Posted by: graemebird | September 24, 2008

Weasels And Welfare Recipients/Henry Paulson Is The Worlds Slimiest Thief.

In our society and most particularly in America, banking bigshots and speculators are the slimiest, most unproductive and EXPENSIVE welfare-recipients that there are. And this event proves it.

The Enron crowd hurt fundamentally no-one but their shareholders and creditors and most of their creditors were likely bankers who are paid big bucks to avoid this sort of thing. And yet the Enron top brass were hauled before the courts and thrown in jail. They were thrown in jail with sentences longer than that meted out for many murderers.

Yet these weasels that make millions from fundamentally unproductive activities just think it is normal and according to Hoyles that the American taxpayer bail their asses out.

The actual money spent on bailing these dim-bulb song-and-dance men out, isn’t even the beginning of the damage done. Yet from what we’ve seen by those involved in the hypocrisy, having a trillion odd dollars sent your way, even though it will fundamentally weaken the totality of the USA to accept this gargantuan loot… is only their due. And nothing to be suspicious about in the least.


Suppose you micronised each act of theft in order to pretend that it wasn’t thieving.

Suppose the counterfeiter with his inkstained hands claims that he isn’t thieving since when he buys his gear the shopkeeper gets what he wanted. “You see its the shopkeeper who is the thief” says the counterfeiter. “…No harm is done until the shopkeeper spends the money I paid him with..” he says.

Suppose the man from the government cranks up your taxes. He is from the alleged right-wing pro-business party. He is from the alleged free-enterprise wing of that party but he’s cranking up your taxes just the same. Supposing he claims to be a libertarian, runs you down as Keynesian or perhaps a communist.  “But don’t you know that its not the taxing that is the thieving..” says the man from the government.   “…Rather Its the government spending that is the problem. Thats when the resources are commandeered….” he says.

The next day you come back to him after he announces a new spending program. He then says….” Hey buddy. This isn’t thieving. We have the money and of course we are going to spend it….” Clearly he’s not only a thief. He’s a weasel. He then tells you how superior he is to you on account of the fact that he’s rich and his kids go to the best schools. “Suck shit..” he says..  “You just don’t like it because I’m at the top of the food chain.”… says the man from the government.

Then the weasel from the government steals your wallet and waves his magic wand, makes the prices of all the things you buy double, kicks you in the nuts and tells you you look like a loser.

Every act of theft can be broken down that way. “Its not the addition to the monetary base…..” he might say. “The resources are still there when we print the money” and on another day he might say …. “but we didn’t steal the money off you we borrowed it…. and we owe it to ourselves…” Or on another day he might say….     ” …But its not as if we crowded-out investment locally. We borrowed it on the international money market”. Then the weasel from the government is likely to tell you that “there is nothing wrong with debt!!! Oh what an unsophisticated commie you are. You just don’t understand economics.”

So its bullshit. Crony-communism in capitalist clothes. Its a gyp. He’s telling you he’s got a degree in neoclassical economics. He’s a PHD and he made millions in banking before he went into politics. He’s telling you he’s rich and he’s making out that HIS LIFE is what capitalism and freedom is all about. The ranks of the alleged libertarians are just crowded with these crony-socialist types.

Breaking down an act of theft into its individual stages makes it no less an act of theft. Fractional reserve thieving is easy to understand. Only a banker or an idiot cannot understand it if he is interested and willing to put some thought into it. But fractional reserve thieving usually goes in four steps. So have some self-respect and learn how these people are stealing off you all the time.


Under capitalism, properly considered, banks take in loan money for specific periods of time. They aggregate it, or disaggregate it, and lend it out. They take a margin. This would be a valuable service. They take on the risk of non-payment, they bring borrower and lender together. They assess the likely improvement in cashflow that the act of spending based on the loan will create, and rank their list of potential borrowers accordingly as to who will get the loan first. And it would mostly be done on the speed at which the loan is likely to be paid back.

A marvellous service. And they only get a margin-of-interest for this service. Under capitalism they are therefore about the most important, crucial and highly skilled people around. And it would be no task for dummies. They would need to be the smartest people around too. The microloan people would have great human skills. The venture capital people could well be the renaisance men of business. There are these guys out there. But in practice they are few and far between.

Under capitalism most debt would tend to go into what now would be called micro-loans or alternatively into venture capital. Or it could go into the expansion of business when a clear opportunity to improve cashflow arises. The debt would be channelled with intense thought and discrimination. And all this just for a margin, on the interest of the loan….. or sometimes for a temporary stake in the equity of the company.

