Max discuss collateral transformation desk feeding the multitude of banksters with five quadrillion in infinitely leveraged toxic derivatives and two Treasury bills of a bankrupt nation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXXPVndVvxQ&feature=player_embedded
Visar inlägg med etikett FiatCurrency. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett FiatCurrency. Visa alla inlägg
tisdag 18 september 2012
söndag 9 september 2012
The Gold Solution is a Lie - Bill Still
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVlqwJ00LMU&list=UUhZRoC9bMegevAxFmee1oSA&index=1&feature=plcp
The first 2 minutes of Max Keiser's latest is so interesting regarding the von Mises Institute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hBHcpxxsq8w#!
Many are questioning now -- for the first time -- the previously accepted dogma that gold is good. Why do smart folks like Peter Schiff, Ed Griffin and Ron Paul refuse to take a fresh look at this question when they are spouting the same philosophy that J.P. Morgan espoused 100 years ago.
My take on Ed Griffin is that he is a patriot and well-intended. He, like Ron Paul, grew up at that time when the von Mises folks were in their ascendency. Their real agenda was hidden. Schiff, Griffin and Paul would have to admit they were wrong. They would have to admit that the von Mises/old school Libertarians were -- at best -- nothing but anarchists -- and worse than that, plutocrats.
The von Mises folk believe that the average person is too stupid to effectively participate in self-governance, so, therefore, all governance should default to non-governance??? History clearly shows that a state of non-governance will quickly default into the hands of the few -- the crown and its banks -- plutocracy. In either case, they do not believe in humanity's thousand-year great experiment in self-governance.
Freedom is a delicate balance between too much governance and too little. What the von Mises folk won't admit is that serfdom exists at either end of that balance. Von Mises folk don't realize that the anarchism professed openly by Prof. Murray Rothbard & company does not yield maximal human political freedom. Nature abhors a vacuum. Every anarchy in world history is followed in short order by tyranny and maximal centralization of power.
Ed Griffin and Ron Paul would rather go to their graves than admit they had swallowed this poison pill of the last 4 decades, hook, line and sinker.
I'm studying J.P. Morgan and the Rockefellers right now. Morgan constantly supported the gold standard calling it "sound money." He also considered himself a pirate -- oops, I mean a "privateer" -- in the service of the British Crown and the City. That's why he called all 4 of his yachts, "Corsair", and painted them black. Not surprisingly, he stopped short of flying the "Jolly Roger", however.
Gold money is the ultimate centralization of the money power. Yes, it IS sound money. The quantity is easily controlled, but it does not democratize the money power to operate to the benefit of we, the people. It centralizes it into the hands of those few best able to buy up the commodity serving as the monetary base -- gold. This would, in fact, be the bankers.
I believe that a sovereign money must serve the public interest -- by definition.
I believe that gold money does not serve the public interest.
I believe power should be decentralized to the maximum extent which is politically practical. Too much decentralization slips over into anarchy and yields the same as too much centralization in the first place.
The first 2 minutes of Max Keiser's latest is so interesting regarding the von Mises Institute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hBHcpxxsq8w#!
Many are questioning now -- for the first time -- the previously accepted dogma that gold is good. Why do smart folks like Peter Schiff, Ed Griffin and Ron Paul refuse to take a fresh look at this question when they are spouting the same philosophy that J.P. Morgan espoused 100 years ago.
My take on Ed Griffin is that he is a patriot and well-intended. He, like Ron Paul, grew up at that time when the von Mises folks were in their ascendency. Their real agenda was hidden. Schiff, Griffin and Paul would have to admit they were wrong. They would have to admit that the von Mises/old school Libertarians were -- at best -- nothing but anarchists -- and worse than that, plutocrats.
The von Mises folk believe that the average person is too stupid to effectively participate in self-governance, so, therefore, all governance should default to non-governance??? History clearly shows that a state of non-governance will quickly default into the hands of the few -- the crown and its banks -- plutocracy. In either case, they do not believe in humanity's thousand-year great experiment in self-governance.
Freedom is a delicate balance between too much governance and too little. What the von Mises folk won't admit is that serfdom exists at either end of that balance. Von Mises folk don't realize that the anarchism professed openly by Prof. Murray Rothbard & company does not yield maximal human political freedom. Nature abhors a vacuum. Every anarchy in world history is followed in short order by tyranny and maximal centralization of power.
Ed Griffin and Ron Paul would rather go to their graves than admit they had swallowed this poison pill of the last 4 decades, hook, line and sinker.
I'm studying J.P. Morgan and the Rockefellers right now. Morgan constantly supported the gold standard calling it "sound money." He also considered himself a pirate -- oops, I mean a "privateer" -- in the service of the British Crown and the City. That's why he called all 4 of his yachts, "Corsair", and painted them black. Not surprisingly, he stopped short of flying the "Jolly Roger", however.
Gold money is the ultimate centralization of the money power. Yes, it IS sound money. The quantity is easily controlled, but it does not democratize the money power to operate to the benefit of we, the people. It centralizes it into the hands of those few best able to buy up the commodity serving as the monetary base -- gold. This would, in fact, be the bankers.
I believe that a sovereign money must serve the public interest -- by definition.
I believe that gold money does not serve the public interest.
I believe power should be decentralized to the maximum extent which is politically practical. Too much decentralization slips over into anarchy and yields the same as too much centralization in the first place.
söndag 2 september 2012
söndag 26 augusti 2012
Truths behind global debt crisis with Steve Keen from Debtdeflation.com.
In this edition of the show Max interviews Steve Keen from Debtdeflation.com. It has been five years since global debt crisis began. The debt is now so great that it can no longer be hidden. Max discusses the issue with Steve to see what triggered the current debt crisis, what the response to it was and where we stand now. Steve also comments on the latest global debt crisis and banker's role in the current situation.Steve Keen is a professor in economics and finance at the University of Western Sydney and the author of Debunking Economics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NLx0tT5AIs&feature=player_embedded#!
How about Quanitative Easening for the people?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NLx0tT5AIs&feature=player_embedded#!
How about Quanitative Easening for the people?
The one economic benefit of QE has been to help
governments finance the huge deficits caused by recession without having to
raise taxes, slash public spending or face Greek-style bankruptcy. In this
sense, QE has certainly prevented the U.S. and Britain from suffering worse
outcomes, but it has failed to stimulate employment or economic growth. This is
exactly what Japan has experienced for 20 years – and as in Japan, additional
rounds of QE now will merely act as an anesthetic, perpetuating stagnation but
discouraging more effective stimulus measures.
One such radical measure is too controversial for any policymaker to mention publicly, although some have discussed it in private: Instead of giving newly created money to bond traders, central banks could distribute it directly to the public. Technically such cash handouts could be described as tax rebates or citizens’ dividends, and they would contribute to government deficits in national accounting. But these accounting deficits would not increase national debt burdens, since they would be financed by issuing new money, at zero cost to government or to future generations, instead of selling interest-bearing government bonds.
Giving away free money may sound too good to be true or wildly irresponsible, but it is exactly what the Fed and the BoE have been doing for bond traders and bankers since 2009. Directing QE to the general public would not only be much fairer but also more effective.
Suppose the new money created since 2009, instead of propping up bond prices, had simply been added to the bank accounts of all U.S. and British households. In the U.S., $2 trillion of QE could have financed a cash windfall of $6,500 for every man, woman and child, or $26,000 for a family of four. Britain’s QE of £375 billion is worth £6,000 per head or £24,000 per family. Even if only half the new money created were distributed in this way, these sums would be easily large enough to transform economic conditions, whether the people receiving these windfalls decided to spend them on extra consumption or save them and reduce debts.
http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2012/08/01/how-about-quantitative-easing-for-the-people/
CSPAN Rep Paul Kanjorski Reviews the Bailout Situation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD8viQ_DhS4&feature=player_embedded
One such radical measure is too controversial for any policymaker to mention publicly, although some have discussed it in private: Instead of giving newly created money to bond traders, central banks could distribute it directly to the public. Technically such cash handouts could be described as tax rebates or citizens’ dividends, and they would contribute to government deficits in national accounting. But these accounting deficits would not increase national debt burdens, since they would be financed by issuing new money, at zero cost to government or to future generations, instead of selling interest-bearing government bonds.
Giving away free money may sound too good to be true or wildly irresponsible, but it is exactly what the Fed and the BoE have been doing for bond traders and bankers since 2009. Directing QE to the general public would not only be much fairer but also more effective.
Suppose the new money created since 2009, instead of propping up bond prices, had simply been added to the bank accounts of all U.S. and British households. In the U.S., $2 trillion of QE could have financed a cash windfall of $6,500 for every man, woman and child, or $26,000 for a family of four. Britain’s QE of £375 billion is worth £6,000 per head or £24,000 per family. Even if only half the new money created were distributed in this way, these sums would be easily large enough to transform economic conditions, whether the people receiving these windfalls decided to spend them on extra consumption or save them and reduce debts.
http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2012/08/01/how-about-quantitative-easing-for-the-people/
CSPAN Rep Paul Kanjorski Reviews the Bailout Situation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD8viQ_DhS4&feature=player_embedded
fredag 13 juli 2012
CrossTalk: Libor or Lie-more?
What will be the implications of the Libor scandal? Will anybody get into prison for the wrongdoing? What message does it send to the authorities? Should there be more regulation, or can banks regulate themselves? CrossTalking with Richard Wellings and William Black.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qxz4jQC_GM&feature=player_embedded#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qxz4jQC_GM&feature=player_embedded#!
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)