If Economists Are So Smart, Why Are They Always Wrong?

When I took Econ 101 and 102 as a young college student back in antediluvian times the textbook we were assigned was Paul Samuelson’s Economics: An Introductory Analysis. This book is the all-time best selling economics textbook and is still around today (19th ed.).

I had the 1961 edition. In it, Samuelson, a prominent Keynesian economist who won the Nobel prize in economics, predicted that the economy of the Soviet Union would overtake the U. S. economy in 23 years (by 1984). Even as late as the 11th edition (1980), Samuelson stood by his prediction.

As anybody who knows anything about the Soviet Union, their top-down centrally planned economy was a disaster that left its citizens in poverty. It was inefficient, wasteful, driven by coercion, politics, corruption, and cronyism. Consumer wishes were ignored. Goods were under-produced or overproduced. There were shortages of everything, except vodka and hydrogen bombs.

There was a joke floating around Moscow at the time about shortages: Yuri Gagarin’s daughter (he was the first man in space and hero of the Soviet Union) answers the phone: “No, mummy and daddy are out,” she says. “Daddy’s orbiting the earth, and he’ll be back tonight at 7 o’clock. But mummy’s gone shopping for groceries, so who knows when she’ll be home.”

They were far, far behind us.

So how is it possible that Samuelson and his fellow Keynesians could even consider that a planned economy could work better than a free economy? For 11 editions he persisted in believing that failed theory. And a generation of students left school with the idea that a centrally planned economy could work.

Mainstream economists today aren’t much better.

For example, one would think that you could rely on those economic wizards at the Federal Reserve, those guardians tasked with the dual mandate of creating full employment and stable prices, but they got it wrong too. In the run-up to the Crash of ’08 and the Great Recession, Ben Bernanke, the then chairman of the Fed, not only didn’t see it coming but he failed to grasp the magnitude of the problem when it hit.

The truth is that almost no mainstream economist predicted the Crash of ’08 or the ensuing Great Recession. Most economists, Bernanke included, were forecasting that the economy would recover soon and any downturn would be mild, and certainly there was no recession on the horizon.

If these are the brightest guys in the room, why didn’t they understand what was happening? It makes you wonder if these guys really understand how economies work. The obvious answer is that they don’t.

Therein lies the problem: contemporary economics is not able to explain what happens in the real world. The lack of valid theory, the improper use of mathematics (econometrics) and raw empirical research as a substitute for good theory has led contemporary economics to a dead-end. Even worse, they recommend economic policies that often achieve the opposite of what they intended and make problems worse. And, we end up paying for their mistakes.

Oh, dismal science, you have failed us.

So here we are trying to figure out what to do. Do we buy a house? Do we change jobs? Do we start a new business? Do we move to another town or state? Do we invest in the stock market? Do we invest in Bitcoins? Do we take on (more) debt? Do we buy a new car? Should we save or spend? Should we retire?

It would have been nice to know back in 2006, for example, that everything would eventually blow up (as it did in 2008). But the conventional wisdom then was that things were fine, don’t worry; it was the worst possible advice.

Business cycles occur on a regular basis. And boom-bust cycles are now the norm. At any given time, we are somewhere in the business cycle. The Fed, the generator of these cycles through its monetary policy, is always fighting the last war by attempting to bail out the last bust, and by doing so creates the next boom. If you don’t know where we are in the cycle, you can get crushed.

But, who can you trust?

It’s obvious that you can’t rely on conventional economic wisdom.

If you dig a little deeper you will find that some economists did see the 2008 bust coming, but they were ignored or laughed at. Most of these economists were free market types who understood the causes of the boom-bust business cycle. Also, some contrarian investors were aware of the problems and when the bust came, they made billions for their clients.

Let me impart a basic truth: no one can accurately predict the future. But, if you hear the train coming down the track, it’s best to get off the rails.

I am not an economist, merely a student of the science. I have shed my Keynesian upbringing as well as what the mainstream likes to think is economic “science”. On the other hand, free market economics has only helped my understanding of the economy and its cycles. I try to do what essayist Richard Epstein said, “True freedom comes only to a lucid mind unbound by conventional wisdom and suspicious of received opinions.” It’s not easy. But being a contrarian helps.

