Niall Ferguson Video Lecture - "Empires On The Verge Of Chaos"

Tyler Durden's picture

ForaTV, in conjunction with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, shares another terrific must watch presentation, this time by one of our favorite socioeconomic historians, Niall Ferguson, who in this lecture talks in depth, and with an objective perspective that only few can share, about empires on the verge of decline, emphasizing the precarious position the US has found itself in, now that China's ascendancy is undisputed, and only matched by the accelerating descent of the once great US nation. The fact that Ferguson is Paul Krugman's natural nemesis in all things only makes his insights all that more relevant (not to mention correct). And while the various chapters discuss such key concepts as the limits and implications of complexity theory, the ever increasing portion of US federal revenues attributed to interest payments (surpassing defense spending), China's military sustainability, the limits of Keynesian stimulus, investing in gold and hyperinflationary concerns, the primary highlight is Ferguson's discussion on what may be the primary topic of 2011: whether ot not debt will trigger the collapse of the US. To wit: "Sometime over the next decade the US will reach the crossover point at which it will be spending more on debt service, than it is able to spend on defense...The Chinese have noticed what the rest of the world's investors pretend not to see: that the US is on a completely unsustainable fiscal course with no apparent political means of self-correcting. Ladies and gentlemen, military retreat from the mountains of the Hindu Kush, or the plains of Mesopotamia has long been the harbinger of imperial fall." Recommended viewing.

From the official presentation:

Throughout history the rise and fall of empires isn't slow or cyclical, as we like to think, but mostly happens very, very suddenly. America is a superpower on the edge of chaos, according to economic historian and author Niall Ferguson. U.S. debt levels, he says, and its unwillingness to address the problem, has put it in the same category as other great empires which have collapsed throughout the ages.

Ferguson argues the world is changing. There's the rise of authoritarian China as a super-power; a Keynesian president leading a weakened United States; the re-emergence of democratic India as a great power; the continued decline of Japan; and the probability of continued global economic instability ahead.

Is the rise and fall of empires cyclical or arrhythmic? How does economic profligacy -- whether the result of arrogance or naivety -- contribute to the downfall of civilizations? Not to be missed, the address will offer a timely review of primacy, leadership, and the complex factors behind the rise and fall of great powers and civilizations.

The introuction, which incidentally is the weakest part of the hour long presentation, is below, with an indexed link to each section provided below.

01.    Introduction    09 min 09 sec
02.    Niall Ferguson Opening Remarks    01 min 40 sec
03.    Historical Cycles of Empire Decline    07 min 07 sec
04.    Complexity Theory    08 min 20 sec
05.    Implications for the United States    06 min 22 sec
06.    Interest Payments as a Share of US Revenue    01 min 56 sec
07.    Failure of Perception    02 min 43 sec
08.    Debt Payment Overtaking Defense Spending    06 min 58 sec
09.    Q1: Healthcare Reform    04 min 10 sec
10.    Q2: China's Military Sustainability    02 min 38 sec
11.    Q3: Gold Investing    01 min 24 sec
12.    Q4: Political Stability of China    02 min 42 sec
13.    Q5: Children Teaching You About Debt / Radical Islam    03 min 57 sec
14.    Q6: Advice to Obama    02 min 40 sec
15.    Q7: Limits of Keynesian Stimulus    03 min 46 sec
16.    Q8: Better Leadership in the West    03 min 27 sec
17.    Q9: Fear of Hyperinflation    05 min 09 sec

h/t asymptotix

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sean7k's picture

Niall Ferguson is the official apologist of the Bilderbergers, the chosen biographer for the Rothchilds and the wunderkind of the Council of Foreign Relations. While brilliant and useful as a tool to see where the elites are leading us- do not be fooled by the presentation. 

For those who continue to complain about the stupidity of the ruling elite, Ferguson should give you cause to wonder. Top notch rhetoritician and an excellent economist, capable of putting lipstick on the ugly pig of totalitarianism and leaving you fumbling for the opportunity to kiss your liberty goodbye.

