This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Sarajevo Is The Fulcrum Of Modern History: The Great War And Its Terrible Aftermath

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by David Stockman of Contra Corner blog,

One hundred years ago today the world was shook loose of its moorings. Every school boy knows that the assassination of the archduke of Austria at Sarajevo was the trigger that incited the bloody, destructive conflagration of the world’s nations known as the Great War. But this senseless eruption of unprecedented industrial state violence did not end with the armistice four years later.

In fact, 1914 is the fulcrum of modern history. It is the year the Fed opened-up for business just as the carnage in northern France closed-down the prior magnificent half-century era of liberal internationalism and honest gold-backed money. So it was the Great War’s terrible aftermath - a century of drift toward statism, militarism and fiat money - that was actually triggered by the events at Sarajevo.

Unfortunately, modern historiography wants to keep the Great War sequestered in a four-year span of archival curiosities about battles, mustard gas and monuments to the fallen. But the opposite historiography is more nearly the truth. The assassins at Sarajevo triggered the very warp and woof of the hundred years which followed.

The Great War was self-evidently an epochal calamity, especially for the 20 million combatants and civilians who perished for no reason that is discernible in any fair reading of history, or even unfair one. Yet the far greater calamity is that  Europe’s senseless fratricide of 1914-1918 gave birth to all the great evils of the 20th century— the Great Depression, totalitarian genocides, Keynesian economics,  permanent  warfare states, rampaging central banks and the exceptionalist-rooted follies of America’s global imperialism.

Indeed, in Old Testament fashion, one begat the next and the next and still the next. This chain of calamity originated in the Great War’s destruction of sound money, that is, in the post-war demise of the pound sterling which previously had not experienced a peacetime change in its gold content for nearly two hundred years.

Not unreasonably, the world’s financial system had become anchored on the London money markets where the other currencies traded at fixed exchange rates to the rock steady pound sterling—which, in turn, meant that prices and wages throughout Europe were expressed in common money and tended toward transparency and equilibrium.

This liberal international economic order—that is, honest money, relatively free trade, rising international capital flows and rapidly growing global economic integration—-resulted in  a 40-year span between 1870 and 1914 of rising living standards, stable prices, massive capital investment and prolific  technological progress that was never equaled—either before or since.

During intervals of war, of course, 19th century governments had usually suspended gold convertibility and open trade in the heat of combat.  But when the cannons fell silent, they had also endured the trauma of post-war depression until wartime debts had been liquidated and inflationary currency expedients had been wrung out of the circulation. This was called “resumption” and restoring convertibility at the peacetime parities was the great challenge of post-war normalizations.

The Great War, however, involved a scale of total industrial mobilization and financial mayhem that was unlike any that had gone before.  In the case of Great Britain, for example, its national debt increased 14-fold, its price level doubled, its capital stock was depleted, most off-shore investments were liquidated and universal wartime conscription left it with a massive overhang of human and financial liabilities.

Yet England was the least devastated. In France, the price level inflated by 300 percent, its extensive Russian investments were confiscated by the Bolsheviks and its debts in New York and London catapulted to more than 100 percent of GDP.

Among the defeated powers, currencies emerged nearly worthless with the German mark at five cents on the pre-war dollar, while wartime debts—especially after the Carthaginian peace of Versailles—–soared to crushing, unrepayable heights.

In short, the bow-wave of debt, currency inflation and financial disorder from the Great War was so immense and unprecedented that the classical project of post-war liquidation and “resumption” of convertibility was destined to fail.  In fact, the 1920s were a grinding, sometimes inspired but eventually failed struggle to resume the international gold standard, fixed parities, open world trade and unrestricted international capital flows.

Only in the final demise of these efforts after 1929 did the Great Depression, which had been lurking all along in the post-war shadows, come bounding onto the stage of history.

America’s Needless Intervention In The Great War And The Ensuing Chain of  20th Century Calamities

The Great Depression’s tardy, thoroughly misunderstood and deeply traumatic arrival happened compliments of the United States. In the first place, America’s wholly unwarranted intervention in April 1917 prolonged the slaughter, doubled the financial due bill and generated a cockamamie peace, giving rise to totalitarianism among the defeated powers and Keynesianism among the victors. Choose your poison.

Even conventional historians like Niall Ferguson admit as much. Had Woodrow Wilson not misled America on a messianic crusade, the Great War would have ended in mutual exhaustion in 1917 and both sides would have gone home battered and bankrupt but no danger to the rest of mankind. Indeed, absent Wilson’s crusade there would have been no allied victory, no punitive peace, and no war reparations; nor would there have been a Leninist coup in Petrograd or Stalin’s barbaric regime.

Likewise, Churchill’s starvation blockade would not have devastated post-Armistice Germany, nor would there have been the humiliating signing of the war guilt clause by German officials at Versailles. And the subsequent financial chaos of 1919-1923 would not have happened either—-meaning no “stab in the back” myth, no Hitler, no Nazi dystopia, no Munich, no Sudetenland and Danzig corridor crises, no British war to save Poland, no final solution and holocaust, no global war against Germany and Japan and no incineration of 200,000 civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nor would there have followed a Cold War with the Soviets or CIA sponsored coups and assassinations in Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile and the Congo, to name a few. Surely there would have been no CIA plot to assassinate Castro, or Russian missiles in Cuba or a crisis that took the world to the brink of annihilation. There would have been no Dulles brothers, no domino theory and no Vietnam slaughter, either.

Nor would we have launched Charlie Wilson’s War to arouse the mujahedeen and train the future al Qaeda. Likewise, there would have been no shah and his Savak terror, no Khomeini-led Islamic counter-revolution, no US aid to enable Saddam’s gas attacks on Iranian boy soldiers in the 1980s.

Nor would there have been an American invasion of Arabia in 1991 to stop our erstwhile ally Hussein from looting the equally contemptible Emir of Kuwait’s ill-gotten oil plunder—or, alas, the horrific 9/11 blowback a decade later.

Most surely, the axis-of-evil—-that is, the Washington-based Cheney-Rumsfeld-neocon axis—- would not have arisen, nor would it have foisted a $1 trillion Warfare State budget on 21st century America.

 

 The 1914-1929 Boom Was An Artifact of War And Central Banking

A second crucial point is that the Great War enabled the already rising American economy to boom and bloat in an entirely artificial and unsustainable manner for the better part of 15 years. The exigencies of war finance  also transformed the nascent Federal Reserve into an incipient central banking monster in a manner wholly opposite to the intentions of its great legislative architect—the incomparable Carter Glass of Virginia.

During the Great War America became the granary and arsenal to the European Allies—-triggering an eruption of domestic investment and production that transformed the nation into a massive global creditor and powerhouse exporter virtually overnight.

American farm exports quadrupled, farm income surged from $3 billion to $9 billion, land prices soared, country banks proliferated like locusts and the same was true of industry. Steel production, for example, rose from 30 million tons annually to nearly 50 million tons during the war.

Altogether, in six short years $40 billion of money GDP became $92 billion in 1920—a sizzling 15 percent annual rate of gain.

Needless to say, these fantastic figures reflected an inflationary, war-swollen economy—-a phenomena that prudent finance men of the age knew was wholly artificial and destined for a thumping post-war depression. This was especially so because America had loaned the Allies massive amounts of money to purchase grain, pork, wool, steel, munitions and ships. This transfer amounted to nearly 15 percent of GDP or $2 trillion equivalent in today’s economy, but it also amounted to a form of vendor finance that was destined to vanish at war’s end.

Carter Glass’ Bankers’ Bank: The Antithesis Of Monetary Central Planning

As it happened, the nation did experience a brief but deep recession in 1920, but this did not represent a thorough-going end-of-war “de-tox” of the historical variety.  The reason is that America’s newly erected Warfare State had hijacked Carter Glass “banker’s bank” to finance Wilson’s crusade.

