This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Woods & Murphy Refute 11 Myths About The Fed
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.
- 29760 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -



Money certainly can evaporate and it can also be created. When you approach your bank for credit, the bank loans you the money based on reserve limits. This is 10:1 and is called Fractional Reserve Lending but everyone knows that. My argument was always that the Private debtors (you and I) CREATE more money with less backing than the FED or Federal government does but don't tell anyone here, they wont believe you.
This is money being created. It's mostly done through credit therefore almost all dollars existing are credited into existence as someone else's liabiltiy.......with interest. This is the fear behind the exponential debt cycle and the death of Fiat currencies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6LWqgohO4E
Now when you pay down your debt, you are actually unwinding credit or deleveraging but when you default, you are destroying credit or money never to be seen again which is as good as burning the notes from the lenders perspective. In the recent housing crisis, this was done on a mass scale and the losses were real. Sure the banks cut some unscrupulous backroom deals the the Federal government to be reimbursed for the losses but that was just the banks. Others had no choice than to file bankruptcy or accept haircut.
I gave him the green ... it's got to be sarc and well thought out at that
Woods & Murphy or "ozziindaus"
Hmm let me think about that...
I think I'll go with the former.
Fuck you Bonnie!
Bonnie ... is she Bennie's evil sister?
fuck the fed
From the huffpost article: "People commonly say that the Fed itself prints money. It's true that the Fed is in charge of the money supply. But technically, the Treasury Department prints money on the Fed's behalf. Asking the Treasury Department to print cash isn't even necessary for the Fed to buy securities."
Wow literally stopped reading the article. What a bunch of crazy propaganda these days. Of course they don't need to actually print the money to buy the securities, but of course when the sheeple speak among the sheeple they must talk in ways that their devolved minds can understand the concept, hence the "Print Money" terminology. All this is is clever counterintelligence techniques and propaganda to make the sheeple obey...
Sad really..
Bonnie Kavoussi is a repugnant cunt.
I think Bonnie Kavoussi is a myth
She's Bernanke in drag. And she would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids.
Presenting Big Bad Bonnie
Economics Reporter
The Huffington Post
Public Company; 201-500 employees; Online Media industry
June 2011 – Present (1 year 5 months)
Business Reporting Intern
The Boston Globe
Public Company; 1001-5000 employees; NYT; Newspapers industry
June 2010 – August 2010 (3 months)
Editorial Intern (Real Estate)
The New York Observer
Privately Held; 51-200 employees; Newspapers industry
June 2009 – August 2009 (3 months)
Bonnie Kavoussi's Education
Harvard University
A.B., History, Economics
2007 – 2011
Activities and Societies: The Harvard Crimson (Former Senior Reporter and Editor), Persephone Magazine (Editor-in-Chief), Harvard College in Asia Program (Former Foreign Delegations Representative), Harvard Financial Analysts Club (Equity Analyst), Center for History and Economics (Research Assistant)
Note: Unemployed 8/2009 - 6/2010
Wow, she's a baby with no experience and limited knowledge. The IVY league seems to be a brainwashing cult on par with Scientology. Princeton economists seem to be leading the charge.
Ah, common guys. Girl is kinda cute and is just trying to make a living.
Probably still owes for Harvard - not having been an exchange student from Kenya, and all.
I'm looking forward to Bonnie Kavoussi's next articles - "Why Greek Banks are solvent", and "Why Michael Jackson was really white".
Why do we even acknowledge these brain dead idiots?
"Treasury will go ahead and print the cash" ... Moron ... The Treasury prints 'Federal Reserve Notes' that we just happen to call cash. I think her piece should have been entitled "Eleven Truisms avout the Fed"
"The modern power elites thrive by forgetting any regrettable past. This amnesia is easy at Harvard, where the legal fiduciaries operate in secret and need not answer for their acts. They are the antipodes of the selfless institutional servants who built Harvard and other great American enterprises, and they bear close watching." Harry R. Lewis, Dean ’68
They're so cold, these scholars!
May lightning strike their food
so that their mouths learn how
to eat fire! Nietzsche
Another shinning example of the education bubble in classic form where the "institutions of higher learning" (oddly hers being where one Larry Summers was president) have become nothing but churches of flawed dogma (hi there efficient markets) and proponents of propaganda that keep us headbanging (not in the Metallica way) in order to assemble some sanity. Funny how these same institutions of higher learning help you on the way to debt slavery as you venture out into the brave new world.
In the end, her article was poorly written and didn't really touch upon the real issues us "fed haters" really have with this sordid lot of inbred group-thinkers. You have to chalk this kind of fed love to the fact that the Nazi's rose to power amidst critics because people will firmly believe bullshit if it favors their status in an otherwise God forsaken wasteland of opportunity that low and behold was brought to you by central banks, banking cartels, and greed.
7 Lies (Myths) About Bonnie Kavoussi
Clearly, MDB has finally "taken his talents" to video.
When half your article is refuting shit that Erin Burnett said, you've got a real winner.
The Fed doesn't print money, it expands its balance sheet. Duh. Omg. Lol.
Did Bonnie get a helicopter ride for writing this?
... and an induction into the Quarter Mile High club?
It doesn't really add much, but it's fun and somebody has to do it.
Fuck You Bernanke! Jerk!
worthless, she didn't even address the issue of joo bankers run amok
12. And furthermore, it’s not really called the Fed. The correct name is The Federal Reserve System.
See how stupid you all are.
Now, where’s my f$%^! Pulitzer?
wow...TS must be about to HTF....the FED is in all out damage control. Head for the hills.
It's probably not important... but I saw her in the 69 position with Valarie jarrett...
it is long past time to abolish the seat of tyranny which is the fed....it is the whip of the plutocrats to subdue the proletariat and anyone else who dares to question their lies and authority....fuck the fed.
Bonnie acquired her wealth of knowledge by studying the [K to 12] games & simulation module.
http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/
Sounds about right. This bullshit came from near the same place on the Beltway. According to this, parents are stupid.
http://www.conejo.k12.ca.us/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ksQBbNWCUNU%3D&tabid=2853
Ha! I remembered my password for huffpo but my post was apparently not "approved". I didn't even use any of my favorite cusswords! Shame. No matter though as plenty of other ZH'ers did get some comments and links on that thread and now that board is plastered with blistering remarks and pertinent links. The only problem is that you can't fix stupid....but you can sure agitate the bastards.:-)
Daily Krotch rot is another good one. Shhhhhh
Time to abort the 100-year "experiment", says this rhesus monkey.
HuffPo’s Myth #1: “The Fed actually prints money.”
Duh, who said they did?
HuffPo’s Myth #2: “The Federal Reserve is spending money wastefully.”
How do they spend something they do not have in the first place?
HuffPo’s Myth #3: “The Fed is causing hyperinflation.”
Their actions are leading to an environment where Hyperinflation is a possibility. No one that understands what the revised CPI means actually is uses it, because it's a BS calculation, and it's virtually meaningless. It's literally giving a free-ride for the statist actions to degrade the quality of life and standard of living.
HuffPo’s Myth #4: “The amount of cash available has grown tremendously.”
This is actually true. Check out the M-Values from the individual Fed's and BOG and their indices. It show's how much the M-values have grown, and that is no small figure, it's on the level of about 300%.
HuffPo’s Myth #5: “The gold standard would make prices more stable.”
More stable than what? We do not have stable prices Inflation Adjusted now. If you calculated the unrevised CPI figures for Inflation and look at the price stability it's all over the chart. BTDT already.
HuffPo’s Myth #6: “The Fed is causing food and gas prices to rise.”
Another true point. It's called the Wealth Effect.
HuffPo’s Myth #7: “Quantitative easing has not helped job growth.”
Job's for whom exactly? Which sector? What level of employment?
HuffPo’s Myth #8: “Tying the U.S. dollar to commodities would solve everything.”
Who said that? Oh the article covers that aspect.
HuffPo’s Myth #9: “Ending the Fed would make the financial system more stable.”
At first no, but we are speaking about long-term stability, not just tomorrow or knee-jerk reactionism that seems to be the popular thing these days.
HuffPo’s Myth #10: “The Fed can’t do anything else to help job growth.”
Raise Interest Rates, and stop easing.
HuffPo’s Myth #11: ”The Fed can’t easily unwind all of this stimulus.”
Sure they can, cancel the debt of the Bonds they have in their possession. That would unwind about $1.6 Trillion of it I believe. Then, stop easing. Take the pain now, or it will be worse later. The economy is not going to get better until they stop easing though.
To add I wouldn't take economic advice from anyone that has to racial arguments for their position. Also I would not take anyone's advice that refer's to Adam Smith or Marx either.
"Take the pain now, or it will be worse later. The economy is not going to get better until they stop easing though."
My friend, you appear to be very optimistic about the future of central reserve banking policies. Am I misreading your key indicators?
You misread it by several leagues.
Nid,
I expected that I did misread what you are trying to say. However, no disrespect intended, why do you think anything will be better if the QE goes away? How about the central banks just go away?(not likely) Are we on the same chapter now at least?
Anyone else go to buy the book: The Golden Constant: The English and American Experience 1560-2007
Only to find it costs $129??
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1847202616/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1847202616&linkCode=as2&tag=thomacom-20
That's almost as much as a Reggie Middleton subscription!
She forgot to deny that the Fed is a private corporation owned by an international banking cartel. I'd probably be wrong to assume that point was conceded.
What would happen if the Fed bought $40 billion worth of gold and silver bullion every month to bolster their balance sheet instead worthless MBS from their buddies? Ha. Ha. Even if their was this amount of metal no one would sell it to them for their stupid fucking clown bucks.
HuffPo is corporate-owned. Nuff said...
Here's another list, from JSMINESET.COM
Printing Money – Price of Gold – Preservation of Wealth
October 9th, 2012 by admin golds
by Egon von Greyerz – October 2012
1. Worldwide money printing continues unabated
2. Just In 10 years $120 trillion have been printed making global debt $200 trillion
3. World GDP has gone from $32 trillion to $70 trillion 2001-2011
4. Thus $120 trillion debt is required to produce a $38 trillion annual increase in GDP
5. The marginal return on printed money is negative in real terms
6. Thus the world is living on an illusion of paper that people believe is money
7. This illusionary paper wealth will implode in the next few years
8. The initial trigger will be the collapse of the world’s reserve currency – the US dollar
9. The dollar is backed by $120 trillion of US government debt and probably NO gold
10. All currencies will continue their race to the bottom and lose 100% in real terms against gold
11. This will create a worldwide hyperinflationary depression
12. All assets financed by the credit bubble will go down in real terms
13. This includes stocks, bonds, property and paper money of course
14. The financial system is unlikely to survive in its present form
15. The banking system including derivatives has total liabilities of around $1.2 quadrillion
16. With world GDP of $70 trillion, the world is too small to save a financial system which is 17x greater
17. This is why there will be unlimited money printing and hyperinflation
18. The only asset that will maintain its purchasing power is gold Click here for chart
19. Gold has been money for 5,000 years and will continue to be the only currency with integrity
20. Western countries’ 23,000 tons of gold is probably gone. See recent article by Eric Sprott.
21. The consequence is that most of the gold in the banking system is likely to be encumbered
22. This means that Central Banks one day will claim it back against worthless paper gold IOUs
23. Thus gold and all other assets within the banking system involve an unacceptable counterparty risk
24. Gold should be held in physical form and stored outside the banking system
Thank you for this...
An old high school friend of mine is now a Ph.D economist at the ECB, and he posted a link to Kavoussi's article claiming that "in election season" everyone needs to know the truth about the Fed.
Most of my hyper-liberal friends liked his post. I wanted to launch into a tirade, but then ZH came through with a pre-made article for me to post in response!
Bunch of jealous old geezers, rednecks, preppers and maybe gold bugs.
Attacking the intelligentsia, the sophisticated, educated, anti-macho, pro-intellect, feminine, sensitive & progressive element of the society.
Shame on you!
MB you are starting to sound reasonable.
"You may think the Federal Reserve is throwing around money like crazy, just like the federal government..."
Next you'll get someone from Federal Government to refute the Myths - we don't waste money like some people say.
I have a solution. If the Fed is such an awesome institution and they don't print money or hurt the economy, then let them turn on the floodgates of the printing press/computer digits until paradise is everywhere. I have my gold and silver. If I'm such an idiot I will be poor. Somehow I'm not scared.
I would however bet one of my gold American Eagles that Kavoussi doesn't own any gold nor has she ever owned an ounce of gold in her life. Just a wild guess. Anybody wanna bet?