But when the banking industry creates new money via fractional reserve they don’t just get a margin. They get the entire value of the loan for nothing. The principal and the interest. They get the full value of the thing that this money has bought without creating anything. Their just reward would have been a margin only of the interest. A small part of the interest.  Not all the interest but just a part of it. But instead they get the principal and the interest in total. They don’t get a margin on the interest. They get the totality of the principal and the interest although they have created nothing of value.

When new money is created the bankers are not the least bit discriminating as to where the money goes since they are relying entirely on the inflating value of non-money assets. This is the case for the vast majority of their new money creation. They do other business. But when they create new money, for the most part, it is without discrimination and entirely on the basis that inflation will secure their ill-gotten stake.

Our money supply in Australia in Jun 2001 was 150 billion dollars. In Jun 2008 our money supply was 226 billion dollars. This means that the Australian taxpayer has subsidised these welfare recipients in the financial sector, roughly 76 billion dollars during that time. Its by far the most subsidised industry that there is. It ought to be considered an offshoot of the public sector.

Actually we need to take out the governments winnings from this new money creation. We need to adjust that figure by taking off the increase in monetary base and cash in the hands of the public, that has increased over that seven year period. since this is the governments takings and not a subsidy to the financial sector as such. The tendency was just to throw the figure together since its all the same counterfeiting racket. The government and the financial sector is so bundled up in this racket its seldom worth prising them apart for analysis. But we will do so here.

That would bring the direct subsidy to the financial sector down to around a cool 50 billion subsidy. 50 billions of subsidy in those 7 years to our banks. This is a fundamentally unproductive industry. And if we are talking about the wider costs of fractional reserve inflation itself we are talking a far greater figure. But here it gets harder. Because we are trying to imagine what would be if we had a powerful investment sector that was an unambiguous wealth creator. The 50 billion is a direct subsidy.

But supposing someone who is new to the subject, or someone who is himself a weasel, didn’t believe (or were too stupid to understand) that this new money was a direct subsidy to the industry… Supposing the weasel said..”No its when the banks are bailed out by government increases to cash and monetary base….. thats when the theft occurs… thats when the banking industry is subsidised…”

So I say “OK then we’ll count the 26 odd billion that I was previously saying was the government winnings from the racket… And we’ll say that it is the 26 billion in indirect bailout cash that is the subsidy”

But then the next day or week the weasel will jump to the other foot and say that there was no subsidy to the industry. “That was just the government printing money….” and the weasel continues “…..and you say yourself that if they didn’t follow up with the cash there would be a recession. So in fact that cash is saving main street from accruing recession costs…..”

So you see the weasel act of these people isn’t going to end.  Reform isn’t coming out of the banking sector or out of the court-brown-nosing economists who are in awe of these unproductive song-and-dance men. And they are such self-righteous welfare recipients, these weasels, who so identify with their colleagues, that they think that this new trillion dollar subsidy is just fine.

Its not money spent to stop a slaughter in Iraq. Or to avoid leaving Iraqs oil to the terrorist states. Or to honour the fallen by completing the mission. Or to maintain deterrence. People may vary on the plausibility of motives for the continued horrendously costly military involvement in the middle east. I’m not questioning their motives in going there but questioning their sense in staying.  But this new gargantuan thieving is not for any of that at all. Its simply to bail out banking executives and Wall Street and thats it.

There is absolutely no advantage to the American mainstreet for this gargantuaan act of welfarism to prop up the standing and earning potential of millionaire bankers who have fucked up. It will not help the United States dollar it will hurt and may destroy it. It will not help the US in wartime it will harm the US drastically. It was not necessary to help mainstreet America: that could have been done with a neutral injection of monetary base and a reserve asset ratio.

Had the institutions been allowed to fall . And if the only assistance given, was the retiring of Federal Government debt with an injection of monetary base…….

….. Had the ABOVE been the strategy this strategy would have GREATLY REDUCED AMERICAN DEBT.

Under this scenario of rational policy, collapsing institutions and people declaring bankruptcy would have had their debts liquidated and forgiven under perfectly fair bankruptcy laws.  LIQUIDATED AND FORGIVEN. REDUCING AMERICAN DEBT.

Had rational strategy been applied the increase in monetary base would have been a direct reduction in US debt on top of the debt forgiven through bankruptcy.

Furthermore the reserve asset ratio, to stop the increase in monetary base being inflationary, would have insulated the US taxpayer more generally, from having to subsidise the financial sector in the future, as much as they were forced to in the past.

And that weasel Henry Paulson doesn’t think a good goddamn about this irreponsible bailout of his mates. This is the one chance we would have to see the financial sector broken up the into smaller, less concentrated, entities. The one opportunity to see their assets sold off, including all their offices. Which would be a good thing. Since in the future with a reserve-asset-ratio, and less money creation, the Americans wouldn’t need the banking industries services quite as much as before.

