Ron Paul Reacts to Ben Bernanke as TIME Person of the Year

Show: Morning Joe
Channel: MSNBC
Date: 12/16/2009


Joe Scarborough: If I could pick someone to follow up Rick Stingle’s person of the year, Ben Bernanke, seriously, it would be our next guest. Introduce him.

Mika Brzezinsk: Republican representative from Texas and member of the Financial Services Committee, Congressman Paul joining us on the set of Morning Joe, nice to have you on sir.

Ron Paul: Thank you.

Joe Scarborough: You actually just wrote a book about the Fed. I mean, by God, tell us? Off camera you were telling me that you think that Ben Bernanke probably deserves to be person of the year because of the power he has.

Ron Paul: Yes, he’s the most powerful man in the world; I believe a case could be made for that. Because he controls the supply of money, which is the dollar, which is the reserve currency of the world. He can create a trillion dollars in secret without any monitoring of the Congress. So, there is no transparency. And I think he’s more powerful than the president.

Joe Scarborough: The president we are talking of here, again the president has all these checks and balances. Bernanke and every other Fed chief operate in secrecy. Like you said, he can create a trillion dollars out of thin air.

Ron Paul: Right. The big question is: has he used that power for good, or for evil? And, of course, my side of the argument is the system is evil, and the chairman, whether it’s Greenspan or Bernanke, they can do no good. They cause our troubles, they cause the inflation, they cause the bubbles. And, therefore, the bust, the correction, is always their fault. So the problems that we have and because this is such a worldwide phenomenon, you know, since 1971 everything has become worldwide and global economy. There is no backing of any currency. And yet our Federal Reserve controls the gold, so to speak, the paper gold. And therefore this whole mess that we’re in, which has a long way to go, has been caused by the Federal Reserve.

Pat Buchanan: Alright, that’s exactly what I was going to ask you. We just heard Rick Stingle say [Bernanke] saved us from a great depression.

Mika Brzezinsk: From the brink.

Pat Buchanan: He pumped 3 trillion dollars into the economy. Who was responsible, if you name one, two, three people or institutions, to take this country, the greatest country on earth, to the brink of a depression?

Ron Paul: Well, the Federal Reserve.

Joe Scarborough: How?

Ron Paul: By creating money out of thin air, causing interest rates to be low, causing the malinvestment and causing an artificial economic expansion that has to correct. Like if you build too many houses, eventually it crashes.

Joe Scarborough: Bernanke gave us the disease and cured it, both.

Ron Paul: Yeah, but there are other things that contributed to it; like Congress having laws that say you must make bad loans and give money to people who don’t qualify.

Joe Scarborough: I got to interrupt you, Pat. You read my book?

Pat Buchanan: Right.

Joe Scarborough: That quote by Ron Paul, and I remember the date: September 10th, 2003. And buy my book or just google “September 10th 2003, Ron Paul“. In September of 2003 you predicted in the banking committee exactly what was going to happen in 2008.

Mika Brzezinsk: Word for word.

Joe Scarborough: Word for word. And I read that and people always say, “Are you making that up?” You knew in 2003 what was going to happen.

Ron Paul: You’re better than I am, I can’t remember the dates. I knew that was the position I’ve taken for years and years. And, matter of fact, I was motivated to go into Congress and run for political office in the 1970s because I understood the principles of malinvestment. But I didn’t come up with these ideas. It’s the Austrian economists and the sound-money people that said this would happen; and they were correct. Matter of fact, when the Bretton Woods System collapsed in 1971, that was the confirmation that Austrian economists were on the right track.

Joe Scarborough: Buchanan, didn’t you want to […] some Austrian economist?

Pat Buchanan: I said something about dead Austrian economists during one of my […]. Murray Rothbard… They were gone.

Ron Paul: He was your friend.

Pat Buchanan: He was always my great friend, but we slam-shut the gold window in 1971. I was with Nixon in August. That’s what you’re talking about.

Ron Paul: That’s your fault.

Pat Buchanan: But look, what were you going to do? They had all that money abroad and if you ask me… the Brits wanted to come in and clean out Fort Knox. What would you have done?

Ron Paul: Well, you should have done a lot more a lot sooner. That is don’t print so much money.

Pat Buchanan: It was LBJ’s guns and butter. But what do you on that day? I mean, my friends tell me you should have let them clean it out. You can’t do that.

Ron Paul: No, I would say that was only half the thing. If you’re going to quit, what you have to quit is printing the money. So we quit handing out the gold, but then we said we’re just going to print money and there is no restraint. So what you ushered in was a system in 1971 which created this huge, huge bubble and that’s where the real problem was.

Mika Brzezinsk: But congressman, given the bubble and given restraint, where would you stand now on regulation? Would somebody like you say less regulation or off to the crisis? Or would you say actually we do need tight regulations?

Ron Paul: Well, I want more regulations of different things. I want more regulations on Treasury, on the Congress, and on the Fed. But I want to have less mischief by bureaucrats because they do a great deal of harm. We introduced a lot of regulations in the 1930s and it just prolonged the depression. When we had Enron fail we had Sarbanes Oxley. That did harm because our businesses left our country. I don’t like those kinds of regulations. But you have to enforce regulations like contracts and bankruptcies. We ignore that. We don’t follow the contract of money, so the government does everything opposite. They violate contracts and they don’t use bankruptcies. They bail out people. So yes, you want the market to regulate, you want to get rid of bad investments and people who are bankrupt.

Joe Scarborough: Ron, really quickly, we’re coming up on a hard break. But I’ve got to ask you about Afghanistan. Pat Bucanan, myself and other conservatives are very concerned about the so-called surge. We’re concerned we’re going to be in Afghanistan for another decade. What do you think?

Ron Paul: Well, we’ll be there for a decade or longer if the money holds out. But because we are doing exactly what Osama Bin Laden wanted us to do, that is get ourselves bogged down, spend a lot of money, and get people discouraged about being bogged down. At the same time have an incentive to build up the Al-Qaida. So we’re doing exactly the same.

Joe Scarborough: The thing is Al-Qaida is not even there.

Ron Paul: Yeah, but there are a lot of people who hate our guts and they do it because we bomb them, invade them and occupy them and steal their oil and all these things. So that’s going to continue.

Joe Scarborough: What would President Ron Paul do?

Ron Paul: The troops would have been home by now. I’d bring them home. You know the famous saying, “Declare victory and come home”. There is not much victory to declare. But just come home. I’d come home from Korea and Germany. Save the money. This country needs the money, we’re all broke. Quit printing the money; save the money.

Joe Scarborough: Alright. […]

  • longshotlouie

    It’s time; in fact, we have only one day left to identify the top ten conservatives of the decade.

  • sean

    Nate, either you can’t read charts, or you dont know what the charts represent, and I know you have no clue of whats going on. Again.. Yes the M1 and M2 are growing “according to seasonal change” but the M3 which is the total overall money supply (including M1 and M2) is REDUCING.. Anyways, the M1 money supply only increased by 300 billion, not 2 trillion (or whatever the fed created).. That 300 billion came from the “stimulus package.” The money the fed created is not entering our economy. They purchased assets so banks can lend money, whenever the banks make money they will purchase the assets back. The feds money never will touch the economy. They acted as a middle man to unfreeze the credit.

    • Nate Y

      As if 300 billion is a drop in the bucket. Anyway, we’ll just have to move on from the money supply charts. You say I’m not reading them right and I say the same of you. I’m content with the information I have provided. So I think it best to just let everyone else decide what arguments are closer to the truth.

      “The feds money never will touch the economy”

      Sure it won’t.

      Even if it doesn’t, their interventions have already caused plenty of economic dislocations. Firms that should have gone bankrupt have been propped up, credit has been diverted to favored banks, companies, and financial institutions, etc. The result? A fundamentally less sound economy with the politically well connected enriched at the expense of the common person on the street.

      • sean

        Nate.. I read all the articles you post on here. You are too stubborn and one sided to even read what I post. Being ignorant about the fact doesn’t make you right. Again.. Read this, it will explain exactly what i’m talking about. Its not even a long article. You can read can’t you?

        The point is, there will be no hyperinflation. I’m not defending what the fed did and i’m not supporting their policy. I’m just not being an ignorant paranoid fool about it.

        • Nate Y

          I read the article. The author makes a few fundamental mistakes that greatly hamper his analysis. He doesn’t know what inflation is. He seems to switch between two different definitions (with neither being very good). At first he seems to think that inflation is just rising prices. Then he states “Keep in mind the most fundamental definition of inflation: Too much money chasing too few goods” but this is not the most fundamental definition of inflation.

          Also, he distorts the M3 line chart. He does indee recognize that the RATE of increase in M3 has contracted. But he acts as if this constitutes a decline in the M3 supply itself. This is just foolish. This is like me saying “It’s true I’ve been borrowing and spending at a steady rate of $1000 a month for the past few years but over the past 2 months I have only borrowed $600. You see? I have decreased my debt burden.” But I have done nothing of the sort. I have merely increased my debt burden at a slower rate.

          The author concludes with “Simply put, monetary based inflation isn’t a problem right now.” This is largely true but the key words are “right now”. As Marc Faber aptly puts it “Inflation is a dynamic process”, the consequences of inflation make themselves known over time.

          Moving away from the article, I have no idea why you are acting as if I brought up hyperinflation and have been rattling off a pile of posts saying that such an unhappy scenario is inevitable. I didn’t bring up hyperinflation in this thread. You did. It’s true you thought I implied it but there is absolutely nothing in my December 28, 2009 at 7:54 pm post that could have possibly given you that idea.

          To be honest, I do think a dollar collapse/hyperinflation/very high inflation scenario could happen. But it depends on a great many things that may or may not come to pass. I’ve hedged my bets with some silver but we’ll just have to wait and see what happens.


          • sean

            The money supply is contracting. According to those charts in that link you showed me. We were up to almost 15 trillion dollars in the economy and now we are back down to 14 trillion.

          • longshotlouie

            Billy Preston comes to mind.

        • Nate Y

          There’s a couple problems with this and they are related. First, when we use words like “contracting” or “expanding” we must use them in the context of a particular time period in order for them to have any meaning. Secondly, yes, M3 is seen to be contracting recently. I can look at the chart. There has been a decline in the second half of 2009. By the way, you were plenty generous with your estimation of an almost 1 trillion decline in M3. The highest it got was around 14.7 trillion and it’s currently around 14.2 trillion. So you were off by about 500 billion. Certainly not a trivial amount. Anyway, as you are so eager to point out, M3 has declined…in the past few months. The problem with this as it relates to the article/link you posted is that the article was written in late May. M3 was still expanding during that time.

          You’re fond of charts. So let’s look at shadowstats’ seasonally adjusted M3 chart. It runs from early 2007 to the present. In early 2007 M3 was about 10.3 trillion, it peaked at 14.7 trillion in the summer and is now somewhere around 14.2 trillion. So it started at 10.3 Tand is now at 14.2 T. What’s the trend? Is it expanding or contracting?

          • sean

            Yes, the money supply has expanded since 2007, but i’m talking about what has been done recently since the crisis started. The money supply is shrinking back down to the level before the fed created all of that money.

  • Nate Y


    Bonner and the entire team at Agora are simply awesome. I’m sure you already know but you can check out their daily commentaries at

    It is true that the dramatic increase in the money supply by central banks hasn’t reached the real economy…yet. But that’s the key. What happens when yet comes? What happens if/when the money does reach the real economy? There’s still a debate between the deflationists and inflationists and this period has been termed a “deflationary inflation”. Deflation in private sector and inflation in the public sector. Based on what Bernanke has said, he’ll certainly try his best to overwhelm the credit contraction.

    Anyway, I just like Bonner’s style. He’s been proven precient regarding economics and markets and he delivers his information with a clever wit. It’s definitely fun reading his commentaries.

    • Redfish

      Thanks for the link Nate to daily reckoning – it’s in my favs now! I posted that previous reply in case some that are reading this, like me, didn’t understand how the money supply could be contracting when the Fed is smoking the printing presses. I sincerely thought we were inflationary right now. Bubble Ben’s recent comments on reserves at the banks being held really related to what you guys are talking about and it’s coming together in my mind. I’m of the opinion now that inflation is inevitable but for now we’re deflationary. If that knife edge of deflation or inflation happens credit has to loosen first. The Fed has no tools left to force that. So, we’re on an edge, like Brando’s slug in Apocalypse Now slithering up the length of a razor, unhurt. The banks are holding those reserves and we all know how trustworthy and adverse to risk the banks are {sarcasm}. Bubble Bernacke is going to offer them a CD type instrument to hopefully contain the reserves (by paying them interest on the money they loaned to them – our money and also paying them interest with our money). What a mess. MBS’s and CDO’s are not going to be bought by the world anymore. I guess they can try to give them a quadruple A Platinum rating (ha ha) but once burnt twice shy. To be honest I know little about the Fed’s institution and how it should be changed – except from what I’ve read here and Jekyll Island readings. Obviously the Fed needs to go and I’m not the one to speculate on how. I leave that to the learned historians here. Just wanted to let you guys know – good thread. It’s been like a good mystery novel that’s hard to put down.

  • Jay Giallombardo


    Thanks for an informative article.

    If inflation began in 1913…What was different then vs the other times America had a National Bank or Banking Acts (of 1867) when inflation didn’t occur?

    Was it the fact that the Federal Reserve was “not” a National Bank in the America Tradition of Hamilton but an invention of the British using “Keynesian” manipulation for the first time?

    This is a hypothesis…but perhaps you’d care to comment?

    Joseph G.

  • Jay Giallombardo

    Hi Folks,

    This short documentary provides the rational for a National Mission and great infrastructure projects of a Nation to increase its capacity for increasing productive labor.

    Unlike the British “view” of mankind as depicted in the hateful writings of Thomas Malthus, or in the “environmentalist” view of mankind as destroyers of the “natural world”, the case is made by Vladimir Vernadsky that there are three phases of development identified as the Lithosphere (in-organic world creation), the biosphere (organic natural world) and the Noosphere (mankinds willful ability to increase power over nature).

    Here is the link and the short film is concluded with some remarks by Lyndon Larouche about the view of Leibniz, the pursuit of Happiness and aspects of immortality.

    Joseph G

  • Jay Giallombardo

    Sudan And Chad call a cease fire!

    Realizing their internal troubles are being fomented by the British Empire, the two governments are now forming a cooperative alliance to remove the rebels from each country and enter a period of diplomatic negotiation for cooperation between nations.

    Interestly, Liu Guijin, special representative of the Chinese government on African affairs was in Sudan, Chad, and Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, the headquarters of the African Union, in June.
    Might China’s recent agreements with Russia triggered a similar action here? It would appear so.

    This is a great move in the direction of the 4-Powers Initiative of Lyndon Larouche. As Nations begin to protect their Sovereignty and don’t fall for “manipulative” wars that only weaken or destroy their country, economically and morally, another “BLOW” is struck against the British Empire, fomentors of war.

    Other African nations could follow suit using original American Economic principles to build their nations and foster good neighborly relations.

    One excellent future project for a “United Africa” is a continental “Mag-Rail” System, combined with Nuclear power plants and water diversion of the Congo River to the CHAD river basin. Such a development would GREEN the Sahara Desert for Agriculture.

    It is a 25 year project, but could be started as the British Empire continues to lose its dastardly domination of this part of the world.

    Joseph G.

  • Jay Giallombardo

    Nate asks: First, by what right does Lyndon Larouche propose to
    “engineer” society?

    Answer: That’s what creative minds do. They observe, analyze, hypothesize and test their theories. And they stimulate the thinking of others, like this discussion. One approach is to look at history and see what was done during times of high productivity in a nation. Right now America has productivity falling …and a monetary expenditure that exceeds financial investment with no actual increase in productivity since 1970. This is time when wealth is being diminished. Therefore this is not a good model to follow.

    There were periods of “vision”, appropriate investment and strong physical development of economy in America from 1791-1811, 1816-1836, 1867-1890, 1940-1970, and these were periods when America’s agriculture, industry, and manufacturing were seen to grow because we had good policies and great leaders. Therefore we should do things that we did in these periods. And we should elect leaders who demonstrate an understanding of economics, instead of idiots like Obama who are but mouthpieces of the British Empire.

    Nate Asks: Why should he or anyone else have control over the lives and property of others without their consent?

    I don’t think Mr. Larouche wants to control the lives of others. There is no economy in that. Leibniz said that happiness is found in the expression of creative insight. Mr. Larouche has indicated the impact of Leibniz in the founding of America, particularly in the writing of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Of course in a free country you also have the right to act stupidly if that is your goal. But we hope mostly for simple common sense and a few great thinkers to emerge to help us on our way.

    History has shown that when a national project is uttered, there can be a rise from the accomplished within the nation to accomplish it. The fact remains that if you don’t use your brain, other people will control EVERY ASPECT of your life.

    Joseph G.

    • sean

      You obviously can engineer an economy. You can control the money supply and the amount of credit that circulates the country. Should the fed have this power, I think not. Nor should any other private industry..

      • Jay Giallombardo

        Agreed! The National Government, working from the perspective of the “science of economy”, would direct credit toward private enterprise toward “increasing the productive Labor” of the citizens for the wealth and happiness, and to stimulate scientific discovery which is an essential dynamic of wealth creation.

        A National Bank that inflates it’s currency with too much credit spend on the wrong things, essentially, will destroy itself.

        1-2% long term low interest rate is sustainable credit in a growing economy. If spent on the right things the wealth of the nation should keep pace with this growth of credit.

        It is the Keynesian manipulation of the FED that causes busts and booms and wreaks havoc on economy.

    • longshotlouie

      We are currently enjoying the fruits of economic ‘engineering’.

      • Jay Giallombardo

        Yes, but be fair. The FED is bent on destroying the dollar and replacing it with a “World Currency”…This is against the national interests of the US which should command its own currency and develop relations with countries through trade treaties of mutual benefit. That is the America Economic model of Hamilton…The FED is gross distortion of that and should be abolished through Bankruptcy.

        Joseph G.

        • longshotlouie

          Any attempt at ‘central control’ is destined to achieve similar results.

          • sean

            according to who? Inflation and Deflation are quite the opposite.

      • sean

        we are currently enjoying the fruits of economic engineering from a private institution with no authority.. Thats like asking Walmart to run the economy. Thats what would end up happening if we had things nate’s way. haha Walmart would end up controlling every aspect of the economy.

  • Jay Giallombardo


    Apollo 13 is a good analogy…because the world is at a life or death crisis. The Federal Reserve is printing trillions of dollars to prop of the failing global monetary system. Nothing can save this system no matter how much money is printed. Despite the lies from Washington, the economy of America is not improving and has been slowly collapsing in real growth since 1970. It reached a crisis with the Tech-bubble in 2000, and the real estate market collapse in 2007. Health care is just one of the draconian measures being used to “cut costs” and essential reduce population by denying care. We are heading for a “Dark Age”, if we don’t do something NOW.

    Larouche is the only economist that is suggesting a workable plan to dig out of this global mess.

    Many countries are listening and acting to bolster their sovereignty. Many countries are already adopting the beginning steps of the Larouche plan by focusing on their nation and infrastructure development, before the looting British Empire sucks them dry.

    Look what Bush and Thatcher did to Mexico and later with Ukraine and Germany when the Berlin Wall fell. That is the action of the Global monetarists. Mexico and Ukraine are in shambles. Greece is the next “Dubai”, ready to fall, and Spain is not far behind. These countries are bankrupt as is the USA. US has border issues because there is NO economy in Mexico. Mexico is consumed with debt and the Drug Lords are running rampant. You will find that there are small oligarchies in these countries that are suppressing their own development like good little “brits”…they are bought off and hold power.

    In January the US States will run out of “unemployment” money and there could be riots, or considerable unrest and protest far surpassing any Tea Party that has occurred. Some States have “Recall” laws and you could see many politicians kicked out before 2010 elections on recall.

    The only way to break the “empire” is for the strongest Nations, Russia, China, India, and USA to form a new credit system based on the Hamiltonian model of strong national sovereignty (including a National bank that is under the control of the government to manage credit for business to increase the productivity of labor which is real economic wealth.)

    Joseph G.

  • Doug Newman

    One question.
    “The Fed” was called The Federal Reserve Bank to make the people accept it by thinking it was a bracnh or official office of The federal Government… SUE “The Fed” and The Federal Government for fraud.
    We may not be able to win a Presidential election but if the main thrust of all of this is to bring the EVIL FED to account and return its duties to The U.S. Treasury then sue them!
    What say you!?!

    • Jay Giallombardo

      Congress can act at any time to Abolish the FED…it takes real patriots and knowledgable people to orchestrate action against the FED.

      If Glass-Steagall is re-enacted…the FED could be put through Bankruptcy…you don’t have to SUE them…just new legislation.
      America created the FED but gave it too much power. Woodrow Wilson regretted the action, late in life. But, we can undo the FED. It just takes vision and courage. Larouche has pointed the way and does have influence with some Senators and Congressman on how to approach the problem.

      It may start with the audits Ron Paul is calling for. This has virtually unanimous support. But we need more than just that…once it gets started and the secrets are learned, there will be a groundswell against the FED.

      The danger is that we over-react and attempt a “laissez-faire” approach…that would be a huge mistake and play right back into the hands of the enemy. Strong national governments controlling their currency and fixed international rates of exchange should be the policy and intent.

      Still, we have Obama, Summers, Geitner, Bernanke to deal with who are hell bent on destroying America as a nation and bringing it into the global community as yet another serf-nation, like Europe has become. There is no sovereign nation left in Europe they are all under the yoke of the new “Colonialism”.

      While Abolish the FED, the IMF needs to go as well. Only the American People are left to RISE in protest: TEA PARTY and Mass Strike to recall the treasonous, re-elect the few patriots who will return us to constitutional values.

      The Environmentalists failed miserably (which is good) in Copenhagen. The Pacific countries stood strong against this tyranny and are now rising in a new economic system based on credit, not montarism.

      If the USA can push the congress to reassert its power, America can break free of the fascist Obama-crowd and join with the other pacific nations. That would be the death-knoll to the British Empire. And then we have a new “Nuremburg” against those traitors that attempted to destroy America. They should pay!

      Joseph G.

  • Nate Y

    sean says:
    December 28, 2009 at 11:05 pm

    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.


    I’ll just let this nonsense speak for itself. Every sentence is a strawman, non sequitur, outright lie, or ad hominem.

    • sean

      Is that your response? haha what a wise remark.

    • Matt

      Nate Y says:
      December 29, 2009 at 12:34 am

      I’ll just let this nonsense speak for itself. Every sentence is a strawman, non sequitur, outright lie, or ad hominem.


      Solid. Well, at least people know when you can’t refute an argument, you yourself simply use strawman, non sequitur, outright lie, ad hominem attacks.

      • Nate Y

        Apparently you don’t know what any of those are.

    • longshotlouie

      ‘ …..only the government has real wealth’.


      Sean regains the lead for the coveted ‘Dullard of the Year’ award.

      GO SEAN !!!!

      • sean

        lol 147.3 million oz’s of gold is “real wealth.” Please show me an individual, or institution that can compare.. Nice try.

        • longshotlouie

          If you ignore the hole in your bucket does the bucket hold water anyway?

          • sean

            haha, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.. If a pidgin loses its wings, can it still fly? If a pig grows wings, could it fly? Is louie a long shot away from ever making sense?

          • longshotlouie

            It’s a beautiful thing when you make my point for me.

          • sean

            What point would that be? I thought you were trying to make the point that the government has no real wealth.

      • Nate Y

        I dunno dude, this one is pretty awesome too:

        “our savings rate is increasing, but not enough to cause harm”.

        • sean

          You obviously don’t know too much about history or economics. Yes, it is good to have a high savings rate because banks can use that money as capital, but too much savings can cause hyperinflation. “Too much money chasing to few of goods.” Germany printed money and gave it to the people for 10 years before they really started to accelerate their consumption rate which caused prices to skyrocket.

          • sean

            Look, the fed just released the M1 figures yesterday..

            Show me a dramatic increase in the money supply.


          • Nate Y

            You’ve outdone yourself with this one:

            “too much savings can cause hyperinflation”

            As if savings is just another term for “printing money”.

            Keep em coming.

          • sean

            i’m sure you know that our money supply has been contracting since the recession started. that’s why the government borrows money, it borrows money to offset money that the private sector isn’t borrowing.


            This is why we haven’t had a dramatic increase or decrease in the money supply, and no major inflation.

          • sean

            all money is just printed.. savings are savings whether it be paper dollars or corn nuts. i guess you were trying to save yourself with that one.

          • Nate Y

            M1 only includes the funds that are readily accessible for spending. It is not an accurate representation of the total money supply. You gotta look at M2 or M3 (even thought the Fed keeps M3 a secret) for a more accurate picture of the money supply and it’s growth. But even M1 should be a concern.

            Here’s a couple charts illustrating M1 and its growth:



          • Nate Y

            “all money is just printed.. savings are savings whether it be paper dollars or corn nuts”

            If this was true, we could simply print money and have everlasting prosperity. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.

            If we could just print money and have real savings, we would never have a trade deficit. We would never have a problem with debt. Someone call Obama quick! We don’t need to run this trillion dollar deficit and add to the already massive national debt. Deficits aren’t a problem, debt isn’t a problem. In fact, they don’t even exist! We can just print the money. We have discovered the source of perpetual savings and surpluses. It’s called the printing press.

          • sean

            haha what are you talking about? savings come from earnings, whether it be from printed money or not printed money.. I’m talking about earnings that people put aside. Who knows what you are talking about. You are in la la land.

          • sean

            lol you don’t know what you are talking about.. The M3 has plunged this year.

          • sean
          • Nate Y

            The Fed doesn’t release M3 stats anymore. Where are you getting the numbers/charts for M3. Let’s consult Shadowstats…


            I’m in la la land? I’m not the one making patently absurd statements to the effect of “savings can hurt the economy” and “savings can come from the printing press”. Anyway, keep em coming.

          • sean

            hahahahaha okay lets use that chart.. Look how the M3 has plunged… The M1 and M2 are included in M3. That means the money supply is contracting, like i said a few posts ago. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

            What i’ve been saying makes perfect sense. You obviously don’t know what you are talking about.. All money comes from the printing press and is earned and saved. The money that is saved can be turned around to be loaned to someone else. Even Ron Paul talks about savings in the same sense. LOL! you are making absurd remarks. I never said money straight from the printing press can be refered to as savings and yes, an accumulation of savings can hurt an economy or lead to inflation just like it did in Germany and does today in China, India, and Brazil. You should really educate yourself or stop speaking. Go find me some more charts to prove yourself wrong.

          • Redfish

            Actually, read the print on that M-3 chart. “Note: A downward slope in this growth curve does not necessarily mean that the money supply is dropping. Only if the curve goes below zero does that show money supply having contracted over a full twelve months.” It appears the M’s are cumulative and don’t really indicate a drop in money supply, just that additions to an already existing money supply “might” be being reduced. Yes? I don’t know a lot about this but, it’s very interesting. I was under the assumption that we were already in inflation. Teach on :^)

          • sean

            Well yes that is true. The total money supply is not contracting, only because it is being propped up. The money supply would be contracting if the fed wasn’t pumping money into the economy. That’s what happens when credit freezes. As loans + interest are repaid and no additional loans are given out, the interest gets deducted from the overall money supply.. Thats the problem with our debt based system. You have to continue borrowing or else the entire system will come crashing down.

            The point i’m trying to make is that there was no dramatic increase in the money supply even with all that the fed is doing. But as you can see, the M1 was contracting for about a year leading up to the financial crisis.

          • sean

            The great depression was just a long drawn out money contraction. What the fed did was prevent that.. They caused the problem and saved it before it got much worse.

            I agree we should just get rid of them, but I have to be realistic and understand that we wont see any hyperinflation or a destruction of the dollar.

            Also… you have to consider the trade deficit. We have to spend 400 billion a year on oil and that is a huge loss. Especially that and all the other goods we import totaling close to a trillion dollars a year. The fed printed two trillion… and we gave away a trillion.

          • Nate Y

            I was afraid this would happen. You have to read the Note to the side of the chart. I’ll post it here:

            “Note: A downward slope in this growth curve does not necessarily mean that the money supply is dropping. Only if the curve goes below zero does that show money supply having contracted over a full twelve months.

            Also, for money supply changes over periods of less than a year, such need to be viewed on a seasonally-adjusted basis. Unadjusted change over short periods may show changes that are little more than regular seasonal variations. Short-term changes also may run counter to year-to-year change, as seen in the latter part of 2009, for example.”

            They then show the “Seasonally Adjusted Chart” below. That is the chart that provides the clearer picture. It’s not so pretty.

          • Redfish

            Found this and thought it interesting and pertinent to our convo here: This is how Bill Bonner put it in Agora Financial, “The problem with inflation is that there is none. Consumer prices are falling in China, Europe and America. And if we look harder, we find out why. The feds are pumping the money supply as hard as they can. David Rosenberg reports that the monetary base rose at a 141% annual rate over the past four weeks. But the money fails to reach the real economy. The money supply figures that relate to actual cash in people’s hands – M1, M2, and MZM – are shrinking, at -28%, – 4.9% and – 6.2% respectively. Why? Because the banks don’t lend and consumers don’t borrow.

            In short, the feds’ money goes into cool bank vaults and hot speculative trades. When it tries to find its way to the consumer, it gets lost. As Rosenberg explains it, the transmission mechanism has broken down. We live in a bust economy, not a boom one. In a bust, consumers cannot borrow. They have nothing to borrow against. Both their wages and their assets are going down. Who would lend to them under those conditions? Not a bank that almost went broke itself 12 months ago.

            And even if consumers had access to credit, they wouldn’t take it. Consumers too, almost went broke a few months ago. Instead of saving money during the boom years, they spent it…or gambled with it. Then, when the bust came in ’08, they realized that they were 10 years closer to retirement with little money saved. Now they have to make up for that lost decade, by cutting spending and saving as much money as they can”.

            AND: On the other hand, in the 1930’s they weren’t able to create money out of thin air like they can today. Back in the days of FDR there was a pesky thing called a gold standard. In those days the dollar was backed by gold so they couldn’t just print more money, there had to be gold in the treasury. Since 1880 the U.S. dollar official gold price had been $20.67 per ounce. But from 1913 through 1920 inflation (as measured by the CPI) had increased by almost 98% (in other words in 7 years prices had almost doubled) but the price of Gold remained flat (by Government decree). Not surprisingly the “Federal Reserve” was created in 1913 and that is when the inflation began.

            But because of the official gold price the government had gold on its books at a much lower price, so the backing was out of sync with the inflated dollars. So in a classic government swindle FDR mandated that citizens turn in their gold at the then current fixed price and then promptly raised the price to the “real” market price of $35 an ounce. Poof instant money, no matter that is was stolen from the American people. In those days though it was a one time trick, FDR couldn’t do it again. First of all, gold was no longer undervalued and second of all the people didn’t have any more gold to steal.


    • Jay Giallombardo


      The dollar is very much in danger of collapsing. And Larouche has stated in recent webcasts that a gold standard is not necessary.
      Let’s not exaggerate millions of currencies. That is not the case.
      Each nation can have it currency and also would need to work with fixed international rates of exchange. Nations that inflate or devalue excessively would be brought to task with diplomatic “lessons” in economy, embargos, or even military action if they are disruptive enough.

      Brettonwoods was the closest we came, and it failed after 30 years because Keynes was let back in as leading economist by Harry S Truman, the scoundrel. Britain was allowed to devalue its currency and wreaked havoc as the British tend to do when they have been ursurped by a stronger America. FDR didn’t fail at Brettonwoods…Truman screwed us all.

      A new Pacific Rim Brettonwoods is now underway…and nations are joining. America should too.

      • sean

        The only way the dollar can collapse is from hyperinflation, which initially comes from an accumulation of wealth by the majority of citizens. Yes our savings rate is increasing, but not enough to cause harm.. China has been accumulating our dollars. That is why their inflation has been in double digits, and that is why ours have been relatively low. Even if the fed pumps money into the system, its just going to end up overseas.

        • sean

          Brettonwoods failed because we manipulated our currency to pay for oil and other goods. Other countries ended up having more money than we had gold to cover. I think the moral lesson would tell us not to become dependent on other countries resources and labor. With that in mind, we could probably have any currency you could dream of. Without following this moral lesson, we will have retarded economic growth.

          • Jay Giallombardo


            I think we are saying the same thing, hence my reference to Keynes. FDR had thoroughly excluded him from Brettonwoods. Truman’s ascendancy to the VP-Spot and ultimately President was funded by Wall-Street and the Brits.

            Here is a great documentary on Brettonwoods. (Nate and Louie should take a look as well).


            Joseph G.

  • 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!

  • 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.


    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.


    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.

    • 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.

      • Jay Giallombardo


        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.

        • 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!

          • 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.

          • 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.

      • Lindsey

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

        • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Jay Giallombardo


    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.

  • 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.

    • Nate Y

      Economic Failure:

      Thoughts of Lyndon Larouche

      Couldn’t have said it better or more succintly!

      • Jay Giallombardo


        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.

  • 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.

  • Jay Giallombardo


    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

  • 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…

    • 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

      • sean

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

        • Jay Giallombardo


          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.

          • 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.

  • 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