By SUZANNE KAPNER

I’m basing this caveated prediction on a single article, and I don’t quite have the quantitative information to be fully clear on this.

This single article contains an immense amount of evidence that the long expected increase in US inflation is now more or less imminent. Unofficial estimates of inflation are around the 11% level. If everything in the article is true, and significant on a quantitative level, we would have to expect a large increase in US inflation. The article however doesn’t provide enough numbers to be fully clear on all this. The last part of the article is more positive in reality and not just in Kapner’s take on it.

THE CRITICAL THEORETICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE RONALD DUFFY ANECDOTE

That last story about the fellow buying the laser. If all the new lending was akin to that last story, then the conclusion one would draw might be quite different. I’ll have a lot more to say about this laser story. Because on the face of it, that last loan to Ronald Duffy, would seem to be a “text-book example” of excellence in bank lending. And were it this sort of lending that fractional reserve lead to, I would not be able to make a convincing case, to honest laymen, that fractional reserve was a bad thing. It still WOULD BE a bad thing mind you. But it would be very difficult to make that case. The other case study to do with the Classic Cars has some aspects of lending excellence to it.  But its not as clear a case as the Ronald Duffy loan.  So this will be a tip to the banksters, and its not going to get any better than that from me, because I’d basically want to see the 1000 most influential of these guys drop dead.   Yet having said so,  it mystifies me, when the bankers (getting their subsidised finance from the central banks) have all this power, and unjust enrichment …… well then why with this historic opportunity, could they not make a good fist of it???????  Why could the banksters not see the fortunate opportunity they have, and keep the unjust enrichment for themselves going a lot longer. Why could they not avoid, what at this point appears to be their inevitable demise  …. by taking those trillions of subsidised loans ……. and applying them with excellence in bank lending????

Fucking beats me. I guess that Blankfein, Dimon and the others are just too fucking useless, moronic, incompetent, anti-intellectual,  and hard-wired towards wealth destruction, to follow this sort of path. Developing excellence in lending, for their ill-gotten and subsidised funds, would be a problem from the point of view of them grasping too much of the pie to themselves. But it would be much less of a problem then the current situation, insofar as wholesale wealth-destruction was concerned.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Another alternative to a surge to galloping inflation is that international investors will once again show themselves to be incompetent wealth-destroyers, and instead of a large acceleration in inflation, in the near term, there will be a new round of basically insane, but massive buying of US debt. If there is another bubble in US bond-buying, US exporters will be further damaged, but its at least a potential way of these guys kicking the (galloping-inflation) CAN-DOWN-THE-ROAD just a little bit longer. But aside from that possibility Suzanne Kapner’s article points to a strong pickup in inflation, whereas she misunderstands what is going on and thinks that the trends she sites imply a positive outlook for economic progress in the US. In reality no such positive outlook exists. The US economy has essentially been collapsing slowly since the year 2000, and that trend will continue. But now with higher inflation rates.”

I’ll cut and paste the article straight at first, and let people go through it to try and think about why I am claiming that pretty much everything said in this article, points to a surge in US inflation.  Then later I might post the whole article a second time, breaking it up with my explanation and commentary.  We have known for a long time that the US was staring into galloping inflation, but the capacity of these people to kick that can down the road, is something I’ve always been amazed at. Anyway, here is the article:

Big U.S. banks are reopening the lending spigot amid signs that an improving economy is spurring companies and individuals to borrow more.

On Tuesday, Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. recorded their strongest loan-growth numbers since the financial crisis. The figures confirm a warming trend highlighted Friday byJ.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

The lending gains mark a change from the past few years, when lackluster figures opened the banks to criticism from politicians and others that the firms’ tight grip on their cash was keeping economic growth under wraps. Banks responded that, after the bursting of the credit bubble that led to the financial crisis, consumers and companies were unwilling to borrow.

The data offer the latest signal that the deleveraging that swept the economy following the 2007-08 turmoil may be easing.

“Companies that are credit-worthy haven’t been in a borrowing mood, but we are starting to see that change,” said Jeffrey Harte, a principal with Sandler O’Neill + Partners LP.

At Citi, retail-banking loans rose 15% from a year ago to $133 billion, as the New York bank lent more to individuals and local businesses. At San Francisco-based Wells, commercial and industrial loans rose 11% from a year earlier to $167 billion at Dec. 31, amid what Chief Financial Officer Tim Sloan called broad-based growth.

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

More Bank Earnings

• Red Tape, Low Rates Stymie BankUnited CEO

• Heard on the Street: Pandit Feels Heat on Expenses
• Deal Journal: Citigroup Can Wait by the Phone
• Deal Journal: Wall Street Reaction to Citi’s Earnings
• Citigroup Earnings Miss Expectations | Stock Quote: C
• Wells Fargo’s Net Profit Rises 20%
• TD Ameritrade Profit Rises, But Revenue Slips
• M&T Bank Profit Falls 28%
• Bonuses Are Sinking at Morgan Stanley
• J.P. Morgan Sings Wall Street Blues

All told, loans outstanding at the companies and J.P. Morgan rose by $41 billion from a year ago in the fourth quarter, to $2.14 trillion. That’s the first increase for the three giant lenders since 2008, when crisis-related acquisitions led to big expansions at J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo. Bank of America Corp., the second-biggest U.S. lender after J.P. Morgan, is due to post its fourth-quarter numbers on Thursday.

