This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Nightmare Scenario: The Fed Outlives the US Federal Government
This is a relatively short piece, because a longer one may
be considered "conspiracy theory".
Similarly, I've removed all citations and references (US Supreme Court
rulings, etc.) because those may obscure the point, since people's eyes tend to
glaze over with such (mostly irrelevant) facts/details. However, all assertions here are
easily/trivially provable with a simple web search, or are obvious logical
conclusions (with which the reader is free to rebut).
Rather, these are merely clinical observations and
assertions regarding what I would do to become King of the World, if I were Ben
Bernanke.
- Background: The US Federal Reserve (i.e.,
"Fed") is a private institution, which the US Congress and US Supreme
Court agree is not part of the US Federal Government. Rather, the Fed is merely a private
bank. - Many
private companies exist in the United States. The Fed is one of them. - Many
private companies have contracts with other companies, and even with the
US Federal Government. Some private
companies have "charters" established through the US Congress (i.e.,
"Government Sponsored Entities [GSEs]"), and thus may be
considered "pseudo-private".
The Fed has such a charter.
However, the charter merely establishes bounds regarding the
institution's founding and behavior.
Typically, that charter still permits the chartered private company
to sell shares and perform other market functions typical of a private
company (that was the goal, which is why the GSE was sponsored in the
first place, so the government could "kick-start" a private
enterprise). - Should
the US Federal Government dissolve, private companies would continue to
exist (e.g., they are owned by their shareholders, they have debt
obligations to their bondholders, and they engage in contracts with other
companies, in addition to possible contracts with the Federal Government.) True, private companies holding
contracts with the (now-dissolved) Federal Government would no longer have
those contracts (since the counter-party no longer exists). This is a typical occurrence with any
contract (dissolution through defaulted counter-party) which has nothing
to do with the lifespan of the remaining party, except for possible losses
associated with contract termination (e.g., loss of future revenue,
etc.). Similarly, a private company
established through charter with the Federal Government would continue to
exist when the Federal Government is gone (it just means the charter is no
longer in effect, since the sponsoring institution no longer exists). That now-unchartered organization
continues to exist because it is still owned by its private shareholders,
still has bond obligations, and still has other outstanding
contracts/agreements.
The above assertions suggest the Fed, as a private
institution, can continue to behave as a viable private institution once the US
Federal Government is gone. In such a
case the Fed would be just like any other private institution (it simply would
no longer have a US Congressional Charter).
These are the implications:
- The US
Congressional Charter gave the Fed a monopoly control of the US
$dollar. Literally, the dollar (a
"Federal Reserve Note") is the intellectual property of the Fed,
not of the US Government. The
charter "promotes" use of the dollar as a currency, and in
return the Fed (at some level) is "restricted" in what it can do
with the dollar. - The
Fed has claims on the US Federal Government. The US Federal Government does not have
claims on the Fed. Thus, dissolving
the US Federal Government does not trigger Fed liabilities. - In the
event the US Federal Government dissolves, the charter would no longer
exist. However, the Fed would
continue to exist (e.g., it still owns the intellectual property called
the "dollar"). Other
parties are free to interact with the Fed if they wish (like with any
private institution). However, the
Fed would no longer have "sponsorship", so these interactions
would be voluntary. - Without
a charter, the Fed is free to arbitrarily establish policies for its
intellectual property (the dollar), and even to establish a new charter
with another institution.
Many assume that the Fed would not survive a dissolution of
the US Federal Government. However, that
is not true: The Fed will only dissolve
when its intellectual property (e.g., the "dollar") no longer has
value, and the Fed shareholders
decide to liquidate assets. If people
still want dollars, the Fed exists.
Since the dollar is an unsecured claim on Fed assets, even if people do
not want dollars, the Fed remains one of the largest real property owners in
the United States
(through its mortgage securities and stock market holdings).
If I were Ben Bernanke and wanted to become King of the
World, I would:
- Encourage
nations all over the world to issue sovereign debt denominated in US
dollars (Germany
and numerous other EU nations are doing this now). I would do this even if I needed to print
dollars to promise/subsidize their debt issuance (it's "free to
me"). This establishes a
future need by that nation to come up with dollars at the sovereign level. - Print
dollars to gift/loan massive amounts of dollars to nations all over the
world. I want as many (public and
private) institutions using dollars as possible, and more importantly, to
leverage debt denominated in dollars.