What a skunk. What a weasel. What a sense of entitlement these people must have. I say this because the fact that Paulson could even suggest such an outrage tells us, that his entire industry is full of these self-righteous, rich, weasal welfare-recipients, who cannot even cop it, and be happy about their past winnings, when they are busted for the incompetent dim-bulbs that they are.



  1. Mr Bird,

    A smashing piece if I may says so. Powerfully argued. I fear the Russians and Chinese must be rubbing their hands with glee at this debacle of nation self destruction the crony capitalists are undertaking. If I didn’t know Obama was a Mugabe in waiting I would be close to backing him. Perhaps Ron Paul or someone can talk sense into McCain.

    How long till JC and Soon come and try to rub your face in the dirt, gloating about their riches from theiving?

  2. Yeah it will be the same message as the libertarian weasel from the government.

    I got the same response from this fellow who was a staffer for a Republican Senator. He was really angry with Tom Coburn. He reckoned that Tom was a lunatic and was a real pain in the ass because they had worked really hard to get these local spending programs through. And they were willing to help Tom get some spending programs for Oklahoma but he just got in the way.

    He just couldn’t imagine that all this thieving was a bad thing. But it was worse than that because he couldn’t imagine that anyone but a lunatic would think that Tom was doing the right thing or could object to these guys getting their spending programs since they had “worked so hard to get them”. It was fucking incredible. Its like when these thieves are around other thieves for long enough they cannot even conceive of why the thieving ought not be endless.

    So anyway after I sort of countered all the things he said and stuck up for Coburn.. After I’d refuted all his arguments that Coburn was a loony-tunes character…. Well he just started talking about his job being better than mine and accused me of having a job flipping burgers.

    So its a real contempt that these people have for those who are subsidising their act. And its the same argument every time. I might let a few of the arguments Jason and JC post here and they will all be of that ilk. I’m alright jack. You resent success. All that stuff.

    Exactly the same arguments as the professional thief staffer for the Republican Senator.

  3. how is australian banking and trading subsidised, you fat commie loon?

  4. Setting up a licensed and protected money creation racket constitutes a direct subsidy and obviously so. As we have seen the direct subsidy was about 50 billion over the last 7 years. But the subsidy is actually much greater than that. Since fiat-inflation causes us to demand far more banking services than we otherwise would.

    So its the 50 billion direct subsidy. Than there is a secondary subsidy that is the same sort of deal that would occur if the glaziers kids were running about breaking all the windows.

    See Milton Friedmans concept “The optimal supply of money”. But any explanation of it will be a drastic understatement to what is relevant in the information age.

  5. For fractional fiat not to contain these extra subsidies via the secondary drumming up of business banking you would need a far harsher regime than what is needed for 100% backing of commodities.

    We could suggest this way of doing things as an artificial method of acheiving the benefits of streamlining the financial sector that 100% backed commodities would bring. Its a fiction of course because no government would sit still for it.

    But to acheive the same streamlining of the financial sector under fractional fiat the central bank would likely have to set policy to freeze gross domestic revenue. We would be talking about prices falling maybe 4 or 5% per year. Faster if your growth rate took off. And it would be no good because you would be paying foreigners negative seignorage. Plus the government would abuse it. So one only considers it as a logical exercise if one is a sort of fractional reserve addict. If one takes a religious attitude towards fractional reserve.

  6. yep that’s me graeme
    always taking a religious attitude to all and sundry 🙂

  7. Right. Ancestor worship. Telling the emporer what he wants to here. The old Chinese religion.

  8. “Its like when these thieves are around other thieves for long enough they cannot even conceive of why the thieving ought not be endless.”

    Its creeping socialism. Its become so entrenched that even should be righteous rightwingers are engaging in it.

    I am often mindful of the introduction to Tom Paine’s book Commonsense.
    “a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”

  9. Mr Bird,

    I notice that the faux-libertarian crypto commie going by the name of Soon, has put up a post to again smear Ron Paul. He still can’t find the time or inclination to comment on the socialist take over and massive debasement of the US currency.

  10. I can understand a Hawkish type getting down on Ron Paul. His defense policy has its own logic to it. And if not taken to extreme would work after a fashion so long as ones reticence wasn’t allowed to imply friendship or justification for aggression. In that sense it might come unstuck as the disinterested millions of folks and leftists particularly are always impressed by naked brute force.

    So Glenn Beck was particularly pleasing by his owning up to Ron Paul being right on the other side of the equation. I consider Ron a leading expert in matters financial. Always worth listening to. I WOULD add Monetary base in this crisis though. I would tend to shield main street from some of the pain and that would constitute a partial bailout. Its just that with deposits having some time in the recent past being only 3% of money supply there is just too far for things to implode. This is totally different from the sort of levels things needed to drop when Mises formulated his narrative. But it would have been a fine thing indeed to see all these banks going to the wall.