The expansion is good news for the U.S. economy at a time when unemployment remains high and investors are fretting about the prospect of an economic downturn or market shock spurred by Europe’s debt crisis. Increased credit availability stands to help U.S. businesses that have been looking to finance new growth.

Demand is “everywhere,” J.P. Morgan Chase Chief Executive James Dimon said during a conference call last Friday. “Industrial, consumer, Asia, Latin America, trade finance, corporations, all types of corporations.”

The lending pickup is a bright spot in a mostly dour big-bank earnings season featuring declining revenue and mixed profits. Big U.S. financial firms are under pressure in the markets as weak economic growth, tighter regulation and a decline in trading and deal making crimp their earnings outlooks. Citigroup stock fell 8.2% on Tuesday following its weaker-than-expected fourth-quarter earnings report; Wells Fargo edged up 0.7%.

But strong lending growth, as long as the loans are of high quality, should boost earnings in coming years.

“From what we can see so far, there is actual demand for loans, as opposed to banks going down the credit spectrum and loosening their standards,” Sandler’s Mr. Harte said.

The lending gains are being driven in part by a retreat by European lenders tied to the region’s debt crisis. As banks on the continent sell assets to raise capital and reduce their dependence on scarce dollar funding, big U.S. lenders are stepping in. Mr. Dimon said on Friday that “a little bit” of the bank’s lending increase can be attributed to a pullback in lending by hobbled European competitors.

The banks’ numbers aren’t the only source of positive signs for the economy. Household borrowing on credit cards, car loans, student loans and other kinds of installment debt rose at a 9.9% seasonally adjusted annual rate in November, the Federal Reserve said this month, marking the fastest monthly increase since November 2001.

Now Reporting

Track the performances of 150 companies as they report and compare their results with analysts’ estimates. Sort by date and industry.

• More photos and interactive graphics

Recent borrowers include Tom and Tevie Dante Fraser, who closed in September on a new credit line for their Fulton County, Ga., classic-car business. They got the line and refinanced a mortgage on their showroom with Wells after the bank they had borrowed from previously was taken over by a competitor.

The new loan will let the couple make opportunistic buys at the car auctions “on the spot,” Ms. Fraser said, allowing the couple to expand their business.

At Citigroup, corporate loans surged 24% from a year ago to $219 billion. Another bright spot was trade finance—the management of money, credit and investments for large corporations; Citigroup was able to increase this type of lending by 50% in the period, as it picked up share from European banks that are paring back as a result of the region’s debt crisis.

“In the fourth quarter, we began to see some good demand for loans pretty much spread around the world,” Vikram Pandit, Citigroup’s CEO, said on a conference call with analysts and investors on Tuesday.

J.P. Morgan’s total loan book was up 4% during the fourth quarter, as lending to middle-market and corporate banking clients rose 12% and loans retained by the investment bank were up 28%. Executives said the latest-quarter gain would have been 9% if the firm hadn’t been allowing loans tied to its 2008 acquisition of Washington Mutual Inc. to run off, or mature without being replaced by new loans.

“I believe you are seeing real loan growth,” Mr. Dimon said.

At Wells Fargo, commercial and industrial loans rose 11% from a year ago, while commercial real-estate lending rose 6.6%. The figures were boosted by loan purchases, particularly from retrenching European lenders, which CEO John Stumpfsaid would continue. The bank recently purchased loan portfolios from Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland, both of which are retrenching following government bailouts.

But the European shake-out is far from the only driver of loan growth.

Ronald Duffy closed last Friday on a $600,000 loan from Wells Fargo that he says he will use to a buy a laser-cutting machine for his company, Laser Cutting Services in Tualatin, Ore. He expects the new machine to allow him to take on more capacity at lower rates.

“The banks had been very tight-fisted, and they are still being extremely cautious,” Mr. Duffy said. “But they are lending to companies that they consider to be an acceptable risk.”

—David Benoit and Dan Fitzpatrick contributed to this article.

More later

To Renew Economics and free it from imperial control

This is a straight cut and paste from the site of Damon Vrabel’s organisation. This is the clearest explanation of the extremely slippery tyranny we have been arm-twisted into. And if you have the time and the means, I would hope you give Damon some assistance. This is the real deal.

 

 

 

Neoclassical economics has severe flaws.  But since the field is captive to the monopolistic money and banking system, it is very difficult for economists who are aware of this to speak up.  If they were to speak about the flaws, their careers would be severely limited.  Only the most narrow economists who reinforce the status quo of the debt-based monetary system get rewarded.  But they are building an insane system.  They continue putting their faith in a false religion that passes for science—a religion that says globalism and infinite scale are “good” as the system continues conquering new territory and killing off the things discussed on CSPER.

 

                                                             

   The top 10 flaws of

neoclassical economics

 

 

1. Money monopoly = free market

Neoclassical economics calls our current system under a private monetary monopoly a free market.   Of course nothing could be further from the truth.  The monetary system is an overlay on top of the economic system.  Economic systems create value through market activity, but the monetary system on top of them determine who captures that value.  Neoclassical economics completely ignores the overlay and the fact that it is controlled by an entrenched private monopoly.

