Financial Times Fumbles Trump’s Central Banking Criticism
By Daily Bell Staff - November 02, 2016

Populists stick to tradition of central bank-bashing … If anyone still doubts the affinity between support for Trump in the US and for Brexit in the UK, they should look no further than the two movements’ attitude to monetary policy. –Financial Times

The “populism vs. globalism” meme is increasingly evident in the mainstream media just as we predicted, and analyzing it can generate considerable insight into elite plans and societal positioning.

This Financial Times article provides us further information in a short editorial. Interestingly, it is not by any means persuasive propaganda. It would have been far more effective in the 20th century than today when so many more people are beginning to be educated about free-market economics.


Donald Trump has accused the Federal Reserve of keeping interest rates too low for what is healthy for the economy in order to make the Obama administration, and by extension Hillary Clinton, look good. Theresa May, more elegantly but no more justifiably, used her party Conservative party conference speech to attack the Bank of England’s policy of quantitative easing.

In both cases, the technocrats at central banks are accused of making policy that helps rich elites and hurts the more deserving common people, be they small savers or hardworking families.

So far so good. But toward the end of the article we are – unfortunately for the argument – provided with more specifics. This is where the article’s logic weakens and then disintegrates.

A cursory search of “populism” or “populism vs. globalism” will reveal a tremendous amount of commentary in a short period of time. In fact,  this particular dominant social theme seems to be a foundational feature of upcoming arguments in favor of globalism.

But it is fatally flawed – as this article offers in a few sentences that are meant to be damning but instead reveal the basic bankruptcy of this rhetorical approach:

Traditionally, populists have berated central banks for their obsession with “sound money”: tight monetary policy, high interest rates and the gold standard. ¨

In about 25 words, the article seems to sabotage its entire argument and by extension the larger meme.

Is this the best that can be done? Probably so. It provides terrible testimony as to the state of elite memes generally.

For one thing, central bank criticism in the past few decades has not focused on central bank “obsession with sound money.”

On the contrary, most modern criticism regarding central banking focuses on the endless debasement of the fiat currency monetary facilities spew relentlessly.

Additionally, critics of central banking in the past decade or more have been sounding the alarm regularly about too-low interest rates. Rates so low, in fact, that they have now gone into negative territory.

Finally, in addition to mischaracterizing modern central bank criticism, the article doesn’t even attempt to grapple with cogent criticisms of central banking that are common on the Internet today.

These criticisms are rooted in the free-market economics of the Austrian School, which is in many ways the basis of all modern economics.

Marginal utility shows us clearly that markets create valid prices. Yet central banks “fix” the value and volume of money via interest rates and in other ways.

This cognitive dissonance is at the heart of the disaster of modern central banking.

Ask a central banker if he believes in price fixing, and you should receive a credible, necessary response: Price fixing destroys prosperity by substituting dictates for market competition. And yet … price-fixing is central banking’s significant – sole – methodology.

In the Internet era, memes have to be convincing and logical to have an impact with the intelligentsia that elites have traditionally sought to propagandize – as they are thought leaders. But here we have one of the most important dominant social themes – populism vs. globalism – being presented in a major financial newspaper in a most unpersuasive way.

This is probably why the fallback position when it comes to reasserting a necessary matrix of elite propaganda increasingly focuses on censorship.

The kind of comprehensive effort necessary to reestablish the once-commonly accepted disinformation of the 20th century is probably beyond the scope of even the most authoritarian propagandizing short of genocide.

Conclusion: Bur wait, is that a potential world war staining the horizon? …

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

  • Bruce C.

    Maybe the rhetorical strategy being used in this article is to misrepresent “populism” so that it seems stupid to people, and central banking so that it seems responsible. I mean how nonsensical is it to berate “sound money”? It’s like the author is trying to imply that populists are stupid AND that central banks support sound money (including a gold standard.) That’s the way I read it anyway, even though it’s backwards.

    • Good analysis.

    • Well popularism is a superficial and issue-less term that can be defined by official narratives to mean what they want it to be seen to mean by those who align in their thinking.
      Elitism could be called unpopularism because it sucks wealth out from the people to feed its power habit and that is never going to be popular no matter what targeted messaging is pushed out to the unaware-by-design population.
      HG Wells posited two branches of humanity in ‘The Time Machine’. One lot farmed and ate the other. I could have spelt that pharmed as there are many ways of milking the cowed.