    But yeah. Soons free enterprise credentials are trashed. Because he was no Hawk and so he had no excuse to be down on Ron Paul. And it points to these unreconstructed leftist tendencies just below the surface.

    Actually the Cato institute just doesn’t do it for me anymore. If its not 100% backed money its not free enterprise, it can never be justice, its not anything I’d want to be identified with.

    Because you wind up having to tell people how bad capital gains taxes are when they are watching dudes making out like bandits for doing next to nothing. Getting in the way in fact. You have to tell people that unions are no good when the inflated profits that fractional expansion brings are encouraging the guys in head office to put marble on their floors and vote themselves salary increases each year when they are hardly running their company in a way that Buffet would approve.

    Its just no good. The fish stinks from the head. Cato stinks of Washington nowadays. One or two of those guys jumped on something that a fishing expedition of all Rons newsletters brought forth and thats when Cato really lost me. One Cato lecturer was talking about the strategic reserve and he didn’t think it was necessary. My strategic reserve would be the money supply in various commodities if the private sector would take it up as non-taxeable income. But this fellow seemed to think that its not necessary since you can hedge in the futures market. These guys think that a glorified bookie operation is going to help you out when you are in trouble. They are so convinced that their asset flipping is useful in reality (since it can be useful under capitalism properly considered) that they think trading in intangibles can replace real goods in a pickle.

    Last I heard the financial sector was consuming 10% of the American workforce and gobbling 30% of American profits. And people seem to think that stored commodities would be just too expensive. All it would do is stabilise the extraction industries and keep them ahead of the game. By some trick of economics that seems almost spooky the long-term projects and the infrastructure projects employ capital and skills not dis-similiar to the extraction industries so that when the supply of these digitized monetary commodities got too much prior to the price drop you would have an interest rate drop that would tell you its safe to go ahead with those really long-term projects.

    The precious metals are good because when you are looking for a needle in a haystack you find a lot of hay. So when gold, silver platinum and copper were carrying a premium thats no dead weight loss since looking for them would help you find base metals incidentally. So when the supply of the precious metals got too high, once again, before spilling into consumer prices it would signal interest rates that now the resources were together for the big projects and then all the stuff that had already been scoped out would be in plentiful supply for these purposes.

    But it would be good to also have as money something that constituted stored energy. Like liquified-coal or something like that.

    I see this monetary system as a sort of civilisational insurance. No perfect storm of maladies will stop the progressing economy so insured.

  11. Look Soon. I’m tracking down Chuck Baldwin on YouTube here. I cannot see anything wrong with him? He’d be a good ticket with him and Sarah Palin.

    Whats the deal here? I can see how you justify it to the crony-town lick-ballers at Catallaxy. But how do you justify your position on a LOGICAL basis? So you’ve got a bigoted thing against Christians? So what? Get over it.

    Come here. Just settle down. Try to relax. And try and put your opposition to the endorsement in logical terms.

    No more bigotry. Not more snideness. Just attempt to justify your criticism of Ron Paul endorsing this very nice ernest young man for President.

    Probably if I spend the next hour at YouTube I’ll wind up endorsing him as well.

  12. Look I’m listening to this fellow and he’s fine. He’s a smart guy. I don’t see what the problem is with this Chuck Baldwin Jason!

    Bob Barr is a fine man. And this Root fellow is OK. But Chuck is more in line with what Ron Paul is saying.

    And what you don’t understand with constitutionalists is they don’t see the President as the ultimate arbiter of power in Washington.

    So supposing China was linked to assasinating people. They could issue letters of Marque and reprisal for the top brass of Chinese intelligence and for the terrorist cutouts. But supposing the President didn’t want to fight China. IT IS CONGRESS THAT DECLARES WAR under the American constitution. And a pacifist President would then be drafted as Commander-In-Chief and his job would be to destroy certain regimes and come home.

    This is all good and fair and keeping with the sort of ruthlessness and cohesion that Lorenzo-The-Magnificent used to take down the “Tatalias” (I don’t remember the Medici rival banking clan so I’ll use the opponents to the Corleones instead)…..

    Actually I think it was the Pazzi.

    You see you have 300 million people. And you need the Congress to force the reluctant President in order to get the national cohesion needed to do the killing that will lead to your favoured peace.

    So the Ron Paul pacifism makes perfect sense and is not a disaster in context of the fact that it is Congress that must declare war.

    And once you have that backing its the case of the Corleones settling all family business “in one day.”