Sean7k's picture

Wow, strong argument- an implied insult. Is there some part of his resume you wish to dispute? Have you read anything from Ferguson? Are you aware of work as a historian? As an economist? 

Perhaps you have never seen his name on a list of Bilderbergers presenters and attendees? The two volume and rumored to be three, History of the Rothchilds, with access to family papers and records which NO one has ever been allowed to see is not known to you? Do you read "Foreign Affairs"?

Are you intelligent enough to dissect his arguments and understand the repercussions of  his recommendations? To see the endgame of his machinations and the actions of his masters?

You might find it useful, hopefully, you are capable. 

Au Member's picture

Sean7K well said

Critical analysis of Fergusons Ascent Of Money here:


The author of the piece seems to think Larry Summers penned some parts so that it fitted his particular (Shite) brand of economics.

Sean7k's picture

Nice reference. Thanks!

Au Member's picture

Great quote from the article aimed squarely at the Ivy league economics lecturers who are clearly captured and programmed to self perpetuate this system of money=debt vorticular death spiral that we are caught in:


One of the saddest, and most destructive, of the many ripple effects of dishonest money is the government’s wholesale subversion of the economics profession and large swaths of the academic community. [12] Given human nature, it would be naïve to implore Establishment academics to bite the hand that feeds them and come clean about money, by appealing to traditional notions of scholarship, honesty and fairness. But perhaps the unfolding catastrophe, in its glaring obviousness, provides the basis for a different sort of appeal:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Academy, look to your legacies. How do you wish to be remembered generations hence? As mere ‘servile writers’, as Mises put it, pliant members of a privileged elite who led a life of relative ease in the waning days of a corrupt regime? Or as individuals of distinction who dared to speak out and act honorably? Your call, Professors.

Monk's picture

What's not mentioned is found in the liquidity chart in this site:

That is, most of the money supply consists of unregulated derivatives.

In addition, if there are only around 150,000 metric tons of gold and silver worldwide, then that leaves us with less than one troy oz. of precious metals per person, likely not enough to maintain a gold standard.


4xaddict's picture

Some valid points AU but worth reiterating that like all information this just needs to be read with the author's political leaning/prejudices in mind. Much like every comment written on ZH.

There is some very good information in his publications as you say so those skim reading your comments should be sure to keep that in mind.


JonNadler's picture

Au, great analysis of the Ascent of Money

Angry that the world is so unfair? Infuriated by fat-cat capitalists and billion-bonus bankers? Baffled by the yawning chasm between the Haves, the Have-nots – and the Have-Yachts? You are not alone. Throughout the history of Western civilization, there has been a recurrent hostility to finance and financiers, rooted in the idea that those who make their living from lending money are somehow parasitical on the ‘real’ economic activities of agriculture and manufacturing. This hostility has three causes. It is partly because debtors have tended to outnumber creditors and the former have seldom felt very well disposed towards the latter. It is partly because financial crises and scandals occur frequently enough to make finance appear to be a cause of poverty rather than prosperity, volatility rather than stability. And it is partly because, for centuries, financial services in countries all over the world were disproportionately provided by members of ethnic or religious minorities, who had been excluded from land ownership but enjoyed success in finance because of their own tight-knit networks of kinship and trust.

Despite our deeply rooted prejudices against ‘filthy lucre’, however, money is the root of most progress. [p. 2]




Pretty telling about Ferguson. That's so disingenuous it puts me to shame

Guy Fawkes Mulder's picture

That everyone must forgive everyone... was my first thought after I learned about the magnitude of the lies that keep this broken system going.


trav7777's picture

why didn't he just break it down and say "white people are jewhaters"?

The reality is that this group of "tight kinship" aka clan nepotism has gotten rich lending what they did not have.  Look at our banking system now...$50T of Z1 credit outstanding...does ANYONE believe that the banks who lent this mass of money ever really HAD $50T in capital to actually lend?

Debtmoney is a ponzi, and emerging recognition of that provokes the hostility.  Fractional lending at compound interest has gotten people lynched because it really IS earning via parasitism.

Bearster's picture

Why is it seemingly impossible to differentiate banking from debt-based fiat money?  Does anyone here think that in an unadulterated gold standard there would not be (or should not be) banking and lending??

Why is it seemingly impossible to discuss finance without racist hatred?


Alexandre Stavisky's picture

Ferguson wrote a book on the Rothschilds.  Scholarly but very softball pitch.  I'm sure he uncovered some revealing but suppressed information.  They probably took him in and gave him their equivalent of the BEM and gave his career that "special interest" secret-keepers enjoy.  Undoubtedly erudite, but whitewashes the tyranny and conflict-producing-control exerted over the globe by money masters.

Imagine, if you will, extending UE and food stamps and social welfare until that "critical mass" of population percentage is reached.  And then close the books, destroy the currency, close the money conduit, and abscond.

Then watch from other commanding heights as your strategies of decades' intrigue produces the DEATH OF A NATION.

Then again maybe it is just a series of simple errors and random human frailty that invokes the destroying ANGEL.

lawrence1's picture

Yes, good reference. I perused once the Ascent of Money, looking specifically what he said of gold, and distrusted him.  Thanks, now I know why.

Kreditanstalt's picture

@Au Member, thanks for the link to the review...!

Reading that book, I wondered how he could spend so much time devoting himself to describing the wonders of the development of CREDIT and how it had "allowed economic expansion", yet STILL not have any opinion about today's monetary system...!?!  One read that kind of book and expects a decent academic writer to come down on one side or the other.  But...NO.  Rather smacks of Francis Fukuyama, saying that history has reached its zenith in the present monetary system...

Oracle of Kypseli's picture

@ sean7k

Can you please take time and argue the points as if the lecturer was an uknown? I bet you can not.

Sean7k's picture

Pick one, He's essentially a Keynsian, which means he's a tool and trapped defending a failed economic theory. I'll do it at halftime.

Oracle of Kypseli's picture

I did not see that in his lecture until the last question, in which he stated that it is difficult to create hyperinflation, which may be true initially as Ben is trying to inflate, but once inflation starts, can he stop it?

As an intellectual exercise, I wonder if it is better to flood all taxpayers with government rebates that have expiration dates and may kickstart the cycle of spending, especially if it is not your earned money. But some of us may use it to buy more gold and silver.  

Jerry Maguire's picture

Ben is not trying to inflate.  He is rescuing the banking system and imposing austerity, trying to avoid deflation as much as he can, and not succeeding much.

Hyper-inflation is a different animal than inflation.  It's a political event, not an economic one.

Sean7k's picture

Two questions then?

One, hyperinflation has little to do with inflation. Hyperinflation is a loss of faith in a currency- common misconception. While an economy will experience inflation a priori, until there is a loss of confidence in the ability of the government to pay it's debts (Weimar) and the inability to buy inputs or sell outputs because people will no longer accept your currency at your perceived value (scarcity, Zimbabwe) does hyperinflation happen. Thus, hyperinflation can only happen through direct action of the monetary elites- it is always created.

Two, this is essentially a tax reduction with a requirement to spend. It requires a definition on what it can be spent on (cash for clunkers, house rebates, TARP, etc.), but the problems are manifold: first, is your admission- you would BUY gold and then hoard (as would I)=sterilizes liquidity, but fails to create sales or capital investment for additional growth. Second, it does not address debt. While the US has been able to create mountains of unpayable debt because it's reserve status, there may come a reckoning (the bond market, especially at the state and local level, but soon to hit Treasuries). The typical reaction is austerity, but austerity slows an economy, it doesn't grow it, making it MORE difficult to pay current entitlements and interest on the debt. Third, the inclusion of expiration dates implies record keeping and oversight- a huge cost that would diminish it's effectiveness.

Lastly, this implies spending is the answer(QE), if that was the case, why don't credit card companies just keep raising your limit? Because, while your ability to pay debt is limited, the ability of debt to be used to withdraw wealth from the generations of wealth creation by all Americans has yet to be exhausted. This is the point of currency inflation, giving the banks and corporations use of the currency before it is debased and depreciated as it works it's way through the economy. Giving the government unlimited funds to create debt that pays interest on money that was created through fractional reserve banking, rather than from the production of goods and services.

The only way to improve an economy is through the creation of wealth from the production of goods and services that have real value that results in other people buying the product. We spend more time abusing leverage for profit, then creating goods for sale. 

Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

If you examine Zimbabwe and Weimar, you will see that hyperinflation is a 4X phenomenon, where a currency is driven into the ditch by speculators.

The budget deficits of both Zimbabwe and Weimar were no more alarming than that of the US or Britain today.  So why did Zimbabwe and Weimar unravel, while the dollar and pound stays relatively buoyant? This leads one to believe that hyperinflation is not solely rooted in the printing press, or in politics or economics. There must be something else.

The answer is that Zimbabwe and Weimar were indebted in a currency other than their own, forcing them to participate in the currency markets to meet their debt obligations.  Conversely, the United States and Britain are indebted in our their own currency - treasuries and gilts.  Rather than being dependent on the currency markets to service our debt, we (US and Britain) are simply reliant on our Treasury and central bank. 

This makes all the difference in the world. Speculators drove rates to the moon when they realized that both Zimbabwe and Weimar had to enter the currency markets to service their debts.  It was not too long before those printing presses couldn't keep up with exchange rates.  

I think the difference between inflation and hyperinflation is primarily a speculator-driven 4X phenomenon on countries that have debts denominated in currencies other than their own, rather than a political, economic or supply/demand event. 

akak's picture

I think that is a grossly simplistic and, more to the point, incorrect analysis.

Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany, the USA today and the UK today all share one thing in common: a debt that realistically cannot be repaid or even serviced, regardless in just whose currency that repayment must be made.  The fact that the US can issue its own currency is beside the point; the underlying wealth sufficient and able to repay that debt does not for all practical purposes exist.  Governments can print or create all the currency they want, but at the end of the day that is ALL they can do ---- they have no ability to create wealth

Perhaps the USA and the UK will avoid hyperinflation on the scale of Zimbabwe, but in the end the value of their currencies will be similarly or equally trashed --- it is just a matter of timing, and the rate of that trashing.  If we experience 20% annual inflation for ten years, or an 84% devaluation of the dollar over the course of one month in a sudden but brief hyperinflation, are we fundamentally much better off either way?

Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

Sorry.  You're wrong.  

Are you trying to tell me that there is no real meaningful difference between:


  • A country totally reliant on the currency market to service their debt
  • A country that can print their deficits, then sell it to their own central bank 


This difference means nothing in the hyperinflation argument? Are you serious?

Furthermore, the following statement of yours is very strange, with extreme data plucked out of nowhere and adds nothing to your point, nor does it subtract anything from my argument.  It's just a meaningless sentence, making an irrelevant point. 

If we experience 20% annual inflation for ten years, or an 84% devaluation of the dollar over the course of one month in a sudden but brief hyperinflation, are we fundamentally much better off either way?

akak's picture

Sorry.  You're wrong.  

Are you trying to tell me that there is no real meaningful difference between:

  • A country totally reliant on the currency market to service their debt
  • A country that can print their deficits, then sell it to their own central bank

Fundamentally, no there is not.  The underlying issue is still the same: The arbitrarily large issuance of fiat currency does NOT create wealth!  Whether a government defaults on its debt by formal default, or by the stealth default of currency debasement, they still end up screwing their debtors either way.


Furthermore, the following statement of yours is very strange, with extreme data plucked out of nowhere and adds nothing to your point, nor does it subtract anything from my argument.  It's just a meaningless sentence, making an irrelevant point. 

If we experience 20% annual inflation for ten years, or an 84% devaluation of the dollar over the course of one month in a sudden but brief hyperinflation, are we fundamentally much better off either way?

How was that out of context, when you were discussing inflation vs. hyperinflation, and claiming that we would certainly avoid the latter? I was merely trying to point out that we would be more or less equally screwed either way.  And since you are clearly mathematically challenged, the net currency depreciation over ten years is the same in both cases.

Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

The underlying issue is still the same: The arbitrarily large issuance of fiat currency does NOT create wealth!  Whether a government defaults on its debt by formal default, or by the stealth default of currency debasement, they still end up screwing their debtors either way.

Yes. Of course. Anyone would agree with this statement of yours.  

But we're talking about hyperinflation - an event where a currency fluctuates by the hour.  We're not talking the slow drain on wealth through the gradual and stealthy rise in inflation.  Hyperinflation is a total collapse of a currency.  What you're describing is simply inflation and the effect it has on a long enough timeline. 

Chappaquiddick's picture

It was loss of faith in the Mark by external / foreign investors that lead to the hyperinflation.  The government was printing indiscriminately to boost the economy out of the post war recession.  They over did it and all of those marks which had flown overseas made an unwelcome return.  The result was too many Marks for things of value - they tried to clear their debt with a currency of decreasing international value and that pushed them to print even more.  That was Weimar and clearly the over use of the printing press was the problem.

The US is in exactly the same predicament and if the international community decides they have had enough and start to sell their dollars then the same shit will happen in the US too.  70% of the money in circulation on the planet are dollars, if only a small fraction came home prices would explode - that's why they've imposed capital flow controls, to try and prevent this repatriation.  That is where the 4X market plays its part in the process, but the printing press it absolutely integral as well.


Sean7k's picture

RNR, as much as I enjoy your humor, you have really put your foot in it here. The German currency remained the same until the height of hyperinflation caused the government to create a new one. Regardless, the war reparations, in proportions that they were unserviceable forced the government to print money to pay them. This was exacerbated by the confiscation of key industries and sovereign territory when debts could not be met. Finally, Britain was allowed to keep a representative on their central bank board that determined policy (to protect Britain). Germany was left with no other option but to print. I recently ordered a 10000 mark note from 1922. The young man by Durer has a vampire hidden at the neck referring to the vampire actions of the French.

Zimbabwe 's currency was the Zimbabwe dollar. Hyperinflation was a result of excessive printing to encourage people to sell goods that were scarce from government policies that had destroyed productive capacity and left the economy with no goods to sell. Eventually, goods were better than currency and barter took over. 

So, what you have said here makes no sense to me whatsoever. Perhaps you could clarify?

Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

Well, let's take a look at Weimar first. I suppose I could write an endlessly long explanation that would bore you to tears, so I'll just refer you to Stephen Zarlenga's A Private Affair, where I formulated my opinion:

No need to read the entire thing. The part that you will find relevant is between the 2nd and 3rd pictures.  

akak's picture

You still are ignoring or refusing to acknowledge the fact that whether a government formally defaults by repudiating their debts, or engages in a "soft default" through the debasement of their currency, their debts are effectively not being repaid in either case.  You can dance around the issue of printing currency to repay debts, but we all know that doing so is just another form of default --- a less honest and much more widely destructive one as well.

Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

whether a government formally defaults by repudiating their debts, or engages in a "soft default" through the debasement of their currency, their debts are effectively not being repaid in either case.

As I stated above, I agree with this point you're making - anyone would.  But that is not the point of this discussion.  We're talking about the mechanics of hyperinflation, not the slow drain of inflation or how inflation eventually leads to default.

You're reworking this discussion because I have you hanging upside down, trapped in a potato sack.  


akak's picture

Not reworking anything --- merely trying to work with your tortured logic.

You seem to feel, like Ben Bernanke, that the government has a magical printing press that can issue not just currency, but wealth itself.  You are suggesting that hyperinflation can happen via only one narrow route, and refuse to recognize the underlying factor that triggers all such events: unpayable government debt.  Hyperinflations (or sudden currrency collapses, more or less the same thing on a shorter timeframe) have repeatedly happened due to unpayable debts in their own currency, as in Zimbabwe, or to debts in others' currencies equally.  In essence, you are tortuously trying to argue that "it can't happen here", when it has "happened here" in many places many times already.

Please take your neoKeynesian tripe elsewhere.

Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

You might as well post, Big Macs have all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce and cheese.

No one is arguing about Big Macs, and no one is arguing that both hyperinflation and inflation (on a long enough timeline) lead to default.  You repeatedly make points that NO ONE is debating.   

We are talking about the mechanics of hyperinflation, much like what occurred in Zimbabwe and Weimar Germany.  We were discussing how it happened, and how do inflation fears suddenly spiral into a hyperinflationary collapse of a currency. While true, both inflation and hyperinflation lead to default, that is NOT the discussion!  Neither are Big Macs.

Hyperinflation is an entirely different phenomenon than inflation, even if both eventually lead to default.  

In the United States, we will see knee-buckling deflation before hyperinflation, and that is also my premise as to why gold will eventually collapse.  The overhang of debt that hasn't been written off by Wall Street is FAR greater than anything the Fed will print.  The debt/credit bubble worth tens of trillions still lurks on the banks' murky balance sheets, and is more powerful than the Fed's inflationary abilities.  Even if the Fed has demonstrated a temporary ability to inflate, the overhang of unrealized write-offs will eventually win.  The Fed can influence, but the market always wins. After the Fed's inflationary injections wear off, the economy will succumb to trillions in write-offs and the hangover from the debt bubble will take a buzzsaw to all assets.


AnAnonymous's picture

You seem to feel, like Ben Bernanke, that the government has a magical printing press that can issue not just currency, but wealth itself. 


That is not a feeling. That is an observation.

Every USD the US emits is backed by the wealth of some countries forced to use USD to trade. It is a two way street problem. Many countries around the world, after a dedicated work by the US to achieve that situation, have to acquire USD to fund their debt.

Every single USD will buy wealth from those countries. This is where the US reserve lies.

The US deal is simple:

-free distribution of USD

-Little can be bought from the US because the US produces little tradable.

-But thanks to USD, people can acquire the wealth of a third party.

No hyperinflation coming up. Impossible until the third party still have wealth.

Sean7k's picture

Thank you for the link. The author forgets to inform the reader about the history outside what would prove his thesis. Further, using Schaut's apology to prove Schaut's points is not good scholarship,but I digress.

The author fails to address the gold standard and it's re-institution, via the Genoa conference that attempted to create fixed prices for currencies. The fixes were set at values above their gold equivalents. This caused gold and silver to go underground and speculation in currency to thrive. Therefore, your first point blaming speculation is a smear against an effect without examining the cause. It is not speculation, per se, that causes the hyperinflation- it is the fixing of the mark at a value above it's value in gold bullion. 

Further, at this particular time, the world found itself without a reserve currency for the first time since the beginning of the century. The strongest currency was the dollar as the US had entered the war late and had not created as much debt as the european nations. All currencies had inflated, Germany being one of the worse, and this necessitated negotiations. Britain had come out of the war as the winner with US backing and proceeded to create a fixed currency valuation system favorable to the Pound.

None of this changes the fact that war reparations were debt the Germans were incapable of paying. With every default, more territory and industry was confiscated by the creditor countries (your article mentions the loss of the Ruhr valley- home to industry and wine). This exacerbated the problem until Germany was forced to print it's way out of it problem- what did they have to lose?

When you print in excessive amounts, you do destroy a currency. You also destroy faith in the currency- this is the cause of hyperinflation. When the charade can no longer continue, a new currency is created-the Rentenmark. Yes, speculators were destroyed in the transition to the new currency, but because it was not printed in ridiculous numbers, faith was restored. 

It would also help if the author had not tried to include modern methods of arbitrage, which include very sophisticated instruments unknown at the time, to lend credence to an action in the 1920's. 

I agree, speculation can frustrate the attempts of central banks to use QE to extend and pretend- that is a far cry from causing hyperinflation. Speculators have always existed in markets and help markets discover price equilibrium. The only reason their contribution can become outsized is because central banks have decided to work at margins that are inadequate to defend their capital requirements.

Jerry Maguire's picture

Very good post, with two caveats from my point of view. 

First, the "elites" operate in concert sometimes and are at each others' throats at other times.  They disagree among themselves often, like all other human beings.  Ordinarily, they prevail upon the governments to do their bidding, but a hyper-inflation, in my opinion, is more related to deflation.  Deflation is the result of large creditors not letting go of unpayable debt.  They demand enforcement.  And when the government finally refuses because it will not so openly and dramatically oppress its own people (stealthily doing that is another matter and much more common), they tell the elites as a group, and explicitly, to go fuck themselves, at which point the elites run from the currency en masse and destroy it.  That was Weimar.

Second, common people are not free from blame; elites are far more blameworthy because they have benefitted more and are better able to see what is happening, but that does not mean they are to a limited degree not to blame. 

We're going to have to learn to forgive each other, peons, elites, and everyone in between.  What has happened to the economy is much bigger than any individual or group of individuals and seeking punishment is not going to work out well for anyone. 

I've been writing a lot on this subject, and recently added Steve Keen's debt-watch to my blogroll:

Sean7k's picture

Bilderbergers, CFR, Tri-lateral Commission- elites acting together. Morgan vs Rockefeller- elites at each other's throats. In both cases, the elites pursue and develop legislation that enhances their ability to act as government protected monopolies and cartels.Morgan may have lost some control over Federal Reserve to Rockefeller in the thirties, but more than made up for it in being part of the BIS. When you can identify any time government told big business to "fuck off", I will entertain your point.

Deflation is a reduction in the prices paid for goods and services. It benefits savers and consumers and hurts debt holders (banks) which is why we are told deflation is bad. Deflation is not bad. You can have productive growth, growing employment and deflation. The US experienced two such periods, 1880's and 1870's. If it had not been for the banks inflating the money supply, these would have been two of our most productive decades. Read, "History of Money and Banking in the US", Rothbard.

Lastly, I didn't mention the common people. I disagree, in order to bear responsibility, you have to have the power to influence and carry out policy. That resides solely in the hands of the FED- Private bankers. You may choose to forgive them, but I wish to see their heads on a pike outside Eccles Mariner- another fascist banker.

Steve Keen- not to bad.He's no Murray Rothbard, but he is a breath of fresh air.


Bearster's picture

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say that you are using the definition of inflation that "they want you to use."

Inflation is an expansion of credit in a fiat system, deflation the opposite (by debt payments a little but mostly by defaults).  Deflation is horrible, but inevitable once you pump up inflation in the first place.  As von Mises noted, the only choice once you inflate up a boom is to either take your deflationary bust or destroy the currency trying to prevent it.

We are on the path of destroying the currency.  That will be horrible enough without racist wannabe mass murders out there saying "kill the Jew!", "kill the black!", "kill the white!", etc.

You can't bring back the wealth destroyed by the ponzi scheme of fiat money.  And certainly not by advocating hatred or murder!

Sean7k's picture

Deflation is not the opposite of inflation nor is it horrible. Deflation is a reduction in the price of goods and services. You are confusing credit destruction from malinvestment with deflation. While prices do fall from credit destruction, you can also have deflation from improvements in technology or economies of scale. The reduction in prices are beneficial to consumers (paying less for goods and services) and savers whose capital is not debased by inflation allowing them to receive real interest.

As you note, the creditary bust is essential so that price equilibrium can be re-established. Remembering that the business cycle is abused by the fiat currency system. Creating larger swings than would be possible in a sound money system.

The FED is on the path to destroying the currency for the benefit of bankers. I resent the implication that my comments are racist. The banker elites running the government and banking system are traitors to this country. The penalty for treason, last time I checked, was death. However, I have never referred to Jewish bankers. I have cited zionists, but they are not a race per se- while many may be Jewish, it is unfortunate that Jews bear the brunt of the blame for their actions (Rothschilds, Begin, etc.)

Though we may not be able to bring back wealth destroyed by the ponzi scheme, we can limit it's effect by defaulting on the national debt, eliminating personal income taxes and eliminating legal tender laws.


Guy Fawkes Mulder's picture

I hope that whoever junked you dies in a fire.

Jerry Maguire's picture

I'm sympathetic that you want to see their heads on a pike.  Don't get me wrong.

I'm not saying there's a lot of blame for common people, or little blame for the elites.  Clearly, it's the reverse.  But to some extent both groups know not what they do.

Deflation is hell for debtors - mostly common people - unless the creditors show mercy, and even then it is hell.  Yet, the central bank system tries to practice mercy, by slowing everything down.  They have been very effective at that. 

If Bernanke saves the banking system while simultaneously giving the debtors breathing room, isn't that merciful, from his point of view?  It won't work, and it won't be merciful in the end, but he's trying not to be evil.  The evil of what is already in place constrains him.  He didn't put it in place. 

There's room to forgive.  You should consider it.

Sean7k's picture

Bernake can only destroy the banking system, he can not save it. Further, why would you save a system that gives an advantage to the bankers through fractional reserve banking and eliminates your ability to choose which monetary substitute to use (legal tender laws)?

Why would you defend a private banking cartel that creates huge debts on a secret balance sheet, that are not responsible to the electorate, where the debt is then guaranteed by the people? Where is the discipline? 

Ben Bernanke is one of the most evil people on the planet. He is destroying the financial futures of every man, woman and child in America in order to allow banks to be recapitalized and insure their profits and bonuses. It is QE that is keeping price equilibrium from being established. A necessary baseline for the creation of jobs and producing goods and services at a profit- creating wealth. He is presiding over massive government debt creation that must be serviced- stealing over 400 billion a year in interest payments that could be used by entrepreneurs to create new business. With an interest increase- it could rise to 600 billion. All without retiring any principle.

The evil in place is the banking system! He is another torchbearer of the system! Even Keynes would admit that malinvestment must be reconciled- he may have been a Fabian Socialist, but he wasn't a monetarist.

Whether you realize it or not, you are merely Satan's apologist. I hope you have just been mislead. 

Jerry Maguire's picture

I have not defended the banking system; I consider it indefensible, but I have advocated forgiveness.  I asked you to consider it.  Is that Satan talking?

Bernanke didn't create the banking system.  He might be a thoroughgoing evil person, although that is rare.  People do evil things.  That doesn't make them evil in themselves, at least not relative to other people.

You brought up Satan.  Do you think Satan is real?  Maybe he is behind the banking system and not any particular human being or group of human beings.  It would be wrong to direct hatred and violence at other human beings who are mere pawns in a game.

You should think about these things.  Hate the sin, not the sinner.

Sean7k's picture

 ' the central banking system has practiced mercy..." sounds like a defense to me. I have no idea whether Satan exists or not, it is an effective construct. 

Forgiveness is for slaves, family and friends. I refuse to be a slave, the elites are neither friends nor family. They are the enemy and as the enemy, they will kill you if you don't kill them first- simple as that. 

Oracle of Kypseli's picture

It seems to me that we are screwed every-which-way.

When do we start the revolution?

JonNadler's picture

that's what I like to know, all talk but no action around here. Where's a real tea party movement?

Calmyourself's picture

It starts at your house, address please..  Seriously they (bankers, global elites) have successfully crafted a system and we have fallen in so deep real resistance in a 24/7 surveillance society is getting tougher. Hence, we use calls for bank runs and Bruces' suggestion of one penny over on invoices etal..  Of course these actions if catching on will elicit a reaction and more laws from our captured ( representatives).

XPolemic's picture

You can start a revolution right now if you have a backyard.

Read up on gardening and grow some of your own vegetables.

Raise some chickens if your fascist overlords permit it.

Change your spending habits. The great mass of humanity have the power, because they really do control the bulk of the money. Don't believe this nonsense about the top 2% controlling all the wealth. 80 million people spending 100 dollars a week have 416 billion of REAL monetary political power each year. Where you send (spend) that money can cause the humble to rise up, or the mighty to fall.

Pretty simple really, and bloodless.