Which gets back to the question of “who can you trust?” Based on my 40+ years of observing and studying the economy and investments, I have formed some guidelines which have worked for me. Perhaps they may help you:

  1. Free market economists tend to be contrarians and you should listen to them—but if they are selling you something, run for the door.
  2. Contrarian investors are worth listening to—but if they are selling you something, run for the door.
  3. Because someone was right before doesn’t mean they’ll be right again.
  4. There are permabears and permabulls. Simple Internet searches will reveal who is who. Avoid both.
  5. If you increasingly hear experts say we are not in a bubble, we probably are.
  6. If you get advice from someone who says, “this time is different”, run for the door.
  7. If the stock market is making all-time highs, such as the present, it probably is too high.
  8. If home prices are at an all-time high, such as the present, they may be too high.
  9. If commercial real estate prices are at all-time highs, such as the present, they may be too high.
  10. If personal and corporate debt are at all-time highs, such as the present, there may be greater risk to asset values.
  11. A lot of debt at this stage in the cycle will kill you on the downside.
  12. Booms can last longer than you think.
  13. Be patient.

Source: AnIndependentMind.com

Comments

TeethVillage88s Mon, 09/25/2017 - 18:14 Permalink

What is wrong with Historical School of Economics?

".... Based on my 40+ years of observing and studying the economy and investments, I have formed some guidelines which have worked for me...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_school_of_economics (My Main Point Here)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Historical_school_of_economics

- Where is money created, where do these funds flow to... who misses out on funding flow from debt based money?
- Where are our nations wealth from labor going as investment, hoarding, speculation, off-shore accounts, trade imbalance, to foreign jobs, foreign investment in Brock & Mortar, Factories, services... how does this strip wealth from USA, What is Wealth Extraction in terms of Money Flows or Funds Flows, or Govt Spending Flows to State-Capitalism or monopolies... or spying on our people or our corporations of all kinds...

TeethVillage, Funds Tracker, County Auditor

Radical Marijuana TeethVillage88s Mon, 09/25/2017 - 22:16 Permalink

Globalized Neolithic Civilization has a political economy based on the powers of public governments enforcing frauds by private banks. Furthermore, the about exponentially advancing technologies are enabling those to become about exponentially more fraudulent. Therefore, accumulating apparent anomalies are becoming more obvious to more people, resulting in various superficially correct analyses, such as presented by the article above.The history of successful warfare based on backing up deceits with destruction became successful finance based on enforcing frauds. Indeed, warfare was the oldest and best developed forms of social science and engineering, while economics was actually based on the history of warfare, which in turn was the manifestation of organized crime on larger and larger scales.Questions such as

"Where is money created, where do these funds flow to... who misses out on funding flow from debt based money?"

may be answered through understanding how the vicious feedback spirals of all aspects of the funding of the political processes matched the principles and methods of organized crime.(See: Excellent Videos on Money Systems.)Mainstream economists are intellectual mercenaries, who are proportionately paid and publicly respected according to the degree that some aspects of their work can be appropriated to advance the agenda of the international bankers, who have become the best organized gangsters, the banksters.

"... how does this strip wealth from USA?"

Enforced frauds act as symbolic robberies of the many by the few. However, the majority of those many have already been way too successfully brainwashed by the banksters' bullshit to be able to comprehend the degree to which they take for granted believing in bullshit. Thus, there is no reasonable hope for the foreseeable finite future of Globalized Neolithic Civilization, nor for its single most significant component, which is currently the USA.Civilization was always based on being able to back up lies with violence, which always suffered from the problem that being able to do so never stopped those lies from still being false. Therefore, the prodigious progress in physical science and technology has enabled backing up integrated systems of legalized lies with legalized violence to be multiplied by many orders of magnitude, to astronomically amplified sizes.

"What is wrong with Historical School of Economics?"

