Oh, and the Stimulus and such was meant to prevent the 2nd great depression--not what Bernanke is doing btw. Sure, a small some of it may be in the name of "economy" but let's be reasonable...

And @bareboards--you beat me by 1 hour on this...how sad...

Ben Bernanke threatened by Rick Perry. I say "Great."

My personal opinion is that treason comes in many forms. Giving Haliburton billions at the people's expense, when it cannot be afforded--treason. Bernanke giving trillions with no oversight, in the name of economy, yet affecting only the big players--treason...

Nations of our size fall for many reasons. So there are many reasons to call it like it should be. I agree with Rick Perry here, if not anywhere else. I think the political correctness of our nation won't allow us to call a spade a spade... "Oh, threatening a man's life!" And? What else do you do with traitors besides life or death row?

Now, you could say, "Prove it Lawdeedaw." Fair enough. But the lack of oversight, and where our country is right now is more than circumstantial evidence, IMHO.

Also, if Perry wins, he will have a conservative Bernanke put in power anyways So don't get me wrong, Perry can suck my dollar bills!

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^marbles:
Is this what passes for financial experts nowadays? Outside of Rickards, the rest are fucking dis-info tools.
The Ben Bernanke said gold isn't money. He also said in response to Why do people buy gold?: "As protection against of what we call tail risks: really, really bad outcomes". Bad outcomes like... destroying an economy by design?
Meanwhile, If Central Banks Believe in Paper Money Why Are They Loading Up On Gold?
Also former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees with Bernanke. 2 years ago: "What is fascinating is the extent to which gold still holds reign over the financial system as the ultimate source of payment". (This is when gold was around $1,000/ounce)
In 1971, gold was $35/ounce. Now it's $1700/ounce. So it only took 40 years for the dollar to lose 97% 98% (edit) of it's value against gold.
It doesn't take an idiot to understand that if you save a $100 bill and forty years later it only has the purchasing power of $3 $2--that something is seriously fucked up with our monetary system.
You don't like gold? No problem. Just get rid of the economic central planning and let there be competing currencies. Gold will ALWAYS win in a a free market.

Rubbish. Gold has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilised tomorrow, gold would be worthless. It's time we started basing our economy on the the real cost of things, energy. Ultimately, everything has an energy cost. Today energy is cheap, mostly because of fossil fuels. When energy starts becoming much more expensive, that will be the single greatest economic change in history.


The US dollar has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilized tomorrow, the US dollar would be worthless.

Gold has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilized tomorrow, gold would be worthless.

According to history, one of these statements is true, the other is laughably false.

So what do you measure you energy cost in?

>> ^marbles:

Is this what passes for financial experts nowadays? Outside of Rickards, the rest are fucking dis-info tools.
The Ben Bernanke said gold isn't money. He also said in response to Why do people buy gold?: "As protection against of what we call tail risks: really, really bad outcomes". Bad outcomes like... destroying an economy by design?
Meanwhile, If Central Banks Believe in Paper Money Why Are They Loading Up On Gold?
Also former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees with Bernanke. 2 years ago: "What is fascinating is the extent to which gold still holds reign over the financial system as the ultimate source of payment". (This is when gold was around $1,000/ounce)
In 1971, gold was $35/ounce. Now it's $1700/ounce. So it only took 40 years for the dollar to lose 97% 98% (edit) of it's value against gold.
It doesn't take an idiot to understand that if you save a $100 bill and forty years later it only has the purchasing power of $3 $2--that something is seriously fucked up with our monetary system.
You don't like gold? No problem. Just get rid of the economic central planning and let there be competing currencies. Gold will ALWAYS win in a a free market.


Rubbish. Gold has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilised tomorrow, gold would be worthless. It's time we started basing our economy on the the real cost of things, energy. Ultimately, everything has an energy cost. Today energy is cheap, mostly because of fossil fuels. When energy starts becoming much more expensive, that will be the single greatest economic change in history.

Is this what passes for financial experts nowadays? Outside of Rickards, the rest are fucking dis-info tools.

The Ben Bernanke said gold isn't money. He also said in response to Why do people buy gold?: "As protection against of what we call tail risks: really, really bad outcomes". Bad outcomes like... destroying an economy by design?

Meanwhile, If Central Banks Believe in Paper Money Why Are They Loading Up On Gold?

Also former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees with Bernanke. 2 years ago: "What is fascinating is the extent to which gold still holds reign over the financial system as the ultimate source of payment". (This is when gold was around $1,000/ounce)

In 1971, gold was $35/ounce. Now it's $1700/ounce. So it only took 40 years for the dollar to lose 97% 98% (edit) of it's value against gold.

It doesn't take an idiot to understand that if you save a $100 bill and forty years later it only has the purchasing power of $3 $2--that something is seriously fucked up with our monetary system.

You don't like gold? No problem. Just get rid of the economic central planning and let there be competing currencies. Gold will ALWAYS win in a a free market.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^MaxWilder:
Gold is FUNGIBLE!
Very disappointed in Paul for that question about diamonds.

Yeah, that's why diamonds can't be used as money and gold can.
You're making Paul's point.


Yeah, but... holy crap. I can't for the life of me remember my line of logic from last night. I guess that's what I get for commenting late at night.

I still don't agree that "gold is money" any more than t-bills are money or oil is money. There are a lot of fungible assets that are valuable, and just because traditionally gold was used to make coins doesn't mean it is money.

I'm still open to arguments about returning to a gold standard, that's just not one I'll buy.

>> ^MaxWilder:

Gold is FUNGIBLE!
Very disappointed in Paul for that question about diamonds.


Yeah, that's why diamonds can't be used as money and gold can.

You're making Paul's point.

Bernanke is correct.

http://videosift.com/video/Anonymous-Bernanke-Is-Next-A99-OpESR-Communication-2

http://videosift.com/video/Anonymous-Announces-Siege-on-the-Banks-Communique-1

http://ampedstatus.org/acts-of-resistance-what-are-you-going-to-do-on-june-14th-to-rebel-against-economic-tyranny/

http://ampedstatus.org/june-14th-economic-rebellion-update-%E2%80%93-this-is-what-decentralized-resistance-looks-like/

This Flag Day, Tuesday June 14th, we will launch a non-violent movement with this list of demands:

* End the campaign finance and lobbying racket
* Break up the Fed & Too Big to Fail banks
* Enforce RICO laws against organized criminal class
* Order Ben Bernanke to step down

Why Bernanke?

Honestly, if you pay attention to what he's done, he's navigated some pretty rough financial waters fairly competently. You'd rather Michelle Bachman control monetary policy?

Democracy *fail

(dude! Even the interviewer mispronounces Bernanke's name.. *doublefail!)

1. I saw an interview with Bernanke a month or so ago....he was asked this EXACT question. His response - they just log onto a computer, and create new money...digitally create new fungible cash, without actually having ANYTHING physically backing it. It exists in the digital world only. That is then given out to banks, and kept track of. The paper to cover the banks comes later...when they need it (ie....when people are withdrawing).

Transactions are all done digitally in big business, so there is less and less need to print paper, or hold gold to back the funds created....because noone checks it.

The money is literally created out of thin air...and only exists in their networks.

The idea is that the debt created is a promise from the loanee for future productivity...that will in turn create assets that are worth the interest to pay the bank back, and then some on top for a tidy profit.

This all comes unstuck when people A) Realise what the banks are doing, and demand their money (a run on the bank...) or B) The debts dont get repaid because the productivity is not creating enough of a return to service the interest.

Both these scenarios create toxic assets, and you end up with an economy with more visible debt that their is money....and bam, the whole system dies in a heap.

2. Absolutely nothing. Its way too entrenched. You can run for president on a campaign of destroying this institution, but have fun trying to educate enough people about it to back you on your crusade.



...Slavery never died, it was just abstracted by money. Its new name is debt.

I love how they imply that devaluation of the dollar is an unforeseen consequence of printing money, such as when it says Bernanke assures Obama that quantitative easing will result in a strong dollar.

No, devaluation is the goal. Multiple countries (such as China) intentionally keep their currencies low so their exports cost less. Cheaper exports mean more people buying them... more demand leads to more jobs. Same here... devaluing the dollar is, in part, an attempt to reduce unemployment.

The video also implies that Obama is afraid countries will stop buying US treasuries. In truth he wants the opposite. When China buys US treasuries it raises the value of the dollar relative to China's currency, which is what Obama wants to stop. It makes our exports more expensive, therefore reducing demand for our products overseas. China does not want their currency value to go up because it would cause civil unrest if demand for their products dropped (or at least that is what they seem to believe).

This doesn't mean that devaluing the dollar is the best course. It really sucks for people who have savings in dollars and/or rely on a fixed income (elderly) because it will begin reducing how much they can buy with that money (assuming prices rise as a result of dollar devaluation, which hasn't really happened yet). On the other hand, a weaker dollar is great if you have fixed-rate debt in dollars (such as student loans). If the debt is variable-rate then a weaker dollar could lead to higher interest rates on the loans.


I'm not endorsing the practice of quantitative easing, but the video is setting up a pretty big straw-man in what I can only assume is an attempt to scare people into either buying gold or supporting the Tea Party. People are free to do either of those things, but hopefully it isn't because they misunderstand the situation.

>> ^nock:

The authors themselves state that there is a direct link between the Great Depression and deflation. They then go on to say that besides that unfortunate link, there is only a small connection between the two.
Anyways, like I said, not necessarily titans of the field. They have a few grants, most university PhD's get those now and then.
Also, I wouldn't go around saying that the linked article is a report from the Fed. As best I can tell it was a research paper with one of the authors being employed by the Fed at the time, not an officially accepted Fed position.
Thinking outside the box is fine, just as long as it's not just for the sake of thinking outside the box.


I was never arguing that there was no link to the Great Depression and deflation. My point was that minor cases of either deflation or inflation are negligible mirco and macro economically speaking. It may well be that deflation in a population that is growing isn't optimal, but that isn't what I was ever saying in the first place (and is debated even by those that work for the fed). My main topic of interest was that as far as it concerns all the things that I buy, prices are rising steadily, and in other cases, rapidly. That holds to all but loans, of which abound with new, cheaper offers of refinancing, and mortgages.

And your right, it would be more correct to say a report from people of the fed, not "the fed" itself, thought that would be self evident...we all know the Ben Bernanke position on the Great Depression. And in this case, I don't believe I am thinking outside the box without merit. More like not handing the keys to the guy who either A...didn't see it coming or B...flat out mislead people. Either way, the Ben Bernanke's interpretation of our current financial position is about what I come to expect from most appointed government officials, lacking.