  13. The other thing is that the rest of us need a truly free and sovereign country to run to and get a 10 year green card for until things are sorted and the violence dies down where we are.

    Even a free and strong territory with lots of small business upward mobility is good enough. We’ve got to break free from this internationalism. I’ll split to the South Island of New Zealand. Five years ago I would have fought but am unlikely to do so now that I understand the attitude of your average post-modern public servant.

    For the meantime I’ll do my best to simply advocate the best pay and the best materiel for the young blokes who want to fight and I’ll advocate that we bring them home. So I’ll just be loyal to them although I would have to say that at this point my first step would likely be to sit it out until I got really pissed off.

    But my point is that even if there is one small principality with near-total freedom to split to in times of trouble thats really better than expecting America to secure our tired gray alleged liberty in this place.

    In practice America would help those who helped themselves. And if we can keep our lads in the field long enough we would likely get resupply and naval and air power assistance from the Americans even if it was forced on a pacifist President by the less pacifist Congresss.

    It is unrighteous of us that we don’t prepare for our own defense. And a Chuck Baldwin type is more likely to sell us the nuclear subs, Raptors and mini-nukes that we need.

  14. Bird;
    have you gone mad? Serious question.

  15. Its been a long time since I’ve seen you mount a serious argument on anything.

    Was that it?

    You come on here I expect you to make a serious argument.

    Now what is your specific criticism or argument?

  16. Still we await a good argument against the Ron Paul endorsement.

    We still await a contrary sentiment to my assessment that I probably wouldn’t fight at first, given a full-scale invasion of Australia, in a situation where all the top brass of the public sector, the finance industry, and many in other areas would consider the event an opportunity for promotion.

    I really don’t know. Thats my assessment right now. And I was thinking how different that would have been maybe ten years ago.

    Its no point if you know that the people who are on the winning end currently would be actually helping round up and execute those that were fighting.

    Its no point when you figure it out that many of the bigshots are subsidised whores. So why would anyone fight? I think we are rapidly becoming a paper tiger. Ready for colonisation.

  17. Perhaps the agreement is that anyone who is paid by the government could wind up being drafted.

    In any case I was talking about the merits of the Ron Paul approach to defense and this thinking came up. Why would we fight? When no-one in the public service would or would even allow all the departments to close down to free up resources for the rumble?

    They would see their public service jobs as more important than the war effort. Its not likely that the banking system would forego fractional reserve to help the war effort. So essentially its getting to the point where the non-subsidized taxpayer would be fighting for the people who exploit him now and would sell him out then.

    Seriously we have to do something about this state of affairs.

    The institute for mass-sackings and tax exemptions must get some momentum.

  18. “The institute for mass-sackings and tax exemptions must get some momentum”

    Try farting in the right direction

  19. Mr Soon,

    Why must you display you ignorance around here with your low wattage replies? Mr Bird has put forward a strong case and all you can do is make fart jokes. Why don’t you go and hang out with your dim glowing buddies at Cattalaxy.

  20. Notice that its the treasury secretary and not the Fed Chairman thats driving the stagecoach here. Bernanke knows he doesn’t need to bail out the banks to bail out mainstreet. This is his subject. Perhaps he’s not confident in the reality of his economics abstractions. Or perhaps he’s pinching himself that he’s right there rubbing shoulders with guys who have made millions in the alleged “private sector” and he’s deferring to them. Or perhaps to get where he is today he had to be INSTITUTIONAL MAN. The fellow who’s opinions always accord with the interests of the institution that looks after him. In other words Bernanke is a court economists or a house nigger.

    Now bare in mind we only use the phrase “house-nigger” for people without so much as a tan. For people of pasty-white complexion. Since we do not wish to inadvertantly, or on purpose, add further disrespect to people who have unjustly copped disrespect in their lives.

    I was going to wipe last nights posts. One ought not show up with such pessimism. There must be a way to stop institutional man taking us all the way down the toilet to a place of mindless violence and almost universal drudgery. Ron Pauls influence is the best and most optimistic thing thats happened. And the posthumous influence of Murray Rothbard via the Mises institute.

    On talkback radio and in letters to newspapers we see people coming out of the closet and laying the incredible growth in the inequality of wealth, fair and square on the monetary system.

    But when push comes to shove they cannot always articulate the mechanisms by which this inequality occurs.

    It is to this we must now turn our hand.

    If it had been Bernanke, a man who has always worked for the government, who was front man in his unimagineably huge ripoff than Ron Paul would be ten times more in demand. But that a successful allegedly-private-enterprise figure fronting the ripoff may make this outrage stick.

