Liberty Forged

the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. ` Nock

Posts Tagged ‘wall street’

MSNBC asks Ron Paul for education on the economy.

Posted by Jesse on January 27, 2009

“The Federal Reserve pyramids debt“. A fraud and ponzi scheme if there ever was one.

Does Obama even entertain discussion on this issue? Hahahaha.

Posted in *Take Action, america, anarcho capitalism, anarchy, antiwar, barack obama, books, business, campaignforliberty, capitalism, central banking, collectivism, congress, Current Events, democrat, economics, economy, Education, election 2008, family, federal reserve, free market, Gold, government, history, humor, international, Libertarian, Libertarianism, life, limited government, LvMInstitute, media, Mises, obama, Politics, Pro Market, revolution, Rights, Ron Paul, Rothbard, socialism, the fed | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“The Money Bomb” Vid – Bank Runs on the horizon.

Posted by Jesse on January 19, 2009

Posted in america, anarcho capitalism, anarchy, antiwar, barack obama, campaignforliberty, collectivism, economics, economy, federal reserve, free market, Gold, government, international, Libertarian, life, limited government, philosophy, Politics, Pro Market, revolution, Ron Paul, socialism, society, the fed | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Demand and Supply (in other words – “Cough it up”)

Posted by Jesse on December 31, 2008

Gary North on the war for the change in your pocket:

“One of the best tests for determining whether a financial columnist or a professional economist is a Keynesian is to examine his views on personal spending. If he favors an increase of personal spending as a means to stimulate the economy, he is a Keynesian. He may not call himself a Keynesian, but he is a Keynesian.

John Maynard Keynes believed that an economy could become a self-reinforcing economic depression because the general public saved too much money. He believed that the key to economic growth is not productivity, but rather spending. He did not believe that the price system is a reliable system of resource allocation. For example, he did not believe that the interest rate is a price that allocates investments and savings. He believed that it is possible that many people in the economy can save money by hoarding currency – not depositing it in a bank, where it is immediately lent. This, he said, undermined the interest rate’s role in equating savings and investments.

First, this observation is irrelevant in a world in which almost all currency is either deposited in a bank account or sent abroad, where it functions as a currency for black markets.

Second, hoarding currency pressures sellers to reduce prices. This acts as an incentive for people to buy more goods and services with their currency. The supposed excess of supply then disappears. Holding currency is a means of thrift. This thrift produces a positive result: lower prices and therefore greater purchasing power for the currency. This process was disparaged by Keynes as a liquidity trap. It was no trap. It was a benefit for holders of currency.

Keynes and his disciples had a solution to the liquidity trap: increased government spending and monetary inflation. This debases the currency, forcing hoarders to spend. The process by which this was accomplished, worldwide, was World War II. In the name of the war effort, every nation authorized its central bank to inflate.

This is what they are all doing again, in our Keynesian world, in which hardly anyone in the West hoards currency. Central banks are inflating. Governments are running huge deficits.

…………..read the whole article here

The fact that professional economists have returned to Keynesianism – in the words of the Bible, like a dog to its vomit – should not surprise anyone. Professional economists cannot shake their faith in big government. They cannot shake their faith in deficit spending. They also cannot shake their faith in the power of government to increase productivity merely by spending money on boondoggles. They believe in government, and in government boondoggles, with the same kind of commitment that theologians in the Middle Ages believed in scholastic theology. They cannot think outside the box. The box is labeled: “Spend!”

The government is determined to thwart all attempts of individuals to save more money and therefore increase productivity. It is committed to the idea that the individual is unreliable in his commitment to deficit spending. There was even a slight uptick in the second quarter of 2008 in household savings. It rose by a little under 3% per annum. This was a reversal of recent years, when most American households did not increase savings at all. In fact, they actually borrowed a in order to maintain their spending habits.”

Posted in america, anarcho capitalism, barack obama, campaignforliberty, capitalism, central banking, collectivism, economics, economy, Education, family, federal reserve, free market, Gold, government, history, international, life, personal, philosophy, Politics, socialism, society, work, writing | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Self-evident ignorance and other obvious deficiencies…

Posted by Jesse on October 12, 2008

Need I spend my time on seemingly unimportant comments? Unfortunately yes.

Although the opposition has no real argument to offer it is still worth the effort to defend and clarify positions in this matter. The material in question begins with a post regarding the “Worst Week“. Of course the author points out the simple and important fact that Wall Street is not representative of all that is the US economy. And this is important to note when one notes the battle cry of those who want to destroy the free market and governments who want to control money and all transactions and are using an alleged “crisis” to carry out their goal. An impossible goal, to be sure, but governments have never been a bastion of common sense or integrity. Indeed, fallible humans institute power for any reason they deem fit whenever they can get away with it. How many times have you or someone else said: “there should be a law“. (Kinda scary when you think about it.)

I write this as a reaction to a contributor in the so-called “discussion“.

Let me repost some comments in lieu of this misallocation of criticism.

This is the author’s thoughts on the “worst week”:

“I think the threat of an Obama presidency is a major reason for Wall Street’s ills of late.”

“There is simply no other reason. “

I don’t even think I need to confirm my suspicion that this comment was made by a McCain fan. Of course, this is not my problem. This is blatant political bias. My point in responding to such a post was to add to the “discussion”.

For anyone knowledgeable in the going-ons of the market and it’s arch nemesis in organized theft and violence, it should be clear why the market is not rallying. History is relevant and there is none in this post. 5 ‘n 1/2 years is a marker, but it doesn’t tell us anything.

The reactive comment comes after my repeated attempts to bring to the table a larger view of the current state of the economy. I went beyond the bounds of Wall Street by commenting on this broader topic of the economy and introduced info on military spending. In addition, I responded to a comment on Chris Buckley’s endorsement of Obama, but all-in-all, i added nominally more to the discussion than anyone else. I am criticized not because I was speaking off-topic but because the commenter “wasn’t interested”

To cut to the chase…I have yet to directly respond to the latest comment. I think that what was said should speak for itself. (Really, it is so off base in the context of the “discussion” it is amusing. And I know this person says the same of me, except I am presenting actual relevant material (i did include personal opinion and language, whereas this individual is relying on….? I don’t even think they could coherently define anarchism)

Unfortunately, I have recieved similar attitudes from related posters. Of course, they wont claim to be related. I have posted articles that show how the positions they hold are based upon a similar philosophy. I just don’t think they like the language I use, which is something I am working on to improve. But some of these people aren’t familiar with the subject material I present and when they are it is usually insufficient or often based on presumptions or concluded with a question.

I will add more to this later…..I have work to attend to.

———————

UPDATE:

well i responded. i used mike rozeff as a weapon. his precise analysis is deadly.

i used this link.

Liquidity Revisited (contains a great link to Rogers on bloomberg too, 10minutes long)

harking back to the opposition comment…anarchist proposals? heck yeah!! lol. go ahead click on the link if you dare…

______________________

UPDATE:

So, I think that the links i provided to the comments section on both websites were made

by the same individual…. I hadn’t realized that till just now…Most people seem to go by the same name….my bad…

But my position is still the same:

I tried to narrow my comments to the focus of the author, derekglover on libertasexemplar.

It is not my intention to conflate the attitude of the commenter with the content of the post. Thats just a matter of circumstance.

My first comment was stupid. I really didn’t understand that I was asking exactly what the author was claiming. Duh!

I could’ve spent more time on providing the evidence derekglover asked for specifically. he deviation in his post and my responses were a matter of perspective. partial responses by the author:

“I have made an assersion in hopes of explaining the situation and my evidence is Obama’s chances of election, proximity of election day, and his tax proposals. What kind of evidence do you want?”

“Investors are concerned with things outside the scope of the bank bailout.”

i was making another claim other than the “threat of an Obama Presidency”. Namely that: the confidence is not there.” and“government is pre-empting the market and establishing vast controls.”

I continued to suggest other input and more sources for a larger perspective on the economy because it serves no one to only look at one sector of the economy or government action. It is all related.

Sure, I offered some harsh language and opinion! : “a con game has been played and a lot of cards are on the table. people are folding left and right. soon only a few powerhouses will remain. it might be a massively decepetive and destructive way to eliminate competition but it is working.”

Meanwhile, the commenter who demands “discussions of merit” avers: “clearly, the Office has been preempted by It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia as the funniest show on television.”

Posted in antiwar, Current Events, economy, Education, free market, Mine, Politics, republican, Rights | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Has Capitalism Failed?

Posted by Jesse on March 9, 2008

U.S. House of Representatives, July 9, 2002

It is now commonplace and politically correct to blame what is referred to as the excesses of capitalism for the economic problems we face, and especially for the Wall Street fraud that dominates the business news. Politicians are having a field day with demagoguing the issue while, of course, failing to address the fraud and deceit found in the budgetary shenanigans of the federal government – for which they are directly responsible. Instead, it gives the Keynesian crowd that run the show a chance to attack free markets and ignore the issue of sound money.

So once again we hear the chant: “Capitalism has failed; we need more government controls over the entire financial market.” No one asks why the billions that have been spent and thousands of pages of regulations that have been written since the last major attack on capitalism in the 1930s didn’t prevent the fraud and deception of Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossings. That failure surely couldn’t have come from a dearth of regulations.

What is distinctively absent is any mention that all financial bubbles are saturated with excesses in hype, speculation, debt, greed, fraud, gross errors in investment judgment, carelessness on the part of analysts and investors, huge paper profits, conviction that a new era economy has arrived and, above all else, pie-in-the-sky expectations.

When the bubble is inflating, there are no complaints. When it bursts, the blame game begins. This is especially true in the age of victimization, and is done on a grand scale. It quickly becomes a philosophic, partisan, class, generational, and even a racial issue. While avoiding the real cause, all the finger pointing makes it difficult to resolve the crisis and further undermines the principles upon which freedom and prosperity rest.

Nixon was right – once – when he declared “We’re all Keynesians now.” All of Washington is in sync in declaring that too much capitalism has brought us to where we are today. The only decision now before the central planners in Washington is whose special interests will continue to benefit from the coming pretense at reform. The various special interests will be lobbying heavily like the Wall Street investors, the corporations, the military–industrial complex, the banks, the workers, the unions, the farmers, the politicians, and everybody else.

But what is not discussed is the actual cause and perpetration of the excesses now unraveling at a frantic pace. This same response occurred in the 1930s in the United States as our policymakers responded to the very similar excesses that developed and collapsed in 1929. Because of the failure to understand the problem then, the depression was prolonged. These mistakes allowed our current problems to develop to a much greater degree. Consider the failure to come to grips with the cause of the 1980s bubble, as Japan’s economy continues to linger at no-growth and recession level, with their stock market at approximately one-fourth of its peak 13 years ago. If we’re not careful – and so far we’ve not been – we will make the same errors that will prevent the correction needed before economic growth can be resumed.

In the 1930s, it was quite popular to condemn the greed of capitalism, the gold standard, lack of regulation, and a lack government insurance on bank deposits for the disaster. Businessmen became the scapegoat. Changes were made as a result, and the welfare/warfare state was institutionalized. Easy credit became the holy grail of monetary policy, especially under Alan Greenspan, “the ultimate Maestro.” Today, despite the presumed protection from these government programs built into the system, we find ourselves in a bigger mess than ever before. The bubble is bigger, the boom lasted longer, and the gold price has been deliberately undermined as an economic signal. Monetary inflation continues at a rate never seen before in a frantic effort to prop up stock prices and continue the housing bubble, while avoiding the consequences that inevitably come from easy credit. This is all done because we are unwilling to acknowledge that current policy is only setting the stage for a huge drop in the value of the dollar. Everyone fears it, but no one wants to deal with it.

Ignorance, as well as disapproval for the natural restraints placed on market excesses that capitalism and sound markets impose, cause our present leaders to reject capitalism and blame it for all the problems we face. If this fallacy is not corrected and capitalism is even further undermined, the prosperity that the free market generates will be destroyed.

Corruption and fraud in the accounting practices of many companies are coming to light. There are those who would have us believe this is an integral part of free-market capitalism. If we did have free-market capitalism, there would be no guarantees that some fraud wouldn’t occur. When it did, it would then be dealt with by local law-enforcement authority and not by the politicians in Congress, who had their chance to “prevent” such problems but chose instead to politicize the issue, while using the opportunity to promote more Keynesian useless regulations.

Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It’s not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military–industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!

To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political spectrums. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names – Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism.

What is not discussed is that the current crop of bankruptcies reveals that the blatant distortions and lies emanating from years of speculative orgy were predictable.

First, Congress should be investigating the federal government’s fraud and deception in accounting, especially in reporting future obligations such as Social Security, and how the monetary system destroys wealth. Those problems are bigger than anything in the corporate world and are the responsibility of Congress. Besides, it’s the standard set by the government and the monetary system it operates that are major contributing causes to all that’s wrong on Wall Street today. Where fraud does exist, it’s a state rather than federal matter, and state authorities can enforce these laws without any help from Congress.

Second, we do know why financial bubbles occur, and we know from history that they are routinely associated with speculation, excessive debt, wild promises, greed, lying, and cheating. These problems were described by quite a few observers as the problems were developing throughout the 90s, but the warnings were ignored for one reason. Everybody was making a killing and no one cared, and those who were reminded of history were reassured by the Fed Chairman that “this time” a new economic era had arrived and not to worry. Productivity increases, it was said, could explain it all.

But now we know that’s just not so. Speculative bubbles and all that we’ve been witnessing are a consequence of huge amounts of easy credit, created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve. We’ve had essentially no savings, which is one of the most significant driving forces in capitalism. The illusion created by low interest rates perpetuates the bubble and all the bad stuff that goes along with it. And that’s not a fault of capitalism. We are dealing with a system of inflationism and interventionism that always produces a bubble economy that must end badly.

So far the assessment made by the administration, Congress, and the Fed bodes badly for our economic future. All they offer is more of the same, which can’t possibly help. All it will do is drive us closer to national bankruptcy, a sharply lower dollar, and a lower standard of living for most Americans, as well as less freedom for everyone.

This is a bad scenario that need not happen. But preserving our system is impossible if the critics are allowed to blame capitalism and sound monetary policy is rejected. More spending, more debt, more easy credit, more distortion of interest rates, more regulations on everything, and more foreign meddling will soon force us into the very uncomfortable position of deciding the fate of our entire political system.

If we were to choose freedom and capitalism, we would restore our dollar to a commodity or a gold standard. Federal spending would be reduced, income taxes would be lowered, and no taxes would be levied upon savings, dividends, and capital gains. Regulations would be reduced, special-interest subsidies would be stopped, and no protectionist measures would be permitted. Our foreign policy would change, and we would bring our troops home.

We cannot depend on government to restore trust to the markets; only trustworthy people can do that. Actually, the lack of trust in Wall Street executives is healthy because it’s deserved and prompts caution. The same lack of trust in politicians, the budgetary process, and the monetary system would serve as a healthy incentive for the reform in government we need.

Markets regulate better than governments can. Depending on government regulations to protect us significantly contributes to the bubble mentality.

These moves would produce the climate for releasing the creative energy necessary to simply serve consumers, which is what capitalism is all about. The system that inevitably breeds the corporate-government cronyism that created our current ongoing disaster would end.

Capitalism didn’t give us this crisis of confidence now existing in the corporate world. The lack of free markets and sound money did. Congress does have a role to play, but it’s not proactive. Congress’ job is to get out of the way.

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Posted in business, congress, Constitution, democrat, economy, Education, election 2008, family, free market, Gold, government, health, history, Libertarian, life, Mises, old right, Pro Market, republican, Rights, Ron Paul, Rothbard, senate, society, technology, writing | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »