STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Practiced Obfuscation of Central Banking: Fischer Gives A Speech
By Staff News & Analysis - August 12, 2014

US Fed's Fischer warns of poor growth … The Federal Reserve's vice-chairman has pointed to weak labour force participation and a soft US housing recovery as two reasons for disappointing global growth, saying this could be a long-term phenomenon. Stanley Fischer's comments reflected continuing concern about the economy that has fuelled debate over whether the Fed should move sooner than expected to raise interest rates, despite solid job growth and strong gross domestic product expansion in the US. "This pattern of disappointment and downward revision [in growth] sets up the first, and the basic, challenge on the list of issues policy makers face in moving ahead: restoring growth, if that is possible," Mr Fischer said on Monday in a speech in Stockholm. "It is also possible that the underperformance reflects a more structural longer-term shift in the global economy, with less growth in underlying supply factors." – Financial Times

Dominant Social Theme: Things are slowing down for some reason. The big brains among us need to try harder.

Free-Market Analysis: This article in the Financial Times is a good example of reporting on something without saying anything. That's not the fault of the Financial Times so much as it is of the vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve, Stanley Fischer.

Fischer has given a Keynesian speech in Stockholm. Keynes, of course, wrote a huge book about economics without ever explaining the mechanisms that create recessions and depressions. Keynes's reason for writing the book – his General Theory – was to suggest solutions. The solutions he suggested included the use of central bank money printing and government job programs.

This is why we maintain that Keynes's great work was a predetermined one. He was a Fabian socialist, and it was obviously his task to write an economics book that provided a justification for government activism.

This was necessary to do, hypothetically, because otherwise, classical economics was going to win out as a primary economic theory. And classical economics – Austrian economics, really – didn't have any use for government activism when it came to the economy. And those running government behind the scenes didn't like that at all.

When government interferes in the economy, its mandates are essentially forcible ones. And when something is forced, it is "fixed" – as in a price fix. Price fixes are inevitably distortive because they force people to do things they wouldn't do otherwise. But after Keynes, government officials had a manual they could use. Never mind that it didn't work – that wasn't the point. It told a good, convincing story.

The power elite manages society via dominant social themes. These stories shape perception and culture. The power elite doesn't need or want stories that are truthful. Elite globalists want stories that reinforce memes of control. Keynes provided that.

So does Fischer, and we can see that in his speech.

This seems to us an important speech, because it is setting a tone for decreased economic expectations in Western economies. There may be many reasons for this – and we'll discuss some of them below – but the really important point is that Fischer chose to give it and that it's getting massive mainstream media coverage. Here's more from the Financial Times:

… Labour force participation rate has remained disappointing, coming in at 62.9 per cent last month. Mr Fischer said although the reduction in the labour supply reflected demographic changes, such as the ageing population, the "surprising weakness" may also be due to discouraged workers who have stopped looking for a job.

The Fed recently revealed that the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee believed that labour resources were being underutilised and there was more capacity for improvement, which could spur it to wait for more progress in the jobs market before it raises interest rates. But there is some pressure for the Fed to reconsider its timeline, with Philadelphia Fed president Charles Plosser being the first to dissent this year in favour of tightening policy because of economic progress.

… Outside the US, the recoveries of advanced economies had been "well below average", while performance in emerging markets, especially in Asia, is sharply down. The challenge for policy makers was separating the "cyclical from the structural, the temporary from the permanent," Mr Fischer said. "The difficulty in disentangling demand and supply factors makes the job of the monetary policy maker especially hard since it complicates the assessment of the amount of slack, or underutilised productive capacity, in the economy," he added.

Mr Fischer said he believed the Fed's quantitative easing policy had been largely successful but monetary policy would become more complicated as the central bank considers its future moves, which will affect the Fed's balance sheet.

You can get a hint from the above that Fischer is commenting on RESULTS not underlying causes, and thus this speech follows in the path of Keynes's General Theory. The idea, unfortunately, is to describe without explaining. If you have to explain, you have to deal with underlying economic distortions. And in the modern era, if you're Mr. Fischer, et al., those distortions are being generated by the very facilities you're representing.

We actually went and read Fischer's speech to confirm our suspicions. It's a long speech full of complex verbiage that describes what's going on. But nowhere does he explain fundamental causation, from what we could tell. Only Austrians do that.

Here's an excerpt from his speech:

Today I will discuss three key aspects of the challenges policymakers face as they seek to move ahead. These are: (1) The impact of the Great Recession and the associated Global Financial Crisis on the growth of output, both in the short term and over the longer term. (2 The reform of the financial sector – in other words, how much progress have we made in creating a safer and more stable post-crisis financial environment? (3) The impact of the crisis on the conduct of monetary policy – in particular, how to balance the goals of achieving stable inflation and full employment while also taking into account the need to maintain financial stability. I will leave it to others to address the important challenges facing fiscal policymakers as they determine the appropriate roles and paths for fiscal policy at both the macro- and micro-levels.

To keep the focus sharp, I will deal primarily with the economy of the United States. But policymakers around the world confront related challenges and I will draw also on the post-crisis experiences of other economies. And I should make it clear that my comments today are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the views of other members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee.

I begin by reviewing recent global economic developments and the questions they raise about where we are likely to go from here. There has been a steady, if unspectacular, climb in global growth since the financial crisis. For example, based on recent IMF data from the World Economic Outlook, which uses purchasing power parity weights, world growth averaged 3 percent during the first four years of the recovery and as of July was expected to be 3.4 percent this year. The IMF expects global growth to reach 4 percent next year – a rate about equal to its estimate for long-run growth. This global average reflects a forecast of steady improvement in the performance of output in the advanced economies where growth averaged less than 1percent during the initial phase of the recovery to an expected 2-1/2 percent by 2015. In contrast, the recovery in the emerging market economies started strong but has since fallen off, in part, as fiscal policy stimulus has been pared back.

But – and this is no small "but" – the global recovery has been disappointing. With few exceptions, growth in the advanced economies has underperformed expectations of growth as economies exited from recession. Year after year we have had to explain from mid-year on why the global growth rate has been lower than predicted as little as two quarters back. Indeed, research done by my colleagues at the Federal Reserve comparing previous cases of severe recessions suggests that, even conditional on the depth and duration of the Great Recession and its association with a banking and financial crisis, the recoveries in the advanced economies have been well below average. In the emerging market economies, the initial recovery was more in line with historical experience, but recently the pace of growth has been disappointing in those economies as well. This slowing is broad based – with performance in Emerging Asia, importantly China, stepping down sharply from the post-crisis surge, to rates significantly below the average pace in the decade before the crisis. A similar stepdown has been seen recently for other regions including Latin America.

… How much of this weakness on the supply side will turn out to be structural – perhaps contributing to a secular slowdown – and how much is temporary but longer-than-usual-lasting remains a crucial and open question.

Indeed, an "open question." So many questions, so few answers. On he goes, and on. We quoted him to give you a flavor of his comments. But don't take our word for it. Go see for yourself. We couldn't find any element of causation in what he presented. Maybe someone else will, but we're fairly positive it's not there.

The entire speech and all the articles in the media analyzing it deal with the slowdown itself and Fischer's notion that the slowdown may be structural in nature. But even here he doesn't explain WHAT the structure is. His speech is devoid of any mention of monetary policy as a cause.

Lacking such causation, the speech collapses in on itself. It becomes a windy jumble of words. Of course, none of the mainstream analysis will explain this. And most laypeople reading the speech will simply be confused by it and some will conclude Fischer is simply too intelligent – and that they can't understand him because they are not bright enough.

But this will be the wrong conclusion. The speech is incomprehensible because it obfuscates and is intended to do so. Fischer hopes you will come away impressed by his erudition. But the primary intention is to explain the endless slowdown without examining the fundamental causes, which he wants to avoid.

In fact, the slowdown is a direct result of central bank money printing, which caused first a horrible asset bubble and then a terrible bust from which we've still not recovered from in the US and the West generally. To counteract the asset implosion, central banks went into Keynesian emergency mode and printed something like US$50 trillion to liquefy bankrupt financial firms around the world.

Since this is a Keynesian solution, it didn't work. Government cannot undo what government has done. Or to put it another way, force, ameliorating force is still force. Government price-fixing of this magnitude only compounded the problem. Now businesspeople were generally afraid, for it wasn't clear who was a bankrupt and who was solvent. Business lagged and continues to lag. Animal spirits have not recovered.

And thus, despite this massive, impossible-to-comprehend injection of cash and credit, the larger economy still hasn't "recovered." That's because, as free-market economists know, the only way to recover from an asset implosion is to let the larger economy work its way free of the rubble on its own.

Bankrupts actually have to go bankrupt. Once the economy is purged, a fresh start can occur. The "structural" difficulties that Fischer alludes to are self-inflicted. They are a result of central bank determination that their crony institutions are not to fail. They will be propped up at any cost, and the cost is significant indeed.

There is one thing that central bankers could have done to ameliorate the situation in the short term, and that would have been to have printed cash and dropped it "by helicopter" (as Ben Bernanke once suggested) into middle class neighborhoods. But this the top money men will never do because if they print money and give it away, people will surely recognize the reality of what money is in the modern day – a digital monopoly that has no business existing in its current form.

Instead, what the top men have decided to do is to force feed incomprehensible amounts of cash into the current governmental-oriented system, using the quasi-state institution of commercial banking as the distribution channel. Some of this money, too much, has found its way into centralized bourses and has begun to bid up prices dramatically, especially equity prices.

We call this the Wall Street Party. It is inevitable that the prices of various securities will go up – and up some more. It is the only kind of manipulation left for the bankers to use unless they want to disperse their super money directly to "consumers." And this they will not do.

And thus, the bankers' dilemma as voiced by Fischer: He and the others know that employment is not going to rebound soon because the only entities that are making money are the largest corporations – and their feeder facilities, larger and small. House prices may be rising, but that's probably mostly on the high end because the rich are afloat in an endless sea of electronic digits.

Real estate and equities are likely to continue to rise in this environment, at least for the near term. But it's an entirely artificial environment. There's no "there" there. The modern economy is not the product of the Invisible Hand but the visible and hidden activities of central banking. This is what Fischer surely knows but cannot say. Instead, he talks about structural difficulties and how the 21st century's economies may have changed in a profound manner.

But it's not so profound. The marketplace is based on competition and when you remove competition and substitute price fixing and mercantilism – playing favorites with some institutions – you end up with "structural imbalances." You end up with a paralyzed economy, in other words.

Fischer could have explained that in a paragraph or two. But that wasn't really his intention. He and the others are practiced obfuscators. They don't want people to understand.

After Thoughts

But more and more people do anyway. And that's an encouraging trend, unlike current economic ones …

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Dave Meekhof

    Wow DB, that’s some pretty sharp shoot’in.
    .
    DB: “Price fixes are inevitably distortive because they force people to do things they wouldn’t do otherwise.”
    .
    And just as importantly, it discourages people from doing what they would have done otherwise. It is an ongoing, two pronged, Fed (monetary) and Gov (regulatory) attack on freedom generally, through our economic means. The top predators are not even shy anymore, about tinkering in broad daylight in places and in ways where there is no moral justification for it. I agree that Fischer is only obfuscating, maybe even half-heartedly apologizing. It was probably his turn.
    .
    The ‘economy’ is like a patient, deluded and rendered immobile under the sedation of fiat currency; horrified by dreamlike images and sounds of the surgeons cannibalizing vital organs, discussing how much more can be taken, lamenting poor growth and wringing their hands while considering maybe they ate too much. They don’t want the patient to go critical, they love him too much. For the patient…is this reality or just his worse nightmare?

  • Bruce C

    Once again I say Fisher (and all of the Fed governors) are not as conniving as you all think. I think they really are confused and have a faulty model of money and economics. I highly doubt that he/they secretly understand the DB’s point of view and could “explain everything in a paragraph or two.”

    I know that seems hard to believe but that may because a lot of you have the good fortune of not having to sit through corporate meetings every week for years on end. Fisher, et al., undoubtedly have and still do, so they know how to bullsh*t. But that doesn’t mean they “really” understand anything, they just know how to blather. One thing you learn in those meetings is how to talk a lot but not say anything that anyone can pin you down on.

    Look at it from the audience’s point of view. Who do you think they were? More people like Fisher I would think. Policy makers, bankers, economists, investors, executives, etc. – all people you would say are equally clueless, right? Otherwise, why would they sit through that? They probably even had to pay for it.

    According to your theory, Fisher’s “crucial and open question” concerning secular structural problems versus cyclical temporary ones is complete hogwash because he knows the answer. But why would only he (and everyone at the DB) know that but no one in the audience? And what about the Philadelphia Fed president Charles Plosser? Why does he think some other wrong-headed thing? Do you think they draw straws on who promotes what (even though they both know the truth…ssshhh)?

    • Yes, at this point, they probably know: The audience knows; Fischer knows. You still seem to cling to the idea this is all coincidence; that none of it is malevolent.

      Your ideas seem to take us to a place on Jekyll Island where the most powerful men in the world, wearing disguises, deliberately plotted what would become the Federal Reserve – but not for purposes of selfishness or control.

      Your point would be they gathered there to make the banking system more sound and help future generations become more solvent.

      Hasn’t turned out that way. Again, your point would be they “tried’ – and the failures were neither deliberate nor necessary.

      You would give these powerful people the benefit of the doubt. They act in secret and connive in concert, but perhaps, really, it is for our benefit.

      Sorry, not buying …

      • Bruce C

        I think that their framework is all they know, so they don’t see it in the context that you do. I think they think myopically and selfishly and pragmatically.

        I don’t think Fischer nor the audience members know why things are like they are, just that they are, and are looking for “solutions” within the framework they know. They probably all hoped that pumping more money into the system to counteract deflationary forces might work, so they tried it. They probably really don’t know why it has had only mixed results. They probably all had a vested interest in maintaining the financial system (and the banking system in particular for the Fed guys) so nobody was interested in allowing bankruptcies, etc. To them that would just be suicidal. They probably thought that that would just be a big self-inflicted mess for nothing. They probably want the economy (“the goose”) to improve so their financial businesses and governments have something to siphon (“the golden eggs”). They probably take the existing monetary system for granted. They probably take central planning for granted. They probably think that every policy decision has pros and cons. They probably have no idea what kind of system would be better. They probably don’t know much monetary history.

        So, is that malicious or just ignorant? How about selfish and controlling?

        In fact, I think THAT is why the “monetary authorities” don’t want to give money directly to the middle class (“cash from helicopters”), not that they think the public will “recognize the reality of what money is in the modern day.”

        Why would they? Money is given out by “the government” all the time in the form of food stamps and unemployment benefits, to pay for wars, foreign aid, bribes, etc. Many people already think the government literally prints money, and it does. Remember when W. Bush “gave” up to $600 to each tax payer as an economic stimulus? That’s the same thing. They could have done it again on a much larger scale and I think most people would have spent it, but I also think it could have helped so much that some significant control and dependency would have been lost too (though I’m not sure about that).

        Nevertheless, “they” may still try it. It would be a kind of “debt jubilee.”

        • OK, Bruce, you continue to believe the Fed system “just evolved” or wars “just happen,” or politics are the “luck of the draw.” It’s a perfectly adequate world view, just not one we’re in agreement on. As for people knowing money comes from government, well … no. If more people understood that some individuals are legally entitled to print US$1 trillion by pushing a button, there would likely be a good deal more controversy than there already is. Eventually, maybe they will …

          • Bruce C

            And, unfortunately, the controversy might be…”Hey, if money just ‘grows on trees’ then why don’t you give ME some?”

          • Friend of John Galt

            I, too, have problems with all the conspiracies, etc., that The Daily Bell “sees” all around us. Whenever I read articles from this web site, I feel like I ought to be wearing my tinfoil hat. Still, there is often some value to the analyses reported here.

            Indeed, the insight that Keynes “General Theory” needed to be published to justify the economic thinking of the leftist central planners certainly has a ring of truth to it. Of course, the left has been confused about economics right from their start with Marx writings.

            The problem caused by these leftist thinkers is that they visualize a socialist utopia — one that is impossible — but one that the left has been seeking ever since the modern left developed over the past 150 years or so. These true believers have willfully ignored reality so many times that it is hard to suggest that they actually have engaged in conspiracies or that “money power” pulls all the strings through complex manipulation or by outright pressure on powerful politicians. Since so many are so totally out of touch with reality (with respect to their goals), it seems unlikely that they can then be so expert as to operate behind the scenes so effectively — without ever anyone letting the motives slip.

            As for Bruce … Yes, Bush gave out $600 to each taxpayer, etc. as a “stimulus” — and his action follows in line with a multitude of previous “stimulation” efforts by politicians whenever the economy goes into a decline. When people are being laid off, and jobs are hard to get, and other pains of economic retrenchment are affecting the voting populace, there is a pressure on government to “do something.” Almost all previous efforts (previous to TARP and the “stimulus bills” of 2008-9) were sufficiently insignificant that the economy could right itself using its normal resilience. Unfortunately, Obama, the socialist community organizer in chief, was able to come up with a trillion dollars of “stimulus” along with a massive increase in regulation with the addition of Obamacare on top. His “do something” was sufficiently large that it has damaged the economy as a whole and it will take years to recover, if it ever can under these circumstances.

            The “solution” is less government, less regulation, and lower taxes. It would be nice to get rid of the Fed and a few other government agencies … along with about 75% of the public worker bureaucracy.

          • Lots of insights here, and lot of correct predictions. Our paradigm works whether you are comfortable with it or not …

          • Benjamin T

            Ah yes. The truth can very discomforting at times. Its still better than burying your head in the sand.

    • Dave Meekhof

      I think you give the ‘policy-makers’ too much credit, in that they are just innocent clueless dumb a$$es. What, the entire control apparatus just fell into their laps? They have haphazardly been burdened with the economic management of mankind? The good gray men are doing their darnedest with their limited understanding of the controls? Give me a break.

      • Bruce C

        I know what you mean, but to some extent, yes. Perhaps it is you who are giving them too much credit. Many people in positions of power and authority are appalling “normal”. They just have certain personality characteristics that suit them for certain kinds of jobs, one of which is that they even want the jobs. People only know what they’ve been taught. Do you really think Fischer and Plosser are evil geniuses? How about Dumb and Dumber, or useful idiots?

        I actually think it’s a (probably healthy) psychological defense mechanism to ascribe sanity and intelligence to the otherwise inexplicable. But certainly you must have had “bosses” or known people in authority who were obviously promoted beyond their level of competence (the Peter Principle). I’m telling you it happens all the way up to “the top”. Look at George Bush and Obama. They are both certified mouth-breathing imbeciles and yet …

        • Dave Meekhof

          Bush and Obama…hehe. Not even Fischer and Plosser are ‘policy makers’. Who writes the agenda for their meetings? Does a fool and his money go separate ways? Forget the money, think accumulating power. And I’m not bashing intelligence, Bruce. Holy geniuses can write policy too…but not as likely in law, politics and commerce. Evil geniuses in these realms have both the ability and pathological desire to seize power. The key word is seize.

  • MOLON LABE

    Jul 8, 2014 How To Replace The Federal Reserve

    This clip from The Corbett Report’s new feature length documentary, “Century of Enslavement: The History of the Federal Reserve,” outlines some of the proposals for alternative monetary systems to the current Federal Reserve paradigm. Featured ideas include Ellen Brown on state banks, Paul Glover on LETS hour currencies, and Roger Ver on bitcoin.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GRhc_41Nts

    • Yes, LETS currencies, endorsed by the UN and UNESCO’s Margrit Kennedy, probably because they demand a public accounting of every single transaction. As for Ellen Brown, well just use a search engine and type in “Daily Bell” and “Ellen Brown” to see our take on her “alternatives.”

      • MOLON LABE

        The timing of this video is impeccable to say the least.

        Aug 12, 2014 Tech Visionary George Gilder: “Bitcoin is the Libertarian Solution to the Money Enigma.”

        “Bitcoin is a breakthrough in information theory that allows [users] to conduct provable transactions that can’t be changed…without reference to trusted third parties,” says tech visionary and investor George Gilder. “[Bitcoin] is the perfect libertarian solution to the money enigma.”

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9hb0EKAcro

  • windsor1

    Fischer is a contradiction. Housing is not recovering because people are mired in debt and can’t afford a home in spite of the fact that mortgage rates are low, low. Fischer knows that Trade Agreements have moved big manufacturers, you know, the ones that create good paying jobs overseas. 7 out of 10 cars GM builds are fabricated outside the US. Why? Less environmental regulations, low wages, no benefits, little litigation, strong work ethic. Barriers to trade are gone so corporations build where it is cheap, and sell where the margins are highest. Thanks to NAFTA, GATT, and WTO and soon to come TPP, you can kiss goodbye to American manufacturing. American workers have been rendered obsolete.
    Fischer is part of the govenment by the 1% for the 1%. He understands that people can stay asleep as long as they have security and a job. In this state, they are programmed by media to consume. Today the consumer sees corruption at all levels in the system. He sees the growing disparity between the 1% and 99%. Media tells him the economy is growing at 4% yet he and his neighbors are unemployed or underemployed. If McDonalds could produce hamburgers in China they would. Only the service jobs remain as the public is bombarded with false economic stats, food stamps, and extended unemployment and see govenment, Wall Street and corporate corruption everywhere. When people see food prices going up by 20% a year and the inflation numbers are 2%, there is a credibility gap that even the dumbest, duped consumer, can challenge.
    Corrupt economies do not fluorish and expand. Economies do not fluorish under record government deficit spending that is not directed at creating long term economic growth. Economies do not fluorish when bankers are rewarded with bailouts while manufacturing is forced to move to survive and compete or shut down. Any economist or layman will tell you that it is manufacturing that grows an economy not banks. Banks were never intended to gamble in derivatives and options and commodities, then get bailed out after the risk catches up. Whatever happened to the days of NIck Leeson and Bearings or even Lehman when financial institutions were punished for bad decisions and flawed business models. Today’s world is brutal raw capitalism for the 99% and socialism for the 1%.
    The system is a scam designed and constructed to enrich the 1%. When was the last time in an election campaign, the Federal Reserve was mentioned. It is a 1% issue and is off the table. It is you, helping to pay for the estates in the Hamptons. Why did the folks at Jekyll Island not call it the Third bank of the Republic instead of the Federal Reserve. It was to dupe you and hide the scam. You eat the GMO foods and drink the Fluoridated while the 1% eat truffles and drink champagne. Election campaigns talk about abortion or gay rights or equal pay, but never about free trade or elimination of the Federal Reserve because these are critical issues that belong in the domain of the 1%; you get to vote on non substantive issues. War, that gets discussed, because it is too big to hide, and all candidates are in favor of sending your kids to fight humanitarian wars that enrich corporations and banksters.
    We are now at the point where we have reached the limits of growth. In the past there were always more jobs, more stuff to consume, plenty of resources, new markets, new wealth etc. This is no longer the case. Resources are finite, there are more consumers than ever before on the planet, but they lack wealth that economic growth and productive labor brings, and hence idle human resources have a negative economic value. Human labor, to the 1% is simply a unit of production not unlike a roll of steel. The American worker is expensive, and no more productive than a cheaper Chinese factory worker. So robots, foreign workers, automation and computers have made the American worker obsolete. Furthermore the US tax code incentivises corporations to invest profits overseas. This means that investment in factories is encouraged to move offshore. Why? Because that is what makes the 1% more $$. We have all the gadgets we need, and we now are economically tapped out. If you don’t work and don’t produce, you are what they deem “a useless eater”. There are now at least 100 million “useless eaters” in America alone. This means social assistance for the unemployed, money which would otherwise go the 1%.
    This dilemma has created the biggest threat to the existance of the 1%, ever. How to contain the growing outrage of a population, with unmet expectations and with no future? How to explain to the plebs that their lifestyle is unsustainable, and soon they will have the SUV and home reposessed and they will travel about in Tuk-Tuks? The plebs will not take this lightly. They still have their pacifiers; a plasma smart tv, SUV, unemployment checks and food stamps, but what happens when the illusion falters, and there is no more free stuff. Could this explain the large ammunition purchases by government? Could this explain drones? Could this explain a surveillance grid? Somebody’s getting ready for something really big; a massive awakening and on a scale never before seen in America. During the American Revolution, the 1% (British) and the Colonial soldier possessed equal firepower. The armchair patriot, nursing his six pack, in front of the TV believes that, what worked once will work again. The 1% are prepared for and anticipating an entirely different outcome. .
    This is government by the 1% for the 1%. The 1% knows that their place as rulers of the planet is unsustainable with too many people and too few jobs. You are the obstacle or threat to their status quo. They have no intention of relinquishing their seat at the economic table. Their problem is you. You are in transition from economic slave to neo feudal serf. They have seen their wealth grow exponentially and want things to maintain their position in the hierarchy. The 1% have reached the point where their are few illusions left with which to entertain you. Their options are running out and their remaining choices are few.
    They have robbed the piggy bank and confidence in their fiat money is declining. Soon there will be no more free stuff. The “useless eaters” will become angry, very angry. When the gloves come off is when the big cull begins.
    You will be gone, but the banking system will live on. Sustainability is the mantra of the 1%. They are in the process of matching global manpower needs to global production demands. Sustainability means austerity or elimination for you and status quo for them.
    Traditional economics is designed for infinite growth economies. Now that we have reached the limits of growth traditional economic techniques to stimulate growth no longer work. This is why you see Fischer and others promoting non traditional methods. These are simply to put cash in consumers pockets to buy time. Fischer knows that these are temporary measures that simply buy time until the inevitable happens. This is designed to give the 1% time to make their preparations for what they know is coming. It is all about taking care of number 1.
    We live in a 1% world because we continue to buy their propaganda without ever challenging it. When you understand the concerns and agenda of the 1%, the world will seem a whole lot more logical to you. For the 99%, the truck is parked, the rear gates are opened and they are ready to prod you into the chutes. Trust me, Fischer is not in the back of the truck.

    • You are either a troll or misguided. You make an impressive analysis and then return over and over to the “one percent” as if the butcher, the baker and the candle-stock maker – all of whom own a few stores in a few different regions and are worth several million apiece – are responsible for the current system or benefit from it. Nonsense.

      • The non-sociopathic butcher, baker and candle-stock maker within the town has no need for a sociopathic bankster. The independent business can manage a few stores in a few different regions. The sociopath, however, will figure out how to lie and steal with bankster buddies to control most of the butcher shops, bakeries and candle-stock makers in all regions. Sociopaths financing sociopaths. The real root of most of our problems. It’s the fact that most folks don’t understand the word “sociopath” is the reason they still do business with them. “The Mask of Sanity” and “Snakes In Suits”, among others, cover this subject well. Not doing business with sociopaths is the only way to win. Of course, easier said than done.

    • Friend of John Galt

      Quote: “Housing is not recovering because people are mired in debt and can’t afford a home in spite of the fact that mortgage rates are low, low.” (end quote).

      Mortgage rates are low, low (even LOW!). The problem is that between the regulators and the losses banks took with the housing meltdown, the qualifications required to get a loan are absolutely ridiculous. I have an 800+ FICO score. I have cash in the bank. I could not refinance my previous mortgage (which, admittedly was a sub-prime “liar” loan) because I’m self-employed and my wife had lost her job during the recession. Eventually, I sold the house and bought a new one for CASH (that I fortunately had). I still couldn’t get a mortgage.

    • Dave Meekhof

      Nice tirade. I only disagree with a few points.
      .
      “Today’s world is brutal raw capitalism for the 99% and socialism for the 1%.”
      I’d say, raw capitalism (freedom) for the 1% and socialism (captivity) for the 99%.
      .
      “We are now at the point where we have reached the limits of growth”.

      Whose limits. What limits. The carrying capacity of the earth? Coming from someone (me) who thinks deeply about the ramifications of peak oil theory; limits to growth, or at least limits to standards of living, have been imposed by corruption far greater than by nature. And by what justification?
      .
      “There are now at least 100 million “useless eaters” in America alone”

      Be careful who you call useless. Even the elite use caution when throwing that word around. But yes, many welfare recipients do compromise themselves at the expense of others. You are supposed to get angry, receive a tag.
      .
      “Now that we have reached the limits of growth traditional economic techniques to stimulate growth no longer work.”

      What are the traditional economic techniques that stimulate growth? As though they worked before. Growth stimulates on its’ own. No artificial (corruption), techniques needed.
      .
      ” This is why you see Fischer and others promoting non traditional methods.”
      .
      Fischer is promoting a very traditional method. Looting, or justification for looting. It is the second oldest tradition on earth. And it isn’t because they aren’t ‘challenged’, confronted with an offence. It is because they are confronted with so little defense.

  • Bill

    Fischer will continue trying to save the economy as he
    builds financial stability powers for the FED in FSOC. FSOC meetings are not
    public and all policy is confidential. How
    and when the FED uses FSOC powers being structured inside FSOC is unknown.

    The economy not recovering and financial stability concerns will
    give Fischer reason to continue adding FED powers to FSOC . Policy powers granted will be a reaction to
    the threat of financial instability (a continuing theme) and more powers will
    be granted to FSOC.

    The FED will never take the blame; their resolutions will be
    never ending policy saving the economy.

    REF:

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/fischer20140811a.htm
    Work on the use of the resolution mechanisms set out in the Dodd-Frank Act, based on the principle of a single point of entry–though less advanced than the work on capital and liquidity ratios–holds the promise of making it possible to resolve banks in difficulty at no direct cost to the taxpayer. As part of this approach, the United States is preparing a proposal to require systemically important banks to issue bail-inable long-term debt that will enable insolvent banks to recapitalize themselves in resolution without calling on government funding–this cushion is known as a “gone concern” buffer.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-10/fischer-says-financial-stability-board-may-need-greater-power.html

    Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer said a council of financial regulators established by the Dodd-Frank Act may need more authority to help guard against threats to the banking system.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.+4387:
    H.R.4387 — FSOC Transparency and Accountability Act

  • Philip

    … How much of this weakness on the supply side will turn out to be structural – perhaps contributing to a secular slowdown – and how much is temporary but longer-than-usual-lasting remains a crucial and open question. – See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35553/Practiced-Obfuscation-of-Central-Banking-Fischer-Gives-A-Speech/#sthash.yNLz0KEZ.dpuf For secular just insert government and the Fed. We can only hope they slow down and preferably disappear in to thin air along with their currency!

    • Dave Meekhof

      How much is structural and how much is temporary? The longer the lows the lower the lows. “How much” is a function of time, and time is the most expensive commodity. At least ‘we the people’ keep THAT advantage in the GREAT game.

  • 2prickit

    One must when considering the money cartel, as it is currentlyprotected by US gov, observe the structure of its secrecy. I believe it was Cecile Rhoads who established the round table in England as an outer valance to internal strategies and political machinations. The same shield is known in the US as the CFR, and the EU has its outer shield, behind which decision are discussed. I say discussed because decision as to what is to be discussed is not made there. The Cecile Rhoads manner of secrecy involves many valances, each designed for the practice of obfuscation. They don’t want people to understand. Now, specific to the above article, I believe that monetary decisions are first determined by the major owners of the New York portion of the Federal Reserve system and its cohorts in the City of London. This information should be well known to interested parties by this time, but it might be dated ; see The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, Eustace Mullins; Jeckel Island edition. Not many years ago I witnessed a former Height- Ashbury (CIA?) philosopher claim that individuals need not think about electricity when operating a light switch. And one does not expect fish to know about the condition of the water they swim in. This seems to be the general, conditioned, behavior of the herd.

  • Arationofreason

    Complex explanation: You can’t have “Supply side economics” if you don’t have anything to supply. One bright spot, Paul Krugman leaves Princeton and will no longer be infecting young minds, one down but all to many left to go.

  • Harry Skip Robinson

    You can have supply side for a while, but eventually, the economy starts stagflating; if that’s even a word. Lol. As most of us know, there is no government policy, except massive repeal of statist legislation, that can fix stagflation and sadly the economy usually collapses before the political machine would ever take such action. Pretty much why all democracies and democratic republics have failed over time. The nation state can not work at providing what is in the best interest of the majority nor can it last for a prolonged period of time without oppressing it’s own majority or invading/stealing the property/production of other nation states or societies.

  • Bill

    Fischer will continue trying to save the economy as he builds financial stability powers for the FED in FSOC. FSOC meetings are not public and all policy is confidential.

    How and when the FED uses FSOC powers being structured inside FSOC is unknown.

    The economy not recovering and financial stability concerns will give Fischer reason to continue adding FED powers to FSOC . Policy powers granted will be a reaction to the threat of financial instability (a continuing theme) and more powers will
    be granted to FSOC.

    The FED will never take the blame; their resolutions will be never ending policy saving the economy.
    REF:

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/fischer20140811a.htm

    Work on the use of the resolution mechanisms set out in the Dodd-Frank Act, based on the principle of a single point of entry–though less advanced than the work on capital and liquidity ratios–holds the promise of making it possible to resolve banks in difficulty at no direct cost to the taxpayer. As part of this approach, the United States is preparing a proposal to require systemically important banks to issue bail-inable long-term debt that will enable insolvent banks to recapitalize themselves in resolution without calling on government funding–this cushion is known as a “gone concern” buffer.

    Different countries have structured their macroprudential policymaking institutions in different ways. In the U.K., the Financial Policy Committee has been set up within the Bank of England, with the power to make financial policy–including macroprudential policy–decisions. In the U.S., the Financial Stability Oversight Council is a coordinating committee of the major regulators.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-10/fischer-says-financial-stability-board-may-need-greater-power.html
    Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer said a council of financial regulators established by the Dodd-Frank Act may need more authority to help guard against threats to the banking system.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.4387:
    H.R.4387 — FSOC Transparency and Accountability Act

  • Praetor

    The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to Govern it, ( Locke ).
    These people deny and ignore Natural Law. That is Keynesian.
    Another speech given on April 2 2014:
    Anton Siluanov, Minister of Finance, Russian Federation, to the Joint Ministerial Committee, Board of Governors world Bank and IMF. On the Transfer of Real Resources to Developing Countries: One Paragraph from the speech.
    The IFC should also increase its role in mobilizing additional investment resources. We are particularly encouraged by the launch of a new MCCP platform which is expected to attract not only the banking sector but also some other investors including largest institutional investors with their enormous resources ( Estimated to be $ 90 Trillion ). Well, Ok. Is not Russia at war with the West. Or are they just a part of the GRIFTER’s SCAM.

  • Hugo

    Hi DB,

    Talking about central banking…. seems the rift between the EU and UK over the City of London is spreading and the EU even created a 3 Supervisory Authorities to gain power over them…. State regulations over central banking, yeah that will cure stuff. In this piece, true free market solutions are not mentioned but still an interesting read and to follow since 2 monsters seem to go head on head… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11022709/We-must-fight-the-EUs-bid-to-tighten-its-grip-on-the-City-of-London.html

    Talking about state solutions… Here a great example how costs of the economic sactions rethoric between elites are passed down on the people who have nothing to do with it and want peace.”EU prepares compensation for farmers hit by Russia sanctions” by destoying food while thousands die of hunger each day on this planet. What a sad, sad world we live in (and most accept).
    http://euobserver.com/news/125227

  • Myron Goodrum

    Very well said DB…

  • Henry James

    The science of economics, awesomely complex, inscrutable, majestic and judicial as the force of Gravity in its regulation of natural progressions..truly a natural wonder man, has yet to, but must, come to understand. All hail! (then stand back and follow orders).
    It really has become the new shamanism where the tribe await these ‘Delphic-like'(?) pronouncements.

  • Bruce C

    Okay dave jr, Agent Weebly, The Daily Bell, et al., my question is this: Why is it so important that people think that there are invisible elites acting behind the scenes for everything? Why can’t things be taken more at face value and dealt with accordingly, without the need for some mass conspiracy? Why can’t bad ideas or policies be just that, regardless of alleged intentions?
    What practical difference does it make whether or not, say – case in point, a really boring and useless speech is given to obfuscate the fundamental causes of economic conditions versus an honest and pathetic display of intellectual bankruptcy? I mean, isn’t the solution the same thing – the rejection of central planning itself? Whether it’s a diabolical plan to impoverish the planet or just an unworkable economic and monetary system, it should be replaced. Period. All of the subversive manipulations by the Fed/central banks and the associated banking system is all known and implied in this speech. All of it – whether or not all of the specifics are known to the rest of us – has led to this point, the point that the Fed Vice Chairman has to admit that things are not good and he/the-Committee doesn’t know why and doesn’t know how things are going to play out and when interest rates are going to change, and…and…and. Why isn’t that grounds enough to reject the whole damn system, regardless of intentions? Maybe Fischer is a miserable Gollum-like person who is being directed by some other unknown shadowy evil sociopath, or maybe Fischer himself is a sick puppy, but personally I don’t give a damn. It’s still a failed system, so it should be replaced!

    It should be obvious that we have experienced intensive central planning since 2009, and really as far back as at least 1913. Since then the dollar has lost most of its value and the entire fiscal and monetary system is sucking wind. As far as I’m concerned – and I would think most others would agree – is enough evidence to reject the whole thing, regardless of intentions. The emphasis on a secret conspiracy of diabolical elites running the world turns a lot of people off, and it isn’t necessary to persuade people to seek a change. The results speak for themselves.

    • The truth is important. Honest money is important. Living honestly promotes individual peace and prosperity. Honest sound money “rings” when dropped on a hard surface. See: “The Mystery of Banking” by Murray N. Rothbard. Rothbard teaches that sound MONEY is durable, divisible, desirable, portable, and scarce. Gold, Silver, and other precious metals fit that bill.

      You write, “Since then the dollar has lost most of its value and the entire fiscal and monetary system is sucking wind.” IMO, that is a dismissal of what is really going on with the monetary system. The American dollar was defined in 1792 as 371.25 grains of pure silver. Since then “dollar” has not lost any value. A “dollar” today is still 371.25 grains of pure silver. A Federal Reserve Note is not a “dollar”. The Federal Reserve Note has lost most of its value, and that is because elastic standards is an oxymoron.

      What has lost most of its value is the Federal Reserve Note. There is a dramatic difference between asset money and debt currency. The Federal Reserve Note is a counterfeit “dollar” elastic currency (elastic standard) which is a debt currency and an oxymoron. Counterfeiting is theft. Debasing the currency is a crime. Counterfeiting is a crime. The founders believed that anyone who debases the currency should face the death penalty. See Penalty under: The Coinage Act of 1792. According to the founding fathers all Federal Reserve Board members should be tried as debasers of currency, and if found guilty, be executed. The Federal Reserve System is a criminal system of theft. That’s why it matters who is behind it.

      To ignore the fact that certain people are elites behind the curtain pulling the strings of society is akin to closing ones eyes and screaming “Ignorance is Bliss!” and being fine with it. Believing that the “dollar” and the “Federal Reserve Note” is one and the same is to ignore WHO prints the FRN. WHO is in control of your money? The Wizard of Oz was not just a play. The Wizard of the Silver Ounce (Oz) demonstrates that by pulling the curtain back, the Emperor Wears No Clothes.

      Who is behind it today? The Pilgrim Society.
      http://www.pilgrimsociety.org/members/index.php

      Are you a member?
      George Carlin – It’s a big club and you ain’t in it
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5dBZDSSky0

      Hillary Rodham Clinton and James A Baker are in the club and they have username and passwords. It is undeniable.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF0JyZwqGoQ

      • Bruce C

        Yes, I’m sorry I conflated the word “dollar” with FRNs, but that is a distinction that misses the point. It is the legal tender in use today that is corrupted – no matter what you call it.

        I agree that a private bank (the Fed) that owns and controls the money in the US is unConstitutional and criminal. I would love to see all of its officers and employees (the thousand or so economists) tried and found guilty of Treason, but I’m not sure how that can happen since the Fed was commissioned by the Congress. In theory Congress could reverse that, but the challenge in my mind is what should replace it, not ferreting out who the jackals are.

        I would also agree that no matter what alternative system replaces the monetary system we have now, it won’t make any difference if the people are corrupt (most of society, not just elites).

        • Nearly everyone conflates the “dollar” with FRNs. No need to apologize. I am used to it. One of the most favorite tricks of the TPTB elite is to redefine words to keep the people confused. Legal tender is corrupted today because the elites force, with the threat of jail, or even death, if I object. If I accept silver dollars as “legal tender” then I am subject to jail time if I don’t report my earnings to the “authorities”.

          On December 23, 1913, 1/3 of Congress was absent from the vote to authorize the Federal Reserve System because they had headed home for Christmas. Does that really qualify as commissioned by the Congress? In over 100 years, the Federal Reserve System has never been audited. Shouldn’t all banks be audited on a regular basis? I would not put my money in a bank that refused to be audited.

          Most of society is educated in the government school systems. It is not education it is indoctrination. Most people are not corrupt. They just don’t know any better.

          I have 20+ years as a skilled carpenter installing doors and building cabinets. I would be willing to install any cabinet or door you need for $5/hour (silver dollars) as long as you promise not to tell the authorities about our agreement.

    • Dave Meekhof

      “Why is it so important that people think that there are invisible elites acting behind the scenes for everything?”

      The elite are not invisible. They’re just not on TV, so they don’t exist?
      .
      “What practical difference does it make whether or not, say – case in point, a really boring and useless speech is given to obfuscate the fundamental causes of economic conditions versus an honest and pathetic display of intellectual bankruptcy?”

      Know your enemy? Get familiar with that which ails you?
      .
      “It should be obvious that we have experienced intensive central planning since 2009, and really as far back as at least 1913.”
      I’ll go back as far as any known civilization. The planners don’t build it, as they tell the builders they didn’t plan it. It matters Bruce, if one expects to effect a change. Shaking a fist at the television screen or hollering at an elected dimwit won’t do it. Point a beam of light into the shadows and things rustle. That is the difference.

      • Bruce C

        The problem is that focusing on “elites” is like shining a light only to see the cockroaches scatter. The challenge is not in dealing with them it’s agreeing on alternatives. If we don’t like central banking then what should we have instead? Don’t like corporate person hood? Okay, then what?

        Of course there are people who want those systems and will resist change, but nothing will change if we don’t know what we DO want, and the existence of elites (alleged or real) have nothing to do with that.

        • alaska3636

          What I want is freedom of choice. What I get is a false paradigm reality put into place by individuals who, by conviction or indoctrination, think that they know what’s best for me. For all of recorded history, a surplus of capital gave way to an institution of monopolized force which was then hijacked by an “elite” that viciously and dishonestly defended its illegitimate position of power.

          I agree with Junior Dave, “know thy enemy.” Thine enemy is likely a small cabal of “elite” sociopaths who use knowledge of the world in order to manipulate humanity into giving up wealth and power. The idea that a very few people descended from a very few particular bloodlines happened to stumble upon the greatest share of the world’s wealth that has ever been amassed by manipulating market forces through fiat monetary regimes and backed by (violent) governments the world over is quite the happenstance.

          If it was false that the “elite” is consciously manipulating the destruction of the quality of life of billions of people because they exhibit a high degree of sociopathy, then the paradigm is still more accurate at predicting the consolidation of wealth and power into ever more globalist institutions than the idea that is all just random dumb luck.

          The viewpoint of human action insists on definite ends and means, which in turn gives the study of history a more focused approach than a materialistic viewpoint of atomistic determination. The question is which viewpoint results in a greater degree of truth; which premise leads to a greater efficacy in predicting the concatenation of natural phenomena?

          If the centralization of institutions were the random result of atomistic rather than subjective determination, why are the media in lock-step with the support of institutions which hurt rather than help the general consumers of that medium? Cui bono? What is supported from an historical perspective i.e. have the general populace been generally oppressed or has there generally existed a freedom of opportunity?

          I admit that it’s a large pill to swallow, but if the up side is a closer alignment of perspective with reality and a better chance of choosing positive ends and efficient means than I am alright with challenging my suppositions about how this world is constructed and what my options are going forward in it.

          • The paradigm you’re alluding to is fairly irrefutable. The patterns are evident and obvious. Discouraging, yes. Realistic … yes.

          • Dave Meekhof

            Thank you alaska. Yes, if nothing else, ‘a closer alignment of perspective with reality’ is my first choice; no matter what else happens. The elite use situational awareness to pay dividends, therefore I should use it to avoid being that dividend.

          • Bruce C

            Look at it this way, either consciousness creates its own form and environment, or it doesn’t. Consciousness exists independently of form, or it doesn’t. The spirit forms the flesh, or it doesn’t.

            If it does NOT then, yes, we are all in a purely materialistic, objective, one-world, “atomistic” (as Alaska3636 says) system, and it’s a “dog-eat-dog” world. In that case it makes sense to be on the qui vive 24/7, and good luck.

            However, if it does, then the whole paradigm shifts. Rather than try to explain how it does in this format at this time, let me say this. There are many levels of history and knowledge. This site is “cool” because it reveals a different perspective on history and it is valid in many ways. However, it’s not the whole story. Just as there are sources of alternative or truer histories there are also sources of esoteric knowledge that subsumes even that.

            The “problem” with the “Pharaohs, Monarchs, Emperors and Tsars” concept is that it is too general, and it is only one particular perspective. It’s like history often being criticized for focusing only on wars. Not that wars didn’t exist or “matter” but that it doesn’t really express or describe the personal experiences of most people. Most people do not experience war in the way that popular history implies. Just consider the latest war in Iraq and Afghanistan from a US citizen’s perspective. Personally, I don’t know a single person who was in that war, never mind being injured or killed. And other than watching the national debt increase I didn’t even pay for it. But tell that to someone who saw combat, or was injured or killed. Same war, same history, vastly different experiences. Same with the Pharaohs, etc.

            There is nothing wrong with clearly perceiving your reality and acting accordingly, but one doesn’t have to be a victim of that reality either. Like it or not, your reality is your creation, and the good news is that you can change it in more ways than just “getting out of Dodge.”

            By the way, I don’t mean to be picking on you in particular. And believe me, I know these concepts are potentially very upsetting. But they are also liberating. There are also more aspects of you than you may know. The mechanics of belief experience is not a conscious one. Peace.

          • Bruce C

            I never said that the alternative to the paradigm that “a small cabal of ‘elite’ sociopaths…manipulates humanity into giving up wealth and power” is “just random dumb luck.” I say that the alternative is that each and every person creates his or her own reality through his or her beliefs, desires and expectations, both individually and en masse. The fact that so many people believe in individual powerlessness and projects power outwardly onto god concepts or governments or leaders – or elites – is mainly why the world seems to be that way.

            You (as well as everyone else) have the ultimate freedom of choice already: To choose your own belief experience. It may seem sophomoric that one can do that, but it is true nevertheless. If people want to believe that a cabal of sociopaths direct history – which is sort of a modern, secular version of capricious gods intervening in human affairs – then they are free to do that, and that’s what they will experience – or at least that is the way reality will seem to work to them. According to this paradigm your physical experience and evidence would faithfully mirror your beliefs, thus providing “proof.” That is why it is said that to change the world you must first change yourself.

          • alaska3636

            You ignore the history of Pharaohs, Monarchs, Emperors and Tsars at your own expense.

          • Dave Meekhof

            What if one already changed himself (several times and on going), and then encountered Bruce who suggests the changes are all wrong, unproductive or on the wrong track? Come back to where you were. What was learned just doesn’t matter. I thought I was changing on myself. Sorry Bruce…gotta go.

    • “Why is it so important that people think that there are invisible elites acting behind the scenes for everything?”

      Is it important? History seems to show us that it’s the truth. Thus any adult analysis of modern history takes it into account.

      • Bruce C

        But in terms of solutions or alternatives does it make any difference?

        If central banking and “corporate personhood” are the root evils in your opinion, why does it matter that a group of elites support it? Shouldn’t those systems be changed anyway?

  • Danny B

    Bruce, I only want to mention something tangential. That is oil. It’s pretty obvious that there has been a LOT of skull drudgery connected to locking up oil producing States. Energy is the master resource and powerful people want to control it. These are the people behind the scenes pulling the ropes and dropping the bombs. Rather that retyping my entry, I will just link to a recent post. http://www.energeticforum.com/general-discussion/13014-economic-pressures-15.html#post262831
    It is worth listening to the embedded vids. In the past, gold was a reciprocal of the financial system. In the present, energy is a reciprocal of the financial system. In the future, food will be a reciprocal because it is so energy dependent,,, and even more important than energy.

    • Bruce C

      I’ll check it out. Thanks.

    • I agree at the present. However, keeping cannabis illegal has been a real boon for the energy elite.

      Hempcrete homes require very little energy to heat or cool. Hempcrete homes are good acoustically, and they are rodent, flood, and fire resistant. The plastic made from industrial hemp can be made compostable. The energy financial system will crumble when hemp is again the most common plant available around the world. Even the seeds from hemp can be used for fuel. Hemp is renewable energy.

      Building With Hemp
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcctSvVFheA

  • Danny B

    I found a good article on Greenspan. He did wrong even though he knew better.
    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-11/celebrating-greenspan-s-legacy-of-failure

    Rickards has a very good Article. http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/john-butler/death-or-rebirth-money-interview-jim-rickards?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fso+%28Financial+Sense%29&utm_term=FSO

    “The problems in the economy today are structural, not liquidity-related.
    The Fed is trying to solve structural problems with liquidity
    solutions. That will never work,”

    “They all conclude that, beyond a certain point,
    centralization of power is destabilizing. Does this mean that a robust
    monetary system would ‘de-centralize’ monetary power? Isn’t this
    incompatible with any attempt by the G20 and IMF to transform the
    Special Drawing Right (SDR) from a unit of account into a
    centrally-managed, global reserve currency?

    JR: Yes. Complex systems collapse because increases in complexity require exponential increases in energy to maintain the system.”

loading