This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Former Fed Quantitative Easer Confesses, Apologizes: "I Can Only Say: I'm Sorry, America"
By Andrew Huszar, also posted at the WSJ. Mr. Huszar, a senior fellow at Rutgers Business School, is a former Morgan Stanley managing director. In 2009-10, he managed the Federal Reserve's $1.25 trillion agency mortgage-backed security purchase program.
Confessions of a Quantitative Easer
We went on a bond-buying spree that was supposed to help Main Street. Instead, it was a feast for Wall Street.
I can only say: I'm sorry, America. As a former Federal Reserve official, I was responsible for executing the centerpiece program of the Fed's first plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing. The central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping Main Street. But I've come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.
Five years ago this month, on Black Friday, the Fed launched an unprecedented shopping spree. By that point in the financial crisis, Congress had already passed legislation, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, to halt the U.S. banking system's free fall. Beyond Wall Street, though, the economic pain was still soaring. In the last three months of 2008 alone, almost two million Americans would lose their jobs.
The Fed said it wanted to help—through a new program of massive bond purchases. There were secondary goals, but Chairman Ben Bernanke made clear that the Fed's central motivation was to "affect credit conditions for households and businesses": to drive down the cost of credit so that more Americans hurting from the tanking economy could use it to weather the downturn. For this reason, he originally called the initiative "credit easing."
My part of the story began a few months later. Having been at the Fed for seven years, until early 2008, I was working on Wall Street in spring 2009 when I got an unexpected phone call. Would I come back to work on the Fed's trading floor? The job: managing what was at the heart of QE's bond-buying spree—a wild attempt to buy $1.25 trillion in mortgage bonds in 12 months. Incredibly, the Fed was calling to ask if I wanted to quarterback the largest economic stimulus in U.S. history.
This was a dream job, but I hesitated. And it wasn't just nervousness about taking on such responsibility. I had left the Fed out of frustration, having witnessed the institution deferring more and more to Wall Street. Independence is at the heart of any central bank's credibility, and I had come to believe that the Fed's independence was eroding. Senior Fed officials, though, were publicly acknowledging mistakes and several of those officials emphasized to me how committed they were to a major Wall Street revamp. I could also see that they desperately needed reinforcements. I took a leap of faith.
In its almost 100-year history, the Fed had never bought one mortgage bond. Now my program was buying so many each day through active, unscripted trading that we constantly risked driving bond prices too high and crashing global confidence in key financial markets. We were working feverishly to preserve the impression that the Fed knew what it was doing.
It wasn't long before my old doubts resurfaced. Despite the Fed's rhetoric, my program wasn't helping to make credit any more accessible for the average American. The banks were only issuing fewer and fewer loans. More insidiously, whatever credit they were extending wasn't getting much cheaper. QE may have been driving down the wholesale cost for banks to make loans, but Wall Street was pocketing most of the extra cash.
From the trenches, several other Fed managers also began voicing the concern that QE wasn't working as planned. Our warnings fell on deaf ears. In the past, Fed leaders—even if they ultimately erred—would have worried obsessively about the costs versus the benefits of any major initiative. Now the only obsession seemed to be with the newest survey of financial-market expectations or the latest in-person feedback from Wall Street's leading bankers and hedge-fund managers. Sorry, U.S. taxpayer.
Trading for the first round of QE ended on March 31, 2010. The final results confirmed that, while there had been only trivial relief for Main Street, the U.S. central bank's bond purchases had been an absolute coup for Wall Street. The banks hadn't just benefited from the lower cost of making loans. They'd also enjoyed huge capital gains on the rising values of their securities holdings and fat commissions from brokering most of the Fed's QE transactions. Wall Street had experienced its most profitable year ever in 2009, and 2010 was starting off in much the same way.
You'd think the Fed would have finally stopped to question the wisdom of QE. Think again. Only a few months later—after a 14% drop in the U.S. stock market and renewed weakening in the banking sector—the Fed announced a new round of bond buying: QE2. Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, immediately called the decision "clueless."
That was when I realized the Fed had lost any remaining ability to think independently from Wall Street. Demoralized, I returned to the private sector.
Where are we today? The Fed keeps buying roughly $85 billion in bonds a month, chronically delaying so much as a minor QE taper. Over five years, its bond purchases have come to more than $4 trillion. Amazingly, in a supposedly free-market nation, QE has become the largest financial-markets intervention by any government in world history.
And the impact? Even by the Fed's sunniest calculations, aggressive QE over five years has generated only a few percentage points of U.S. growth. By contrast, experts outside the Fed, such as Mohammed El Erian at the Pimco investment firm, suggest that the Fed may have created and spent over $4 trillion for a total return of as little as 0.25% of GDP (i.e., a mere $40 billion bump in U.S. economic output). Both of those estimates indicate that QE isn't really working.
Unless you're Wall Street. Having racked up hundreds of billions of dollars in opaque Fed subsidies, U.S. banks have seen their collective stock price triple since March 2009. The biggest ones have only become more of a cartel: 0.2% of them now control more than 70% of the U.S. bank assets.
