 |
| Area 51 Space Alien |
or this one, B.?
 |
| G. Edward Griffin |
Lets make this quiz question easy, multiple choice:
A. Exhibit A, the area 51 space alien
B. Exhibit B. Child actor, author, documentarian G. Edward Griffin
C. Both of the above
D. None of the above
The correct answer may surprise you; it is A. No, there is no reality to the area 51 space alien conspiracy theories. It is however a Halloween mask, made of latex, that is straightforward and honest about what it is, with no attempt to actually deceive anyone. It is an item of fun, and not intended to frighten or to deceive anyone about anything - unlike Exhibit B.
Item A is available for $17 and some change; a paperback copy of Griffin's Creature of Jekyll Island costs anywhere from the same, upwards with hardcover ranging from $30 to $50. Anyone dumb enough to put that kind of money in Griffin's pocket is begging to be ripped off, and gullible enough to pop for a visit to area 51 to see a 'real' space alien.
I can't see the photos.
ReplyDeleteDemocommie, I don't know what is causing the problem with the pictures for you, or I would fix it. I can see them ok....
ReplyDeleteIf you send your email address to penigma2@hotmail.com, I can try to send the pictures to you that way.
It gave Laci a good chuckle, when he saw it for the first time, and I'm hoping (given the time of year, approaching Halloween) that it will do the same for other readers, and lighten the mood a little....
If anyone else is having trouble with the photos, please comment here as well.
Here is something else that anonymous might like to add to his copy of the creature of jekyll island...since serious reading appears to be beyond his grasp.
ReplyDeletehttp://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=678294
Mayan filmmaker offers photo as proof of aliens, says Hawking agrees
Oct. 26, 2011, 3:46 PM EST
By Steve Pond
TheWrap
The filmmakers behind "Revelations of the Mayans 2012 and Beyond," who said that their film will reveal evidence of contact between the Mayans and extraterrestrials, have now released to TheWrap what they claim is photographic evidence of a pre-Mayan, alien civilization.
And they claim they've got Stephen Hawking on their side.
...
And Julia-Levy then passed along a direct quote that, he claimed, came from no less than Stephen Hawking, whom he said "is going to work with us" and will be included in his film: "'I warn humanity that aliens are out there. Just because the aliens were friends with the Mayans doesn't mean they are our friends. Humans should avoid contact with aliens at all costs.'"
Also read: Mayan Secrets to Be Revealed by Mexican Government in '2012' Doc
An email sent to a representative for Hawking asking about the authenticity of the quote was not answered.
Hawking has in the past said that that alien life is likely to exist in the universe ("to my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly natural"), and has speculated about the dangers of contact.
"If aliens ever visit us," Hawking has said, "I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans."
TheWrap has been unable to unearth any instances of Hawking saying anything about the aliens ever contacting or being friends with the Mayans.
But Julia-Levy insisted that the words are Hawking's. He also claimed government conspiracies surrounding the photo and the head it depicts: After the photo was taken in the late 1930s, he said, it was published only once, in a magazine that was then immediately withdrawn from circulation by "the government of England."
This is exactly the sort of bogus conspiracy theory with fake claims of support that don't hold up that appeal to gullible right wing nuts like the end-the-fed-anonymous.
democommie-rather than giving me your email, I've asked Laci to send the images to you directly.
ReplyDeleteA comment from anonymous was lost. It quoted part of the wikipedia entry about the creation of the Federal Reserve.
ReplyDeleteHe is clearly obsessed with his notions of conspiracy, and he has demonstrated he does not understand why the Griffin joke of a work on the topic of the origins of the Fed are badly flawed, and laughable outside his tiny echo chamber, shared with ignorant fools like Glenn Beck.
So, as Anon, (who also lacks the creativity to come up with a blognomen of his own) is fond of quoting wikipedia, let me also quote some to him:
"At the end of November 1910, Senator Nelson W. Aldrich and Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Department A. Piatt Andrew, and 5 more of the country's leading financiers, who together represented about one-fourth of the world's wealth[citation needed], arrived at the Jekyll Island Club to discuss monetary policy and the banking system, an event led to the creation of the current Federal Reserve. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, the 1910 Jekyll Island meeting resulted in draft legislation for the creation of a U.S. central bank. Parts of this draft (the Aldrich plan) were incorporated into the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. On November 5–6, 2010, Ben Bernanke stayed on Jekyll Island to commemorate the 100-year anniversary of this original meeting.[9]"
Yes, there was a meeting, after a protracted and very publicly conducted comparative study by Aldrich and others of how banking was done elsewhere. That they were doing this study about central banking was quite public. That they met on Jekyll Island was not public at the time they met, but it was very public later during the Congressional hearings that resulted in some- but by no means ALL - of their work on Jekyll Island being incorporated into legislation that was completely open and transparent in Congress.
This was not a vast new world order conspiracy. It was nothing sinister whatsoever; it was just an impromptu 'think tank' style meeting.
Dpn't believe me? Here, since you like wikipedia, let me use them again:
"The head of the bipartisan National Monetary Commission was financial expert and Senate Republican leader Nelson Aldrich. Aldrich set up two commissions—one to study the American monetary system in depth and the other, headed by Aldrich himself, to study the European central banking systems and report on them.[24]
This significance of this last sentence is this - what Aldrich did was bipartisan, and it was largely public - as was his forming the two commissions, not secret, not conspiratorial. To continue:
"Aldrich went to Europe opposed to centralized banking, but after viewing Germany's monetary system he came away believing that a centralized bank was better than the government-issued bond system that he had previously supported.
Do you understand that the creation of our federal reserve system came about in the context of similar changes world wide to their banking procedures and organizations? No, clearly you don't have any context in understanding this whatsoever; all you see is something written by an ignorant conspiracy nut who has NO significant respect or recognition anywhere, not here, not in the rest of the world.
I'm still waiting for you, Anonymous, to identify this "important international recognition" you claim for this idiot and what he has written. Clearly you don't know who is serious and legitimate and who is not.
continued next comment
To continue from wikipedia on the Federal Reserve System:
ReplyDelete"In early November 1910, Aldrich met with five well known members of the New York banking community to devise a central banking bill. Paul Warburg, an attendee of the meeting and long time advocate of central banking in the U.S., later wrote that Aldrich was "bewildered at all that he had absorbed abroad and he was faced with the difficult task of writing a highly technical bill while being harassed by the daily grind of his parliamentary duties".[25] After ten days of deliberation, the bill, which would later be referred to as the "Aldrich Plan", was agreed upon. It had several key components, including a central bank with a Washington-based headquarters and fifteen branches located throughout the U.S. in geographically strategic locations, and a uniform elastic currency based on gold and commercial paper. Aldrich believed a central banking system with no political involvement was best, but was convinced by Warburg that a plan with no public control was not politically feasible.[25] The compromise involved representation of the public sector on the Board of Directors.[26]"
Aldrich's bill met much opposition from politicians. Critics were suspicious of a central bank, and charged Aldrich of being biased due to his close ties to wealthy bankers such as J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Aldrich's son-in-law. Most Republicans favored the Aldrich Plan,[26] but it lacked enough support in Congress to pass because rural and western states viewed it as favoring the "eastern establishment".[2] In contrast, progressive Democrats favored a reserve system owned and operated by the government; they believed that public ownership of the central bank would end Wall Street's control of the American currency supply.[26] Conservative Democrats fought for a privately owned, yet decentralized, reserve system, which would still be free of Wall Street's control.[26]
The original Aldrich Plan was dealt a fatal blow in 1912, when Democrats won the White House and Congress.[25] Nonetheless, President Woodrow Wilson believed that the Aldrich plan would suffice with a few modifications. The plan became the basis for the Federal Reserve Act, which was proposed by Senator Robert Owen in May 1913. The primary difference between the two bills was the transfer of control of the Board of Directors (called the Federal Open Market Committee in the Federal Reserve Act) to the government.[2][21]
Did you even know that this act was the result of the combining of two bills after extensive hearings and public debate? No? Not a big conspiracy AT ALL, much less one that sunk the Titanic or any other bullshit nonsense the right has contrived.
To continue from wikipedia, which is good because it simplifies topics for the ignorant who lack a context or the background knowledge for a more in depth treatment of the subject matter:
ReplyDelete" The bill passed Congress on December 23, 1913,[27][28] on a mostly partisan basis, with most Democrats voting "yea" and most Republicans voting "nay".[21]
Did you happen to notice that Aldrich was a republican and that his proposal was initially supported primarily BY Republicans, but that the version of his legislation which passed DID SO by having persuaded the opposition Democrats? NOT Aldrich's usual supporters, which is what one would expect of an Aldrich conspiracy. Did you even KNOW, Anonymous, about the surprising partisan support, including from the opposition party President?
There is so much you don't know Anonymous, and so much bullshit from a non-economist,non-historian, non-rational right wing crazy that you are putting your faith in when you believe that idiot Griffin, that you don't begin to understand how flawed your position really is. No one who is even minimally educated in either history or finance or economics -- preferably some combination of the above, would give Griffin the time of day. He is an ignorant crackpot who exploits dummies like YOU.
I'm not sure why oyou would give out anonymous conspiracy theory fan attention.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, the Crash of 1907 demonstrated that some form of Central Bank was necessary for US economic growth. During this panic, the New York Stock Exchange fell almost 50% from its peak the previous year. This led of course to numerous runs on banks and trust companies.
J.P. Morgan intervened and pledged large sums of his own money and managed to persuade other bankers to do the same since the US did not have a Central bank to regulate the system.
It was that crash that demonstrated a need for a central bank and led to the establishment of the US Federal Reserve.
That puts paid to a couple of Anonymous's theories: that there were no major crashes pre-Fed and that it was some evil cabal of bankers that created the fed.
I would also add that the Black Friday of 1869 points out the folly of a commodity based currency. Far from being stable, commodities are subject to market fluctuation. In this case, Financier Jay Gould sought to corner the gold market for various reasons. That incident points out the many flaws in returning to the gold standard.
Unless he can make some intelligent and thoughtful comment, rather than fulminating fantasies promoted by panic merchants, we can not give anonymous any more attention than he deserves.
I know full well that anonymous will not learn the lessons of history, particularly that of Black Friday.
That is a shame.
I found this:
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Austrian School, central banking tends to wreak havoc on an economy by systematically devaluing a currency by over creating this currency against nothing of intrinsic value (such as gold), resulting in never-ending inflation. The main opponents to fractional reserve central banking are the proponents of the Austrian business cycle theory, including Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard.
The Austrian School is a minority view in economics and has changed several times from the center to the fringe of the mainstream of modern economic theory.
Here is an interesting critique of the Austrian School of Economics from a professor at George Mason University who once ascribed to that school.
Well kids, here's some reading for you
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard202.html
Unless you are gonna tell me Murray Rothbard is a flake, too.
I admit, you did a great job of killing the messenger without actually pointing out even one instance of falsehood in the 'Creature' book, which is not an economics book, but the story of how the FED was created.
And I'm sure that the fact that that Aldrich was related to Rockefeller had no bearing whatsoever in this story.
I strongly suggest that our anonymous poster read the critique of the Austrian School mentioned in my previous comment.
ReplyDeleteThe Austrian School is pretty much conisdered fringe in modern economics for the reasons the GMU prof. mentions.
I would add that their conspiracy theories don't add to making their economic theories any more attractive.
What our anonymous commenter fails to acknowledge is that Central Banks, whether public or private, are necessary to a country's economic health--which is something that the Austrian School also denies.
ReplyDeleteThe US had three periods where there was no central bank in which the economy tanked. In fact, the post-Revolutionary economy was so weak that Alexander Hamilton argued for a central bank (the First Bank of the US). While the US saw economic development during those periods, it was not as strong as it could have been had there been a banking authority.
The Panic of 1907 demonstrated that there was a need for a central bank.
Your idiot author claims a conspiracy that did not happen.
ReplyDeleteThe relationship to Rockefeller addresses the concerns Aldrich had about public perception resulting in a private meeting to draft legislation.
None of the sources you cite - which I doubt you have read, and doubt even more that you would understand, address the issues of what is wrong with the Creature from Jekyll Island conspiracy theory.
Let me make it simple - which is about addressing your content, not the messenger.
From wikipedia - to keep it simple so you can understand it:
"Purpose
The primary motivation for creating the Federal Reserve System was to address banking panics.[3] Other purposes are stated in the Federal Reserve Act, such as "to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes".[30] Before the founding of the Federal Reserve, the United States underwent several financial crises. A particularly severe crisis in 1907 led Congress to enact the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Today the Federal Reserve System has broader responsibilities than only ensuring the stability of the financial system.[31]"
Specifically, the Fed came about because of the panic of 1907.Quoting again:
"The head of the bipartisan National Monetary Commission was financial expert and Senate Republican leader Nelson Aldrich. Aldrich set up two commissions—one to study the American monetary system in depth and the other, headed by Aldrich himself, to study the European central banking systems and report on them.[24]"
So your sneaky conspiracy theory has to rest on the very public foundation of bipartisan commissions to address the crisis of 1907.
And unless you can make a persuasive argument that the members of those commisions - of both parties, which were oppositional back then as much as they are now - were at Jekyll Island,not just those few attendees, your conspiracy is failed at the start, because of the role those commissions played in the formation of the Fed.
I doubt you know squat about the commissions or who was on them.
Interesting critique. The author certainly didn't trash Mises or Rothbard, as a matter of fact he heaped much praise on them. So he has a different opinion on certain dynamics which is fair. It is theory, not a natural law by any means.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Friedman quote, I can get next to anything the guy that gave us the payroll deductions says.
And one last comment, you say we need a central bank for a healthy economy. How's are healthy economy doing for the last several years and how does it look in the future?
Moving on,from wikipedia's entry on the National Monetary commission:
ReplyDeleteNational Monetary Commission was a study group created by the Aldrich Vreeland Act of 1908. After the Panic of 1907 American bankers turned to Europe for ideas on how to operate a central bank. Senator Nelson Aldrich, Republican leader of the Senate, personally led a team of experts to major European capitals. They were stunned to discover how much more efficient the Europeans were. Furthermore the pound, franc and mark were much more important in international trade than the dollar.
The Commission issued 30 reports (1909-1912) that provided a detailed and authoritative survey of banking systems of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They examine such topics as U.S. financial laws; U.S. state banking statutes; Canadian banking history; and the banking and currency systems of England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, Mexico, Russia, and other nations. The volumes contain essays commissioned from leading specialists, plus innumerable tables, charts, graphs, and facsimiles of forms and documents. Some volumes contain transcripts of relevant speeches, interviews, and hearings. Mitchell [1911] provides a comprehensive review of the documents prepared by the commission. All of the reports were published by the U.S. Government Printing Office between 1909 and 1911.
Not only was there no secret conspiracy, as evidenced by all these reports - which YOU can still read - the content of them clearly and openly shows the who, when, where, what, how and why of the formation of the Fed, NOT what was claimed in that stupid book you are so stuck on.
"The Commission's reports became the basis for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 creating the modern Federal Reserve system.
[edit] References
Mitchell, Wesley C. (1911). The Publications of the National Monetary Commission, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 25: 3, pp. 563 - 593.
Stephenson, Nathaniel W. Nelson W. Aldrich: A Leader In American Politics. 1930
Wells, Donald R. The Federal Reserve System: A History (2004)
Wicker, Elmus . The Great Debate on Banking Reform: Nelson Aldrich And Origins of the Fed (2005).
Wood, John H. A History of Central Banking in Great Britain and the United States (2005).
Digital versions of the Commission reports are available on FRASER, a website of historical resources from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.[1]
Then we get to the fact that the Fed resulted NOT from the legislative proposals drafted at Jekyll Island, but rather it incorporated some of them, dumped many of them, and merged into something totally different with a Democratically favored bill.
ReplyDeleteAFTER that, the Republican support for the legislation tanked. What passed was not only something substantially different than the legislation drafted on Jekyll Island (read both that legislation and the final legislation that passed), what was passed entirely by the Democratic opposition to the Republican proposed legislation.
And many of the people who voted for that legislation weren't even in federal office when the Jekyll Island meeting took place, and were in no way shape or form part of it.
So your conspiracy theory falls apart on EVERY level - what passed was only marginally part of what they came up with on Jekyll Island, who passed it was almost entirely different and unconnected in any way to the people who met on Jekyll Island, and you completely ignore - as does Griffin effectively - all those very public, still accessible reports from the national monetary commission in the creation of the Fed.
You have bupkiss, and the sources you cite are not valid opposition to the facts.
Seriously - are you arguing that when he met with the people on Jekyll Island, that Aldrich and the others were conspiring with the then governor of New Jersey, and the Democratic opposition in Congress rather than Republicans? Hint - there had been some significant turnovers in members of Congress between the Jekyll Island meeting and the passing of the legislation creating the Fed: new people with no connection to the Jekyll Island meeting.
ReplyDeleteBecause THAT is who created the Fed - Democrats in Congress and a Democratic President who was Governor of New Jersey at the time of the Jekyll Island meeting.
You would also need to demonstrate that the secret meeting resulted in a greater part of the creation of the Fed than the public commission reports - and you can't make that work either.
A better question for you, Anonymous, is how bad would the economy be if there hadn't have been some form of Central Bank, a bank of last recourse?
ReplyDeleteThe US economy would collapse if there were no Fed.
At this point, the US is the World's richest Third World Nation. When I first made that comment, it was in regard to standard of living, educational level, and other signs of economic well being. Now, there is no industrial base.
The policy of getting rid of the Fed would totally trash the US.
In fact, it would make it totally beholden to the PRC and Japan.
Even though you might not acknowledge it, without the Fed, things would be far worse for you than they are now.
There are loads of reasons that the Austrian School is considered fringe. Their beliefs about socialism for one.
ReplyDeleteVery few modern economists believe that a laissez-faire policy is good for the economy. Additionally, most economists admit that command economies are the ones that do the best--even if grudgingly.
Also, the Austrian belief in commodity based currency is outdated, and was over a century ago. The Black Friday panic demonstrated many of the problems with such a currency. The Panic of 1837 one of the others, and that is that commodities can fluctuate in value.
The Austrian School is not based on empirical research, but on a priori beliefs. It is biased toward a system that is far more idealistic than most economic theories.
Again, how are the FED and central banks doing for the economy. Is everything fine and dandy, running smoothly?
ReplyDeletePersonally, my gold and silver is doing very well, thank you.
OK, I have to admit to not only reading the Creature from Jekyll Island, but having a copy of it around here somewhere.
ReplyDeleteA friend who knows my rants about fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, and some of the other dislikes of modern complex finance suggest it thinking I would like it.
The problem is that Fiat Currency has been around for some time: it first appeared in Song Dynasty China in the 10th Century. The first North American Currencies were fiat currency. The Continental Congress issued paper money during the War for Independence as well.
Likewise, the capitalist system requires fractional reserve banking dating to the origin of modern banking. Amusingly enough, most criticism of fractional reserve banking come from non-mainstream economic theories, such as those of the Austrian School.
Amusing since the Austrian School denies Socialism. One of the critiques of the Austrian School is that it doesn't use scientific methodolgy. Socialism, on the other hand, claims to be scientific.
The problem is that some form of central bank, or bank of last recourse is necessary for an economy. Had there not been a Fed, you and I would probably be broke since our investments and deposits would be non-existant.
I'm going to quote an article from the Guardian that pretty much sums up what would have happened had there been no fed:
In the fine musical Mary Poppins, Mr Dawes, the elderly banker who employs the children's father, optimistically attempts to persuade young Michael to put his money in the bank on the grounds that "If you invest your tuppence/Wisely in the bank/ Safe and sound/ Soon that tuppence/ Will compound." Not only will the lad get a slice of the action in "railways through Africa, dams across the Nile, majestic self- amortising canals and plantations of ripening tea", promises Mr Dawes, but he will "achieve that sense of stature/ as your influence expands/ To the high financial strata/ that established credit now commands". Michael, understandably reluctant to entrust his precious tuppence-worth of pocket money to a baritone banker with full backing orchestra, protests, prompting the other customers in the bank to take fright and frantically begin withdrawing their lives' savings. This in turn forces the Dawes, Tomes, Mousely, Grubbs Fidelity Fiduciary Bank to temporarily suspend trading. The children's unfortunate father, who - perhaps tellingly - is called Mr Banks, faces disciplinary action and is eventually fired for triggering the first run on the bank since 1773. The enduring popularity of this film might be seen as evidence of a popular lack of confidence in the banking system.
Failure of confidence in a financial system is bad for any economy.
Anonymous says:
ReplyDeleteAgain, how are the FED and central banks doing for the economy. Is everything fine and dandy, running smoothly?
More than asked and answered.
Personally, my gold and silver is doing very well, thank you.
For the time being, but you assume that your gold and silver will maintain their value.
You have failed to learn from history and crashes, such as Black Friday of 1869 and the panic of 1837. Your assumption is that gold and silver will hold their value. But they are subject to market fluctuations.
Yeah, anonymous, Gold is a safe investment.
ReplyDeleteNot really.
The fact is, the FED, central banking and centralized governments have put us in a financial crisis.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, you believe in crap,and frankly you can't seem to tell the difference between crap and gold.
ReplyDeleteHitler was a real, historic person. There were what....approximately 16 or 17 attempts to assassinate him? Those are historic facts.
The Television show, Dr. Who, featured an episode entitled Let's Kill Hitler in season 6. The fictional assassination attempt involved a time traveling shape changing robot operated by micronized humanoids.
That Dr. Who episode was not factual; it was fiction, even though Hitler really existed and there were real-world real-life attempts to assassinate him.
Your belief in the Creature from Jekyll Island is not factual any more than the Dr. Who episode was factual. It is fiction. And the difference between Dr. Who and Griffin is Dr. Who is better quality fiction, and it doesn't pretend to be fact.
You mentioned how is the fed doing - I don't expect perfection from anything we mere mortals create. It doesn't have to be perfect; it is better than not having it would be, based on demonstrable evidence.
You mention you have gold; I can only wonder if you bought that crap from someone like Glenn Beck. It is a scam; you are unlikely to be able to sell it for what you think you can.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18/gold-scam-price-bubble-anxiety_n_863866.html
"2011, it seems, is the year of commodities and companies prepared to capitalize on investor anxiety.
The soaring prices of all sorts of commodities, uncertainty about the broader economy and the low interest rates banks are paying on savings has drawn both companies and investors to precious metals, said Brad Barber, a professor of finance at the University of California Davis.
"It's always easy to sell an investment -- real or fraudulent -- when it's earned really high returns recently,” Barber said. "People tend to think they are getting in on the ground floor, but in fact the elevator may have already gone up and may be on its way down."
Institutional and individual investors hungry to make up losses suffered during the recession, people looking for a safe investment with potentially large returns and those concerned about the economy's stability have all scrambled to join the gold profit party. Together they have created what many analysts insist is a bubble sure to burst. Gold prices -- which reached about $1,495 an ounce on Wednesday -- have hit and nearly returned to record highs this year.
Yet with public interest in gold remaining high, precious metals scams have begun to proliferate.
In March the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported that in the last three years nearly 50 companies selling precious metals investments have opened in just two Florida counties.
This month, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that companies targeting Minnesota seniors persuaded gold coin investors to pay for their purchases with reverse mortgages."
Now I'm sure you are convinced you know what you are doing, but you were also very sure that Griffin wasn't giving you a fictional account of the origins of the Fed as well. You are clearly not a sophisticated, educated participant in the financial sector. Too bad for you, I doubt you did any better investigating buying gold than you did Griffin and the Jekyll fiction. So if that was supposed to impress us, it doesn't - it does give us a reason to laugh at you though, for being gullible.
I sure hope you didn't buy gold from the safe dufus, Glenn Beck, who was 'selling' his audience on Griffin and the Creature from Jekyll Island...
ReplyDelete"Last year, Goldline, a company that advertised during the "Glenn Beck Show" -- and had the good fortune of Beck suggesting on air that gold was a good investment -- also became the subject of two state-level investigations. Beck has described the investigations as government efforts to eliminate opportunities to buy gold."
BTW, thanks for turning me on to Bryan Caplan, the former Austrian.
ReplyDeleteAlso from Huffpo,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/glenn-becks-sponsor-goldl_n_652766.html
Glenn Beck's Sponsor Goldline Under Investigation By Los Angeles D.A. For Fraud (VIDEO)Goldline, more popularly known for its high-profile endorsements from Fox News' Glenn Beck and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, is under investigation by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office and was the subject of Monday night's "Nightline" on ABC.
Authorities in Los Angeles began the investigation after receiving over 100 complaints from consumers who claimed to have lost thousands of dollars after investing with Goldline and Superior Gold Group, a company based out of Santa Monica, California.
Adam Radinsky, Santa Monica City Deputy Attorney, whose office is partnering with investigators in L.A., spoke with "Nightline" about the types of complaints that consumers were making
And then we have this:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Becks_city_of_gold_continues_to_unravel.html
and this:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2010-07-08/news/gold-rush-soaring-prices-unscrupulous-precious-metals-dealers-right-wing-paranoia-we-ve-been-down-this-yellow-brick-road-before/7/
Gold Rush: Soaring Prices, Unscrupulous Precious-Metals Dealers, Right-Wing Paranoia -- We've Been Down This Yellow-Brick Road Before
Anonymous made the silly statement:
ReplyDelete"The fact is, the FED, central banking and centralized governments have put us in a financial crisis."
That is NOT a fact, it is something other that you pulled out of your backside, which one more time in a long line of examples, demonstrates you don't have a good grasp of facts, and an even worse grasp of concepts.
Apparently you are thoroughly un-American, wishing to undue the U.S. constitution, as well as the legally authorized provisions of the majority through the actions of representative government.
Are you some kind of demented anti-democracy anarchist?
C'mon anonymous, tell me who it is that I should respect that accords Griffin with any degree of respectability...you can't. You know nothing about the Fed, how it started, how it works, or what is or is not wrong with it.
You are playing here out of your league.
Poor little PMSing Miss Socialist Minnesota. Let me give you some facts.
ReplyDelete16 or 17 attempts on Hitler's life is not a fact, it's a frickin guess, one or the other is a fact. Such a retarded mistake.
Here's another fact, the Constitution establishes a republic, not a democracy.
And mind your own business. If I wanna invest in gold, copper, chocolate, or cabbages, it is my business. Gawddam puritans like you wanna tell everyone how to live, what to think and what to believe.
And as a guy named Mencken once said, "every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."
Obviously you are not a decent person, just another ignorant, puritan statist whose entire arsenal of thought is condescension.
In other words, Bite Me.
Anon: Trying to claim there's some distinct difference between republic and democracy is reall silly. It's akin to arguing there's some major difference between red and crimson. In fact, you cannot have a republic without democracy.
ReplyDeleteOK, Reality check, Anonymous, yeah you can invest in whatever you want, but any investment counsellor worth their salt with tell you that you shouldn't invest your entire earnings: only what you can afford to invest.
ReplyDeleteAnd the use of "worth his salt" was intentional.
ANY commodity is subject to price flutuation and market forces. Don't kid yourself that gold is a safe investment.
As for central banks, you miss my point that they give confidence in the banking system. They issue currency, regulates the money supply, control the interest rates in a country, and usually regulate the commercial banking system. They do this to ensure confidence in the banking system--Capitalism collapses without confidence in the banking system.
So far, you are a demonstrating that you are an anarchist who wants to destroy the economy. After all, what is the state other than government.
You would be happier living in a failed state, such as Somalia or Afghanistan, than a developed nation.
What you are proposing would lead to the collapse of the capitalist system. In fact, if you knew wehat you are talking about, you are hardly a fan of capitalism!
The founders were all fans of education as well--unfortunately, you are an ignorant sod.
Hey, Anonymous, "Smash the State" is an anarchist slogan!
ReplyDeleteYour too stupid to realise you're saying:
"Smash the State-Abolish Capitalism"
That's because you don't understand the ramifications of your beliefs!
But, I have to admit that I am sympathetic to your ideas--I hate capitalism as well.
Anonymous, here's how gold performs during a financial crisis.
ReplyDeleteThe basic steps are straightforward:
* Economic/financial crisis leads to asset liquidation and dollar shortage
* Dollar shortage leads to dollar appreciation and gold depreciation (in dollar terms)
* One form of asset liquidation – forced gold selling – leads to gold depreciation (in all currencies)
* Eventual monetary response creates surplus of dollars
* Surplus of dollars causes dollar depreciation and gold appreciation
As I said, gold doesn't have a stable value as a commodity.
But, then again, you're too stupid to realise tha you are an anarchist who dislikes capitalism.
Our ignorant anonymous has lost on facts, so he is resorting to ad hominem snark; in case you don't know what that means, ignoramus, let me provide you the dictionary definition.:
ReplyDeletead ho·mi·nem
[ad hom-uh-nuhm ‐nem, ahd-]
adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Ignoramus is - and remains - unfamiliar with the very public reports of the commisions that are directly reflected in the legislation that was written by Aldrich and his friends on Jekyll Island rather than some secret cabal.
Let me also provide you with a dictionary definition of conspiracy:
con·spir·a·cy
[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural -cies.
1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
While Aldrich DID organize a meeting on Jekyll Island that lasted some ten days, it was a private meeting, and the issue of secrecy did not of itself make the meeting a conspiracy. You are too thick between the ears to check that out before accepting the first hoaxer with a crazy, flimsy right wing conspiracy theory.
As to your claims about PMS, socialism, puritanism, or statism, you are still an ignorant GULLIBLE pissant who knows nothing factual or worthwhile about economics or investing. And since you are probably too ignorant to know what pissant means, I figured I should explain to you that it has nothing to do with urine.
from dictionary.com
World English Dictionary
pissant (ˈpɪsænt) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
—n
1. an insignificant or contemptible person
—adj
2. insignificant or contemptible
[C17: from piss + ant]
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Cite This Source
Etymonline
Word Origin & History
pissant
1661, "an ant," from first element of pismire (q.v.) + ant. Meaning "contemptible, insignificant person" is from 1903.
When you resort to what are clearly sexist, mysoginist style derogatory remarks, such as the PMSing comment, in future expect them to be deleted. That is the kind of vulgarity that in my experience is intended to harass and intimidate women. I won't tolerate it here, not only for myself, but for any female readers or commenters who might be put off by that crap.
And as to the factual information regarding Hitler, THAT THERE WERE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS TARGETING HIM IS A FACT. It is not a fact that is dependent on a specific number. But since you need the equivalent of a bicycle with training wheels on it for your sources of information, there were more than I mentioned - a specific number for which I was unwilling to trust my recollection. There are 27 instances listed under Wikipedia's Assassination Attempts on Hitler article, but some are broken down further as 'several', depending on how you define an individual attempt.
I have yet to see you Ignoramus provide that kind of data, or a comprehensive understanding with which to assign facts. I don't get my education from crackpots and right wing media (wait, that was redundant...)
So, c'mon, tell us all who it is you think is the esteemed international source who you cite as the accreditor of Griffin; give us some names.
I haven't given Laci a good chuckle yet this morning....
I think our anonymous friend is getting over the shock that he really doesn't like capitalism.
ReplyDeleteNot ot mention that he's an anarchist.
I'm not sure who would be the bank of last recourse if the Fed is abolished, and neither does he.
The Austrian School fo Economics has as much credibilty in modern economics as climate change denial in the scientific community. It's amusing that Bryan Caplan, who is at an institution with the most adherants to the Austrian School is one of their critics.
You people remind me of those quacks on TV who give an analysis of people they have never met, Dr. quack Drew comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteAnti-capitalist? You're crazy. I am fortunate enough to own a business in what is one of the last free market businesses left in the US. It is virtually unregulated. Unfortunately, the government is corporatist/fascist.
Bastiat was right when he concluded that government creates scarcity. We see it everyday in the US. Choices are taken away from us in every aspect of our lives.
Let's see, should I listen to Jim Rogers or someone called dog gone regarding commodities? One has a proven track record and the other may not have a pot to piss in. It seems pretty obvious to me.
Re: Republic. When they change the Pledge of Allegiance to say "and to the 'democracy' for which it stands" we can discuss it.
Anti-capitalist? You're crazy. I am fortunate enough to own a business in what is one of the last free market businesses left in the US. It is virtually unregulated.
ReplyDeleteThen why do you oppose the institutions and mechanisms that make capitalism function?
Unfortunately, the government is corporatist/fascist.
That's an anarchistic and anti-capitalist comment if ever I heard one.
Bastiat was a liberal, not to mention he was writing 160 years ago.
A bit dated there!
Additionally, your idea about gold is not based in reality. Gold, and other precious metal, speculation has caused or contributed to economic crashes. The Panic of 1837, Black Friday of 1869, The withdrawal of the "greenback" and a return to a metal currency standard contracted the money supply and resulted in what's known as the Long Depression, a period of deep economic despair that lasted from 1873 to 1879.
A number of economic historians are of the opinion that a return to the gold standard just isn't feasible, nor is it desirable. The American public wouldn't tolerate the level of unemployment or the frequent recessions that the gold standard creates. Moreover, the transition back to the gold standard, and the monetary contraction that would result, would be brutal on the economy.
Likewise, the abolition of a central bank to regulate the economy and function as a bank of last recourse would cripple the US economy.
I am curious as to what your business is: prostitution? drug dealing? Pornography? gun running?
Seriously, you don't spound like anyone who understands economics.
Let alone run a successful business.
You do realize, don't you, Anonymous, that the pledge of allegiance was invented to help sell magazines, by a socialist in the late 19th century. It did an excellent job of exploiting uneducated patriotism, taking money out of their pockets, and putting it into their own.
ReplyDeleteYou might not want to use the pledge of allegiance to support your argument.
Before you go quoting Rogers to me, Anonymous...... how much about him do YOU know?
ReplyDeleteFrom wikipedia - the strained peas source that best fits your level of development:
James Beeland Rogers, Jr. (born October 19, 1942) is an American investor, author, and financial commentator.[2] He is currently based in Singapore. Rogers is the Chairman of Rogers Holdings and Beeland Interests, Inc. He was the co-founder of the Quantum Fund with George Soros and creator of the Rogers International Commodities Index (RICI).
Did your head just explode for quoting a Soros crony to justify your investments?
Just because Rogers may knows what he is doing, doesn't mean YOU do. You're not in the same class of investor.
Whee! Poking Anonymous's ignorance with a sharp stick is fun!
Let's see, should I listen to Jim Rogers or someone called dog gone regarding commodities? One has a proven track record and the other may not have a pot to piss in. It seems pretty obvious to me.
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly, you sound to me like a loser who is prime for any get rich quick scheme peddled to him.
You are ignorant that gold is a commodity, and as such, subject to market fluctuations.
You don't need to take my word for it, that's pretty much common knowledge.
Additionally, gold speculation has a track record of crashing and causing panics. Even Jim Rodgers will tell you that.
If he doesn't, he's dishonest.
So, anonymous, you sound like someone who has painted himself into a corner.
You've shown you have no idea of what you are talking about.
In fact, you sound like a serious bullshitter to me.
Also from wikpedia on Rogers:
ReplyDelete"(2002 to present)
On his return in 2002, Rogers became a regular guest on Fox News' Cavuto on Business which airs every Saturday.[7]"
So, I was correct that you were swallowing some line of bullshit from Fox News, just not only Beck. The fox news line of bullshit consistently panders to the low information, low education gullible rightwing idiots, shamelessly exploiting them.
"In 2005, Rogers wrote Hot Commodities: How Anyone Can Invest Profitably in the World's Best Market. In this book, Rogers quotes a Financial Analysts Journal academic paper co-authored by Yale School of Management professor, Geert Rouwenhorst, entitled Facts and Fantasies about Commodity Futures. Rogers contends this paper shows that commodities investment is one of the best investments over time, which is a concept somewhat at odds with conventional investment thinking.
Yup, you are going against 'conventional investment thinking', with no grasp of what someone should know to be in the commodities market. It is strictly for the sophisticated investor, not for goofs like you who have to rely on someone else to tell them what to do. You're the kind of person who is exploited by the savvy. I'm betting here that you have never read the paper mentioned here, and that you wouldn't understand it if you did read it.
How many times can your head explode, Anonymous, like the character from Men in Black, before it stops regenerating?
Proper link to article about Jim Rodgers saying stop buying gold!
ReplyDeleteHey, anonymous, you familiar with those scam where you get a call telling you about those "hot investment tips" that turn out to be duds?
Of course you are! Betcha you invest in them all the time!
Anonymous wrote (re me):
ReplyDelete"In other words, Bite Me."
And at the same approximate time, Laci called, laughing, telling me to 'sic him, bite him', LOL.
So Anon-ignor-amus,consider yourself chewed. We've had a good laugh this morning at your expense, because of your clear ignorance.
Just curious - do you simply believe in one-size-fits-all advice on commodities investments, or is Jim Rogers your personal broker (not)? Anyone who has even the most fundamental understanding of investments would appreciate WHY it is that taking the general advice of an expert is seriously inferior to the guidance and direction of a personal broker expert.
Dumb ass, you have my teeth marks all over you.
Dr. Quack Drew?
ReplyDeleteDo you mean Dr. Drew Pinsky?
Here's his creds:
Pinsky is also Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, former Medical Director for the Department of Chemical Dependency Services at Las Encinas Hospital in Pasadena, California, staff member at Huntington Memorial Hospital, and a private practitioner.
Wow, I like how you lot dislike people with proper credentials--the "elite".
While I may quote others for common knowledge, I do know what I am talking about.
It's obvious, anonymous, that you don't.
you have my teeth marks all over you.
ReplyDeleteSavaged by a pack of blog dogs!
Comrade Anonymous, you aren't tea party, you're fifty cent party.
ReplyDeleteYes Laci, but Comrade Anonymous' membership involves a GOLD fifty cent piece, LOL:
ReplyDeleteThis is probably the kind of gold he buys. I wonder if he also buys decorative plates? Maybe his 'business' is selling junk at flea markets....
Bullion coins
Non-circulating bullion coins have been produced each year since 1986. They can be found in silver, gold and also platinum since 1997. The face value of these coins is legal as tender, but does not actually reflect the value of the precious metal contained therein. On 11 May 2011, Utah became the first state to accept these coins as the value of the precious metal in common transactions. The Utah State Treasurer assigns a numerical precious metal value to these coins each week based on the spot metal prices."
You people crack me up. It's like a donkey calling a burro an ass.
ReplyDeleteBastiat is outdated, but the Panic of 1837 is current affairs. Are the writings of Jesus, Confucius, Sun Tzu? How about Twain's observations on the human condition or Mencken's observations? Outdated? How about the US Constitution?
Your total purpose on this site seems to be to kill any messenger that sets foot here.
Somehow, Jim Rogers is guilty by association. You people are lunatics.
Commodities fluctuate. No shit, Sherlock. If I remember correctly, Joseph in the Bible did pretty damn good for himself in that market.
Guess what? Value of everything fluctuates.
Teeth marks? I don't think so. To quote Mick Jagger, from a toothless, bearded hag?
Bastiat is outdated, but the Panic of 1837 is current affairs.
ReplyDeleteWow, are you really stupid!
What were the causes of the Panic of 1837? How might that be relevant to your proposed "solutions"?
Have you read Bastiat, or do you just quote him because he's quoted by Murray Rothbard?
PPE--Philosphy, Politics, and Economics.
Now, what does that mean to you?
the US Constitution?
Given that you would trash it, it appears it is dated.
Not to mention it has been amended many times.
Commodities fluctuate. No shit, Sherlock. If I remember correctly, Joseph in the Bible did pretty damn good for himself in that market.
Guess what? Value of everything fluctuates.
Then why are you boasting about your silver and gold investments like you're a fucking genius?
Losing your shirt is brilliant, dude!
Push you hard enough and you keep admitting that you don't know what you're talking about.
Yeah, teeth marks, you've been chewed up and spat out.
Although, you seem more like puke, or something viler to me.
You brought up the 1907 Jekyll Island meeting; the panic of 1837 relates directly to the formation of the Fed and to the problems of specie currency.
ReplyDeleteIgnorant Comrade Anonymous, a donkey and a burro are the same thing, and both are asses, of the four legged variety. (You are an ass of the two legged variety.)
"The donkey or ass, Equus africanus asinus,[1][2] is a domesticated member of the Equidae or horse family. The wild ancestor of the donkey is the African Wild Ass, E. africanus. In the western United States, a small donkey is sometimes called a burro (from the Spanish word for the animal)."
Bad analogy, bad metaphor, Comrade.
You write:
"Your total purpose on this site seems to be to kill any messenger that sets foot here.
Somehow, Jim Rogers is guilty by association. You people are lunatics."
We thoroughly failed your message Comrade, and then we faulted you for your ignorance as the messenger. That isn't killing anyone, unless you find laughter fatal?
The quote about Jim Rogers demonstrates you know less about him than we do, and the guilt is not by association it is about the stupidity of believing you get reliable direction from Fox News/ Fox Business, and the fact that Rogers gives advice that is inconsistent with current accepted good practices in investment in commodities. I don't give a hoot if he has a business relationship with George Soros; but it seems you should, if you were consistent in your beliefs.
Don't you read well for comprehension?
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteThose Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It
It's also been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different outcome.
But, you're too fucking stupid to understand why I keep talking about the Panic of 1837 and the subsequent depression.
kill any messenger that sets foot here.
ReplyDeleteHey, you come here with an insane message which isn't been backed up with facts--expect to be slaughtered.
But, if you use this metaphor, you can't go and say later that:
Teeth marks? I don't think so. To quote Mick Jagger, from a toothless, bearded hag?
Either you've been killed, or you survived unscathed--can't have it both ways, comrade.
Kinda like you can't hate the mechanisms and functions of capitalism while claiming to believe in that system.
But, you like to say one thing one minute and contradict yourself the next.
You haven't backed up anything you've said.
In fact, you usually grudgingly admit that we are correct:
I'm not an economic historian.
Commodities fluctuate. No shit, Sherlock. If I remember correctly, Joseph in the Bible did pretty damn good for himself in that market.
Guess what? Value of everything fluctuates.
Not sounding so smart, are you, comrade?
Here's a challenge for you: Express clearly in plain, simple English your point.
ReplyDeleteYou mean you haven't been able to understand it in simple English?
ReplyDeleteYou're admitting that you are a dumbfuck?
How much more do I have to dumb it down for you?
Pictures?
OK, I'll try to explain it to someone with an IQ lower than a geranium:
Central bank good
central bank keep economy working
Central banks abolished--economy crashes
Gold bad money
Gold can cause economy to crash
Gold has caused economy to crash
Lots of people out of work
Simple enough for you?
Our point is that you are ignorant, uneducated, and unfamiliar with what you quote to support your position.
ReplyDeleteLet me untangle the following for you:
"Bastiat is outdated, but the Panic of 1837 is current affairs. Are the writings of Jesus, Confucius, Sun Tzu? How about Twain's observations on the human condition or Mencken's observations? Outdated? How about the US Constitution?"
Bastiat is outdated for a current discussion because he is an economist who wrote and formulated his theory BEFORE we had the Fed style central banking in this country. Economic theory has ADVANCED and CHANGED since he wrote. That, and he didn't assert what you seem to think he did.
The panic of 1837 was directly a result of the problems with having a species based currency; in that respect, it addresses BOTH WHY WE HAVE A CENTRAL BANK, AND WHY YOUR ASSERTION THAT WE SHOULD RETURN TO A PRECIOUS METAL BASED CURRENCY ARE A BAD IDEA.
What I quoted to you about the panic of 1907 and the congressional hearings record from 1908 through 1913, and the record of who voted for the legislation establishing the Fed, all document why the Jekyll Island conspiracy theory doesn't work - it is contradicted by the factual record. It is citing fact, not out of date theory.
The original version of the U.S. Constitution IS outdated, replaced by the series of amendments, giving women the vote, outlawing slavery, etc.
As to the writings of Twain, they are useful in this context when documenting something historical. Twain has some timeless themes, as do Jesus, Sun Tzu, and Confucius, but in some very real applications, yes they are dated, particularly the more literally you try to apply them. Further, as we progress in things like Biblical archeology, we find that some of these writings are not factual.
NOW do you understand the differences?
Bastiat was more of a philosopher than an economist, but the Austrian School treats economics more like philosophy than science. It would make sense that he is a favourite of the Austrian School since his economic writings are far more philosophical than realistic.
ReplyDeleteBastiat's economic theories are long out of date to modern economics.
The Austrian school treats economics more like a religion than a philosophy, verging on superstition rather than science.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
ReplyDeleteCentral bank good=
The economic and financial systems are in great shape today. Roger that.
central bank keep economy working=
The economic and financial systems are working just as they should and is thriving. Roger that.
Central banks abolished--economy crashes=
The central banks are going strong and the economy is soaring. Roger that.
Gold bad money=
The founding fathers were idiots by insisting on gold coins. Roger that.
Gold can cause economy to crash=
Getting rid of gold and creating a central bank will protect us from a crash. Roger that.
Gold has caused economy to crash=
Gold is the root of all evil. Roger that.
Lots of people out of work=
Thankfully, because of the FED and centralized banking, employment is thriving. Roger that.
Recent headline:
Federal Reserve Now Backstopping $75 Trillion Of Bank Of America's Derivatives Trades=
Best news in a hundred years
Thank someone's God for the Federal Reserve. Roger that.
Please provide a factual basis for your assertions.
ReplyDeleteI have listed multiple instances where the US Central bank was abolished and the economy tanked: please provide your basis for saying this would not happen again.
One of the reasons that the Great Depression was so bad was that the Federal Reserve contracted the money supply. Additionally, the Fed allowed some large public bank failures, particularly that of the New York Bank of the United States. That produced panic and widespread runs on local banks, and the Federal Reserve sat idly by while banks collapsed.
Likewise, had the European or US Federal banks let the economy tank this time, it would be far worse than it is now.
Of course, there are the fringe and ignorant who would abolish the US central bank. What's their alternative?
The old National Bank system (pre-Fed) was fraught with at least one bank panic in every decade after the Civil War. A bank panic would often begin when depositors would learn that their bank was unable to meet withdrawal requests. This, in turn, caused a "run" on the bank.
Naturally, you ignore the Crash of 1907.
Gold has caused the economy to crash, but you are too much of a fuckwit to acknowledge Black Friday of 1869,amongst numerous other crashes.
But,you are a fuckwit who hasn't understood a word I've said, and your response makes that obvious.
Yes, I think that Bank of America should go bust--brilliant idea.
Shit for Brains admits that he is some form of commie by wanting to see the banking system crash.
He's too much of a fuckwit to understand
the concept that:
Central Banks help to give confidence in the banking system.
No banking system--no capitalism, comrade.
I think that your "solution" is one of the best around. I'm curious as to what will replace capitalism in the US.
If there is a US.
The US will fail like the Soviet Union if it follows your ignorant policies.
That's where the past thirty years of those policies have taken it.
I can quickly and confidently tell you, I don't know what would happen without them, but I do know what happens with them.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you suppose guys like Jefferson and Madison abhorred them?
Perhaps you'd like to answer that historical question.
OK, one of the results of the US War for Independence was that it left the US economy in shambles--the infant UN was deeply in debt with a currency that was hyperinflated. The people who fought for the Continental Army were unpaid, which was the cause of Shays' Rebellion.
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson was opposed to a privately owned central bank and made the following statement:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
I'm not sure if Jefferson is merely against a privately owned central bank when he makes that statement and supported a publicly owned bank.
The Second Bank of the US was created when James Madison and Albert Gallatin found the government unable to finance the country in the aftermath of the War of 1812. The Second Bank also was chartered by many of the same congressmen who in 1811 had refused to renew the charter of the original Bank of the United States. The predominant reason that the Second Bank of the United States was chartered was that in the War of 1812, the U.S. experienced severe inflation and had difficulty in financing military operations. Subsequently, the credit and borrowing status of the United States were at their lowest levels since its founding.
Likewise, if Madison was originally against such a bank, the fact that not having such a bank crippled the economy was apparent and led to the establishment of the Second Bank five years after the First Bank of the United States lost its charter.
Of course, going to the founding fathers who lived in a pre-industrial, let alone a pre-technological, economy is folly. There was little if any industry in the US when the nation was born. But, ultimately, it was apparent that US economic growth, even during that time would require a central bank.
Likewise, there has been a lot of change in the economic system, which makes it a big bad world for people like you, anonymous, who have no idea what is going on.
What you are proposing is going even further on the course of action that led to this mess.
More regulation is needed, not less.
Pooch, about that Jefferson quote:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/private-banks-quotation
The question I asked was, why did Jefferson and Madison oppose central banking?
You didn't really answer that.
Why regulations will never work
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNcognitivedissonancecartoon.jpg
Um, I did mention why they did, but views from over 200 years ago by people made living in a pre-industrial economy are not really relevant to the modern age.
ReplyDeleteWow, A CARTOON for why regulations won't work!
As I like to say, stupid people tend to understand pictures, but the solutions are much more complex than cartoons can explain.
In fact, you could change what that cartoon says around to say why deregulation won't work.
"Corporations are going to regulate themselves!"
After all, isn't that what deregulation is?
And that is what you are proposing.
And if you want to get into it, the founders disliked standing armies. They would probably being going apeshit over the size of the "defence budget".
ReplyDeleteAre you going to argue that the Defence Department also needs to be abolished?
As I said, you can't take arguments from 200 years ago and expect them to be applicable to modern times.
Pooch, you really can't have it both ways. You say you support OWS which is a protest against banksters running the country. The cartoon illustrates that the banksters and the government are one.
ReplyDeleteBut, you are correct, any reform under the guise of regulations will in fact be some sort of deregulation loophole.
"A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army...We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."
Thomas Jefferson
"Central banks were supposedly the guardians of money. Yet, they have created the biggest liquidity bubble in history."
The Economist
"Regarding the Great Depression, you’re right, we did it."
Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman
"When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made to conceal its power but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government."
Rep. Louis Mcfadden
"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
Disraeli
"There is no reason why the banks should be in control of the Federal Reserve system."
Sen. Robert Owen, 1913
NO, you need to shut up and listen.
ReplyDeleteWell, actually, what you need to do is not only listen, but try to understand what is going on.
You don't give your source for the quotes, but oped news.
They are unattributed quotes without anything tying them together and most likely taken out of context. Certainly taken out of context from the larger subject.
Anyway, quotes without demonstration of understanding what lies behind them are meaningless.
You have failed to understand that the OWS protests want regulation that WORKS.
You also fail to understand that deregulation is exactly what you are complaining about: letting the bankers run the show without any supervision.
I hope that is in simple enough language for you to understand.
I should also point out, Anonymous, that banks are integral to the capitalist system:
ReplyDelete“The banking industry is the circulatory system of the economy,” Mr Gordon says. “It’s analogous to the heart. Breaking your arm is unpleasant – it takes awhile to recover but eventually you’re as good as new. If your heart fails, you’re in trouble.”
The role of a central bank is to regulate the banking system to make sure that there is confidence in that system.
No confidence in the banking system=no capitalism.
As I said, anonymous, you are a closet commie.
But you are too ignorant to realise that.
Thus you fall prey to those who lure you with silly ideas.
Ah, excuse me pooch, but you were the one with the spurious Jefferson quote. Did you notice what I did? I gave you the link as proof that it was partly bogus. I suggest if you want to call my quotes fake, you do the same. As far as context goes, each quote is self-explanatory. There are no hidden meanings. But hey, feel free to bring evidence that says otherwise, just like I did with yours.
ReplyDeleteSure OWS wants regulations. Where are they gonna get them from? A bought off Congress? A bought off president. This is where you people are just plain dumb. Do you really not understand who the owners of the country are?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeLLR3LWtv4
Woaw, anonymous, but you are one of the stupidest people I have ever met. You show no capability of understanding what is going on.
ReplyDeleteThe Jefferson quote was given in a context (is that too big a word for you to understand?):
Thomas Jefferson was opposed to a privately owned central bank and made the following statement:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
I'm not sure if Jefferson is merely against a privately owned central bank when he makes that statement and supported a publicly owned bank.
The bolded word( that means the ones that are darker) are my commentary.
I am not sure if he supports a publicly run central bank and only dislikes privately run banks.
You have not provided any further insight into the context of the quote.
In fact, you show that you have no fucking idea of what is going on here.
NO, a bunch of unattributed properly and unverifiable quotes mean fuck all: they only show that you know how to cut and paste, not that you understand what is going on.
For example:
The Ben Bernanke quote:
"Regarding the Great Depression, you’re right, we did it."
Comes from remarks made by Bernanke
At the Conference to Honor Milton Friedman On Friedman's Ninetieth Birthday.
Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.
That could be taken as a joke. It also lacks proper historical understanding that the Fed did NOTHING to prop up the banking system during the Great Depression.
So, what's your point? Isn't that what you want--no fed?
The Quotation from the Economist is not only taken out of context, it's incorrect as you quoted it:
"Central banks were supposedly the guardians of money. Yet, they have created the biggest liquidity bubble in history."
The actual quote is:
Central banks are supposedly the guardians of money. Yet between them they may have created the biggest liquidity bubble in history.
Read in the context of the Economist article, it backs up what I have been saying.
Do you really not understand who the owners of the country are?
Wow, that is a communist statement if ever I heard one!
Yet, you are allied with a movement that is funded by those same people, and working to achieve their goals.
I strongly suggest that you look up the Koch Brothers and ALEC since they are the people who fund the Libertarian movement in the US: the Koch Brothers and their cronies.
Deregulation plays their game.
Pooch, evidently somewhere along the line you fell off your rocker.
ReplyDeleteKoch's finance the tea party not libertarians. Where in the hell have you been? In the dog house?
Your corn-pone opinions and idiotic, petrified beliefs are so annoying I can't continue.
Have a nice day.
Not in your alternative reality, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteYou may want to check this out:
The Kochs (pronounced "coke") - Koch brothers Charles Koch and David Koch, company Koch Industries, the Koch family foundations, and the Koch network (aka "Koch strategy group") of antiregulation ultra-rich - have bankrolled much of the right wing infrastructure in the United States.
The Kochs are major funders of the Cato Institute, amongst other libertarian think tanks.
Stick to your cartoons, anonymous.