How a Financial Pro Lost His House … My first book comes out in January, "The Behavior Gap: Simple Ways to Stop Doing Dumb Things With Money" (Portfolio, a Penguin imprint). The thing that few people know, though, is that I learned a lot of this from experience. I made a bunch of mistakes, the very same ones that I now go around warning people to avoid. So this is the story of how I lost my home, the profound ethical questions that arose along the way, and what my wife and I learned from the mistakes that led us to that point. It made me better at what I do, but it wasn't much fun getting there. – New York Times/Carl Richards

Dominant Social Theme: Buying less and saving more will protect you as you navigate your way through the modern economy.

Free-market analysis: We are sorry that Mr. Carl Richards lost his house but we find his reasoning confusing. His lengthy analysis of how he ended up selling his house in Nevada and moving back to Utah does not contain a single word about central banking.

This is a kind of dominant social theme of the power elite and one of the most ubiquitous ones. Within the context of power-elite driven media, one is never supposed to mention that central banking is responsible for the booms and busts of modern day finance.

And Carl Richards has apparently written an entire book about his bad experiences with the post-2007 economy without mentioning the price fixing of modern money even once – if his book is anything like this article. Too bad.

There is no mystery about what happened to Richards and millions of others. They got into trouble because of unnaturally low interest rates that tempted them to buy more things at higher prices than they could afford.

The Fed in particular has to keep rates low because of past stimuli. Throughout the post-war period, the Fed had to simulate more and more to keep an ever-expanding bubble up in the air. Finally, in 2007 it burst for good. This is STILL not something that is regularly written about in the mainstream Western media.

The Anglosphere power elite does not like to emphasize central banking, which is the predicate of global governance. Central banking is Money Power and without it, the modern conspiracy would collapse. The New York Times is a primary power elite website and thus tries to run articles that blame the current economic crisis on a variety of issues that have nothing to do with central banking. This article is a good example of that. Here's some more:

Our decisions often appear irrational until we understand the whole story. I've also learned some things about risk. Risk is an arbitrary concept, until you experience it. And I've noticed myself focusing more on the consequences of something going wrong than just the probability of that happening. As a result, I tend to urge my clients to make decisions that err on the side of caution.

As for Cori and me, things are much better now. Moving back to Utah clearly was the right choice. The business is doing well, and we've managed to pay down most of our debt. It would be easy to say that we've learned our lesson, that we'll never screw up again. But it's not that simple. At times I'm absolutely clear about what makes sense. Then ordinary life choices arise, and things can get cloudy. Should our children play sports that cost money? What kind of family vacation is O.K.? How much is enough? We're still working on that last one.

But we are asking the question, repeatedly. And the temptation to overspend, to go for it, to tell ourselves that things will work out in the long run, is tempered by a feeling that something big is at stake. All I have to do to remind myself of that is to remember what it felt like to stand outside the kitchen window two years ago, looking in on my life, and thinking I might not get it back

This is a sad story, though one that does not have a desperately unhappy ending. The family stayed together, with no divorce, and found a new place to live. But this is not the illuminating part of the story. What's more interesting is what it reveals about Richards's background.

He writes that he answered an ad more or less by accident in 1995 that was related to "security" (as in security guard). But it actually was an ad for a "securities" salesman. No matter! He went to work at Fidelity and then by 1999, he was a Merrill Lynch advisor and certified financial planner.

Now, there is nothing wrong with this sales progression. But there IS something wrong with the larger institutions that are presenting these young people as if they know something. They don't.

For all the degrees, all the certifications, all the regulations and regulations, these "planners" and "advisers" are nothing but a kind of sales drummer. They make money when the central banks are successfully stimulating the economy and they and their clients lose money when fiat money systems implode, which they have to do regularly.

Instead of investing in gold and silver back in 2000, when the cycle turned, this poor fellow watched his house slip away. He didn't invest in gold and silver, which started the decade around US$250 and US$4 respectively, because he didn't know any better.

None of these people get taught about the real economy. If anything, they just imbibe some incorrect nostrums occasionally, especially Keynesian socialism. Then they are presented as if they actually know something about investing and economics. At best, they are only good 50 percent of the time. The big firms have absolutely no interest in selling anything but securitized products.

What's interesting is that the Times still thinks it can run stories like these and that no one notices. The Internet Reformation is gradually spreading the truth about the way the economy REALLY works and that's not a trend that can be easily reversed. Eventually, even brokers and financial planners will realize the truth about the economy. Unfortunately, they will probably be the last to know.