Guest Post: Is An Economic Deluge Nigh?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by David Galland of Casey Research

Is An Economic Deluge Nigh?

If history has taught one certain lesson, it is that the less fettered an economy, the better humankind is able to do what it does best: run from trouble and run toward opportunity. In this way mistakes are quickly resolved and progress assured.

Conversely, the deeper the muck of regulation, mandates, taxes, subsidies and other bureaucratic meddling, the slower we humans are in following our natural instincts until the point that progress is slowed or even stopped.

It is said that history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. In the current circumstances, it appears that enough time has passed that current generations have completely forgotten the critical connection between the ability of humans to freely pursue their aspirations and economic progress.

You can see this ignorance in the popular demand for even more, not less, meddling in the affairs of humankind. Should this trend continue – and for reasons I will touch on momentarily, I firmly believe it will – then the aspirations of the productive minority will soon be dampened by ever higher taxes and other attempts to "level the playing field" and the global economy, already in tatters, will fall off the edge.

There is no more timely nor acute example of this growing trend than what is currently going on in France. I refer, of course, to the first round of the presidential election process, scheduled for this weekend.

In France, if no candidate attracts no better than 50% of the vote, then the two leading candidates go to a decisive runoff vote, this time around to be held on May 6.

The current president, Nicolas Sarkozy, a conservative in name only, was running at a fairly steady gait toward re-election (thanks to the head start awarded all incumbents), when leading socialist candidate Francois Hollande came out with a proposal to tax anyone with an annual income of over one million euros at a rate of 75%. He also promised to add a tax on all financial transactions and increase taxes on France's biggest companies to 35% – securing bragging rights as levying the world's third-highest corporate taxes, the US being #1. This all on top of a 25% VAT, one of the world's highest. By some calculations, the result of Hollande's new taxes is that effectively 100% of all incomes over one million euros will now be stripped away by the state.

For good measure, Hollande also promised to reverse the recent modest increase in retirement age from 60 to 62 pushed through by Sarkozy. While I am sure it is mere coincidence, I found it noteworthy that Mssr. Hollande's campaign slogan is "Change – Now!"

Remarkably, at least for those with some small understanding of economics, as a result of leaning into the microphone with these proposals Hollande has galloped ahead of all other potential contenders and is now projected to finish nose by nose with Sarkozy.

After which the also-rans will be removed from the race, freeing their supporters to share their affections elsewhere. Given that the leading contender for third place with an estimated 14% of the vote is one Jean-Luc Mélenchon – charitably categorized as "far left", a label that can be applied to most of the other candidates – it is projected that the "conservative" Mssr. Sarkozy will go down in double-digit flames come May 6.

Bringing to mind the prophetic utterance of Louis XV: "Après moi, le déluge."

The deluge in Louis' case manifested as the murderous affair commonly known as the French Revolution. In the case of Mssr. Hollande taking up residence in the Palais de l'Élysée, the deluge is likely to manifest in the form of rising interest rates as investors look to protect against an acceleration in the country's debt to GDP ratio, already projected to hit almost 90% this year, exacerbated by a flight of capital, investors, entrepreneurs and large businesses.

As is the nature of such things, because of the aforementioned predilection of humans to run from trouble, we likely won't have to wait for Mssr. Hollande to be formally enshrined in the gilded halls for the trouble to start – it will begin within days and maybe even minutes of the handicappers concluding that his ascendency is a sure thing.

Given that France is the third-largest economy in the already-troubled Eurozone, one can expect the deluge to spread, with potentially devastating consequences. That the guillotines may soon be rolled out across Europe can be better understood by taking into account that the Eurozone sovereign deadbeats are on the hook for roughly nine trillion euros in debt, some significant percentage of which has to be rolled over to ready buyers over the next couple of years. Adding weight to the problem is that, according to the latest figures out of the IMF, Europe's banks may have to sell off up to 3.8 trillion euros in assets, many of them questionable, between now and the end of next year. At least, if they want to remain solvent.

Across the pond, the United States also has aggressive funding needs, given that the "change" we experienced ourselves in the last presidential election has left the government gasping for about $1.4 trillion in additional funding each year. Then there is Japan, officially the world's largest debtor in terms of debt to GDP, where the easy availability of local funding has dried up, requiring that nation to go to the international markets for funding as well.

The phrase "an awful lot of hogs at the trough" comes to mind.

My point is not just that these governments are broke and are about to get a lot more broke as interest rates rise on their many debts and financings, but rather that the global trend toward a resurgence in public demand for socialism in response to a worsening crisis is a certainty.

How could it be otherwise when for decades now the schooling of children has been delegated to functionaries of the state?

For evidence, look no further than the screen swipe here. It is a quote from an essay by a college student in the United States on role the government should play:

The writer of those words was a member of a Valencia University economics class. The professor, Jack Chandliss, asked the class to write an essay on what the American dream means to them, and what they want the federal government to do to help them achieve that dream. Out of 180 students participating, only about 10% wanted the government to leave them alone and not tax them too much, but a whopping 80% wanted the government to provide pretty much the whole dream thing wrapped in a tidy bow – including free college tuition and health care, jobs, even the down payment on their future homes, money for retirement and hard cash, taken in the form of taxes from rich people. Please take a moment to watch a worthwhile interview with the professor.

Pretty eye-opening, eh?

The point here is not complex, but it is important.

With the apparatus of state education over many years serving to bamboozle the populace into the hardened belief that government has a positive role to play in virtually all aspects of modern life, it should come to no surprise to anyone that, when push comes to shove, people are now trained to look to government to solve the problems – even when it was the government that created the problems in the first place.

Thus, confronted with the intractable mess they have made, these governments have to keep alive the mythology they have created about their omnipotence. Which is easier said than done, because with things now swirling fairly quickly around the drain, the mob is beginning to lose faith – and even patience.

Which puts these governments in a very tight spot, because the only way they can actually fix things is by doing exactly the opposite of what people have come to expect from their governments, which is always to do more. Put simply, the only hope now is that these governments begin to reduce their roles in their respective economies, and dramatically so. Concurrently, they have to encourage people in their aspirations to greater wealth, by lowering their taxes and unwinding the tangle of regulations they have created over the last half-century.

But if the governments actually tried to take these actions, the brainwashed masses would be positively befuddled then outraged, as it goes against everything they have been taught. Why, it would be like the Pope shuffling his way to the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica and informing the doting faithful that there isn't a god and never has been.

Riots would follow.

So it is that we find ourselves at a particularly interesting juncture in the historical record.

On the one hand you have a majority of the world's population who have been carefully schooled into believing that the institution of government holds the solution to all problems and is the source of succor to all who need it. (Even that subset of the populace who has lost confidence in their current government invariably believes as doctrine that the next and better government can change things for the better and lead the way to the shining castle on the hill.)

In this mix are the politicians and their functionaries, 99.99% of whom believe that, if for no other reason than their re-election prospects, they have to do something to meet the demands of the public.

Of course, under normal circumstances the "something" usually consists of making grand-sounding speeches and otherwise blowing smoke. Today that's just not going to cut it, for the simple reason that the crisis is real, it is spinning out of control, and it's not going to go away unless and until the markets are allowed to breathe again.

Which brings us full circle to the simple truth that the brainwashed public won't stand idly by while the politicians lower taxes and regulations on the profit makers or cut back state pensions and guarantees or otherwise reduce any of the many services the state has taken on itself to provide.

"Between a rock and a hard place" is an inadequate phrase to describe the situation.

Meanwhile, the mob has started to gather, their dark mutterings heard by the politicos who quickly don the red caps themselves, the better to be viewed as one with the people and join in expressing outrage against the capitalists who have been selected as fall guys in this unfolding drama.

When confronted by reporters about the fact that his 75% tax on high-income owners would raise nowhere enough revenue to offset France's towering debt and social obligations, Mssr. Hollande was heard to respond:

"It's not a question of return. It's a question of morality."

When coercion and theft are considered moral, anything is possible, and none of it good.

While I certainly can't say how this is all going to end, I'm pretty sure it's not going to end well.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Gully Foyle's picture

Apply Force

Ever buy a part for home or auto repair? They are standard due to regulations.

Unlike the ones from China which may be a fraction off. Enough to make it useless.

Food regulations are good too. You don't want the kids eating a Mad Cow burger with a creamy Brucellosis tinged glass of milk.


Sean7k's picture

The market is more than capable of establishing standards for manufacture and food quality. We don't need a regulation that obscures from oversight as much as it demands- based on the corporations that wrote it.

AnAnonymous's picture

The market is more than capable of establishing standards for manufacture and food quality.


How? Demand for food is permanent. It relies on no standard to exist. Mud pies would not be produced by the market?

Or is the market answer that mud pies suit the people who eat them?

So how? When? Where? Usual questions for US citizen fantasists.

Sean7k's picture

Demand for quality food is permanent. Demand for quality goods is permanent. In an environment where people are not mislead by government "standards", the market will sort out the losers and winners. Hard for a chinese citizenism to understand, I know, but if you were ever to have the chance- you would do just find.

AnAnonymous's picture


Demand for quality food is permanent and?

It does not mean that quality food price can not be lowered by selling low quality food.

As to the point about losers and winners, it is connected to my point that people who eat low quality food eat what they deserve?

You did not answer to the point. And you seem to confirm the point that whatever happens, if the market drives, it will be good.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

More Chinese citizenism fallacy of unedulcorated demand.

More Chinese citizenism crackpottery.

Lameness it being of very much now is.

Time for Chinese citizenism citizen to place blame on fantasy of US citizenism again.


o2sd's picture

The market is more than capable of establishing standards for manufacture and food quality.

Only in hindsight. If a restaurant kills 3 people with salmonella poisoning, the market will certainly ensure that the restaurant goes out of business, but that's not much help for those who died.

Regulation exists as a reminder to providers of goods and services, that there are consequences of recklessness and negligence, in the hope that the threat of the stick will correct their behaviour BEFORE they kill someone. The market only punishes recklessness and negligence AFTER the fact.

We don't need a regulation that obscures from oversight as much as it demands- based on the corporations that wrote it.

It's true. We don't need that kind of regulation, however we should probably accept that the system will be corrupted eventually and will need to be purged at some point. This doesn't mean we should throw away the whole system though, just that systems tend to decay, and need to be refreshed occaisionally (sometimes with the blood of patriots).



Sean7k's picture

Yeah, nobody EVER suffers from salmonella poisoning or mad cow disease. All those drugs that kill you are punished AFTER The fact. Sticking gas pedals? Thousands of examples of things that get through the regulation net and are resolved after the fect. Wake up.

o2sd's picture

I'm going to take a wild guess you have never lived in Hong Kong. You should go there, you would like it. No pesky government interference in people's right to give other people food poisoning. Clogged sewers because the market has decided it doesn't want to pay for sewers, so it doesn't. They whine when SARS kills people and hospitalises them, but hey, the market has spoken.

It's amazing they even bother with traffic lights. I mean, traffic lights are pernicious government interference in the right to drive without stopping right? Surely the market will come up with a solution for that pesky interference on the roads.

And while we are abolishing government laws and regulations all together, why do we bother with the police? If every one was armed, and trained in the use of firearms there would be no need for the police. I amazed it's never been tried before. Oh wait, it has, it's called feudalism, a system under which you wouldn't survive out the year.

Wait, I think you are on to something.

Sean7k's picture

Let me guess: you are shown to be terribly wrong and you change the topic thinking it will exonerate your previous post? 

Now, no I haven't lived in Hong Kong. However, let's assume I have the freedom to choose. Would I live there? Depends on what the environment is like. 

Are people in communities capable of paying for and maintaining a sewer system? Traffic lights? Buying private security? Why yes they are. There is zero need for a government to create these products and sell them in a free market. If these items are important to me, I can choose the community I want to be a part of and buy into the market structure.

The absence of government is only chaotic if you choose to let it be so. Communities can define the type of social structure they deem desirable and pay VOLUNTARILY for the services they wish to purchase. 

Believe it or not, traffic laws in the US were created by private organizations, signs, rules and all (AAA). The people saw the benefit of organizing a system of rules and did so, without government. 

It appears you want others to subsidize your vision of civilization- this is theft.

As for feudalism, the police power of the state was alive and well. Do you read history and understand terms?

o2sd's picture

Let me guess: you are shown to be terribly wrong and you change the topic thinking it will exonerate your previous post? 

No, but I see you missed the point. Not surprising, you come off as a naive zealot.

Now, no I haven't lived in Hong Kong.

You should have just stopped there. Everything else you say is coming from your fantasy world.

However, let's assume I have the freedom to choose. Would I live there? Depends on what the environment is like. 

The environment is exactly what happens when you apply your philosophy to society, it's a shit hole. It's a free, laissez faire, non-government interfering, free market shit hole. That's why I suggest you live there, so you can experience your philosophy first hand rather than fantasize about it on the internet.

Communities can define the type of social structure they deem desirable and pay VOLUNTARILY for the services they wish to purchase. 

Anything is possible. Do you have a reference point for one of these communities?

Believe it or not, traffic laws in the US were created by private organizations, signs, rules and all (AAA). The people saw the benefit of organizing a system of rules and did so, without government

Who enforces the rules?

It appears you want others to subsidize your vision of civilization- this is theft.

Getting robbed is also theft. But by all means, stop your yapping and get on with it. Create your perfect Randian society. You obviously know how utopia works, so what do you need me for?

As for feudalism, the police power of the state was alive and well. Do you read history and understand terms?

Oh good lord you are an idiot.

Apply Force's picture

I think you are confusing industry regulations with government regulations.  The government should not be the end enforcer - discernment should.  In what industry is it wise to sell non-working parts, or food that sickens the end user...?  How do they continue on in business?  GM remains through the will/enforcement of .gov, not through bringing useful products to market at a profitable price.

You do present a solid argument against globilization, however.

AnAnonymous's picture

In what industry is it wise to sell food that sickens the end user...?


In any kind of food industry actually.

What is wise? What does it mean?

Consumers do not share the best interests. Producers' best interest can go against consumers' best interests.

People choose not to eat?

Take a cow. If selling unproper bits allows some consumers to eat good meat at a lower price, why should those consumers support that butcher over one that reject selling unproper parts?
In the end, it will consumers vs consumers. Everyone has to eat, and if feeding the poorer with shit food allows to decrease the price of food for richer consumers, why should rich consumers not support that butcher?

Is the world infinite so that means do exist infinitively that concurrence can rise any time?

Sean7k's picture

Yeah, you guys kept that melamine feed around. No one protested that...or the baby formula? How about that school that collapsed from shody workmanship? Do you have a memory or are you just contrary?

AnAnonymous's picture

Again China? I begin to think that if China did not exist, US citizens on this site will invent it so they can kick the can on it.

The best is that Chinese worked on order of german corporations for the food stuff.

But hey, everything to avoid being challenged in one's dogma.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


But hey, everything to avoid being challenged in one's dogma.

In Chinese citizenism, everything to avoid being challenged in eatings one's dog.


o2sd's picture

In what industry is it wise to sell non-working parts, or food that sickens the end user...? 

In the short term, all of them, because of the increase in profits. In the long term of course, none of them, because the market (if unfettered by corruption) will reward those that do not engage in the above, and punish those that do.

The problem, which so many free market proponents seem to miss, is that intervening period between the increased profits and the market's response. It's THAT intervening period that government regulation is supposed to address, because a large enough corporation can make thousands of people sick, or cause millions of dollars in damage through faulty parts.



Pygar's picture

And we all know that only people who get a government check have the magical superhuman ability to "regulate" things like food safety or standards for machine or plumbing parts. We know this because they do such a great fucking job of it currently, and because private organizations like ANSI, UL, NSPE, etc., are all a fucking figment of our collective imaginations.

Jesus, do you government-supremacist extremist fanatics even notice that what you believe directly contradicts reality?

Calmyourself's picture

Where have you been hiding +1000

o2sd's picture

Your claim amounts to "Government organisations are incompetent and corrupt, private organisations are impervious to incompetence and corruption." Having spent the majority of my life working in private organisations, I can tell you that assertion is patently false.


robobbob's picture


eli whitney?

standardized parts developed wwwaaay before government regulations. why? because it made economic sense.

the same reason why the first mad cow lawsuit would wipe out the offending company. except in the captured regulator system that exists now, such a lawsuit could never happen, because the regulators shield offenders who have paid the proper tributes. MF Global, Countrywide?

another victim of gobmint edumacation

Kayman's picture

So Gully.. ever buy food "made in China" ?  Under whose regulations did it get into this country ?

Some regulations are necessary, but most regulations are selectly enforced by government minions.

Any criminals on Wall Steet been charged and convicted in the largest fraud in History ?  I thought not.

Umh's picture

These parts you are speaking of; where do you get the ones that are regulated, because The ones they sell in my town won't fit my house. When this house was made things were a lot sturdier.

donsluck's picture

There is no preventing the Dao. It is balance. The world is not black and white. Balance.

Goldilocks's picture

Shades of gray...


Grateful Dead Touch Of Grey Video (Band In Bones) (4:43)

Grateful Dead - Touch of Grey (5:49)

DosZap's picture

 The problem is lack of enforcement of regulations.

Agree To a point................BUT.

Your Assuming those regs are good and neccesssary right?,and are regulated by decent and honest individuals.

As we have seen, now its not possible, as everyone is simply out for control, and themselves bank staements.

smb12321's picture

COMMON SENSE regulation is "good".   Nobody wants dirty water, unsafe food or hazardous materials around.   But DC, following custom, must try to regulate away any chance of possible danger or accident and debolves into insanity.  Such as measuring the holes in Swiss cheese to assure they "quality?" (I kid you not). 

Then you start down the black hole of light bulbs (for energy), toilets (to "save" water - what hogwash), "safety glass" on TOP of house (so that someone won't fall through) or EPA particulates so minute they can scarcely be measured.  Then again, when is the last time DC bureaucrats showed common sense.

RockyRacoon's picture

I was against the GFCI (ground-fault circuit interrupt) receptacle when it was introduced back in the 70s.  If a doofus wants to get out in the yard in a rainstorm with his electric weed eater and its frayed cord -- let him.  He deserves to be fried.   Setting the hair dryer next to the tub is a great idea -- for some folk.   We should praise the stupid people; without them, how would you know you're smart?  We gotta have standards.

o2sd's picture

When a stupid person removes themselves from the gene pool, the whole of humanity benefits.We honour them post-humously with a Darwin award. You are right though, they need greater recognition for their contribution.

We still need some stupid people though, to clean the toilets and whatnot. At least until the Japanese invent a robot to do that.


Hohum's picture

Not excellent, walcott, but rather an unsupported assertion.  Liking a less fettered economy is great but thinking it brings out the best in humans is, well, optimistic.  But your taxes will be lower with an unfettered economy and you'll feel less agitated. Isn't that what Casey Research is all about?

jimmytorpedo's picture

the less fettered, ie. freer an economy or country, the greater the econmoic growth which in turn leads to a greater parasitical class, top and low level parasites

so the irony is, in designing a 'free' country, you always end up with the most repressive government

america is like it is today because it was free

the only escape is to leave statism altogether

AssFire's picture

Central planning has trumped individual rights and, as a result, will destroy long-term world economic growth. This discussion is not complete without speaking about China...

The Chinese dictators are working with the U.S. and allowing economic growth because they need the U.S. relationship; if that dims, then the totalitarian hammer will strike again in China. The reason: there is no guarantee the people of China are the Chinese government. Contrary to the prognostications of some world economists, China will not lead the world in economic opportunity and growth.

The strength of America centered around two words – inalienable rights. That’s what’s different between China and the America that created the American Dream. There can be no Chinese Dream or a continuation of the American Dream without inalienable rights.

Neither Chinese nor American government-metered opportunity, with universities engaged primarily in the business of "marketing social status," affords the freedom to seek the Constitution's God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that allow individuals to choose exactly how they will undertake anything they wish to do in this life, provided the rights of all others to do the same thing are protected.

The idea behind the American government and the U.S. Constitution was as Jefferson said, rights given by the Creator.  In all other major governments throughout history, the Government gave out the rights. The protections of all the provisions in the Constitution and Bill of Rights relate to these God-given inalienable rights.  Ours was a contract society, protected because of those rights.

If you want to know what’s going to happen to China in the future you can observe what is happening to the U.S. today.  The removal of our rights is beginning to hamper U.S. growth.  Those same restrictions eventually are going to shut China down because the rights of individuals will interfere with what the rulers want.

The United States’ manufacturing base and the inventions and the sales…and all those things our multinational corporations gave China are nothing compared with giving up what made those things, i.e., the protection of man’s inalienable rights so that individuals could invent and grow on their own without their property and efforts being taken by government at a certain point.  To give that up -- and China never had it -- means China doesn’t have a chance to grow like our Founder’s America that birthed  the American Dream, and its miraculous economic growth.

China is not a free country. There’s an example currently playing out in the world arena regarding Chinese freedom – that of blind dissident Chen Guangcheng who’s been 

Gully Foyle's picture


"The strength of America centered around two words – inalienable rights"

Unless you were Black, a Woman, A Native American, Irish, a Child or and Indentured servant. I forgot Poor and Working Class.

Really, you either don't comprehend US History or are merely full of shit.'s picture

And yet my Irish ancestors came to America where they sought and found a better life for themselves and their progeny.

Gully Foyle's picture

Gee bunky, I guess you didn't know about the Irish and Scots sold into slavery.

The Irish Slave Trade - The Forgotten “White” Slaves

And you can skim through this for a discussion of

Why were the Irish treated so badly during the 1800s in America?


( I guess that puts you on par with the Blacks in the US)'s picture

Once my great-great-great grandfather escaped English tyranny in his native land he lived life as a free man in America. I guess you didn't know that.

Gully Foyle's picture

OOOOHHHH, how lucky he was.

Meanwhile hundreds of thousands, if not millions, were not.'s picture

Can you ever forgive Gramps for making it in the world without giving excuses? I realize that it's an unattractive quality but he was only human.

AnAnonymous's picture

Can you ever forgive Gramps for making it in the world without giving excuses?


Today US citizens might wish to apply the same, not seeking excuses in government stuff.

toady's picture

Where are MY reparations?

donsluck's picture

They were starving because of the famous Potato Famine.'s picture

The Irish produced enough food to feed the population three times over but the absentee British "landlords" stole most of it and let the people starve. It was all legal and well regulated, to be sure, nevertheless...

smb12321's picture

People like him are ignorant.  I tutored emmigrants from other countries.  Almost all went to work immediately, saved their money and ignore the claptrap of group politics.  My relatives were Dutch, English and Indian (NA - real, not like Warren in MS) and I learned early one that if you have a job and are reasonably well off, normal people will like you.   

AnAnonymous's picture

And yet my Irish ancestors came to America where they sought and found a better life for themselves and their progeny.

So it is a counter example that the respect of unalienable rights was the key, is it not?

And so, once again, US citizens wallow in their cheap propaganda and fantasy.

AssFire's picture

Oh crap, the unproductive beneficiaries of central planning are on the loose today... OWS trolls. I said nothing above about minorities; but grind that axe.

Gully Foyle's picture


You said that the strength of the US was based on 'Inalienable rights".

Where the fuck did you think that line of reasoning was headed?

What, just laughing jovial rich white men had "inalienable rights"?

And, I noticed you missed the parts regarding women, children, poor and working class folks.

I'm gonna assume you have some type of disability which prohibits you from thinking clearly.

Otherwise that makes you just plain damn stupid.

AssFire's picture

Not today Gully I got stuff to do.

Just saying we are losing the foundations in this country; believe me I know they are almost gone.

donsluck's picture

I agree with you in spirit, but in fact your dissenters are correct. It was a noble theory this country of ours, but the roots were diseased and had to be cured with the Bill of Rights. Now those are gone and we will slowly descend.

Your harping (repeatedly) on these "foundations" reveals you as a fundamentalist, and therefor blind to the reality around you. I'm sorry, blind is too strong, maybe just angry is more accurate.

AssFire's picture

I suggest as I often have: The "foundation" was there before the War of Northern Agression whereby states who chose to leave and keep their rights intact were forced to remain in a union that gave the Federal government too much power that has now become overbearing...

The federal budget, amounting to $63 million in 1860, rose to well over $1 billion by 1865. At war’s end the federal bureaucracy, with 53,000 employees including new Custom House officials, internal revenue agents, clerks, and inspectors, was the largest employer in the nation.

The Union victory in the War Between the States had the effect of (1) enslaving everyone (North or South) to the consolidated Yankee Leviathan in Washington, (2) destroying the rights of the states and established the dominance of the central government, (3) destroying the spirit of the Constitution, (4) destroying the racial basis of American citizenship, (5) making the federal government the largest employer in America, (6) enthroning the corporation and (7) abolishing slavery to create BRA thereby creating "enitled groups" which had not previously existed.

The National Currency Acts of 1863 and 1864 created a system that would later form the blueprint for the Federal Reserve. The Acts created a system of Nationally Chartered Banks, and a 10% tax was placed, through those Acts, on all State Bank notes with the intent of completely driving State Banks out of business in order to create a federal monetary and banking monopoly governed and controlled by the federal government. By July of 1864, the Greenback Dollar was worth 35 cents gold…it was a disaster for the common man who had to deal with inflation during wartime. It was however, a boom for the government and for bankers who reaped the benefits of inflationism.

Remember the feds did it by forcing their own yankee citizens at gunpoint to come and kill, burn and basically became the terrorists that they claim to be at war with today.

Sean7k's picture

And yet, if those "regulations" you think are so good had been followed- concerning inalienable rights, those groups would have enjoyed their freedoms.