Here’s the crucial background: When Congress acted on Christmas Eve 1913, just six months before Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination, it had provided no legal authority whatsoever for the Fed to buy government bonds or undertake so-called “open market operations” to finance the public debt.  In part this was due to the fact that there were precious few Federal bonds to buy. The  public debt then stood at just $1.5 billion, which is the same figure that had pertained 51 years earlier at the battle of Gettysburg, and amounted to just 4 percent of GDP or $11 per capita.

Thus, in an age of balanced budgets and bipartisan fiscal rectitude, the Fed’s legislative architects had not even considered the possibility of central bank monetization of the public debt, and, in any event, had a totally different mission in mind.

The new Fed system was to operate decentralized “reserve banks” in 12 regions—most of them far from Wall Street in places like San Francisco, Dallas, Kansas City and Cleveland.  Their job was to provide a passive “rediscount window” where national banks within each region could bring sound, self-liquidating commercial notes and receivables to post as collateral in return for cash to meet depositor withdrawals or to maintain an approximate 15 percent cash reserve.

Accordingly, the assets of the 12 reserve banks were to consist entirely of short-term commercial paper arising out of the ebb and flow of commerce and trade on the free market, not the debt emissions of Washington.  In this context, the humble task of the reserve banks was to don green eyeshades and examine the commercial collateral brought by member banks, not to grandly manage the macro economy through targets for interest rates, money growth or credit expansion—to say nothing of targeting jobs, GDP, housing starts or the Russell 2000, as per today’s fashion.

Even the rediscount rate charged to member banks for cash loans was to float at a penalty spread above money market rates set by supply and demand for funds on the free market.

The big point here is that Carter Glass’ “banker’s bank” was an instrument of the market, not an agency of state policy. The so-called economic aggregates of the later Keynesian models—-GDP, employment, consumption and investment—were to remain an unmanaged outcome on the free market, reflecting the interaction of millions of producers, consumers, savers, investors, entrepreneurs and even speculators.

In short, the Fed as “banker’s bank” had no dog in the GDP hunt. Its narrow banking system liquidity mission would not vary whether the aggregates were growing at 3 percent or contracting at 3 percent.

What would vary dramatically, however, was the free market interest rate in response to shifts in the demand for loans or supply of savings.  In general this meant that investment booms and speculative bubbles were self-limiting: When the demand for credit sharply out-ran the community’s savings pool, interest rates would soar—thereby rationing demand and inducing higher cash savings out of current income.

This market clearing function of money market interest rates was especially crucial with respect to leveraged financial speculation—such as margin trading in the stock market.  Indeed, the panic of 1907 had powerfully demonstrated that when speculative bubbles built up a powerful head of steam the free market had a ready cure.

In that pre-Fed episode, money market rates soared to 20, 30 and even 90 percent at the peak of the bubble. In short order, of course, speculators in copper, real estate, railroads, trust banks and all manner of over-hyped stock were carried out on their shields—-even as JPMorgan’s men, who were gathered as a de facto central bank in his library on Madison Avenue, selectively rescued only the solvent banks with their own money at-risk.

Needless to say, these very same free market interest rates were a mortal enemy of deficit finance because they rationed the supply of savings to the highest bidder. Thus, the ancient republican moral verity of balanced budgets was powerfully reinforced by the visible hand of rising interest rates: deficit spending by the public sector automatically and quickly crowded out borrowing by private households and business.

How The Bankers’ Bank Got Hijacked To Fund War Bonds

And this brings us to the Rubicon of modern Warfare State finance.  During World War I the US public debt rose from $1.5 billion to $27 billion—an eruption that would have been virtually impossible without wartime amendments which allowed the Fed to own or finance U.S. Treasury debt.  These “emergency” amendments—it’s always an emergency in wartime—enabled a fiscal scheme that was ingenious, but turned the Fed’s modus operandi upside down and paved the way for today’s monetary central planning.

As is well known, the Wilson war crusaders conducted massive nationwide campaigns to sell Liberty Bonds to the patriotic masses. What is far less understood is that Uncle Sam’s bond drives were the original case of no savings? No credit? No problem!

What happened was that every national bank in America conducted a land office business advancing loans for virtually 100 percent of the war bond purchase price—with such loans collateralized by Uncle Sam’s guarantee. Accordingly, any patriotic American with enough pulse to sign the loan papers could buy some Liberty Bonds.

And where did the commercial banks obtain the billions they loaned out to patriotic citizens to buy Liberty Bonds?  Why the Federal Reserve banks opened their discount loan windows to the now eligible collateral of war bonds.

Additionally, Washington pegged the rates on these loans below the rates on its treasury bonds, thereby providing a no-brainer arbitrage profit to bankers.

Through this backdoor maneuver, the war debt was thus massively monetized.  Washington learned that it could unplug the free market interest rate in favor of state administered prices for money, and that credit could be massively expanded without the inconvenience of higher savings out of deferred consumption.  Effectively, Washington financed Woodrow Wilson’s crusade with its newly discovered printing press—-turning the innocent “banker’s bank” legislated in 1913 into a dangerously potent new arm of the state.

Bubbles Ben 1.0

It was this wartime transformation of the Fed into an activist central bank that postponed the normal post-war liquidation—-moving the world’s scheduled depression down the road to the 1930s. The Fed’s role in this startling feat is in plain sight in the history books, but its significance has been obfuscated by Keynesian and monetarist doctrinal blinders—that is, the presumption that the state must continuously manage the business cycle and macro-economy.

Having learned during the war that it could arbitrarily peg the price of money, the Fed next discovered it could manage the growth of bank reserves and thereby the expansion of credit and the activity rate of the wider macro-economy. This was accomplished through the conduct of “open market operations” under its new authority to buy and sell government bonds and bills—something which sounds innocuous by today’s lights but was actually the fatal inflection point. It transferred the process of credit creation from the free market to an agency of the state.

As it happened, the patriotic war bond buyers across the land did steadily pay-down their Liberty loans, and, in turn, the banking system liquidated its discount window borrowings—-with a $2.7 billion balance in 1920 plunging 80 percent by 1927. In classic fashion, this should have caused the banking system to shrink drastically as war debts were liquidated and war-time inflation and malinvestments were wrung out of the economy.

But big-time mission creep had already set in.  The legendary Benjamin Strong had now taken control of the system and on repeated occasions orchestrated giant open market bond buying campaigns to offset the natural liquidation of war time credit.

Accordingly, treasury bonds and bills owned by the Fed approximately doubled during the same 7-year period. Strong justified his Bernanke-like bond buying campaigns of 1924 and 1927 as helpful actions to off-set “deflation” in the domestic economy and to facilitate the return of England and Europe to convertibility under the gold standard.

But in truth the actions of Bubbles Ben 1.0 were every bit as destructive as those of Bubbles Ben 2.0.

In the first place, deflation was a good thing that was supposed to happen after a great war. Invariably, the rampant expansion of war time debt and paper money caused massive speculations and malinvestments that needed to be liquidated.

The Bank of England’s Perfidy

Likewise, the barrier to normalization globally was that England was unwilling to fully liquidate its vast wartime inflation of wage, prices and debts. Instead, it had come-up with a painless way to achieve “resumption” at the age-old parity of $4.86 per pound; namely, the so-called gold exchange standard that it peddled assiduously through the League of Nations.

The short of it was that the British convinced France, Holland, Sweden and most of Europe to keep their excess holdings of sterling exchange on deposit in the London money markets, rather than convert it to gold as under the classic, pre-war gold standard.

This amounted to a large-scale loan to the faltering British economy, but when Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill did resume convertibility in April 1925 a huge problem soon emerged.  Churchill’s splendid war had so debilitated the British economy that markets did not believe its government had the resolve and financial discipline to maintain the old $4.86 parity. This, in turn, resulted in a considerable outflow of gold from the London exchange markets, putting powerful contractionary pressures on the British banking system and economy.