  • apberusdisvet

    The FT is a good case of an MSM outlet trying to be relevant with its particular brand of propaganda. Where it fails is that it allows a comments section wherein the commentators do great damage to the memes presented. Quite funny actually.

  • John Lock

    FT uses circular logic and defeats their own position. LOL

  • Ronjar__

    Trump in office should allow for private currencies. He should talk with Ron Paul about the subject.

    • robertsgt40

      Ron Paul supports a non-fiat currency based on gold/silver. Not a debt based private central bank controlled system. Ya know, the one we had before 1913. Until the Federal Reserve Act is repealed and the thieves jailed, nothing will change.

      • ICFubar

        Before 1913, from the 1850s, or there about, onward the bankers played all the same games under a gold standard, after they demonetized silver, that they are playing under the current fiat regime. It is not a question of what physical form money takes but rather one of who gets to create money, how it is created and in whose interests. The money supply has slipped back and forth between gold standards and fiat many a time, even in Roman days, and the same financial games were being played by the controllers of the money creation business. You have the fact that 97% of OUR money is created as debt correct though as we borrow OUR own money into existence, all of it owed back to the banking class plus interest. We could create all the same real assets like houses, vehicles, farms and high rises without having to borrow money from bankers by just issuing the money ‘ourselves’ for all these worthy projects from a people’s bank controlling the monetary system and have a permanent money supply which we currently do not!

        • Doc

          Not sure you are aware that 99% of the central banks around the world are public institutions?

          For example, the Swedish Riksbank is from 1668 and used to cause very little trouble compared to what it does today. It was only when it was granted a monopoly some hundred years ago that the current kind of problems started.
          So how is it helping the Swedes that they have a public institution with a monopoly?

          • ICFubar

            I beg to differ. Who owns the actual preferred shares of these banks? The only publicly owned central bank, the shares owned by the people and held in trust by the Ministry of Finance is the Bank of Canada, which has been “captured” by the BIS system. All the rest are privately owned for profit enterprises that, like the Federal Reserve, whose owners have instigated themselves as central banks in their respective countries just like a parasite within a host. All are modeled on the Bank of England. There are a few nation’s central banks that don’t belong to the central bankers club at the BIS because they have a differing lending system, like Syria, Iran and once Libya. China and Russia are members though. Do you think these privately owned central banks might have twisted government’s arm to obtain their monopolies? “Competition being a sin.” Example: the Fed is owned by its member banks but just try and find out who owns the preferred shares of these banks. I’ve tried but that information is not available to the public. My guesses would run to such families as the Rothschild family and others and newcomers like the Rockefeller family.

          • Doc

            I was referring to the Riksbank as an example of a public institution. As you can read here after 30 seconds on google,, it is not owned by private banks, like the Fed is. But they are ruining the average Swede just as much as the Fed is ruining the average American.

            So you can beg to differ as much as you like, but you are wrong. Are you willing to learn something, or do you just want to share your fantasies with us?

  • Palerider

    Privately owned or controlled central banks are parasites feeding on the populous by controlling money supply. They constantly need to be fed with ever increasing debt. When the standard economic cycle does not suffice they engineer a financial crisis and when that fails they engineer wars. To make sure this elite get what they want they fund the politicians election campaigns, change what our kids are taught and orchestrate our sons and daughters being sent to foreign countries to die for their power-mongering and greed. We know Clinton is one of their puppets – Trump position is unclear. The last president that disagreed with them was JFK.

  • ICFubar

    The problem is of course the private for profit ownership of the money creation business as exemplified by the Federal Reserve Bank and the international Bank of International Settlements system. Each nation in the west has their version of a group trying to educate the public on the dangers of this private for profit ownership of creating money. They all argue the same point that the money creation process should be in the hands of the public with the public’s interest coming first instead of banker’s interests. In the USA the main group is the American Monetary Institute, in Canada it’s the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER), In Britain it is the Positive Money group. The words of former Canadian PM W.L. McKenzie King sums up the whole situation:

    “Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit it matters not who makes the nation’s laws.Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and scared responsibility all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.

    Usury once in control will wreck any nation.”

    • Doc

      The problem is that all currencies around the world are national monopolies. Some are private, some public, but the outcomes the same.

      There used to be central banks and private banks issuing currencies along side each other in the same countries without any major issues. It was only when monopolies were put in place that the current mess started.

      This is not a ‘private vs public’ issue, but a ‘monopoly vs no monopoly’ issue.

      • Exactly, the problem is the monopoly, not the private or public status.

        • ICFubar

          I disagree. Money creation in private hands is just a bad idea. Money creation under any ideological bent must be in the hands of the public under total transparency or the age old gremlins of greed and avarice will do their best to undermine whatever societal structure is in place. And caveat emptor doesn’t cut it when life savings go down the drain.

          • Money creation in private hands has happened for thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of years. The ignorance of the modern money argument is tragic.

          • ICFubar

            It only works if you have a debt jubilee every so often to restart the game, other wise collapse is unavoidable and human suffering takes place until enough of the debt is repaid so that borrowing can begin again. Look who holds all the cards in this system. I would prefer a public system where enough money is created to make the economy cycle smoothly and there is no need for the re balancing of the system to keep it from collapsing as the money supply would be a permanent one, not like now. It is not so much a question of monopoly but who creates our money, how it is created, how much is to be created and in whose interests. Under a public system the only question would be what is the Quantity of money that should be created. Everything else would remain the same except bankers would only be able to lend out at interest the money they have invested in the bank, as a secondary market. Speculation would have to curbed to some extent to prevent the blowing of ‘bubbles’ as they are destructive to any economic system. This is not MMT.

          • Mstrjack

            “The ignorance of the modern money argument is tragic.”

            Indeed. It is very sad.

            ICFubar wants the public to create his money for him. Well, I am part of the public and I would be happy to do that for him. I don’t understand why he doesn’t want to create his own money, but if he wants me to do it for him I will gladly do it for a fee.

          • dave jr

            It seems Fubar is a collectivist. In his reasoning there are only two camps, government and corporation, to the exclusion of freely associating individuals. He lumps “public” under government.
            Just like the globalism vs. populism meme, all persons must chooses to climb aboard one of two leaky monopolist ships.
            In reality, true credit (currency) and sound money can only be issued by economic producers. However, government can play a legitimate role by upholding a standard of weights and measures; as well as providing arbitration (law) in settling contract disputes.
            Authoritarian ‘collectivists’ don’t want free markets made up of freely associating individuals who choose to participate (or not) with groups of like minded persons with common goals. Taking control over credit issuance (currencies) is the easiest way to co-opt economic freedom and liberty in general.

          • Samarami

            “…Money creation in private hands is just a bad idea…”

            Another way of stating that a free market “…is just a bad idea…”??? That monopoly (central) political “authority” is the only thing that is not “…a bad idea…”??? That freedom is “…a bad idea…”???

            Thinking in terms of “money creation” is collectivist thinking — always with underlying threat of violence. The implication is fiat. A free market depends wholly upon individuals.

            Whenever I hear the term “public” bandied about like this, collectivism is what rings in my feeble old ears. Because “the-public” is a mindless abstraction. Are you “the-public”, or am I???

            Individuals, in history, have almost universally gravitated toward precious metals due to their rarity, divisibility, and universally agreed upon value. But, yes, “…just commodities like oil or sea shells or yak dung…” can also be used as “money” in a 100% free marketplace
            presuming there is a wide enough acceptance of/and mutually satisfactory “value” placed thereon.

            “Money creation” — the very term as it is used in this conversation — implies threat of violence against those who wish not to comply with the “creators”. Sam

      • ICFubar

        Yes private corporations called banks used to issue their own money and how did that work out? Your reply depends on whether your viewpoint comes from an anarchist-libertarian stance or a statist stance. Mine comes from viewing human nature as it responds to money. Their are perils either way. My view point is that money is far too important to be in the hands of any private entity but that the process of creating money under any ideological bent needs to be in the hands of the people under total transparency or the gremlins of human nature will do their best to confound any system of human societal structure.

        • Yes, give control to politicians so that it belongs to the “people.” (Sarcasm off,)

          • ICFubar

            NOOOooo. The public must be in charge of the money supply and its creation. A public institution that is totally transparent is the only way I can see to have a stable and permanent money supply. The politicians would have to come begging and present their case for a loan if we have to have politicians in the equation.

          • OK … let’s find an example of, “A public institution that is totally transparent.” You can start at the beginning of recorded history if you want. And good luck.

          • ICFubar

            Good point. History has always had debt based money supply usually in the hands of whoever were the Apex Elites of their times. This would be a first, a publicly owned and instituted debt free Permanent money supply controlled by the public. This is something that has never been tried as far as I can tell in all of human history. Debt free money has been tried but run by governments, with some success and some failures. Canada had a mixed system for years of private debt money and government debt free money issuance and it worked fairly well.

          • “Good point. History has always had debt based money supply usually in the hands of whoever were the Apex Elites of their times. ”

            Oh, wow – all this time we thought gold and silver were historical money metals dug up by people with shovels, etc. What an education you are providing us about money.

          • ICFubar

            I think you are stuck on the current belief in/of a metal backed currency or even just a metal currency. They are just commodities like oil or sea shells or yak dung. Money is just what people agree upon as an exchange medium. You do know about tally sticks? Fiat currency would work just as well as any gold-silver standard if it is issued in the correct QUANTITY, (under public purview.)

            Who owned your gold mines throughout history? The Apex Elites? Or who accumulated most of the gold in short order?

            This whole order of thinking must be over turned or else the same problems will re emerge. The bankers dominated the gold standard eras just as they did this current fiat era. What is to be done? Wash, rinse, repeat from fiat to gold and back to fiat all in the hands of the private for profit?Lets let the people decide on what they want to use as money under a publicly managed, not political, monetary system, If it is gold and silver or something else you and I will still be able to do business. Not yak dung though, I’ll pass on that one.

          • Doc

            Why don’t you advocate your right to try your dream money for yourself and your followers and leave other people free to try their money for themselves? Why one solution for all, isn’t that what we have today?

          • Trying to ‘control’ a system of fragmented and competing purpose is an attempt to enforce control where wholly alligned purpose does not call for more than a light touch.
            Of course the fear and belief in loss of control embodies in the attempt to possess it – and the belief one has it generates the fear of losing it.
            Usage of terms like power and control are so machanistically fitted to the denial of relationship and communication as to constitute a primitive or reptilian brain of ‘fight or flight’ – which operates as a diversion of life energy to fear’s demand. There is a place for this in terms brute physical survival – but otherwise it operates a Trojan via which all is sacrificed to overcoming ‘Other’ who is blamed with what the mind DOES – when it seeks to get from or exploit instead of relate.

        • Doc

          Money is too important to leave to a monopolist to exploit, private or public.
          I’m not an anarchist-libertarian nor a statist, there are other people as well on this planet you know.

        • esqualido

          In the earliest days of the United States, each was free to issue its own gold-backed currency, two bank officer’s signature being required on every single bill, and death by hanging for anyone of a Madoffian persuasion. The problem was that the only way a Virginian could be sure a Vermonter’s money was good was to travel to Vermont and present it to that bank- an impossibility on the days of crude roads and no rail.
          The simplest way to restore a hard money standard essential to an honest republic is to make the so called “security thread” out of actual gold, or silver, instead of Mylar(!) There would be no need whatsoever for a Fort Knox of dubious parentage- the national gold reserves would be in the hands of the people. And all protests of loving democracy aside, this is the last thing the SOB’s in charge want- until we demand it.

      • esqualido

        Yes, and add to that, especially, legal tender laws. These in turn were required by the establishment of an Inland Revenue or Internal Revenue Tax system- otherwise, the government would have no objection to whether barter or any particular form of money were used in transactions. That said, there is still no way of knowing how much of this legal tender is being cranked out by the presses of the various nations, who compete for resources. A big deal was made of China’s recent inclusion in the SDR “market-basket” of currencies, as if this signified staid conservatism or something- and what did they promptly do but devalue their currency ( i.e.,”print-up a sh*tload). So now we get to enjoy the dual blessings of fiat money inflation combined with being catapulted into higher tax brackets to boot. Two modest proposals: eliminate the IRS and Inland Revenue, and the legal tender laws. Unfortunately that will go over like a fart in the Church of State.

        • Doc

          I know people tend to blame the legal tender laws, but they were often in place long before the legal monopoly. The treasury couldn’t abuse the legal tender much, as people had alternatives. They still had to pay taxes with the legal tender but taxes were very, very low back then by today’s standards.

          I’m not supporting legal tender for a monopolist government (this is the mothership), only pointing out that the legal tender isn’t the main problem, it’s the legal monopoly.

    • esqualido

      The central banks are always there to help grease the skids for creation of ever-growing national debt, for which they can always disclaim any responsibility. It is not until the people demand that their governments live within their means- which goes against a natural affinity for what looks like a free lunch (As in “Affordable” Health Care)- that they can regain control of their currency. Credit becomes a matter of private negotiation, not the Fed, or the BOE dictating virtually interest-free money for the very banks that own them, with which they also acquire natural resources for themselves, fanning inflation, while offering zero return (or even theft) for savers.
      But note that opposition is always, and will always be framed in terms of “tin-foil-hat wearers”. The Financial Times talks about “populists” with disdain: the types who are made to be led by rabble rousers. An informed electorate, which was a goal of th founding fathers, is really their enemy.

  • georgesilver

    As an Englishman living in France I like to think of myself as an individual not tied to any group. I believe in selfishness. Selfishness is the only true honesty between individuals. Everyone (if they are honest) want to come out of any interaction either ahead or equal. With governments, multinationals and central banks there is no interaction where the individual comes out ahead or even equal unless you are nimble and take advantage of areas they have overlooked or are not concentrating on. So whatever the outcome of the USA election or the international financial system you just have to look after number one. It’s the only way for the individual and your loved ones to come out equal or ahead.

    • We all like to think we are an island unto itself until the need for true relationship breaks the spell. I don’t so much disagree with you but prefer self-full-ness as a natural overflowing that extends to relationships in genuine sense of worth. I don’t see communication as actually TRUE communication EXCEPTING in an equality of worth – for anything else is framing the other in the game of comparison and competition – which COSTS awareness of true worth.

      The whole crap-game of global destruction and toxic overload is ‘looking after no 1’. You have to come up with something better than what already doesn’t work AND blocks what does work. How about abandoning ‘thinking of No1self’ – to arise within a fresh take of being, that is not pre-machined to operate a self or rejection and exclusion?
      See what comes up.

      • georgesilver

        I’m almost sure what you’ve written is English…..too deep for me unfortunately. The problem as I see it is the world’s troubles are caused by people thinking they know better as to what others should be thinking or doing. They become so convinced that they are right that they eventually force others to accept their ideas.

        • Well leave what you don’t find useful at whatever depth you prefer. Yes – caused by thinking we know better and seeking to manipulate or find reinforcement for who we think we are – which opens us to manipulation by others – while vainly thinking we are thinking for ourselves. (Dont give up just yet!)
          The following quote indicates that rational conviction plays little part:
          “No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.”
          ~ Alan Bullock, in Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives

          • georgesilver

            Still gobbledegook. Try writing clearly so that you can be understood. The first rule of communication is to be understood. As a lesser mortal I need simplicity. Hang on….. you’re not a lawyer are you?

          • No one can reach an unwillingness to receive. Nor need they. Why should I dance to your tune? Not that I am unwilling to dance with you – metaphorically speaking. And I am not needing you to agree with what I say.

            I am not ‘selling’ or seeking to persuade you of anything you are not already willing to accept. But I am sharing with you in simple English.

            If your thinking is all that you are willing to ‘know’ then your mind will not accept what your thinking rules out. Is that not simply so?

            Are you trying to tell me that you ‘know better’, and are so ‘convinced that you are right’ that you persist in ‘trying to force me’ to accept your rules? (You could be smiling at this paragraph).

            I feel that some willingness to stand under in willingness rather than judge over me in what you think I should be thinking or doing, might allow the pennies to drop naturally into a smile of a shared appreciation.

            As for the quote about mind-control – you got that ok I trust? I didn’t write that.

            Mutually reinforcing social consensus tends to rule out any other view. However, I am free to write in a witness to life as I live it that may seem dissonant to a consensus agreement that I regard as dissonance – because allegiance invested in the false must defend against or refuse the true – or release its investment to align truly. But true does not have to fight back.

            I am not claiming “THE Truth” – but I am honestly sharing with YOU and to no ‘lesser mortal’ and no, I am not a lawyer nor use obfuscation (deliberate ploy of confusion) to hide in. I do use language consciously, and that might not run on your operating system. One has to slow down, drop out of reaction and notice what is here, rather than skim and fail to grasp, skim and fail to grasp, skim and fail to grasp and give up. It doesn’t skim.

            You said I was too deep. I said leave what you don’t find useful and embrace whatever depth you prefer. So is that not an acceptance of you from me.

            Self-full-ness is different from selfishness. It is not ‘trying to get’ from others but is full and overflows to others.
            In any community of trust one finds the generosity of spirit.

            But in fear of scarcity and loss, one finds a disconnect from qualities of whole Souled living and in its place, a selfishness that is ‘looking out for No.1 – perhaps along with its family or group, as a compulsion to compete for power and position.

            I agree we have to address our own sanity first or we have none to recognize and communicate to others in. But if anyone believes selfish getting or exploitation and manipulation of others IS sanity, then they wont listen to the ramblings of such a madman as I.
            To thine own self be true – what more could I say?
            Have a good day

          • georgesilver

            Is this the way you talk in everyday situations or do you just save it for writing? Never mind. Don’t bother to reply. It’s beyond my pay-grade. Cheers.

          • Notes to self – and anyone passing by:
            Everyday speech tends to exemplify and reinforce ‘everyday conditioning’ of a manipulative intent – which few are unaware of participating in using – but that’s all right.

            One can lead a horse to water but one cannot make them drink. The attempt to force what comes naturally is a ‘force against or denial of nature’. This operates a self-defeating frustration of suffering and futility. When this is interpersonal it operates ‘war’ in one way or another and truth is the first casualty.
            When we allow our reception to expand, we get a pay rise!

  • It is simply physics that creating polarity of difference by division generates a charge and an inevitable discharge in the release of excess energy when the difference become unstable. It appears that key opportunists used this to predict and support the ‘big man’ in Germany after the generating of corrupt and indifferent elitism in the weaknesses following WW1 into the Weimar Republic.

    The denial of any real voice for people outside the inmost elitist coterie might be called unpopular though its device may operate in lures to self inflation. But that doesn’t describe its intent – which is rejection and exclusion as power unto itself.

    This will ‘see’ itself in the reflecting movement for reintegration in the measure set by its own choice – as a force that seeks to reject and exclude it from what it defines and forcibly asserts as its property and right of control – via laws made to serve its agenda and beneath, around and above the law, as the power of influence to evade accountability by guile, stealth and subversion.

    Opportunism anticipates and ‘surfs the wave’ of change so as to maximise identity in value within the terms it sets. And alliances form and shift accordingly, for there is no love in ‘getting from’ so as to strengthen the power of a mask.

    Reading what is ‘going on’ as if to gain control over it is seeking power of protection of investment against loss in the current terms set. The current sea of ideas, beliefs and ‘memes’ includes attempts to insinuate false currency into mnd of thinking so that mindcapture can use the fear of others to power their protection racket.

    But the illusion would be to presume that those engaged in manipulation are themselves not also hollow puppets of un-recognized or denied fears masquerading as a false sense of self that must be coercively asserted and validated or reinforced and supported to seem to have power or validity.

    If reading what is ‘going on’ is but seeing through a lens darkly – then we ‘see’ what tyrannous shadow power delivers to us as if our own, (not unlike the personalized internet that Google and others are working on that ‘tailors’ content to ‘preferences’ – but shhh – you know whose!).

    What is going on is physics – but the mind in which it operates flawlessly is deeply flawed, fragmented and masked with guilt that seeks to hide or mask in reinforcement of its original error as a narrative identity. Is it time for a different story?

    Just my ‘to sense’ for your freedom to set value in a true appreciation.

  • Veronica

    the biggest lie of all ”

    Alan Greenspan: “… there is no OTHER agency of government which can overrrule actions that we take.”

  • rahrog

    Anytime the interest earned on a simple savings account falls below REAL inflation, that society/economy begins to bleed out.