This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Speaking Truth To Monetary Power

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Llewellyn Rockwell via the Ludwig von Mises Institute,

Until Ron Paul raised the issue at the national level in 2007, the Federal Reserve System had been treated with the kind of lazy indifference or acquiescence with which the public gradually comes to accept any institution of long standing. To be sure, most of the public still treats it that way. They have not lost sufficient confidence in the so-called experts, despite the debacle of 2008, to give the Fed a second (or even a first) look.

But a skeptical minority is growing sizable enough to influence the debate. Whether any major change to our monetary system will take place of course remains to be seen. What we can know for sure is that the kind of scrutiny of the Fed we have seen over the past several years is not going away. Monetary policy will forever take place against the backdrop of an articulate and expanding segment of the population that dissents from Fed policy not because it is too tight or too expansionary, but because it exists in the first place.

Is monetary policy inherently destabilizing? Yes and no. Discretionary monetary policy is certainly not destabilizing for institutions on the receiving end of the central bank’s largesse. But it is destabilizing for everyone else.

The general public has been led to believe that the economy is a giant number that goes up and down. It is thought to be the role of the monetary authority to push that number back up whenever it shows signs of falling. The only potential drawback to such a course of action, the public is told, is the risk of an increase in consumer prices, which is a chance our policymakers have traditionally been willing to take.

But the economy is not a giant number. It is a latticework of interlocking production processes that work in implicit cooperation with one another to produce the diverse array of goods we enjoy. This latticework comes together without the need for central direction. It is assembled with the aid of the price system to which the free market gives rise. Economic calculation, the profit-and-loss reckoning that a free price system makes possible for the entrepreneur, directs resources into their most value-productive uses, and constantly pushes the economy toward an outcome in which the ever-changing desires of consumers are satisfied in the most cost-effective way in terms of opportunities foregone.

“Monetary policy” introduces white noise and confusion into this spontaneous process, and distorts the pattern of resource allocation that would have occurred in its absence. Interest rates on the unhampered market coordinate production across time. When consumers want more of existing products right now, that’s what the market produces. When consumers prefer to save more of their income, the market accordingly gets to work on projects that will mature in the future, when consumers are once again prepared to spend.

Artificially low interest rates, brought about by the central bank, affect the profitability of different production projects differently. Projects that are farther removed in time from finished consumer goods are given artificial stimulus by this contrived lowering of interest rates. These projects, which seem profitable at the time they are begun, run into difficulties as the true saving and consumption preferences of the public are revealed and the real saving necessary to fund them does not materialize.

Thus the central bank’s intervention rearranges the structure of production into an unsustainable configuration. Entrepreneurs are misled into investing in projects that do not conform to the pattern of consumer demand. Projects are begun for which the complementary resources are not available in sufficient quantities. As it becomes clear that this apparent prosperity is built on sand, the monetary authority is tempted to increase the dose of monetary pumping and push interest rates still lower. Should they do so, they deform the economy even further, and increase the number of lines of production that can survive profitably only if the loose monetary policy continues.

This is what F.A. Hayek meant when he said of inflationary monetary policy that “its stimulus is due to the errors which it produces.” It stimulates activity, all right, but not the kind of activity consumers demand. The more artificial stimulus the Fed creates, the more artificial the economy itself becomes. Ever more production projects come to rely for their profitability not on whether they involve the employment of resources within the latticework of production in such a way as best to serve consumer preferences, but instead on whether the central bank continues to pump in cheap money. The more such interventions the Fed engages in, the larger the sector of the economy whose survival comes to depend on the continuation of those interventions, and the harder the system will crash when the central bank finally decides to scale back or discontinue its activities.

As Jim Grant observes, “My fear is that because interest rates are suppressed, therefore earnings are inflated. So when rates go up ... the hall of mirrors is shattered and we look at each other and see what actually is real rather than what the Fed wants us to believe.”

Meanwhile, the world’s central banks, and the financial journalists who enable them, act as if every right-thinking person knows that monetary central planning has been a tremendous success, and that only the grossly uninformed or the blindly ideological could dissent from this near-universal judgment.

David Stockman cleaned the clock of every bailout apologist in his indispensable 2013 book The Great Deformation, so I won’t expand on that here. I’ll say only that every one of the scare claims made in the media and by the political class has subsequently been exposed as a fraud. The alleged flight from money-market funds, the purported danger to Main Street banks of AIG’s credit-default swap problem, and the whole collection of phony claims of 2008 stand forever exposed as the pretexts for the expansion of government power that the most astute economists pegged them as at the time.

Meanwhile, what has the Fed’s record been like so far in the twenty-first century? Stockman writes:

If the monetary central planners have been trying to create jobs through the roundabout method of “wealth effects,” they ought to be profoundly embarrassed by their incompetence. The only thing that has happened on the job-creation front over the last decade is a massive expansion of the bedpan and diploma mill brigade; that is, employment in nursing homes, hospitals, home health agencies, and for-profit colleges. Indeed, the HES complex accounts for the totality of American job creation since the late 1990s.

Moreover, the number of breadwinner jobs did not increase at all between January 2000 and January 2007, remaining at 71.8 million. The booms in housing, the stock market, and household consumption had only this grim statistic to show for themselves. When we consider the entire 12-year period beginning in the year 2000, there has been a net gain of 18,000 jobs per month — one-eighth of the growth rate in the labor force.

In the wake of the crash, the Fed has continued to gin up the stock market. By September 2012 the S&P had increased by 115 percent over its lows during the bust. Of the 5.6 million breadwinner jobs lost during the correction, only 200,000 had been restored by then. And during the vaunted recovery, American households spent $30 billion less on food and groceries in the fall of 2012 than they did during the same period in 2007.

This is the record that the Fed’s allies are forced to defend.

And defend it they do. Although I am happy to say that more Austrian economists are in faculty positions around the country than ever before, the university system remains a notoriously uncongenial place for ideas that challenge existing orthodoxy. At the Mises Institute we supply instruction in economics, through online courses as well as in-person seminars and special events, outside the traditional university setting. We bring our case directly to the general public through short videos, articles, publications, and other media. We make an end run around the guardians of approved opinion.

Renaissance humanism and the Scientific Revolution, two major intellectual events in the history of the West, occurred largely outside the university system, which was dominated by conventional thinking and obeisance to traditional sources and authorities. Although the number of Austrian School economists working within the university system is on the rise, it is in the writing and speeches they produce outside the university where they are liable to have the greatest impact and reach the largest audience.

In the 1830s, William Leggett, the antislavery Jacksonian editorial writer in New York, proposed the lovely phrase “separation of money and state.” He was on to something. Ludwig von Mises once said that the history of money is the history of government efforts to destroy money, and Hayek observed that we have no reason to expect governments to give us good money. To the contrary, we have every reason to expect governments to exploit their positions as monopolists of the production of money in ways that increase their power and benefit favored constituencies.

We do not need “monetary policy” any more than we need a paintbrush policy, a baseball bat policy, or an automobile policy. We do not need a monopoly institution to create money for us. Money, like any good, is better produced on the market within the nexus of economic calculation. Money creation by government or its privileged central bank yields us business cycles, monetary debasement, and an increase in the power of government. It is desirable from neither an economic nor a libertarian standpoint. If we are going to utter monetary truths, this one is the most central and subversive of all.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:05 | 4800711 HedgeAccordingly
HedgeAccordingly's picture

  ‘Europe is stable now…the ECB has done a lot to createstability”

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:11 | 4800719 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

China's situation is so 2008...They need to bring Hank Paulson in to provide another one of his inspiring pep talks...

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:27 | 4800748 So What
So What's picture

The "We" depends.
If it's the Jewish elite, the "We" depends very much on the "monetary policy" to dominate and control.

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:52 | 4800793 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Lew does a great job explaining boom and bust cycles.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 00:23 | 4800845 SafelyGraze
SafelyGraze's picture

sheep anthem to boombust: 

spare a dime


Wed, 05/28/2014 - 00:42 | 4800868 economics9698
economics9698's picture

I would like to point out in economics the most radical exposure to the free market we got in college was Freidman. No 


Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, we simply were not exposed to anything questioning Y = C + I + G + NX.  It was discraceful. 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 01:48 | 4800963 CrazyCooter
CrazyCooter's picture

Sorry if I sound like an ass ... but ... isn't pissing about market principles at this point sort of like pissing about water on Mars? Horse left the barn? Hello? Bueller?

How about how to make it as a working Joe (<cough>with market skills</cough>). Isn't that more useful than this endless academic masturbation about being right after everyone dies of old age? Congratz! OMG, UR SO SMRT!

Throw a bone to the working man, will you folks? If you spent your WHOLE life doing economics and you can't fill this gap ... what the fuck did you accomplish in the hour of need?




Wed, 05/28/2014 - 01:49 | 4800964 CrazyCooter
CrazyCooter's picture

Just felt like venting.

Thanks all for understanding.




Wed, 05/28/2014 - 02:39 | 4801022 economics9698
economics9698's picture

lol.  I like hunting skills better than market skills.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 03:03 | 4801048 sodbuster
sodbuster's picture

Ha! Different subject- this will probably be discussed here, later, but it looks as if the bulls are totally screwed!!!! 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 09:03 | 4801421 J S Bach
J S Bach's picture

We only need a "policy" in the form of how our money is issued and WHO it is that does the issuing.  It needs to be debt free and issued at the same rate that the economy grows.  This would eliminate inflation and there would be no further need to manage anything.


Check out Jim Traficant's latest project: Project Freedom USA at


He wants to eliminate the income tax, abolish the IRS & Fed and institute a 15% sales tax to pay for government services.

The part about monetary policy is the most intriguing to me.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 09:07 | 4801432 Publicus
Publicus's picture

P2P currencies FTW

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 09:17 | 4801457 The Wizard
The Wizard's picture


Most government churches teach that the conversation between the Pharisees and Christ in the passage below has to do with paying taxes. As He usually did, Christ was demuering to the Pharisees question. The Pharisees were trying to trap Christ in a discussion on tribute (taxes), Christ wanted to discuss the issue of money. He asked whose inscription is on the coin. Well, if its Caesar's render it back to him since it obviously must belong to him. Essentially, Christ was challenging the jurisdiction and the use of Caesar's “money”.

Mat 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. {penny: in value seven pence halfpenny}

20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 09:52 | 4801544 Truthseeker2
Truthseeker2's picture


Only if you really want to know what's around the corner!


WORMWOOD: The Most Important Biblical Prophecy Of Our Times

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 11:09 | 4801884 Its the Vatican...
Its the Vatican Stupid's picture

This article actually compelled me to log in (which I rarely do) just to give it 5 stars.

Lew Rockwell is The Motherfuckin' Man.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:20 | 4803076 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

The biggest reason I can not take Biblical scripture seriously is because most of it is written to sound like a Shakespeare play while being from an era when English did not even exist...

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 01:44 | 4800952 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

During the panics of 1893/1907, Europe called the US primitive because the US had no central bank and JP Morgan organized and secured funding (Gold in 1893 and emergency funds in 1907) to bail banks out and stop the Panics. 

I do believe establishing the Federal Reserve in 1913 was the final ""solution"". Final all right, because when it collapses it will be the most colossal in history.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 02:58 | 4801040 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

During the panics of 1893/1907, the US Progressives said "hey, Europeans have national banks for this kind of problems and call us primitive for not having one"

1913 two things happened that would change the US in the most profound way, btw. one was the FED, the other was the direct vote of the US Senate

meanwhile, the same US Progressives had a very interesting reasoning for the Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

their point was... too much corruption in the state legislatures. by people we would call oligarchs, today. one of them bought regularly the whole state legislature

meanwhile, the FED today is not "just one of the cbs". it's the mighty global reserve currency provider

this article about central banking is typical for the Canadian Mises Club. in principle, I can agree. in practice, it fails to give any advice. be frank: is America going to forgo the immense power that the global reserve currency gives? the biggest credit card on the planet? no. this will go on until it doesn't work anymore

then, only then, an alternative can be discussed, or evolve spontanously. and probably it will not involve US "markets", not as long as they are so corrupted by manipulation, HFT, etc.

the Canadian Mises Club would be well adviced to note that China is setting up a "less corrupt" gold bullion market

and this is my point: the state and the markets can be corrupted. saying that markets are always superior... is dogmatic and blind to the very nature of both

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 08:27 | 4801343 free_lunch
free_lunch's picture








FED - ECB -BOE -BOJ - ...

The monetary system is globalising like anything else, the FED seems to be just another franchise, under BIS umbrella, operation in concert with the others.

In the monetary system there seem to be no nations, only franchises with a localized product range. But the expectation is that the product line will be narrowed down into one eventually.  "Free Trade" deals are steadily marginalizing so called "borders" and "nations". What the new product will be called and how it will be constructed is the big question for every outsider who wants to try to preserve his/her previousily aquired buying power into this new product.

I think we have past the point of no return a long time ago. It looks like governments can only work within the reallity that the BIS creates, not the other way around. If you like or dislike it, won't really matter much.

I think it is wise to already try to make the psychological shift to prepare for the new reality that looks unavoidable. By doing so you may have a slight advantage to the less informed.

Change is the only constant.
In history every generation has lived in different circumstances, so why did we think ours would be permanent?

But these are only the observations of a limited mind like mine. So no guaranties come with it. There is a bunch of information available, but you will have to filter and analyze it yourself to give it some meaning. Since we all have different talents, positions, experiences in life our conclusions can differ.

From the BIS website:

"The BIS extends short-term credits to central banks, usually on a collateralised basis. From time to time, the BIS also coordinates emergency short-term lending to countries in financial crisis. In these circumstances, the BIS advances funds on behalf of, and with the backing and guarantee of, a group of supporting central banks. "

For further information on how the BIS acts as a hub for central banks, please see:


Wed, 05/28/2014 - 10:42 | 4801720 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

some good observations. . .

In the monetary system there seem to be no nations, only franchises with a localized product range.

no nations, just Corporations, which evolved from "nationstates" as the "natural" next step in word play.

The monetary system is globalising like anything else, the FED seems to be just another franchise

on a long enough timeline. . . one can see the FED as the tool of the times, created to get "US" here.

you appear to be seeing where "here" is going to take "US" too, which always means a bit of letting go of fairy-tales we were all raised up to believe in,

Change is the only constant.
In history every generation has lived in different circumstances, so why did we think ours would be permanent?

awareness that Change is inevitable makes the fairy-tales that much more silly to cling to. . .


Wed, 05/28/2014 - 11:22 | 4801931 free_lunch
free_lunch's picture

Nice to read that you have also expanded your view to the level that matters.
Despite being awake, many people seem to focus on local level so much, that it prevents them from taking the helicopter view on reality.


Wed, 05/28/2014 - 11:30 | 4801966 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

as all the *awake* comedians have been tellin' us since forever,

expand your mind until the inter-connected-ness of All things is evident,

much hilarity shall ensue, Freedom in That.

"Th-th-th-That's All Folks!"

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 03:02 | 4801043 economics9698
economics9698's picture

All banking runs are basically the same, you loan out money you do not have, someone with a bank note comes a calling.

1893 the US was threatening to reinstate silver, gold run.  Opps.

1907 Treasury Secretary Chase created US backed IOU’s out of his ass and banks tried to cash them in for gold.  Opps.

Nothing to do with central banking.  Fraud, misrepresentation, panic, or all the above.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 03:03 | 4801044 economics9698
economics9698's picture


Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:10 | 4800716 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Ron Paul has the disease nailed.  That's why I wrote him in.  He is clueless as to the cure, unfortunately.  And his son is a festering sore on a bag of cancer.  

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:12 | 4800723 Greenskeeper_Carl
Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

How is he clueless as to the cure? Just curious. Not gonna disagree with you about rand. I really want to like him since he is Ron Paul's son but I just can't quite do it.

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:16 | 4800735 Slave
Slave's picture

In LTER's world view, you must give the oligarchs more power in order for them to fix everything.

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:19 | 4800739 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

That would be Rand Paul's worldview, which is why I call him out.  Like many supporters of his dad, that's what he got out of Ron's wisdom that a powerful Federal government is an enemy of us all.  He missed the part about how the powerful federal government is run by oligarchs.

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:32 | 4800755 SgtShaftoe
SgtShaftoe's picture

That remains to be seen.  Rand is still a question mark.  He's done some good things for humanity, and has supported things that have eroded the humanist agenda.  I genuinely don't know.  I have a theory that he may be doing what he can to slow or slowly reverse the thinking in a different way than his father, but we won't know until it's over if that is his true aim.  His father seems to say that Rand is fully on-board, but I don't know. 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 01:16 | 4800828 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

It took me a long time (I'm in my late '40s) to figure out that when you have to explain a politician with "I have a theory," that you should not vote for him.  What's weird is that it wasn't obvious.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 10:50 | 4801754 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

picking a politician appears to very similar to entering into a partner'd relationship. . .

lots of unknowns get swept under the carpet, or explained away with rationalisations, or have alternatives applied that are more to ones liking - in other words, the whole relationship is a desired object sought, and shoved into the box irrespective of any obvious truth.

and then the dis-illusionment and blaming gets to happen when the voter needs to distance self from the relationship - must be the OTHER persons fault, they lied, yada yada. . .

when in fact, it's inherent in the actual relating, that IS the game being played. . . on you.

and willingly voted for/ chosen.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 01:07 | 4800891 scaleindependent
scaleindependent's picture

You're pretty dumb.

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:16 | 4800737 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Ron believes the answer is pure free markets.   Sounds great on paper.

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:35 | 4800761 Greenskeeper_Carl
Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

Well it beats the alternatives, and it sure as hell beats what we have now. And his way maximizes freedom. The oligarchy doesn't want free markets, they want a bloated govt that allows then as their underlings to keep passing through the revolving door between govt and private sector, allowing the same people to remain in control. This is why Ron Paul and his ideas get no support from such people, and why they all piled behind Obama and Romney. This is why none of them are libertarians. If the free market / Ron Paul type economy was going to have us living under the thumb of these people, then that would be what we had. But it isn't true. The present system allows this to happen. These people can't exist without govt force picking winners and losers. You know who loves high taxes and lots of regulations? Rich people. Large companies. Those who can afford an army of lobbyists to write in exemptions for them that the small guy could never do. Those who can ferret out little exemptions while the chumps actually pay their taxes.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 00:16 | 4800833 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The Mob bribes the government, too.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 00:19 | 4800839 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

The government is the mob.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 00:23 | 4800846 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The mob is the government.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 02:28 | 4801007 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

No system is perfect. If you don't like free markets, I cannot imagine an alternative. Everytime the Government regulates, it screws things up. If you don't regulate, people actually have to take personal responsibility. Yes, somewhere there must be rules, maximum corporate size for example (monopolies). But they must be few and far between. 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 06:44 | 4801190 negative rates
negative rates's picture

He's obviously about to suggest himself as the alternative, but beyond that the good ideas have run out as has his courage once the drugs wear off.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 07:29 | 4801228 hoist the bs flag
hoist the bs flag's picture

to all above...newsflash: Ron and Rand are politicians.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 10:52 | 4801766 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture


but Ron is like the Dad you never had,

or your best friend, forever.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 05:32 | 4801143 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

The Largest Mob is the goobermint.

The most efficient, free market mob is cosa nostra.


Wed, 05/28/2014 - 08:47 | 4801376 sidiji
sidiji's picture

hmm this was what they said during the great depression, gov stayed out of economic support...that didnt end so well

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 11:01 | 4801825 Slave
Slave's picture

LOL thanks for the alternate reality history lesson.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 09:33 | 4801495 JRobby
JRobby's picture

The Nova Mob



Wed, 05/28/2014 - 00:43 | 4800869 Max Cynical
Max Cynical's picture

"Not gonna disagree with you about rand. I really want to like him since he is Ron Paul's son but I just can't quite do it."

Who exactly is this utopian politician you desire?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 07:29 | 4801229 Took Red Pill
Took Red Pill's picture

I've come to realize no politician is going to fix this. We're given an illusion of choice. We have no choice. The system is rigged. Why even vote?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 10:56 | 4801798 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture


Who exactly is this utopian politician you desire?


anyone who will remove the burden of responsibility for ones own life. . .

a great Father Figure to look UP to, a Leader.

followers always look for leaders, and leaders always find their followers.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 14:31 | 4802591 goneYonder
goneYonder's picture

If you're looking to cure the sickness, the medicine is in the three posts just above.

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:14 | 4800729 Dr. Destructo
Dr. Destructo's picture

I'm not sure if that he's (Ron) is clueless or that he still clings to some vain hope in the system itself. There is no cure for our economy or country other that the plug to life support needs to be pulled and the body ought to be burned to prevent the spread of disease. The longer this continues the more the world will be destabilized.

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:48 | 4800784 Bro of the Sorr...
Bro of the Sorrowful Figure's picture

i dont get the rand hate at all. ron paul tried for three fucking decades to wake people up by directly telling them the truth. it only worked for a very small percentage of the population. that's us. great, we're awake and we complain like a bunch of bitches all the time about the fed and the oligarchs and blah blah blah but we haven't done shit to change anything. rand saw that his father's approach didn't work. he took a different approach, choosing issues where he knew he could convert people and staying away from the very sensitive ones. take foreign policy: ron paul says we invited the 9/11 attack, gets booed in a room full of retarded conservatives who dont know shit. rand paul says it's ridiculous that we're sending bilions of dollars to the elite in countries that hate us. suddenly the same room full of retarded conservatives is saying "wow, i never thought of that" baby steps. i assume your standards with chicks are the same as your standards with politicians, and as a result you havent gotten laid in a long time and that's the reason for all the pent up hate.

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:52 | 4800796 Bro of the Sorr...
Bro of the Sorrowful Figure's picture

the end goal is the same with both of them, that of course being to wake up enough of the populace to change the tides. ron paul said it a million times. win people's minds. you cant deny that rand is slowly shifting the conversation for the better. it's not as fast as you like. so how about you take matters into your own hands and go bomb the upcoming bilderberg meeting or take out a couple rothchilds with a handgun or something. that should speed things up.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 02:34 | 4801017 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Rand is not the answer. He's outnumbered 99 to 1 in the Senate. Okay, maybe it's 90-10. But you get the idea. 

Maybe a Convention of the States. That is a peaceful way to remove this terrible terrible government. 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 07:32 | 4801235 BigJim
BigJim's picture

If you live on an island full of idiots who believe in witchcraft, the solution isn't more democracy.

The solution isn't less democracy either.

The solution is to avoid getting burned at the stake while you try to enlighten your fellow villagers, and try to stop them cutting down the last tree.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 09:05 | 4801427 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture


Politics is the art of the possible.

Some confuse it with taking Holy Orders.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 02:31 | 4801016 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

<<<but we haven't done shit to change anything>>>

Abandon the system. You cannot change it. Ayn Rand figured out the solution 50 years ago. It must collapse because people peacefully refuse it by civil disobiendance. Go to jail if necessary. I have, and they cannot keep more than a fraction in there. I'm convinced if only 10% of the population showed them utter refusal it would change things overnight.

The other two alteratives, slavery as never imagined, or a bloodbath don't appeal to me.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 03:21 | 4801065 Bro of the Sorr...
Bro of the Sorrowful Figure's picture

youre looking at rand's power in the senate, which is the wrong place to look. as i said, we need to change the conversation. change ideas. rand has, by far and away, the best platform of anyone to be able to do that. it really doesnt matter if he wins in 2016, all he has to do is run. when he's getting hundreds of hours of screen time talking about the fed, the patriot act, NDAA, drones, etc etc etc, he will be waking more and more people up. the system is going to collapse. your solution is to opt out, which you can do, great, but no one else is suddenly going to take all their money out of banks, grow a garden in their back yard and stop paying taxes.

the collapse of the current system is inevitable. rand is helping to grow our numbers as much as possible so that after the crash, we can rebuild a new, free society, instead of the NWO statist totalitarian wet dream that the overwhelming majority of our current population will beg for. we need numbers. what are you doing to help with that? where are you going to run? what are you doing to convince 10% of people to opt out of the system. not a god damned thing.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 03:56 | 4801090 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

what are you doing to convince 10% of people to opt out of the system. not a god damned thing.

You're kidding right? I mean is that a serious comment? WTF are you doing supporting that evil shit in office! You are ENABLING them to continue.


Wed, 05/28/2014 - 04:08 | 4801102 Bro of the Sorr...
Bro of the Sorrowful Figure's picture

what shit in office am i supporting? i live overseas and don't pay taxes, because im exempt on my first $92,500. im also not the one complaining about rand paul. im supporting him because he's getting the message out.


you say you're convinced if 10% of people opt out then this problem will resolve itself. that;s not an actual solution. youre fucking delusional if you think that that will happen. and while you sit here and complain about rand, youre putting forth completely useless postulations about how we can bring down the system, that by the way was designed to be brought down, and not thinking of the obvious fact that when the system collapses we're getting a big fucking dose of totalitarianism unless way more people understand what is going on.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 07:36 | 4801248 BigJim
BigJim's picture

No individual snowflake ever thinks himself responsible for an avalanche.

Having said that... no individual snowflake ever actually is responsible for an avalanche, either.

You vote Rand Paul. He opts out. It makes no difference when you're dealing with a population of 330 million... but what else can you do?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:35 | 4803335 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

You live overseas (in other words, not American).

You have no business in this country. Goodbye!

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 03:58 | 4801093 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

I really don't remember the America Revolution starting as "pay King George, because he'll change, I'm sure of it. And if that doesn't work, we'll just keep talking about things while growing our numbers."

Fucking moron!!!! Did that work? NO.





Wed, 05/28/2014 - 07:46 | 4801263 BigJim
BigJim's picture

As I recall, the American revolutionaries didn't 'abandon the system' to make it change. They started killing people.

Which is only going to work if there are enough of you doing it at the same time.

However, as we still have the vote, such measures are both unnecessary and futile. Unnecessary because if we can get enough of our fellows to agree with us, no violence is necessary. And futile because, if not enough of our fellows agree with us, no amount of violence will effect lasting change. You shoot the oligarchs, our fellows will just vote in another batch to 'represent' them.

This is the great Catch-22 of democracy. The wealthy own virtually all the media and thus practically mold the body politic into whatever shape they want. As long as they shower the citizenry with enough of the bread and circuses they stole from them in the first place, it will all waddle along until the whole shebang rumbles off a cliff.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:32 | 4803325 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

As I recall, the American revolutionaries didn't 'abandon the system' to make it change. They started killing people.

Well you remember wrong. The formed armed militias and refused to disband, disarm, pay taxes or obey the British. So they did, abandon the system. Lexington and Concord started when the British went to disarm them by force. Are you another foreigner trying to reinvent history?

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 09:20 | 4805176 psychobilly
psychobilly's picture

"As I recall, the American revolutionaries didn't 'abandon the system' to make it change. They started killing people."

You recall poorly.  They set up parallel, alternative systems outside and independent of the current system; an important characteristic of all successful, violent resistances.  The war was won long before the first shot was ever fired.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 07:57 | 4801271 n8dawg84
n8dawg84's picture

Rand supported Romney in 2012 elections. That's where he loses me.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 09:11 | 4801446 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture


Obama was a much better choice.


Wed, 05/28/2014 - 11:50 | 4802053 n8dawg84
n8dawg84's picture

You may be using sarcasm, but either way it's irrelevant.

Neither major option in the 2012 elections was good. That's why I wrote in Ron Paul. I won't vote for Rand in '16 because he backed the status quo over his father in '12. As far as I'm concerned, he's one of them

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:16 | 4800734 BandGap
BandGap's picture

1. No one wants a cure.

2. Whoever speaks the cure will be obliterated by those in 1.

3. Time heals all.

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:23 | 4800743 SameAsItEverWas
SameAsItEverWas's picture

"We" don't need bankers to control the issuance of money?  Gimme break. 

This has nothing at all to do with what "we" want or what's for "our" benefit.

Who do you think is calling the shots?  It's the people who have the most money, which are the bankers and their pet cronies.

The last real populist president who took on the banksters and won was Andrew Jackson, who had such a devil of a temper he'd get so angry he'd lose it while making a public speech ... but with great popular support that overcame the power of big money Jackson did manage to revoke the charter of the Second Bank of the United States and pulled out all federal funds, giving them to what were called his "pet banks" to coin that adjective's usage as above. 

So it was just a transfer of power from one set of bankers to a bigger and wiser set of bankers, but all bankers nonetheless.

Who's in charge of the money?  Those who have the most of it.

Same As It Ever Was! 

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:40 | 4800771 The Capitalist ...
The Capitalist Review's picture

Did you even completely read the article? Are you at all familiar with Lew's work. WE as in the individuals NOT the phony "we" that believe that the US government or oligarchs that run the show are all representative of "us". That when "they" do something it's all encompassing of the people in a country.

The whole point of Lew's article was that it's the corrupt banking cartels that are ripping us off and making us poorer. I would like a break from this horrendous system with perpetual price inflation, your comment makes you sound like a typical boobus americus because his whole point was to identify those currently calling the shots to rightly call out how corrupt it is. We have competition amongst all industries outside of government coercion - that's the nature of voluntary exchange. You must have missed all of that as you put all of your energy into the "layered analysis" you came up with.

Your point about Andrew Jackson still places faith in a broken system and a fallen idol. Government won't save the monetary system - only pure competition will.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 04:06 | 4801100 bunnyswanson
bunnyswanson's picture

Greg Hunter with Rob Kirby


I believe those who orchestrated this transfer of wealth miscalculated the sophistication of the masses to even realize it was being done.  The day this shows its face, and it will, will be the day these same people are finally drug out from their caves with facades like a castle.  The end will be their apparatus being used against them in raging fury.  Legislature passed on false flags/collusion will be reversed and those involved will be thrown in FEMA camps. Spirit of the law applies and when 300 millin people demand the spirit of the law be honored, it is honored.

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 23:38 | 4800766 OceanX
OceanX's picture

"The last real populist president who took on the banksters and won was Andrew Jackson..."

I think it is quite ironic, that he is on a tweny dollar feral reserve note...

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 00:14 | 4800826 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

And on the $100,000 note? Woodrow Wilson. OK, that I get

And to really rub it's a gold certificate from 1934

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 01:34 | 4800936 Seek_Truth
Seek_Truth's picture

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that that had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 00:14 | 4800830 sleigher
sleigher's picture

Irony?  maybe...  Are you sure it isn't a message? Maybe not I don't know.  Hamilton is in there but so is Jefferson and Washington.  Arguably Hamilton was for a central bank but not as it is today.  

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 00:00 | 4800806 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

this is what nuking the dollar looks like:

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 00:08 | 4800819 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

The solution is as simple as 3 words....END.THE.FED.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 04:11 | 4801106 shouldvekilledthem
shouldvekilledthem's picture

Wishful thinking. The death of the FED doesn't mean anything as "FED 2.0" would form and everything would stay the same.

We need a trustless money based on math without any entity enjoying full control. ;)


Wed, 05/28/2014 - 08:40 | 4801366 therevolutionwas
therevolutionwas's picture

How about this then; END.WASHINGTON.DC.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 00:20 | 4800841 Kina
Kina's picture

Let Gold go....let my people go..saeth the miners. Let Gold trade in a free non manipulated market...with no naked selling. Let gold have its head...let it get to $5,000 or whatever...and link USD to gold...give it some credibility where it now has zero except for other countries trying to trash their own currencies.



Who the fuck buys these gold metals option when they have seen month after month year after year..the banks naked short sell them in order to fuck them over every time. Is Bart and Homer Simpson a metals trader?


How fucking stupid are people to buy these things....are they stupid, think it will be different this month...? They will never win...and so before each expiration we see massive naked short selling to puke gold so they avoide payouts.....



Sun, 06/01/2014 - 13:53 | 4814614 Ckierst1
Ckierst1's picture

The moral to the story is "Don't buy asswipe paper gold bullshit, buy phyzz, preferably bullion coins so you don't have to have them assayed all the time."

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 01:02 | 4800883 semperfi
semperfi's picture

The "monetary policy" we need is already in the Constitution:  only gold & silver shall be used 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 04:02 | 4801096 Notsobadwlad
Notsobadwlad's picture

Destructive centralization is a bigger issue than just money. We do not need a patriarchal authority telling us when to go to war, who to hate, who to like, how to educate and be educated, what drugs we must put into our bodies, what we can eat, what we cannot eat, etc.

If we constantly have "people"/parents telling us what we can and cannot do and we acceept their authority, then we can never grow up. There may be more intelligent and wiser beings on this planet than me ... and my fellow humans. However, just becaise someone is more ntelligent (or stronger) than someone else, it does not confer to the "more" intelligent one the right to perpetually treat the others as children, depriving them of their inalienable rights to truths and freedoms.

AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO BE ALLOWED TO GROW UP. At some point we need to be given back what has been stolen from us. Is that time now or does it happen individual by individual? I do not know.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 11:06 | 4801863 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

you're on the right path,

AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO BE ALLOWED TO GROW UP. At some point we need to be given back what has been stolen from us. Is that time now or does it happen individual by individual?

next step is realising no One is going to "give you permission" to "grow up" -

you simply out-grow your need to believe the fairy-tale.  there is no Santa Claus, or whatever meme you choose.

and yes, it happens "individual by individual" - as do all realisations, they're never truly collectively felt, each person has their unique perspective, in the end.

so just take the step. . . aside.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 04:09 | 4801104 EscapingProgress
EscapingProgress's picture

There is no truth. There is only bullshit. We're all fucked.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 11:49 | 4801109 Drifter
Drifter's picture

These "what should happen" articles are a complete waste of time and bandwidth.  Nobody in power gives a fuck what "should" happen, and it doesn't matter what everybody with no power thinks.  Nobody in power gives a FUCK what the sheep think.

And VMI hasn't figured out QE never was intended to help the economy?  They believed Fed's "recovery" cover story too? 

And they're supposed to be experts? 

They're not experts, they're dumbasses.  Spewing out their "should" bullshit like a bunch of raving lunatics.

Power is the only thing that matters. 

The sheep have been whining and bitching five years now and accomplished nothing, completely ignored by those in power.


Wed, 05/28/2014 - 05:33 | 4801145 J J Pettigrew
J J Pettigrew's picture

No county has exited a ZIRP....and we wont either..

for the Fed says it will do nothing to harm the 'recovery"...

so now it can not, by their own admisssion, EVER raise rates

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 06:38 | 4801185 AdvancingTime
AdvancingTime's picture

Debt is an odd thing and so is the idea of ZIRP. A mirage is a naturally occurring optical phenomenon in which light rays are bent to produce a displaced image of distant objects. Joining the idea of a mirage and contagion with the reality of collapsing debt forms an interesting subject.

It is important to remember all debts and obligations do not come due at the same time. Also, it must be noted when a bill is not paid or defaults it often starts a long and drawn out legal battle, this collection process that may extend years without harsh consequences. This my friends is the reality of modern life in America and much of the world. More on this subject in the article below.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 08:26 | 4801334 OC Sure
OC Sure's picture





Mr Rockwell is behind the 8 ball before he puts pen to page because he unwittingly accepts the terms of tyranny. Central banks do not have a monetary policy. They have a counterfeiting policy. Henry Ford had a monetary policy.

"...The modern definition of money that defines money as a medium of exchange is wrong. That it is a medium of exchange is a characteristic of money but it is not the essence of what money is; it is not money's nature since it indicates nothing of its cause. What we choose to describe something as does not define what it is; a thing is what it is first and then defined correctly in accord with that fact. Modern thieves depend upon their victims to not understand the difference between money and counterfeit; they depend on their victims' preoccupation with the perception of the units themselves and not the conception of why the units became necessary at all and how that necessity determines which units originate as money and which units originate as counterfeit.  The thieves count on their victims not knowing that money was conceived to satisfy the need for people to exchange the products of their disproportionate work. The unit of measure was then introduced as the means to equalize the disproportion. Having this knowledge is understanding money and counterfeit simpliciter and its application to all that follows it then lifts the veil of deception from the tyranny of modern economics."

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 16:46 | 4802980 honestann
honestann's picture

Actually, the term "medium of exchange" is dangerous, if not outright defective.  Why do I say that?  Because fundamentally (and in fact), actual trade has to be "trade of a real, physical good or service for some other real, physical good or service".

Which means, the "medium of exchange" is whatever are the goods exchanged in each trade.  Which means, there cannot be any universal medium of exchange, because people exchange all sorts of goods and services.

Now, it certainly can come to pass that one or a few goods can become extremely popular for exchange, for example gold or silver coins.  And this might lead some to call them "the medium of exchange".  But they are not THE medium of exchange (meaning exclusive or official), but merely sometimes one of the goods exchanged in a trades.

If I trade you some lumber for some eggs, the "medium of exchange" is "lumber" and "eggs".  Period.

The fundamental point being the following.  The only ethical or legitimate trade is one in which real goods of real value (in and of themselves) are exchanged for other real goods of real value (in and of themselves).  Which means, once the exchange occurs, the transaction is complete, and no other parties are involved, and no further consequences exist.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:21 | 4803886 OC Sure
OC Sure's picture

Yes, but to make trade happen we HAVE to choose a unit of exchange, or a medium. Call the medium currency  and then we need to confirm that it is money and not counterfeit. You would not accept my one egg for your truck load of lumber. But you might accept my one egg plus 100 units of currency.  

The most important thing to see here is this. Every exchange is a trade that has two sides. If each side has performed productive work and earned the product or currency that they bring to the trade then there will not be a depreciation of currency. But if one side does not bring the product of their work to the trade as represented by the product itself or the agreed upon currency and instead counterfeits that they worked for the currency then it will lose its purchasing power. This is because they did not produce a product and now there is more currency in the economy and less product.

So the medium we choose for the exchange is not what is important. What is important is did both traders earn the medium of exchange. Did they do productive work to obtain the currency?

If they do productive work then the currency is money.

If they pretend they did productive work but did not then the currency is counterfeit.

So the medium of exchange, currency,  can be money or counterfeit and we identify which it is by the origin of each trader's product or currency.

Other parties can be involved by way of debt. The debt then needs to be affirmed or denied as representing either money or counterfeit by the same principle as above. With debt though, there are 2 origins that need to be checked; the origin of the currency loaned and the origin of the currency repaid.

I am writing about debt now and will post it Sunday on my blog.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 04:26 | 4804673 honestann
honestann's picture

Of course the medium of exchange matters... because what matters most is that what is exchanged by both parties is a real, physical, valuable good or service... not some worthless piece of paper.

However, what you say is also correct, because by their nature, real physical goods CANNOT be counterfeited... they can only be produced.  You cannot counterfiet a box of chicken eggs, you cannot counterfiet a ton of lumber or copper or iron or tin, you cannot counterfiet a gallon of gasoline, etc.  The whole point of real, physical goods is... they are NOT counterfiet... they are real, physical goods.  And that's why we need to exchange real, physical goods.

So our two ways of expressing this end up being the same in practice, I suppose.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 07:20 | 4804806 OC Sure
OC Sure's picture

Right on, honestann. We agree and are describing the same fact from two different angles.

This is the principle that tyranny must lie about in order to maintain their deception:

Money represents productive work, counterfeit represents not doing productive work. Currency then is more than money; it is counterfeit too because their are theives among us.

Please tell two friends to tell two friends.

PS. Be careful. Real physical goods CAN be counterfeited. For example, when a base metal is melted into gold. Or, when a painter's signature is forged and a painting was not done by the artist that we presumed it to be. Those are counterfeit too.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 08:26 | 4801339 Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

As Marc Faber says, you can drop the dollar bills, but you can't control where they go. 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 08:48 | 4801380 OC Sure
OC Sure's picture

If the source of the bills is from counterfeit and not productive work, then at the instant they are exchanged (dropped) then the theft occurs. The exchange of nothing for something is theft.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 09:31 | 4801491 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

All the billions of words regarding economics are mere ribbons and bows hung on this one elemental fact.

End counterfeiting.

Everyone would have more real wealth without the ability of counterfeiters to siphon off productive value.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 10:54 | 4801781 OC Sure
OC Sure's picture

Hear here!

The language is abused as the means to hide the fact you have identified.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 08:57 | 4801405 FreeNewEnergy
FreeNewEnergy's picture

Monetary policy can and does change, but, it takes time, courage, and carnage, usually.

The best things individuals can do - because, after all, individual action is what eventually combines to form the aggregate - is escape and counter from the system.

Stop eating at McDonald's. Stop buying from Walmart. Stop buying stocks in major corporations (small startups in your locality, OK). Stop paying outrageous taxes if at all possible. Stop buying health insurance because your best insurance is your YOUR OWN health and YOUR OWN MONEY.

Change is underway, but, it takes time and only a few are changing. Most are still in the mass media mindset of Hollywood and Wall Street and news that comes direct from government press releases. The only way to make change is to change yourself, change your own habits, buy out of the corruption. Cancel your cable TV. Live free of the constraints pressed upon us by society, government and the klepto-corporate super-structure.

Some day - and, in terms of history, that day is not far off - others will take note of your lifestyle, your mood, your freedom and wish for the same. And you will be there to help them.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 09:14 | 4801453 TheHound73
TheHound73's picture

More and more of my monetary transactions these days are in Bitcoin. By choice.

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