Natural selection pressures drove the development of artificial selection systems to become socially successful by becoming dishonest, and so, are currently becoming about exponentially more dishonest. Everything operating within the Historical School of Economics has become the public presentations of the best available professional hypocrites. Since the actual fundamentals are ENFORCED FRAUDS, some of the corollaries to that were how the mainstream Historical School of Economics has become based on being able to bullshit about THOSE in the most elaborate and sophisticated ways which were humanly possible.Despite the accumulating apparent anomalies, there are no good grounds to expect that socially successful economists will stop being professional liars and immaculate hypocrites, who continue to deliberately ignore and misunderstand relatively rational evidence and logical arguments. There are intensifying paradoxes, which manifest as sets of consistent contradictions, that because Civilization necessarily operates according to the principles and methods of organized crime, therefore, the most socially successful people will not publicly admit and address that.Those who assert that "economics is not a science" are WRONG, in the same ways as those who assert that "warfare is not a science." Actually, the deeper dilemmas are due to the ways that successful social science takes advantage of being as deceitful and fraudulent as possible, which social successfulness then becomes vicious feedback loops, that enable those people who are best at doing so to become wealthier and more politically powerful, in order to then be able to even more get away with being deceitful and fraudulent. In relatively academic ways, that is also the situation within the mainstream Historical School of Economics.

"If Economists Are So Smart, Why Are They Always Wrong?"

Mainstream economists are smart enough to be the best available professional hypocrites, able to take advantage of their intellectual participation inside sociopolitical systems based on enforcing frauds, the successfulness of which depends upon making and maintaining the maximum possible bullshit surrounding those enforced frauds, in order to enable those to continue to operate as symbolic robberies.

In reply to by TeethVillage88s

new game Radical Marijuana Tue, 09/26/2017 - 07:19 Permalink

my takeaway is simple shit maynard: take what I can get legitimately within reason(survival).  be smarter than the average brainwashed merican(no big feat), and understand I am up against the class I am in(middle class). I really could care less about these fuks at the top skimming the billions and formenting war, that is until it comes to my front yard. and then I will act accordingly.but, agreed, in advance, of all you espouse...an ongoing shit show threatening the majority with ever greater destructive powers and force.it really is fuking sad, hence no real hope for the human species...eventually darwin will be prooved right once again.the cosmos will be the decider, not man(un)kind.

In reply to by Radical Marijuana

GoinFawr Radical Marijuana Tue, 09/26/2017 - 15:41 Permalink

"Globalized Neolithic Civilization has a political economy based on the powers of public governments enforcing frauds by private banks"right, "private" banks. Publicly owned banks worked ok for ~ 7 decades; McGeer Monetary Policy functioned adequatelyMcGeer Monetary policy works well with specie (coinage of valuable metals) because they are a credit instrument, rather than a debtor's promiseMc Geer monetary policy encourages gov't fiscal responsibility; eg. look at how frugal nations using it were before 1974, when:The 1974 Basel Committee recommendations, which were supposed to curb monetary inflation and reign in public spending, did the very opposite. Why?"Give me control of a nation's currency, and I give not one tiny shit about that nation's laws." (or something the like)

In reply to by Radical Marijuana

MortimerDuke TeethVillage88s Tue, 09/26/2017 - 11:18 Permalink

The problem with the Historical School is a belief in determinism.  We can learn from history, yes.  But we are not determined by it.  In other words, incorporating hsitorical trends in your analysis makes you a good economist.  Using the past to determine what the future must look like is not good economics.  We can get an idea of what the future will look like, but not an exact image.  Karl Marx used his historicism to predict the worker revolution would occur first in England.  Then the bolsheviks happened, blowing that prediction up and not insignificantly, calling iinto question his method - historicism.  Historicism has been pretty thoroghly discredited.  Carl Menger and Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk were the forces behind the thrashing in an episode know as the "Methodenstriet."  Both of these economists wrote extensively about the "poverty of historicism."  That phrase was used as  a title of a book written by philosopher Karl Popper who also destroys historicism but through philosophical arguments.  That wiki page cites Max Weber and Joseph Schumpeter as historicists.  They had historicist leanings and some historicist ideas but I'd stop just short of including them in the group of major influences.  Neither were as socialist as the rest of that crowd.  All that said, one thing that crowd got right was that mathematical modeling in economics is a waste of time.  And that, in my opinion, is why mainstream economics is so lame.  They've borrowed the method of physics which is wholly inapplicable to "particles" that actually have brains, can think, can emote and can learn.

In reply to by TeethVillage88s

TeethVillage88s MortimerDuke Tue, 09/26/2017 - 12:12 Permalink

Really appreciate the kind response.

