<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <pre wrap=""><i>If Bernanke is headed in the wrong direction do you think it's ignorance of the right solution or malevolence?</i> Hi David, Excellent question. I don't want to take this too far afield and appreciate the tolerance of those of you who must disapprove of this off topic conversation. I never said Bernanke is headed in the wrong direction and in fact, he is saying one thing and doing another but you would have to access and be able to interpret published FED monetary figures to know that. I would not disapprove of a felon working to rehabilitate his victim either. I don't think Bernanke is either ignorant or malevolent just as Alan Greenspan was neither. But you have to understand their motivation. They work for the big money center banks - not for the government and not for the public as is commonly believed. The Fed is a private bank which operates in secret, owned and created by the large money center banks to be the "lender of last resort" to what is an always insolvent banking cartel. A central bank's bargain with the government is to loan the government money created out of nothing so that the government may grow faster and larger than otherwise possible if it were to rely on the public via taxes and fees. They do this in exchange for a monopoly on money creation and control. The same bargains were made with the kings of England and France. Booms, busts and continuous inflation are the result. Inflation is, in fact, a tax that the public doesn't understand and produces far more revenue than the income tax. I'd love to have the time and space to go into the relationship between wars, inflation and central banking. Here's a quote from Alan Greenspan: "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation." He said this before he became Fed chairman and proceeded to inflate the currency by 53% during his tenure. He has never repudiated his statement. None of this is secret and has been debated since 1646, at least. Jefferson and Hamilton were at each others' throats over the issue of money and central banking. The issue split the new republic into two political factions - the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. In a duel, Aaron Burr shot and killed Hamilton over a dispute that began with the issue of establishing a central bank. Andrew Jackson thought that central banks were more dangerous than armed opponents and ran on a platform of destroying the second central bank. He won and he did. But the banks fought back forcing the nation into a depression that was then blamed on Jackson. Here's Madison, so called father of the constitution: "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible, to maintain their control over governments, by controlling money and its issuance." The Fed is the third central bank in American history - the two previous ones were dismantled when the public had enough. Bet you weren't taught that in school. Well, that's enough. But you see, this is really a question of avarice and power rather than an economic one. Monetary economics is a specialty and most economists are as ignorant of the topic as the public. I find the honest disagreements between piano techs refreshing as you share a common goal. Many who argue for Central banking have agendas that are wholly disconnected from the public welfare. Steve <font color="#666666">-- The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. - Alan Greenspan, 1966 --</font> Steve: If you've gone from economist to piano technician you've operated in parallel fields. If you get 5 piano technicians to address a problem you'll find 10 different "right" solutions and I think it would be the same with economists. If Bernanke is headed in the wrong direction do you think it's ignorance of the right solution or malevolence? dp David M. Porritt, RPT <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dporritt@smu.edu">dporritt@smu.edu</a></pre> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken</pre> </body> </html>