    If it was Bernanke fronting the ripoff members of his own profession might have exploded in heated debate. “How can Bernanke justify this on ECONOMIC grounds” they would ask.

    How indeed.

  21. The world turning upside down. Cambria getting stupider by the minute and Steve Munn again emerging as Dr Jekyl to talk some sense before his inevitable struggle with Mr Hyde is overturned in Mr Hydes favour.

    JC. Says:
    September 26th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

    I really don’t understand one issue about this. I left banking in 2002. At that time risk seemed to be handled ok.

    But I simply can’t get over the losses these guys are reporting. How the fuck did they accumulate so much risk? UBS writing down 26 billion. Citi, the same amount.

    Why were they warehousing so much risk? Were they hoping to sell it or simply accumulating it on their books because they thought it was a great thing to keep until maturity.

    I’ve heard a number of stories. I’ve heard that origination desks were putting all this stuff together and then hoping the salesforce would sell it off.

    But wouldn’t the manager of these departments see the inventory accumulating and put a stop to it… The CEO perhaps too. Or the risk guys firing off flares.”

    What is Cambria saying here. That the maths-boy 101 types they hire as quants are smart guys who can model risk accurately? Here we have the cult of mathematical modelling coming out again perhaps. The only risk there is is if you are playing musical chairs and you don’t get to the chair in time before the others get to theirs.

    And here’s Munn. Someone who I thought was a complete lunatic except that every now and then he’d lay into his fellow leftists with enourmous eloquence and righteousness and then he’d turn into a nasty parody of the same people he had been abusing.

    “melaleuca Says:
    September 26th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
    Clownbria, 12 months ago you were telling everyone that Graeme Bird was an insightful economic commentator. Six months ago when I correctly predicted the current problems you said it was all bullshit and the market would sort it all out.

    You may well have a TAFE certificate in currency trading but you nonetheless know fuck all about economics. STFU and stay out of the basement.”

    All true and very well put. Except I wonder about the predictions. One hopes he isn’t making those retrospective global warming model-type predictions. I’ll have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Cambria, of all people ,ought to know that banking risk is about musical chairs. He’s the guy who spends his life making money off the secondary benefits of fractional reserve. You’ve got the 50 billion subsidy to the Australian banks in the last 7 years. And then you have people who also get a benefit taking advantage of the secondary effects of the racket.

    Thats what Cambria does. He’s a MOMENTUM-TRADER. The new money comes out and no-one knows where its headed….. so he waits…… and then when he sees the new money throwing momentum into some stock or commodity he pounces, pushes the momentum along, and runs to his chair before the music stops. He does the opposite of what the valuable speculator of the free society would do. Speculators in a free society smooth the ups and downs and provide liquidity. They take underpriced real assets and sell them when they can get a fair price, to the entrepreneur who can make more out of them than what they are worth.

    But under crony-socialist money the MOMENTUM-TRADER must wait until the formerly underpriced intangible asset has grown momentum…. hence he BUYS IN at or above fair price and pushes the stock far further than it ought to have gone, selling out to someone who will sell to a greater fool. In this way he further DESTABILIZES the market.

  22. “temujin Says:
    September 26th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
    This is really unfortunate from Paul. And it seems a bit petty too. The Libertarian Party and Bob Barr are clearly the better option for further advancing libertarian politics in America. ”

    Humphreys Humphreys Humphreys. I know you mean well but this is not right. Unless we can extract our public servants out of every last international organization, and cut out everything fractional and fiat (faith-based money) then humane-civilisation just has no chance. The good sense and reason of a Bob Barr will wind up being compromised away and drowned out.

    You’ve got to have someone who comes in with a religious fervour. brings everyone home, seals the border, pulls out of every last international body, tries to sack as many folks as possible, tries to cut off funds where he can, and every budget that Congress sends at him its got to be Veto Veto Veto Veto until government closes down.

    And here is why the program is so dependent on not taking a sensible middle ground on the war and international bases. Since you cannot have men in the field when you are sitting there with the big Veto pen in your hand saying “make my day.”

  23. The other thing is that Chuck Baldwin is heading up the Constitutionalist party and not the libertarian party. There are too many internationalist and anti-sovereignty types in libertarian circles that can use libertarianism to defeat good sense and sovereignty.

    But a party that is based around American-Constitutionalism would wind up being flexible in its response to really serious problems that were out there. Whereas a libertarian party would have all these people mixing up the ultimate goal with the tactical actions.

    So taking a constitutionalist point of view will bring the Americans halfway down the libertarian path much faster and with the ability to deal with overwhelming problems on the way. Whereas a libertarian party might be paralysed in action.

    If Israel is on the verge of destruction, or Australia is being occupied but is putting up a good fight, a constitutionalist President can try and dissuade the Congress from intervening. But if they declare war he must fight and win. He has no choice.