 

 

2. Ignores that money comes from nothing but debt

Economics does not address the fact that all money comes from debt.  It assumes that base currency (M0, core money) is just a free-flowing medium of exchange that apparently comes from the US Treasury.  It does not.  It comes from the Federal Reserve backed by debt.   

3. Ignores the artificial scarcity condition

Economics ignores how a debt-based monetary system imposes scarcity on countries and populations.  There is never enough money to pay back all the debt, so everyone is forced to jump on the hamster wheel, scrambling to find more money to pay back debt.  This dynamic is perpetual.  It never stops until the system crashes.  It need not be this way. 

 

4. Equates net worth with value creation

Economics ignores how the financial class and others serving the upper end of the capital structure capture more money simply because they have entrenched power.  They extract value.  They do not create it.  Economics is correct that participants in the economic system create value, but it misses the fact that the monetary system on top of the economic system determines who captures that value.

 

 

 

5. Assumes free, rational, economic actors by ignoring power differential of debt

The power differential caused by the monetary system is ignored by economics.  This is the only reason the system is erroneously called a “free market.”  The monetary system is entirely centripetal, sucking all power to the center, the top tiered financiers.  People are in servitude in a very controlling market, not a free market.

 

6. Ignores the instability of having a pure debt-based monetary system

Economists ignore that the economic system is guaranteed to boom, bust, and eventually end because the monetary system on top of it is completely unstable and fundamentally flawed.  It depends upon increasing debt.  It cannot increase forever, and it can collapse to zero since people have no sovereign money.

 

7. Ignores the wealth illusion

By not addressing the issue of debt-based money, economics fools people into believing the digits in their bank accounts represent wealth.  The fact is they represent a conditional liability, i.e. somebody else’s debt.  This becomes obvious during deflation.  The illusion is reinforced during inflationary periods.

 

8. Ignores perpetual exponential growth

Economists inconceivably ignore the most severe flaw of the monetary system that drives our economic system—it requires exponential growth.  This guarantees eventual failure, but neoclassical economics conveniently assumes that problem away.

 

 

 

9. Ignores perpetual increasing scale

As a result of perpetual exponential growth, institutions in the system continually get bigger and bigger.  We saw this as the economic system made towns, counties, and states irrelevant through the last century, and we are now seeing it as mega banks and corporations are now making national governments irrelevant.  People are now living as tiny cogs in a machine of incomprehensible scale.  Everything in life has been monetized, so things that don’t generate bank credit get devalued (spirituality, psychology, rest, joy, play, etc). 

 

10. Ignores perpetual increasing velocity

Another problem from exponential growth is perpetually increasing velocity.  The system has to chug faster and harder as it continues to grow.  This means human life has to chug faster and harder.  The most obvious manifestation of this is the endless, hectic commutes every morning to jobs we despise.  We feel frustration, sometimes rage, toward our fellow commuters.  That is just one small example of how systemic velocity affects the human spirit.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                        Copyright  CSPER 2009 – 2010

Is it all a banking problem?

While various motivations have been attributed to evil Western regimes to explain the destruction of their own societies over the last 40 years, arguably it is all explicable in terms of trying to keep the fractional reserve banking system going for as long as possible.

As we know, under the current system, money is created out of thin air by banks as interest-bearing debt. Thus at any given time it is logically not possible for all debt to be paid off, since there will be more debt in existence than there is money to pay it. The only solution to keep the system going is for new debtors to keep borrowing more money into existence to pay existing loans. It follows that the economy as a whole must grow exponentially or collapse.

In the first 75 years of the twentieth century, real exponential growth was possible due to an abundance of cheap oil energy. In fact, energy consumption roughly doubled every decade. However, such massive increases in consumption in a finite world then became unsustainable, so real exponential economic growth became impossible. Hence artificial Ponzi-scheme type growth involving dragging non-economic activities into the economic system and bidding up the price of existing assets became necessary.

Hence feminism. Getting women to go to “work” and providing them with various welfare freebees enabled them to become debtors in their own right, thus artificially expanding the money supply. Because dual incomes became the norm it allowed the cost of housing, and hence mortgages to keep expanding, further increasing the money supply. It also dragged a lot of the services women had been providing informally – child care, care of the elderly, sex even – into the formal economy.

Hence mass immigration. Feminism results in declining birth rates. Although this has various benefits for predatory regimes, in the medium term it is antithetical to Ponzi-style economic growth. That is where immigrants come in. In real terms they are a drain on existing society, but in Ponzi terms, they represent a population largely unburdened with debt. The common thread of the populations most immigrants to the West are drawn from is not so much that they are intrinsically worthless low-IQ scum (Korean immigration is common for example) but rather that they are mostly debt-free and so can borrow more money into existence.

Also explained is the culture of financial bubbles and bankster looting. Since no actual growth in economic activity is possible the only thing to do is to bundle the newly-created cash and channel it into various sub-Ponzi schemes which initially seem to increase in value as a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Since no actual value is created these schemes must inevitably fail in due course. This inevitability of failure explains the culture of corporate looting, whereby financial entities go bankrupt while the senior executives and associated banksters walk away filthy rich. If failure is inevitable there is nothing to be done but steal as much as possible before it happens.

Probably the current insanity serves various purposes, but for those who don’t like “conspiracy theories” it can all be explained in terms of economic necessity within the context of the fractional reserve system.

1. Classic Keiser rap culminates in:

   “…… the thought of losing India to Monsanto crack-seeds is disturbing. I mean this is a 5,000 …. 10,000 …. 15,000 year old culture. We gonna lose it? For some FRICKING MONSANTO SEEDS!? … ”

   The context is that Keiser makes out (with some hyperbole, and crystal ball gazing) that the USA is too far gone to save. Just some fat, Monsanto-seed Crack-heads given over to lawlessness, and its on the way out. But he is lamenting the potential destruction of an whole civilisation.

   So am I. You know I was deeply disturbed by John Lennon’s death, and mostly because he came up with an excellent hit called “starting over” and I didn’t hear anything else off that particular album before he was assassinated. But even though the song itself was just about relationships, it appeared to suggest on a superficial level, that John was back in business, finally after all that time, after leaving the Beatles, and now we were to get a couple of decades of good songwriting out of him ….. and then he’s suddenly killed. Suddenly killed after what seemed to be a message that he was back in business.

   And its like that for India too. India the heart of cultural initiative during many eras, but lost that leading position perhaps in the 1100′s, the impetus going to China, until perhaps the 1400,s then to Europe and its colonies for half a millennium.

   So now here India is back in business. And it would be terrible to poison-pill the entire civilisation with the Monsanto brand of Satanic temptation, and other shadow government debris.

   There is a false argument out there that genetic engineering is bad. This is not the case. Any technology can be good or bad, depending on whose hands that technology is in. Its Monsanto and the entire cronyist, shadow-government, banking-oligarchy, that is bad. So Monstanto is using the technology for medium-term good as a bribe for long-term bad. Nothing to do with genetic engineering itself. Everything to do with the network of evil spreading out from the shadow-government and from fractional reserve.

   Monsanto’s act is such that its influence will help many millions of people in the next ten years, and screw over many tens of millions, if not billions, of people over the longer haul. So its a devils compact. A Satanic-seeds initiative. A Faustian bargain. The Devil as tempter. Which means that Max Keisers analogy of “Crack-Seeds” is excellent. It captures the entire reality of the situation with astounding conceptual precision.

   Genetic engineering is good. Don’t get hooked on that false argument cul de sac, that its a case of natural versus engineered. This is a shadow government ploy; this argument cul de sac. Its the shadow government and Monsanto that are evil. Not the technology of genetic engineering, which is one of the greatest potential good things imaginable.

Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.

 

KEEP GOOSE-STEPPING

Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.

 

 

TEACH THE SMALL CHILDREN HOW TO GOOSE-STEP ALSO

 

Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.

DON’T STOP REFINING YOUR OWN PERSONAL GOOSE-STEP

Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.

MAKE SURE ALL YOUR GIRLS KEEP GOOSE-STEPPING AS WELL

Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.

HERE ARE SOME NEOCLASSICAL ECONOMISTS GOOSE-STEPPING. STILL THE CHOICE MARCH FOR WHITE HOUSE-NIGGERS EVERYWHERE.

Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.  Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win. Ron Paul Cannot Win.

Despite billions of dollars that would go against him at the General Election, Ron Paul would be impossible for the Democrats to beat. On the other hand, he will have a hard time winning the primaries with the shadow government so totally pitted against him. No money is too much money to have another candidate win against him. We are talking the media, banks, large corporations, the public servants, the medical profession …. everyone against Ron Paul getting the nomination.  This thread is simply encouragement to the people at Catallaxy. You cannot change the habit of a lifetime.  So just be happy with who you are. With who you grew up to be. Keep goose-stepping. If you are to be a house-nigger, and there is no turning yourself around, to become a grown-up man, then there is no point in mentally punishing yourself over it, and making yourself unhappy. Be out there and proud of your girly-man status. Don’t ever stop goose-stepping. 

Onward.

 

 

When real big shots are engaged in pyramiding schemes, in the financial markets, this is always a way of ripping off the public.  Pyramiding schemes are a method of ripping off the public, in a way which takes in a number of separate legal entities. The trick to ripping off the public, by pyramiding schemes, is to have several parties, involved in behaviour, that would be a clear crime, should only one party be involved with the entirety of it.

Bankers are some of the most financially ignorant people in the world. They are financially ignorant BY DESIGN. Since they work as pack-animals, each playing a part, ripping off the public. But to those who don’t understand how these pyramiding rip-offs work, the idea of  clamping down on the behaviour of any one of the parties involved, tends to look like the people doing the CLAMPING-DOWN …………………………….  are Nazi-filth.

In this way, the shallow approach that most libertarians, take to their own alleged belief-system, is a direct threat to the public.  Libertarians often tend to  wind up being RIP-OFF ENABLERS. Putty in the hands of rip-off merchant filth like Corzine, and his Synagogue side-arm buddies. And these guys are, after-all, wall-to-wall leftist Democrats, for the most part.

Think of the fractional-reserve pyramiding ripoff just for starters. It begins in such an innocent and understandable way does it not? Who could POSSIBLY object right? You have all this silver hanging around, doing nothing, in deep vaults. Supposing the economic conditions are somewhat depressed?  Supposing you are the Amsterdam bank? Now you have many clients.  You have numerous trusted clients.  You have some hyper-trusted clients whom you know to be good people and pillars of the community.  It seems such an innocent thing to let some of your most trusted clients overdraw their accounts a little on the QT right? Only a real anti-libertarian would clamp down on such behaviour, when conditions are so contractionary right?

Now if you and me engaged in this small amount of understandable graft, we wouldn’t be greedy about it, and we’d only be doing it to grease the cogs of commerce in what after all is a difficult time.  And we would only do it for our most trusted clients.  But when big shots do this they are always acting to suck value off the public.

There is nothing wrong with owning a rifle right? There is nothing wrong with loading a rifle right? There is nothing wrong with pointing a rifle right? There is nothing wrong with target practice right? If we split up the tasks in a murder, amongst enough different parties, then we can say that any individual action, is not malevolent, and being libertarians, we could let the slaughter continue right? But the thing about fractional reserve, and other pyramiding ripoffs, is that the sheer size of the loot that can be removed from the public, is so gargantuan, that the pack-animals, lawyers,  pharisees, sophists and house-niggers,  will coagulate out of the very aether, to provide cover for all parties in the ripoff, severally and in total.

Joseph Cambria (scientist) quoting some article or other, reports as to Ron Paul’s personal financial affairs in the following way:

“According to data available through his 2010 “Form A” financial disclosure statement, filed last May, Rep. Paul’s portfolio is valued between $2.44 million and $5.46 million. (Congressional disclosures are given in ranges, not precise amounts.)

Most members of Congress, like many Americans, hold some real estate, a few bonds or bond mutual funds, some individual stocks and a bundle of stock funds. Give or take a few percentage points, a typical Congressional portfolio might have 10% in cash, 10% in bonds or bond funds, 20% in real estate, and 60% in stocks or stock funds.

But Ron Paul’s portfolio isn’t merely different. It’s shockingly different.

Yes, about 21% of Rep. Paul’s holdings are in real estate and roughly 14% in cash. But he owns no bonds or bond funds and has only 0.1% in stock funds. Furthermore, the stock funds that Rep. Paul does own are all “short,” or make bets against, U.S. stocks. One is a “double inverse” fund that, on a daily basis, goes up twice as much as its stock benchmark goes down.

The remainder of Rep. Paul’s portfolio – fully 64% of his assets – is entirely in gold and silver mining stocks. He owns no Apple, no ExxonMobil, no Procter & Gamble, no General Electric, no Johnson & Johnson, not even a diversified mutual fund that holds a broad basket of stocks. Rep. Paul doesn’t own stock in any major companies at all except big precious-metals stocks like Barrick Gold, Goldcorp and Newmont Mining.

Rep. Paul also owns 23 other miners – many of them smaller, Canadian-based “juniors” whose stocks are highly risky. Ten of these stocks have total market valuations of less than $500 million, a common definition of a “microcap” stock. Mr. Paul has between $100,010 and $326,000 (roughly 5% of his assets) invested in these tiny, extremely volatile stocks.

Rep. Paul appears to be a strict buy-and-hold investor who rarely trades; he has held many of his mining stocks since at least 2002. But, as gold and silver prices have fallen sharply since September, precious-metals equities have also taken a pounding, with many dropping 20% or more. That exposes the risk in making a big bet on one narrow sector.

At our request, William Bernstein, an investment manager at Efficient Portfolio Advisors in Eastford, Conn., reviewed Rep. Paul’s portfolio as set out in the annual disclosure statement. Mr. Bernstein says he has never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe. ”This portfolio is a half-step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and nine-millimeter rounds,” he says.”

Now how is my prior Jibber pertinent to Ron Paul’s portfolio? Well you see BANK-CASH-PYRAMIDING, is not the only big shot scheme to SUCK value from the public.  In the last ten years, one of the great crimes of the millennium, has been the vacuuming of value, off the public, by the recourse of BROKER-SHARE-PYRAMIDING. Idiots who mouth slogans, posing as economic theory, about the “efficient capital market” have to be totally ignorant, of the impact, of the massive crime of broker share pyramiding. This is a crime that goes under the other name of “naked short selling”, but the reality is that all short selling is naked short selling in the current circumstance.  The various stock markets could electrically tag and differentiate every share, such that we had real-time ownership change, making broker share pyramiding impossible. But they don’t do this, and they won’t do this, and thats because the criminals want to have the capacity to rip off shareholders through watering down the stock.

Now watering down the stock can be tried on, and is used, on all types of shares from time to time. But the big victims are the small-cap companies, who cannot pay dividends or buy-back shares. Those companies with real potential who desperately need capital to grow. The criminal bankers have been shorting them silly. They take real delight in hurting investors who want to bring their reign of thieving to an end.  So naturally the broker-share pyramiding attacks concentrate on silver-as-such, and on small-cap gold and silver miners.  Yes they hurt every type of startup hungry for capital.  They have destroyed innovation and new business development in the economy. That is why there are no “Apple Computers” of the late 2000′s waiting in the wings.  That is why a lot of excellent energy related ideas just never get funding, and the small-time technical entrepreneur can never catch a break in this current era, as opposed to the post-Volker upswing, which briefly saw American capitalism working like it ought to.

Ron Paul’s portfolio shows that he is buying deep value.  Massively undervalued small-cap gold and silver mining companies, some of which, under his possession, have gotten EVEN MORE UNDERVALUED. This was never about making a killing. Its about going for value, and sticking up for outfits that have been victimised by vermin, useless eaters, hyper-incompetents, and thieves like Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, Corzine, Henry Paulson, and others.  An honest man like Ron Paul would buy such outfits on first principles, knowing that he has quite enough money if things go well, but that he probably doesn’t have enough money if things go very poorly.  For someone in Ron Pauls wealth weight division, its rational to want to be wealthier if things are going really really badly. For someone who has Ron Paul’s values its natural to want to support companies that have been starved of funds, by financial-rapist filth.  I know myself, that when I’m buying shares, I want to buy a real real bargain, and offload it when its still a bargain. I want to sell something worthwhile to someone who is buying. One wishes to do the right thing, and invest in a way that is congruent with wealth creation.

So Ron Pauls portfolio is not about trying to make as much money as possible. Its not some Joe Cambria game, where you try to be an expert in the non-economic dance of musical chairs, and you are the best at waiting for that final moment, prior to when the music stops, so you can offload your over-valued trash onto some working stiff who is going to be hurt by his purchase.  And then of course you kick him in the nuts still harder by shorting that stock, with shares you no longer own. You follow up selling him an over-valued lemon, by naked-shorting the stocks you just now sold to him. You do this in concert with a lot of other pack-animals. That is the whole secret to how these pack-animals make money.  They steal it.  They aren’t smart, they are morons. They don’t add value, they destroy value. So when they make money they do so through stealing.  But its many-hands stealing. Many-hands being known to make light work.

Now Ron Paul himself, probably hasn’t made a great deal of money from his do-the-right-thing, deep value approach.  But you can make money by buying the shares that he owns. This will surely be a winner for you, and you won’t have to wait-it-out as long as Ron Paul has had to wait-it-out. You won’t have to wait as long for our useless and corrupt capital to recognise true value. Remember that Obama and the inflationists are guaranteeing Ron Pauls portfolio. Yes the same criminals have made it the case that he has had to wait way too long for intrinsic value, to become translated into market value. But these assholes can only manipulate things so long . You will surely make more money faster than Ron Paul has, by buying the shares that Ron Paul owns ………

……. But I give this winning advice to you on one condition. You offload these great stocks, while they are still good value, to the people who are going to buy them off you.  You try and get greedy you are likely to be bitch-slapped around.

I ….. WROTE ….. AN ……. EMAIL.  Yes I did. When you villains at Cattallaxy refused to lift a finger to save the world, I wrote a letter.  That’s right. Yes indeed. Nasty business this banker occupation. But I did something about it.    Now if this plan can succeed, we can recover quickly, after the next wave, of economic collapse.  I was inspired by this silver analyst, calling for a silver cartel, since the banker filth were seeing to it, that whole countries were getting ripped off by short-selling, and phantom supply of silver.  I thought to myself “thats a brilliant idea”, but with my unsurpassed understanding of banking, monetary economics, how capital markets work, and how capital markets SHOULD WORK ……..  I came up with an idea that was still better. So I saved the world by immediately sending Max Keiser an email, based on the comments I made on the silver analysts youtube.  The species is saved. We can reach for our true heritage in space.  I can live to a ripe old age after building my own harem. All was lost, now all is found.

Here is the email I sent to Max:

How To Beat The Crony Filth

Graeme Bird to max@maxkeiser.com    1 minute ago

RE GIABO

A just had a brainstorm. This fellow who analyses the silver market, came up with the idea of setting up a silver cartel, because he reckoned silver producing countries were being gypped by the subsidised banker filth.  His idea had a great deal of merit to it, but if I may be so bold, I believe it inspired me to come up with a far better idea.  I made my comments on his youtube video. We can beat these guys you know. We can really beat them.  Here is what I said:

This is a brilliant idea. But the goals of the silver cartel, ought not to be about getting the price up. Its goals ought to be:

1. The global elimination of any short-selling of silver, or any unbacked selling of silver. Silver investment markets ought all run along the lines of the Perth mint.

2. The global elimination of any unnatural hindrances to using 100% backed silver for loan contracts. Like capital gains tax, or other anti-market deals which, would be an hindrance to silver as money.

GMBCATASTROPHE 1 sec ago

You see the thing is no-one will treat silver as money for investment, if they know the bank isn’t practicing 100% backing. And no-one will treat silver as money, if they cannot get hold of any silver, thanks to the cartel. But if the cartel does it my way, in the first two years everyone will be scrambling to get hold of silver. When the financial markets of the world throw in the towel, we’ll have the best possible commodity, being dealt with in the best possible way, to allow it to be money.

GMBCATASTROPHE 1 sec ago

Also the goal of the cartel ought not be to push the price up to $100+. Rather they ought to take whatever price it is when the cartel is in operation, and make the price go up from there at 1% per week. That gives everyone in the world time to rush for silver, knowing they will get a great return. 1% per week for the first year lets say, then 1% per month. That way you are getting the world population, being bitch-slapped by the inflationist banks, right behind you. Thats real buying power.

GMBCATASTROPHE 1 sec ago

Now it might be argued that if silver is going up in price at 1% per month, after the first year, then this rules it out for loanable funds, and its only monetary value would be as collateral, and as medium of exchange. But the silver cartel could point out that its goals were limited. It would love to see to it, that tungsten, chromium, copper, gold, platinum, palladium and titanium, were all owned, sold and loaned, on the basis of 100% backing and that this and only this would bring ………

GMBCATASTROPHE 1 sec ago

…. and that this and only this would bring the silver price down, and stop its price rising so that it could be used as a monetary metal. The reason being that then there would be 8 other commodities, as well suited for digitalisation, and monetization. So the upshot would be we’d definitely get silver up in value, in a way wherein everyone could participate, and we would fail to get it to (lets say) 500 dollars per ounce, only if we gave humanity sound money and a real future.

GMBCATASTROPHE 1 second ago

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That is how I saved the fucking world. And just in time for Christmas. Just before we enter the fabled year of 2012.

David Arthur :

Looking at the following statement.  Its the sort of statement, that people on both sides of the climate science fraud debate, would be likely to agree with. They would do so in error.  But the fellow making the statement is a bullshitartist. Since he had no reason to believe that Bob Carter didn’t go along with anything he said. In fact Bob would probably agree with the statement, and has never given any indication that he wouldn’t.  Still if Bob agreed with the statement, he would be wrong to do so.  Always these assholes argue in bad faith.  Here is what this particular asshole had to say:

“

19 Dec 2011 8:38:55pm

Thanks, Prof Carter. Deny this:

Earth is warmed by absorbtion of short wave sunlight. Because of this, Earth’s temperature can remain unchanged by returning the same amount of energy to space. That is, solar shortwave energy is balanced by the earth re-radiating to space as a ‘black body’ radiator with a characteristic temperature of ~255K; that is, from space the earth’s spectrum is roughly that of a radiating body with an optical surface temperature of around 255K.

Earth’s surface cools by evaporation of excited water molecules, heat transfer to deeper sea and to polar ice caps and by convection and radiation back into and through the atmosphere. At higher altitudes, where the atmosphere gets less dense, the proportion of energy (heat) transfer by long wave ‘thermal’ (microwave) radiation increases. Observing earth’s spectrum from space has big absorbtion bands due to greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere. Prominent among these is carbon dioxide (CO2).

Greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), CFC’s, and ozone (O3) absorb, then re-emit, some longwave wavelengths. About half of the re-emitted radiation is diverted back down toward the surface, as confirmed by radiation measurements at both surface and satellite observatories. This discrepancy increases with atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Historic fossil fuel use and cement production data (Oak Ridge National (US) Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows sufficient CO2 emission from 1800 to 2007 to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Dissolution of CO2 in oceans has limited atmospheric CO2 to about 390 ppm, and decreased ocean pH.

Heat thus accumulates at the surface. About 85% of retained heat warms oceans, accelerating ice melting (sea level rise) and water evaporation (increasing rain and storms).

ie we have a problem, we are the cause of the problem, we are the solution of our problem.

Alert moderator ”

 

See if you can see the deception in this story?  Its pretty much all bullshit from start to finish. But amazingly its a statement that skeptics would tend to agree with in error.   I’ll give people time to think about this, before explaining just how full of shit this fellow  is.

More later.

For five years John has vigorously censored reasonable comments explaining the issue of fractional reserve. Now finally he’s let some comments adverse to this practice through. So far Mark Hill hasn’t shown up in order to turn it into a thread-of-doom with his idiocy. Nor are Fyodor or Andrew Reynolds there. So the technique of “circle the wagons, and send out the retards” cannot get started yet. John has let some reasonable comments through, probably thanks to my contention that the lying wouldn’t end until he died. But he’s still going to wipe any comments from me.  So here is a few of my comments that he will be wiping when he gets around to it. Now I want people to note the historical point here about silver. This tells us that when the USD and the Euro collapse, the next move the bankers will make will be to set up a gold standard that they can control. A fractional reserve Gold Standard is not “free market money” and has passed no free market test, as there has always been banker conspiracies involved to try and get rid of silver as money.  Right now the cartel will be accumulating gold. They can accumulate all things, because they are getting interest rate subsidies of truly astonishing amounts. Given that US inflation is around 10% and they can get trillions in loans at 0-1%, they can buy everything. They would want to end up with a lot of gold, and they will try very hard to stop silver, and other metals, from becoming money:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So your contention is that fully-backed banking is only a warehousing deal? Fractional reserve may not be fraud but this thread reeks of something that stinks. 100% banking involves loans as well. So therefore the whole basis of your ignorant display has been summarily refuted.

Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

“We don’t need to have limited liability introduced by the government. The same thing could be achieved quite easily through contract law where anybody dealing with a company voluntarily agrees to terms and conditions which create the same outcome as limited liability. Solved.”

No thats nonsense. The government needs to agree to lend legal cover to an entity that doesn’t exist. Clearly legal liability is a government creation. These are not natural persons at all. If a fictional person buys land, the government has to recognise that company as the owner of the land, or else that title transfer cannot go ahead in the first place.

“What you call an “odd assumption” is just the plain fact. Check the contract you signed with your bank.”

So it never occurred to you that this legal cover would be impossible under free enterprise conditions. So obviously the rest of your reasoning falls down it its entirety. Start over.

Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

It ought to be obvious to anyone that if you allow limited liability, and fractional reserve banking, to come together, the banks will be able to steal everything, right up until a general societal collapse. They will wind up owning more and more of everything. Once you say that a conspirational ponzi-scheme is legal, and you put it on one half of every transaction a few things will follow. They will destroy silver as a money so that they can control the entire money supply. Always the banking cartel destroys silver. Then they will time when the recession begins and ends, in order to pick up assets for pennies on the dollar.

Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

Limited Liability and debt are never okay together. Because this requires legislation, in order to stop the potential for abject public rip-off. And since a libertarian society is against extensive bully-boy legislation, it follows that limited liability, and debt, coming together, is a combination that is a mortal threat to the free society.

Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

Take the Washington Mutual situation. The Federal Government was trying to get 900 million out of three top executives at that failed bank. But they arbitrarily settled for 90 million. So the three are happy to pay the 90 million having effectively stolen a great deal more. This is what has to happen when you combine limited liability and debt financing. The directors, or the executives can steal the money. Note that they were prosecuted on the basis of some rules within a massive mountain of regulations. In the Humphreys simpleton model, there would be no way to prosecute at all, in any circumstance, no matter how brazen and direct the stealing was. Because Washington Mutual is a distinct legal entity from the people running it. Hence its obvious that limited liability coming together with debt financing is the harbinger of statist corporate regulation. All we need to do is outlaw fractional reserve, and make limited liability only consistent with equity finance, and we can deregulate.

Once you have fractional reserve and limited liability together, you are going to need heaps of legislation, and you need to pay for all sorts of investigators. This is what happens when you are too dim to figure out what ought to be the natural law under the situation. Part of the problem in the US was that after the 9/11 incident, the Bush administration took 500 people out of the department which could chase down bankers, and investigate liars loans and so forth, and brought them over to work on the war on terror so-called. So there has been no referrals for prosecution. With the savings and loans debacle they threw thousands of people in jail. Whereas now, Corzine can steal money directly out of peoples accounts and be walking around free. He didn’t even have to post bail or anything.

Anyone ought to be able to see immediately that if there is fractional reserve banking, and legal liability together, then you have to accept massive regulations and huge enforcement costs. You have to assume malice of people who pretend they cannot readily see this.

Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

“I can’t tell if you’re entirely against limited liability, or only against it for shareholders and partners, but either way you’re more or less talking about the abolition of modern investment-driven capitalism.”

Investment-driven capitalism doesn’t end when you get the rules right. The investment just becomes better-directed. A lot of bad investment, unjust enrichment, and useless activities come to an end. But obviously there will still be investment and there will still be capitalism. What we have now is ponzi-money driven crony-capitalism. Ending the ponzi-money and the crony aspects of this doesn’t end the capitalism.

1. No its the John Humphreys idea that is unlibertarian. Since obviously if fractional reserve and limited liability come together than libertarianism is impossible.

   Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

2. Ought stealing be legalised? Creating depressions? Creating monetary contractions with a view to picking up assets for cents on the dollar? Currency debasement? Conspiring to alter the law in ones favour? Conspiracy to destroy silver as an alternative money? Its just the usual anti-intellectual Humphreys approach to things. The approach that lead him to push the carbon tax for five straight years, right up until the moment that it was a fait accompli.

   Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

1. We want to get rid of a lot of laws you dick. But we cannot reasonably do so unless we get rid of the government impositions of fractional reserve and debt-financed limited liability. There was never a banking deregulation. The banks just managed to get regulations that favoured them against the public. In fact they update their regulations themselves all the time. Making them progressively more cronyism, and in defiance of the norms that local businesses are supposed to be regulated locally.

   Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

2. What about other ponzi-racket conspiracies? Ought they not be legal? Is it time to get Bernie Madoff out of prison? Should Corzines actions be legalised?

   Another ponzi-racket is broker share pyramiding. Aka Watering down stock ownership. This is devastating to the way capital markets work. Should it be legal as well? If so this is a government-imposed legalisation of something that by its nature is fraudulent. Selling thin air into the stock market, knowing that the stock market will act as if the stock has been diluted.

   Once you draw a bright line in the sand on pyramiding conspiracy-schemes, then thats about all the regulation you are ever going to need, and you can start firing a lot of your corporate lawyers, and regulation enforcers.

   Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

Other things that ought to never be given legal cover is the securitisation of debt, and the lending to governments. These are inherently dodgy actions. And there is simply no need to give them legal cover. It costs taxpayer resources to give these people legal cover. The government ought never be roped in to give legal cover for things that are really quite destructive and will lead to extra taxpayer costs in the future.

We have this phoney notion of trading artificial lawyer-created (i.e. government-backed) entities as being the heart and soul of capitalism. We ought to think of capitalism more in terms of small businessmen, never being taxed on retained earnings, and improving operations the whole time. Not of Goldman Sachs creating little debt obligation packages, getting some other criminals to give them a AAA rating, and off-loading them on people on the other side of the world. There is never a good cause for the government to say “hey yeah, we support this numbers racket. Go ahead” because always then they have to police rackets that are inherently hard to police, and that do no good for anyone. At the same time of course, perfectly fine practices like games of two-up are illegal down at your local school hall. Getting in the way of fine social activities of this sort.

I remember someone making the decision to not enforce internet-gambling debt obligations. This is pretty enlightened stuff. It saves us a lot of overhead, and its not an imposition at all. Its just recognition that we don’t need to spend money to enforce inherently dodgy practices.

Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply