses.  I do see some of what you are saying but consider this: if we had our poor living in Hoovervilles they would be hard to hide. A public humiliation for our country.  Perhaps our sordid government would be more inclined to act if they could less easily hide the poor. Do some googling on how our cities hide their poor prior to hosting large events...let's get the poverty out into the open.  Many of us RP advocates know it would hurt but, hell,many are hurting already. Hurts like hell when you're pulling the tooth but then the ache goes away.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:57 | 957785 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

Our starving and abused children are living in housing for the poor neigborhods and in deserted warehouses.  I do see some of what you are saying but consider this: if we had our poor living in Hoovervilles they would be hard to hide.

Why do you assume that during the Great Depression there was no hidden/latent poverty? Of course there were tens of millions more - the Hoovervilles were just those who lost everything and lost all remaining links to more prosperous parts of American civilization.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:15 | 957793 njdoo7
njdoo7's picture

 

Just because YOU haven't seen them yet, doesn't mean it's not happening.  Sure they are relatively smaller now, and surely you can make unfounded assertions that they will not grow, but matter of fact is they are here and currently growing.  The system you advocate is not preventing these things from occuring, regardless of what you wish to believe.

"Like a dozen or so other cities across the nation, Fresno and Sacramento are dealing with the arrival of modern-day Hoovervilles. The illegal encampments of homeless people are reminiscent, on a far smaller scale, of Depression-era shanty towns."

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/03/25/us/20090326-TENTS_index.html

Just like most in the mainstream you try to divide an issue into two views, red or blue, black or white, left or right...  It's not: maintain the status quo or have busts and panics.  Isn't it convenient how your 'one and only opposing choice' is from a time in history when the fed existed and exerted some control over interest rates.  Isn't it convenient that the system you advocate also contains bust and panics.  Your two opposing options/outcomes that you try to present aren't even true representations of the debate at hand.  Your argument is founded upon misrepresenting opposing views, because it is not strong enough to actually address them..go figure.  

 

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 16:05 | 958005 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

Sure they are relatively smaller now

Not just 'smaller' but 'much smaller' - and that is what matters.

There were literally more than ten million Americans in Hoovervilles and 7+ million died due to the effects of the depression.

You sure cannot be making the point that the current recession (it did not even depression status) is comparable on any level with the Great Depression?

Yes, it's the deepest recession for a long time, so yes, it's unprecedented for pretty much anyone involved. It could be much worse if you take away the (very feeble, in international comparison) safety nets.

Compare it to how the crisis was handled in Germany - the fiscal and monetary response was rather skillful.

Firstly, the German governmental sector spent up to almost twice as much as the US government, during the crisis:

http://www.cepr.net/images/stories/germany-U.S._23832_image001.gif

Imports are rising:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/DEUIMPORTQDSNAQ_Max_630_378.png

Exports are rising:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/DEUEXPORTQDSNAQ_Max_630_378.png

Unemployment is dropping:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/DEUURAMS_Max_630_378.png

And it never reached the peaks that US unemployment reached.

That is how a full-blown keynesian stimulus program works in practice.

So yes, it can be done, given enough political will to actually help the economy. GOP sabotage was really harmful in that respect - and now they are blaming it on Obama. That was obstruction executed in a skillful manner.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 17:07 | 958113 akak
akak's picture

There is one thing that rabid statists of your persuasion can NOT deny, and that is that your vision of the perfect society rests on massive and all-encompassing coercion at the hands of the omnipotent State.  Your vision is the very antithesis of "progressive", as it merely represents a return to the millenia of violence and coercive control by an all-powerful elite that prevailed prior to the Enlightenment.  Your naive and abominable political and social goals are regressive and evil in every sense of those words.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 18:15 | 958230 stormsailor
stormsailor's picture

7 million people died of starvation in the depression?

 

in the us, or worldwide.

 

is that 1929 through 1939?

 

is that all effects, or just starvation?

 

where is this quantified, and not just historian speculation.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:01 | 957875 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You choose liver failure and death over vomiting.