As for the rest of America, good luck. Because QE was relentlessly pumping money into the financial markets during the past five years, it killed the urgency for Washington to confront a real crisis: that of a structurally unsound U.S. economy. Yes, those financial markets have rallied spectacularly, breathing much-needed life back into 401(k)s, but for how long? Experts like Larry Fink at the BlackRock investment firm are suggesting that conditions are again "bubble-like." Meanwhile, the country remains overly dependent on Wall Street to drive economic growth.
Even when acknowledging QE's shortcomings, Chairman Bernanke argues that some action by the Fed is better than none (a position that his likely successor, Fed Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen, also embraces). The implication is that the Fed is dutifully compensating for the rest of Washington's dysfunction. But the Fed is at the center of that dysfunction. Case in point: It has allowed QE to become Wall Street's new "too big to fail" policy.
»
- 86610 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Banks are for whatever gets them paid. Put whatever name on it your want. They're not idealogues.
Of course, and in reality banks dictate government behaviour, but the point is that all of this is justified under "Keynes", according to our coin-operated politicians.
EscapeKey: excellent "Keynes" post. We haven't lived under a Keynsian or capitalist system, at least I have not. These are misnomers for what has been the american ecomonic environment. We've lived under "Banksterism", an ever evolving sytem designed to keep everyone but Banksters in a perpetual state of instability.
PS I particularly like the "coin-operated politicians" moniker.
Banks are not really banks, No Debt,
Since around 1987 they have been no more than syphons of the common wealth of a nation that was formerly the wealthiest on the planet from the pockets of the many to the pockets of a very few.
It has been a remarkable epoch; never, in my wildest thoughts did I ever imagine that 'we the people' would allow such a robbery without a shot fired or hardly a word of protest.
We are, collectively, responsible for this as the cowards we have become-----and there is no change in this attitude on the horizon----we are an 'africanized' population.
This is still nearly impossible for me to believe-----'we the people' was just an empty promise. I feel as dumb as the proverbial doorpost.
Banks got paid to LIE.
Politicians get paid to LIE.
GROWTH is the LIE. EVERYONE wanted to hear this LIE. No more can we increase wealth on a median per-capita basis. Since 1971 we've only been pretending, as we swallowed the BIG LIE, that we we making "growth" work.
Early on during the Reagan administration banks were given the green light to crank up transacational processing. That is, what mattered was "volume," the more transactions you could crank out the more shots at skimming you had. Anyone see Office Space? the shock when they'd discovered that some paltry rounding ended up dumping massive amounts into their bucket? Pretty much everything has followed this model now. And underneath the driver is always margins, returns to shareholders.
We didn't want to acknowledge that there were/are physical limitations. We cemented this view in 1971: there were some attempts to bring attention to this (oil embargo presented a big opportunity, kind of on a 9/11 scale), but these got pushed aside when "happy days are here again" rolled around in 1980 (and the loading of the financial sectors guns started their hyperbolic loading).
Seer;
Of course, you are correct; but i told the growth story---the no need for growth story from 1975 to 1994 and never had a single person who understood it----or wanted to hear it.
now we have a real opportunity to practice it as slaves---no growth never implied slavery---but you know how the pols do things---so slavery it is
unless you are poor
then it turns from slavery to starvation
most 'mericans prefer slavery
@EscapeKey
Funny current and previouse Gov did not like the "save in the good times" bit of Keynes work.
And they never mention it!
Yes. Keynes was used, but he helped create the crack that things snuck out of... Kind of hard to put the genie back in the bottle.
Well let me respond then.
QE = Not Keynesian
Bailouts = Not Keynesian
Manipulation of the Money Supply = Not Keynesian (see the letter by Keynes to Roosevelt above)
Interest Rate Policy = Keynesian
Fiscal Spending = Keynesian (under the condition that there's fiscal tightening in good times)
And by the same token, it is not Hayek's or Mises's fault that an anarchistic capitalism in which a bunch of capitalists do not capture the state, or if one does not exist, do not form such a state as they monopolize, or thay do not turn into feudal lords is against human nature.
Perhaps you should explain all of these points to Krugman, as he's made an entire career out of promoting essentially all of those things which you claim are supposedly "not keynesian".
Besides, nice dodging of my point in regards to Keynesian counter-cyclical policies being incompatible with democracy. Perhaps we should just leave all fiscal decisions to an "expert" panel, "guided" by the banks? Oh, looks as if we're already there.
Anyway, I don't think an oppressive hierarchy is fundamentally against human nature. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's entirely on the page of nature itself. Do I wish to live in it? Not necessarily, but to claim it's against human nature is frankly extremely questionable.
Krugman, Bernanke, Little Timmy Guitner, Dimon, Blankfein, Obama, Yellen, Volker, etc ..........all self-described Keynesians. There were legendary arguments five years ago about not that Keynesian theory would save us, but by how much Keynesian theory would save us. Stating "I'm a Keynesian" because a public litmus test of how 'sound' a person's economic judgement was. If anyone questioned Keynesian theory they were branded as crackpots and publically humiliated. Horror and destruction was and is committed in the name of Keynesian theory. Having said that, its a little late for the plebs to deny the true nature of it. I agree with you Escape, we are already there.
@macroeconomist: EscapeKey just stole your lunch money, gave you a wedgie, stuffed you in your locker, and then banged your girlfriend. Take your whoopin like a man. You just got your ass handed to you and I enjoyed every minute of it.
I am really surprised to see how many people here have problems with their sexual life so they speak about dicks, pussies all the time. I guess it is true that most of you spend your time wanking in your mum's basement..
I tell you, that post was not Keynesian style.
Keynes agreed with using monetary policy to adjust the value of the currencies, and that is what gave justification ot the government and banker types to do whatever the hell they wanted.
That is the issue with Keynes, he knew better than to give those assholes the recognition that he did.
As for your comment on Mises and Hayek, you should probably go back and re-read their work. Neither advocated Anarcho-Capitalism. That would be Rothbard, and if you have never read any of Rothbard's work, you should probably just avoid posting on the subject of Anarcho-Capitalism. It would be more beneficial for you in the long run to just read some of his work first. It will save you a lot of embarrassment here. Your posts on Keynes are bad enough, and you should know better if you had actually read The General Theory and the follow up work and actually understood what it was saying that it was an extremely dangerous concept when considering what sort of system it advocated.
@macroeconomist
I hear you on Keynes!
BBC economics editor Stephanie Flanders examines how three extraordinary thinkers, Keynes, Hayek and Marx, helped shape the 20th century
There are 3 programes one on each worth a watch
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01mzqw9/episodes/guide
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01mzqw9
I thought was all about the Government bailout. When did "banking bailout" become part of the Keynsian lexicon?
Excellent point.
People always have to find someone/something else to blame for things not going as they wish them to. Finding something to twist or exploit is fair game I suppose...
Everyone who believes we can have perpetual growth on a finite planet is fucked up and ought not be listend to as anyone whose "solutions" should be considered. I don't care whose name or what theory gets drug out of the closet, facts remain facts: and if Keynes or anyone else presents shitty logic then that "logic" ought to be thoroughly trashed (just as I repeatedly trash those who cannot figure out simple math).
Riiiighhht, and I'm fed up with bums talking about the quantity of money rather than the quality of money and volume of expenditure as if they were seperate issues. That was the essence of Keynes' "theory" of monetizing (printing) to pay for debt and that governments could just spend us out of poverty. Most swallowed that horseshit because it was what was and is taught in scools. The big mouth makes a perfect target of himself. He put it out there as a bought and paid for shill of the bankers. What a load of horse shit that you're offended! Fuck him and fuck you, you macro wanker.
Right, I have annoyed some idiots again here, and they started doing what they know best: Swearing.
Your ignorance and anger is entertaining for me. Keep up the good work
Suck a dick, smarty pants asshole
Wow, this was better.
Resorting to sexism as the last solution is a sign of a tiny or non-functioning penis in general. I have felt sorry for you now. (You have a friend who commented just under this post and shares the same problem with you. I suggest you get in touch, two of you might manage to have a good fuck if you combine your male organs)
Edit: Not you Escapekey
So, fuck isn't swearing just as long as it's little ol you using it. And the combination of male organs in order to fuck(?); You really are a dumb wanker, you sexist idiot. You're probably a Marxist Socialist drum thumper as well. Signed up for Obamacare yet?
I am not American, English is not my native language but sadly it will have to be my duty to show that you do not even know your own language.
Wikipedia: Fuck is an English-language word; a profanity which refers to the act of sexual intercourse.
Keep on, let's all see how low you can get.
..."English is not my native language"
I'm sorry, I didn't know.
I'll say it loader.
Suck a dick asshole!!!!
Here we go, we're done. Thanks for this enlightening discussion. Now go back to playing with your tiny dick.
IT WONT SUCK ITSELF!
If you seek more top notch entertainment, then read Bernanke's 2006-2009 track record of forecasting the housing market.
But then again, "he's not Keynesian either".
I find it hard to understand why you think I would be in favour of Bernanke.
But I understand why you think Bernake is a Keynesian. I could write pages about Keynes's economics, and how crony capitalists and their political puppets have bastardized Keynes's ideas to serve their interests but it will be no use. As one friend here said a few days ago, one cannot argue with the addicts.
At the end of the day, most of you think Obama is a socialist. I recommend you do not say these things outside the U.S if you want to be taken seriously.
So how about Krugman. Is he a crony Keynesian?
I don't recall ever having called Obama a socialist. They're all socialist. Or capitalist. Or communist. Or whatever the fuck their masters on Wall St want them to be that instant.
Have you ever read ANYTHING about New Keynesians (as they call themselves) and Post-Keynesians? Some Minsky may be, who the Tylers love to refer to here?
Krugman is a charlatan, who does mainstream "New Keynesian" economics. But who am I talking to? It is easier to label everyone you do not like as keynesian and socialist. It guarantees being voted up here.
I've read a few books by "Gold will never hit $1,500" Roubini, and "print to eternity" Stiglitz. Can't say I'm a fan of either, though Roubini does make some good points.
My main gripe with Keynes himself is that I find it resonates entirely with the Ricardian "unit of work" labour theory of value.
You've been here long enough to know that people that frequent this site pay attenttion to whom is saying what. This is a quality over quantity site.
Your posts have alluded to your positions on a variety of things, and that you called yourself Macroeconomist sort of puts you out there for the rest to know what you are selling and I doubt few here will be buying.
Several great minds have in the past written critiques of Keynes. Henry Hazlitt wrote an excellent one, and I recommend you yourself read it.
Some day you will figure out that we are not the people whom are your opponents.
I have chosen the name macroeconomist purposefully on this website to see how many ad hoc personal attacks I would get simply because of this name. And I have been proven right time after time. No surprise there.
Noone needs to buy what I say here. I am not writing to get votes up, or to troll the posts.
There is a reason I read this website often: I have personally learnt a lot from Tylers' posts and some commenters here. The Austrian theory has some appeal to me, but it is mostly about the tacit knowledge Hayek mentions a lot in his writings. I said this in another post a few days ago as well, I teach Austrian economics to my students as well as Post-Keynesians, Marxism, and neo-classical economics, and I do not favour central planning a la Soviets like most people would think. There are many more alternatives, but I do not think Austrian-style capitalism is one of them. .
Regarding your anarcho capitalism argument above, I know it is Rothbard who is more in favour of anarchistic organization of capitalist production and I am also aware of Hayek's late writings, in which he came much closer to Keynes than his earlier position (which noone mentions here at all!!) But it is the anti-state, anti-Keynesian rant repeated by most parrots with no knowledge about Keynes, and how his ideas were bastardized by the crony capitalists which is annoying. I understand why this happens, as it is easier to memorize all that stuff and label people than actually following the long discussions among those who call themselves Keynesians, and particularly post-Keynesians. Believe me, I hate all that "New Keynesian" economics written by Bernanke, Krugman, Woodford more than you do.
I wonder why most people only envisage the state in its current form, rather than a much more participatory- directly democratic institution. (I do not like representative democracy for that reason)
Anyway I will continue to write here and discuss with people who can actually defend their ideas, even if I am attacked day after day. That is part of the learning process.
"I wonder why most people only envisage the state in its current form, rather than a much more participatory- directly democratic institution. (I do not like representative democracy for that reason)"
I'm not that well-versed in many of the schools of economic thought, so I don't have a particular bone to pick with your thoughts on those aside from to say that your thoughts have the same giant blind spot as most "economists", including Keynes. That is that your ideas work great...so long as everything is perfect and nobody and nothing is dirty, crooked, or otherwise in any way like the real world. Keynes sucks because his theory depends on governments running surpluses in good times, which they have never done (outside of the single year they apparently accidentally ran a surplus in 2000 or whatever, but then they got back on track) and will never do. A good economic theory has to take into account the people generally suck, especially so as they gain power and/or wealth. It needs to COUNT on people being bastards, tax-evaders, lazy and in general just pricks. It needs to allow for things that are easily foreseeable, which many economists don't seem to. Me? I call myself an Austrian if we're using labels, but mostly I just want the damn budget balanced and the government otherwise out of my life and strangled down to as little power as it can possibly have. Needless to say I'm not all that impressed with the way things are going in general at the moment.
However, you and your ilk will kill me before you'll get me to agree to live in a participatory-direct democracy. There's another word for that...COMMUNISM. Democracy is 5 wolves and 4 sheep voting on what's for dinner. No. NO. NONONO. The founders of the US recognized that while democracy is great and all, the rights of the minorities and the individual MUST BE PROTECTED. They felt strongly enough that after issuing the constitution, they immediately issued 10 amendments centered on guaranteeing individual rights. We fought a civil war over this stuff, it's not rocket science. Representative schemes foul up the works just enough that government can't screw things up at warp speed and has to at least slow down a bit. If we could figure out a way to foul government up more we'd be better off. Under no circumstances do we want government to do what it does faster or more efficiently, nor do we want the mob to rule.
Yes, that's why the globalists push 'spreading democracy' rather than a Constitiutional republic which recognizes individual human rights and minds its own business.
Thats why propagandist Bernays (author of 'Propaganda' ) and Lippmann (author of 'Public Opinion) said that 'democracy' would be used to manipulate the public to 'vote' for whatever they were directed toward. TPtB would manufacture consent for their agenda.
+666
Keynes was too intelligent to not realize that, but he ended up providing the fig leaf for deficit spending.
However the civil war was not about protecting individual rights even though it is nowadays presented as such, but to dismantle the republic and make it more a democracy...
I wonder why most people only envisage the state in its current form, rather than a much more participatory- directly democratic institution.
One can’t politely steal other people’s property without the cloak of legality. That’s what democracy is so good for. Direct participatory or representative makes no difference.
If you and a few friends take a vote after a fancy dinner and the majority rules that you must pay the bill or they’ll put you in a cage, that’s obscene! But if a million people vote in a legal election for you to hand over half your income every year or police will come and put you in a cage, that’s perfectly fine.
See the difference? Maybe you can teach us Macroman. Thanks.
Some of your posting gives the impression that you favor the Macro view, and that is a dangerous view if you happen to be one of the nobodies on the short end of the rope, which is just about everyone here that psots on this site.
Hayek was not really an Austrian School proponent though. He was more the German Rationalist School. He didn't agree with the subjectivity or the time preference that Mises wrote about, which is why he ended up more towards Keynes when he first moved to England. Seeing the results of WW2 sort of changed him more towards Rothbard's position which if you read well enough into Mises's thoughts on it, Rothbard's position that they all ended up agreeing on in the end, they just never came out with books on it.
One of the things that I have noticed about conversing on how to mentally approach Rothbardian thought is that you have to quit thinking of it as a group organizing effort of capital and more so of just leaving people the fuck alone as long as they are not violating your right's, just leave them alone. That is actually the Rothbardian approach.
Either way, you go on with your bad self.
What would you call a guy who is essentially doing a government take over of 20% of the US economy?
"most of you think Obama is a socialist."
Don't sell them short, many think of the Obama as a Marxist
I believe, though I don't live to study "economics" (all of which fails to acknowledge that perpetual growth is not possible), Keynes intended this "solution" for only short durations. And this should be a warning to anyone who thinks that some "theory" can survive outside of the lab, that it could remain pure and operate as "intended" when subject to the whims of human beings....
Ever heard of "there is nothing more durable than a short-term provisional fix?"
Keynes was a homo. Kinda reduced his time horizon.
Just like the ladies on the Supreme Court. Of course they will have different views on abortion, divorce, etc that someone who has a family, a next generation to look after!
Yeah sure.
And just sweep under rug all the crap he said and maybe also wrote: "barbaric" things and "in the long run" and so forth.
Keynes might have had some good new theories, but he sold out to the ruling class for appreciation, or fame, or money. Just like Krugman does today.
Yup, Escape. In a matter of days he will be described as a 'low level functionary' who misunderstood the task at hand. I am by no means a fan of Keynesian economic theory, but I have to believe that even Keynes would be shocked and appalled by what is being done in his name.
Very well put.
Understanding this allows us to more readily scrutinize any "solutions," looking to make sure that they aren't open for such abuse: as much as we THINK we know "our" "solutions" are superior it becomes a whole different game when they're let out on the playing field (where "evil" forces are lurking to wipe them out).
Measures which are only good for the few (or the 0.1%) must always be disguised as measures which are for the good of the many.
i must say your avatar photo is quite eerily sensual
Top-down hierarchy. We've been doing them for how many thousands of years and we still can't figure out why these things are STILL happening?
"The implication is that the Fed is dutifully compensating for the rest of Washington's dysfunction. But the Fed is at the center of that dysfunction."
"Make me stop writing bad checks. Please, I'm begging you." - Ben Bernanke
What a load of crap. The wholly owned and controlled by the banksters Federal Reserve is doing everything it can to keep the Ponzi going strictly for the benefit of the banksters.
Period!
QE also benefits a whole lot of unionized government workers and government dependents who are paid with money printed out of thin air, supplied by the Fed, which is controlled by government.
Lol,
So you're not buying the 'Santa's good little elf that finds out he's painting the kiddies toys with toxic sludge' story either?
To be "fair," everything is hooked into the banking system (of course, that's how THEY want it so they can use their superior intellect to "guide" us). We're all sitting high upon a pole which is giving us the shaft, to allow it to be cut from below is a bit problematic. The only "hope" is that more people fall first in order to create the "cushion." Or, we could wait until the sheer mass setting upon the pole topples it over... Gravity circles below...
Amen, brother, amen.
ECB rate cut has set the stage for another round of QE - wait for the new angle - to help the Main Street this time...
Peter Schiff: With ECB Rate Cut FED Has More Room To Increase QE Now
Peter Schiff warns everybody: do not be fooled by all this Taper talk, the moment FED removes the QE we are going in recession. ECB Rate Cut gives more room for FED to increase QE now.http://sufiy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/peter-schiff-with-ecb-rate-cut-fed-h...
The moment the Fed removes QE we go into a recession?!?!?! We're already in a depression! If the Fed removes QE theres no name for what we'll go into. It will be a new dark age.
Pretty much goes without saying....but I'm glad you did.
Someone really needed too.
and there's no better way to kick off the dark ages than to take out some of those old medieval torture machines and spill/drink the blood of a few choice bankers.
This could be the first dark age with an actual start date.
Also if the internet is still functional it will really only really be a dim age as there will be fairly good continuity of historical narrative.
Interesting
But you see, that's the plan: the Cloward Piven Strategy. Even one of Obama's classmates said that is what he intended to do. Glenn Beck described all of this very succinctly a few years ago. I've seen no clearer description of what Obama's intentions are. I just don't get why the Fed is complicit. What's to gain when you make everything worthless?
An oldie but a goodie!
Cougar_w: Thu, 05/24/2012 - 17:18
Hope you didn't put much money on that bet, Dawg. These fuckers are going to print hard enough to wake the dead. They'll print like mo'fos, print like mad men, print like fly pimps. Print until their eyes bleed.
They will print via the swaps, via bank bailouts and mergers, via fixed Treasury yields, via real honest-to-God negative interest rates, via loans to banks on no collateral, via payroll tax reductions, and in the end via actual fiat paper instruments which they might very well drop in bails from actual mutherfucking helicopters.
They will not give two figs what anyone thinks.
Here is why.
Because this is the Goddamned end of it my friend. There is no accounting beyond this point. There will be no history of it. No one to take notes of rates of exchange, or of the graft and violence, nobody to worry about the deficit or the GDP or the national debt of any nation large or small under the blazing Goddamned sun.
End. Of. It. Does anyone bitch about how Rome totally debased their coinage at the end? Hell no. But whoever did it had enough to hand and grabbed some land with a nice vineyard and sat back and waited for the Middle Ages to start 700 years further on.
And that's what a singularity is about. Anything that passes through is striped of all meaning. Nothing we think is important now will remain so beyond the event horizon. Nobody will remember, nobody will write about it, nobody will be held to any standard. Ever for evar.
So yeah, they'll print like the mad crazed terrorists they are. Because they have nothing to lose, and maybe something to gain. Maybe a dollar. Maybe a day. Maybe a slim chance to escape with some of the loot. Whatever the fuck advantage they see in it, for themselves and their elite crap wanking buddies, they will full-on-full-time-fucking do it to advantage.
Watch for it, Dawg. It's totally on this time, on like Donkey Kong. And when the dust is settled in a generation hence it's going to have become another unbelievable episode among the ages of men.
Clever clever Cougar + 1000
Another oldie but goodie:
...we shall print on the seas and oceans, we shall print with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Bankers, whatever the cost may be, we shall print on the beaches, we shall print on the landing grounds, we shall print in the fields and in the streets, we shall print in the hills; we shall never surrender...
thank you, cougar, loved it the 1st time...puts a ripping sam shepard monologue to shame. oughta stage it.
I agree, Spinone. No matter how much false data the gov't keeps producing to demonstrate our 'improved economy', people who live on Main Street know what's going on. For the reason you mentioned, I don't believe for a moment that the Fed will 'taper' and despite their whining and moaning, neither does Wall Street.
Remove QE? recession? depression? we are way past that point we are already BANKRUPT.
spinone: The moment the Fed removes QE we go into a recession?!?!?! We're already in a depression! If the Fed removes QE theres no name for what we'll go into. It will be a new dark age.
That's like saying: "If we let the baby out there'll be blood on the floor. Let's keep it in the womb as long as we can."
What's wrong with a little blood? What's wrong with letting the thieving apparatus of the state collapse and give birth to a private law society based on strong property rights? Hardly a dark age. A new golden age awaits, imo.
https://mises.org/daily/2265
Would be nice and it may work in cultures where the genetic code hasn't been altered with entitlement privileges. Nothing but spoiled brats as far as I can see all over the West. The boomer generation has taken too many crazy pills on their spoiled ride into a dead end street.
Completely insane and unsustainable by their design, insatiable demands and lack of foresight.
Let them have it their way. There aren't enough trees in the world to supply the paper to pay for the increased cost of feeding and caring for them.
But we do have a lot of ground to dig holes and leave them behind in our search for better pastures.
Shiff ... Shiff ... hrmm ... isn't he genetically connected to these Fed criminal banksters?
Yay! It's about time trickle-down happens! Oh, wait!....
More seriously, if they did do it they'd still only be doing it for THEM, as they'd lever up their loan collections, forcing that money back into their hands... It's all stinky-ass flypaper...
All our "best & brightest" seem to be saying they're sorry lately.
What could it all possibly mean? ;-)
@nmewn
They have been having bad dreams..........involving Lamp Posts!
the guilt is overwelming or maybe they left their ivory towers and strolled down main street. or maybe a relative called begging for a loan. something has happened and they are seeing the future and it aint good.
I'm long coffin makers ;-)
The central planners are long Caterpillar.
The central planners are long Caterpillar.
I'm short coffins, long lime
There won't be enough time or materials for coffins
long firewood from beetle infestation. poof
Won't be enough lime or lime-spreaders. I think 'long Caterpillar' is a better bet - mass graves. Not the first time as we know. And you won't have to be from the Tribe of Judah to get in this club.
P.S. You didn't have to belong to the tribe of Judah in that club either, although it helped.
They ain't from the Tribe of Judah. They're usurpers, and the same people that Yeshua himself called a brood of vipers. He routed them out of the temple, and we need to do the same.
Actually the PTB can and will use this to their advantage.
"We've made some mistakes in the past and we are deeply sorry. We will do better. We promise."
<Now get back to work (at your 4 part time jobs) slaves.>
Absolutely.
Its just classic...what do liars and fraudsters do when caught? Commit another fraud & lie to cover the last.
Case in point...counting ObamaCare "enrollees"...its not 50,000 as reported last night, its lower, much lower. They're counting people who have not paid for whats in the "shopping carts"...plus some navigator fraud:
Obamacare to book fictitious sales, I mean “enrollees"
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/11/obamacare-to-book-fictitious-sales-i-mean-enrollees/#more-70587
the thing is no one got caught and no one is sorry. This guy is not sorry. He should have pulled a Snowden and put a trillion mortgage bonds up for sale for 2 minutes. Unload them on the market. Call it a fat finger. The rest of us could have watched the 10yr sail to 15% in about 30 seconds. If he wanted everyone to see what QE was masking.
Instead, demoralized, he went back to the private sector.
vomit.
> the thing is no one got caught ...
These assholes got caught - but nothing will happen as a result. No firings, no closings, no hearings ... no nothin'.
Our future ... we don't have a future.
The Truth about Navigators
James O’Keefe reveals corruption at the heart of the president’s signature program.
"These assholes got caught - but nothing will happen as a result. No firings, no closings, no hearings ... no nothin'"
We are a lawless society.....for TPTB......for the rest of us there are red light cameras and the NSA....
A law of governance: "The rate of increase of the lawlessnes and impunity of the powerful is indirectly related to the increased scrutiny and prosecution that their governed will suffer."
Where would the housing market be without this massive intervention? Cleared at very low prices by now. And where would the tbtfs be? Failed and gone. I'm not sure what "recovery" from that would have looked looked like, a systemic collapse and reset but it's coming anyway.... at least the collapse part. The Fed's choice: buy time with free money; but the value of the money will begin to approach it's cost when confidence is lost. No way out.
The fuckers want us to fail. Obama wants total U.S. destruction. Dreams From His Father - death to imperalism, real or perceived. This IS the plan.
This guy's about as sorry as John Corzine is.
Yeah. And why not recommending reversing all the $1.25 trillion in Fed purchases?
"Sorry banks, we have to sell your crap mortgage bonds back to you. You have 30 days to pay up. And no London Whale excuses please."
You mean ObamaCare is channel stuffing? Really?
Say it ain't so nmewn, say it ain't so.
We're sorry for the "mistakes" you have discovered us committing. We will do better at attempting to mask them in the future. We promise.
Roger Roger.
Correct!
The MSM Mockingbird will sell this to the masses as thee example of how "Capitalism has failed us".
They think it will save them from the torches and pitchforks crowd.
Where is my whetstone...It's a guillotine size from Brookstone.
"What could it all possibly mean? ;-)"
Probability analysis:
1) Probability and need to make more money VS
2) Probability of being around to spend it
You don't just turn off that self interest gene....
What could it all possibly mean?
nmewn, it means that they forgot their /sarc tag...they're "apologizing" for the upcoming disaster that they can now admit was intentionally created and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it. They've achieved their goals and now will just offer hollow words. Nobody is trying to win any elections; they have arrived at their desired outcome and now it's just, "Hey guess what? You're fucked and we're not. Uh, sorry...idiots. After 100 years of lurking in the shadows, patiently waiting and watching as Americans slowly, painfully dug their own graves with the shovels we provided, the work is complete and the time has come for the final act. Just think, we did it right under your noses...and even convinced you it was for your own good. You have to admit, it was brilliant."
Truth.
Happy Days?
A big correction for [to] all the little people?
The FED needs to stop bailing out foreign banks.
It's really an ALL or NOTHING choice.
They have to bailout the foreign banks....cause they own them.
They is us.
It's a little complicated really.
..."It's really an ALL or NOTHING choice."
Exactly. I say stretch ALL of their necks and leave NOTHING to chance.
Do I smell the sound of bacon cookin? The committment that just keeps on giving.
Literal gallows humor.
Yeah, but...who's joking?
They should be told that, when the platform drops from beneath their feet, all they need to do is "take a leap of faith".
+100 LOL
WB7, are you selling these prints? I would like 2.
Waiting to serve you:
banzai7institute@gmail.com
I am getting ready to announce my special Christmas editions.
And I am happy to report that they all hit this subject squarely on the head.
Sometimes I scare myself ;-)
Treasonous! Where's the Twitter IPO?
I do believe that is the Lincoln conspirators taking the rope ride....
You'd think the Fed would have finally stopped to question the wisdom of QE.
and
That was when I realized the Fed had lost any remaining ability to think independently from Wall Street.
Expecting employees to act contrary to the wishes of their employer/owner is just silly. Looks like the same malignancy may be infecting GATA:
"For approximately four years GATA (the “Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee”) had been publishing my commentaries, and with increasing frequency over the past year, in particular. Then, abruptly, all such publishing instantly and permanently halted.
The basis for this sudden (and total) censorship of my commentaries? I was told that “one of GATA’s most significant individual supporters” had claimed that there were “anti-Semitic” undertones in one of my (more than 1,000) commentaries: “The One Bank”.
There are numerous problems with this false-accusation, beginning with the fact that none of my commentaries (including the one in question) ever mention the ethnicity of any individuals discussed, for the simple reason that this is “analysis” – and only relevant data is included in such analysis.
What, then, was the basis for this false-accusation? I simply used the name of a Jewish family – Rothschild – in one commentary. There was not a single reference to their ethnicity in the entire commentary. There was not a single reference to their ethnicity in any of the research material cited in that commentary. It’s like being accused of “homophobia” for simply mentioning the name of a gay individual, even though never revealing or alluding to their sexual orientation.
Further proof comes in the fact that it took this mysterious, financial “supporter” of GATA an entire month to come forward with this accusation. Indeed, the accusation came immediately after a massive, sustained “cyber-attack” directed against our website had failed to destroy it.
Additional proof comes in the fact that all my work is now censored at this now-corrupt entity, including any/all commentaries which contain no references of any kind even to the original commentary. GATA is not censoring “anti-Semitism”; GATA is censoring “Jeff Nielson”.
More particularly; GATA is censoring the name “Rothschild”, a family so wealthy (and powerful) that they deem it an unpardonable sin for anyone to even mention their name publicly."
GATA Now Funded With Rothschilds’ Dirty MoneyCan't say the "R" word without being censored? From GATA? WTF?
thank you kindly, Jeff, keep on truckin and keep an eye out for the shadows and you got many friends to cover your back.
these fuckers are slim that operates with impunity. they will do whatever it takes. be carefull if that is possible...understand the enemy. lower than a snakes belly in hell.
crash, you have not helped yourself that much posting this info on zh. since zh sold out to abc media ltd, posters who point out the criminal jewish cabal of central bankers peddling judefetzen and hofjuden pulling their strings from behind the scenes are simply banned and their posts deleted (mako, anonymous, cheeky bastard, muir, francis and many others who documented these patterns). i can only presume that zh is no longer any different than common msn that is run and supported by the same tribe. so good luck getting any sympathy here.
edit: someody very smart said that if you want to know who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
...."ever mention the ethnicity of any individuals discussed, "
Ethnicity has ZERO to do with this. It's co-opted identity.
However, everything else is dead on. Keep calling it like you see it.
It writing about financial fraud, it is virtually impossible not to mention the Tribe. They are the root of the problem....going all the way back to the lessons in financial fraud and control that the Tribe brought with them out of Babylon....and the later diaspora of escaping faux-Hebrew Khazars out of Khazaria when the murderous hordes of invading Muscums drove them northward into Europe and Russia.
Omitting them from such commentary is political correctness designed to hide an uncomfortable historical and factual truth.
It might have to do with this being drug into court as a libel case. What chances would anyone have defeating "The One Big Bank?"
As much as I'd like to see David and Goliath I'm thinking that this would be more akin to "Bug meets windshield @ 100mph." All of GATA would get crushed. Sometimes you take a defeat in battle in order to win the war: whether this is how GATA is operating or whether they're a distraction FOR "The One Big Bank" I have no way of telling. Yes, the author SHOULD be pissed- he's doing his job, a job that he's passionate about, and being silenced should always be viewed as being bad.
Where can we get the posters?
See the email address above...
My, but does he have a nice big skull.
Will look simply natty gold plated. I want to drink rum from it.
best yet-early retirement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am sick and tired of "I didn't know" and for all who are involved in this, "I'm sorry" just ain't good enuff...
Howza about a super sorry?
With a bit of fiat sprinkled on top?
Yep, just like the drunk who slaps his wife around, but collectively the sheeple keep on takin' it.
@willambanzai7
Great stuff you posted.
You better get used to being sick and tired.........theres alot more comming our way for years to come.
It's nice to see someone that's at least optimistic.
Just how many years are we talking here?
Enough to get me through til tomorrow.
Just as long as I have time to get to the ranch in Idaho....let those losers deal with the aftermath!
Timing is going to be a little important here.
No, timing will be everything here, that and the need to stay warm until the storm blows over.
@GetZeeGold
Well you would have thought five years ago that it would all be over by now.
I guess we have to look at Japan to see how long the can be kicked down the road..........plenty of time to GetZeegold!
I've been doing this stuff for a lot longer than five years......so far everything I anticipated seems to be happening.
So.....that's good.....I guess.
One does these things as a way of life. It's not about "getting somewhere" so much as it's about "being somewhere."
If you get another day it's a "good."
Don't worry, been at this for years now.
"Initiative comes to thems that waits..."--Clockwork Orange
Damn, William.
The force is really getting strong with you. These on this page are some of your absolute best ever, to date. Exciting times for the creative. Bravo.
This guy is whispering "I'm sorry" into a hurricane. Along with Ray Dalio whispering "this may end bad". 85 bil a month rolls on. The entire bond market will be bought. The fed is independant after all. Independantly owned by the 1%. The police state are the enforcers, and lock down will continue. This douche's attack of morality does nothing for me. He is a selfish piece of shit. His therapist prob told him writing this would be good for HIM.
@fonzannoon
It's still an amazing reveleation to me that my country, the place I was taught was "the land of the free" was so completely controlled by a relatively small group of powerful thieves. Amerika has become everything that its founding fathers fought against. In the near term, we must resist through non-participation and withdrawal from the system. Medium to long term, we must be ready to take back real freedom. Preferably, these freedoms won't wear any colors.
that's the problem right there:
the so called "founding fathers" were in on the con: http://tinyurl.com/dfztye
Cognative dissonance. People always believe that their way is the best ever, and their "forefathers" were gods. The Constitution and the Union were both pretty much rammed down folks' throats. The folks who froth over the later fail to note the same in the former. People are funny... (which is why TPTB have managed to keep the racket going for thousands of years)
Aw, c'mon WB...
Remember that girl who said she was sorry and it would never happen again...
And you gave her another go?
It's kinda like that.
""I'm sorry" just ain't good enuff..."
OK, How about ""I'm sorry"", so I went back to the private sector.....