 Real Cause of the Great Depression: Collapse of the Artificial 1914-1929 Boom

In this setting, Bubbles Ben 1.0  (New York Fed Governor Benjamin Strong) stormed in with a rescue plan that will sound familiar to contemporary ears. By means of his bond buying campaigns he sought to drive-down interest rates in New York relative to London, thereby encouraging British creditors to keep their money in higher yielding sterling rather than converting their claims to gold or dollars.

The British economy was thus given an option to keep rolling-over its debts and to continue living beyond its means. For a few years these proto-Keynesian “Lords of Finance” —- principally Ben Strong of the Fed and Montague Norman of the BOE—-managed to kick the can down the road.

But after the Credit Anstalt crisis in spring 1931, when creditors of shaky banks in central Europe demanded gold, England’s precarious mountain of sterling debts came into the cross-hairs.  In short order, the money printing scheme of Bubbles Ben 1.0 designed to keep the Brits in cheap interest rates and big debts came violently unwound.

In late September a weak British government defaulted on its gold exchange standard duty to convert sterling to gold, causing the French, Dutch and other central banks to absorb massive overnight losses. The global depression then to took another lurch downward.

Inventing  Bubble Finance : The Call Money Market Explosion Before 1929

But central bankers tamper with free market interest rates only at their peril—-so the domestic malinvestments and deformations which flowed from the monetary machinations of Bubbles Ben 1.0 were also monumental.

Owing to the splendid tax-cuts and budgetary surpluses of Secretary Andrew Mellon, the American economy was flush with cash, and due to the gold inflows from Europe the US banking system was extraordinarily liquid. The last thing that was needed in Roaring Twenties America was the cheap interest rates—-at 3 percent and under—that resulted from Strong’s meddling in the money markets.

At length, Strong’s ultra-low interest rates did cause credit growth to explode, but it did not end-up funding new steel mills or auto assembly plants.  Instead, the Fed’s cheap debt flooded into the Wall Street call money market where it fueled that greatest margin debt driven stock market bubble the world had ever seen. By 1929, margin debt on Wall Street had soared to 12 percent of GDP or the equivalent of $2 trillion in today’s economy (compared to $450 billion at present).

The Original Sub-Prime: Wall Street’s 1920s Foreign Bond Mania

As is well known, much economic carnage resulted from the Great Crash of 1929. But what is less well understood is that the great stock market bubble also spawned a parallel boom in foreign bonds—-a specie of Wall Street paper that soon proved to be the sub-prime of its day. Indeed, Bubbles Ben 1.0 triggered a veritable cascade of speculative borrowing that soon spread to the far corners of the globe, including places like municipality of Rio de Janeiro, the Kingdom of Denmark and the free city of Danzig, among countless others.

It seems that the margin debt fueled stock market drove equity prices so high that big American corporations with no needs for cash were impelled to sell bundles of new stock anyway in order to feed the insatiable appetites of retail speculators. They then used the proceeds to buy Wall Street’s high yielding “foreign bonds”, thereby goosing their own reported earnings, levitating their stock prices even higher and causing the cycle to be repeated again and again.

As the Nikkei roared to 50,000 in the late 1980s, the Japanese were pleased to call this madness “zaitech”, and it didn’t work any better the second time around. But the 1920s version of zaitech did generate prodigious sums of cash that foreign borrowers cycled right back to exports from America’s farms, mines and factories.  Over the eight years ending in 1929, the present day equivalent of $1.5 trillion was raised on Wall Street’s red hot foreign bond market, meaning that the US economy simply doubled-down on the vendor finance driven export boom that had been originally sparked by the massive war loans to the Allies.

In fact, over the period 1914-1929 the U. S. loaned overseas customers—-from the coffee plantations of Brazil to the factories of the Ruhr—-the modern day equivalent of $3.5 trillion to prop-up demand for American exports. The impact was remarkable. In the 15 years before the war American exports had crept up slowly from $1.6 billion to $2.4 billion per year, and totaled $35 billion over the entire period.  By contrast, shipments from American farms and factors soared to nearly $11 billion annually by 1919 and totaled $100 billion—three times more—over the 15 years through 1929.

So this was vendor finance on a vast scale——reflecting the exact mercantilist playbook that Mr. Deng chanced upon 60 years later when he opened the export factories of East China, and then ordered the People’s Bank to finance China’s exports of T-shirts, sneakers, plastic extrusions, zinc castings and mini-backhoes via the continuous massive purchases of Uncle Sam’s bonds, bills and guaranteed housing paper.

Our present day Keynesian witch doctors antiseptically label the $3.8 trillion that China has accumulated through this massive currency manipulation and repression as “foreign exchange reserves”, but they are nothing of the kind. If China had honest exchange rates, it reserves would be a tiny sliver of today’s level.

In truth, China’s $3.8 trillion of reserves are a gigantic vendor loan to its customers. This is a financial clone of the $3.5 trillion equivalent that the great American creditor and export powerhouse loaned to the rest of the world between 1914 and 1929.

Needless to say, after the October 1929 crash, the Wall Street foreign bond market went stone cold, with issuance volume dropping by 95 percent within a year or two. Thereupon foreign bond default rates suddenly soared because sub-prime borrowers all over the world had been engaged in a Ponzi—-tapping new money on Wall Street to pay interest on the old loans.

By 1931 foreign bonds were trading at 8 cents on the dollar—-not coincidentally in the same busted zip code where sub-prime mortgage bonds ended up in 2008-2009.

Still, busted bonds always mean a busted economic cycle until the malinvestments they initially fund can be liquidated or repurposed. Thus, the 1929 Wall Street bust generated a devastating crash in US exports as the massive vendor financed foreign demand for American farm and factory goods literally vanished.  By 1933 exports had slipped all the way back to the $2.4 billion level of 1914.

1929-1933 Foreign Bond and US Export Bust: True Source of the Great Depression

That’s not all. As US export shipments crashed by 70 percent between 1929 and 1933, there were ricochet effect throughout the domestic economy.

This artificial 15-year export boom had caused the production capacity of American farms and factories to become dramatically oversized, meaning that during this interval there had occurred a domestic capital spending boom of monumental proportions.  While estimated GDP grew by a factor of 2.5X during 1914-1929, capital spending by manufacturers rose by 7X.  Auto production capacity, for example, increased from 2 million vehicles annually in 1920 to more than 6 million by 1929.

Needless to say, when world export markets collapsed, the US economy was suddenly drowning in excess capacity. In short order, the decade-long capital spending boom came to a screeching halt, with annual outlays for plant and equipment tumbling by 80 percent in the four years after 1929, and shipments of items like machine tools plummeting by 95 percent.

Not surprisingly, in the wake of this drastic downshift in output, American business also found itself drowning in excess inventories.  Accordingly, nearly half of all production inventories extant in 1929 were liquidated by 1933, resulting in a shocking 20 percent hit to GDP—a blow that would amount to a $3 trillion drop in today’s economy.

Finally, Bubbles Ben 1.0 had induced vast but temporary “wealth effects” just like his present day successor.  Stock prices surged by 150 percent in the final three years of the mania. There was also an explosion of consumer installment loans for durable goods and mortgages for homes.  Indeed, mortgage debt soared by nearly 4X during the decade before the crash, while boom-time sales of autos, appliances and radios nearly tripled durable goods sales in the eight years ending in 1929.

All of this debt and wealth effects induced spending came to an abrupt halt when stock prices came tumbling back to earth.  Durable goods and housing plummeted by 80 percent during the next four years. In the case of automobiles, where stock market lottery winners had been buying new cars hand over fist, the impact was especially far reaching. After sales peaked at 5.3 million units in 1929, they dropped like a stone to 1.4 million vehicles in 1932, meaning that this 75 percent shrinkage of auto sales cascaded through the entire auto supply chain including metal working equipment, steel, glass, rubber, electricals and foundry products.

Thus, the Great Depression was born in the extraordinary but unsustainable boom of 1914-1929 that was, in turn, an artificial and bloated project of the warfare and central banking branches of the state, not the free market. Nominal GDP, which had been deformed and bloated to $103 billion by 1929, contracted massively, dropping to only $56 billion by 1933.

Crucially, the overwhelming portion of this unprecedented contraction was in exports, inventories, fixed plant and durable goods—the very sectors that had been artificially hyped.  These components declined by $33 billion during the four year contraction and accounted for fully 70 percent of the entire drop in nominal GDP.

So there was no mysterious loss of that Keynesian economic ether called “aggregate demand”, but only the inevitable shrinkage of a state induced boom. It was not the depression bottom of 1933 that was too low, but the wartime debt and speculation bloated peak in 1929 that had been unsustainably too high.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:24 | 4905320 TeamDepends
TeamDepends's picture

Every schoolboy?  According to Common Core history time began with Obama.  Before Obama, there was nothingness.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:31 | 4905335 SafelyGraze
SafelyGraze's picture

"One hundred years ago today the world was shook loose of its moorings"

was shooken loose of it's moorings

fify

 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:34 | 4905336 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

Roth (Jew) childs (devil child), pulled the Libertarian US into World War against the Germans. They did it twice, probably do it again.

BOMB THE FUCKING ROTHCHILD MANOR!

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:07 | 4905399 F0ster
F0ster's picture

The AntiChrist isn't one man, the AntiChtist is a highly organized self serving 'tribe' of men/women!

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:31 | 4905425 Chuck Knoblauch
Chuck Knoblauch's picture

Eliminate fractional reserve banking and usury.

Paying interest on top of interect is evil.

Paying a fixed fee up front is perfectly fine.

Devaluation of the currency must end.

Sure, growth is limited, but so are the wars!

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:57 | 4905471 knukles
knukles's picture

THATS RIGHT. 

DIRECTED HISTORY
BLAME A WORLD WAR NOT ON POLITICIANS BUT ONE LONE CRAZED LUNATIC RIGHT WING TEA PARTY MEMBER.

AGAIN

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:11 | 4905486 Top Gear
Top Gear's picture

War sucks, but military might is the way Markets are created by the State. Best strategy: make some money off the racket!

"...money and markets do not emerge spontaneously...if one simply hands out coins to the soldiers and then demands that every family in the kingdom was obliged to pay one of those coins back to you, one would, in one blow, turn one’s entire national economy into a vast machine for the provisioning of soldiers, since now every family, in order to get their hands on the coins, must find some way to contribute to the general effort to provide soldiers with things they want. Markets are brought into existence as a side effect."

David Graeber (2011) Debt: The First 5, 000 Years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:32 | 4905513 Vampyroteuthis ...
Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

 nor would there have been a Leninist coup in Petrograd or Stalin’s barbaric regime.

I cry BS on this one. Tsarist Russia was collapsing long before WWI came along. The upheaval was inevitable.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:37 | 4905538 0b1knob
0b1knob's picture

Trying to blame the US for all the post WWI problems in the world is a bit of a stretch.   The sort of libtard reasoning that Obama belives in.

The reason that the US went to war in 1917 was that Germany declared unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917.   The US had repeatedly said that that would mean war.   If Germany had continued its submarine war against England there would have been famine in England by 1916 and and an end to the war.  Germany abandoned submarine warfare when it was working and then resumed it when it no long made any difference. 

Stupid German strategy cost them the war.  They almost captured Paris early in the war.   They almost starved England out of the war.  They almost knocked Russia out of the war in the first two years.   Almost Almost Almost.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 09:50 | 4906888 fleur de lis
fleur de lis's picture

You memorized your NWO schoolbooks almost word/lie for word/lie. The war was planned in the 1890's to take down the four empires, break everything up along more manageable ethnic lines, impose the new social order, and seize control of mideast oil. The IRS, Fed, BIS, etc. were all set up before the war to catch the jackpot that they planned to flow into their control. Rinse, repeat.  And don't think for a split NSA second that they're done.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 18:42 | 4908037 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

Everyone knows Al Quaeda was behind the hit in Sarajevo ... they got the Kennedys too.  The GWOT didn't start one moment too soon, and we should be glad it will never end.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 19:57 | 4908236 flapdoodle
flapdoodle's picture

The US Government went out of its way to enter the war and bail out its owners in The City. The famous Lusitania that triggered US entry into the war was carrying munitions...

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 18:43 | 4906018 adr
adr's picture

Yes but the Leninist coup would have most likely failed had it not been for the US support of it.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 20:29 | 4906192 robertsgt40
robertsgt40's picture

Yup. Financed from wall street and the fed

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 19:52 | 4908226 flapdoodle
flapdoodle's picture

The Leninist coup was created by the German Foreign office (it was Zimmerman of the notorious Mexican telegram who supposedly came up with the idea of breaking the deadlock on the Western front by facilitiating Lenin's move to Moscow via the famous "sealed train", freeing up the Eastern troops for the Western front to neutralize the American entry into the War).

Without German active support, it is unlikely that the Bolsheviks would have been able to succeed in their coup against the majority Mensheviks, so Stockman is probably right). As a minimum, if the US had not entered, Germany would probably have WON WWI  had Germany still put Lenin in power, but this at least would have avoided Hitler and WWII...

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 20:27 | 4906190 robertsgt40
robertsgt40's picture

911 wasn't "blowback". It was an inside job.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:33 | 4905433 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Sure thing Billy...

Whatever makes you feel better....

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:39 | 4905443 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

Flak are you a bot or a human? Say something smart would ya.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:49 | 4905533 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You're a bloviating twit....

WW I was in the cards and all it needed was someone to light the fuse. Some lessons needed to learned the hard way...

The military experts were clueless as to what awaited them when a cursory examination of the US civil war, in particular the battle for Vicksburg told them what was in store...

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:09 | 4905565 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

Listen up Flak. The Tribe has been out to destroy all nations states in a long game that leads to today. You are unprepared for the future holds, they will not quit.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 23:59 | 4906490 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Take your anti-semitic crap and shove it up your ass...

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 01:55 | 4906588 conscious being
conscious being's picture

Flak, everyone but you has moved on and updated their semantics.  Even the Khazars no longer claim Semetic roots and now embrace their true origins as part of a gambit to evacuate their self-irradiated neighborhood and take up life in the new Ukraine.

Look it up.  Its true.  

Calling someone anti-Semetic means they don't like Arabs, ie. They don't like Palestinians.  

Is that what you mean? Maybe English is not your first language?

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 08:46 | 4906834 it aint easy
it aint easy's picture

Lots of anti-Molochism going on in this thread, utterly appalling! Someone get Abe on the line!

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 11:58 | 4907089 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

How about calling Billy a jew-hating piece of shit?

Does that  make it clear enough? 

I was obviously too PC for your tastes...

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 18:07 | 4907958 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Calling someone a jew-hating piece of shit is certainly, clearly, an insult, but not a reasoned argument. Just makes you look like an arsehole.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 19:46 | 4908203 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

If calling out a hateful piece of shit makes me an asshole, then the world needs a lot more assholes....

As for debating them. that only lends their nonsense the aura of credibility...

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 10:11 | 4906793 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/09/05/china-rejects-the-us-saudi-israeli...

 

Here try reading up before you open you mouth again.

In February 1982 the foreign minister Oded Yinon wrote and published ‘A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties‘, which outlined strategies for Israel to become the major regional power in the Middle East. High up the list of his recommendations was to decapitate and dissolve surrounding Arab states into sub-nations, warring between themselves. Called the peace-in-the-feud or simply divide and rule, this was part of Yinon’s strategy for achieving the long-term Zionist goal of extending the borders of Israel, not saying where but potentially a vast region. His strategy was warmly and publicly supported by leading US policy makers with close ties to Israel, like Richard Perle, by the 1990s.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 12:01 | 4907095 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Pieces of that vein have been published for as long as there has been publishing...

Everybody has a few of his ilk on their team so to speak...

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 14:18 | 4907422 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

So, as Jim Willie says, the ISIS is backe by Langley (CIA) while the Iraqi Guv is backed by the Pentagon. Has there ever been a more clear cut case of Fubar divide and conquer right in your Yankee face? It's a PLAN.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 19:48 | 4908208 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And incredibly enough, an asshole like you figured it all out...

\facepalm...

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 01:20 | 4906561 Seer
Seer's picture

"The Tribe has been out to destroy all nations states in a long game that leads to today."

But, BUT... I'm just confused, one day it seems that nation-states are bad and then on another day they're good?

My POINT is that one can take all sorts of angles on these things, and because of it, like all the religions declaring that THEIR god is the ONLY one, well, someone is clearly wrong.

"You are unprepared for the future holds"

Can anyone have been said (proven to be) prepared for the uncertainess of the future?  Seems that the only way one can be "prepared" is by creating the future- something that very few can do (perhaps only those in the tribe you're talking about?).

Seems that with ALL groups (except anarchists) the GOAL is to become the ONLY surviving ones, to eradicate or "convert" [which is BS -it's a cover, it's really a desire to wipe out a good portion of] all others.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 08:21 | 4906790 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Yup, that's pretty much how it is in my bowling league.

"To crush your enemies, drive them before you and hear the lamentations of their women."

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 20:10 | 4908278 magnetosphere
magnetosphere's picture

how do you think the Indo-Europeans conquered half the world from the caspian steppe after the domestication of the horse in 3500 BC?  those lands were definitely not empty.  it involved war, killing the dudes, and impregnating the women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_family#mediaviewer/File:Primary_Hu...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_group#mediaview...

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 04:19 | 4906657 Drummond
Drummond's picture

They were even brazen enough to call it World War One. It hardly strikes confidence when they start to label things like Wars with numbers. Here is one they miscalculated  - The American War of Independance One.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 11:30 | 4907042 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

It was called The Great War until they decided to have a greater war a few years later...

From Wiki

 The term "World War I" was invented by Time magazine in its issue of June 12, 1939.[8] In that same issue, the term "World War II" was first used speculatively to describe the upcoming war.[9] The first use for the actual war came in its issue of September 11, 1939;[10] one week earlier, the Danish newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad used the term on its front page, saying "The second World War broke out yesterday at 11 a.m."[

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:17 | 4905500 post turtle saver
post turtle saver's picture

"... and prolific  technological progress that was never equaled—either before or since."

nope

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 08:45 | 4906831 post turtle saver
post turtle saver's picture

lol @ the down vote... this statement in the article is utterly wrong and anyone with sense knows it...

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 01:07 | 4906552 PiratePiggy
PiratePiggy's picture

And then again 38 years ago...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3fZuW-aJsg&feature=kp

 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:47 | 4905368 tony wilson
tony wilson's picture

rothschilds et al inc.

 

common cause

common purpose

common corpse

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:57 | 4905472 knukles
knukles's picture

COMMON CORE

NO COMMON SENSE

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:08 | 4905491 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter.” -- Dick Cheney

One should look to the administration of St. Ron and The Maestro to see the beginning of The End. The high interest rates of the Carter-Volcker administration were well on their way to liquidate much of the WW2 to Vietnam era debt bubble, but Americans found that pill much too bitter to swallow.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 15:54 | 4905725 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Even government growth isn't a tragedy if the underlying economy is growing faster.   Same thing with government debt.   But that's too big an "if" given a unionized unfirable unaccountable unchained federal bureaucracy turned up to 11 such as we have.   

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 17:24 | 4905875 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Size of a government doesn't matter to its victims.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 18:11 | 4907981 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Size  of a government does, however, tend to determine the number of required victims.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 07:18 | 4906748 duo
duo's picture

The inflation of the '70 was the result of monetizing the cost of the Vietnam war.  We just lost two longer wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all of it paid for with borrowing and printing.  When this fiat works its way through the system, the '70s will seem tame.

In the '70s the price of everything pretty much tripled in a decade.  We just watched the price of everything double since 2000 (don't believe me, find a newspaper from then), and they will probably triple again by 2025.  Unlike the '70s, though, wages will probably go nowhere.

Mon, 06/30/2014 - 11:56 | 4909732 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

It had to do with the huge negative balance of payments brought about by US oil production peaking and imports rocketing...

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 08:28 | 4906802 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

That was Greenspan.

A sound fiscal guy turned maniac once he got behing the wheel.

Ronnie was hoodwinked.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:13 | 4905494 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

"

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:27 | 4905324 Chuck Knoblauch
Chuck Knoblauch's picture

No, the fulcrum of modern history was, and still is, the Federal Reserve System.

It has made all global wars possible.

And it will be responsible for the final global war.

Follow the money, fools.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:30 | 4905332 vie
vie's picture

Truth. It's amusing the narrative that the assasination of this one person is what spun the world off into a fighting frenzy is still perpetuated.  Anyone with half a brain can see that it could've just as easily been some other event... the stage was already set for war.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:36 | 4905343 Chuck Knoblauch
Chuck Knoblauch's picture

And the stage is being set for another.

Prepare by learning how to defend yourselves.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:02 | 4905479 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

So true. The MIC of the era and the banksters needed more profit.

They were looking for a trigger ("...absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"), any would do and they got one--"Now send us your treasure and children of gun toting age for fodder."

Note: There is evidence that the assassination was a false-flag.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 19:24 | 4906083 401K of Dooom
401K of Dooom's picture

You're right!  It was just another event that would have ignighted the great war.  Just remember that it was the common bond between the Rus and the Slaves that was the cause of the Russians coming to the aid of the Serbs when the Austro-Hungarian empire demanded their surrender.  People do not remember this, nor is this taught in school.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 21:59 | 4906326 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

"...common bond between the Rus and the Slaves that was the cause of the Russians coming to the aid of the Serbs when the Austro-Hungarian empire demanded their surrender. "

While I respect your point of view, my view is that the Rus would not have come to the aide of the Serbs if there wasn't deemed to be enough loot in it for them--the pols, crats and their bankster puppet masters. The "coming to the aide" part was, as it always is, the excuse fed to the sheeple whose kids, blood and treasure would be shed.

I.e. "War is a racket." I would add that it ALWAYS is.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 04:48 | 4906668 Joe A
Joe A's picture

It was Germany that pressured the Austrian Hungarians to demand Serbia's surrender. Everybody knew that that was unacceptable. Nobody would accept that. Therefore war was a foregone conclusion. Why? Because Germany wanted it.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 20:08 | 4908269 flapdoodle
flapdoodle's picture

Not as I understand it... Austria-Hungary still had delusions of greatness and wanted revenge for the murder of Ferdinand, who was very, very popular in A-H.

Austria Hungary invaded Serbia to teach them a lesson after they refused the ultimatums, and A-H got their clocks cleaned. THAT is when Germany got involved. Before that, they actually tried to calm things down...

Germany were allies of Austria-Hungary which was a faded version of its former self , but as they later put it so poetically, Germany was "shackled to a corpse".

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 08:33 | 4906809 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Hungary was set to punish those Serbian Independence mutterings but cooler heads prevailed.

Until...

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:33 | 4905338 wmbz
wmbz's picture

Yep! The fucking un-federal reserve.

 That's why I have always believed the worst president this country ever had was Woodrow Wilson.

The best being, in my opinion... Calvin Coolidge

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:34 | 4905435 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You might have a hardtime convincing any credible historian of that...

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 21:10 | 4905512 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

just like you are having a tough time convincing any credible scientist or intelligent human for that matter, of AGW

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 16:06 | 4905753 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

"Credible" meaning public trough feeding, faculty lounge animal permajob statist historians.   Wilson was one of theirs.  

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 19:51 | 4908221 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Credible in the sense of being able to get a book published...

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 23:02 | 4908657 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

where is your book -  cunt   Even Dr. Paul Krugman had the parts to post here under his name untill he didn't.  

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:41 | 4905522 magnetosphere
magnetosphere's picture

woodrow wilson and winston churchill are personally responsible for much of the destruction of the past century, but it has more to do with the wars than with central banking shenanigans.  remember when woody woo was half dead and the US rejected the treaty of versailles while his WIFE was running america?

regarding ole winston: never in the course of human history has so much been lost so quickly by so few

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 19:27 | 4906088 401K of Dooom
401K of Dooom's picture

Blame the dam French!  They wanted to screw the Germans so bad that their pants became liquid.  If the Treaty of Versailles had not put such a burden on Germany, then the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic would not have occurred.  That and giving up the League of Nations would have been a better idea.  Working out solutions on an ad-hoc basis would be better instead of the permanent bureaucracy of the UN we have now.  Hey, would  you want to have the UN managing your town or local school district for you right this minute?  Hmmmm?

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 08:39 | 4906817 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

If someone kicked you in the balls and then rubbed your face in shit for everyone to see...

You would be Mr. Sunshine full of love and forgiveness?

Okay.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 09:13 | 4906858 magnetosphere
magnetosphere's picture

churchill was THE war hawk in the british cabinet in july 1914.  without the british there can be no WORLD war, the french would have folded like a cheap suit at the Marne.  there might not even have been a war.  think of churchill as a kind of former-day Dick Cheney on steroids.  he even tried to reform wehrmacht divisions in 1945 to attack russia...

but wilson is the one who really turned a bloodbath into a clusterfuck.  if hes going to intervene he has a sacred duty to set things right.  not smash the dominant european power exhausted by years of war and force them to acknowledge the overlordship of the french, czechs, and poles.

ignore the french, they don't matter

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 18:17 | 4907995 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Winston was a self-interested, self-agrandizing, war-mongering drunk.

 

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 07:20 | 4906751 duo
duo's picture

There was an expectation what war was going to break out soon when the Jekyll Island meeting happened.  It's no coincidence that the Fed was frormed when it was.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:39 | 4905347 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

CK, why do you use a short, mediocrie, ex Yankee's second baseman as your profile name? Unless you are THE Chuck Knoblauch, there is something rather disturbing about you. Seek help if needed.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:42 | 4905355 LasVegasDave
LasVegasDave's picture

fuck you Billy.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:47 | 4905366 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

Feel better Dave? Bet on the black today.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:37 | 4905439 Chuck Knoblauch
Chuck Knoblauch's picture

I don't associate with scum bags.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:47 | 4905458 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

Peace Chuck. I meant no offense. 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:06 | 4905397 Chuck Knoblauch
Chuck Knoblauch's picture

The truth is disturbing in a world of lies and deceit.

It's fearful confronting the truth.

You realize how powerless you are to do anything about it.

So, you live the Truman existence.

I'm not condeming you for it.

I do pitty you though.

Sad really.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:28 | 4905418 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

So you are THE Chuck Knoblauch? I am a fan! Go A's!

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 21:04 | 4906242 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

There were 'world wars' going back to 1759 (before there was a USofA and a Fed).  Just because they don't have that name doesn't mean they weren't global.

The Fed was the fulcrum of USofA history.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 08:01 | 4906777 Chuck Knoblauch
Chuck Knoblauch's picture

The Federal Reserve is only an extension of the Bank of England.

William & Mary charted the first Rothchild bank.

There has been no peace in the world since.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:30 | 4905330 cornflakesdisease
cornflakesdisease's picture

Here's a bit of history few know about WW1.

 

So the Germans in an effort to route the Bristish who controlled all the seas with their navy, decided at the turn of the century to build a railroad from Germany to Persia to bring back oil to the fatherland via trains.

 

And when that railroad was almost complete, the Archaduke was assassinated in the same exact part of the world where the railroad was just about to be connected; Sarajevo.

 

Seems that link to Persia never got built back in the day due to that big war.

 

Sound a lot like today?

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:43 | 4905357 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

Exactly.

The world in flames simply because the English couldn't handle the Germans gettting that rail link. You are 100% correct.

Now hie thee down to the recruitment office and sign up like a good lemming and go murder browns and yellows for your betters.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:39 | 4905444 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

That played a very minor roll in the grand scheme of things....

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 15:13 | 4905516 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Glad to see you can still "role" with the punches.

The spectre of a German navy fueled by (the new-fangled) oil vs. (traditional) coal was not a pretty picture for the British and their American colonies, especially if those new Krupp guns were mounted thereon.

The British were well aware of the new might of German industry and its effects on the productivity and exports of The Empire.

For Example:

http://www.ussindianabb58.com/propulsion/OilvsCoal.html

http://navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_bb_new_york.htm

(Range doubled after conversion from coal to oil.)

"The sun never sets on the British Empire." (Until it does.)

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:35 | 4905517 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

he did say  "a bit of history".    you stupid cunt

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 19:35 | 4906104 malek
malek's picture

don't try talking reasonably to him - it's useless

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 23:45 | 4906474 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

you're right, I'll try to stop. 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:34 | 4905339 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Once again, there is no monetary, eCONomic, or political solution to resource scarcity.

hedge accordingly.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:21 | 4905411 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

But there are economic and political solutions that prevent those of us who see it coming from hedging accordingly.  Wanna live truly off the grid?  Too bad.  You still have to pay property taxes, which means you need a source of FRNs.  Wanna start a small farm that uses very little in the way of industrial input?  You've gotta compete with industrial ag giants who are subsidized, and can afford either the army of lawyers to make sure reams of regulations are being followed, or they can afford to just not follow them and pay the fine.  If you're small, they'll send a swat team up your ass and keep you tied up in court for 3 years. 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:44 | 4905453 Overfed
Overfed's picture

You're wrong, LOP. Government programs, spending, and laws forcing us to do the right thing will solve all of our problems. Let go. Let Government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do I really need a /s tag?

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:38 | 4905346 SilverIsMoney
SilverIsMoney's picture

Central Banking Breeds War... Gold and Silver standards make war incredibly difficult.

Just another fact for the checklist...

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:45 | 4905364 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Yes, but then whatever would the world's useless fucking paper-pushers ever do in order to earn their keep?  Settling trade in assets or products of real value is so barbaric.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:53 | 4905376 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

That's not a fact, and also I'm having trouble locating this great "absence of war" that you imply must have coexisted with the period of gold standards, as even my non-Ministry-of-Truth-approved texts fail to mention any such period...

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:32 | 4905428 Overfed
Overfed's picture

To be more specific, it makes wars the size and scale of WWI and II just about impossible. Smaller wars have been and probably always will be a part of the human condition.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:28 | 4905583 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Central banks facilitate credit, which certainly facilitates waging wars in general. However, the sample size of 2 wars sandwiched between the industrial revolution and the advent of nuclear weapons is problematic (as is the fact that there were gold standards variously in place during the three decades in question). The gold aureus financed carnage from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf. The existence of a gold standard and the lack of central banks didn't prevent the Crusades. The lack of banksters and credit didn't slow the advances of Genghis Khan and the Golden Horde. If one wants to focus only the supposedly "civilized" world of Europe, Napoleon certainly seems to have found enough banksters and gold to have waged the Napoleonic Wars and decimate the French gene pool on a scale similar to World War I. Blaming central banks and fiat money just seems like an intellectually bankrupt cop out. Other than the industrialization of manufacturing death, what stands out about the two world wars is the multinational private banks (as opposed to central banks) that played both sides simultaneously and profitably with impunity.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 22:05 | 4906340 franciscopendergrass
franciscopendergrass's picture

As long as there are resources to be gained or more subjects to tax, the Mongol Hordes, the Napoleons, Crusaders, etc, will always find a way to wage war.  The new "Crusaders" are fighting in the same region as the original "Crusaders."  Instead controlling the flow of goods and treasure from the Orient, they are controlling the flow of fossil fuels.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:34 | 4905592 orez65
orez65's picture

" ... great "absence of war" that you imply ..."

Species (gold or silver) redemption is "suspended" during war by the Government. For example, at the time of the US Civil War during a gold standard period.

Wars are financed by: 1. Plunder or 2. Counterfeited money, like Federal Reserve Notes. 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:24 | 4905412 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

The ability to debase a currency that gives you claim to resources makes war easier would be more accurate, I think. 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:40 | 4905350 Rootin' for Putin
Rootin' for Putin's picture

Short version:  Its all Americas fault (and still is).

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:41 | 4905352 screw face
screw face's picture

anarchy rules......bitchez

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:16 | 4905578 Top Gear
Top Gear's picture

Got a bust of Gavrilo Princip on your anarcho-desk?

 

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 18:23 | 4908005 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Anarchy is about the lack of ruler, isn't it?

 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:42 | 4905356 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

When I see Obama. Bush. And Clinton. On the very front of the line. With their boots on, then I will listen to what they have to say about a WaR. 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:44 | 4905360 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

I won't.
Not even then.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:57 | 4905550 Emergency Ward
Emergency Ward's picture

Both Clintons,  and make sure Cheney, Rumsfeld, Biden, Rice, Pelosi, King, Feinstein and all the rest of the war progressives and neocons are in the vanguard.  Then turn around and ignore them all.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:44 | 4905362 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

Very strange. That Switzerland can remain neutral all these years. But the USA , thousands of miles and an ocean away, never can.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:47 | 4905369 optimator
optimator's picture

For starters Switzerland has no alliances.  That was one of the problems in 1914.  And how many alliances does the U.S. have?

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:07 | 4905400 Manthong
Manthong's picture

I don’t think the Swiss will escape unscathed this next time around.

They are aligned with the western Banks and are no longer neutral.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 09:09 | 4906855 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

The Swiss have chocolate, gold and very nice watches.

Why be grumpy?

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 09:51 | 4906898 Herodotus
Herodotus's picture

It has no alliance with Israel, although the main stream media wants everyone to believe that it does.  "Our ally Israel"....etc.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 20:17 | 4908293 flapdoodle
flapdoodle's picture

Switzerland doesn't *need* alliances. They have the BIS.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:03 | 4905392 Hubbs
Hubbs's picture

Switzerland appears to have been smart enough to know that it could profit from the war by playing it both ways, just as the banks.  Don't even know remotely enough history to make a qualified opinion, but the more I read, the more I am beginning to learn about the evils of centralized government.

Now I have to go back and re read this article.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:50 | 4905467 hootowl
hootowl's picture

Too much profit to be made by the state-sanctioned murders of millions of humans for profit of the Lizards of Oz.

With no criminal charges to follow.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:06 | 4905485 withglee
withglee's picture

I would happily adopt the Swiss defense model.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:14 | 4905577 Matt
Matt's picture

The Swiss have the advantage of very defensible geography. Whether a flat land country surrounded by other countries could defend itself as well, I suspect not.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 15:24 | 4905683 Terminus C
Terminus C's picture

Ask Poland or Ukraine.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 09:02 | 4906805 Manthong
Manthong's picture

"very defensible geography"

.. until the chemical, bacteriological and radiation weaponry come out.

Don't think psychopaths that run things would not hesitate.

Very Gladio to see you (and all of your goldio).

Just look at what the Nazi agents of the west are doing in Ukraine.

Hint..  nuke plants and bio labs.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 19:43 | 4906111 malek
malek's picture

You mean doing the dictators' moneychanging so to not get invaded?

I thought we are already doing that.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:37 | 4905518 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

USA is/was effectively a British (or City of London) colony. Switzerland isn't/wasn't.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:34 | 4905591 tumblemore
tumblemore's picture

Switzerland is a banking system with a small country attached.

UK is a banking system with a large (for a while) country attached.

US is a banking system with a large country attached.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 15:12 | 4905657 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

The "banking system" is just another con-game scheme to separate wool from the sheep. It's a much more efficient way to do that than sending big mean guys with swords to do the shearing.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 15:10 | 4905651 algol_dog
algol_dog's picture

Making those watches is very difficult and time consuming. It keeps people out of trouble and away from medling into others affairs. Therefore, by decree, I mandate that all peoples of the world be employed in the business of watch making, from now, and forever after. 

 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 19:38 | 4906110 malek
malek's picture

But you are aware that Swiss neutrality has been successfully abrogated by the US in squeezing their overextended bank behemoths UBS and CS?

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 11:56 | 4905381 Reaper
Reaper's picture

The flaw, then as now, is that each country's sheeple trusted their leaders and their institutions. Trust is the feel-good vice of the sheeple.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:03 | 4905393 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"20 million combatants and civilians who perished for no reason"

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:38 | 4905441 Overfed
Overfed's picture

Whaddya' mean, 'no reason'? Didn't the Warburgs, Rothschilds, Morgans, et. al. make shitloads of money?

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 10:38 | 4906944 Laura S.
Laura S.'s picture

Exactly. I don't get how can people in this discussion still think that the war was "necessary" or even beneficial for the economy... People died by thousands because of what? And did they think about future market growth in the US? War is the most devastating event in human history. Resources and lives are wasted by millions.. Why regimes don't rather support construction of libraries, and why there is no REAL support for better education?

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:15 | 4905404 BeerMe
BeerMe's picture

Had to stop reading for a couple reasons.

 

  1. A 'bankers' bank' is still a central bank.
  2. There was a depression in 1920 right after the war.  It wasn't postponed.  What got the U.S. out was cutting spending by 50% or so and cutting taxes.  Then Hoover is elected...  Instead of letting the market correct after the crash, he starts instituting government programs.  You know to save the people.  Instead these programs and the many that follow just prolong the Depression for the next decade (a lot like today).
Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:29 | 4905420 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

Volunteerism - Hoover sat industry leaders down and basically told them that they were not going to lower wages, and they were going to "volunteer" for this.  The idea was that if wages don't go down, there won't be any deflation.  Nobody ever fucking understands that this is inconsistent with the amount of currency in circulation changing, on the deflation side or on the inflation side.  Wage controls like this are akin to price controls in an inflationary envorinment. 

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:37 | 4905438 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Repeating discredited bullshit re: Hoover...

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:40 | 4905448 Overfed
Overfed's picture

Yep. Government solutions and spending are always the answer. In fact, all private industry and business should be outlawed, and everything should be run and administered by the government. Just like in that utopia known as the Soviet Union.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:21 | 4905502 Overfed
Overfed's picture

I can't believe I still need to use a sarc tag.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 11:51 | 4907078 Seer
Seer's picture

And it's amazing how people STILL don't get it that they're being played on this just like the Red Team/Blue Team game.

Govt and Corporations are the same!  Yes, the SAME.  They are made up of groups of PEOPLE seeking to build power bases.  The ISSUE is the concentration of power, and govt doesn't have a lock on it!

People run around making the most convoluted excuses for why corporations are better.  I tell you what, you get rid of govt and you allow the continued existence of corporations and things will NOT be much different.  There will still be the same basic types of people creating angles to control.  The "argument" that the "free markets" will minimize such things is pure BS, it amounts to hopium: before the Fed even existed, back when the US was that glorious, perfect paradise that folks (try to) make it out to be, there were the industrialists and other big power brokers who controlled entire towns and regions (any govt was pretty much symbolic and in their pockets).

For what it's worth, I'm essentially on most folks' side on this issue; however, I differ in that I'm attaching to this notion not based on hatred or some theoretical ideology, I'm seeing it as the more normal state of humanity; and, I do not see some utopia forming, as the same types of people will continue to assert their means of power over others (others will continue to be subjugated because they are unable to exercise the ruthlessness of these controllers).  Radical Marijuana could jump in here and speak to this...

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 13:41 | 4905523 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Hoover's presidential term didn't begin until March 1929, the end of the "Roaring 20s".

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 12:10 | 4907106 Seer
Seer's picture

Leading up to that point it was clear that lots was set in place helping to establish a massive bubble.  It's interesting how the "conservatives" at the time had pretty much full control: while they were catering to business (in a most fascist way), they created HUGE "UN-free trade" legislation through things like the Fordney-McCumber Tariff (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1370.html):

One of the first legislative trends of the Sixty-Seventh Congress (1921-23) was the Republican leadership`s marshaling of their overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate to return the nation’s tariff policy to protectionism. The Emergency Tariff Act of 1921 was designed to be only a temporary measure until a more comprehensive measure could be drafted.

Major new tariff legislation was guided through Congress by Representative Joseph W. Fordney of Michigan and Senator Porter J. McCumber of North Dakota, and provided for the following:

  • raising tariff rates to their highest level to that time, exceeding those provided by an earlier Republican Congress in the Payne-Aldrich Tariff (1909);
  • granting to the president broad powers to raise or lower rates by as much as 50 percent on items recommended by the Tariff Commission, a review body created during the Wilson administration;
  • introducing the use of the “American selling price”* as a means to increase the protective nature of the tariff without raising rates further.

As a matter of actual practice, the Republican presidents of the 1920s predictably ignored recommendations to lower tariff rates, but regularly offered protection to American producers by raising rates when given the opportunity.

So, here you had groups of people in govt prior to the FDR administration setting up what was essentially a central control on the markets.  And then when Hoover came to office there were yet more tariffs, resulting in a further control over trade.  It's interesting that these kinds of things are rarely pointed out by [true] libertarians and that the focus is always shifted to the FDR era.  It's a perfect demonstration of why I say that "small govt" is BS, because it's like being just a little pregnant: smaller numbers of more powerful people WILL be in [in increasingly greater] CONTROL.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:24 | 4905416 Amish Hacker
Amish Hacker's picture

Funny how times change. I remember Stockman as the architect of Reagan's economic policy, a policy that his opponent in the race for the 1980 Republican nomination, G.H.W. Bush,. called "Voodoo Economics." It lead to increased government debt, cuts to social programs, and lower taxes on high earners. And like today, it was based on magical thinking, rather than solid theory, and allowed central planners to overrule the demands of the free market. So it's interesting to see that Stockman has come full circle and is now advocating decidedly left-leaning economics and speaking out against the Fed.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 09:20 | 4906865 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Nope.

Stockman was OMB. An accountant. He saw what they were doing with Defense @ 7% increase over GDP and tax cuts and told them they were crazy. Greenspan said no problem.

Stockman didn't make policy. He only counted the numbers with horror.

Math never lies.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 12:15 | 4907108 Seer
Seer's picture

It's funny how the OMB never seems to have much sway...  Should it be done away with?

There's also Dr. Paul Craig Roberts from that era.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:25 | 4905417 Ploutos74
Ploutos74's picture

Well then, the right thing is being done in Greece. GDP is down 25% in three years. At the same time Italy and France are pretending there's nothing wrong and kicking the can down the road. It appears hard solutions are appliable only to the weak.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:33 | 4905430 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

We are running into situations where economics will be better looked at from a supply constrianed viewpoint rather than a demand constrained viewpoint.  That is different from the Great Depression.  It's more similar to the end of just about any empire.  More territory cannot be conquered for its wealth, or government starts meddling and reduces the amount that farmers can produce, etc...  Except this is global.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:29 | 4905421 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"But after the Credit Anstalt crisis in spring 1931, when creditors of shaky banks in central Europe demanded gold, England’s precarious mountain of sterling debts came into the cross-hairs.  In short order, the money printing scheme of Bubbles Ben 1.0 designed to keep the Brits in cheap interest rates and big debts came violently unwound."

 

Violently unwound.  Guess what's coming.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:35 | 4905422 Inthemix96
Inthemix96's picture

An interesting fact a very old man told me when Inthemix96 was a child.

The royal family here went under the name of 'Saxe-Coburg-Gotha', after the invention of something called the 'Wireless', George the fifth and cohorts sounded 'Forgien', to the populace here seeing as the fuckers are German, the locals couldnt understand why their 'Defenders of the Faith' sounded so different from them and they were not very happy, including the old man who told me this.

That cunt abdicated, Lizzy the cunt took over I believe, after her child blood drinking mother, and they changed their name to 'Windsor', a right real 'English' sounding name eh?

All thanks to the 'Wireless'.

And all around the time of this debacle?

They never reckoned on how the 'Interweb' would affect things did they? 

All wars my friends are banksters wars.  The problem about history, is we never learn from it.  Lets just hang the cunts who think they rule us, and have the fucker done with.

All of them.

And dont be fucking discriminating mind, their kids are fair game as well.

:-)

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:36 | 4905437 Inthemix96
Inthemix96's picture

Edit;

Thick fuckers like me struggle with seplling.

;-)

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 16:29 | 4905778 tony wilson
tony wilson's picture

the wireless yes indeed i have heard of that.

the good old wireless.

funny thing most people do not understand that the wireless was connected to the ideas from a lovely sebian chap.

a mighty clever fellow called nikola tesla.

this tesla wireless  used a crystal i believe, it needed neither dc battery or tesla turbine ac electricity.

mr tesla had the spiffing idea that everything is electric including us yes humans.

 all we had to do was tap into this endless free energy.

he died the fbi took all his papers and not many remember the self powered wireless or talk of his free energy apparatus.

good thing 2 as those jews in saudi arabia the jp morgans rockerfellas and rothschilds would be very angry let me tell you.

 

3 cheers for the german vampyre queen and the endless throw away battery powered radio.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 16:32 | 4905802 Inthemix96
Inthemix96's picture

Aye Tony, the 'Wireless'.

All them years ago, from a man who knew about something most dont.  And they bankrupted him for it, cos they couldnt make 'Money' from it?

Nikola Tesla was not just beyong his time, as I suspect you know.  He was beyond what we the plebs know now.

But I suppose I didnt need to tell you that, did I?

;-)

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 09:25 | 4906871 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

JP Morgan funded Tesla's wireless power transmission research.

Mon, 06/30/2014 - 07:12 | 4908999 Divine
Divine's picture

TESLA was the man :) Thank god not all of his work was lost http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=976 .

 

I hope to see Tesla Magnetic motors & other tesla theories tested in near future. I just talked about these magnetic engines with an engineer friend

of mine over the weekend. He was fucking amazed that he had never heard of them. 

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 12:32 | 4907148 Seer
Seer's picture

Most certainly bankers profit off of wars (lots, however, don't- there are losers somewhere).

It doesn't, however, follow that wars are the direct product of bankers.  That is, bankers just don't go out and whip up wars for no reason.  As I continually point out: ALL WARS ARE ABOUT RESOURCES.  If we didn't have these systems predicated on perpetual growth we would be far less likely to be needing to resort to the loan sharks to steal from the future in order to satiate our desire for continuing growth.

The bankers could be seen as the indicators of war.  They can point out the facts of dwindling balance sheets and the need to restock those "sheets."  And while they most certainly can speak out FOR war, it is the politicians who actually turn their thumbs up or down: yeah, politicians can be puppets of the bankers- I do not think this is anything new (as in not existing prior to 1913).

Yeah, it's a bit weak as it's more like a chicken-and-egg thing, but the larger point is that it's really the underlying premise/system that's the culprit- the bankers exist because we allow the game to exist.  We really do have a say in all of this; however, we would get rid of this tribe and most likely end up with being subjected to some other "tribe."  I'm presenting this as a way of looking at it as less of an impossible, nebulous thing to "overcome," that we ought to think less in terms of being victims (the popular setup for TPTB to gain/maintain control).

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 18:36 | 4908025 logicalman
logicalman's picture

All wars are about resources.

The banksters wish to control said resources foR their own profit at the expense of others.

ALL WARS ARE BANKSTERS WARS.

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:30 | 4905423 world_debt_slave
world_debt_slave's picture

Great War? Should be called what it was "Bankers War".

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 12:38 | 4905442 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...

Sat, 06/28/2014 - 14:19 | 4905579 Top Gear
Top Gear's picture

Every wild-eyed fundamentalist group has to have a Great Satan--or is it the Great Banker--to hate.

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