I would choose not to drink, personally.  Bartender Ben doesn't cut anyone off.  Ever.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 16:21 | 958035 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

I'll just keep on drinking, thank you.  It cools the rage, as opposed to some for whom it fuels it.  If I couldn't have a few to mellow out, I would probably have been shot in a clock tower a long time ago. ;(

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:29 | 957736 Dr Hackenbush
Dr Hackenbush's picture

.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:54 | 957779 tellsometruth
tellsometruth's picture

More Critical T...

You again bring up valid points for Libertarians/paulnuts (i am one) to consider with the whole less regulation vs wanting real regulation. 

I look at this way.  Our current system is based on too much subsidy and the regulations not being properly enforced or ignored and the Judicial System is not providing the their Check to the balance of Power along with the MSM not doing its checking either.

if there was complete transparency in our (new) system and honest economic education I do beleive we would be much better off.  This is based on a transition out of our current crony capitilism that informed citizens of both the left and the right despise. The Checks and balances of a free market with unbiased education and media would serve the people best.  I know a little pie in the sky but it is sunday morning and there is finally snow in the forcast out in my neck of the woods (cascades)

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:59 | 957787 tellsometruth
tellsometruth's picture

Also to note, I believe the prevelant Apathetic view towards our Gov and Econ would change drastically if people felt their calls for transparency were heard.  Thus leading to feeling of having some control, rather than the current norm of not wanting to no any details b/c they get pissed off and turned off by the whole discusssion and return to the midless dribble pouring out the TV

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 16:39 | 958064 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

I agree that transparency might be a game-changer.

I'm very curious to see how the whole Wikileaks concept plays out. (even if in the end it will not be called Wikileaks.)

OTOH it's also clear that sociopaths simply do not care about popular opinion - witness Berlusconi.

Furthermore there's subtle abuse like hidden monopoly fees in form of intentionally complex and ever changing bills and calculations - which most voters do not grasp.

So while transparency will be helpful in shining light on the really shady deals - it does not work against subtle, deniable abuse and it does not work against those who do not care about being exposed.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 18:58 | 958299 tellsometruth
tellsometruth's picture

Thanks for the response... I appreciate opposing view points in a discussion, and that most certainly is/will become increasingly important for folks of historically opposing viewpoints (conserv & Lib) that are narrowing their focus to rid us all of the root causes of present circumstances.  EX Dennis and Ron standing up to fight the Renewal of Patriot Act

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:07 | 957789 tellsometruth
tellsometruth's picture

Anyone for Cat skiing at MT Bailey Oregon this Friday  (oldest operation in US)?  Forcast looks like Pow Pow! We need one more!

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:11 | 957806 ZackLo
ZackLo's picture

Is that you Krugman? didn't print enough money? I guess we'll find out if they were right but printing money creates the the "hoarding effect" that you detest..Common sense man they are printing money, businesses are  going to go load up on triple the supplies(on borrowed money) to head off the future depreciation of the currency(higher prices) ,people won't be hired because all the money was spent on inflated goods... then bam! The bottom falls out because nobody has a job because businesses couldn't afford to hire the people to support said inflated goods prices...When the prices adventually crash their is no chance of those prices ever getting back to where they were, because everyone borrowed to supply the goods at those prices and also everyone would be borrowing to buy those goods at those prices....

 

so instead of making creditors eat their own losses for they're own stupidity you would rather an endless supply of liquidity to drown out all of the problems until noone produces goods at all. (talk about wearing a blind fold)

You know when people sell things people generally, at least today in the modern age, buy those goods reshape them and sell them...shit people produce doesn't come out of thin air...like the notes they create at the fed.

That is why debt is so evil, because if you go into debt, you have to make more or at least as much as you borrowed to get out of debt. That is the unavoidable disconnect. No free lunch even if it unwillingly stolen from the masses through debasement.

banking institutions were supposed to deal with "time preferance" as in I have this gold and I'm saving it, so i put it in a deposite at the bank for a fixed amount of time and they lend it to someone who runs a profitable operation. Someone around 1000-2000 years ago realized hey the people never come in to get said gold. So they went on to make 10x the deposit  checkbook entry so you have a small gold supply servicing a 10x leverage debt load(now fiat servicing a 100x? 1000x?)...there's your boom and bust cycle. Abolish fractional reserve it only serves to goose prices to where they otherwise wouldn't be, and expropriates the purchasing power and labor to the middle men creditors.

the expansion of production of goods and the division of labor has been wrecked for as long as humans have been around because of this fact.

natural growth is deflationary because production expands but big corporations hate the basic law of diminishing marginal utility (deflation?), the more you make the less it's worth,

There is no and will be no recovery. Until the debt is purged from the system. There will be no  division of labor until creditors lose the fractional reserve power. honesty will not take place in the division of labor until the printer is destroyed and some commodity is deemed money.

read your history.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:09 | 957614 Kayman
Kayman's picture

Uh... MCT

There are small fish left ?

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:40 | 957658 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

 

 

"but it tries not to leave the elderly rotting in poverty and illness, it does not force them to beg for 'charity' of the rich"

but its okay to provide them with their lives by the enforced charity of the taxpayer instead of people actually asking for and being thankful for the help they recieve from those most capable of giving it.

 

" let a whole generation of youth get lost"

 

Who allows all the drugs into the country and who provides the schooling.  Not a surprise that a generation that has been brainwashed into waiting for the government to provide them with jobs and a future get lost hanging around waiting for nothing to happen.  It wouldn't be by chance that the large pool of unemployed will be available to fill the ranks of the new police state.  tsa fema and other assorted paramilitaries.   

 

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:19 | 957724 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

but its okay to provide them with their lives by the enforced charity of the taxpayer instead of people actually asking for and being thankful for the help they recieve from those most capable of giving it.

Yes in essence - and it's not "charity", it's insurance benefits - you are entitled to them, you paid your dues in the good times in form of taxes.

There are people who'd rather starve and die than beg for 'charity' from others and then have to 'thank' for the generosity.

Also note that charity is a fundamentally pro-cyclical force: it works when there's prosperity but people are ... thrifty in times of need: millions were forced to live in Hoovervilles ...

FYI, Adam Smith, the creator of libertarian economics, supported not only taxation but progressive taxation as well.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 19:59 | 958398 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

the fund from which these benefits flows is empty and the real cost will be the taxes collected from the yet unborn.  I camp out nearly every year while the weather is above freezing because I like camping out and its somewhat cheaper.

I can acept a certain level of taxation.  I can't accept the level of debt assumed for all these entitlements which sucks the life force out of a nation paying the vig to the squid.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 20:23 | 958442 BigJim
BigJim's picture

No, you're right, it's not 'charity'.

Charity is when 'A' gives freely to 'B'.

Our current system has 'C' threatening to imprison 'A' if 'A' doesn't give money to 'C', who may (or may not) give money to 'B' if 'B' is a member of a politically-decided beneficiary group.

While 'C' creams off a generous cut of this 'charity', of course.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 21:04 | 958527 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

even johnny the douche never jacked a thread like ol "meat head".  time for tyler to send him off to the weight pile permanantly

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 21:47 | 958610 BigJim
BigJim's picture

It's our fault, really. Despite knowing you should never feed the trolls, we still do it...

His posts are just so patronising, mendacious, and wrong, it's hard to resist.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:49 | 957675 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Government is not the sole source of charitable activities, and is not "charitable. Unfortunately, your charitable utopia, is coercive and oppressive towards many. It is the greatest of evils, to oppress your fellow man. Your utopia strives for the lowest common denominator among the broadest group of people by rewarding failure, rather than success.

Your "Big Fish" is the result of government activity (bailouts, TBTF, subsidies, regulations, etc.).

it does not force them to beg for 'charity' of the rich

Have you driven by any strip mall parking lot lately? How many people are standing on the curb holding signs? These folks may start having to unionize soon.

Your utopia allows us to sweep our dirt under the rug of government, and make it  somebody elses' problem. This is not compassion. This is convenience. It is avoidance!

Oh then there is the idea that we no longer have the money to pay for any of this shit.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 09:49 | 957440 Catullus
Catullus's picture

When is this troll going to realize that no one is listening??

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!