I'm not as well read. I suppose I rely on instinct & intuition. I look at data, look at trends, look at Fake US Statistics... while admitting I can be corrected and can misunderstand what I am looking at. Trends in US Geopolitics & Economics & Corruption all look pretty bad. IMHO we should share some horror at what the USA has become and how we are being harvested of our money creation both through debt-based and labor categories.

The Book Capital by Thomas Pikety is controversial. But attempts something of the sort I have in mind. Apparently data put out by govts must be corrected by anyone attempting to interpret.

Karl Marx seems to point out that Economics is part of Social Science, Socio-Economics, and we can see how the Union movements were needed 100 years ago to reform capitalism. Slavery in the West was only defeated a short time ago and women in the USA & England got the vote even more recently. US Domestic Policy, Trade Policy, Tax Havens, Banking Schemes, Lobbying Schemes, Gift Giving, favoritism for big business and institutions, State Capitalism, Accounting Control Fraud, laspses by FTC & SEC... all seem to have gotten worse. We gave away the farm in 2008-2011 Crisis. US Congress fails to target and control legislation resulting in McCain-Feingold type foul-ups, TARP Foul-Ups, 10 Years of LIRP/NIRP/ZIRP foul-ups, insensitive congress & central bank foul-ups, planned inflation as public policy foul-up destroying social contract & social fabric as well as Labor & Middle Class Wealth.

Trends are very poor. No Leadership is on the way. DC Govt statements are nonsense, 24/7.

I would say today... the past laid out by "Capital" by Pickety is right on the mark... policy should Reform 1) USD/Currency 2) Financial Industry & standardize all Financial Instruments 3) Reform Statistics to broader definitions of Inflation & Unemployment & under-employment, while narrowing in on what GDP really means, what it's components are, remove inflation, remove Boskin reforms, remove govt spending... plan for deflation not inflation... make housing a kind of utility so that supplies are not limited from being on the market and so that prices can come down... break up Universities, break up MSM, down size TBTF banks... change economy from financial management of a Financial Center... finance doesn't actually build with labor so shrink industry and perhaps make credit and money "utilities" that serve the people. Reduce Taxes & Usury. work to bring down costs of public utilities (deflate).

How about we deflate the cost of our Military (Deflate). Then deflate Health Care. We can no longer afford the cost of US Brand Capitalism. The data is clear.

In reply to by MortimerDuke

lasvegaspersona Mon, 09/25/2017 - 20:12 Permalink

Wealth...it is far more than stuff and way far more than paper promises. On a national level once equipment sits idle it will soon go from 'capital equipment' to junk.The rule of law is tenuous, if we lose that all wealth is at risk.Education is a form of personal wealth. Make sure you get the good stuff though.How to save wealth is the question of the era. If you are very rich a Picasso may be the answer. If you are poor then you will need suvival goods not wealth assets. If you are able to save then gold is the most fungible item and the one most likely to increase in value in a crisis.If you are unsure where you fall in the scheme of things...I'd figure that out first.

GRDguy Mon, 09/25/2017 - 20:48 Permalink

In 1961, economic education was already under Federal Reserve superision.The profession was rewarded for lyin', (even if they really didn't know the truth)while those who told the truth lost their teaching jobs. 

Reaper Mon, 09/25/2017 - 21:07 Permalink

Economists are modern alchemists promising to turn dross in gold, aka money.   They use mathematical abstractions as their magic potion. 

Golden Phoenix Mon, 09/25/2017 - 21:51 Permalink

Traditional economists spend their time pushing a cooked spaghetti noodle. They have a product to push and tell people what they're supposed to want and do. That's why they don't like free markets. That's why they don't like freewill.

Aireannpure Mon, 09/25/2017 - 22:25 Permalink

With fiat currency running wild there are no economists. Austrian school says it all and makes it all pretty simple, like most things really smart folks mess with it and it fails. Fiat currencies make economists artists and very abstract. We are doomed. Raise the debt limit as always and lets have tax cuts?? Are you high?

Blue Steel 309 Tue, 09/26/2017 - 02:55 Permalink

The "Social Sciences" have no value, because they have no definition. They shouldn't exist, because there are better tools for understanding the things they claim to be interested in. It's like "I want to study big green things, lets start a new academic field!".

CRM114 Tue, 09/26/2017 - 05:58 Permalink

In a word, feedback.That's why economists are always wrong.I have an engineering degree, and a one year course on economics. I've got every crash right in my lifetime. I've seen them coming at least 2 years away, and so far got the timing sorted about 4 months out from the event. My brother's a cab driver and mechanic, so he has a PhD in Realism ;). He's worked the crashes all out too, independently of me. He pays and receives cash for everything, so he knows exactly what M2 really is, even though he doesn't know what the term M2 means."I'm a bit short now, can I pay you for that brake job next week?"Economists do not gather feedback from what is happening to real people on the ground. They take some nice sanitized numbers and pretend they know what's happening. They assume everyone down the line is going to be honest, thrifty, and sensible. They don't chase down obvious incongruities. They don't listen to truckers having breakfast at the next table. They don't wonder how on Earth someone working shifts at MaccyD's has a brand new truck. Maybe they do hear about business conditions from senior management at dinner parties, but probably not enough. Economists are boring b@stards; few people invite them to parties. And the nice, sanitized numbers are even less connected to reality now than last time.

Harry Lightning Tue, 09/26/2017 - 07:08 Permalink

Economics as a science is most often wrong in fulfilling itgs mission of predicting economic trends for a quite simple flaw in its operational methodology.Simply stated, it tries to drive a car forward while looking in the rear view mirror. Economics in many ways was a subsidiary of history, the concept being that if you know what happened in the past you, can learn from those events and look for when they are repeated. Then you will know how best to deal with the events since you saw them before.Along the way, fnancial market participants as well as government and corporate planners said that it was not enough to have a database of events and how to deal with them when they happen. Instead, what would be msh more useful is if the events could be predicted before they happened with some degree of probability, so that dealing with the events could begin before they occurred. As a corollary, central bankers thought that if they had a good understanding of what events were coming, they would have the means to dull the baneful effects of those coming events.And so the study of econometrics began. Basically, none of it works because you cannot predict the chronology of future events. I know there is a business cycle, I knw the economy will do well and perform poorly. I just don't know when. I can try to use a set of forward looking indicator and with a big enough staff and enough time I can use what happened in the past to model which indicators will predict what swill happen in psecific sectors of the economy going forward. But it is an incredibly complex task that relies all too much on the premise that history repeats itself down to the very granular level. In fact it may do thayt, but not at regular enough interb=vas than to allow for generalized rather than specfic predictions. Variables change too quickly and for unpredictable reasons. Models require more reliable informaton and periodicity. Which explains why the central abanks and most economic groups fail in accurately predicting economic trends. For where it is the duty to worship the sun, the laws of heat are poorly understood. There is an over-reliance on methods and indicators that very well may not be as valuable or as predictive as thought. And perhaps there is no Holy Grail, no Rosetta Stone perhaps it is a random walk through the economic life of a financil system that cannot be accurately predicted. If that is the case, and all of our empirical data says it is, then the best economics is to wat for a trend to develop and get on board. Stay with it until a counter-trend takes precedence. Don't sweat the small stuff. Most everyone nows what goes up and what goes down in economic expansion and contraction. Stick with those general rules and you;ll probably do better than the economists. Definitely better than the central bankers.

Memedada Harry Lightning Tue, 09/26/2017 - 07:30 Permalink

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tabel - Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tabel - Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
Economics as a science is a good idea. It should be tried. Instead of economic as religion as represented in the article above. 

In reply to by Harry Lightning

Memedada Tue, 09/26/2017 - 07:28 Permalink

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tabel - Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
This article was a waste of space and time. The author himself is obviously one of the deluded “economists” who clings at his empirically disproven theories because he’s made a living out of them. Wonder who pays him for this drivel? Ahh, just looked as his biography: the usual suspects of corporate fascist propaganda institutions…

overmedicatedu… Tue, 09/26/2017 - 07:43 Permalink

crime, crime crime..the very smart reptiles have rigged everything and modern tech has made it much more efficient..economics just hides the fact ..Henry Ford, a genius, said: this is his real statement..The people are naturally conservative. They are more conservative than the financiers. Those who believe that the people are so easily led that they would permit the printing presses to run off money like milk tickets do not understand them. It is the innate conservation of the people that has kept our money good in spite of the fantastic tricks which financiers play-and which they cover up with high technical terms. The people are on the side of sound money. They are so unalterably on the side of sound money that it is a serious question how they would regard the system under which they live, if they once knew what the initiate can do with it.

Lucky Leprachaun Tue, 09/26/2017 - 09:02 Permalink

Peter Sutherlland, NWO open-borders globalist (although he claims to be a 'proud Irishman') ex-Chairman of Goldman Sucks and overall genius allayed fears in Irish banking systems in 2008. 'The Irish banks and the Irish economy in general are on a sound and prosperous footing.'  He went on to describe naysayers as 'unpatriotic'. Less than three months later one of the biggest busts in history took place with the Irish tapayer left on the hook for all of the bank debts.

Silver Savior Tue, 09/26/2017 - 10:18 Permalink

The only economist I trust is one who says we are in a recession now and heading for a great depression and one who looks to silver and gold as the savior of economic activity. All others be dammed!

UnKeynes Tue, 09/26/2017 - 10:55 Permalink

They call themselves "Keynesians", but that's just to afford themselves some believability with the economically ignorant masses.  The over-arching plan of those at the top is to manipulate economies worldwide and to enrich themselves as quickly as they can, while impoverishing the rest of us, eventually bringing everything down in a heap, according t the "Illuminati's" motto, "Ordo ab Chao", order from chaos.  Central to this plan is a continuing accelerated rate of inflation, which they claim is "beneficial" to the economies of the world.But Lord Keynes himself said something quite different on the subject of inflation, didn't he?From “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” by John Maynard Keynes “Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch (devalue/inflate) the currency. Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch (devalue/inflate) the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one in a million can diagnose. By a gradual, continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity (fairness) of the existing system of distribution of wealth.” Please note that the operation of this process is totally independent on the type of economy, whether “capitalist”, “socialist”, “communist”, or “other”, and 100% dependent on the power that the banksters have over the monetary life of the nation. As Lord Rothschild said, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.” This happened to the USA in 1913, with the creation of the “Federal Reserve”, and later expanded with the creation of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, a totally UNregulated quasi-governmental organization, answerable to NO ONE, which has the ability to LEGALLY manipulate the price of the dollar, precious metals, etc. (i.e., through buying and selling futures contracts (“paper gold” & “paper silver”) in unlimited quantities, using funds created by the Fed). 

TeethVillage88s UnKeynes Tue, 09/26/2017 - 11:16 Permalink

Once Europe became alarmed at our spending in Vietnam & stealing from Social Security Trust Fund... US Ratings and World Reserve Currency & Breton Woods Agreement & US Credit Ratings all lead to currency crisis. The Fiat, USD, then was always going to be deflated to 'game the system'.

It is all a progression:

1964 - Gulf of Tonkin, Congress gives up War Powers, Legislative Powers, and Budget Powers
1971 - Smithsonian Agreement, decoupled USD from gold standard,
1973 - War Powers Resolution (Allows 60 days combat/war without congressional declaration)
1974 - Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (R. Nixon)
1978 - Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978,
1980 - Depository Institutions (J. Carter, followed by S&L Crisis, 5000 convictions, RTC)
1981 - Executive Order 12287, (R. Reagan, removed price controls on Petrol)
1982 – Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act
1984 - Caribbean Basin Initiative (Free Imports to USA)
1985 - Plaza Accord
1987 - Louvre Accord
1992 - Energy Policy Act (H.W. Bush)
1994 - NAFTA, Deregulation of Trade, 3 Nations (W. Clinton)
1995 - Community Reinvestment Act, the Clinton Admin urged flexibility,
1995 - HUD advocated greater involvement of state and local organizations
1996 - Energy (W. Clinton, followed by ENRON Scandal)
1996 - Telecommunications Act (W. Clinton, cross ownership)
1997 - M2 Money Velocity Top
1998 - Brooksly Born Rejected on her concerns on OTC Derivatives
1998 - Derivatives expanded and were not regulated
1999 - Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (Phil Gramm, followed by 2008 Financial Crisis)
2000 - Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (P. Gramm)
2002 - McCain–Feingold Act, soft money unlimited
2005 - Energy Policy Act (subsidies, excluded clean air Water acts)
2005 - CAFTA-DR Ratified,
2008 - 2014 QE & LIRP/ZIRP (B. Bernanke, J. Yellen, B Obama)
2010 - Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
2014 - lift ban on crude oil exports (Commodities Deregulation)

In reply to by UnKeynes