This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

All The Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power

Tyler Durden's picture




 

The following is an excerpt from ALL THE PRESIDENTS’ BANKERS: The Hidden Alliances that Drive American Power by Nomi Prins (on sale April 8, 2014).  Reprinted with permission from Nation Books. Nomi Prins is a former managing director at Goldman Sachs.


NIXON’S BANKERS: When What Was Good for Wall Street Was Good for the President

Wall Street’s War

While the protests against the Vietnam War intensified in the first years of the Nixon administration, the financial elite was fighting its own war—over the future of banking and against Glass-Steagall regulations. National City Bank chairman Walter Wriston was a steadfast warrior in related battles, as he fought with Chase chairman David Rockefeller for supremacy over the US banker community and for dominance over global finance.

Rockefeller’s sights were set on a grander prize, one with worldwide implications: ending the financial cold war. He made his mark in that regard by opening the first US bank in Moscow since the 1920s, and the first in Beijing since the 1949 revolution.

Augmenting their domestic and international expansion plans, both men and their banks prospered from the emerging and extremely lucrative business of recycling petrodollars from the Middle East into third world countries. By acting as the middlemen—capturing oil revenues and transforming them into high-interest-rate loans, to Latin America in particular—bankers accentuated disparities in global wealth. They dumped loans into developing countries and made huge amounts of money in the process. By funneling profits into debts, they caused extreme pain in the debtor nations, especially when the oil-producing nations began to raise their prices. This raised the cost of energy and provoked a wave of inflation that further oppressed these third world nations, the US population, and other economies throughout the world.

Bank Holding Company Battles

When Eisenhower signed the 1956 Bank Holding Company Act banning interstate banking, he left a large loophole as a conciliatory gambit: a gray area as to what big banks could consider “financially-related business,” which fell under their jurisdiction. In practice, that meant that they could find ways to expand their breadth of services while they figured out ways to grow their domestic grab for depositors. On May 26, 1970, the “Big Three” bankers— Wriston and Rockefeller, along with Alden “Tom” Clausen, chairman of Bank America Corporation—appeared before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee to press their case for widening the loophole.

During the proceedings, Wriston led the charge on behalf of his brethren in the crusade. Tall, slim, elegantly dressed, and the most articulate of the three, he dramatically called on Congress to “throw off some of the shackles on banking which inhibit competition in the financial markets.”

The global financial landscape was evolving. Ever since World War II, US bankers hadn’t worried too much about their supremacy being challenged by other international banks, which were still playing catch-up in terms of deposits, loans, and global customers. But by now the international banks had moved beyond postwar reconstructive pain and gained significant ground by trading with Cold War enemies of the United States. They were, in short, cutting into the global market that the US bankers had dominated by extending themselves into areas in which the US bankers were absent for US policy reasons. There was no such thing as “enough” of a market share in this game. As a result, US bankers had to take a longer, harder look at the “shackles” hampering their growth. To remain globally competitive, among other things, bankers sought to shatter post-Depression legislative barriers like Glass-Steagall.

They wielded fear coated in shades of nationalism as a weapon: if US bankers became less competitive, then by extension the United States would become less powerful. The competition argument would remain dominant on Wall Street and in Washington for nearly three decades, until the separation of speculative and commercial banking that had been invoked by the Glass-Steagall Act would be no more.

Wriston deftly equated the expansion of US banking with general US global progress and power. It wasn’t so much that this connection hadn’t occurred to presidents or bankers since World War II; indeed, that was how the political-financial alliances had been operating. But from that point on, the notion was formally and publicly verbalized, and placed on the congressional record. The idea that commercial banks served the country and perpetuated its global identity and strength, rather than the other way around, became a key argument for domestic deregulation—even if, in practice, it was the country that would serve the banks.

The Penn Central Debacle

There was, however, a fly in the ointment. To increase their size, bankers wanted to be able to accumulate more services or branches beneath the holding company umbrella. But a crisis in another industry would give some legislators pause. The Penn Central meltdown, the first financial crisis of Nixon’s presidency, temporarily dampened the ardency of deregulation enthusiasts. The collapse of the largest, most diverse railroad holding company in America was blamed on overzealous bank lending to a plethora of non-railroad-oriented entities under one holding company umbrella. The debacle renewed debate about a stricter bank holding company bill.

Under Wriston’s guidance, National City had spearheaded a fifty-three-bank syndicate to lend $500 million in revolving credit to Penn Central, even when it showed obvious signs of imminent implosion.

Penn Central had been one of the leading US corporations in the 1960s. President Johnson had supported the merger that spawned the conglomerate on behalf of a friend, railroad merger specialist Stuart Saunders, who became chairman. He had done this over the warnings of the Justice Department and despite allegations of antitrust violations called by its competitors. With nary a regulator paying attention, Penn Central had morphed into more than a railroad holding company, encompassing real estate, hotels, pipelines, and theme parks. Meanwhile, highways, cars, and commercial airlines had chipped away at Penn Central’s dominant market position. To try to compensate,
Penn Central had delved into a host of speculative expansions and deals. That strategy was failing fast. By May 1970, Penn Central was feverishly drawing on its credit lines just to scrounge up enough cash to keep going.

The conglomerate demonstrated that holding companies could be mere shell constructions under which other unrelated businesses could exist, much as the 1920s holding companies housed reckless financial ventures under utility firm banners.

Allegations circulated that Rockefeller had launched a five-day selling strategy of Penn Central stock, culminating with the dumping of 134,400 shares on the fifth day, based on insider information he received as one of the firm’s key lenders. He denied the charges.

In a joint effort with the bankers to hide the Penn Central debacle behind a shield of federal bailout loans, the Pentagon stepped in, claiming that assisting Penn Central was a matter of national defense.5 Under the auspices of national security, Washington utilized the Defense Production Act of 1950, a convenient bill passed at the start of the Korean War that enabled the president to force businesses to prioritize national security–related endeavors.

On June 21, 1970, Penn Central filed for bankruptcy, becoming the first major US corporation to go bust since the Depression. Its failure was not an isolated incident by any means. Instead, it was one of a number of major defaults that shook the commercial paper market to its core. (“Commercial paper” is a term for the short-term promissory notes sold by large corporations to raise quick money, backed only by their promise to pay the amount of the note at the end of its term, not by any collateral.) But the agile bankers knew how to capitalize on that turmoil. When companies stopped borrowing in the flailing commercial paper market, they had to turn to major banks like Chase for loans instead. As a result, the worldwide loans of Chase, First National City Bank, and Bank of America surged to $27.7 billion by the end of 1971, more than double the 1969 total of $13 billion.

A year later, the largest US defense company, Lockheed, was facing bankruptcy, as well. Again bankers found a way to come out ahead on the people’s dime. Lockheed’s bankers at Bank of America and Bankers Trust led a syndicate that petitioned the Defense Department for a bailout on similar national security grounds. The CEO, Daniel Haughton, even agreed to step down if an appropriate government loan was provided.

In response, the Nixon administration offered $250 million in emergency loans to Lockheed—in effect, bailing out the banks and the corporation. To explain the bailout at a time when the general economy was struggling, Nixon introduced the Lockheed Emergency Loan Act by stating, “It will have a major impact on the economy of California, and will contribute greatly to the economic strength of the country as a whole.” After the bill was passed, not a single Lockheed executive stepped down.

It would take several years of political-financial debate and more bailouts to sustain Penn Central. One 1975 article labeled the entire episode “The Penn-C Fairy Tale” and condemned the subsequent federal bailout: “While the country is in the worst recession since the depression and unemployment lines grow longer every day, Congress is dumping another third of a billion dollars of your tax payer dollars down the railroad rat hole.” (The incident was prologue: Congress would lavish hundreds of billions of dollars to sustain the biggest banks after the 2008 financial crisis, topped up by trillions of dollars from the Fed and the Treasury Department in the form of loans, bond purchases, and other subsidies.)

More Bank Holding Company Politics

Despite the Penn Central crisis, the revised Bank Holding Company Act decisively passed the Senate on September 16, 1970, by a bipartisan vote of seventy-seven to one. The final version was far more lenient than the one that Texas Democrat John William Wright Patman, chair of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, or even the Nixon administration had originally envisioned. The revised act allowed big banks to retain nonbank units acquired before June 1968. It also gave the Fed greater regulatory authority over bank holding companies, including the power to determine what constituted one. Language was added to enable banks to be considered one-bank holding companies if they, or any of their subsidiaries, held any deposits or extended any commercial loans, thus broadening their scope.

President Nixon signed the bill into law without fanfare on New Year’s Eve 1970. In fact, his inner circle decided against making a splash about it. They didn’t think the public would understand or care. Plus, they realized that there was a prevailing attitude that the Nixon administration had favored the big banks, and though it had, this was not something they wanted to draw attention to.

The End of the Gold Standard

The top six banks controlled 20 percent of the nation’s deposits through one-bank holding companies, but second place in that group wasn’t good enough for Wriston, who noted to the Nixon administration that his bank was really the “caretaker of the aspirations of millions of people” whose money it held. Wriston flooded the New York Fed with proposals for expansion. His applications “were said to represent as many as half of the total of all of the banks.” The Fed was so overwhelmed, it had to enlist First National City Bank to interpret the new law on its behalf.

By mid-1971, the Fed had approved thirteen and rejected seven of Wriston’s applications. His biggest disappointment was the insurance underwriting rejection. The possibility of converting depositors for insurance business had been tantalizing. It would continue to be a hard-fought, ultimately successful battle.

Around the same time, New York governor Nelson Rockefeller (David Rockefeller’s brother) approved legislation permitting banks to set up subsidiaries in each of the state’s nine banking districts. This was a gift for Wriston and David Rockefeller, because it meant their banks could expand within the state. Each subsidiary could open branches through June 1976, when the districts would be eliminated and banks could merge and branch freely.

Several months later, First National City Bank was paying generous prices to purchase the tiniest upstate banks, from which it began extending loans to the riskiest companies and getting hosed in the process; a minor David vs. Goliath revenge of local banks against Wall Street muscle.

By that time, the stock market had turned bearish, and foreign countries were increasingly demanding their paper dollars be converted into gold as they shifted funds out of dollar reserves. Bankers, meanwhile, postured for a dollar devaluation, which would make their cost of funds cheaper and enable them to expand their lending businesses.

They knew that the fastest way to further devalue the dollar was to sever it from gold, and they made their opinions clear to Nixon, taking care to blame the devaluation on external foreign speculation, not their own movement of capital and lending abroad.

The strategy worked. On August 15, 1971, Nixon bashed the “international money speculators” in a televised speech, stating, “Because they thrive on crises they help to create them.”16 He noted that “in recent weeks the speculators have been waging an all-out war on the American dollar.” His words were true in essence, yet they were chosen to exclude the actions of the major US banks, which were also selling the dollar. Foreign central banks had access to US gold through the Bretton Woods rules, and they exercised this access. Exchanging dollars for gold had the effect of decreasing the value of the US dollar relative to that gold. Between January and August 1971, European banks (aided by US banks with European branches) catalyzed a $20 billion gold outflow.

As John Butler wrote in The Golden Revolution, “By July 1971, the US gold reserves had fallen sharply, to under $10 billion, and at the rate things were going, would be exhausted in weeks. [Treasury Secretary John] Connally was tasked with organizing an emergency weekend meeting of Nixon’s various economic and domestic policy advisers. At 2:30 p.m. on August 13, they gathered, in secret, at Camp David to decide how to respond to the incipient run on the dollar.”

Nixon’s solution, pressed by the banking community, was to abandon the gold standard. In his speech the president informed Americans that he had directed Connally to “suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets.” He promised this would “defend the dollar against the speculators.” Because Bretton Woods didn’t allow for dollar devaluation, Nixon effectively ended the accord that had set international currency parameters since World War II, signaling the beginning of the end of the gold standard.

Once the dollar was no longer backed by gold, questions surfaced as to what truly backed it (besides the US military). According to Butler, “The Bretton Woods regime was doomed to fail as it was not compatible with domestic US economic policy objectives which, from the mid-1960s onwards, were increasingly inflationary.”

It wasn’t simply policy that was inflationary. The expansion of debt via the joint efforts of the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve was greatly augmented by the bankers’ drive to loan more funds against their capital base. That established a debt inflation policy, which took off after the dissolution of Bretton Woods. Without the constraint of keeping gold in reserve to back the dollar, bankers could increase their leverage and speculate more freely, while getting money more easily from the Federal Reserve’s discount window. Abandoning the gold standard and “floating” the dollar was like navigating the waters of global finance without an anchor to slow down the dispersion of money and loans. For the bankers, this made expansion much easier.

Indeed, on September 24, 1971, Chase board director and former Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon (chairman of the Brookings Institution and, from 1972 to 1975, the Rockefeller Foundation) told Connally that “under no circumstances should we ever go back to assuming limited convertibility into gold.” Chase Board chairman David Rockefeller wrote National Security Adviser (and later Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger to recommend “a reevaluation of foreign currencies, a devaluation of the dollar, removal of the U.S. import surcharge and ‘buy America’ credits, and a new international monetary system with greater flexibility . . . and less reliance on gold.”

With the dollar devalued, investors poured money into stocks, fueling a rally from November 1971 led by the “Nifty Fifty,” a group of “respectable” big-cap growth stocks. These were being bought “like greyhounds chasing a mechanical rabbit” by pension funds, insurance companies, and trust funds. The Chicago Board of Trade began trading options on individual stocks in 1973 to increase the avenues for betting; speculators could soon thereafter trade futures on currencies and bonds.

The National Association of Securities Dealers rendered all this trading easier on February 8, 1971, when it launched the NASDAQ. The first computerized quote system enabled market makers to post and transact over-the-counter prices quickly. With the stock market booming again, NASDAQ became a more convenient avenue for Wall Street firms to raise money. Many abandoned their former partnership models whereby the firm’s partners risked their own capital for the firm, in favor of raising capital by selling the public shares. That way, the upside—and the growing risk—would also be diffused and transferred to shareholders. Merrill Lynch was one of the first major investment bank partnerships to go “public” in 1971. Other classic industry leaders quickly followed suit.

Meanwhile, corporations were finding prevailing lower interest rates more attractive. Instead of getting loans from banks, they could fund themselves more cheaply by issuing bonds in the capital markets. This took business away from commercial banks, which were restricted by domestic regulation from acting as issuing agents. But bankers had positioned themselves on both sides of the Atlantic to get around this problem, so they were covered by the shift in their major customers’ financing preferences. While their ability to service corporate demand was dampened at home, overseas it roared. Currency market turmoil also led many countries to the Eurodollar market for credit, where US banks were waiting. Thus, the credit extended through international branches of major US banks tripled to $4.5 billion from 1969 to 1972.

The market rally, cheered on by the media, was enough to bolster Nixon’s fortunes. In the fall of 1972, Nixon was reelected in a landslide on promises to end the Vietnam War with “peace and honor.” Wall Street reaped the benefits of a bull market, and more citizens and companies were sucked into new debt products. The Dow hit a 1970s peak of 1,052 points in January 1973, as Nixon began his second term.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 04/06/2014 - 08:15 | 4629598 Last of the Mid...
Last of the Middle Class's picture

Decoupling from gold is where it started. Bankers had Nixon tell their lies about foreign investors demanding gold over the worthless paper the bankers themselves had created with hugely unsound busisness practices in order to get foreign assets on the cheap. They're doing the same thing still with O'idiot. Printing massively to devalue the dollar as fast as they can while most of $$ printed go right back into their pockets while the rest of us happily pay higher prices for everything while megacorps build and buy everything they possibly can from cheaper labor markets. This is classic greed in its purest form, not taking care of your own consumers. Hell even Henry Ford fucking understood that concept. Today they just continue lying and adjusting numbers to continue the charade and promise more free ishit and entitlements to garner votes. Make it rain! (bankers, that is!) The only solution to this is going to be for part of the US to break off and follow the common sense fiscal responsibility path severely limiting banking practices of predatory lending and rehypothication.

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 10:41 | 4629736 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

The only solution is to follow the law of Constitutional Money, debt-free.

But, of course, two US presidents were shot over that; an attempt on a third (Jackson) failed only by Providence.

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 08:23 | 4629602 AdvancingTime
AdvancingTime's picture

The modern economy that has evolved over the last several decades is loaded with interwoven contracts reeking of contagion. I contend that if faith drops in these intangible "promises" and money suddenly flows into tangible goods seeking a safe haven inflation will soar.

In a recent article I wrote "never before has mankind diverted such a large percentage of wealth into intangible products or goods and made the claim this is the primary reason that inflation has not raised its ugly head or become a major economic issue in recent years." Like many of those who study the economy I worry about the massive debt being accumulated by governments and the rate that central banks have expanded the money supply. More below on how inflation could wash over us and what might follow.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/04/inflation-seed-of-economic-chaos....

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 08:36 | 4629615 exartizo
exartizo's picture

This information fleshes out what many of us here at ZH have known for quite some time.

That the bankers have been plotting to increase their power (greed) at the expense of the American People, and all people worldwide, for decades.

Wriston and Nixon are simply pawns in a much larger game.

Many politicians and business leaders have been compromised for these purposes..

This information is simply the exact enumeration and details of how it was done.

And, who really cares about that?

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 08:58 | 4629639 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

But the thing you must always keep in mind is that they, like our political overlords, are doing this for our own good. The fact that they make themselves incredibly rich and powerful, while also impoverishing people around the world, should not even be a factor. They loves their sheep, especially for supper.

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 11:05 | 4629757 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

Look let me state the obvious. At least it has become obvious in recent times.

The "money system" or whatever you want to call it, is fundamentally dishonest. It's built on lies, and hence is a method to steal. That means that half of every transaction (you give me a loaf of bread, I give you Federal Reserve Notes), is theft and deception. So society is pervaded with theft and deception.

Knowing this, is anyone surprised that life is continually getting worse?

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 12:34 | 4629904 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Title typo alert -- it's not the "Presidents' Bankers". It's the Bankers' President.

Barry claims that he was elected thanks to the $5, $10, and $20 contributions from the proles. That's somewhat true. What he didn't tell us was those contributions from the proles were first stolen from the proles by Barry's owners, the bankers.

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 12:36 | 4629912 Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

 

 

More evidence that people are getting wise and angry:

CA Attorney General candidate calls for execution of corrupt politicians

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/04/04/firing-squad-or-hanging-ag-can...

Be sure to scroll down to the poll at the bottom.  "Should Corrupt Politicians be Executed?"

58%  Yes, a strong message needs to sent

22%  Yes but only in extreme cases

So 80% of the respondents say Yes.  Wow.

 

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 12:46 | 4629932 Mr Giggles
Mr Giggles's picture

Not just pols but theiving serpents also.

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 12:44 | 4629926 Mr Giggles
Mr Giggles's picture

My right hand in the air, my left in your pocket.

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 13:07 | 4629979 Future Jim
Future Jim's picture

"Bankers, meanwhile, postured for a dollar devaluation, which would make their cost of funds cheaper and enable them to expand their lending businesses."

How would that work? If dollars became worth less, then any dollars held by banks would be worth less, and any dollars paid to the banks by borrowers would be paid back in dollars worth less than the ones borrowed. It sounds like a lose lose for banks.

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 16:06 | 4630362 Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

Lets say at some point bankers have all their money out in the street, legally at say, 10 to one, which used to be a standard. So their income/profit growth has stalled. Shareholders no likee.

Well they could hire more money at higher rates. But the would have to place the hired money at even hire rates to clear the vig, and if they knew who would of paid the higher vig the woul d of loaned it.
So they get the old 10 to 1 loan arate changed to 20 to one. Now they can double the vig on the street at zero cost to them. The extra credit causes a bit of @a@inflation in the economy as a whole, but very little cost to them. They socialize the cost and privatize the profit.

So one way or another the banking racket has been about privitizing profit and socializing losses on to the public. Fleecing.

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 16:17 | 4630377 Future Jim
Future Jim's picture

Thanks. I suspected it might be in the form of a lower fractional reserve requirement, but the article didin't say that, and I didn't know that the banks had maxed out the possible money creation through fractional reserve banking. Am I correct in guessing that it was only certain well connected banks that were maxed out and lobbying for lower fractinal reserve requirements?

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 13:23 | 4630009 Future Jim
Future Jim's picture

"The strategy worked. On August 15, 1971, Nixon bashed the “international money speculators” in a televised speech, stating, “Because they thrive on crises they help to create them.”16 He noted that “in recent weeks the speculators have been waging an all-out war on the American dollar.” "

Instead of speculators, wasn't the dollar devalued because of the policies resulting from the beliefs expressed by Nixon when he said "We're all Keynesians now."?

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 14:19 | 4630134 Pinche Caballero
Pinche Caballero's picture

everyone's favorite, Maria B, on her Sunday morning Fox News show this a.m. interviewed the esteemed Madame Lagarde.

Several comments of note out of the Q&A:

 per Madame Lagarde, business is not adequately investing in areas that would stimulate worldwide growth, but is rather focusing inward due to economic and regulatory uncertainty

and, Western CBs having been actively working together and are on track in a unified effort with plans to address these structural issues, thereby enabling serfs to begin consuming more at a faster pace

and, the IMF is in active discussion with the authorities in Ukraine to provide them some measure of economic security through indebtedness

if, the Ukraine is willing to modernize their financial system

and, Madame Lagarde as head of the IMF is not able to give much thought to her own future political aspirations of becoming President of France because she is simply too concerned right now with the current state of the global economy

but despite the obstacles, Madame Lagarde has always kept her sense of humor, which has enabled her meteoric rise to Goddess-like status in a world denominated by men doing God's work

Two fraudsters, one the perpetrator/perpetuator and the other a willing enabler,  pretending at what they do in the best interests of the Sheeple, but in reality continuing to fleece the unwashed masses by preserving their own and other elite's means to personal financial gain.

Isn't it just what the article above outlined has been going on for decades? The gall of these people.

Un-fucking-believable.

Thank you, all, ZHer's. The red team/blue team propaganda machine is being seen more and more for what it is, and the self-aggrandizement of TPTB is becoming more and more evident to many.

Slightly off topic, but I feel somewhat related, and not all of my assumptions/understanding below may be entirely correct. (Yep, got it.)

In keeping with my own efforts to educate myself further on matters often discussed here, I recently finished reading "When Money Dies". Not having a finance or economics background, I feel this was a sort of primer/intro to actually understanding effects of rampant fiat printing (Inflation 101), the end-of-the-road result of the Bank/GOV exploitation in the article above. It took me a bit to muddle my way through.

I need one of you ZHer's (mental giants surrounded by us midgets) who easily and clearly understand "When Money Dies" but take for granted that others should be easily able to, as well, to draw me a picture (some sort of graph/timeline) that will be worth 1000 of my inarticulate words. I need the picture to be the equivalent a modern day thirty second sound bite to share with other Sheeple.

What I gather from the Weimar inflationary event is that at various points along the time-line, the inflationary and subsequent deflationary periods had both economically rewarding as well as deleterious effects at different times upon different segments of the population. I had always thought everyone suffered equally.

the first to suffer during the inflationary period were those on fixed incomes, .i.e, pensioners, etc. whose purchasing power was lost

the next to really feel the pinch were government employees whose incomes did not keep pace with the devalued (-ing) currency

labor was able to strike, or threaten strike, to receive ever increasing wages as the currency was being devalued

industry at first benefitted tremendously

speculators/forex traders benefitted greatly during the inflationary period

then the deflationary cycle, and everything happened in nearly reverse order

What I think key is I had always previously believed there was a scarcity of tangible items and food across the board. However, that was not necessarily the case, and in fact, one segment of the population fared better during the Weimar inflation/deflation period. Farmers were at first able to pay off mortgages and debt for equipment and machinery much more quickly with the inflated proceeds from sales of what they continued to produce as before. Then, when farmers refused to accept the debased currency for what they produced, they instead received tangible items from others needing to eat just to survive.  Moreso on the flip side, only during the deflationary period and once their was a then true scarcity of tangible items in the urban areas, did the farmers begin to suffer due to pillaging across the countryside by bands of marauding and starved city-dwellers.

This Weimar period is what has been happening in slow-motion up to this point, I feel, due to exactly what the article above describes has been happening in the U.S. due to Banker/GOV/Industry statist control over the course of a couple of generations now. And, then suddenly for many and seemingly without warning, it is soon all going to spin out of control...

Can anyone here put this concept all into a single, easy to understand graph or chart for mass consumption by the less economically (a-hem!) astute? I want to be able to share it with others, in a way they can see it and not be overwhelmed with needing to think too much for themselves. I feel there could be many fundamental points illustrated for Sheeple based on such a representation.

 

 

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 14:23 | 4630142 Pinche Caballero
Pinche Caballero's picture

denominated/dominated

Sun, 04/06/2014 - 16:37 | 4630406 Chuck Knoblauch
Chuck Knoblauch's picture

Do you want to know a secret?

THIS IS NOT A SECRET ANYMORE!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!