Woods & Murphy Refute 11 Myths About The Fed

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Tom Woods and Bob Murphy, originally posted on Liberty Classroom,

The other day the Huffington Post ran an article by a Bonnie Kavoussi called “11 Lies About the Federal Reserve.” And you’ll never guess: these aren’t lies or myths spread in the financial press by Fed apologists. These are “lies” being told by you and me, opponents of the Fed. Bonnie Kavoussi calls us “Fed-haters.” So she, a Fed-lover, is at pains to correct these alleged misconceptions. She must stop us stupid ingrates from poisoning our countrymen’s minds against this benevolent array of experts innocently pursuing economic stability.

Here are the 11 so-called lies (she calls them “myths” in the actual rendering), and my responses.


HuffPo’s Myth #1: “The Fed actually prints money.”

She leads off with this? As if this is some big discovery that will refute the end-the-Fed people? When we talk about Fed money-printing, we are speaking in shorthand. We’re pretty certain someone like Ron Paul knows the Fed doesn’t actually print money. But he, along with pretty much the whole financial world, speaks of the Fed as printing money. You know why? Because it’s a teensy bit more convenient than saying, “We need the Fed to credit some banks’ accounts with increased balances, which it does by means of a computer, though if these balances are lent out and the borrowers prefer to use some of this lent money as cash, the Treasury will go ahead and print the cash.”


HuffPo’s Myth #2: “The Federal Reserve is spending money wastefully.”

You may think the Federal Reserve is throwing around money like crazy, just like the federal government. But you’re wrong! As Kavoussi explains, the Fed doesn’t spend money like the federal government does; it creates money! That’s just totally different! And so we read, “Both CNN anchor Erin Burnett and Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan have compared the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing to government spending. But the Federal Reserve actually has created new money by expanding its balance sheet.”

She then points out that hey, the Fed earned a profit of $77.4 billion last year. We are supposed to be impressed. But if you can create money out of thin air and buy bonds with it, and then earn interest on those bonds, wouldn’t it be pretty hard to lose money? (But they just might, if interest rates should spike.)


HuffPo’s Myth #3: “The Fed is causing hyperinflation.”

Is it just us, or does Bonnie Kavoussi word things awkwardly? Do you know of anyone who says the Fed is causing – as in present progressive tense — hyperinflation?

Kavoussi then goes on to tell us that the CPI is showing low price inflation — again, as if she’s reporting some extraordinary revelation that will put all Fed critics to shame. There is no hyperinflation because the banks are holding the newly created money as excess reserves with the Fed. If the banks begin lending and the money multiplier is enacted, an inflationary spiral could easily occur — trillions of dollars of high-powered money would expand via the fractional-reserve banking system into tens of trillions of dollars. The only way for the government to stay ahead of the curve would be for the Fed to keep creating boatloads of new money — which is how hyperinflation happens, after all.  If that were to happen, we rather doubt Kavoussi would want to come tell us how the CPI is doing.


HuffPo’s Myth #4: “The amount of cash available has grown tremendously.”

“Some Federal Reserve critics claim that the Fed has devalued the U.S. dollar through a massive expansion of the amount of currency in circulation,” says Kavoussi. “But not only is inflation low; currency growth also has not really changed since the Fed started its stimulus measures, as noted by Business Insider’s Joe Weisenthal.”

This looks like another silly gotcha with definitions, like the “printing money” canard. The graph below shows that the currency component of M1 hasn’t shot up like a rocket, it’s true; but M1 itself (which consists of not just physical paper but also checking account deposits) has indeed risen sharply, notwithstanding the insights of Business Insider’s Joe Weisenthal.


HuffPo’s Myth #5: “The gold standard would make prices more stable.”

Kavoussi writes, “Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has claimed that bringing back the gold standard would make prices more stable. But prices actually were much less stable under the gold standard than they are today, as The Atlantic’s Matthew O’Brien and Business Insider’s Joe Weisenthal have noted.”

Does our critic even read the things she links to? Her two authors’ blog posts depict a very brief period in the twentieth century, after the classical gold standard had already given way to the gold exchange standard. What is that supposed to prove?

So against Bonnie Kavoussi’s two blog posts that examine the gold exchange standard and only for a period of about 15 years at that, all we have in reply is only the most meticulous study of gold and its purchasing power ever written, Roy Jastram’s The Golden Constant: The English and American Experience 1560-2007, which finds gold to be extraordinarily stable over four and a half centuries.

Even John Kenneth Galbraith, not exactly gold’s biggest fan, conceded that once someone had gold, there was little uncertainty about what he would be able to get with it. “In the last [19th] century in the industrial countries there was much uncertainty as to whether a man could get money but very little as to what it would do for him once he had it. In this [20th] century the problem of getting money, though it remains considerable, has diminished. In its place has come a new uncertainty as to what money, however acquired and accumulated, will be worth. Once, to have an income reliably denominated in money was thought…to be very comfortable. Of late, to have a fixed income is to be thought liable to impoverishment that may not be slow. What has happened to money?”

Of course, gold standard advocates, at least in the Austrian tradition, are not fixated on price stability in the first place.


HuffPo’s Myth #6: “The Fed is causing food and gas prices to rise.”

This can’t be, Kavoussi says, since some sources deny it. Bob Murphy testified before Congress on this very issue. He thinks the Fed does play a role. Where is the flaw in his reasoning?


HuffPo’s Myth #7: “Quantitative easing has not helped job growth.”

How could we think such a thing? Why, we should be satisfied to know, as Bonnie Kavoussi assures us, that “the Fed’s quantitative easing measures actually have saved or created more than 2 million jobs, according to the Fed’s economists.” Gee, the Fed’s economists think the Fed contributes to job growth? How about that! On the same grounds, we might say there was no housing bubble in 2005 and that the fundamentals of real estate were sound — after all, we could find a whole bunch of “Fed economists” who were saying just that.

In fact, these models build in the very assumptions about purchases helping the economy that they then spit out, just like with the ex post “analysis” of the Obama stimulus package. No matter what numbers one fed into such models, it would be impossible for them to say that QE (or the Obama stimulus) hindered economic growth; the worst they would show is a build-up of price inflation once “full employment” had been achieved.


HuffPo’s Myth #8: “Tying the U.S. dollar to commodities would solve everything.”

Whenever you hear a mocking writer like Bonnie Kavoussi say something like, “My opponents think X would solve everything,” you can be sure her opponents have said no such thing. Why, as a matter of simple courtesy, could she not simply have described this alleged myth as, “Tying the U.S. dollar to commodities would improve the American monetary system”? Because that might sound reasonable, and it’s Bonnie Kavoussi’s job to make her opponents sound like troglodytes.

That’s all we have to say about this myth, though, since we are not interested in tying the dollar to a basket of commodities. Here is our preferred monetary reform.


HuffPo’s Myth #9: “Ending the Fed would make the financial system more stable.”

Here’s Bonnie Kavoussi: “Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) claims that ending the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold standard would make the U.S. financial system more stable. But the U.S. economy actually experienced longer and more frequent financial crises and recessions during the 19th century, when the U.S. was using the gold standard and did not have the Fed.”

Categorically false. As wrong as wrong can be.

First, an excerpt from the 2011 Tom Woods book Rollback, whose chapter on the Fed spends some time on this claim. (We omit the notes here, but thanks go to George Selgin and Peter Klein for help with sources.)

When people raise questions about the utility of the Fed, they are usually lectured about how volatile the economy used to be and how much better it is now, thanks to the wise oversight of our central bank. Recent research has thrown cold water on this claim. Christina Romer finds that the numbers and dating used by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER, the largest economics research organization in the United States, founded in 1920) exaggerate both the number and the length of economic downturns prior to the creation of the Fed. In so doing, the NBER likewise overestimates the Fed’s contribution to economic stability. Recessions were in fact not more frequent in the pre-Fed than the post-Fed period.


But let’s be real sports about it, and compare only the post-World War II period to the pre-Fed period, thereby excluding the Great Depression from the Fed’s record. In that case, we do find  economic contractions to be somewhat more frequent in the period before the Fed, but as economist George Selgin explains, “They were also almost three months shorter on average, and no more severe.” Recoveries were also faster in the pre-Fed period, with the average time peak to bottom taking only 7.7 months as opposed to the 10.6 months of the post-World War II period. Extending our pre-Fed period to include 1796 to 1915, economist Joseph Davis finds no appreciable difference between the length and duration of recessions as compared to the period of the Fed.


But perhaps the Fed has helped to stabilize real output (the total amount of goods and services an economy produces in a given period of time, adjusted to remove the effects of inflation), thereby decreasing economic volatility. Not so. Some recent research finds the two periods (pre- and post-Fed) to be approximately equal in volatility, and some finds the post-Fed period in fact to be more volatile, once faulty data are corrected for. The ups and downs in output that did exist before the creation of the Fed were not attributable to the lack of a central bank. Output volatility before the Fed was caused almost entirely by supply shocks that tend to affect an agricultural society (harvest failures and such), while output volatility after the Fed is to a much greater extend the fault of the monetary system.


When we look back at the nineteenth century, we discover that the monetary and banking instability that existed then were not caused by the absence of a government-established agency issuing unbacked paper money. According to Richard Timberlake, a well-known economist and historian of American monetary and banking history, “As monetary histories confirm…most of the monetary turbulence — bank panics and suspensions in the nineteenth century — resulted from excessive issues of legal-tender paper money, and they were abated by the working gold standards of the times.” In a nutshell, we are faced once again with the faults of interventionism being blamed on the free market.

From here, we recommend Tom’s article Life with the Fed: Sunshine and Lollipops? and his resource page Economic Cycles Before the Fed.


HuffPo’s Myth #10: “The Fed can’t do anything else to help job growth.”

Bonnie Kavoussi: “Many commentators have claimed that there simply aren’t any tools left in the Fed’s toolkit to be able to help job growth. But some economists have noted that the Fed could target a higher inflation rate to stimulate job growth.”

So we’re back to the old Phillips Curve analysis, which posited an inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment. You can get low unemployment, the argument went, but the price will be high inflation.

Time has not been kind to the Phillips Curve.  As economist Jeff Herbener told an interviewer:

The theory was that there was a trade-off between unemployment and inflation. But if you go back to the original article by Phillips, he never demonstrates that such a thing exists in the real world. He manipulated and maneuvered the data around to make it look as if there was one. Once his errors are swept away, and the data broken down, the Phillips Curve vanishes as any kind of long-run pattern. It didn’t take stagflation to teach us that. It was always untrue.


This raises a much more interesting question. How did the idea ever come to dominate the macroeconomic literature in the first place? Here’s my theory. Recall that Keynesian theory suggests there are no downsides to manipulating aggregate demand through fiscal and monetary policy. If you created full employment, it would stay there and we’d all live happily ever after. It seems paradoxical, then, that Keynesians would embrace a theory that suggests that creating full employment risks generating inflation. Keynes never said that, but people like Paul Samuelson did...


It became fairly well recognized, even in the 1950s, that there could be such things as inflationary recessions. That put orthodox Keynesians in big trouble. In order to cover themselves, Samuelson and Solow adopted the Phillips Curve as a model. It served as the means to save themselves from the realization that Keynesianism was fundamentally flawed.


When inflation and unemployment increase, they don’t have to throw in the towel on Keynesian theory; they merely claim that the Phillips Curve has shifted outwards. They are saved–until of course the outward and inward shifts of the whole curve dominate movement along the curve. That means the supposed trade-off itself has disappeared. That’s exactly what happened. Many people see that the curve is now discredited. But in fact, it never did stand up. It was an escape hatch built by Keynesians that no longer allows them an escape.

For the systematic takedown of the Phillips Curve — if only Bonnie Kavoussi could recognize a real myth when she saw one, instead of just repeating what she learned in Ec 10 at Harvard — see chapter 3 of Dissent on Keynes.


HuffPo’s Myth #11:  ”The Fed can’t easily unwind all of this stimulus.”

Kavoussi: “Some commentators have claimed that the Fed can’t safely unwind its quantitative easing measures. But the Fed’s program involves buying some of the most heavily traded and owned securities in the world, Treasury and government-backed mortgage bonds. The Fed will likely have little problem finding buyers for these securities, all of which will eventually expire even if the Fed does nothing. But economists have noted that once the Fed decides it’s time to unwind the stimulus, the economy will have improved to such an extent that this won’t be an issue.”

Nobody is denying that the Fed could find a buyer for its assets. The issues are: (1) at what price will the Fed be able to unload those assets, and (2) what happens to the financial sector when the reserves are destroyed in the act of selling off these assets? The Fed could dump its entire holdings of Treasury securities tomorrow, but the critics are worried that this would send interest rates soaring and would cripple the banks which would no longer have excess reserves.

Look closely at what Kavoussi is saying: If the economy begins to recover before price inflation becomes a problem, then the Fed will be able to sit back and let its “stimulus” unwind naturally. Yes, great, but what if the economy is still in the toilet when price inflation heats up? Then, as Bob Murphy argues, all of the Fed’s ballyhooed “exit strategies” will seem pretty useless.


In short, it’s safe to say that there are indeed plenty of myths about the Fed, and that Bonnie Kavoussi believes pretty much all of them.

Comment viewing options

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

Created by and for the biggest bank(er)s...

no taste's picture

Myth #12 -- The Federal Reserve gives a shit about anybody who does not already have a private jet.



Debt Slavery - Feudalism for our time.

redpill's picture

The original HuffPo article is the most mind-numbingly ignorant and naive piece of shit I've ever forced myself to scan several paragraphs of.  Amazing the dumbslavebitches that get vomited out of Harvard these days.

MillionDollarBogus_'s picture

What I find most interesting about the Federal Reserve is this; The Senate, on December 23, 1913, agreed to it by a vote of 43 yeas to 25 nays with 27 not voting.

Two days before Christmas and the vote comes up before the Senate.

You have to wonder if the backers of the Fed waited until enough potential No votes left town before it came up for a vote..?? 

Manthong's picture

Um.. you've got the wrong orifice with that Harvard emission reference up there. 

macholatte's picture

The original HuffPo article is the most mind-numbingly ignorant and naive piece of shit I've ever forced myself to scan several paragraphs of.  Amazing the dumbslavebitches that get vomited out of Harvard these


The folks who inspired, wrote and published the articel are NOT dumb. The article was crafted by intelligent people who desire to destroy America by any means possible. Propaganda being a most useful tool.


It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.
Joseph Goebbels

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Edward Bernays

notbot's picture

i MUST own one of those rainbow "I heart the Fed" t-shirts!  great satire.  ZH should start selling those, would make a fortune.  Just add a little unicorn on there

insanelysane's picture

I heart the Fed with a giant mushroom cloud instead of the rainbow.

knukles's picture

Oh come on, everybody, it is the HuffPo for Christ's sake.
But then again they are know to be a fairly financially conservative, small gubamint, fiscally responsible organ for that only one somebody I know who is one of my uber-liberal golf buds who likewise thinks that Paul Krugman is a fucking genius.

Unicorns and dildos for everybody.

nmewn's picture

Who is Bonnie Kavoussi and why is she riding a pink unicorn with a dildo in the center of the saddle?

FEDbuster's picture

The real sad thing about Bonnie's article is that millions of people will believe her.  They are mostly predisposed to this propaganda, but this kind of shit re-enforces their beliefs.  Then there are the other 70 percent of the population who don't know what the FED is or what it does.

RockyRacoon's picture

Wow.  If you think HuffPo is getting away with this tripe, one just needs to read the comments.  Kavoussi is skewered -- I mean totally.   Nearly no comment is going with the nonsense in the article.  It went over like the proverbial lead balloon.  Click on the "Favorites" tab of the comments for the most blistering.


homme's picture

Because the side saddle dildo craze ended with Disco, I believe, sir.

mick_richfield's picture


Unicorns and dildos for everybody.

If you have a unicorn, do you really need a dildo ?

Row Well Number 41's picture

How about a T-Shirt with "I love the Fed" and Bernake riding a unicorn shitting skittles.  O Banzai where art thou.


The Alarmist's picture

That is so gay (not that there is anything wrong with that)!  What they really need is a pink unicorn.

formadesika3's picture

Joe's stomach with rancid gas bubbling out of the top.

smlbizman's picture

if anybody cares... on 10-4 the other day netdania charts showed from a time frame of 17 21 to 18 01 silver flashed crashed .60 cents than traded between 34.60 34.605 and 34.61 for 40 minutes......tonight on netdania ; at 17 21 again silver dropped from 33.86 to 33.07 but only for 2 minutes...same exact time...

mick_richfield's picture

I don't care what those animals do with their lies and frauds that they call markets, and very soon no one else will care either.

FEDbuster's picture

Bought two rolls of "Liberty" and pre-64 Roosevelt dimes this past weekend.  No rehypothication here, locked in the gun safe till needed for trade.

EscapingProgress's picture

Here is that last quote in its entirety.

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." - Edward Bernays (excerpt from Propaganda)

TWSceptic's picture

The folks who inspired, wrote and published the articel are NOT dumb. The article was crafted by intelligent people who desire to destroy America by any means possible. Propaganda being a most useful tool.

I think you're giving this woman too much credit. I think she actually believes the nonsense that she learned and writes about.

Radical Marijuana's picture

The first rule of ideology is that people tend to rationalize and believe in whatever it takes to make their living. People who support the biggest bullies' bullshit tend to make way more money than those who do not! The Fed is at the core of a system of lies, backed by violence, running the globally dominant organized fraud and robbery system. If you want to do well in the short-term, then you support it. If you get sufficiently disturbed that the path that whole system is on is towards mad self-destruction, due to the prolonged triumph of controlling society with lies, then it becomes harder to agree to support that system. Up until 2007, it was almost always much easier to support the idea of making more money out of nothing, and to work towards being in place to take a bigger slice of that pie ... After 2007, we have turned the corner, where even the banksters are just slightly starting to snipe at each other.

Remember that the best liars believe in their own lies. Therefore, I agree that this person probably does believe in her own lies. If anything was able to crack her wall of deliberate ignorance and wilful blindness, then most of the arcitecture of her mind would collapse, and she would have to rebuild her entire world view. It is not realistic to expect that people will volunarily tear down their own basic mental contructions, simply because any amount of evidence or logical arguments indicate that they should. Instead, the whole established system must continue to drive itself through more spirals of insanity, staving off recognition of realities through masterful cognitive dissonance. Of course, that is a lot easier to do as long as one is still getting paid well, within a still standing system, to agree with the runaway frauds, and continue defending them!

It is an interesting question to ask at what point does the cognitive dissonace finally snap, like a rubber band being stretched to the breaking point. In general, the plasticity of the human mind to embrace absuridities is AWESOME! So far, we have no good ideas about how far the established systems of making money out of nothing, in flagrant contradiction of all the known laws of nature, could continue to do that! When one's way of life depends on believing and supporting HUGE LIES, the breaking point has to be quite overwhelming!

verum quod lies's picture

Thank you for that great summary on the mindset; and I agree that around 2007 we had a general turning point in cognitive dissonance for many. My guess to your overall point/question on when the rubber band of cognitive dissonance finally breaks for people in general  is that it is happening, but as you point out, the average person has an amazing capacity for rationalizing the unrationizable (e.g., the Fed). The whole Orlov point about collapse being more of a “process” than an event seems very applicable to the notion of population wide cognitive dissonance with respect to the system and its growing system of lies as it heads down the drain.

For example, few people can come to the conclusion by themselves and those that do tend to be shunted aside as you suggest, yet the larger group that has and is largely controlled by the constant false propaganda and their own cognitive dissonance will break out when they are cut off from the system (not all mind you, but a larger number; and depending on the group, history, etc.). Many, if not most, rationalize their position, again as you point out, because it is simply in their perceived economic interest to do so. In the extreme, a police officer or other armed representative of the state beating, torturing or even killing someone because they “had to feed their family, etc.” Therefore, waking up for people like that takes them being fired and/or cut off economically and/or even being socially cast aside (or at least perceiving that the people outside the tank will soon be their boss, or even kill them and/or their families, for example) so that their perceived benefits stop and they are faced with the stark reality of the system they supported, and often ridiculed others for rejecting, before they can realize any epiphany. For example, even on this website there are extreme signs of cognitive dissonance that is astonishing at this point. Many will reflexively reject points, arguments, or insights because they have that childlike need to cling to their beliefs and lash out with ad homonyms and expletives rather than try to make a cogent argument. In short, and unfortunately tautologically true, system collapse will most likely result in a bare majority finally coming to grips with their economic cognitive dissonance; yet, economic system collapse tends to be a long drawn out process interspersed with a few memorable events. Political and cultural Marxist related cognitive dissonance is another kettle of fish, and may still be difficult to eliminate or even much dent under the current propaganda system (i.e., e.g., it would need to be cut off from its funding sources in an economic collapse).


moroots's picture

Read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin.  Great book.  To your point, that was exactly the strategy.  Wait until the very last minute before the Christmas recess to put the bill to a vote.  They knew what they were doing.

taxpayer102's picture



Thanks for posting, interesting to read Sen. Bristow direct a conflict of interest passage from Jefferson's Manual to Sen. Owen of Kansas.  Bristow then read a news clipping : Senator Robert L. Owen, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, last night confirmed a report that he is to be a large stockholder in a national bank now being organized in St. Louis.


Stoploss's picture

Your welcome.

Feel free to pass it on, and please do.

A Nanny Moose's picture

Why aren't CONgressional non-votes defaulted to Nay?

azzhatter's picture

Bonnie- I fart in your general direction

ACP's picture

The scary thing is the amount of dumbfucks that actually read HuffPo. The traffic is unbelievably high.

Sad situation.

But I do want one of those t-shirts. Not the one with the rainbow heart (specifically for the SF Fed I assume?), but just a regular red heart.

Esso's picture

Gee, I thought the multi-colored heart was some new, high-tech terror warning system designed to keep me safe from all those eeevil Eye-Ray-Neons that hate us for our freeedums.

insanelysane's picture

A mushroom cloud instead of a rainbow.

Hugh G Rection's picture

Great Article Bonnie at HuffPo!


You only deserve a one word reponse..CUNT

knukles's picture

Dat's razzzist.

(WTF, I keep getting called it for shit like not wanting to eat my peas...)

GOSPLAN HERO's picture

Dat be rayciss.

Fixed it for ya.

ACP's picture

Hmm...maybe if public funding does get cut and Big Bird gets sold off, I would be willing to go in to help buy Big Bird in order to teach kids about the Fed.

Sound like a plan?

Edit: Kind of a "counterinsurgency" against the war that has been waged on children who have been raised to think as individuals.

Dr. Engali's picture

Redpill I'm not sure I quite get how you feel about this piece. Would you care to elaborate a bit?

redpill's picture

War is peace.  Central banks care about you.


Aziz's picture

Smashing windows creates growth.

redpill's picture

Alien invasion will save our economy.

The Alarmist's picture

We have an alien invasion from the south, and it does not appear to be working ... or did you mean a space-alien invasion, 'cos I'm all for that 'cos I want to do a Cap'n Kirk and get it on with a green chick.

JohnnyBriefcase's picture

I just don't know how I would get through these days without this place. Without these articles and all the fantastic comments, I would feel completely cut off from anything good and right. I would feel all alone in a world of complete overwhelmig retardery and sock-puppet faggotry.

Thank you.

Dr. Engali's picture

There are a lot of us who share the same sentiment I'm sure.

knukles's picture

Geez... that be the truth, my brothers...

And to think ot was only yesterday that the Dr. Paul Krugman after I'd told him he was a fucking tool whose only role here was for "ridicule and humor" asked me directly was it not true that "we're here to solve problems."

Jesus H Fucking Christ.
I'd go mad without ZH.
Mrs K might say I've done that with, but does encourage me to either go golfing or sit silently pecking away at the keys....

RSloane's picture

Almost the entire site is unreadable except for the emotionally-disturbed far left.

knukles's picture

Perfect example of why I need ZH....

SafelyGraze's picture

nobody can touch the *real* pros at ctv news who teleprompted B Brown to utter the following.

"Some investors aren't confident with what gold is backed by- or if its backed by anything at all, as compared to something like the US dollar. Investors are comfortable that the US dollar is backed by the American government, so that no matter what is happening to the US economy, something like the US dollar is backed by the Federal Reserve, that's going to be around a year from now. That's a much more comfortable investment for them."

logicalman's picture

You have to force yourself to read the crap put out by the MSM so you know what they WANT you to believe.

You should then do your own research.

Without both you are surely missing something.