What Happened The Last Time Gold And Central Banks Were So Far Apart?

Tyler Durden's picture

From 9/11 on, Gold and the world's central bank balance sheets were as correlated as over-consumption and a hangover (and linked just as causally we suggest). Then a funny thing happened in 2008 - gold slid as the central banks went extreme. Of course, as this divergence occurred, the world's stock markets imploded almost as if the central banks knew their status quo was about to go entirely pear-shaped. From 2008 until November of 2011 (when the world's central banks began their coordinated ease-fest) the correlation went limit up once again. Since then, Gold and CB largesse once again decoupled as liquidity is flushed around the world's markets to suspend reality just a little longer. While this divergence is not as extreme as in 2008, something is afoot.

Then...

 

and now...

 

Charts: Bloomberg

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
I think I need to buy a gun's picture

free market capitalism the best path to prosperity--larry kudlow

Landotfree's picture

Absolute capitalism is what has gotten you in this mess or soon will.   Any system build on the premise of taking out what you did not put in has a limited shelf life.   The interest rate equation has been used over and over by the absolute capitalist which ends in utter chaos every time.   Last time 100+ million unfunded liabilities had to be liquidated, my guess 1-2 billion will have to go this time.  Hilter to me was the ultimate capitalist... eliminate thee enemy by any means necessary.   

The interest rate equation is used by the top to extract from the bottom max potential... once max potential is hit... not much the top can do for the bottom.  All the top can do is recycle what the bottom produces back to them minus their fee of course, once the bottom can no longer support the equation there is nothing for the top to recycle.... only one option left... liquidation of the walking unfunded liabilities... Hilter came up with efficient means to take care of the unfunded liabilities.... he was hired to do it.... the world secretly begged for it, oh, they will sit down and say that is not the case, and for good reason.   

Ignore the Truth and the stupidest generation becomes the greatest generation.

The Truth has no time for ratings, I assure you this system end under similiar conditions as the last one, and the one before that... 

EINSILVERGUY's picture

What are you talking about? We haven't had unfettered capitalism in about 100 years.

Hitler, as was Mussolini and Roosevelt were fascists who believed in controlled economies

Obama is a modern day Il Duce, and by his favoritism toward some industries and hostility to others, clearly a fascist

Read Thomas Sowell's article on this

 

Landotfree's picture

You do not see the forest for the trees.   The ultimate capitalist are in charge, the ultimate capitalist have no time for your definitions.   The bottom will be begging to start the same system over just like the so called greatest generation did.   

"Hitler, as was Mussolini and Roosevelt were fascists who believed in controlled economies"

I assure you the ultimate capitalist are in control, the change the rules whenever it suits their purpose.  What they can't change is God's Law ie Truth.   The so called greatest generation did nothing but liquidate the unfunded liabilties at a somewhat efficient rate and rinse and repeat the system.... same as the previous generations, and I would suspect the same as this one.

 

DonutBoy's picture

You're re-defining capitalism to mean what we have, a group of banks and their minions manipulating the economy to protect some favored balance sheets.  That's what it is and it's very wrong - but its not capitalism.

Landotfree's picture

Sorry, you are the one changing definitions.   I bet you think words like "fair" and "safe" actually exists?   I assure you the words fair and safe do not exist on this plane as far as I have witnessed, yet they are in the dictionary.

You can either join in next time or your children's children can or they elect not to.... that's their choice... if you select the same path, you will eventually end up in the same pit.   

flacon's picture

CAPITALism involves use of (investing) CAPITAL (savings). Too bad our system that we live under despises CAPITAL (savings) and glorifies DEBT (borrowing plus interest). That is why it is impossible to have any government and pure capitalism at the same time since government has no SAVINGS. Pure an-archy (no over arching people to GOVERN over your SELF) is actually rather attractive. Governments are mathematically prohibited from INVESTING, but that's not what they TELL us....

 

Yeah... lots of CAPITALs in that paragraph.  

MachoMan's picture

Capitalism involves a theory that is always thrown to the Apothetae every trial we give it.  It's simply only fit for an academic vacuum.  You are witnessing capitalism at work...  and, frankly, there really isn't ever another method of control, only different points on the timeline that appear as something else. 

Mako is right on this one...  he's a one trick pony, but the thing about one trick ponies is that they do that one thing really well...  he's got this one nailed.

FreeMktFisherMN's picture

My definition of capitalism is synonymous with voluntaryism. NOTHING done with force. Every contract must be voluntary. Instead of .gov bureaucracies 'monitoring' us and 'keeping us safe', the market imposes natural and efficient standards as people have to keep their trustworthiness/reputations in order. 

Right now it is a usurious system of corporatism this country is in. The Fed has a monopoly on legal tender, and the inertia and world reserve status has allowed the USD to maintain a facade of integrity as opposed to everybody buying up PMs. It's noted on here by many that fewer and fewer people's salaries are from private, voluntary means, as many more are now in some way very much dependent on .gov, whether it is direct like 'defense' industry, or subsidies and lobbyists getting rules and compliance costs to build a moat to shield from competition.

MachoMan's picture

Yes, what Mako is saying is that your definition was left to die on the rock...  it failed the wine test.

What you, and others, seem to not understand is that this is the inevitable conclusion of the resources race...  IT'S ALWAYS A RACE.  During the race, all is fair... 

I agree with your assessment of the economy and political environment, but you're trying to conjure the skittle shitting unicorn otherwise known as capitalism to save us...  the simple fact is that our savior has not yet been created...  not yet devised.  And I strongly suspect we will not be clever enough to fix it.

What you're advocating is just us, now, at a different (earlier) point on the timeline...  it's the same shit, over and over again.  It may take different shapes and forms, but in substance, it's always the same.

hawks5999's picture

It's not that free market voluntarism failed, but that minarchism failed. Had the Revolutionary War fighters established a voluntarist society instead of a minarchist society, there would not be a state to grow fat and then malevolent on the success of the market.

DollarMenu's picture

I think there is a mistake being made when free market capitalism is equated with a debt/interest fiat money system.

Free market capitalism can exist even using barter, the debt/interest fiat system is parasitical to capitalism,

requires the use of the future to live in the present.

FreeMktFisherMN's picture

It was no coincidence that the this American experiment predicated on the foundation of private property and laissez faire led to such a huge increase in living standards. And before that, that Britain industrialized before everyone else was no mere coincidence, as they finally got over mercantilist tendencies and with people like Cobden went away from slash and burn empire and instead went towards fruitful, perpetual trade. 

 

Liberty comes from God. It is an inalienable right with which we all are endowed. And there are citizens living in kleptocratic areas with no 'tangible' freedoms who are more at liberty than many people in nominally 'free' nations, as the former have trust in the Lord, the one who will set us free. The latter don't get that they are slaves to consumerism and taking on debt (borrower is slave to lender) as evidenced by Black Friday, and also are slaves with regards to their MSM-touted stances that there is actually a difference between the Left and Right mainstream parties. 

Their 'happiness' is predicated on cheap, immoral highs from Satanic Hollywood, and their ability to consume more than they have earned which has not come via market forces but rather manipulation and fiat currency shoved down others' throats at the point of a gun. They settle their conscience when they hear how China is 'not playing by the rules' and therefore they 'deserve' to consume Chinese-made goods, but think nothing of the slave wages those people make under Communism and that the reason those jobs are exported away is because of the financialization/usury permeating the U.S. neoliberal FIRE economy from the Zionists who have tricked people (the people are complicit in this, too). 

Here's a paper I wrote for last quarter's class I took in International Relations at my university (didn't hold back my 'ZH' convictions on this one!):

 

Argued here is that China, with its leverage of owning such a great quantity of American debt--over 20% of Treasury securities (Treasury.gov)---and the legitimate prospects for its outright renouncement of the dollar due to its eroding purchasing power, very plausibly could overtake the U.S. as the dominant economic hegemonic power. Additionally, with regards to security affairs, it is foreseeable that China will leverage its creditor nation position to end the era of ‘Pax Americana’ with this refusal to buy American debt. Particularly motivating to the Chinese government to assert its position of power through economic warfare is that the U.S., in its substantially Chinese-funded imperialism and nation-building for ‘security,’ continues to impose sanctions on Iran to prevent it from receiving payments for its natural resources in gold bullion (Rampton). China is indeed the largest Iranian crude oil customer, and as such these provocations figure to only increase tensions. The more significant implication, though, is that arising from the bilateral trade between these Eastern and Middle East nations through secured contracts that bypass the dollar (Bozorgmehr). China is known for its stockpiling of commodities--among them gold, of which it is the world’s largest importer--and these movements towards barter trade with the Iranian Oil Bourse, without US monetary intermediation, are a major development that could portend a return to a gold standard under which the yuan may be backed (Australian Gold). Therefore, although China lacks a military infrastructure comparable to the U.S. or Russia, its productivity, combined with the deteriorating stability of the U.S. regarding its continuance of debt-based consumption and its interventionism via embargoes and preemptive wars, portend a Chinese economic retaliation that would usher in a shake up of global clout. Whether under this scenario a vacuum of power would form and China, in line with the realist, rational state actor view might increase its aggression for territory and trade, or an interdependent, regionally neoliberal scenario under which geographically proximal and cooperative states--namely China, Russia and Asian entities--might, despite differences in identity and ideology, consolidate power for collective global preeminence, the implications are immense (Spruyt, xx).   

That China could be poised to assume status as the dominant hegemonic global power is predicated not so much on its sheer growth, but rather on its meeting the crucial criterion of being the major creditor nation in an era of unprecedented sovereign indebtedness. In fact, despite its explosive growth as measured in the aggregate, it must be reiterated that, while China’s output continues to surge--albeit at a diminishing rate of increase--malinvestment and misallocation of capital is hidden when using GDP for a metric. Under the central planning regime of the Communist Party and its state-owned enterprises, capital is not utilized as efficiently as it would have had it been under private ownership. Therefore, while its raw output has indeed grown tremendously since the 1980s, these supplies must be gauged in terms of value created. For instance, China is infamous for its prevalence of ‘ghost cities’ and other wasteful infrastructure investments. However, in spite of the inherent problems brought forth from these unproductive pursuits, at the end of the day China does produce. Furthermore, it is verging on surpassing Japan--a nation also suffering in the aftermath of government intervention--as the world’s top creditor nation. With Beijing holding the most foreign reserves and the sum of Hong Kong and mainland China’s net foreign assets totaling about $2.42 trillion, it is evident that China is producing things the world desires (Nakamichi, “Japan Retains Status as Biggest Creditor”). To be sure, China, with its neo-mercantilistic agenda that consists of the major facets of centralized currency decisions, export-friendly fixed exchange rates, and countercyclical lending as outlined by Professor Spruyt (5 Nov.), is not at all emblematic of free-market capitalism and is very vulnerable to shocks. However, Western nations such as the U.S., with its propensity to consume and abandoning of laissez faire principles in favor of welfarism, have squandered their savings and credit--artificial via monetized debt and borrowing as evidenced by huge trade deficits--on consumption in their propped up, predominantly FIRE

 economies. This stands in contrast to the Chinese who have foregone consumption of the fruits of their labor in experiencing suppressed standards of living. Resulting are the unsustainable patterns of borrowing to consume in the case of the U.S., and vendor financing exhibited by China. 

The implications are huge, but difficult to forecast at this juncture. This owes to factors such as the Chinese citizenry perhaps adhering to Confucianism in its willingness to not revolt in demand of a stronger currency, the Communist Party’s desire to manage its population, and the sheer inertia of the USD as the reserve currency for such a long period. One argument deriving from Spruyt’s assertions concerning ruling coalitions is that the particular historical trajectory of the regime and its development will be an integral part of policy-setting processes (150). This is evident in China’s command economy and its authoritarian, dynastic lineage of collectivization. Contemporarily its middle class has continued to emerge, but its citizenry’s limited efficacy, or lack of willpower in terms of first level individual liberalization thereof, for free contracts of labor and uninhibited commerce portends more second level dominance in terms of the internal state’s proclivity toward social cohesion (Spruyt 35). 

At present, these constructivist intricacies of organization and cultural heritage on which many international relations are arguably contingent have, in the case of China, subdued many realists‘ harkening to the inevitability of a zero-sum, offensive realist power game. However, seemingly perpetual actions made in the name of ‘stability,‘ such as China’s willingness to lend to the U.S, despite not so ‘temporary’ imbalances of payments, are not permanent. The realist case asserting that the Chinese government has strategically implemented such policies as the export model is convincing in that, all else equal, it is not rational for a self-interested lending entity to continue to avoid imposing legitimate lending standards on an un-creditworthy country. Under this strategic premise, though the Chinese effectively import inflation, their citizens and government are not selling their production free of charge. Rather, as Mearsheimer would contend based on his belief that the state is survivalist and therefore always seeking to maximize power, China is strategically propping up the U.S. with an ulterior motive. This would be accumulating more clout predicated on the pushing of America to increased dependent status such that the Chinese in exchange will have the leverage to dictate terms of trade (Liu, 79). Mearsheimer applies this logic to his view that the Chinese government will implement its own Monroe Doctrine and strive for regional hegemony (Mearsheimer, 162). This stance becomes compelling when one takes count of the wealth transfer from the Western nations that have over-promised and lived beyond their means, to the East. Thus, China simply would be looking to capitalize on the better opportunities offered in the East and emerging BRICS economies.

Returning to the security implications of China’s rise, recent era Chinese military expenditure statistics exhibit important trends for analysis and forecasting. Chief among them is its military modernization evident from the rapid rate of increase in military expenditures over the past decade. From 1999 to 2008, the expenditures rose 194%, and in 2008 China became the second largest military spender in the world (Liu, 80). Still, skeptics can point to the U.S. government spending eight times China in 2008, as well as the U.S.’s military portion of GDP being 4%, whereas China’s is 2% (Liu, 80). Though these may be interpreted as signals that China is not showing signs of militarization and mobilization to counterbalance the U.S., the economic aspect of this security debate must not be ignored. China and many foreign central banks effectively finance the U.S.’s interventionism around the world, and in addition to capitalizing the American military in terms of money, China also capitalizes it with many military goods, as America lacks the productive capacity to even build its military infrastructure. 

This not-so-symbiotic trade relationship becomes magnified in the hypocrisies of the U.S. and other nominally ‘liberal nations.’ Neoliberals will scold China for its ‘not playing by the rules’ of the WTO in its currency manipulation, but fail to acknowledge that the nations that fancy themselves as ‘free’ themselves have state intervention and are dependent on artificially zero interest rates to stay afloat. Instead of convergence of economic institutions that Spruyt suggests may be inevitable, divergence very likely will remain the trend--with the U.S. going further into debt and China biding its time--until market forces end the unsustainable. Whether or not China becomes belligerent is not crucial in this view, as market forces will bring matters into balance. 

Currency wars seem unlikely to be halted, as countries revert to neo-mercantilism, but underlying this is the unprecedented case of all currencies--including the world’s reserve--being backed by fiat. History reinforces that fiat currencies fail, precious metals are money, and regimes attempting to stymie this law, such as the Roman Empire in its dilution of silver content in coinage to fund imperial campaigns, collapse. Argued here is that the persistent Chinese-American regime--with the U.S.’s manufacturing base continually being hollowed out and rentier state benefits of reserve currency status vanishing ; and China’s export-model hitting headwinds of diminishing returns and a populace foreseeably agitating for more liberty--will deteriorate more rapidly, and at some juncture China will defect from this decaying trend in order to capitalize on its position of strength (being a creditor). This would be manifested through either a rapid militarization to approach nuclear parity, or more likely through the aforementioned economic warfare of not buying U.S. debt, as described above. 

Shell Game's picture

"What you, and others, seem to not understand is that this is the inevitable conclusion of the resources race...  IT'S ALWAYS A RACE.  During the race, all is fair..."

 

Life will always be a race.  What makes the race insane is throwing Keynesian fiat into that mix. 


Dealyer Turdin's picture

bbbut!  The Skittle Shitting Unicorn! How could That not make you all warm and fuzzy with Love waves warming your very kneecaps?  Next.  Sniping the SSU from the Bernanke Care Bear Helicopter using cell-phone towers to triangulate on the Skittle Shitting Unicorn's Galaxy Iphone.

flacon's picture

"You are witnessing capitalism at work"  LOL! 

S.N.A.F.U.'s picture

Yep, that's some funny shit.

By that same language-bending "logic", we're also witnessing liberty and justice for all, prosperity without end, all man's dreams come true, and I'm currently having sex with 72 virgins.

lasvegaspersona's picture

what town are you in? You won't find 72 in Vegas!

Acet's picture

Could it be that (the idealized) Capitalism is not stable and that what we have now is the natural end state of Capitalism?

Follow me on this:

  • To have Capitalism you need a Free Market with some sort of contract mechanism (i.e some rules) and some sort of system that avoids the usage of violence (otherwise what you get is Anarchy - Somalia style - not Capitalism).
  • If you have some rules you have rule setters and rule enforcers.

Now here are the following forces that are built-in into Capitalism and Humans and are take the system away for the ideal in an ever accelerating vicious cycle:

  1. Rule setters and rule enforcers will continuously try to broaden their powers
  2. Rule setters and rule enforcers, following their own natural greed, will try to maximize their personal outcomes (good luck finding and electing honest politicians in a system that says greed is good)
  3. The broadening of the reach of rule setters and rule enforcers requires that the State consumes an increasing amount of resources
  4. Those who have more capital will buy the rule setters and rule enforcers, thus making sure that rules are adjusted and enforced in a way that preserves and increases their capital
  5. The more capital that is accumulated at one point of the system, the bigger the influence of the owners of that capital in fixing the rules of the game in their favour, thus causing even more capital to be accumulated in their hands.

Thus the natural end-game is a fixed game, uneven playing field (and thus not efficientelly allocating capital anymore), huge wealth inequality and a huge State. The system eventually collapses from not being able to support such an enormous State, from rules-fixing being the most efficient capital accumulation strategy (far more rewarding than maximizing efficiency) and from huge capital misallocation.

As I see it the core flaws of Capitalism as an economic theory is the need for some amount of laws (you can't have efficient markets when the other guy can just get your stuff at gunpoint or simply ignore a contract at will) and the need to get honest politicians and police in power when the system exhalts greed as good.

 

MachoMan's picture

This is largely the issue.  There is no objective mechanism to enforce and keep in place the "free market" concept...  from inception, it becomes imbalanced...

The other issue that I toil with is that I think capitalism necessarily presumes some type of "all else equal"/level playing field at inception.  On the one hand, we all know that everyone is not born with equal abilities...  so it would be impossible to legislate around this or particularly punish those who are more fortunate in this regard...  However, on the other hand, if we were to keep the present wealth gap and declare capitalism to be back in full force and effect, what would happen?  Would there even actually be a change?  Would the manipulation just be more blatant?  Does the government now actually hold back some of the force that would otherwise be thrust upon us? 

Simply put, I think at this juncture, the capitalist imposition is actually a cloaked confiscatory model...  presuming its advocates care at all about the success of its implementation.  [of course, it's a bit odd one would need to steal to create a system that prevents stealing; a bit of a non-starter]...  The fact that this issue is never addressed is...  interesting...

Another issue is the inherent conflict between keeping the fruit of one's labors and the normalization of profits through competition...  which is your #4 above.  If capitalism necessarily imposes ZERO profit among market participants in a perfectly competitive market, then why would anyone ever willingly participate?  In other words, the normalization of profits is like a spectre...  in the real world you will never see it long enough to grab the camera.  It is for this reason that the goal of capitalism (perfect competition leading to the realization of the most efficient use of resources and, as a derivative measure, more affordable and more abundant goods and services) can never be realized.  You get left with some shoddy in-between...  that through all of its trials never seems to pass muster.

Dan The Man's picture

is this an "ends justify means" argument?  Cuz its bogus and that road is failing. The ends are pretty harsh in your controlled capitalism/fascism/whatever world.

mraptor's picture

Who said Capitalism is fair !? Capitalsm is not fair or unfair, it is what it is, like life... what Capitalsm is, is the best system we have invented by far to bring as much people as possible to the best possible conditions.

What we have is government monopoly coersed by private interests (oligarchy), which will end when the ability to borrow on the others behalf ends i.e. when others people money ends.

All sort of socialistic inclination have the pretence of fairness, but system like those can only work as long people allow to be bullied to work for the lazy. There will always be greedy poeple who will follow whatever power structure exists to exctract the others labor for their own benefit.

The question then comes what power structure allows less abuse and it is clearly Capitalism, because of it natural way of decentralizing power, compared with any form of Socialism which tend to monopolize every aspect of human life, hence act as magnet for unscrupulos ppl to abuse that power.

It is that simple "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"... whichever way allows concentration of power is more corrupt, by definition. And that is clearly Socialism, Statism and Oligarchy.

 

ISEEIT's picture

My initial tendency is to spew insults....But I think you might be well intentioned and so I'll refrain.

Labeling these fucks as capitalist or socialist or any ist other than evil, shitty humans is foolish.

Decentralization of power and rule of law which as it's one and only purpose being to insure the maximium respect for individual free will is the only viable form of governance....Ideally without one at all.

Landotfree's picture

People use words that do not exist and have never existed.   I actually had relative tell me "capitalism" is where everyone is treated "fair" and "equal".   I laughed my ass off.  I had another relaive tell me it's where the government stays out of the way of the people.   I again laughed my ass off.

At the end of the day, rules are rules and can be broken or changed.  Real law can't be broken or changed while we exist on this plane... at least from what I have witnessed.   The best capitalist find a way to work or change the rules for their own good.   

I assure you any system based on attaching interest on your medium of exchange has a limited shelf life.   A ponzi scheme is a ponzi scheme.  

People are looking for "fair" and "equal" but in the end they really do not exist, all we can do is be as "equal" and "fair" to one another that we can... willingly. 

Stackers's picture

Boy you really have been brainwashed by the redefinition police. Since when is capitalism about "fariness" ? thats socialism my friend. Capitalism is about being equal. Everyone has the same equal chance to succeed or to not succeed as their natural abilities allow, but we live in a world where failure is not to be tolerated, or at least not tolerated as long as you are paid up in the right crony circles of power. And that once again is not capitalism

MachoMan's picture

What you're advocating only exists in an academic vacuum...  in the crucible of the real world, it takes the shape (in substance) mako suggests...  each and every time.  You're getting caught up in the micro... 

TrulyBelieving's picture

Well then it looks as if the Founding Fathers got caught up in the micro too.  This micro=macro=capitalist=non-capitalist bullcrap you speak of seems to be a new strategy to blind those who have no idea of Truth. Those who have respect for what is right and abhor evil have no problem picking apart your new philosphy. Really it's not a new philosphy, but a very old one, ......deception 

oldman's picture

Fuck the Founding Fathers!   Meaningless Mercantilists no more, no less                 om

TrulyBelieving's picture

The Founding Fathers freely admitted the Republic they created will be flawed, and made a way to correct them. They also knew, as you should, that freedom and Liberty can only exist within the bounds of a moral society, for Freedom requires responsibility. Something you obviously no nothing about.

GMadScientist's picture

He may have been brainwashed, but you don't even have one to scrub!

Capitalism isn't about being equal, or even equal chance to succeed....never has been, never will be.

It's ALWAYS been about making a profit, no more and no less...ethics and morality don't even have a seat at the table set by capitalism.

The myth you believe in of a capitalism where people are treated "fairly" has never existed and very likely cannot. Try though you may, it will ALWAYS end up with oligarchs who dictate how things will be and "have nots" that do their bidding to survive.

They may be in the form of the state, they may be in the form of a monopoly power, but it ALWAYS ends up this way.

 

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Nope. Don't confuse the corporate legal form with capitalism.

e-recep's picture

equal chance my ass. what about inheritance? how is starting out in a wealthy home equal to starting out in a slum?

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

The price one pays for inheritance is that it’s an easy target for robbery, an easy way to turn a person useless from relaxation & hence less able to survive post-robbery, and at the best prices for THINGS or SERVICES does not necessarily add a SINGLE skill from the USE of the inheritance even IF there is no robbery, leaving that person actually LESS able in life, merely gifted at the start. How long that gift lasts depends on PERSONAL SKILL/ABILITIES, like avoiding robbery.

monkeyshine's picture

But this is why we are decoupled from gold and silver, and are able to print as much money as we want.  We can now deflate the value of savings in order to perpetuate the cycle of interest.  As long as the medium of exchange is not fixed to any real asset it becomes relative. Dollars have relative worth - to silver, to gold, to milk, to acres of land, to hours of labor and so on.  Inflation is the release valve for the Ponzi machine you are describing. It doesn't have to explode, instead the relative value of the dollar declines.  We can only hope it doesn't decline so fast as it did in Zimbabwe or the Weimar republic. 

lasvegaspersona's picture

Iseeit

I worry that we have lost the chance to decentralize power. We now face an (enemy) government with VERY asymetrical power, money and especially info. ALL our communications now 'belong to us' (where 'us' is them). Unless there is a monetary system failure we will soon be their bitchez for life. I am not an optimist to begin with but just looking at the facts I'd say the liberty movement is fucked.  There will be almost no opportunity to resist if we maintain the present trajectory of the government increasing all of the above while 'we the people' grow increasing impoverished (which tends to increase a sense of futility as 'some love liberty but most folks just love to eat'. When the population is struggling to exist there will be fewer and fewer who even worry about luxuries like liberty and self governance. Throw in a good war or two to turn us into traitors and ...well it will be a good long while before 'freedom rings' again.

Stackers's picture

Landotfree. ......... and you dont see the capitalist through the oligarch facist.

I really hate when people define oligarchical crony cartel facist as ... "capitalist" ... they never were and never will be.

perchprism's picture

 

Landotfree is a stupid cocksucking commie fag.

GMadScientist's picture

You're just mad he dumped a load in your mouth.

GMadScientist's picture

Please point out a single historical example of non-crony, non-oligarchical, non-cartel capitalism.

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

How about every barter-market & flea-market ever to exist including today (which is several thousand at least)

I know I’ve participated despite the Ponzi fiat scheme all around me. I’m still able to PRODUCE & perform skills which are not fiat & trade them for goods & other skills (services) which are not fiat, not taxed, not under any central control.

It’s a choice.

I make the right choice.

KickIce's picture

ultimate capitalists?  Ultimate bailout is more accurate.

TheSilverJournal's picture

There is no capitalism without free banking. Money is 1/2 of every transaction.

yourfather's picture

The thing is, Hitler was not violent enough or a revolutionary. Yes he did bad things to the jews but this was only to keep germany the way he wanted it to be. In fact his attempt to be a conservative brought about change not because of his success but because of his failures.

If you want a real kind of violence, one that really makes change look at any movement where people were able to kick out governments and autocrats through non weapon methods, like from dictatorship to democracy by gene sharp. Whats needed now is a post industrial democracy guidebook on smashing what we call democracy but in reality is elected oligarchy.

Gandhi was more violent than Hitler.

economics9698's picture

Landofree you are a fucking idiot.

GCT's picture

Agree Economics.  He is drinking the extreme left's teat.  Go back to huffpo please.  The USA is fascist for the most part.

Landotfree's picture

As you can tell by my ID, I have never been identified previously as a lefty.   I can do basic Math that is about it.   I can't stand any of you "lefty"-"righty" dip shits.  I am about as "free" as one can be stuck on a floating rock inhabitant by billions of unfunded liabilities who are begging not be liquidated... or soon will.

"Captain Kirk passed the Kobayashi Maru Scenario (a no win battle simulation) at the academy when he was a cadet, by reprograming the simulator and allowing the crew to survive/escape.  He got a commendation for original thinking."

Rules are meant to be broken, a little harder to change God's Law ie basic math.  Captain Kirk was the ultimate capitalist in that fictional universe, he does not stand a chance agains the Laws of God or even simple Math.

Jump on board with the ultimate capitalist this time, well you are probably going to have to wait 20-60 years, start the same system over and come back and tell me how the experience was so different next time... I already know the outcome next time.