    But a libertarian President will have an aura of hypocrisy to him if he was to act in the same way.

    An historically accurate approach to the American constitution is really our best friend in the interim decades that we see before us. So long as we do what we can to look after ourselves.

    Any alleged personal bigotry is no threat from a Baldwin Presidency. These matters where this is alleged to pertain would be strictly state matters for Baldwin.

    Ron Pauls endorsement may therefore spark off a third force in politics. Leading to young people going with the constitutionalist party, who aren’t at all sold on Libertarian ideas. A lot of Obama’s people could well find a constitutionalist party attractive even if they think that the libertarians are lickballs to the rich.

    In the American case its a better way to get the first 60% of what libertarians are after.

  24. Most importantly the candidate must be utterly solid on the constitution from a monetary point of view. The constitution stipulates that the Feds make no bills of exchange. That their only monetary role is the coining of gold and silver coins.

    Personally I’d rather have a lot of other stuff digitalized as well. I’d want several 100% backed digitalized monies. As many different commodities digitalized for this purpose as possible at first and have gold and silver beging to dominate slowly and in their own good time. But this is not what the constitution says.

    So Chuck Baldwin was the man that Ron Paul had to endorse and there was nothing petty about it. A libertarian candidate who is weak on this issue is no friend of liberty. The determination to close down the Fed and have gold and silver money has to be a kind of blinding, fervent obsession or it will be pissed away by the problems of the moment.

    The effort to close down the Fed has to start on day one and it must never leave the Presidents mind for one minute for all of those four years.

  25. I will go a bit further. This endorsement is a strategic masterstroke from Ron Paul. I say that because I myself would never have thought of it.

    Its a great move. Its one of the few things around now to be optimistic about. And I had gotten horribly pessimistic… what with the bailout, and peoples reaction to it.

  26. Its just magnificent to have Ron Paul behind enemy lines up there in Washington now that this outrageous stealing attempt is on.

    This fellow is like Mad Max. The campaign was like the first half of Mad Max. What he’s getting up to now is like the second half when Max gets Mad.

  27. “No Bird, you moron, momentum trading is far different than trend following which is what i try to do.”

    No you are full of shit Cambria. There are value investors and there are momentum-traders and you are a momentum-trader. Thats the whole universe of traders right there and you are on the momentum-trader side of the street.

  28. Plus I cannot help it if Munn is suddenly talking sense. I’m just the same as you. Waiting for what he’ll come up with next.

  29. Look at Cambria here. Still not admitting I was right when I was saying we needed to increase the amount of cash but put in a reserve asset ratio. So he won’t admit I’m right but he’s still demanding a taxpayer bailout of his rich mates. Why do they get the money and not me? Its just theft. And he is demanding a DIRECT bailout. Not an indirect bailout via debt retirement. He should realise that the rest of us have subsidised his former industry every year that he worked in it. That he was a high-paid welfare recipient.

    “Some other serious stuff that’s happening:

    When Lehman filed $63 billion of commercial paper simply disappeared. Now firms are worried and are drawing down on their CP programs. This hits the banks very badly because CP facilities aren’t heavily counted in their capital adequacy requirements. However when the lines are drawn it hits the capital chain all the way up forcing banks to restrict their lending even more to other areas. Therefore the credit multiplier simply stops like a pump that is supposed to be pumping out water has air going through it.”

    There isn’t supposed to BE a banking multiplier. There isn’t supposed to BE pyramided money. Or at least we can say LESS IS MORE. More cash and less pyramiding is the answer.

    “The banks simply don’t have any money to lend….”

    You idiot Cambria. They never did. They never had the cash to lend but they lent it anyway.

    “… they don’t have the funds to meet demands….”

    They never did have the funds. It didn’t stop them making the loans.

    “….. This could be one of the reason dollars are so tight seeing US dollar for overnight loans went as high as 11% in Asia this week and didn’t fall below 7% from what i saw.

    This is where we could get to Armageddon and we see wholesale firings as firms can’t meet payrolls simply because the banks can’t give them the cash…..”

    The banks were never in the position to give them the cash. They didn’t have the cash then and they don’t have it now.

    “….Some of you guys think this shit isn’t serious but it is.”

    So the answer obviously is to push vastly more cash in , via debt retirement, and then slap on an RAR that stops this new cash overblowing some reasonable target.

    But this is not what Cambria reckons. After two years Cambria proved wrong refuses to acknowledge I was right. Cambria reckons a direct bailout from the taxpayer who have always subsidised these rich slobs all their lives. Yet it was Cambria who reckoned fractional reserve was OK and it was only moral hazard from the government that made it not OK. If we could get all these bankers FIRED and save main street that would be best. But if we need to indirectly bail out some of these bankers the price has to be a reserve asset ratio.

    “If they don’t get the support package, its over. I don’t think the Fed has the balance sheet to meet such a sudden demand for funds.”

    Where is the logic in that you dim bulb Cambria? You ought to just admit I was right all along and you were wrong. The Fed can create as much cash as it wants. Bernanke made that quite clear before he took the job. You want more debt for the American taxpayer to bail out these guys. Yet you know full well if there was more cash and an RAR that would do the job.

    The idea is to bail out mainstream but let the banks fail and start again in a more productive context.

    “I don’t normally make these comments and I always wanna see markets do all the work. But this is so friggen serious it scares the shit outta me.”

    It was forseeable the whole time. Indeed it was inherent to fractional reserve. And its not even a complicated matter. You have an inner circle of cash which is small. You have an outer circle of ponzi-money which is now collapsing. So you have to increase the inner circle a great deal to increase the outer circle a little bit. Once you’re back around your former record level of Gross Domestic Revenue you have to have an RAR to stop the earlier cash injection from being inflationary.

    What is so hard about this Cambria you dim bulb. A taxpayer bailout is only going to do more harm. Its just throwing bad money after good. It won’t help even a little bit. Only an increase in cash, with an RAR can do the job.

    “Unfortunately, we are all junkies at the spigot of the collective fractional reserve banking system. We have already seen yesterday those collective reserves release more funds even underneath this proposed bailout. I don’t believe they have enough cash capacity to resolve the crisis without the bailout….”

    Robbie you fucking moron. Is this Cambria dressing up in drag to hold his hand out for more money for his mates?

    What is this crap about not having the cash capacity? Fuck you crony-socialists will try anything on won’t you. They have a printing press. How much cash capacity do you think they need?

    “…..and you might say that the bailout saves the massive inflation that would occur if it was to be resovled solely by the Fed releasing a massive amount of cash.”

    You dumbass Robbie. These are not substitutes. Giving bankers cash taken from the taxpayer CANNOT help the situation if you are claiming that they are not going to produce new cash. So you are wrong. Its a reserve asset ratio that stops the new cash being inflationary. But we can hand 50c in the dollar over to bankers for the rest of our lives it isn’t going to increase the cash in relation to the ponzi-money. So it isn’t going to help the situation.

    It may help bankers maintain their high salaries but it won’t help mainstreet.

    Comment by Robbie | September 27, 2008

    “If they don’t get the support package, its over.”

    Well they should all go broke. But there is no excuse for this package at all so stop your utter bullshit.

    This is clearly fractional reserve ponzi-money unwinding. And so the only thing that needs to be done is to retire debt, creating new monetary base, and to slap on a reserve asset ratio to stop this being too inflationary.

    You do not need money to bail your mates out.

    Comment by graemebird | September 27, 2008

    Now lets get this straight. The cash injection needed to solve this problem quickly is so high that it would cause serious inflation down the track.

    So both technically and morally it must come at the price of a reserve asset ratio. The Paulson bailout is simply no substitute for this. If they don’t increase cash levels it will be utterly useless. If they do it will increase American indebtedness rather than reduce it as rational policy would do.

    Its very clear where Cambria is coming from. He wants the bankers to get endless subsidy and yet be able to fool themselves that their success is authentic free enterprise success. Well it isn’t. It comes as a result of a subsidy from the rest of the community.

    Posted Thursday, 17 March 2011 at 3:41 pm | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “DanR: There is no such thing as “degraded” infrared radiation…”

    Thats not just wrong its ridiculous. There can be no action without some sort of reaction. So whether the molecule

    1. scatters the light, or

    2. transmutes that light into thermal energy by way of interaction with another molecule,

    ……. there must be some sort of energy loss

    The argument you would have to make would be that the energy loss was of an inconsequential magnitude. Which would seem pretty unlikely.

    “You’ve misunderstood me DanR; I am talking about absorption from below, as you’d know if you’d checked the links I provided.”

    1. What absorption from below? The air pressure above where the water vapor is …. is too low for much in the way of absorption. The CO2 must mostly only scatter at that air pressure.

    2. What absorption? In almost all places , the absorption will be pre-empted by water vapor.

    3. With scattering obviously almost all energy will end up in space. Since the air is denser below then above.

    “You’ve misunderstood me DanR; I am talking about absorption from below, as you’d know if you’d checked the links I provided.”

    4. You can talk about it all you like. But the fact is that where the extra CO2 is above the troposphere it will do next to nothing to block extra outgoing. We have to assume it is blocking extra incoming and therefore having a net cooling effect.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: