Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)

New Members
  • Posts

    4,893
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)

  1. The genius of the US right is that they can push a savagely pro-corporate agenda whilst at the same time pretending to be on the side of the 'little guy' against the 'Big City/Government Liberals'.

    the left/right debate is a charade - the same small group of people are in charge regardless of whether there is a left wing or right wing government

    a lot of energy is wasted by both sides

    its a game

    people need to wake up

    connect the dots

    follow the money

    read an unbiased view of history

  2. Why don't we repudiate the debt, strip commercial banks of their ability to create money and just let national treasuries print fixed quantities of money like Lincoln did?

    The debt in one sense is not real, since the money that composes it, is not based on anything. It's been conjured out of thin air by the "miracle" of fraactional reserve banking.

    Good video.

    sounds good

    dont think the politicians dare though - or they are bought and paid for

  3. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/economy-suffers-slowdown-as-double-dip-looms-2070141.html

    Looks like the debt junkie needs another fresh fix of QE to try and achieve the same non outcome again.

    Wow Q2 may be the "peak" of the recovery.

    I'm sure it's all contained.

    sorry i know i have posted many times before but its my favourite

    link

    I have now presented this history in its chronological order—the order of events: let me, in conclusion, sum it up, briefly, in its logical order,--the order of cause and effect.

    And, first, in the economic department. From the early reluctant and careful issues of paper we saw, as an immediate result, improvement and activity in business. Then arose the clamor for more paper money. At first, new issues were made with great difficulty; but, the dyke once broken, the current of irredeemable currency poured through; and, the breach thus enlarging, this currency was soon swollen beyond control. It was urged on by speculators for a rise in values; by demagogues who persuaded the mob that a nation, by its simple fiat, could stamp real value to any amount upon valueless objects. As a natural consequence a great debtor class grew rapidly, and this class gave its influence to depreciate more and more the currency in which its debts were to be paid.[85]

    The government now began, and continued by spasms to grind out still more paper; commerce was at first stimulated by the difference in exchange; but this cause soon ceased to operate, and commerce, having been stimulated unhealthfully, wasted away.

    Manufactures at first received a great impulse; but, ere long, this overproduction and overstimulus proved as fatal to them as to commerce. From time to time there was a revival of hope caused by an apparent revival of business; but this revival of business was at last seen to be caused more and more by the desire of far-seeing and cunning men of affairs to exchange paper money for objects of permanent value. As to the people at large, the classes living on fixed incomes and small salaries felt the pressure first, as soon as the purchasing power of their fixed incomes was reduced. Soon the great class living on wages felt it even more sadly.

    Prices of the necessities of life increased: merchants were obliged to increase them, not only to cover depreciation of their merchandise, but also to cover their risk of loss from fluctuation; and, while the prices of products thus rose, wages, which had at first gone up, under the general stimulus, lagged behind. Under the universal doubt and discouragement, commerce and manufactures were checked or destroyed. As a consequence the demand for labor was diminished; laboring men were thrown out of employment, and, under the operation of the simplest law of supply and demand, the price of labor—the daily wages of the laboring class—went down until, at a time when prices of food, clothing and various articles of consumption were enormous, wages were nearly as low as at the time preceding the first issue of irredeemable currency.

    The mercantile classes at first thought themselves exempt from the general misfortune. They were delighted at the apparent advance in the value of the goods upon their shelves. But they soon found that, as they increased prices to cover the inflation of currency and the risk from fluctuation and uncertainty, purchases became less in amount and payments less sure; a feeling of insecurity spread throughout the country; enterprise was deadened and stagnation followed.

    New issues of paper were then clamored for as more drams are demanded by a drunkard. New issues only increased the evil; capitalists were all the more reluctant to embark their money on such a sea of doubt. Workmen of all sorts were more and more thrown out of employment. Issue after issue of currency came; but no relief resulted save a momentary stimulus, which aggravated the disease. The most ingenious evasions of natural laws in finance which the most subtle theorists could contrive were tried—all in vain; the most brilliant substitutes for those laws were tried; “self-regulating” schemes, “interconverting” schemes—all equally vain.[86] All thoughtful men had lost confidence. All men were waiting; stagnation became worse and worse. At last came the collapse and then a return, by a fearful shock, to a state of things which presented something like certainty of remuneration to capital and labor. Then, and not till then, came the beginning of a new era of prosperity.

    Just as dependent on the law of cause and effect was the moral development. Out of the inflation of prices grew a speculating class; and, in the complete uncertainty as to the future, all business became a game of chance, and all business men, gamblers. In city centers came a quick growth of stock-jobbers and speculators; and these set a debasing fashion in business which spread to the remotest parts of the country. Instead of satisfaction with legitimate profits, came a passion for inordinate gains. Then, too, as values became more and more uncertain, there was no longer any motive for care or economy, but every motive for immediate expenditure and present enjoyment. So came upon the nation the obliteration of thrift. In this mania for yielding to present enjoyment rather than providing for future comfort were the seeds of new growths of wretchedness: luxury, senseless and extravagant, set in: this, too, spread as a fashion. To feed it, there came cheatery in the nation at large and corruption among officials and persons holding trusts. While men set such fashions in private and official business, women set fashions of extravagance in dress and living that added to the incentives to corruption. Faith in moral considerations, or even in good impulses, yielded to general distrust. National honor was thought a fiction cherished only by hypocrites. Patriotism was eaten out by cynicism.

    Thus was the history of France logically developed in obedience to natural laws; such has, to a greater or less degree, always been the result of irredeemable paper, created according to the whim or interest of legislative assemblies rather than based upon standards of value permanent in their nature and agreed upon throughout the entire world. Such, we may fairly expect, will always be the result of them until the fiat of the Almighty shall evolve laws in the universe radically different from those which at present obtain.[87]

    And, finally, as to the general development of the theory and practice which all this history records: my subject has been Fiat Money in France; How it came; What it brought; and How it ended.

    It came by seeking a remedy for a comparatively small evil in an evil infinitely more dangerous. To cure a disease temporary in its character, a corrosive poison was administered, which ate out the vitals of French prosperity.

    It progressed according to a law in social physics which we may call the “_law of accelerating issue and depreciation._” It was comparatively easy to refrain from the first issue; it was exceedingly difficult to refrain from the second; to refrain from the third and those following was practically impossible.

    It brought, as we have seen, commerce and manufactures, the mercantile interest, the agricultural interest, to ruin. It brought on these the same destruction which would come to a Hollander opening the dykes of the sea to irrigate his garden in a dry summer

  4. atlas starting to shrug

    link

    THIS IS WHY THERE ARE NO JOBS IN AMERICA

    By Porter Stanberry

    Saturday, August 21, 2010

    I’d like to make you a business offer. Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can’t turn me down, as you’ll come to understand in a moment…

    Here’s the deal. You’re going to start a business or expand the one you’ve got now. It doesn’t really matter what you do or what you’re going to do. I’ll partner with you no matter what business you’re in – as long as it’s legal.

    But I can’t give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your own. I won’t give you any labor – that’s definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you’re allowed to operate your business. That’s half of your profits.

    Now in return for my rules, I’m going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn’t it? I think so. Of course, that’s half of your profits.

    You’re also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you’ve got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you’re my partner. It’s only “fair”.

    Now…after you’ve put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you’ve worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you’d like to cash out – to finally live the good life.

    Whether or not this is “fair” – some people never can afford to retire – is a different argument. As you partner, I’m happy for you to sell whenever you’d like…because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.

    I know…I know… you put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That’s all true. But I’ve done my part, too. I’ve collected 50% of the profits each year. And I’ve always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20% slice of the business. Oh…and one more thing…

    Even after you’ve sold the business and paid all of my fees…I’d recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you’ve been retired for years, when you die, you’ll have to pay be 50% of whatever you estate is worth.

    After all, I’ve got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don’t think its “fair” for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.

    All in all, if you’re a very successful entrepreneur…if you’re one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public…you’ll end up paying me more than 75% of your income over your life.

    Thanks so much.

    I’m sure you’ll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me…but it doesn’t really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me – or cheat me on any of my fees or rules- I’ll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.

    That’s how civil society is supposed to work right? This is America, isn’t it? That’s the offer America gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington wonder why there are no new jobs…

    Regards, Porter Stanberry

  5. yes i noticed that, about as subtle as a

    080606-150200-322007.jpg

    not to some CEO's

    ive gotta be able to make some money the world is full of idiots

    link

    Tom Woods spoke last night at the UConn School of Business, opposite Tom McInerney, ING Chairman & CEO Insurance Americas (which received $3 billion euros in bailout money from the Dutch government). The topic was “Too Big to Fail?: Perspectives on Government Intervention During Economic Collapse.” Reports from audience members overwhelmingly agree that Woods absolutely wiped the floor with McInerney. Woods, of course, was well prepared and presented a coherent economic case for his position, and was entertaining to boot. McInerney, by contrast, ate up some of his time on personal anecdotes about the school, like a typical Dale Carnegie back-slapping schmoozer, before getting to a dry and boring Powerpoint obviously prepared by some lackey. McInerney reportedly played lip service to the idea that no company should be bailed out–but, of course, “this was a special circumstance.”

    The extent to which he was outmatched, though, was revealed in this almost embarrassingly funny episode. McInerney had mentioned that Bernanke was a diligent and knowledgeable student of the Great Depression. So, when it came time for the Q&A, one audience member asked Woods to briefly explain the Austrian view of Great Depression and how it might differ from Bernanke’s view. After Woods did this, McIerney took the stage, and as if he were about to unload a devastating blow against Woods, said to him, “this might seem like a bit of an attack. Don’t take it too personally.” And then…. he began to rant about … the relatively small size of the country of Austria. I kid you not.

    Some audience members began to laugh; others cringed, as McInerney dug his hole deeper while under the illusion that he was unleashing a deadly zinger. Woods kept trying to stage whisper that Austria had nothing to do with the school of Austrian economics, but McInerney, undeterred, plowed on. Thus, when Woods took the stage he said, “this might seem like an attack, but don’t take it too personally…” And then Woods commented that we may as well say we shouldn’t listen to Milton Friedman, since the GDP of Chicago is pretty low.

  6. hmm dont think we will start hearing the media talking about abolishing central banks and allowing competing currencies

    ground up solutions needed

    link

    At the very least, the Journal is guilty of extremely uninformative and selective editing. One could also read this article, however, as an attempt to cast the Rothbardian school as irrelevant while propping up the Hayekian school as the "respectable" kind of Austrian Economics. This would be perfectly in line with the Wall Street Journal's generally conservative slant, and the Journal has shown itself to be a friend to neither Ron Paul nor any other serious or trenchant critic of the current kleptocracy. As Wenzel notes, the failure to mention Mises is odd at best. If there is a deliberate effort to obscure the importance of Mises or Rothbard, it is also certainly unlikely that a mere beat reporter sent to interview Boettke would insist on such a thing. Such a policy is far more likely to originate at the editorial level, where it can be absolutely guaranteed that a discussion of Austrian Economics will mention neither Mises nor Paul nor Rothbard nor anyone else who is presently central to the real-life political milieu surrounding the Austrian School today. ... So either the Journal is incompetent, or it has deliberately tried to disparage Ron Paul's Rothbard wing of the libertarian movement. I suspect the latter, although the former is always a possibility. None of this should surprise anyone who is familiar with the debate between the Hayekian branch and the Rothbardian branch. Twenty-eight years ago, Lew Rockwell was told in no uncertain terms that his efforts would be sabotaged by the existing libertarian establishment if he tried to name his new institute after Ludwig von Mises (left) who was labeled as "too radical." Rothbard's eventual inclusion in the effort only solidified the animosity toward what is now the Rothbard school. So ... the first question that crosses my mind with controversies like this is: "Should I even care about this?" – The Rothbardian School / LewRockwell.com/Ryan McMaken

    Dominant Social Theme: Ignore 'em and they will go away.

    Free-Market Analysis: We are returning to the "Spreading Hayek, Spurning Keynes" Wall Street Journal article to answer the question that Ryan McMaken asks in his fine article at LewRockwell.com (and then answers judiciously as well). We are returning as well because this is an incredibly important issue from our point of view as a periodical that analyzes power-elite dominant social themes from a free market perspective. We do have a slightly different take on the answer; in fact we feel, collectively, a tad passionate about the article from a libertarian standpoint.

    The question, again: Why did the Wall Street Journal write an article about the history of Austrian finance without mentioning the Mises Institute or Lew Rockwell? Our answer to the question is not so eloquent as Mr. McMaken's but is almost as heartfelt. Our answer would be that "people who are interested in freedom should care very much about this article and the surrounding debate." Why? Because we think the Austrian economic movement is one of the longest-lived and most important intellectual and ideological conversations in history. And whatever misrepresents it is of similar import, especially if it represents a larger trend.

    Here's an anecdote ... One of us walked into an Austrian "conference" in the late 1980s, perhaps. At the time, it consisted of a fairly rundown room, perhaps rented for the day. At a fold-out table, Joe Salerno was sitting next to Murray Rothbard who was cackling. Lew Rockwell was shaking hands with a deep-pocketed individual who had happened to drop by. Later on, Rockwell spoke and then Rothbard spoke. It wasn't anything special. It could have been a humid venue for selling vacuum cleaners. But for an hour or so all the truth in the world, relatively speaking, was suddenly confined to one room – one "phone booth" as Jonah Goldberg so eloquently put it a few years later (and he didn't mean it kindly).

    Out into the sun to walk through a city crowded with lies. There is no way to describe the impact of the Austrian school on someone who wanted to know more and had the (mis)fortune of running into the Institute in the late 1980s or early '90s. It was a virtual out-of-body experience. The movie the Matrix is about as close as you can get. It was the red pill, only you had to swallow it without any support group and live the rest of your life, or so it seemed then, as an intellectual schizophrenic.

    You begin to follow the argument. You see how the Institute is ignored and misrepresented. Gradually you realize the ambit of a conspiracy so gigantic it's hard to fathom. It ignores and misrepresents the entire history of human ideas. It is a fully manufactured world. What is black is white. What is up is down. When the Internet comes along you start to see how far back in time the conspiracy goes and how deeply it runs.

    You notice with some surprise that for a while everything is labeled, so the paper trail is fully available. This is because the power elite did everything in the open so no charges could be laid. The names are all there on the annual reports, on the legislation, on the funding. Nobody ever expected all of it would show up in one place on the Internet. (And now, of course, it is being taken down and the paper trail is not quite so easy to follow. But if you know where to look, it's obvious.)

    You understand it is a familial conspiracy. Eventually, you begin to believe it goes back to Venice, and then to Rome and even farther than that. Today, you decide, it is structured a little bit like the mafia. There are ties of blood and allegiance. But the ties don't extend to everyone and nobody talks – except to lie. It is the misleading methodology of Money Power. And the conspiracy floats a promotion that tars an entire religion when in actuality only a few benefit. That's the core, baseline misinformation. Even the religion itself may be different than what is purported. (And how can a family worth a reputed US$50 trillion be considered in any way normal?)

    You observe that the intellectual currency of repression is built from dominant social themes relentlessly pounded into the public ear. You keep watching the patterns build and you keep getting headaches because after watching the patterns for 20 years, you've come to believe that it encompasses, or tries to encompass every country, every state, every individual on the planet, binding them to invisible chains of ignorance and servitude.

    This is one "take" on the power elite and their methodologies. Even if you don't believe it, dear reader, you may have to grant that certain ideologies are promoted in the mainstream press and others are not. One of the ideologies that is NOT promoted is that of the Mises Institute. There is a virtual blackout on the Institute in the mainstream press. Not that it matters. The Internet has created a whole new world. But the way the elite deals with free-market thinking is still by ignoring it. So why this WSJ article now? All we could come up with initially was willful ignorance (bias) or antipathy.

  7. http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug09/KaPoom2CHS.htm

    Hmm...

    Work with me here. Suppose, just suppose, that mathematically, the US Fiat system has a very certain, very predictable end date, easily seen even by such non-monetary critics such as Martenson's “Crash Course”.

    (Also

    )

    This certain end date is roughly when the parabolic curve goes vertical as mapped using the average interest rate of all national transactions—6% perhaps. And suppose, just suppose, that being no dummy and working with money as your sole object, clawing your way to the top of the Billionaire's club, you could see this coming. In fact, everyone can—all your peers who clawed through the same training, saw through the same veil, and are now in positions of unimaginable influence, having friends who are Presidents, Diplomats, nation-shaking Hedge Funds, and IMF/BIS bankers. And they all looked at each other and said: “This is bad, dahlink” and: “It's mathematically certain, mate,” then everyone together: “So what do we do?”

    Well, no one knows what to do. Nothing like this has never been tried before. The financial world has never had ALL baseless currencies before, and never has a country as large as the US been brought down except during a war that exhausted all nations together. The risks are too high just to guess what will happen if we pull lever X instead of lever Y when the end comes. So you pick a country a lot like America. Productive, hardworking, modern, agricultural, having a corrupt, spendthrift political class and an uninvolved, unassuming, spendthrift-but-hardworking middle class—a country the most like America. And you run a little experiment.

    What happens to a country when it does exactly what we're about to do? You influence leaders here, fund populist movements there, then get your friends to invest in this nation, knowing all along what's going to happen, and knowing that—because we know, we're making it happen—no one important will lose their money playing along. A nation like, oh, Argentina.

    You push foreign investment through banking and diplomatic channels from the top, while as in “Economic Hit Man” no one below the 1st level need know, and you over-invest in the country, buying the leaders and giving them every assurance that things are fine, they're not too far along, the world believes in them, and the IMF is right there to catch them.

    Until one day, you don't. Once they've gone too far to pull back, you spread some rumors, cause a run on some investments, then have your banking friends step back a bit. Then a bit more. Then at the 11th hour, despite daily promises all along the way, the IMF also leaves them in the lurch, cutting off their last foreign credit. What do they do? What do the people do? What does it take to keep them under control in this transition? Where are the pressures? Do they give in to interminable debt slavery to the IMF, or do they default on foreign investors? And what happens when they do? Does the world punish them or two years later is it like nothing happened?

    Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, with another placid, productive, agricultural, English-speaking country with a strong middle class and rule of law, also most like America, you try the other direction: unlimited inflation. In Zimbabwe, three eggs cost 100 billion dollars...back in 2008, before things got really bad.

    What happens there? Which way was better, for power, influence, and control in world affairs? Which way do the important people remain in power with less bother?

    Just a thought, mind you. I'm sure no one would actually do such a thing.

  8. those nasty Muslims who do they think they are trying to avoid paying tribute to the bankers

    link

    KOTA BHARU, Malaysia—Umar Vadillo bounds into a hotel room here in northern Malaysia with several stacks of gold and silver coins in his hands and slaps them down on a coffee table. "This," Mr. Vadillo says, "is what it means to be free."

    A quarter century ago, this Spanish-born Muslim convert set to work with other European Muslims to find a substitute for the U.S. dollar and other paper currencies.

    State minister Nik Abdul Aziz presented certificates to local traders who accept dinar as payment.

    Pricing goods in greenbacks, they argued, was unfair. Many countries earn their income from finite resources like oil and other minerals, they said, while the U.S. and other countries can crank up their printing presses to pay for them—especially after Richard Nixon helped break the Western world's historical dependence on gold as a measure of value by taking America off the gold standard in 1971.

    Last month, Mr. Vadillo's solution took shape when the local Muslim-led government in Malaysia's Kelantan state joined forces with Mr. Vadillo to introduce Islamic-style gold dinar coins as alternative currency.

    Mr. Vadillo and the Kelantan government have persuaded more than a thousand businesses here in the state capital, Kota Bharu, to paste stickers in store windows saying they accept the coins.

    Ordinary people can also pay taxes and water bills in gold and silver instead of paper money.

    "Our lands are being subjugated," says Mr. Vadillo, a powerfully built 46-year-old with a shiny suit, swept-back hair and a tidy goatee. "Today, in Kelantan, we're fighting back."

    Plenty of people have their doubts about the dollar, as well as other currencies that aren't backed by gold or silver.

    American libertarians such as Ron Paul frequently call for the reintroduction of a gold-backed currency, arguing that the Federal Reserve's ability to print money causes inflation and destroys savings.

    Gold bulls have developed a cult following among investors who worry that precious metals are the only reliable store of value during rocky economic times.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.