(This was the purpose for the AIG bailout, and continues with
currency swaps and outright purchases of foreign sovereign bonds.) - Print
dollars to purchase real assets and securities which establishes my
"fundamental value" as a holder of assets (MBS purchases, POMO,
etc.)
What would happen next:
- Sovereign
defaults will start worldwide. I
could even trigger them by restricting currencies, or buying/selling
currencies to force a change in exchange rates that would trigger
sovereign default (since nearly all countries are over-leveraged past the
point-of-no-return). The ECB can't
freely print, but I can. The US
Congress can't freely issue bonds, but I can freely print. You think a $700B bailout is a big
deal? Bah. I can write checks $Trillions at a time with no vote and no review. - In the
deflationary unwind, people would need dollars. The dollars would not exist (e.g., debt
would not be serviced, counter-party risk would be massive). Suddenly, my ability to print dollars
would make me even more important. And, these are my dollars that I am free to spend as I please. - I'd
default foreign nations first, and the US Federal Government last. As the holder of the World Reserve
Currency, I don't want the US Government to default first, because there
would be a chance that another world reserve currency would replace
me. However, by removing all
foreign currency viability *first*, and then defaulting the US Federal
Government *last*, I would be the undisputed holder of the World Reserve
Currency without a challenge. - To
fortify my World Reserve Currency status in a new world of sovereign
mistrust (which further undermines the chance of a new sovereign currency
arising), now freed from the restrictions defined by US Congressional
charter, I would establish a new charter with the IMF or BIS (each is outside
the bounds of any given nation). I
would probably pick the IMF, since they are more "direct
meddlers" with a good history of ensuring indentured servitude on
nations. I would thus enhance my
protected "world currency" status, and the IMF would gain the
power to print its own currency without the annoying influence of
sovereign governments. - To
show my "good will", I would start a "new" Marshall
Plan to "print-and-gift" my dollars to countries that agree to
use my currency. This will ease every one's transition in a new uncertain world. Why use "New
Greek Drachmas" when you can't buy a tanker of oil with them? I'll give Greece enough dollars to buy
*three years* of oil, after which time the Greek economy will be entirely
denominated in dollars. Greece
doesn't want to play? Fine. I'll ignore them for a few years until
they realize the Saudi's don't want New Drachmas, and Greece
gets desperate for my grace (at which point I'd make them an offer they
can't refuse).
Not only is this plausible, it's rather simple. If Ben can't pull this off, he really is a moron.
»
- mikla's blog
- 13821 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
There is absolutely no way the Fed survives the demise of the US Gov't. No currency in history has outlived the nation that prints it. Simple lunacy.
Therein lies the issue: The US Government does not print dollars, and it cannot print dollars. That's what makes the Fed unique.
When Japan is gone, the Yen is gone. When the EU breaks up, the Euro is gone. When Britain is gone, the Pound is gone.
Not so with the dollar: When the US Government is gone, the Fed remains with undisputed monopoly power over an increasingly scarce unit of perceived value currently being denominated for worldwide transactions.
I think that this is the primary fallacy of your argument, to wit:
Not so with the dollar: When the US Government is gone, the Fed remains with undisputed monopoly power over an increasingly scarce unit of perceived value currently being denominated for worldwide transactions.
Not true.
Before WWII, international trade was settled in Pound Sterling. In 400 AD it was settled in Roman coin. International trade is now denominated in dollars only through agreement. That agreement being Bretton Woods. That agreement can be amended, rescinded, cancelled, etc..., as can may any treaty, at any time for any reason.
In fact, based upon your analysis and recent current events, it makes more sense that the Fed is beginning to undertake the removal of the international settlement function of the US dollar.
A reserve currency only makes sense when it's underlying value is stable, as the dollar was before Nixon closed the gold window. With the current monetization and debasement of the dollar through ZIRP, TARP, POMO, QE1, QE 1.5 (lite), QE n, etc..., clearing international trades with a fluctuating currency serves no one or purpose.
Therefore, a new currency for international settlements must be in the works (anyone remember SDR's?) It will most certainly not be administered by the FRB. As far as the international banking cartel is concerned, the FRB has served it's purpose. The USD is worth $0.05 compared to its value of $1 since the founding of the Fed.
This is truly the end game! Only 5 cents left to go...
We reach different conclusions.
Nothing would make me happier than to know that this will *not* come to pass.
*Reasonably* stable (i.e., more stable than the alternatives). The Nixon window has been closed for a long time, and no currency has yet replaced the dollar (for many reasons, including the fact that no other currency is compellingly more stable).
True, international trade used to be settled through other currencies (before the US dollar). Those previous governments lost worldwide influence, and their currencies were replaced. The same thing would happen if the US-dollar is now replaced by the IMF-dollar. The only requirement is that there *is* some international unit (which there *will* be).
Like before, the US is currently a world power, and backs a world currency. What's different is that it is a little weird that a new world currency would arise that is *not* explicitly backed by a *singular* world power (i.e., a single nation-state would not be backing the IMF-dollar). However, since all major governments are about to sovereign default, one could argue that the "era of confusion" that follows is ripe for an "SDR" world reserve currency. However, the SDR doesn't mean much when it's a basket of defaulted currencies (which it would be), and SDRs aren't nearly as useful as the dollar (because SDRs are annoyingly influenced by politicians directing central banks in various sovereigns). That's why the IMF would want to charter the dollar (for the first time it could have something it could print-and-manage without interference by sovereigns).
No matter the unit, the managing institution will debase it. That's what they do. The incentives are too high. And, it doesn't matter if the IMF-dollar starts at "five cents" -- they will manage it through the deflationary unwind, and in their eyes, they could debase it another 95% over the next 100 years (which technically, they could).
"Therein lies the issue: The US Government does not print dollars, and it cannot print dollars. That's what makes the Fed unique."
What they didn't teach you in college is quite remarkable. There's this little thing caled the Constitution. Maybe you have heard of it? You know the thing all those Generals you presume impotent pledge to protect and defend form all enemies foreign and domestic. Somewhere therin said Constitution grants exclusive authority for the printing of money to the Congress which delegated it by revocavble legislation to the Fedreral Reserve in 1914. You act like the Fed fell from Heaven. Their authorizing legislation can be repealed.
...Therein lies the issue: The US Government does not print dollars, and it cannot print dollars...
The constitution provides the Congress authority to coin money. Along with the "coining" were requirements to establish weights and measures. Hence the "Au Grain" measures of 25.8 per "dollar".
What many fail to realize is that in our, the US history, it was assumed sovereign citizens would periodically deposit bullion with US assay offices where it would be converted to "coin" and put into "circulation" by being given back to the depositor of the bullion. Because of the tediousness of the process, and the accumulations of certain trading entities, (JPM,Well's, etc.), paper devices representing actual deposits were issued.
The issue of Trust became tantamount and if one thinks specie can outlive it's sovereign host, think confederate "dollars".
In the early 60's, JFK authorized the printing of United States dollars and one may even see one appear in circulation occasionally to this day. His fight with the Fed was short lived however, and died that day in Dallas when conspiracy theorists were reborn.
Another thing, it's been my understanding too, the as a nation, we are constitutionally prohibited from having a "standing" army, except in times of war. We are not however under the same constraints with our Navy. That may explain why with the next 17 largest nations navies combined, the US' forces are still larger.
I wouldn't begin to pretend to know where this is headed, by who or how it will play out in the near or further future, but there are actions a foot. imo.
When China floats their navy it will make the US fleet look like 3 ducks on a small pond....
When the US sinks their navy, it'll look like several sitting ducks on a small pond.
The trouble is, we can just sleep through every one of those changes, until it’s too late. The Fed-appointed people around the Congress and the President are persuading them to go along with letting the Federal Reserve have every single thing it wants--every single appointment, every bailout, every devaluation of the dollar…
In short, the Fed has built a barrier between itself and the people and that barrier is called the U.S. Congress.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen said this past week that only 23 percent of the people believe that Congress has the consent of the governed. IOW, the people have nothing to say about what’s been happening.
Rasmussen is the subject of a fascinating profile in The Wall Street Journal that begins :
You can tell it's a volatile political year when a balding, middle-aged pollster gets a standing ovation from hundreds of state legislators after delivering the news that only 23% of the people in this country believe today's federal government has the consent of the governed.
"Americans don't want to be governed from the left or the right," Scott Rasmussen tells the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conference of 1,500 conservative and moderate legislators. "They want, like the Founding Fathers, to largely govern themselves with Washington in a supporting—but not dominant—role. The tea party movement is today's updated expression of that sentiment."
Mr.Rasmussen tells the crowd gathered around him after his speech that the political and media elites have misread the tea party. He believes this strongly enough that he's teamed up with Doug Schoen—a pollster for both President Bill Clinton and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg—to publish a new book that will seek to explain the movement's significance. "Mad as Hell" will be out early next month. …
http://premierespeakers.com/scott_rasmussen/blog/2010/09/02/wsj_rasmusse...
Agreed. The Congress *can* repeal the Fed's charter.
That ASSUMES:
We agree that this is the "correct" action. I'm not convinced it will happen.
I like that you reference the Constitution. Unfortunately, I'm unconvinced that the US uses that anymore.
In short, I'm asserting that we will see a "toe-to-toe" between Congress and the Fed, and I'm not placing my bets on Congress.
You miss my point. What on Earth makes you think that a command of men under authority with hundreds of thousands of fully equiped, organized and armed subbordinate troops are going to sit by and watch while a bunch of financiers destroy the constitutional form of government and squabble over the spoils? If that happens then they have to be part of the plot. If the system collapses or looks like it will collapse independent of their organization then they move. They are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and they take that shit really, really seriously. Like I said you would be a better rounded individual had you ever spent a little time in one of their commands. It will be mildly entertaining however to watch as some of these entitled people are schocked, schocked to find out that a lot of things they thought were inalienable can be taken away.
Your earlier argument asserting the benefit of universal compulsory military service bites you here, Paul. In your apparent view, those hundreds of thousands of soldiers will do what they're told to do by Generals (which is not, in my view, necessarily a good thing, but let's go with that for the sake of argument.)
The question then becomes what would the Generals do? Please see my earlier reply to you on that issue.
Additionally, it strikes me as true by definition that if the US Government is disolved, its constitution is no longer binding or, indeed, even relevant. The nation no longer exists.
We *are* missing each other.
The military will be powerless because there is no one to invade. There is nothing to seize. There is no strategic nor tactical approach by which the military can execute missions to influence the currency unit that foreign countries will accept in trade. And, the military cannot do anything without Executive approval.
The Fed is an instrument of Congress. For the military to move against the Fed, it would have to move against Congress. That can't happen. Further, there are many (quite Constitutional) paths where the Fed can actually "buy out" its charter from Congress (if you accept the premise that the Fed is Constitutional to begin with). IMHO, the Fed will make such offers when Congress is in the process of getting screwed (like for instance, after a failed US Treasury Bond Auction, which the Fed can trigger tomorrow, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.)
Even if the military "seized" the Fed building (or all the Fed banks), it didn't "seize" anything. And, those are the same banks that regulate the entire banking system. Is the military going to seize the entire banking regulatory structure, rather than let Congress manage its creation?
Your thinking on this matter is phenomenal. I now see why you declined expanding the article. There was not a need to. Most of the pertinent subtexts have been drawn out in this comment section. And you have handled them superbly. The above comment by Mr. Bogdanich was made by a fella whose hammer is the military and he sees every situation as a nail that needs conquering. Your nuanced reply shows a broad thought bandwidth.
+2.
Well put, Rocky. Brilliant stuff, Mikla.
This type of conversation is why it is a privilege to have discovered ZH. Thanks, Tyler.
+1
Agreed, the article was itself substantial in spite of its brevity, but mikla's performance in the comments has been absolutely extraordinary.
Bravo, mikla!
Author, you are assuming that "intellectual property rights" exist of their own merit. Rather it is by force of law that they exist. If the United States government dissolved FRNs would lose any "intellectual property rights" thus the Fed would have to assume the government's role, undermining your own premise as it would then be liable for it's own debt.
From a technical sense, you're asserting that upon US Federal Government default, anybody could "print dollars". That won't happen because international banking agreements won't allow it. To "print dollars", foreign banks must recognize some number added to a ledger, and they only do that when the Fed moves the pencil.
Rather, the US Congress could dissolve the Fed *before* the US Federal Government collapses, and then print infinite dollars. But, they can't force the Fed to print infinite dollars.
Further, when the US Federal Government defaults, no, the Fed is NOT liable. When the US Federal Government is gone, the Fed will NOT mail Social Security and Medicare checks, nor will it make payroll to government employees. In fact, Ben already said that in Congressional testimony.
Not that I don't think foreign governments wouldn't grovel for dollars, but I don't understand why a foreign government would trade its claims on real goods or tax revenue for dollars, or why being indebted in dollars is beneficial to collapsing states. If a nation-state is collapsing how will pieces of paper or bits on a hard drive help anything?
Greece will grab any branch they can. They'll take money from Grandma or anyone for another ounce of air.
Greece is bankrupt. They don't have any claims on anything -- it's the other way around. Everybody has claims on Greece. So, Greece isn't "giving up" anything by moving to anything it can grab, because Greece literally *already* has "less than nothing" (i.e., it's bankrupt).
Assets will move to liquidation, but counter-parties will be screwed through haircuts and defaults. However, those assets could be bought ... if you only had some currency. Since this is sovereign default, nobody has any currency (hyper-deflation) or if priced in the hyper-inflated currency (hyper-inflation), nobody has infinity Drachmas (actually, the asset auctioneer won't take hyper-inflated Drachmas). But, the asset auctioneer *will* take dollars.
For international transactions, we *only* need something that is (1) available, (2) reasonably stable, and (3) better than the alternatives.
When all sovereigns default, the (private) Fed is the only thing that fills that role. Nobody would trust any sovereign currency by any of the defaulted sovereigns. We might not like the Fed, but it is *not* a sovereign currency (e.g., the Fed is a private company with a private dollar monopoly). The Fed is still standing when the US Federal Government is gone. Further, everything is already denominated in dollars, and there are *not enough* of them around (we have deflationary contract collapse), so the dollar is curiously-and-accidentally a scarce thing of perceived value with a forward expectation of stability (because it can't be hyper-inflated by a sovereign, because it is not tied to a sovereign).
Establishing an IMF Charter with the Fed would merely enhance that forward-expectation of stability.
Weird, I know. Amazing that humans come up with this stuff.
Greece has control of the laws of the territory of Greece. Ultimately the government has the say in what you get for your bonds, so they essentially do control the assets of Greece. There is no venue for sovereign defaults to guarantee a fair arbitration, so Greece does have the upper hand, imo.
In reply to the dollar's "perceived value with a forward expectation of stability", I don't want to argue the point, but I do not have that expectation and act accordingly. It's a toss up.
I agree: Greece can repudiate debt, and start again.
However, Greece imports to feed its Baby Boomers, and Greece needs oil. It needs to come up with *something* to trade. For that, it is a "price taker". It might be tough for Greece to promise its future tax receipts for things like that, especially since it just repudiated from the last guy.
"Greece imports to feed its Baby Boomers, and Greece needs oil"
As does everyone. These are the problems of the day. Fundamentally, creating fiat money will solve neither of these problems. This is a paradigm shift.
mikla (mr. t.long?), you've outlined the fine execution details and mechanics of achieving what Michael Tsarion put forward many years ago ( http://tinyurl.com/dfztye ). The Fed is a puppet. A tool. Once the Fed achieves what you outlined, we are back to feudalism which is what the aristocracy lost in the age of renaissance. The old is new again - NWO. Would you not agree that the wrinkle in this plan is the ME, China and, of course, gold and silver in the hands of the little schmucks like ourselves? That's what I want to know.
wow, you brought tsarion into this? that's a deep rabbit hole there amigo. every 'constitutionalist' should read that link and give it some thoughtful consideration.
"It's just a goddamn piece of paper!" -- just maybe the truest words GWB ever spoke.
amigo, that link was for anybody & everybody but the 'constitutionalist'. If you read it, the constitutionalists will find you and burn you at the cross. Did you mask you IP address before you accessed that site? That's what I want to know.
when i say 'constitutionalist', i mean those who say the answer lies in "returning to the constitution". are you saying it is they who will burn me at the cross? so be it.
funny you should make an effort to share a link and then, after the fact, caution everyone of the dire risks of doing so. that's kinda like dosing someone and then wishing them a bad trip after they already ate the brownie.
tip e., irony & circular reasoning doesnt come
across well in short replies. constitutionalists/freedom;
constitution/oppression; constitutionalists/oppressionists;
That's a tough one.
For currency to be used, it has to be (1) available, (2) reasonably stable, and (3) better than the alternatives.
The US population doesn't have gold, and people seem reluctant to part with it (e.g., they'd rather spend their California Coupons than their Buffalos). I dunno. This is a big topic.
mikla, my parents experienced the collapse of communism. Black market and underground 'economy' is like acid river eating the foundation of power. Whatever the fancy theory, it was the black market and underground economy that took the f-thing down. All these anarchists that flock to ZH are like that acid river which will take the house down. Would you not agree? That's what I want to know.
I *do* agree. However, there are a lot of moving parts.
(Also, IMHO most of ZH isn't anarchists, and I'm not one either.)
The underground economy is how the Greek people took down their (oppressive tax structure) Greek government. Of course, everyone gets to suffer anyway, because the underground economy introduces "production inefficiencies" (e.g., lots of GDP never happened, because you can't scale an underground economy).
International transactions get weird -- they require that scaling. It's possible to barter my corn for your oil during international trade, and that *does* happen, but it's tricky.
Similarly, the internet enables transparency, when the super-structure tries to avoid it. That's HUGE. Eventually, and more easily now than decades before, people can figure out what is going on and STOP it. That's good.
Where it gets "interesting" is that it is *possible* to establish a super-structure that is *stable*, but oppressive. When the cost of oppression is *less* than the cost of resistance, the system is stable.
For example, many people within the US *hate* the Fed, but realistically there's nothing they could have done about it (in the past). You may find the prices of houses unfair (e.g., they are all in a bubble), but you need to live *somewhere*. You have to suffer it (either through mortgages or rent). You might not like your personal income tax rate, but other than quitting and going to the underground economy, there is little you can do about it. Those are all oppressive examples that even "well-informed" people must suffer (there's not really much you could do, because the cost of compliance was lower than the cost of resistance).
That's also why I wrote this article: The successful rechartering to an IMF-dollar (from a US-dollar) would be highly oppressive, and very stable. It introduces a World Tax directly to a World Central Planner, without any possible electorate input. I'm serious -- you can't get bigger than this -- and it scares me.
On the bright side, we are moving into an epic generational shift: The old system is being retired. A new system is about to be started. People *do* have the ability to affect great change during that transition.
So, I agree with you (the acid eats away over time, and the system eventually falls; ZH is a good example of that exposure to educate people to no longer be tolerant of the past system). However, the unfortunate thing is that in all these transitions, it took time (great injustice was suffered for an extended period), and there is much "collateral damage" at the point-of-change: The Baby Boomers are screwed. No pensions, no Social Security, no Medicare (new violations of old social contract). Still, local communities and churches will become increasingly important in most people's lives, and that's good (e.g., it's a social transition).
World Tax....on carbon? GS likes it.
Yes, world tax without annoying voter input is *always* the goal. Just look at the EU (they don't like talking about getting voter input to approve EU directives).
Carbon credits won't hold, but it was a nice try.
Specifically, the "tax" I reference in the quote:
...relates to "inflation". My ability and power to arbitrarily debase the currency you think you hold in your pocket is absolutely astounding. It is the perfect "hidden" tax, that can force even the most poor (especially the most poor) to pay into my system, while simultaneously by-passing their sovereigns, and skipping any voluntary paperwork (e.g., tax filings).
As the World Central Planner debases the World Currency (through printing), it can spend arbitrarily on its World Influence Projects for Every Body Under The Sun (WIPEBUTS). You don't know what you want, so no problem, I'll tax you so I can wipe your butt for what I've decided you need (whether you like it or not).
At least countries pretending to practice democracy allow the electorate some token input. The World Central Planner would be the *perfect* "taxation without representation" (worldwide, mostly upon the poor).
mikla, we love to project symmetric and linear paths into the future from our vantage points. The assumption is that a compressed spring will recoil in the vector of compression. Human beings are animals. They do not obey laws of mechanics. In crowds, humans behave like animals. They choose path of least resistance. Just like a compressed pen spring. It springs sideways. In a 2D plane, that's infinite number of directions.
The direction in which this acid river flows is the path of least resistance. This acid river is a black swan in making. The NWO is a fantasy of and for idiots. All of us communicating is as corrosive as acid to the plans of few. We all are moving into a new paradigm. Many will get hurt - those that are unprepared; as per Darwin. Realistically, I cannot imagine how a few aristocrats can control crowds of transnational anarchists (individuals who advocate the abolition of government and a social system based on voluntary cooperation). But they will try, no doubt. Do you really believe that those who control the Fed will succeed for more than a few years before they dissolve in the acid river? That's what I want to know.
Excellent exchange, PA and Mikla!!
The NWO is in no way a foregone conclusion, but they are putting up a much stronger fight this time than in previous attempts. It will not be a short battle ... and there will be collateral damage. The worst affected will be the British and the Americans ... precisely because they can be expected to put up the strongest resistance to feudal domination.
Having been a lurker for some time, I've decided to take this opportunity to post. My reason isn't to comment on the mikla's intriguing proposal per se (as I'm not a financial sophisticate) but to comment instead on the implied devolution of power from the federal government to the states, as this, I believe, is the far more important point: namely, to get people's head wrapped around the fact that our vaunted experiment in federalism has ended in flag-wrapped totalitarianism and that it's long past time we confronted it.
Even so, while what's happened so far is but prelude -- and the worse it will be the longer TPTB succeed in their unofficial "extend and pretend" policy -- I remain optimistic that what lies on the farther reaches of this disastrous experiment is a renewal of the original one, this time without any blinders on about "constitutional restraint" or any similar hope that the state, in any form, can be restrained. Which is to say that cancer is as cancer does and that society must therefore not only rid itself of the present cancer; it must attack every appearance of it with the full knowledge that the state's one and only intent is to devour its host.
The state, in other words, can kiss my ass.
The state has much more experience with beheadings, crucifixitions, burnings, lethal injections, summary execution by firearm, drone attacks, carpet bombing and other little plesantries like that than it does with butt kissing. I think they are going to try all that first.
Funny how none of those were on display twenty years ago, when the Soviet Union, despite its enormous military might, went gently into that good night.
The state has no power, in other words, that the people don't give it. And they can take it away whenever and wherever they choose, the question being if and when we choose to do so.
Thanks for jumping into the ZH tar pit. I have always wondered why there has been no big effort by the gov't to actually curtail the citizens gathering of firearms. You'd think that would be high on the list of "rights" they would want to stifle. Even the fear from Obama's election didn't really materialize as envisioned. No big anti-gun speeches or more subtle actions on the Administration's part. As it pertains to the discussion about the Soviet Union, how did they fare in the weapons department? Were they well armed? I've not looked into that. I think that in the U. S. the issue of State's Rights will become more center stage and the States will begin to exercise those rights using legal means. I'd prefer that to revolution, but, hey, I'm no wimp in that area either. If we gotta get it on, let's get it on.
It's not that they haven't considered it, it's that they know they'd only kick a hornet's nest trying. Anthony Sutton referenced this while writing about the Bolsheviks but I can't remember exactly where.
It's not that they haven't considered it, it's that they know they'd only kick a hornet's nest trying. Anthony Sutton referenced this while writing about the Bolsheviks but I can't remember exactly where.
@ Dick Buttkiss
Thanks for joining Fight Club as a sane (ie. anti-state) voice.
@ Rocky
Unfortunately, you need to delete "State's Rights" from your lexicon. The state is a proven parasite, so any rights you give it will be gobbled up faster than the last time ... then expanded [again] faster than you can say "no new taxes" or "I didn't vote for that!".
Revolution need not be bloody. The oligarchs certainly don't wish to personally climb on a horse and defend their front line! They prefer to employ assassins. We just need to say -- in unison -- "fuck off ... I'm not paying your taxes, so see how far you get with no more blood to suck".
They can't assassinate us all (though they will certainly try).
Just to be sure we are on the same page, I was referring to the 10th Amendment Rights.
Tenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionRussians set a marvelous example in those days. Except for the fact that all the national assets wound up in the hands of a certain ethnic minority which set the stage for Commander Putin. I doubt whether we go that quietly. And like I said seem to me like a lot of the people around here don't have any experience with having to do something they did not want or choose to do. Almost comical that they think it their right when you consider the history of mankind.
Snow Crash, baby.
Lots of people think Neal Stephenson just writes fiction. Heh.
The one thing I notice from many of the authors and posters on this site is their complete lack of understanding of strict authority structures. Two years of compulsory service would have made you better rounded individuals. As to the plan for Ben you know it's immensely difficult to enjoy all those dollars and all that power when your dead. If the Fed tried that what do you imagine the generals are going to do? Sit on their hands? Applaud? What about other soverigns with power projection? Are they just going to sit there? Anyway all these insane musings always ignore the police power of the state. I think the power there is essentially unimaginable for well heeled college graduates who are good at math but otherwise wet behind the ears because they have never been in a position where they HAD to, been COMPELLED to, do something they didn't want or choose to do. A sense of entitlement I believe they call it. Anyway organized violence is the best way to solve that little problem and remind people of their limitations as we may all be reminded of if this thing gets too far out of hand.
A thought I had earlier in thread seems to come into greater coherence here wrt what the military would do:
If the US "military-industrial complex" were on board, that would probably seal the deal virtually in advance. A world of cascading sovereign defaults would become an infinitely more troubled one . . . and the US is solidly the arms merchant to the world.
Ask yourself what the US military would do without weapons. I suspect that even if they did not previously have relationships with the industrial component of the military-industrial complex, they would still tend to tread lightly with the people they depend upon for their hardware.
Sure, they could try to make prisoners of everyone and force their will at the end of gun barrels, but that's just too many enemies . . . especially when the guys making the guns could so screw you up.
"Two years of compulsory service would have made you better rounded individuals"
To be more like you right? No thanks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
I won't directly disagree with you -- I agree with several of your points. However, IMHO, you over-estimate the "police power of the state".
It doesn't matter what the Greek government does to its people. It doesn't matter if the people riot, if the Generals get ambitious and overthrow the government, or if everyone lives under oppression. If Greece wants oil, it will toe the line. No amount of state police power is going to get them a barrel of oil.
This article is about how to settle international transactions post-worldwide-sovereign collapse (and collapse they will). Unless you build an army and "take" from some foreign land, your country will "get its mind right" and pick up the new currency so you can trade with that foreign land.
No, rolling tanks up to the Fed building won't do it. You're not seizing anything. The new unit is an agreed-upon medium -- there is nothing physical to seize. Your tanks won't rewrite contracts, and won't provide a new unit that people will accept.
You misunderstand me. I agree there will be some new monetary or currency order. That's probably inevitible at this point. What I am saying is that Ben Bernanke or the other banksters won't be in control of it. That's all I am saying. Also history firmly suggests that if things get out of hand, again, the small issue of Jewishness might get revisited as it almost always does during those times. The Word is not that different a place and the people in it are the exact same so the results will probably be similar to the last dozen times this shit has come down. What do we have, in the West alone right off the top of my head, 25th decade AD, 60s AD, 90s AD, 250s AD, 400ds AD, 800ds AD, 900ds AD, 1,100ds AD, 1500ds AD, 1,700ds AD, 1900ds AD and a hell fo a good start on the 2,000s AD. What gives you the optmism that somehow it's going to be any different this time around?