252 responses to “Ron Paul Reacts to Ben Bernanke as TIME Person of the Year”

  1. Steven Streets

    The gold standard advocates miss the point. Article One section 8 and 10 form a bi-cameral standard of two Two (2)types of precious metal elements. A single commodity legal tender standard, like a single house legislature is too easily monopolized by a single body politic. It’s too easy for the gold industry to manipulate the market value. All the best arguments on behalf of the Federal Reserve fail the monopoly test and that has to be the focus of efforts to reform the monetary system of the free United States. It(US CONST.) puts all supervision of value in the bi-annual elected house of Representatives. Taxation by representation at work with Legal Tender Authority in the locally accountable state governments keeping a close eye on local banks and economies.
    Unicycles don’t have any static or dynamic stability. It takes a lot of energy to keep them upright. A bicycle is easier to control and maneuver if it’s in motion. 3 wheelers and 4 wheelers have both static and dynamic stability if designed well but they are slow and not as efficient as the 2 wheeler. A ten wheeler does what a ten wheeler does well but it can’t be useful as an efficient standard. No economy stands still and the more wheels the slower. Two wheels are ideal. A bi-cameral Legal tender system.
    The only just and lawful improvement we can make to our Constitutions mandate for a bi-cameral precious metal legal tender system would be to add a third element to the mix and that would be Platinum. The already existing bi-cameral system is ideal as a National Standard because of its efficiency and simplicity. Compare the FedResv monopoly to the rider getting rid of the tires because his inflated fat butt keeps blowing them out! The results are predictable and We are Witness. Even Alan Greenspan confessed the need for the Gold standard (to give the Fractional reserve banks something of worth to steal beside their own toilet paper).
    A lot of these postings go off on bizarre conspiracy tangents as if common theft by a monopoly was anything more than that. We have to focus on educating the public and politicians to the bi-cameral mandate of Article One section 8 and 10 and why it’s there in the Law already. It really is a simple matter of confronting a powerful illegal monopoly and restoring to all Americans the equal protection of the Constitutions legal tender laws. It’s been done before in many other industries.
    Beware of pacifism and its un or anti American connotations and anti-Semitic racist nut cases stealing the credibility of efforts to defend the Constitutions legal tender Laws. The Orthodox rabbis are all about righteous laws. So are Americas Gung Ho troops sworn to defend the Constitution. The Constitution alone is the undeniable moral and legal force for this cause and it must be the focus to be successful. The abortion issue has to be separate also. The law is clear and just in defense of liberty pertaining to the one issue government can and must be effective at, the uniform standards of useful stable money.
    I would love to show my case for getting rid of the income tax through a government monopoly on the popular intoxicants and how that can fund health care, military, and a debt free rainbow covered pot of gold in every house but it dilutes the all important FOCUS ON THE CONSTITUTION’s Article One section 8 and 10 mandate for a bicameral precious metal legal tender system under the direct authority of the several states. Focus your energys on that one law over and over again if you want any hope of success in money reform. Memorize it. Repeat after me.
    Article One section 8 and 10;
    “The Congress shall have power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of Weights and measures.
    No State shall; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”
    See how easy it is. This has to be the mantra to unite all the competing interests and body politics in defense of the Constitution as already written or your spinning your wheels in a muddy rut. Every thing I just wrote is a redundant waste of verbiage you will all forget shortly but not the force of the Constitutions defense of Itself.
    See how easy it is.
    Now go spray paint (gold and silver paint) it on a big bad banks window if you want to get radical “Article One etc…” but dont deface government property!(it belongs to me and my patriot friends) that means it’s OK to scratch off or black out the words on the Fed note falsely claiming;
    “This note is Legal Tender”.
    See how easy it is?
    Why you still playing on the computer patriot! We can win this one.
    The US Constitution is out unsinkable ship.
    All aboard!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Jay Giallombardo

    LaRouche: Declare the Fed Bankrupt; Establish the Third National Bank

    August 3, 2009 (LPAC)— U.S. statesman Lyndon LaRouche was asked [snip] questions about the role of the Federal Reserve system.

    Question: Where did the Fed get all the money it’s handing out? Answer: Basically, they printed it, out of thin air.

    Question: Who told the Fed governors they could to this?
    Answer: Nobody. Not Congress or the President. The Fed alone, among government agencies, does not submit its budget to Congress for authorization and appropriation. It raises its own money, and sets its own priorities.

    LaRouche: First of all, I think we’re going to have to recognize that the Federal Reserve System is [snip] bankrupt. It is a private corporation, which was created, unfortunately, by the U.S. government, in a certain manner of speaking, under Woodrow Wilson. It is bankrupt.

    Who is going to pay those debts? All this money issued, is a debt. All this utterance is a debt. Who is supposed to pay? Who contracted to pay that debt?

    I know that the Federal Reserve system is bankrupt. It covers up for its bankruptcy by printing money. This reminds me of Germany in 1923, doesn’t it? [snip]…the United States has to have the guts to declare the Federal Reserve System bankrupt. That’s the way to get at it. It is bankrupt, and let it prove that it has assets, to cover this utterance. If not, we put it into bankruptcy.

    What we do is, we simply get rid of it by bankruptcy. Just take it off the books. It’s bankrupt; it took itself off the books, by going bankrupt. Easiest way of skinning that cat.

    Now, then what we’re going to have to do is, we’re going to have to develop the Third National Bank of the United States. And what we will do with that, is essentially assigned to the Treasury, but it’s not an extension of the Treasury otherwise. It has a relationship to the Treasury, by being authorized, but a Third National Bank, exactly as Hamilton prescribed for the first National Bank. And we will take a little carefully guarded barbed-wire, etc., thing, down in the basement of the Third National Bank, and inside will be the remains the Federal Reserve System. Held in captivity for purposes of audit only.

    And that’s the way to get rid of it. Because we have [snip] to manage the relationship which the Federal Reserve System has established with the chartered banks of the states, and the national banks. We have to rescue those.

    How? By a Glass-Steagall kind of clean-up act, of all these banks. We’re going to have to create credit to keep these banks, many of which are bankrupt, but are essential to communities, functioning. We’re going to have to use these banks, saving them, as a way of generating the distribution of credit, to maintain an economic recovery.

    Now, we have then this private-public relationship, and how do we deal with that? Also with international accounts. We deal with that through a National Bank. So we use the National Bank as a facility to promote things.

    [WITH A NATIONAL BANK IN PLACE, LAROUCHE COMMENTS ON NATIONAL "MISSION" PROJECTS TO REBUILD INFRASTRUCTURE]

    What we also need are projects conceived in the form of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Now, that’s an ideal thing, because it had a primary purpose, but it also had a lot of other things that went with it, to fulfill its primary purpose. So, what we need is a national transportation development, under some name, which essentially takes care of this railroad-maglev system, and takes care, as the Tennessee Valley Authority did, of all the things that are auxiliary to that system.

    [snip]…we have a problem of getting transportation from the New York area, to Chicago, overnight. And the problem was, the train could do it much more effectively and cheaply, but you had to sort the thing out. The classification management problem was great.

    [snip]

    Remember, New York City’s problem was the fact that it was deindustrialized. New York City died because it did not have the revenues to carry itself, in its operation, because it was deindustrialized. So, if we reindustrialize the area—and we don’t have to have smoke [and] filth all over the place, we can use now new, modern technology, like nuclear technology—and we can take the New York area and keep the people who are industrially skilled [snip]

    We need a transportation system [from] Chicago [to] New York by improved rail. The truck thing was a menace [,] a waste of time.

    We need a national transportation system, which is oriented to an agro-industrial mission. We need to get a situation nationally, so that we don’t have super-industries.

    {Commenting on location of homes and businesses} People commuting for two hours [snip] is insane. {Snip]
    The effect of that on family life, is monstrous, particularly when you have two members, adult members of the household, maintaining a family with children—what the hell is the result of having a two and a half hours transport each way, every day? Are you human?

    We destroyed the entire development of the western United States. We concentrated everything in a few areas. We congested them with automobile traffic, instead of efficient mass transportation systems. We should have decentralized. We shouldn’t have built such big, giant, over-sized corporations; we should have built smaller units, distributed in various parts of the country, in the rational way we used to approach this.

    So, we need a national development program, which is based on this function of transportation, which means also building the water system, the NAWAPA [North American Water and Power Alliance] water system, and other things, because we have a real problem with water supplies in the western states. We’re going to have a food supply problem. We’re destroying agriculture. We’re destroying the industrial-agricultural relationship, with globalization, and other kinds of insanity.

    What we need for this period, is national mission orientations, of the type that Roosevelt used, and Henry Wallace used. We know, those kind of approaches, to take the infrastructure development of the nation, thinking of it as a living economy, and thinking about it as a place where people live, and work, and have homes, and have schools, and have medical facilities. And think of that, and say, we need a national transportation reorganization plan, for the United States.

    We have a vast territory, relatively speaking, and we should just go back and develop it. And the way to start with your transportation grid, knowing where you’re going, and the transportation grid is coupled with your water problem, the water-management problem, both for traffic and for water management. And building up the aquifers in areas where they’re being destroyed. And taking advantage of that.

    Forestation, instead of greening. A tree is worth much more than grass! Up to 10% of the solar radiation used by a tree is incorporated in the tree. The grass? One or two percent. So you want to have more trees. You want to have a reforestation program for areas. You want a development territory. All of this comes under the question of transportation. And we need probably a national transportation project, like a national space program, or an international space program. And these kinds of programs will drive us, as long as we have a future orientation, in the direction we want to go in.

    We have to think about two generations from now. You young guys: What are your grandchildren going to look like? What kind of life are they going to have? Who’s going to get to Mars first? Who’s going to be able to get back?

    Respectfully submitted and edited
    Joseph G.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Nate Y

      A few problems…

      1) The Federal Reserve IS the Third National Bank. It was just given another name.

      2) LaRouche provides another example of his confused thoughts. He recognized the virtues of decentralization but at the same time argues in favor of a National Bank (which centralizes power) and in favor of absurdly large capital/infastructure projects implemented by the force of a central authority. The cognitive dissonance is staggering.

      3) How to pay? LaRouche has an annoying habit of never even giving a hint as to how these infastructure projects are to be funded. How are we going to pay for the MagLev system? How are we to fund the colonization of Mars? How are we to pay for the aquifers? He never says. He never even gives us an idea. Perhaps this is on purpose as the ways to fund such projects are limited, crappy, and wouldn’t go over too well with a disgruntled citizenry dealing with unemployment, shaky employment, a declining standard of living, etc. The projects would have to be funded through taxes or through borrowing. New taxes wouldn’t sit too well with a population living through a severe recession/depression and that is already taxed to the hilt. How about we borrow the money? Probably not a good move for the already biggest debtor nation to keep on borrowing and spending. Also, who will lend us the money? Other governments? Even if they are willing, do we really want to add to that debt? Nope. That would just hurt us in the long-run. How about we borrow (steal) it from the people? Can’t do that as it would make his hypocrisy all the more apparent So he has nice sounding ideas. But he provides no way to see them through. Why? Because there is no way of seeing them through.

      »crosslinked«

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Jay Giallombardo

        Nate,

        1) No, the FED is not a national bank; it is the Federal Reserve. And there is a big difference. 2) Isn’t there a difference between a National Bank that works for the concept of reinforcing National Sovereignty, productivity and the welfare of the citizens vs the FED which works against all of those goals, as it is above the control of the USA. The FED is a corrupted form of banking that should be abolished in the United States. And they way to do that is to make it prove that it has assets behind the money it prints. It doesn’t, and that’s an easy way to dissolve it and put into its place a Real National Bank that serves the interests of the American People.

        3) What you hold onto Nate is your Aristotlean “fixed” view of the world; there is only so much money, there is only so much resource. The truth is that energy is unlimted and physical production is unlimited and creativity if unbound is unlimited; therein lies the wealth of a nation.

        When the idea of a Mars or Moon mission is proposed, you quote all the ways it can’t be done, too costly, improbable. The other approach is to use your brain to figure out how to make the vision a reality. You don’t propose a mission and then say, “Well I guess we can’t afford it”, “We can’t do it”, “It’s impossible”. “We don’t have money”. What you do have is the creative human mind, and that is all the resource you need. You use your BRAIN and you and a team figures out how to do it.

        The Astronauts are in space on Apollo 13, and the C02 scrubbers are not working…”Well, ok, guys you’ll just have to die.” Is that your answer? No, you give the engineers what they have in the capsule and say, “Figure out how to save these guys using this material. Get those scrubbers working”. And, they did!

        Using fictional analogy, Captain Kirk beats Kobiyashi Maru by changing the underlying computer simulation.

        That’s what you do with any great project, or any life-death situation. You act and you just DO it and, along the way, you try to convince nay-sayers that see things in “static” terms the dynamics of how the world really works. And certainly don’t listen to people that have no vision, no imagination, no creativity.

        If you were a fly on a window pane, you would try to fly out but something (a window pane) stops you. A person with a brain either breaks the glass or goes around it. That’s what creative people do.

        We are not going to listen to the fly-brained, are we?

        Joseph G.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Nate Y

          I do not take an “Aristotlean “fixed” view of the world”. Resources are not fixed. I have never made that claim nor said anything that could possibly be construed as an implication that I hold such an absurd notion. But resources certainly are LIMITED or SCARCE. That is the distinction that you and LaRouche don’t seem to understand. You have both deluded yourselves into thinking that because the human imagination is unlimited then it means that everything is unlimited. Let’s tap that human mind potential. How do we do it? All we have to do is have Lyndon LaRouche and the other proper philosopher kings in place. What makes them the right guys for the impossible job? They say they are. They’ll tell us what to do. They know the answers (but they don’t give them). And if we don’t like it they take a page out of the Hamilton playbook and force their visions upon us. They (obviously) honestly believe that they can properly allocate scarce resources based on little more than a the fuzzy feeling they get when they imagine the (supposed) benefits of their pet projects. Forget freedom, prices, and the profit and loss system. We have imagination!

          You absolutely must tell how these projects are to be funded if people are to take you seriously. There are two ways available to the government: Taxes or borrowings. Pick your poison.

          If you don’t have to tell us how you plan to pay, then why stop with aquifers, a Mars mission, and a MagLev system? Go ahead and promise more. Promise everything! Univesal healthcare? Sure we’ll provide it. Unlimited food and energy? You got it. Engaging supermodel wives? Done and done. The human imagination is unlimited!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Nate Y

            Is your Apollo 13 analogy meant to suggest that I think the people aren’t capable of working their way out of this mess? If so, nothing could be further from the truth. I have the utmost confidence in the people if they are left free to sort out their own affairs. I have made this quite clear in my other posts.

            But I suppose this is not the intent of your analogy. It’s possible you fancy Lyndon LaRouche as the head engineer and believe he has figured out how to “get the scrubbers working again”. There are at least three problems with this. First, by what right does Lyndon LaRouche propose to “engineer” society? Why should he or anyone else have control over the lives and property of others without their consent? Second, he doesn’t provide the means to achieve the ends. You may protest with something like “What are you talking about? The means are the MagLev, the Mars Mission, the aquifers, etc”. But what are the means to the MagLev, the Mars Mission, the aquifers, etc? These things don’t magically manifest out of nothing. This irksome funding issue will come up again and again until you address it. Again, you have two choices. Taxes or borrowings.

            Also, what if these infastructure projects and space missions turn out to be nothing but spectacular wastes of time, money, and energy? It is as if this very real possibility doesn’t even cross the minds of world planners like Lyndon LaRouche. It wouldn’t be an issue if they were playing with their own time, money, property, etc. But they seek to make everyone a party to the risk and have the gall to think themselves righteous. Again, the hubris is incredible.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. sean

            the dollar is not going to collapse, if that is what you are implying nate.

            Larouche is against fractional reserve banking and is for returning to the gold standard. You have such backwards thinking of some imaginary disconnected society where people don’t travel. We can’t half a million different currencies floating around, nobody would accept anybodies money. And no currency could compete with the dollar. Banks, or money creators only have LIMITED resources. only the government has real wealth, the wealth of the gold. This isn’t medieval times from your video games or books.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Lindsey

        Nate Y: I agree with you! LaRouche has not thought out the consequences of his ideas of putting us more in debt!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Jay Giallombardo

          So, not only does he have to come up with the mission, but he has to figure out how to pay for it.

          I believe he already has…following the principles of Alexander Hamilton and a National Bank.

          And he also suggested how to rid ourselves of the Debt that the FED has incurred…

          Not bad for few day’s work!

          Joseph G.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Steven Streets

    “Time” just became an analog clock in a digital world. I wouldn’t bet my stocks on it’s accuracy. The Noble Peace prize was pure dynamite! This one is a blast. At least Green$pan had a name worthy of the job.

    So whoses side you on Ron? AF Academy or Houston? I wanna hear this.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. longshotlouie

    Michael J. Badnarik, the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2004 elections and a former software engineer and radio talk show host has suffered a heart attack. Badnarik is also the president of the 2009 Continental Congress.

    Badnarik was in Madison, Wisconsin, attending a hearing regarding a raw milk case when he collapsed, according to Gary Franchi, the National Director of Restore the Republic. “After the hearing he got in a car to go to lunch with friends, He then slumped over. His friends attempted CPR and contacted the paramedics. They attempted to revive him 3 times with no success. Upon the 4th attempt his heart was revived yet with erratic behavior,” writes Franchi in an email.

    Michael was taken to a local hospital in Wisconsin and fitted with a temporary pacemaker and a balloon pump to ease stress on his heart. He remains in an unconscious state and his condition is listed as serious.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Jay Giallombardo

    Folks,

    I will stop here…but this is great stuff…
    Joseph G.

    Excert from Lyndon Larouche…

    An Economy of Art & Science

    The trouble to be confronted at this point in the report, is, that not only is the term “creativity” widely misused, that most of the time; but, even in physical scientific practice, the taught notion of the power of creativity is usually, wrongly assumed to lie within the domain of a physically inert function of Euclidean or quasi-Euclidean mathematics of monetary or financial transactions as such —or, worse, mathematics traced to Euclidean geometry, or to the more radical forms of taught contemporary reductionism such as the very radical positivism of devotees to the worship of the infinitely evil Bertrand Russell.

    The characteristic of actual scientific creativity, is that expressed by Filippo Brunelleschi’s discovery of the use of a physical curve, the catenary, to make possible the successful construction of the cupola of Florence’s Santa Maria del Fiore; like Nicholas of Cusa’s discovery of the fundamental principle of competence in modern science in his De Docta Ignorantia; Leonardo da Vinci (e.g., the use of the relatively least-action physical curve, the catenary-tractrix, as a principle of construction); Johannes Kepler (the uniquely original discovery of a general Solar-systemic principle of gravitation); Pierre de Fermat (least action); Gottfried Leibniz (the calculus, the modern conception of modern dynamics); Abraham Kästner (non-Euclidean geometry); Carl F. Gauss (seemingly everything); the brothers von Humboldt (masters of the organization of Classical education and physical science); Lejeune Dirichlet (the role of the imagination in physical science); Bernhard Riemann (all competent modern physical geometry); Max Planck (the access to the principles of microspace, contrary to the followers of Ernst Mach and Bertrand Russell); Academician V.I. Vernadsky (the respective principles of the Lithosphere, the Biosphere, and the Noösphere); and, Albert Einstein (the essential interdependence of Classical art and physical-scientific creativity).

    True science is originally located outside the bounds of deductive method. It lies within what can be best identified as the functional domain of the Classical artistic imagination, such as the relevant work of a Dante Alighieri, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, the latter’s followers Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael Sanzio, and Johannes Kepler, Rembrandt, and Johann Sebastian Bach and the domain of Classical counterpoint typified by such faithful followers of Bach’s discovered principles of well-tempered counterpoint as Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, and so on, or, great poets and Classical dramatists such as Gotthold Lessing, Friedrich Schiller, John Keats, and Percy Bysshe Shelley.

    The image of physicist Albert Einstein with his violin, has crucial-experimental significance on this account.

    “Effective science and Classical art are united in their great practitioners’ intuition of the fact that the human powers of sense-perception do not provide us a direct representation of the experienced reality, but are in the nature of shadows which reality casts upon the mere senses. We must adduce the real object, which is an unseen object, from the patterns among the shadows, as Johannes Kepler shows in his uniquely original discovery of the general principle of gravitation in his The Harmonies of the Worlds. The case of Helen Keller also illustrates this point with a certain nice-ness.”

    The work of the true scientific and creative Classical artist, is to decode the signals of sense-perception, by experimental methods of exploration of those relatively extreme instances in which deduction from sense-perceptual certainties collapses, as with the case of both Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of a general principle of universal gravitation, in his The Harmonies of the Worlds; Fermat’s discovery of least action; Leibniz’s uniquely original discovery of both the calculus itself and the higher principle of universal physical least-action; and, what Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann developed out of the foundations prepared by Kästner’s student Carl F. Gauss, which are typical of this.10 All among these were the fruit of the work of Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia, and, it must also be said of the work of the ancient Archytas, Plato, and Eratosthenes earlier.

    These considerations which I have sampled immediately above, have been selected as crucial illustrations of a matter of principle; this point must be understood, if a science of physical economy is to be competently recognized, and addressed for practice. It is human individual creativity as such, as I have just pointed out, on which any competent notion of an actual science of economy must be premised. Crucial is the fact, that all creativity, including that of physical science, lies essentially within the domain of the individual’s Classical-artistic imagination, as the case of Albert Einstein’s violin might suggest, and also Lejeune Dirichlet’s influence on the work of Bernhard Riemann. A scientist who lacks a maturing of the intellect in Classical artistic composition, is systemically crippled in some fashion which will show itself in his or her practice, as I have often seen, sooner or later.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Jay Giallombardo

    Economic Failure:

    Thoughts of Lyndon Larouche….

    Failures of economies come chiefly as a fruit of lack of needed emphasis on investments in scientific-technological progress, in, chiefly, both A.) the form of the increase of the energy-flux density used to drive technological progress, B.), the needed increase in physical-capital intensity, for both production and relevant basic infrastructure, and, C.) the investment in the increase of the scientific-discovery-impelled, increasingly energy-intense, productive powers of labor, rather than matters of monetary and financial investments as such.

    Any monetarist sort of refined statistical treatment of the economy which is not utterly wrong, might be apparently right occasionally, if only temporarily, and, even that, only in some usually questionable reading of “local” patterns, patterns which are ultimately, irrelevant, because the assumptions to which the partial data presented correspond, are either irrelevant, or simply wrong, that as a matter of fallacy of composition, when reconsidered from a broader view of the real (e.g., physical) economic process as a whole.

    Presented by Joseph G.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Nate Y

      Economic Failure:

      Thoughts of Lyndon Larouche

      Couldn’t have said it better or more succintly!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Jay Giallombardo

        Nate:

        Yes, you could have. It is spelled: “succinctly”
        A cheap shot is just that: Cheap, because it is lacking
        in substance.

        There is a science of economy. And most economic systems (like Austrian Economics) fail to look at the factors of economy in terms outlined:

        A.) the form of the increase of the energy-flux density used to drive technological progress,
        B.), the needed increase in physical-capital intensity, for both production and relevant basic infrastructure, and,
        C.) the investment in the increase of the scientific-discovery-impelled, increasingly energy-intense, productive powers of labor, rather than matters of monetary and financial investments as such.

        So if you have a real answer to why economics fail, then refute these claims…and please be succinct.

        Joseph G.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Jay Giallombardo

    For those interested in what happened since 1945 to lead us to this state of financial breakdown, this history is compelling and fascinating:

    Joseph J

    (Excerpt by Lyndon Larouche
    December 4, 2009

    Keynes as an Evil Man

    With the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, what had been his perspective for the post-war world, was changed, under Churchill admirer and U.S. President Harry S Truman. Under the nasty toady of the decadent British imperialist faction, Truman, the empires of the world, such as those of the British, French, and Dutch, were re-established for a time, some, still, in fact, to the present day, as under the shackles of the British Commonwealth.4
    There was another crucial aspect of the change from Franklin Roosevelt to Wall Street’s choice, Harry Truman, an aspect which is of crucial importance for understanding the origins of the crisis which plagues our United States in this present moment of its terrible, existential crisis. That was as follows.

    Most among those who have examined, more carefully, the case of John Maynard Keynes in his roles as, variously, person and economist, could not honestly deny that the relevant, essential elements within him are to be recognized, still today, as extremely perverse, even, in some respects, plainly evil. The outcome of that mixture is best recognized through taking into account both the content, and the intent expressed by his publishing of his noted General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, first, in a German edition addressed to Nazi admirers of what Keynes recommended for “totalitarianism,” in his Preface dated September 7, 1936. Keynes, like Bertrand Russell, was truly a notably evil man of that time.

    President Franklin Roosevelt had been implicitly clear on the fact of this noxious character of Keynes. The President acted in the briefly successful effort, at Bretton Woods, to ensure that Keynes’ monetarist influence should not be tolerated within the United Nations design for a post-war world economic system. However, immediately on the death of President FDR, President Harry Truman joined both Winston Churchill and Keynes in forcing a Keynesian interpretation on the policy-shaping of the U.S. and world economy, while Truman, at the same time, supported Churchill’s return to colonialist forms of imperialism, to the extent the current traffic seemed willing to bear.

    What survived of Franklin Roosevelt’s economic policy then, was, most notably, the admission that the world economy could not survive the arrival of peace, without the establishment of a U.S. dollar as the pivot of a post-war fixed-exchange-rate system. Even the British Empire was compelled to accept that, temporarily.

    So, in brief, there was the temporary replacement of Roosevelt’s intention for a fixed-exchange-rate credit-system among nations, by a fixed-exchange-rate, dollar-denominated monetary system: Roosevelt’s legacy was stripped of its strategically crucial, real, physically principled content, by the loutish President Truman and his fellow-ideologues.

    Later, through the freedom to unleash a more radically pro-British policy, obtained through the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, there came the combination of the prolonged Indo-China war, and the subsequent role of British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, who employed a Schumpeterese “creative destruction” swindle for the wrecking of the productive basis for the British home economy, and also using consequent manipulations of the price of Pound Sterling for setting up the Vietnam-war-torn U.S. dollar for the crisis of January-March 1968.5 The U.S.A. under Richard M. Nixon, unleashed the wrecking-job which was then accelerated under an inept President Jimmy Carter, and which led, since the post-1987 installation of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker’s successors, Alan Greenspan, and his successor, Ben Bernanke, into the ever-worsening, savage ruin of the U.S. economy, up to the present moment I write here today.

    By Summer 2007, the successive stages of ruin of the U.S. economy under the corrupting influence of the post-October 1987 successions of Chairmen Greenspan and Bernanke, had already led the world to the verge of a general breakdown-crisis of not only the U.S. economy, but also that of South and Central America and western and central Europe, all, still to this present today. At a point, two decades later, in my July 25, 2007 international webcast, I identified the world as being on the verge of a general, potentially hyper-inflationary, breakdown-crisis of both a hopelessly bankrupt U.S.A. of that moment, and, also, the European set of economies now under the tightening dictatorship of Britain’s imposition of the colonialist characteristics of the Euro system.

    It happened just as I had forewarned.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Jay Giallombardo

    Matt:

    There is a need to envision where you want to be in the future.
    Assuming that the market forces alone will get you there assumes that markets have brains.

    Investment for reaching a future goal requires capital and a Nation can USE not ABUSE the idea of “self-credit”. It is used for the purposes of stimulating scientific breakthrough and for building infrastructure for the purposed of increasing the production of labor. Those principles if taken over the long term with 1-2% long-term, interest rate…can produce the increases in productive labor and technology that we seek.

    We should be going to Moon, Mars, (building fusion-powered rockets) we should be investing in the World-wide “mag rail” system (Bering Strait Tunnel) and the Nawapa-Phlino Water reclamation project (on the books since 1960) would irrigate Arizona and much of Northern Mexico for massive agricultural development.

    Lastly, we need to move full steam ahead with Nuclear Power, Thorium and Breeder Reactors, to reduce oil dependency. Nuclear Power is required to sustain the human population in the future.

    Joseph G

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. sean

    I’m not in favor of the fed at all, but this is an interesting chart. It shows that the more independent a central bank is, the lower the inflation is…

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Alisna_and_Summers_Central_Bank_Independence_vs_Inflation.gif

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Jay Giallombardo

      Would you trust any data coming from Summers in regards to inflation?
      He is a fraud, a globalist and bankrupted Harvard…

      Joseph G

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. sean

        These are known facts, just research Switzerland and Germany’s central banking instead of commenting out of ignorance.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Jay Giallombardo

          Sean:

          You don’t need to add insult to your factual assertion which then questions the validity of your statement. Instead show the proof from the source and let your “facts” carry the weight of your argument.

          That we should argue about which system creates less or more “dubious” inflation statistics is less fruitful than simply stated that there is a major difference between a Hamiltonian National bank and what is called the FED.

          Hamilton’s bank was under the control of Congress and the President and was validated by the Supreme court in 1819. The constitution to-date supports a “Hamiltonian” National Bank. It does not support a bankrupt International Banking Cartel above sovereign control, even if that what was voted for in 1913.

          And if the world is in the throes of Keynesian manipulation which has been the case since April 13, 1945…therein lies the problem of irresponsible market tweaking.

          So your implied argument does not support an more Independent FED, Switzerland or Germany not withstanding.

          Joseph G.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. S

            Jay, your manners of written communication sure ‘sound’ like an elitist from the left side of the coin.

            It’s true that respect is important when discussing important problems that need to be solved, and true is the ‘saying’ about freedom of expression, so in honor of that freedom I tell you what I think about economic theories:

            They sound pretty, they read elegant, they even are seductive when reading them, but when it comes to reality, to application they just turn out to be a fake, kind off like a magic realism, lots of reality overshadowed by a very efficient magic.

            Ok, important to review, to question, and propose, but if does not work in practice is either because it is faulty the theory or simply screwy the implementation or ‘implementators’.

            In other words, it has to work in practice or is no good, or just fancy words. That is the problem.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Jay Giallombardo

    Global Warming

    “Brown harrumphed that, if only there were a global police state to stop such obstructionism, things would improve: “One of the frustrations for me was the lack of a global body with the sole responsibility for environmental stewardship.” To remedy that defect, Brown announced that he and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were going to propose that the EU be emissions policeman not just for the EU, but for the whole world. According to the Daily Telegraph, “the plan emerged after U.S. President Barack Obama suggested that monitoring could be done using spy satellites.” (Source: LarouchePAC)

    In Hayek’s book “Road to Serfdom” he advocates the same global police force when it comes to choice of currency. These two statements of “global police force” sound very similar and links the British Empire to the re-emergence of Austrian Economics in the late 19th century.

    Austrian Economics re-emergence was a result of Otto Von Bismarck, a huge admirer of Lincoln, adopting American Economic principles to bring Germany into the industrial revolution. This was happening also in Russia and China and Japan and it was undermining the power and control of the British Empire.

    They fought back, and eventually through conspiracy and intrigue of the British, Bismarck was removed from power in 1890 laying the groundwork for the destruction of Germany in WWI. The British assassinated McKinley which opened the door to Teddie Roosevelt and his view of American-Anglo world dominance. Britain typically in this period fomented war for the mutual destruction of its rivals. Had McKinley not been assassinated, WWI would have never taken place.

    My point is that a National bank is essential to National Sovereignty. Corruption does not occur BECAUSE of the National bank, but from the undermining and corruption of outside forces upon National Sovereignty.

    The FED is not a National Bank…it is an International Cartel that is above the control of Sovereign Nations. That is why the FED must be abolished and replaced with true National Bank which by law is NOT allowed to manipulative interest rates and other Keynesian folly upon markets, but strives through international treaty for FIXED exchange rates between nations. This was the deal at Brettonwoods and was corrupted by Harry Truman and the British. The corrupt comes from the British Global monetarists that will attempt to bring down any system they don’t control. If you understand who the real enemy is, you have chance of defeating them.

    America can wipe out the British Empire, which is now on the verge of global economic collapse, with a 4-Powers Initiative for a new “Hamiltonian” economic system of “credit” between Russia, China, India, and the US.

    To do so requires the American People to act to return to the constitutional and economic values of America and throw out the “bums” in 2010.

    Get rid of Obama in 2012Ron Paul may be just the leader we need at this time.

    Tea Party! Mass Strike! Stay the course and keep the pressure on!

    Joseph G

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Jay Giallombardo

    Folks,

    On review, the Hamilton information had some typos that I couldn’t edit, but it was clear enough…so I will not use up space with a reprint. If you’d like to read it (or did so anyway), it is good information.

    My browser editor kept jumping around and I could not edit my note. Has anybody else experienced that? I guess for a longer note I should edit off line, that might be the wiser approach.

    Joseph G.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. JayGBardo1

    Sorry folks,

    the message on hamilton..the editor messed up and I was not allowed to edit.

    please disregard it.

    I will send a corrected version

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. JayGBardo1

    Nate,

    Very good. I am glad that I am worthy again, despite Mr Rice’s reservations (ha).

    HAMILTON –

    Hamilton was highly respected by his peers. He was also trusted by Washington as the First Treasury Secretary of the new USA.
    He had an uncanny integrity except two notable lapses in discretion, that I will mention later.

    He was hated by Aaron Burr and the Manhattan Banking Crowd. There were two major NY City Banks at the time. The Bank of Manhattan, leaning toward London and FREE-TRADE. The NY City Bank was a commerical bank actually run by FDRs grandfather who was a “Hamiltonian”. (There is a lot of history between Burr and Hamilton. I’ll leave that for your to investigate).

    The mistake that some make is assuming that Hamilton was tied to London and was a British-like aristocrat, snobbish, looking down on the common man. These were lies and falsehoods by his detractors, probably disseminated by Aaron Burr, who was tried but not convicted for treason, and was a general low-life, scumbag. Any quote about Hamilton is betrayed by the mutual animosity, probabably traceable to Burr should not be believed.
    Burr shot Hamilton in a duel in 1804. Hamilton fired his gun into the air, like a gentlemen would do, and Burr not know the tradition, just shot him; tragic senseless death.

    Hamilton argued for the American economy by increasing the productivity of labor to increase wealth and welfare of the citizen. He knew the virtues of agriculture, but wished to also add manufacturing to the economic mix. Jefferson, being the agrarian he was, distrusted this. But, Hamilton had the genius to see that manufacturing was of great boon to any economy and wrote profusely on the subject of manufacturing. In that view he was quite modern for the late 18th century.

    Hamilton’s philosophical view was just the opposite of the negative view of humankind delinated by Descartes including the British philosphers: Malthus, Hobbs, Locke and other degenerate types. Hamilton saw productive labor as wealth and that National Sovereignty of America was our only protection against British (foreign) colonial explotation or intervention.

    Hamilton was born in the Caribbean, saw slavery first hand, and was orphaned at very early age. He learned accounting at the age of 10. He was a genius and prodigy and eventually went to Kings College in NY. General George Washington spotted Hamilton’s leadership qualities immediately and made him an officer who proved to be quite a courageous tactician and fighter in the war.
    There are some fine stories of his battle exploits.

    This is a very different view of the foppish aristocrat that was painted by his detractors to discredit his ideas. He did make a political error publishing negative phamplet on John Adams and had a scandalous marital affair. But he is probably most famous for his “Federalist Papers” where he outlines his view of the nation, banking, and economy.

    It was a unique American economic model that Hamilton espoused in the Federalist Papers. And the first national bank of the USA was created in 1971 to assume the debts of the states to strengthen the national prestige of the budding nation, to make it “credit worthy”. Some of the states wanted to just “throw off” their debts after the war. And Hamilton said, “No, we must honor them or we will never be credit worthy nation” And he was right.

    Hamilton was a great figure in early American Society. At his death there was a huge gathering of people to pay honor and respects. He differences with Jefferson and Adams is well documented and it is somewhat the basis of our two-party system today.

    Jefferson was mostly fearful of a strong central government because of the oppession it typically leads to. But it was shown that without a stronger central government of the American kind, we were very vulnerable to attack frorm the British Empire. After the congress let the 1st central bank charter expire in 1811, we immediately went to war with Britain in 1812.

    We fought the British to a standstill again by 1815 and Madison and the congress immediatey rechartered a 2nd National bank in 1816. What does tell you? A stronger national government was needed to thwart attacks from the British. This gave the US another 20 years of strong economic growth, particulary the Erie Canal under JQ Adams.

    I could go on…but I hope that settles the issue that Hamilton was a great US figure not to be demonized by Americans or anyone.
    Washington, JQ Adams, Lincoln, Grant, Garfield, McKinley, and FDR and JFK in part where ALL Hamiltonians and presided over periods of unprecendented ecomonic growth in the United states.

    If we look at the economic growth during the those periods of time, we find a general increase of productive labor and advancing scientific discovery and technology. I cite the Erie Canal in 1827, Westward Expansion in 1870-1890s, FDR (slow but eventually) economic recovery in 1930s and industrial expansion in the 1940s including the development of Nuclear energy, and finally the Moon Mission of JFK.

    My next note will be on how the current FED differs from a true “Hamiltonian” National Bank.

    Joseph Giallombardo
    Credit for this information (which is stated in my own words) goes to: http://www.larouchepac.com/
    PBS production: Hamilton

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Ted O'Connor

    Any questions? I’ll answer them the best I can

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Jay Giallombardo

      Ted,

      What is the scientific definition of economic value?

      Joseph J.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Jay Giallombardo

      Ted,

      So, how does a dam get build under Austrian Economics?

      How do you deal with the political argument that one region (or state) gets a dam because ‘they can afford’ it, and another area, that could use the dam doesn’t get one, because it has no money, or no education to see the advantage that such infrastructure brings.

      Your thoughts?

      Joseph G.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Ted O'Connor

    Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name.

    Heraclutus

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Ted O'Connor

    I’ve never worked for anybody but myself. Contractor since I was 15. RU arging that servitude is better than no job? When hindsight is 20/20 everone knows, any 20/20 going forward? I respect all the ancient architects of our economic and physical well-being. But How about this. Before the world was created there existed angleic beings that flew up and down tirelessly in God’s wonderful creation. One angel saw that they were getting tired so he beseeched God for a place to put his and his fellows feet. 4 times over a period of 100,000 years he asked. Still nothing. The only reason something happened was when he declared war. Now, hell is a lack of a place to put your feet – do we need to protect this gift? Seriously. What I say is true and it’s before creation. Over riding principle is “don’t screw up this gift”

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Ted O'Connor

    America does not produce or export anything but inflation. I wouldn’t buy your debt. Ohh, the welfare housing market? No one is going to buy the MBS’s. Bair already said. So how about argue about the here and now?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Lawrence Rice

      One action that should be taken by the Federal government in the ‘here and now’ is to sell off most, if not all, it’s “hard assets” (e.g., real estate/land), privatize many of its operations and then use the proceeds to pay down the debt.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. JayGBardo1

        Mr. Rice,

        No…it is exactly the hard assets that must be protected through bankruptcy proceeding of a “Glass-Steagall” standard.

        All the derivative debt is wiped off the books, 25 trillion or so. And then every one can go…”ah…doesn’t that feel good.”

        I believe that is called bankruptcy and the speculators, who gambled, lost!

        McCain has already introduced legislation for the “re-enactment” of Glass-Steagall.

        Joseph Giallombardo

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Marianne to Lawrence Rice

        THAT is an EXCELLENT idea, Mr. Rice! The private sector would
        then build our economy, hire American workers and PRODUCE GOODS
        not shuffle papers that are only a burden on ALL of us,

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Sean

          nobody wants to buy real estate that is devaluing. You have to wait till the economy gets better after the prices bottom out, and then they will sell off the assets..

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Lawrence Rice

            Jay and Sean,
            Bull! The Federally owned land in this country is worth a fortune and, in my opinion, the Federal government has a duty and responsibility to its people and its creditors to help “clear up” the mess it has created. This is a sure way of accomplishing that to a sizable degree. However, I do agree that this should be done as shrewdly as possible.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. JayGBardo1

      Ted,

      In arguing about the here and now, you make a good point.

      The way ahead is with the 4-Powers Initiative. It is a new economic “credit” system with fixed international rates of exchange along the lines of Brettonwood.

      These 4 Powers: Russia, China, India and the USA are strong enough economically to break the British Empire which is in the throes of collapse right now. Under the Larouche Plan, Sovereign Nations maintain their own currency and would operate on fixed international rate of exchange.

      China is NOW using the USA debt (about $1 Trillon in US Treasuries) as credit to finance Russian infrastructure development which would extend from Sibera down into China.
      Russian President Medvedev has stated that Russia is going rethink its development away from exportation of natural resources and intends to re-focus on science and internal development. (This is very Hamiltonian and Larouche has their ears!)

      India is on board along with Italy, Brazil, and Sudan Some meetings took place in Copenhagen aligning against the “nazi” tactics of the environmentalist hoaxsters. The fraudulent science of “Climate gate” has been exposed as a hoax, doctoring and fudging the data to attempt to prove their case. Scientists across the global are rejecting these lies. As a result, Copenhagen was a total failure for the British, a major defeat. They got nothing despite the involvement of the Queen, Philip, Charles, Blair, Brown, and Obama..Failures, all!

      A lot depends on what the US does now. As of now, Obama is through politically. The majority of Americans reject his direction of higher taxes, British imposed austerity, Nazi-healthcare, assault on industry and agriculture, and high unemployment. He is the worst first-term president in the history of America.

      This opens the door for a new US President in 2012. The 2010 mid-term elections will be telling. But the American people have to keep Tea Parties and MASS STRIKE going strong until we get the right person into the oval office.

      Ron Paul seems to be a front runner.
      Joseph Giallombardo

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Ted O'Connor

    Credit grows debt

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Ted O'Connor

    The Constitution is on the side of Jefferson and not Hamilton. Those rules weren’t made for extrapolation or interpretation as to likes or dislikes or convenience. Money is not transient as it’s Constitutionally decreed. It’s law and it’s being violated. Why aren’t we going back to Vietnam? No money? Use your heads – hey guys, can i float a debt with you? Sure, not working and have no intention of paying it back – but hey, I’m good for it

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. JayGBardo1

      Ted:

      Well, sort of, Jefferson distrusted big government, but also conceded in his later years, that with the continued onslaught of the british empire, a stronger national government was probably necessary. Theory is one thing, but when the enemy burns down your capitol, you have to fight back, which takes “capital”.

      It is a question of balance. If you assert that real wealth is in physical production of labor and not on “monetary” derivatives, people benefit from the surplus that they can create..that is wealth.

      Hamilton assumed the debts of the states to build the strength of the national government, mostly to provide a sense of “creditability”…which translates into credit. You have to invest in the infrastructure and scientific research and discovery in order to create the technologies that help to increase productive labor. Thus under JQ Adams and the 2nd National Bank, the Erie canal was developed which was boon to commerce. Under Lincoln and through Henry Carey (Lincoln’s treasury secretary), the US went from a maritime economy of the east to a continental ecomony of the west, epitomized by the inter-continental rail-road. Of course that too was eventually corrupted by British financial interests. ( I won’t go in to the history here)…

      At the Ron Paul Site, we are all agreed that the FED is not the kind of “National” bank that Hamilton conceived…it is but a tool of the RothChild Banking Cartel (what Larouche labels the “British Empire”).

      A few great Presidents practiced the Hamiltonian model of infrastructure investment…if we do so again, we can return America’s industries, jobs, and move ahead with science, technology, and continued economic progress.

      But a true Hamiltonian style of credit is based on the principles of increasing the productive of labor through proper investment….Not trillons of bailout dollars to prop up speculative institutions.

      Joseph Giallombardo

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Sean

        Thomas Jefferson went behind the back of the congress to make the Louisiana purchase. Many say that was the biggest leap of executive power in american history. That would be like George Bush signing mexico and canada into america, like what everyone believed he did.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Nate Y

        “At the Ron Paul Site, we are all agreed that the FED is not the kind of “National” bank that Hamilton conceived…it is but a tool of the RothChild Banking Cartel (what Larouche labels the “British Empire”).”

        No we are not all agreed on this assertion. There are those here, myself among them, who despise Hamilton and his idea of a “National Bank”. And there are those, myself among them, who do not see the Fed as a tool of the Rothschild Banking Cartel or whatever you want to call it.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Sean

          Not to be a jackass about it, but the treasury is our national bank which a government must have.. The fed is a central bank, which is totally different.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Sean

            Hamilton’s motive was to take responsibility for the bankrupt states. The reason why Jefferson opposed this was because his state already paid back half of their debt… but we can’t have some states fail. We rise and fall as one country.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. JayGBardo1

            Sean,

            Hooray!

            …somebody else that supports a national bank vs what the the FED is doing. Is that a fair assumption?

            Joseph G.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Sean

            ya i agree.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. Nate Y

            If the Treasury is our national bank, why did Hamilton argue for, and eventually establish, The First Bank of The United States (national bank)? The US already had the Treasury department. Why establish another national bank?

            You’re very good at making absolutely no sense.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. Sean

            The treasury prints the money, collects the taxes, pays off the debt, and pays everything else. The treasury funds national banks like citi, bank of america, and wells fargo. The federal reserve is a totally different structure. It taxes banks, borrows money overseas for the government and is lender of last resort.. We don’t need the fed, only a national bank.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          6. Sean

            i was just talking to you in general, i wasn’t talking about alexander hamilton.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. JayGBardo1

          Nate,

          Then what do you see the FED as…what is their interest?
          Why do you despise Hamilton? Washington thought very highly of him. The Wall Street crowd hated Hamilton, particular Aaron Burr and Van Buren. So there seems to be a disconnect here somewhere? Was it because Hamilton’s National Bank was actually in opposition to the WALL STREET FREE-TRADERS of the British Empire?

          Why do the Global Warming nuts want to de-industrial the world?

          There is a distinct relationship between the bankrupting of America and the “Global Warming” agenda of “Population Control” which comes DIRECTLY from the British Empire.

          Didn’t we hear directly from the Queen of England, Charles and Philip about the importance of an agreement out of Copenhagen. What seems to be their interest in this?

          So let’s hear what you have to say.

          Joseph Giallombardo

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. Marianne to Nate Y

          Dear Nate,

          As a History teacher and voracious reader for over 60
          years, you are quite wrong both about Alexander Hamilton AND the Fed.
          Do some research and check them carefully for truth.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Nate Y

            How about you enlighten me? Be warned, I’m not impressed with the argument from authority. I don’t care if you’ve been a history teacher and a voracious reader for 10000 years. I haven’t even said anything controversial about Hamilton in this thread. All I’ve said is that I despise him and his ideas. Come to think of it, I haven’t even said much about the Fed in this thread. I believe I mentioned it once in passing. For the most part, I’ve been only talking about the virtues of freedom, the Austrian School, and countering Jay’s nonsense.

            Anyway, two can play at this game…

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Loki

            Marianne,

            How dare you question Nate Y’s posts? I have a PhD in both History and Economics and have read a book a day for the past 40 years. I can guarantee that everything he says is correct. In fact, here’s a little known secret. Nate Y is actually Odin and he is master of all he surveys.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Sean

            lol loki needs a life.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. Ted O'Connor

    It’s not a financial crisis, it’s a moral crisis. Who is saying gold is just a pretty antique and not worth value that’s been given it for thousands of years? I really lose you guys in your dissection of worth and history into archaic references. Why don’t you go for the most obvious? Floating currency is a confidence game, a scam. All this talk of Aristolean and Platoistic, Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian, it all comes down to sublime simplicity – anything that dilutes the rights of man reduces man. It’s as simple as having a soul and moral compass. Can we force banksters to have a soul when they don’t? I look around and I’m ashamed.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Lawrence Rice

      Ted,
      You have spoken rightly: America’s problem is not financial, it is moral. American culture is suffering from a moral problem and until we are willing to admit this and deal with it we are deluding ourselves. I’m glad to see someone state it so plainly.
      Americans, generally speaking, are illiterate in many ways. We fail to recognize the inescapable fact that throughout the history of civilization there have been, and can only be, two “powerhouses” of meaning in any society; Religion and the State. Without going into an extensive discourse as to the “Why’s?”, suffice it to say that we have allowed the State to become the dominant source of meaning in our society and culture and what we are witnessing are the effects of this fact.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Lawrence Rice

        Ted, (or anyone else who may be interested),
        Although it does not deal with economics specifically, I highly recommend the book “The Gagging of God” by D.A. Carson for a broader overview of why we are where we are.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. JayGBardo1

      Ted,

      You are right. We try to justify with examples of history and the interpretation of the history gets us bogged down at times.

      I would contend that the “Fixed” view of the world of Aristotle vs the Platonic view of a “Dynamic” world is critical in the discussion. The Renaissance was the confrontation of the old Aristotlean world (the Earth centered) vs the new science of discovery rooted in Plato. And the debate continues to rage today.

      There is a wonderful painting by Rafael entitled the “School of Athens”…in the center is Aristotle and Plato. Plato’s arm and hand points up to “God”, the creator. Aristotle’s hand reaches forward as if to control a world from the perspective of empiricism. Interesting reading is the interpretation of this great painting and the others in the picture.

      I would simply say that “RothChild Banking Cartel (British Empire) is Aristotlean…and AMERICA as the founding father’s intended followed Plato, particularly Jefferson and his writing of “inalienable rights” of man endowed by the Creator. If you look at all arguments on these issues, they tend to fall on either side of this long historic debate.

      Here is a great short documentary about the first 1620 colony.

      http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=10565

      Joseph Giallombardo

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Sean

        Thats crazy! I’m related to william brewster. I have a thing about him on my wall.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. Robert

    END THE FED

    READ THE BOOK

    infowars.com

    henrymakow.com

    goodnewsaboutgod.com against the NEW WORLD DISORDER

    why dont you all YOUTUBE THE SPEECH THAT GOT JFK KILLED
    and listen to it

    END THE FED if you want america to be free

    and we NEED OUR CONSTITUTIONAL troops HOME NOW

    not when they are all DEAD

    obama is a muslim LIAR and you can take that to the BANK

    OBAMA

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. Ted O'Connor

    Welcome to Kleptocracy.

    Government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite.

    You probably have all seen this? ZEITGEIST: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912#

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. Brandulph

    Lawrence Rice says:
    December 19, 2009 at 12:01 am

    Brandulph,
    As an American citizen who is sick and tired of seeing and hearing our officials use lofty rhetoric as the pretext for their spending sprees on war and death, I assure you, there are MANY, MANY Americans who do not like what is done in our name and wish we could bring the young men and women who volunteer for our military home to their families and friends. It is long overdue.

    Hi there Lawrence,
    – Your present President’s lofty rhetoric is not HIS, but that of your shadow government the “Rothschild Clan”. Hence those MANY Americans must wake up and face reality. Explain your sons and daughters what the warmongers call them; “useful idiots”.
    – ATTACK the men, the organization behind your politicians, the shadow government. Take away from them their astronomical profit on all the wars. Stop their screwing around with other peoples countries.
    – Wishing, hoping and praying will however not bring any end to the “Rothschild Clan’s” perpetual looting of you and the still potential coming generations, nor the countries they terrorize!
    (With the horror of Viet Nam and Cambodia just some thirty years behind us, it appears to me as if Americans suffer from a common absolute amnesia.)
    – What the “Rothschild Clan” dragged you into in Viet Nam, was also a “war” about oil… I KNOW, I was there. (If you don’t believe me, google “South China Sea+oil”) And! the rhetoric used back then was identical to the one used today… “domino effect”, “prevent communism from spreading” verses teh Bush/Obama “prevent spreading” and “al-Qaida-Taliban-Islamic terrorists”.
    – And by the way, when talking about “radical Islamic terrorist groups”, what can be more radical than issuing a fiat money with “In God We Trust” printed on it, and having some 800 military bases spread around the world? That is nothing but pure modern day colonialism… or global terrorism to phrase it differently.
    – But again, the global terrorism by the “Rothschild Clan”, in the name of America, cannot be ended with hope nor prayers nor “lofty rhetorics”. Neither is Ron Paul good enough, as he doesn’t offer a detailed viable plan on how to cope with the major “economical amputation” he is fronting. To suggest “gold standard” and “Austrian economy” is fine, but what are the “crutches” offered to the patient when he regains conscience?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Jones

      1-Work with salary in industry that produces something needed, and trading where competition is fair (salaries in china yield higher profit that in turn bring down home industries).

      2-Regulation and accountability

      3-Less innovation for war and war profit, and making unfavorable the monopolies to crush emerging new, small and medium, businesses. But for real.

      4-Redesign of benefits: it will improve the whole health care sector, the work environment, and the real family values, and the real personal values.

      5-Freedom with responsability

      Etc. Little changes that if implemented will go a long way into officially declaring a new economic system that will stand the test of time (actual currency can never be the people or their knowledge, that is a deformed slavery system)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. JayGBardo1

    I understand why those who think Austrian Economics is the “cat’s meow” would necesarily criticize FDR as failure. Re-emergence of Austrian Economics with Mises was a reaction by Rothchild/HaapsBurg tradition against Otto Von Bismarck who had adopted American Style Economics of Abraham Lincoln for Germany in 1879. Through the British conspiracy Bismarck was ousted by 1890 but warned of the impending 7 years war with Britain which ultimately came in the form of WWI.

    FDR was not a FREE-TRADER and therefore by the AusEco perspective must therefore be condemned for his socialistic ways. FDR did a lot of good with Hospitals, infrastructure, rural electricy development. If you had let the market decide, Mississippi would probably still be run on kerosene. Market’s don’t have minds; people do.

    Austrian Economics main axiom of “non-government intervention” would then necessarily preclude FDR from presidential greatness.

    Yet, by the American People FDR is considered the Greatest President perhaps surpassing Washington and Lincoln, certainly the greatest of the 20th century. Elected to office 4 times.

    For those of you holding to your anti-FDR beliefs here is a link to a contrary view which will probably not change the view of the rigid…but it’s worth a try.

    By Eric Rauchway
    http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/61131.html

    Thanks for listening

    Joseph Giallombardo
    PS Don’t get me wrong…I am Ron Paul fan. I hope he is PRESIDENT in 2012. But Austrian Economics plays right into the hands of the British Empire. Mr. Paul needs some continuing education on that matter.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Lawrence Rice

      Jay,
      Just out of curiosity, how old are you and where do you get your information?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. JayGBardo1

        I’m 59 years old…and as you may have deduced this information, the history, is from Lyndon Larouche.

        In a way, Mr. Rice, I express these view, which are different than the AusEco crowd is used to hearing 1) to get your reaction and viewpoint and 2) to use your rebuttals to validate my information. AusEco perspective changed with the influence of Milton Friedman and the introduction of the metaphysical aspects (which are platonic in origin vs the typical Aristotlean view that predominated up until 1950. I learned that in one of the lecture video by one of the Austria fellows that gives lectures on the subject.

        But it is important that you know the history and not just accept axioms given.

        Joseph Giallombardo

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Lawrence Rice

          Jay,
          Yes and no. To be honest, as I read through your earlier statements I found myself wanting to attribute some of them to youthfulness due to their incoherence and lack of clarity and cogency, but, I see I cannot do that; You are 59 yrs. old.
          I don’t want to use this space to shame you or anything else since Nate is doing quite well at pointing some of this out. However, I would recommend putting down much of the Larouche stuff and getting your mind around something much more intellectually rigorous and, in the end, satisfying and productive. This is just my opinion though.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Nate Y

      Your arrogance is wearing thin. You say “markets don’t have minds. People do”. Such childish platitudes might work on others but they will convince no one here. If you can reject the market with such flimsy logic, you must necessarily reject any form of social organization (including government) on the same grounds. But you’re obviously a big fan of big government. So cut the bs.

      I once held FDR in high regard. It’s tough not to when you are constantly told by your US history teachers that he saved the US with the New Deal. However, like many others, I have come to hold him in a negative light as a result of learning real (Austrian) economics. Almost everything he did served to benefit wall street and Washington at the expense of the common man. He even went so far as to steal the people’s gold with Executive Order 6102. This disgrace wasn’t even mentioned during my schooling. And I imagine for good reason. After all, who can support a person who steals from the common person on the street in order to enrich a select few in Washington and New York?

      Seriously dude, stop with this “British Empire” nonsense. You must clearly see how confusing that phrase is. It is constantly misunderstood. Just use the more accurate “Rothschild baking cartel” if you want to describe the conspiracy you believe has taken/is taking place.

      Actually, I think I’m just wasting my time. Your posts are so off the wall, littered with complete fabrications and wild speculations that I don’t think any response is appropriate.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Lawrence Rice

        Nate,
        Well said. I’ve been following this discussion the last couple of days to see how it would evolve. I guess you beat me to calling him out on his assertions. He does have a fertile imagination. Hopefully he will put it to truly good use.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. JayGBardo1

        Arrogance..no, passion. Why express something apologetically?
        Your false characterizations fly in the face of your own argument. When I say, “markets don’t have minds, people do”, it is a methaphor. This relates to the biosphere of nature which follows natural, even geological, processes for creation. The act of the mind is “willful”…and it is the human creative mind that can change the natural world by force of will through scientific discovery and the application of technology to increase the productive labor of mankind. It is in this labor and production that realth wealth resides, not in monetarism (the assumption that money has value).

        I also send the message that “laissez-faire” markets play into the hands of the Empire. That’s what they want you to believe.
        The British Empire (Rothchild Banking Cartel based in London) would have you believe that markets DO have minds and if you just leave them alone they will create wealth. In the meantime as the Empire controls the money, they control the market, and you (we) control nothing. And, if you buy into their notion of FREE-TRADE, they will then come to your shores and take all you have.

        The force of the empire can only be broken with an alliance of nations that use a different system of money, their own currency to control the physical development of their nation.
        These nations need to have power and population. Larouche suggests Russia, China, India, and the US.

        Larouche argues in defense of the Nation State, and I believe Ron Paul does also, in the constitution of American. But where they differ is in a Hamiltonian National Bank that is controlled by the government of the Nation, not an external International Banking Cartel (like Rothchilds/London).

        You can have a gold standard, but the point is moot. When the enemy comes on your shores with gunboats and soldiers, you will print money and build your army to fend them off, and not say for minute, “Ok, no money for the army because we don’t have the gold”.

        How else will you defeat them? Hayek suggestion in his book “Road to Serfdom” that we need an international police force to protect the freedom to choose currency. Do you really want that? Isn’t the Nation State the better source of protection? That is actually the founding principle of America, with sovereign national borders.

        Joseph Giallombardo

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Nate Y

          You have proven yourself unworthy of dialogue with your blatant lies and misrepresentations. You have demonstrated an willingness to acknowledge and respond to the thoughts of others. I (and others) have presented arguments against your positions but your counters amount to little more than “you guys are merely drunk off the Austrian Kool-Aid. We just need the right philosopher kings like Lyndon LaRouche in the places of power and everything will be just fine and dandy”. Theory suggests such a philosophy is absurd and history bears it out time and time again.

          You have also completely changed your statement regarding Hayek and the Road to Serfdom. First you said he suggests “a world police force used to PREVENT Sovereign Nations from determining how people wish to use their money.” now you claim he said “we need an international police force to protect the freedom to choose currency”. First you say the “police force” is to impose a form of tyranny on sovereign states. Now you have done a complete 180 and say the international police force serves to keep people free. He never uses the term “police force” in the final chapter of The Road to Serfdom.

          Also, you use a completely alien definition of the term “Monetarism”. You seem to think that Austrian Economics is synonymous with monetarism or that Austrian Economics is merely a form of monetarism. You couldn’t be farther off the mark if you tried. In fact, the ideas held by LaRouche and the so-called American School of Economics include the key aspect of monetarism. That aspect is a national bank headed by the proper philosopher kings with the intent of using monetary policy to promote productive industries. The Austrian School is dead set against such an institution because it cannot achieve its desired ends. Over time, such an institution only serves to distort the economy, promote malinvestment, expand the power of government at the expense of the people, make people poorer than they otherwise would have been, and a develop a host of other negative consequences. Such is the price of incredible hubris.

          You also don’t appear to understand what the word “axiom” means.

          I mean, seriously, how are we to have a constructive dialogue with you when you state “I express these views…to use your rebuttals to validate my information.”? By taking such a ridiculous position, you have demonstrated yourself to be impervious to reason and evidence.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. JayGBardo1

            Nate Y…

            I see that I am antagonizing you more than I meant.

            I am working on presenting my knowledge and this is good forum to do that.

            But to clarify, I suggest your watch one more video and others that may catch your interest at the Larouche website.

            By the way I watch the Ron Paul Video on the FED (40 minutes) and I am in complete support of its abolition.

            A FED is not a national bank in the sense of Hamilton. It was indeed a corruption of the concept (by the British, who else?). FDR used it correctly, but it has grown out of control and is serving the interest of the Empire, not America.

            So here’s the link:

            http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=9166

            Thanks for the scintillating conversation.

            Joseph Giallombardo
            PS I’ll be back…

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Sean

            good movie!

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. JayGBardo1

            Nate Y:

            Another article for your education.

            http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12359

            Joseph Giallombardo

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. JayGBardo1

        And for those still with an open mind,
        here is marvelous serious of presentations on the concepts
        of Hamiltonian Credit vs British Monetarism.

        http://www.larouchepac.com/credit

        JG

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Nate Y

          As the saying goes, “One must remain open minded, but not so open minded that one’s brains fall out”. Unfortunately, it seems you have reached that point.

          That aside, you do not abide by the rules of civil discourse. I and others here have shown you the respect of considering your views. We have then proceeded to tear your positions to shreds. We have pointed out your logical inconsistencies, your outright lies, your misunderstandings, and your misconceptions. And what have you done in return? Have you reciprocated with your own counters to our arguments? Have you shown the respect which was shown to you? Not at all. Instead you have engaged in a number of annoying and, frankly, childish tactics. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you simply don’t realize you’re doing what you’re doing but I still feel compelled to point it out. You have mainly just ignored the counter arguments given. It’s true that you have thanked me and others for our replies but you haven’t attempted to refute our positions nor have you put forth new arguments in an attempt to strengthen yours. You may as well have said “Thank you for wasting your time responding to my post”. You have also have changed your position (as you did with Hayek and his supposed “international police force”) and, true to form, refused to acknowledge it. And you have merely heaped more lies upon lies and made nonsensical assertions such as “Hayek was supported by John M. Keynes and Winston Churchill. The Austrian School of Economics was the British response through Mises and others against Otto Von Bismarck who had adopted the American principles of Economy of Abraham Lincoln. AusEco is the British answer to the American system of Economy. It was attempt to crush Bismarck and unfortunately, it did”. I mean, seriously, is this some type of freaking joke?

          Anyway, I have made my way to the LaRouche site (I had already visited it after my encounter with a couple of his supporters) and the ideas presented are truly insane. As I have already said, he honestly believes that a select group of people (himself being chief among them) are capable of, have have the right to, control everyone else on the planet. The arrogance is unbelievable. He never seems to consider that people just might be better at deciding what they want for themselves and that he may be acting like a jackass for thinking he knows better. It appears the world can be divided into two camps. Those content to live and let live and those who seek to impose their will on others. LaRouche most definitely belongs to the latter.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Sean

            lol whatever nate.. 98% of the people on this website believe that a small group of men can and does control the world. Anyways, that’s not it, LaRouche isn’t saying that at all.. Plus, most of the stuff he talks about is well known and not a secret. Everyone knows that the British empire has always meddled in everyones affairs.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. Old Dominion

    We live in a world of polar opposites. Hot n’Cold, Good n’Bad, Bitter n’Sweet, Freedom n’Control. The right choice is neither both, but in moderation.

    You can’t have “total freedom”, it allows the advancement of those seeking power and control do to so “freely”.
    You can’t have “total enslavement”, it never allows advancement except by those who are in “control”.

    It takes a bit of both, “the middle ground”, to find the answer of a perfect system. You need a authority that wants freedom – sadly it is a rare occurrence expressed by the human heart and more imporantly beyond “most” common knowledge of our simple polar thinking. The US Constitution being an example of one of the only document-states in human history with this mentality.

    I would have to say Ron Paul is a US politican closest (if not only) to that middle ground.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. JayGBardo1

      Old Dominion,

      Very wise. I would agree. It’s not one system that fits all, it actually as you say a combination of principles. Free-markets work well across state lines. Free-markets are more complicated across National borders.

      So unbridled capitalism has the danger of monopoly. Unprotected nations run the risk of production dumping and wrecking their local industry.

      An authority that loves freedom. What you are talking about was discussed by Plato as the Philosopher-King of Plato’s Republic.
      And that, sir, is very much in the right direction of principled thought.

      By the way, Austrian Economics is an Aristotlean view of the world, So the philospher king does not exist in that world, only the KING.

      Joseph Giallombardo

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. Jay Giallombardo

    Nate:

    I did find that interesting article by Mr. Champion on the Popperian support of Austrian Economics. So, I am starting to get a pretty good understanding.

    Larouche is BIG…HUGE…on Plato. The empiricists discount the metaphysical. All of the philosophy from Adam Smith, Lock, Hobbs, Malthus are all degenerate apologists for the British Empire (which is what you may refer to as the Rothchild banking cartel based in London). Sorry to say, the British rely much on the fixed world notions of Aristotle…and that might be a fatal flaw.

    The antithesis of this world view is found in “Nicholas De Cusa”, whose writing on “inalienable rights” endowed by the Creator was borrowed by Thomas Jefferson in the Dec. of Indep. You can follow this strain from Kepler, Leibnitz, Gauss, Riemann (the Mathematician) to Eistein.

    This forms the basis of the Larouche’s Science of Economy which places the “creative human mind” at the forefront of economic development combined with “scientific discovery” that provides technological development for the purpose of increasing the product labor of human endeavor.

    The purpose of the National Government of the USA was founded on these principles to protect it’s citizens from the ravages of the British empire which by 1762 was totally corrupt. It was not a graceful start with Slavery in the South as part of the colonial empire. And the USA principles of economy have been at war with Britain ever since.

    If we can but return to the constitutional principles, it will be a major step in the right direction. Follow the constitution!

    By the way, John Marshall (Supreme court Justice) wrote the ruling in 1819 supporting the National Bank…NOT a FED (that is a corruption)…but a true National Bank to support the endeavors of the national interest based on a credit system.

    Under the a National bank of this kind, America became the economic leader of the world by 1876…We were corrupted thereafter, but under FDR (whether you like him or not) we restored the National economy. That lasted until 1971…and it has been downhill every since.

    This back and forth flow of economic progress followed by destruction comes at the hands of the British Empire.
    To stay on a lasting path of economic development requires
    the destruction of the British Empire.

    The 4-Powers Initiative has a chance to do just that.

    Here is the link to the paper:

    http://www.the-rathouse.com/RC_PopperPaper.html

    Joseph Giallombardo

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Brandulph

      Somehow it sounds to me Joseph, that you are one of those guys who agrees on, that money rules the world, but still talk about politicians and presidents being the rulers.:-)

      – “We were corrupted thereafter,…” Politicians Joseph, are politicians for personal reasons; for the power and the money which power brings THEM (and their party). Max Weber also stated that fact clearly on several occasions.

      – “… but under FDR (whether you like him or not) we restored the National economy. ” What you state there sounds as if FDR’s New Deal was a success, while the fact is that his politics did nothing but prolong the depression which was created by the FED.
      What brought around prosperity to the US was getting into WWII and the unlimited financing of the war supply machinery by the FED against future US taxpayer money. And, you do know of course who the owners of that industry was and is. :-)

      – “That lasted until 1971…and it has been downhill every since.”
      Hmmm?… yes, the big accelerators in the US economy got badly hit when the Viet Nam war drew to an end, and the Appolo program lost funding. US economy was also gradually badly hit by the advance of nations like Japan and Germany, who after 1945 had to consentration on developments outside the military field. On most civil industrial sectors the US had lost much ground by the late sixties.
      In anyway, an economy based primarily on rockets big and small to be blasted off into space or up the ass on people in foreign countries, has no lasting future.
      BUT!.. there is no bigger earner around for Rothschild&Co, than all the wars they create and initiate with the taxpayers money. Cold war -real war -war on drugs -war on terror (ridiculous) -war for peace(at present a total insanity) -war on starvation – war on poverty -war to end war…

      -“To stay on a lasting path of economic development requires
      the destruction of the British Empire.” The British Empire was brought under absolute Rothschild control at the fall of Napoleon by Waterloo, when the British Pound came under their absolute control, which it has been and still is today… like the dollar and the euro.

      Finally, the US of A has been under absolute Rothschild control ever since they were allowed to found the FED in 1913. And! there are no others to blame , than the American people and their own politicians themselves for being robbed and screwed for the better part of a hundred years.
      To blame “the British” for the US downhill slide from previous glory is utterly pathetic Joseph. Instead you should start dragging your politicians out into the town square and give them a solid bare ass spanking for taking bribes from Zionists inside and outside of the US.

      However, I think it is too late to break loose of the grip that the Rothschild clan have on the US and indeed the whole world… far too late.

      And beside Joseph… the way an old atheist like me looks at it all… it would definitely be a better planet for mother nature if the super rich get their way and rid her of some 90% of us.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Jay Giallombardo

        Brandolph,

        The problem sounds to me like you have given up. You complain
        about FDR and that our economy only heats up when there is war.

        When I talk about the British, I don’t mean England and the british people. I mean what I think you call the Rothchild/Haapsburg banking cartel, which is essentially based in London and is what Larouche calls the British Empire, or what could be called the Global World Monetary system.

        Rather than pouting about it and getting ready to die just to spite them, I think the American People can control their destiny and elect knowledgable folks that can learn to practice the economic principles of a Lincoln or a Hamilton. We have had smatterings of these good economic times, but never consistent.

        Why? because we don’t understand the British Empire and we keep falling into the traps they lay…cheap goods, easy money.
        It’s our fault…but the Empire is on the brink of collapse now.

        And the 4-Powers agreement is 3/4s of the way forward with China, Russian and India already rethinking their economies along the lines Mr. Larouche has proposed.

        McCain has introduced a bill to return to “Glass Steagall”.
        Health care will be stopped and defeated, if not now, in 2010, and 2012.

        I think there is hope…and that means “stay the course” and keep to the principles of the Constitution.

        Mr. Paul would agree…fight ‘em with American “Mass Strike”
        and keep working to all the bums are out.

        Lincoln didn’t give up…he died for his belief in a strong union to thwart the evils of the British Empire. He said, “I have an army in front of me (South) and banking cartel behind (Britain)…but he persevered and won. Should we do any less?

        Joseph Giallombardo

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Brandulph

          - Nope Jesuph, but what I did say was that it was not FDR’s New Deal which got the US out of the recession created by the FED, but the war which the FED managed to drag the US into.
          – On the other hand, yes, war has been an important part of the US economy ever since the US of A, with the Spanish-American war, ventured onto the path of building a US empire.
          – A long and comprehensive listing of all US wars and military conflicts is found here: http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/index.html . A long and sad history, culminating with the present ongoing rape and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan… under the pretext of creating peace and democracy… and of course also to “protect American interests”, to repeat the words said in Oslo by yes-we-can-change-Obama. It is Viet Nam all over again.
          – And yes, war IS the biggest racket there is. War was always the bankers favorite racket, and wars are of course also huge accelerators in the economy, just like the space program is. Wars are killing a lot more people than a space program of course, but as Kissinger once said, “Soldiers are useful idiots.” so who the heck cares.
          – But like the history of all empires tells us, war as an economical accelerator is not sustainable. In the long run the only winners are the guys who have been given the right to print the fiat dollar and to operate their fractional banking system.
          – Well, I think the only way to end the power of your shadow government, is to make an end to the wars that they have dragged you into. Do as Ron Paul says. Bring all your troops home. Let the Senate take over the coining of money. Create accelerators in the economy at home to replace the warmongering abroad… and above all, flog and fire all your politicians who have been preselected by the International Banking Cartel… The Rothschild Clan.
          – By the way, do the following lines sound familiar to you?:

          Quote
          “We shall surround our government with a whole world of economists. That is the reason why economic sciences form the principal subject of the teaching given to the Jews. Around us again will be a whole constellation of bankers, industrialists, capitalists and – the main thing – millionaires, because in substance everything will be settled by the question of figures.
          For a time, until there will no longer be any risk in entrusting responsible posts in our State to our brother-Jews, we shall put them in the hands of persons whose past and reputation are such that between them and the people lies an abyss, persons who, in case of disobedience to our instructions, must face criminal charges or disappear – this in order to make them defend our interests to their last gasp.
          It is from us that the all-engulfing terror proceeds. We have in our service persons of all opinions, of all doctrines, restoring monarchists, demagogues, socialists, communists, and utopian dreamers of every kind. We have harnessed them all to the task: Each one of them on his own account is boring away at the last remnants of authority, is striving to overthrow all established form of order. By these acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquility, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace: But we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international super-government, and with submissiveness.
          Unquote

          – And then finally Josuph… me “given up”?… heck, I’m just an old retired Norwegian watching you from the other side of the water. :-)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Lawrence Rice

            Brandulph,
            As an American citizen who is sick and tired of seeing and hearing our officials use lofty rhetoric as the pretext for their spending sprees on war and death, I assure you, there are MANY, MANY Americans who do not like what is done in our name and wish we could bring the young men and women who volunteer for our military home to their families and friends. It is long overdue.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Jones

        Brandulph,

        I like your icon because it reminds me of Rudolph the raindeer, and I can agree with several things you said.

        But, this

        “However, I think it is too late to break loose of the grip that the Rothschild clan have on the US and indeed the whole world… far too late.

        And beside Joseph… the way an old atheist like me looks at it all… it would definitely be a better planet for mother nature if the super rich get their way and rid her of some 90% of us.”

        is contradictory to everything else.

        Now, how can that be explained? in a single comment, by the same person, we find obvious contradiction: you point in the direction of the root cause of the problem and then say something to discourage the reader/person from doing something constructive, even maybe to the same rothschild.

        I just don’t get it.

        anyway, merry christmas.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Jay Giallombardo

    Here is the interesting conclusion of a paper by Rafe Champion in Popperian support for Austrian Economics

    He says:

    “The revival of the Austrian program also requires that the Austrians [advocates] themselves have another look at Popper instead of following the example of Mises and dismissing his [Popper's] ideas as irrelevant to their concerns. ”

    The entire article is worth reading, not that MISES is not a God to some, but the “metaphysical” aspect of scientific discovery is articulated well in this paper…which has its roots traceable back to Plato who argues against the Aristotlean world view of “empiricism”.

    Joseph Giallombardo

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. SS

    The Southern Avenger’s ‘Man Of The Year’
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMe5RkRNk&feature=player_embedded

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. JayGBardo1

    Some new questions for my Austrian Eco friends:

    1. Given the “laissez-faire” approach to markets and economy, what is the place of national will to take advantage of a say a “moon mission” and the predictable scientific discovery that would ensue, and the technological development that would take place.

    a. Do we wait for the market to impliment such an action?
    b. Is there a role for government to stimulate economic develop by supporting such a mission?
    c. What drives the “market” to wish to create a Water Reclamation project which might irrigate a desert for agricultural benefit?
    d. Isn’t it a role of a goverment to initiate such projects, or support them, for the obvious benefit to the welfare of it’s citizens?

    Would Ron Paul support these endeavors?

    I would welcome some comments from the Autrian Eco perspective.

    Joseph Giallombardo

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Science fiction

      Oh Dear, Joseph,

      There are tons of info, right here in earth and for earth, for our fellow humans to improve living conditions, life span, suffering, etc etc etc etc etc…. I get just tired of knowing that of having had a glimpse at that hope, a true hope, gasp…. and nothing was, had, or ever will be done with it, it has been put some how in a place that we the real people can not even access, though we may even have produce it ourselves, somehow it is what is happening. By who?, by the cruelest rulers of planet earth? so then we must now go to the moon to be able to get it done… is that it? that would be worst, hard to spot like here in earth.

      if, science fiction is what this is all about allow me to let my imagination role…..

      THEY must sit there, somewhere, dictate, run things, plan and plot, say or somehow decide whose baby will survive something on the move, a lesson, and the innocent little one will be coming to this world for a short while, with half a brain (like many children on a hot spot of genetic problems near a river, down south), with just enough time to be a ‘testimony’ for a few months to the cruelty of science or scientists, was it really? who is doing that? where? but, but, but if that is the problem why then we the real people can not do what we must do, in peace, in true fellowship, and in true scientific true.

      In the space project few will go, few will benefit, but there is a lot do in earth, and what is needed is to take the few exisiting terrorists and pull them out by the ears, into the light of the day, for real, but they should not be the reason to run to the moon now.

      ejem!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. JayGBardo1

    Nate:

    If you are around, I am reading the Higgs article on FDR and also Thomas Woods. I’ll have a response for you soon.

    I hope you will watch the film on Africa.
    http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv

    Joseph Giallombardo

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Nate Y

      I watched the video on Africa. What has happened to the people of that continent as a result of colonialism/imperialism is a complete and utter travesty. But it has done nothing to change my opinions of LaRouche and his ideas. The ideas espoused are a bizarre mishmash of disciplines that have no business being mixed together. Human consciousness is a cosmic force? The universe had humans in mind?

      In a way it’s very interesting. LaRouche and his supporters make a few suggestions that may be helpful and some statements that are true. But they quickly make their way past reason, truth, and wisdom and run full sprint toward delusion, half-truths, and folly.

      Yes, Africa is in a sad state of affairs. But do they really need a new 4 pronged imperial monster comprised of the US, China, India, and Russia to save them from imperialism? Would they not be better off if left to themselves? The experience of Vietnam is instructive in this case. Vietnam was fragmented and bogged down in civil war brought about in no small degree by French Colonialism/Imperialism. The US finds itself drawn into the conflict. After much bloodshed and wasted money/resources, we leave. What happened to Vietnam? Did it fall into barbarism. Nope. It’s now a united country and we have peaceful trade relations with them. No outside entity was needed. And no such entity is needed to help Africa.

      Also, the video provides a perfect illustration of LaRouche’s drive toward unbelievably large capital projects. Nothing wrong with that…if they can be afforded and the losses aren’t passed off on the people. So Africa needs a MagLev train system running throughout the country with nuclear power plants sprinkled throughout the land? If these gifts could be conjured out of the ether it would be a boon no doubt. Unfortunately that option is not available to us. How are these (maybe) advancements to be funded? How is a continent mired in debt supposed to suddenly have the savings (credit) to pay for these projects? Essentially no consideration is given to these questions. Also, what if the people of Africa don’t want a MagLev running through their backyard? Do they have no say in the matter? Do they really need the “Super 4″ to descend upon them and tell them what to do?

      You know what I think would help Africa? They should be left to determine how they want to use their natural resources. I see every reason to believe that they would very much benefit from commodity money.

      Btw, you will find no fans of the IMF or the World Bank here or among Austrian free-marketeers in general…just sayin’.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Jay Giallombardo

        Nate Y:

        Thanks for your thoughtful discourse. I respect your perspective.

        I am still studying the articles you lead me to. It’s tough to just read this stuff and get a full understanding…so I’m not ready yet to respond back.

        And, I am very much a Ron Paul supporter…but I do believe he is talking to Mr. Larouche and thus his “gold standard” perspective is changing.

        Larouche has pointed out that gold or “free choice in currency” is a secondary issue…more important is breaking the back of the world banking cartel.

        And the only way to do that is with a NEW economy not based on monetarism.

        FIAT currency ala the FED is a distortion of the concept of CREDIT…it currently is feeding the monetary engine of the British empire. Hamilton wanted a National bank that issued credit based on the “National GOOD”, that which is needed for the people and the nation to provide for their welfare and prosperity. I don’t believe Hamilton conceived of an institution like the FED (which is of British design) that is above the National Sovereignty of the USA…that is why we all agree that it’s time to “END the FED”.

        Austria Eco says let there be “choice in currency”…but the only choice that will break the British Banking Cartel is the Larouche’s approach of the 4 Power Initiative to establish a new system of Credit, not monetarism.

        The price of criticism is a better idea!

        4-Powers initiative has a chance, and other nations can join in if that is their “choice”, even Britain. And for the US to do so, we must “contain” or vote out Obama. I think he’s gone for 2012 anyway.

        Joseph Giallombardo

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. Ken Putt

    There are very few good people left in government.There is no money,only debt.Every dollar you spend is more debt,we’ve been slaves since FDR.Our only solution is to stick tightly together and show the elite we won’t take it anymore.Madoff is nothing compared to the fraud of this banking system and your strawman name(all capitol letters)which is the only way they can do business with you.Take control now.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. JayGBardo1

    Socialism…

    This is bad word to some…it is bad when we think of it in terms of control: a government controlling our “carbon dioxide” output for example. A government attempting to control an economy when a fair market place would do better. (i.e. USSR vs America)

    But what about the Welfare of the Citzenry. When the goverment says, “Gee these people should have electricty from a dam in their area, that will support business and enterprise and improve the standard of living of the people, even it if kills a few fowl and fauna. Is that socialism? The government saw the wisdom of such an action and said “Hey, you creative people and engineers, build yourself a dam here and then use the electricity to helo build your local economy and industry; increase your productive labor with this new source of energy.”

    Is that evil social engineering…Or as the “laissez-faire” economists would say, “Wait for the people to determine the want a dam.” Would the people of Tennessee initated such a project (TVA) on their own or was it suggested by “somebody”…

    Usually, the creative idea does come from ONE person, or group, but was the goverment right to support the project….?

    Is that socialism at work..?

    Joseph Giallombardo

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Ted O'Connor

    Don’t defend these bailouts. The cash for clunkers program cost taxpayers $23,000 for every $4,500. That $8,000 first time home buyer incentive? Runs the taxpayer $43,000 for every $8,000. Those 630,000 new jobs created? Cost taxpayers $1.2 million each. Waste. Unused Tarp funds should be used to pay down the debt, not wasted on job’s that cost 10-100 times more than they pay. BTW, A rumor was going around that the reason China bought our debt like it has it that they wanted all the cash for clunkers cars for scrap metal. A guy in NJ working at a scrap yard said copper was being seperated from the cars and thrown into box cars and when he asked where they were going he was told China. How long will they or other countries buy our debt? No one knows for sure, but when they stop things will get real ugly.
    Do you guys know that the banks have taken over the mortgage industry? They’ve gotten rid of brokers (competition) and for the most part appraisers. The appraisers that do work for the 4 too big to fail banks are paid around 1/3 what the usual fee was. Only the most inexperienced, cheapest and fastest appraisers are hired as the bottom line for these bank owned “appraisal management companies” is $. How did this happen? The AG of NY, Cuomo, blackmailed FAnnie and Freddie into adopting his “home valuation code of conduct”. The HVCC is a huge scam being run on the American public, and , it’s illegal. It did not go through the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) or the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as required of rules issued by administrative agencies of the federal government. And yet it’s allowed to dictate the public policy of 2 public trust giants – the GSE’s. 85% of all mortgage loans have to go through these bankster owned AMC’s. The consumer is being hurt and the economy is being put at risk by the banks greed again. Get rid of the Fed. They’re no more related to the Fedreal Government than Federal Express. The banks are dictating and employing illegal policies and as long as Bubble Ben and crew are in, they will push us off the cliff in the name of greed. Kind of like the snake and the rabbit story. Snake asks for a ride across a small stream from the rabbit. Rabbit agrees and then the snake bites the rabbit. The rabbit asks Why did you do that? Now we’ll both drown! The snake replies, I’m a snake – that’s what I do. Substitute bank for snake, people for rabbits and stream for cliff and you’ll get the 21st century version.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Johann Hollar

    Your are the man Ron Paul. Abolish the federal reserve.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. JayGBardo1

    Gold Standard,

    If Ron Paul is changing his view on the gold standard (someone commented that he was), why brought about this change.

    Why did he think it was a good idea and what has cause this change of mind. Education…awareness…new information on the subject?

    Where did Ron Paul get this information…obviously he’s be getting some advice from someone, and it’s not from the Austrian Economists.

    I think I know, but it’s not necessary to say, other than it’s good that he “may” be changing his position.

    Comment?

    Joseph G.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Nate Y

      Well there’s still a spirited debate WITHIN the Austrian School as to what the best course of action is. I know back in the 80’s Ron Paul was quite adamant about a return to the gold standard and a 100% gold dollar. Much similar to the arguments put forth by Murray Rothbard (and others within the Austrian School). Perhaps he changed his mind because he feels we are now just too far down the road of debt and inflation. There’s just too many government interventions, and economic dislocations to make the same move back to gold that he advocated in the past. Time has a way of changing things. He still very much advocates a return to gold/silver. After all, that is what the Constitution states is the only legal tender. But he now seems to thing that THE WAY back to gold as money/a gold standard is through Choice in Money. Let the people determine what they want to use as money. Historically, gold/silver win out as the chosen monies for very good reasons. This idea of choice in money is aligned with F.A. Hayek (and other members of the Austrian School).

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. longshotlouie

        Nate pegged it. Start with choice. Gold and silver will win in the end. A straight up move to a true gold standard would be overly abrupt in our current situation.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. JayGBardo1

        Nate:

        I have read about the Hayek book, the Road to Serfdom, if that is what you are talking about. Hayek was supported by John M. Keynes and Winston Churchill. The Austrian School of Economics was the British response through Mises and others against Otto Von Bismarck who had adopted the American principles of Economy of Abraham Lincoln. AusEco is the British answer to the American system of Economy. It was attempt to crush Bismarck and unfortunately, it did.

        Hayek in his last chapter said that there should be a world police force used to prevent Sovereign Nations from determining how people wish to use their money.

        A world policeforce? This is where you are being duped by thinking that “FREE-TRADE” is good economy. FREE_TRADE is ADAM SMITH…it is the laissez-faire notion that markets work all by themselves. They don’t. They do work on behalf of creative minds for good or evil.

        And the clearest example of the “deceptive” use of the world FREE in trading is to dupe Americans into thinking they are fighting for Liberty when all you are doing is playing right into the hands of the British Empire. Fair-Trade, Fair Markets would be the better term, but that not nearly effective for British control and suppression. Why do you think the British use the word FREE. It is a ploy.

        And there is no better example of the corruption that befalls nations to “FREE- (British Imperialism) TRADE than our current economic situation in nations of the world including America who has lost ALL of its industrial wealth because of the notions of FREE-TRADE. Now, the Collapse of their entire system is happening. And the attempts to save it with the FED printing Trillions of dollars chasing worthless financial derivatives is a desperate and to salvage the unsalvagable.

        You folks are looking for answers, I know. But Austrian Economics is NOT the American way. Bismarck followed Lincoln, not the Austrians. Lincoln’s legacy with the banking act of 1867 and the implementation of reconstruction efforts by Henry Carey (lincoln’s treasury secretary) provided a boon of expansion westward until McKinley was assassinated.

        You can hold on to your beliefs, but you are reading a very selective view of history and thinking it the truth. Austrian Economics reimergence was a Haapburg/Rothchild initiave to crush Bismarck. And advocating that for America is like allowing a Wolf (Britain) to guard the “chicken coop” (sovereign nations).

        Joseph Giallombardo

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Nate Y

          Well it appears we are at an impasse. I wasn’t talking about the Road to Serfdom but I have read the book. I can remember nothing in it supporting a world police force…I’ll read the last chapter again.

          I very much doubt such a champion of liberty and of Choice in Money would advocate a “world police force used to prevent Sovereign Nations from determining how people wish to use their money”. It would be a blatant contradiction. But even if true, Hayek’s (supposed) unfortunate misstep wouldn’t negate the wisdom of the Austrian School.

          Also, Keynes was no fan of Hayek and Hayek was no fan of Keynes. They were intellectual rivals. Of course, Keynes’ ideology was and is intellectually (and morally) bankrupt. I wish Hayek wasn’t so modest. The power of his ideas weren’t enough to destroy the personality of Keynes.

          Hayek on Keynes as an economist:

          * “His ideas were rooted entirely in Marshallian economics, which was in fact the only economics he knew.” (Collected Works, Vol. 9. p. 241)
          * “[H]is aim was always to influence current policy, and economic theory was for him simply a tool for this purpose.” (Collected Works, Vol. 9. p. 248)
          * “Keynes was not a highly trained or a very sophisticated economic theorist.” (Collected Works, Vol. 9. p. 242)

          Hayek on the Keynesians:

          * “It was [Keynes'] revival of this underconsumptionist approach [long preached by cranks and radicals] which made his theories so attractive to the Left.” (Collected Works, Vol. 9. p. 249)
          * “some of the most orthodox disciples of Keynes appear consistently to have thrown overboard all the traditional theory of price determination and of distribution, all that used to be the backbone of economic theory, and in consequence, in my opinion, to have ceased to understand any economics.” (Collected Works, Vol. 9. p. 243)

          He was much too kind to Keynes.

          http://hayekcenter.org/?p=38

          All of this nonsense you spout about the Austrian School reeks of a terrible conspiracy theory. Indeed, the Austrian School is rejected by the establishment and mainstream. They follow the exact opposite of Austrian Free-Market Economics. They are all followers of Keynesian economics.

          I know we don’t have free trade at the moment and have made it explicitly clear. I have no idea why you continue to bark up all the wrong trees.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Nate Y

          So I read the last chapter of The Road to Serfdom again. There is no mention of “a world police force used to prevent Sovereign Nations from determining how people wish to use their money”. He does speak of an international authority but to pervert his words into such an outrageous misrepresentation is downright shameful.

          “…a community of nations of free men must be our goal”

          -F.A. Hayek “The Prospects of International Order” last chapter of “The Road to Serfdom”

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Corey

      Question: Why was or is Gold worth anything? Truth is, its not worth more than any other metal. Sure, it has its own applications, but what would you rather have, steel that you can build your home with, or gold that looks pretty? (I know gold is used in (some?) pc’s, and is a good conductor, but does that make it worth more than something you can build with? If so, how? There are plenty of good conductors other than Gold..

      Why have we not asked why Gold is worth more, or why it serves as a currency?

      Perhaps we should put down the political debate and opinions of this and that, and ask questions that are relevant in explaining how the system came to be.. How can you fix something if you don’t know how it was built? Its like working on a ufo, except the answers are in our history to find..

      The Elite want you to be overly involved in the meaningless details of This Politician says this and That Politician says that, when in fact its all a game, and they are on one team, and we are on the other. Dont believe me, than walk into the white house and demand to speak to them and see what happens, and then tell me whose team they are on and which team you belong to.

      The sad reality is we are their slaves, bc we choose to be. We choose to use their currency, and they choose how much we get. A currency that isnt worth anything until we determine the value for them. If all were to stop using money, how much would it be worth? As much as any other piece of paper with useless numbers and letters on it-not a damn thing.

      Realize our own stupidity in all of this, and then do something to change it. Or be a coward and a slave. Those are the options, no inbetweens..

      contact me @ coreyjbooth@gmail.com to discuss REAL solutions.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Nate Y

        It’s true that there’s nothing fundamentally special about gold/silver. But there’s nothing fundamentally special about anything. Check out The Origin of Money by Carl Menger and you will understand why gold/silver tend to win out as the monies of choice. If it was only the usefulness of the commodity that was important, we would be using air as money. Would you rather have “something pretty” or would you rather breathe?

        Money emerges naturally on the market. It emerges spontaneously out of barter.

        Here’s a couple articles summarizing the point…

        http://mises.org/daily/1333

        http://mises.org/daily/3739

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Sean

        gold doesn’t corrode or oxidize.. neither does silver or platinum really. That’s why they are called precious metals.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Ted O'Connor

          In the depression prices fell 30-40% for everything. They haven’t done that and they won’t unless there’s a serious dip. The propping up of the banking system and prices overall devalues the dollar and gold is the standard that all monetary systems are based on. Did you know that the UN is issuing a gold coin with intent of it being an international currency? The dollar, unless it gets stronger, will not be the fiat of choice in the carry trade. It ain’t going to get stronger as long as Bubble Ben has his way. Granted, countries all around the world are printing money and America’s biggest export is inflation, but where does all this fiat find a balance? Without backing it’s a confidence game – as in scheme. GS and JPM are shorting precious metals, I’ve heard, at the urging of the Fed, to keep it in check. It’s all corrupt and all fiat currency around the world is being exposed as worthless paper with no monetary backing. Gold is the standard. Why? It doesn’t rust or erode – that’s about as stable as anything you’ll find in this world.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Sean

            You have to realize that for the most part, all money is earned. People aren’t just going to dispose of their dollars. They are going to be used until they completely lose their value.. All the trillions of dollars that will be payed back from debt will be paid back in dollars and will completely flood the world market. Either people can exchange dollars with one another or purchase goods from the united states. So basically, the dollar will continue to dominate any other currency unless it totally loses its purchasing power.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0