Posted by: graemebird | October 15, 2008

With Crisis Comes Opportunity

But Kevin Rudd is missing it. He ought to have grabbed it with both hands. Something other than the levers of power and let what would be, BE.

After being silenced by every method known to man, and every subsidy under the sun the market was finally allowed to speak. When the market finally was allowed to speak, the market pronounced these banking bigshots a bunch of bums and the market WOULD HAVE SENT THEM ONTO THE STREET to sniff around looking for the short pants jobs.

Now Rudds talking about limiting the bigshots salaries. But thats pissweak. Since the market was about to limit their salaries to zero. Which would have saved the rest of us money every day from here on in and forever.

 Its rubbish anyhow. What can he do to limit their salaries? He and the banking bigshots belong to the same overarching racket, and it seems these days that Rudds wing is the juniour partner.

Once we know that we can use monetization of debt combined with adjustments upwards to the reserve asset ratio to keep aggregate demand (as best measured by Reismans “Gross Domestic Revenue”) stable, …..

………once we know that we don’t need the banks co-operation in order to keep spending stable…….then we know that we are fine letting all these misallocators of scarce investment resources, deal with the avenging market on  their own.  Let them face the market on their own after the ponzi-racket dies. This is no skin of our noses. We have nothing to lose but our crap excuse for capital markets. And we have much debts to pay down.

Since a determined committment to raise reserve asset ratios and add cash means that its doable to trash most regulation, if the banks faced horrible losses, and they would, its just a matter of them selling off one branch at a time, to employees or former holders of government debt ,or anyone who thinks they might like to take a lash at the non-fractional reserve banking caper.



The default position for the allocation of resources without banks is a very good one. Its sets a very high bar for the banks to jump over. Resources are allocated in accordance with cash flow. A higher cash-flow leads to greater opportunity for capital formation.

So if this is very good and just resource allocation what do we need the banks for? The answer is that we don’t need them.  They create no new resources. Their ponzi-schemes disturb the price system. And since the allocation of resources is very good before they even show up on the scene we better not be tolerating them doing a bad job of it.

This is why if they are not borrowing strictly from savings and lending for wealth creation than we are far better off without them. So lets get rid of this notion that we need these guys to be lending since it does not accord with the facts.

Here is Steve Edney’s explanation of why the big welfare queens are paid so much:

SteveEdney Says: 
October 16th, 2008 at 8:54 am

Its pretty obvious that the whole thing is a political sop to soften up the general public who are now underwriting private sector profits.

It has nothing to do with Economics, or I think Kevin Rudd’s sense of sociual justice and everything to do with sending out the right signals to the electorate.

The problem with saying no one is worth $20 mill, is that the $20 mill isn’t paid just for the CEOs labour but to motivate workers all the way down.

Steep pay increases as you rise the rung of the corporate ladder (culminating in huge CEO salaries) serve to motivate the people below to work rather than the people receiving them. I work hard not because I am paid well but because I want to jump to the next level where I get paid more. The steeper the slope of salary increases the more the underlings will try to climb the ladder.”


You idiot Edney. This is a government supported and subsidised counterfeiting racket that buggers with our pricing and resource allocation system. And they get paid so much since they are simply crooks divying up the loot.


They do not EARN the money. You want to see these guys earn their money let them simply learn to live within their interest-rate-spread. We all know that this attempt would have them out on the streets in a matter of weeks.


Your bosses are welfare queens Edney. They more than anyone else are responsible for our trade deficits, for allocating our scarce investment resources to land inflation, rather than small business expansion. They are a bunch of failures and clowns who ought now be out of work. Its not just the bailout that is a subsidy. Its constant, month in month out behaviour. The harder they work the more damage they are doing. They don’t know the first thing about banking (properly considered) rather they are ponzi-specialists. And you cannot be both.


Which one of your bosses, Edney, specialises in small business expansion, with the help of only depositers money. Thats bullshit. None  of them. You people call yourself managers and credit analysts but its all credit and no analysis. This is why you turned left-wing Edney. Some part of you saw that where you were the alleged private sector wasn’t doing anything worthy.


If we had let the market speak and let these clowns all keel over than maybe you and a couple of others could have bought a branch and done some real banking for a change. Some real wealth creation. But it was not to be. Once welfare queens always welfare queens.


We ought to start developing proper banking and the software to support it. But this cannot be done while these pretenders and counter-productive know-nothings are getting subsidised to continue to bugger things up for the rest of us.



  1. “Jason Soon Says:
    October 16th, 2008 at 10:31 am
    What Hitchens is referring to re Palin is that she was the one who started the rabble rousing which led to McCain-Palin supporters calling Obama a terrorist and a traitor. And this in turn led to stuff like this

    If you’re saying he dislikes Palin because she’s a strong conservative woman you’re wrong. He turned against the left because one of his strong conservative woman friends was killed in S11 (I forgot her name). Aside from that he dislikes Palin because frankly she’s an inarticulate idiot who is attracting the flotsam and jetsam of the conservative movement.

    Frankly I think it’s possible one of these trailer trash will try and gun down Obama indirectly due to Palin’s rubbish. It’s only a matter of time.”

    You idiot Soon. Palins telling the truth. And its important. Surely its never a good time to be electing people who hang around terrorists and hard leftists to the Presidency.

    This is very courageous of Palin to be speaking out on these matters.

    Where are you coming from on this one? Just more irrationality on your part right?

  2. I thought Hitchens was ‘the man you love’ Graeme. Didn’t you say that once?

  3. He’s a good man. But surely Obama’s dodgy background is important. And surely it is right for Palin to fearlessly tell the truth on this matter. Or else there is no point in sending her to enemy occupied territory if she is going to hold her mouth on issues like this.

    Yeah Hitchens is great. But we can disagree over stuff and I disagree about a lot of the stuff he says.

  4. Look. We’ve got to bankrupt all these goons or else we will never have a proper banking system. We’ll always have these ponzi-parasites gaming the system and ruining the long-term viability of our nation.

    Its not just about letting the new guys in. You have to bankrupt the old guys so the new people can breathe.

  5. Don’t come here to tell ridiculous lies Edney.

    Just come clean and tell the third parties I know what I’m talking about when it comes to banking. No lies here Edney. I might wipe your comment on the grounds that you’ll encourage the others.

    Its true that banking lends itself to a small business operation once fractional reserve is removed. So quite apart from the damage the ponzi-scheme does to resource allocation and pricing, thats one more low cost startup that is denied to people.

  6. I want to expand on this point. Education is another industry that lends itself to cheap startups. Thats a good enough reason to be bitterly opposed to voucher schemes for example. And when you look around these clowns have cut off a lot of business that lends itself to small startups.

    So that the teachers teach the kids bullshit and cost us money rather than contribute to the tax base is bad enough. But its no good that they are cutting off the potential for upwardly mobile business startups.

    We can stop subsidising your parasitical industry at any time and you’ll all come crashing down and you know it. Its not about eschatology. You are in effect a single firm. All the banks together. If one goes they will all likely come down.

  7. What is really depressing is that we will have your incompetent welfare queen bosses running things, completely misallocating our resources, buggering our trade deficit for no good effect and just generally ruining our society without ever once having a clue of what they ought to be doing and would be doing if they had gotten off the welfare.

  8. No YOU are the liar. YOU are the communist. YOU came out in favour of the heist. YOU are in favour of socialist money. YOU are the one who does not aspire to be a man but only a welfare queen.

    Get fucked you filth. You low dog.

    Lies get wiped on this forum Cambria. And I now see I was too tolerant with Edney.

  9. what a way to talk to a friend

  10. What sort of friend is he. He’s lying about me. He wants a no-crony-left behind policy. He’s supporting open stealing and the destruction of law and basic norms.

    Its a total tragedy what I’m seeing here with the Americans. They are just determined to destroy themselves. Or rather the crony-communist bankers are willing to destroy their country just to cover their own asses and look after their comrades.

    Its so hard to believe how this works. You can never rely on good policy in a crisis. The people who ought to now be admitting I was right or Ron Paul was right…. instead they are busy scuttling the ship.

  11. “pedro Says:
    October 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
    Bird would be funnier if the labels had some relationship to the subject. A good slagging needs at least a grain of truth to cut through to the quick.”

    Yeah well come here and say that you fucking idiot? What did I say that wasn’t true? You don’t have an argument do you pedro. Your a fucking non-descript dim bulb. No-one can tell you from any other cunt on account of how tiresome and conventional you are.

    How is that for cutting through to the quick dip shit?

    What did I say that wasn’t flat out true?……………………………(idiot)

  12. Now we were talking about a serious change to banking here. Not just simply taking foreign resources, taking our own resources, AND MISALLOCATING BOTH.

    And while you guys are all under socialist money, and under special priviledge you are always going to do things wrong, and you will never do things right. You will always be responsible for resource misallocation and price distortion.

    Now surely you would wish to stand on your own two feet and not merely be high-paid welfare recipients.

  13. “melaleuca Says:
    October 16th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
    I also agree with Andrew Leigh on this point:

    “”It’s possible that this affects political outcomes: very skewed income distribution may allow the super rich to have a disproportionate influence on election outcomes,” says Professor Leigh.”–super-rich-are-back/2006/05/22/1148150186479.html?page=fullpage

    Democracy is itself harmed by massive income disparities.”

    Well thats true Steve. But thats not the point. What counts is how these influential people made their money. I don’t mind that Steve Jobs has more electoral influence than me because he made his money legitimately. But these banking clowns paid for the votes for their own bailout and made the biggest profit imageinable on what for them was just akin to a market play.

    “melaleuca Says:
    October 16th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
    Clownbria says:

    “Which is why is why we good firms should always cull the bottom 10% performers each year.”

    Since you are in the bottom ten per cent of contributors to the common wealth fuck off back to Calabria you dirty mafia sprog.”

    Now you are making sense. Thats better.

  14. Mr Bird,

    Glad to see you have wiped out the rubbish Edney and Cambria sprouted. No suprise that the welfare queens support welfare along with a classic leftist reversal to try and call you the socialist. Edney if I remember slavishly defends the physics priest hood, and then turns around and does the same for the banking gnomes. These small minds learn only how to kiss backsides to rise up the hierachy and its no suprise they can’t see any sort of sensible arguement.

    Keep up the good fight Mr Bird.

  15. You are just an embarrassment Cambria. Like Glover said. Here you are engaging in the most ridiculous leftist reversals imagineable:

    “JC. Says:
    October 16th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
    how is a member of Young Nationals ‘new right’? They’re worse socialists than Bird.
    I’m sorry but Bird is quite possibly the biggest commie in Ozblogdom. He is such an intolerant lefties that it scares the hell of of me.
    that blog was the ruination of his soul. he’s given his soul to Karl Marx without a chance of recovery.”

    Hey which one of us is supporting the heist you fucking commie jerk?

    So whose the commie?

    Are you claiming that its the capitalists that were in favour of stealing? Why didn’t you say so all along so we could get your definitions sorted back in 2006?

    Clearly you are a fucking idiot mate. And have gone in for compulsive lying.

    No lying on my forum Cambria. Your new set of lies will be treated with the usual reaction.

  16. Goddamned welfare queen commisar seems to be actually gloating that he’s at the exploitive end of the food chain.

  17. No lying on my forum Cambria. Your new set of lies will be treated with the usual reaction.

    I think he said that on Catallaxy Graeme. Interesting you think Sarah Palin’s ‘courageous’ ‘ she might well be. I don’t see anything courageous about her participation in the <strikeGreat Shit Throwing Contest US Elections. And, um, she appears to think the universe is 6000 years old. Is that right?

  18. Its rubbish anyhow. What can he do to limit their salaries? He and the banking bigshots belong to the same overarching racket, and it seems these days that Rudds wing is the juniour partner.
    Class paragraph Graeme.

  19. But Adrien. Surely its important to break through this wall of silence about Obamas hard-leftists background.

    If I ran for President and had come from that background surely this would be something that needed to be talked about.

    I don’t understand how you and Soon can try and put this one over.

    Obama’s job was to radicalise people. Since Ayers and those guys gave up on bombing buildings the new strategy was to go into those buildings and radicalise the people within. Rather than simply blow them up.

    How can you and Soon take this position on logical grounds. This is mindlessness Adrien. Attempt to snap out of it. McCain has wimped out and isn’t talking about this hardly at all. Its pretty disgraceful where Obama is coming from and the commie bastards that have always surrounded him.

    Remember how Cambria and Soon reacted to a fishing expedition that came up with some loose quotes of many years ago from out of Ron Pauls various newsletters. It was pathetic. Now Soon turns around and wants to give Obama a pass. What gives?

    I mean you guys say this sort of stuff. But you could back it up with some logic and try and make an argument of it. Palin is a whistleblower. And I would wonder what had happened to her if she let Obama get away without any scrutiny on his anti-American past.

  20. “CL’s idea of the truth is when someone spins the fact that Obama sat at a table with an ex-Hippie who used to hang out with people who wanted to start the Let’s Blow-up Filing Cabinet’s Revolution into him being a full-blown member of al-Qaeda.”

    What are you talking about Adrien. This is an irrational whitewash.

    Either you are going to be truthful about things or you are going to give yourself over to stupidity and lies.

  21. Hmmmm. I’m not sure we want to go after the errant bailout supporters family.

  22. you very smart Jay Soon.. You even follow unmask clue and unmask!

  23. Graeme: here are my ideas on the crisis. Please don’t edit them, if you have a problem, please spell it out.

    It will be interesting to see how much you agree with.


    The most striking thing to say would be that the US financial crisis was actually caused by over-regulation.


    Primarily, a series of macroeconomic shocks (oil, credit cycle bust and Federal deficit) hit the institutional vulnerabilities of the US consumer and commercial credit market.

    The Austrian school’s explanation of the business cycle can explain the impact of manipulating interest rates to be *cheap*. Essentially we misallocate resources as the price sugnal gets distorted, investment flows into uneconomic, speculative investments in fixed assets and consumer goods. The economy eventually craps out as not enough capital goods are made to increase or support the demand for labour.

    The result is we have at the end less demand for labour (lower wages and less employment), a lesser range of goods available (goods that are in high demand) and higher prices (as we have less to trade for goods we don’t particularly want). The bust happens even if “official” rates stay low – real interest and inflation keep on increasing.

    I’ll go through some of the institutional causes.

    1. Banks have been forced to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers under the Community Reinvestment Act (1977) [CRA] which was heavily revised in 1995.

    2. Freddie and Fannie are partially privatised vehicles which have social equity principles in their charters. It might be nice, but it is infeasible. Also note that Freddie and Fannie bought out crap mortgages banks were forced to issue but were making losses on.

    3. There is a heap of coincidental law which enforce provisions like the CRA does.

    4. Since the New Deal, US mortgages have been too easy for borrowers to abandon. No recourse provisions mean borrowers have incentives to engage in wildly speculative behaviour.

    5. Changing inflation rates can cause asset-liability mismatches, wreaking havoc with bank solvency.

    6. One way of getting around the *anti-redlining* provisions of the CRA and similar law was to offer low introductory ARMs. This worked as long as there was high growth, inflation and increasing land prices.

    Once the shocks hit, the system starts failing at the consumer end and works back.

    7. Freddie and Fannie were effectively subsidised and ordered to give out or subsidise other bad loans and credit risks, were given a 2.5 trillion USD line of credit. They could lend out cash near the sovereign rate to non serviceable loans. Essentially then part of the credit crunch is deferred *forced savings* to pay for this earlier spending.

    8. Repealing the Glass Steagall Act was not a mistake. Bill Clinton signed this into law and recognises the fact that it allowed for some recent takeovers which went smoothly, and helped limit the extent of the crisis.

    9. The US has stronger lender of last resort and until recently, stronger deposit insurance provisions. These provisions encourage irresponsible lending, and a possible downward spiral to a situation like the Japanese economy of the 1990s where banks were continually bailed out. This simply lead to more bad loans and insolvency crises.

    10. The US also risks falling into a liquidity trap. This is a very rare occurrence, but a nightmare to get out of.

    My recommendations:

    i. Pay off their Government debt, balance the budget.

    ii. Repeal the bailout package.

    iii. Raise cash interest rates and try to keep them relatively stable and target inflation towards zero. They presently risk falling into a liquidity trap which is almost impossible but is a nightmare once it exists.

    iv. Privatise or kill off Freddie and Fannie.

    v. Repeal the Community Reinvestment Act which requires banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers.

    vi. Cut income taxes.

    vii. Repeal the FDR era provisions which allow mortgage holders to default on a mortgage with no recourse for banks, creditors or potential future lenders.

    viii. Get rid of the lender of last resort provisions for the Fed. and deposit insurances which create a moral hazard and encourage irresponsible lending and leverage ratios.

    I have some other comments, to be made later, that banning short selling and blaming short selling and derivatives is misinformed and blaming a more efficient credit market basically conflates lower interest margins with lowering interest rate price risking and the cost of funds (to which lenders were often forced to lend below and then pass the junk onto Freddie and Fannie). Basically we should allow financial markets to operate as they need to and we shouldn’t reject lower tax rates and more lending competition which makes houses cheaper in real terms. More later.

    Get informed:

    The Bailout Reader
    Daily Article by | Posted on 9/26/2008

    The events taking place in the financial market offer an illustration of the soundness of the Austrian theory of money, banking, and credit cycles, and, which has long warned of precisely the scenario playing itself out today, is your source not only for analysis of these events but also the economic theory that helps explain what is happening and what to do about it. There are many thousands of articles available, and also the full text of thousands of books as well as journal articles.

    It is impossible to draw attention to the full range of literature one can use to understand the crisis. However, below we offer a brief look into the topics most discussed in these times, with extended treatments of each in the sidebar. also offers both a blog and a community forum for reading and discussing them all.

    It’s never been more important to spread a sound view of money and banking, not only as a protection against the fallacies of “stabilization” and “reflation” but also as way to see what kind of reforms are essential now.

  24. Look Rex. I’m not offended but I don’t want to even know any family member names. Thats offlimits.

    Actually I’m hoping people such as family members can talk some sense into the old man. Its one thing to work successfully within the rules one finds oneself in. You only really cross over the line when you support those rules that make it more difficult for the rest of us.

  25. “I have some other comments, to be made later, that banning short selling and blaming short selling and derivatives is misinformed and blaming a more efficient credit market basically conflates lower interest margins with lowering interest rate price risking and the cost of funds (to which lenders were often forced to lend below and then pass the junk onto Freddie and Fannie). ”

    Short-selling is good. Very good and excellent actually. But until they can ban NAKED short-selling (ie watering the stock with ponzi-shares) then they ought to ban the whole lot. Since the good that short-selling does pales into insignificance in comparison to the bad that ponzi-shares inflicts.

  26. Its not the derivatives that are bad. Its the subtteranean issue of fractional reserve EVERYTHING that the addiction to derivatives is hiding.

  27. Graeme,

    You need an open forum:

  28. “10. The US also risks falling into a liquidity trap. This is a very rare occurrence, but a nightmare to get out of.”

    There is no such thing. Thats the wrong angle to take it from. There is the destruction of ponzi-money and the increase in the demand for money for holding. Both these can be worked around during a period of cash-building deflation which can be made short.

    All those regulations are not helpful. But they are not the root cause. The root cause is the ponzi-money itself.

    “iii. Raise cash interest rates and try to keep them relatively stable and target inflation towards zero. They presently risk falling into a liquidity trap which is almost impossible but is a nightmare once it exists.”

    Targeting consumer price inflation is harmful and the cause of the problem. Good monetary policy would have consumer prices falling most years, rising some in the meantime.

    There ought be no discount rate. Or a very high one in the interim. But monetization is needed in the short run to make this not too deflationary. A discount rate is an unjust bank subsidy. Whereas judicious monetization via debt retirement is more neutral.

  29. I take great pains to explain that Japan’s “deflation” was bank recapitalisation, but if you do get in a situation of a liquidity trap, how do you get out? I am highly critical of such an event ever occurring. I think it’s better not to risk it. The remedy is more austerity in monetary policy before things get too hectic – which isn’t hard to take at all.

    I actually don’t advocate targeting CPI.

    Why no discount rate? 100% backing or not, private banks would create their own money supply which would grow year to year. We would still have a fall in real prices.

  30. You get out of it by realising that there is no such thing. And that its merely the destruction of ponzi-money.

    The ponzi-money must be replaced by cash indirectly via debt retirement. That this not be inflationary later down the track a compensatory reserve asset ratio must be phased in at the same time.

    At the end of a gold-ponzi recession you had more gold, less ponzi-money, higher cash balances, lets debts, a trade surplus.

    Policy is about speeding up the process of getting to that mix.

  31. Look at these shylocks and white collar criminals profiting from the misery of the people, cuz.

  32. Right. We have so much dead wood in this system. Imagine how much better it would be if these guys had to do something productive for a living? A lot of the sheilas might choose to stay home and look after the kids, or work part-time.

    Look at how the non-financial world has improved things since 1970. And how the expected improvement in the living standards of your average joe have not been realised thanks to the growth of all this dead wood in finance and government. It would be better if we could run these two great parasites together as one word to show how these guys are really one entity. “Fiverment” or something.

    Sure there have been improvements and all of them delivered outside the two parasitical entities. But in 1970, before Nixon trashed the last link to Gold, most households could get by with a bunch of kids and only one income. And now look. Two incomes, less kids, everyone up to their eyeballs in hock, and the country in debt and losing its ability to even make things. Thanks Fiverment. Great job.

    Once upon a time you used to buy health services. Now you have insurance because no-one can afford to buy this shit anymore. Once upon a time you could pay for the kids education. Now you borrow for it.

    People don’t realise that the finance to do all the things that we do only increases the price of those things, thus armtwisting every fucker into having to borrow for these things and thus leaving them in bondage to fiverment. Having to pay back these loans means forcing yourself into a higher tax bracket so that the government wing of fiverment is there grinning at you. Always the tax man or the banker grinning at you and its impossible to tell one from the other.

    The Americans particularly are in a great deal of trouble. So they will be forced into Ron Paul policies rather than accepting them gracefully and being able to exercise some flexibility over matters. So we are stuck without our nuclear subs, and mini-nukes that we need to defend ourselves and would have had if we had not been beguiled into putting our trust in these good people while their financial assclowns were scuttling them from within.

    Poor Taiwan. Left in the lurch. They could have outproduced the Chinese in nukes back when China turned their first nuke on a hand lathe. Now they will be left in the lurch if they don’t act soon and with real committment.

    If only we could stop these guys from creating new money. Have the government create enough just to keep gross domestic revenue stable. And so nine-tenths of both wings of fiverment having to get real jobs. This is what we must acheive for our very survival.

    I was home talking to one of the couzie-bros back in the New Year of end of 93, beginning of 94. In retrospect we all know now that Japans troubles ought to have been apparent a couple of years before that. But at the time this was not generally known.

    Anyhow I was discussing with him some tangential matter. Maybe I was waxing lyrical on some of the benefits of multi-racialism as opposed to either mono or bi-ratialism. And he brought up the Japanese as a counter-example….

    “They’re in trouble…. ” I said “… did you know that?” I said. And I went on to say that they had the advantage over the Americans on account of their savings rate but the American economy was amazing if you discounted for that savings handicap. Surely the most dynamic economy around……

    Well those who understood the situation knew that the Japanese were in serious trouble. But its NOTHING compared to how grave matters are for the Americans right now. Their financial disaster is many times worse than what happened with the Japanese. And the one chance they had to avoid a hyper-inflationary depression was to just manage gross domestic revenue through judicious use of both monetization and the reserve asset ratio……….. go into general financial retrenchment…… and let all the banks collapse thus wiping out a great chunk of their foreign debt that way……

    …. but the banking sector has grown politically resurgent. And they will not allow this. Thus a hyper-inflationary depression is next to inevitable….

    .. Even now they could have this serious about-face. And draw on their history of how Martin Van Buren handled the banking panic of 1939-43……But it just won’t happen. The political momentum needed to handle this in a rational way and in accordance with sound economic science just isn’t there.

  33. “At the end of a gold-ponzi recession you had more gold, less ponzi-money, higher cash balances, lets debts, a trade surplus.”

    Err, Graeme, if every country did what you asked, presumably they would all have trade surpluses. Explain yourself – this simply isn’t possible.

  34. Don’t be silly Mark. Its not possible for all countries to have trade surpluses. Since surpluses balance deficits.

    Banks who don’t have a reserve asset ratio make ponzi-loans and then borrow as an afterthought to cover themselves. Whereas in the opposite extreme an 100%-backed bank must borrow at term and lend at term.

    For our banks or for an American bank then, banks only need our deposits as insurance against running short. They no longer are a broker that turns savings at term, into loans at term.

    Hence when they borrow they borrow for liquidity… as insurance against a run on their cash reserves.

    What this means is they borrow for liquidity, regardless of source. What this means is our banks are always lining up to borrow off overseas banks and that puts us in more or less permanent trade deficit. It also means that they no longer show up at the kids school telling them about the value of savings. Only a very few smaller banks will emphasise savings all the time.

    If you are a bank and you have a high reserve asset ratio requirement…… even 40%, or especially at 100%, you are an agent attempting to convince everyone to save. Since your business doesn’t start until you have convinced someone to save.

    I remember as a kid the local savings bank would come down to the school and try and get us to save. But now as soon as they are allowed they try and sell the kids on credit cards.

    Credit cards would be a disastrous marketing plan for the 100% bank. Because they have to get people to save our they have no business. And savings isn’t just a cash balance. Thats not saving. Thats the demand for cash for holding and a 100% backed bank cannot lend this stuff out. He needs to find clients that hold high cash balances and don’t therefore need to borrow but can on top of these high balances have cash that they can put at term.

    Therefore at 100% backing, and particularly if its multi-commodity money the entire banking system must set in motion a process that causes A COMMODITY SAVINGS JUGGERNAUT.

    But our banks haven’t given a squat about savings for a very long time. Some of our smaller banks a little bit. But not our banking system in general. They merely make the ponzi-loan, then raise the money whenever they feel a bit edgy.

    Hence they are always borrowing off foreign banks. So if our terms of trade are good we are in deficit, and if our terms of trade are bad we are in deficit. And this is not for wealth creation but for banks to insure their ponzi-loans.

    Therefore it is no conincidence that the new dissavings nations tended to be the ones who practiced the ultimate in bank welfarism and got rid of any reserve asset ratio and yet implicitly insured that the banking system got subsidised cash whenever they needed it.

    So we have a problem. We are a debtor nation. It is not necessary for Dutch, Japanese, Taiwanese or Chinese policy measures to include winding up in surplus. But it is critical that Australian, bloody-marvellous Britain, and the United States policy does so…

    In the old days it was possible for one gold-based nation to so expand its money supply that it suffered really critical gold shortages. These were no always world-wide events although if it was the bloody-Marverllous Englanders or the US that would touch it off everywhere. But if Australia in the 1870’s were to do this indigenously than before they could recover they would have had to be in surplus to stop the loss of gold and recover their cash balances.

  35. “Don’t be silly Mark. Its not possible for all countries to have trade surpluses. Since surpluses balance deficits.”

    That was my point. What happens if everyone takes your advice?

  36. Nothing bad surely!!!!! We are not talking about trade barriers here. I did talk about a ban on our banks borrowing from foreign banks until we had phased to at least a 40% reserve asset ratio. But for me thats a six month ban. And thats merely incidental and an interim measure to get us back on track in this credit crunch.

    If everyone goes for that goal, and doesn’t do anything wrong in doing so, then some people will wind up with deficits and others with surpluses. But the deficits would be buffered by much sounder policy. And the extra investment money would be for wealth-creation.

    Its important to us to go after such a goal because of our banks perverse behaviour buttressed as it is by the know-nothing economics community.

    What would happen if everyone followed my policy is merely that internationally traded goods would become cheaper in real terms. Hardly a problem. A further expansion in the division of labour. A good thing.

    But its important for banks not to create debt unwisely. Which they would not do if they didn’t have special priviledges and subsidies, both obvious and implied.

    Debts are supposed to be for wealth creation. Our priviledged and subsidised banks have made a hash of it since they don’t have to create wealth to make profits. They can merely create new money and the reserve bank bail them out implicitly after the fact.

  37. What are you talking about Adrien. This is an irrational whitewash

    So far I’m not aware that Obama has any connection with Ayers apart from sitting on some board with him well after his Weatherman days. Trying to implicate him in some rinky-dink cult of destroying property

    His indulgence of the ironically named Reverend White is far more of a worry to me. But at least he seems to want to revive America’s scientific culture which is more than I can say for the likes of Sarah Palin.

    Also the Weathermen hardly qualify as a terrorist organization, or at least in the context of 70s leftist batshittery think Baader-Meinhof or the Red Brigades, they’re pretty damn benign. I don’t think Ulrich Meinhoff ever considered sending people an evacuation warning. And busting Tim Leary out of jail, irresponsible dickwad guru that he was, does display a certain not entirely misguided activism. People shouldn’t go to jail for dropping acid. And din;t they blow up public service buildings? I thought you’d approve of that. 🙂

    That all said if you’re gonna try and implicate Obama in terrorism you have to do better than link him to something that snuffed it before his balls dropped. That’s reaching.

  38. They killed three people. And they blew up a lot of things in the context of potentially killing a lot more. Some people got off lucky.

    His dealings with this asshole were a lot closer than that. And its not just Ayers. He hangs around marxists all the time. So much so that this red baby I knew at Tigerdroppings was talking glowingly about this guy in about 2004. Its like the word goes out that he’s one of them.

  39. “He hangs around marxists all the time”

    Why isn’t he hanging around you then?

  40. They killed three people.
    You mean the three members of the Weathermen who blew themselves up? I thought Obama was hanging around Friedman’s son. What Marxists are these? Y’know he is advocating a voucher system and stuff.

  41. The weathermen killed three people. They are not people to be flippant about. They killed two cops and a security guard. And they blew up a lot of things that could easily have killed many more people. So they were authentic terrorists.

  42. They killed two cops and a security guard.
    That’s not been proved as I understand it. Most of the incidents involving loss of life or close could have been copycat things. They did appear to target property only. If they wanted to kill why send evacuation warnings? This was the ’70s remember? – As beautiful as a rock in a cop’s face and all that.
    I don’t approve of them mind. I just think the Obama connection’s a little rich. He was 8.

  43. for once I agree with Graeme. The Weathermen were terrorists, it was dumb luck they didn’t kill more people. But I also agree the claims about Obama were overblown – Obama was probably a little kid when all this was going on. And people do change Graeme, including Ayers.

    For example you used to be vaguely free market, now you’re virtually a Stalinist

  44. Don’t come here to tell lies Jason.

    Look Adrien. These things are matters of very grave concern. Its never a good time to vote a radical communist in as President. I don’t see why you want to be downplaying this. Its dishonest and flippant. He doesn’t have decent close associates. He voted PRESENT all the time he was a Senator so that all you guys could project your favourite messiah onto him. Its been a very well handled coup by leftists going some time back. Pretty much working on the script.

    I mean why would you go in and vote “PRESENT”. Not yay or nay but yeah I was there. Not Dr No like Ron Paul….. But just a tabula rasa for people to make of what they might. To project what they want to. I’ve got conservative friends putting great hopes in him shaking them up and I just think its ridiculous.

    Its not like I can argue against this fervour. I’ve got no answer for it. But they are putting a great deal of hopes in this guy who appears to me to be a communist.

  45. all you guys could project your favourite messiah onto him
    My favourite messiah is the one who is strictly an historical curiosity.
    Weathermen? Terrorists? Sure. Why not. I give not a rat’s. I really don’t see Obama as a communist. What’s he gonna do? You could put Vlad Lenin himself in the White House and I doubt it change anything much.

  46. Graeme: Don’t come here to tell lies Jason.
    Jason: I agree with Graeme.
    Yeah Jason don’t tell lies. 🙂

  47. Make no mistake, Obama is a communist. Just you wait until America’s kulaks are ‘liquidated’. Free market states likes Alabama will be crushed beneath Obama’s socialist heel. Baby’s of dissenters will be microchipped. Teachers will be forced to indoctrinate students into thinking that the US ‘lost’ the wars in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and all the other wherever-stans. Obama makes Lenin look like a moderate.

  48. “So far I’m not aware that Obama has any connection with Ayers apart from sitting on some board with him well after his Weatherman days.”

    Look, I have no problem with people saying that Obama is preferable to McCain. Indeed, from a competence point of view, I don’t think there’s any doubt about it. But, equally, there is certainly no point in trying to prettify Obama’s actual record – he did not simply sit on the same board as Ayers. Their relationship was such that Obama actually launched his campaign for the Illinois Senate in Ayers’ living room. Make of that what you will – he wasn’t simply Ayers’ “neighbour”, and the fact that he is trying to brush it off like rather than conceding to the irrefutable facts of the public record suggests that, deep down, he DOES believe that there is something seriously wrong or embarrassing about Ayers.

    Once again, I’m sold on Obama’s RELATIVE merits compared to the Hanoian Candidate, McInane (who spent the better part of three decades lying on Hanoi’s behalf in the cause of pretending that they were not indefinitely keeping US POWs in prison after the ’73 Paris Peace Agreement, even though the Soviet archives explicitly contradicted McCain’s lie that Hanoi was not still holding onto US soldiers) But please, leave out the nonsense about Obama not having personal and political connections to hard-core communists. Actually, both candidates are seriously compromised on that front.

  49. By the way Bird, you should read this guy:

    He’s right down your alley.

  50. Another non-connection between Obama and Ayers:

  51. Yeah I like Paul Craig Roberts. He’s a good bloke. I’m not sure that he’s got the economics entirely right for dealing with the trade deficits problem. But at least he recognizes it really is a problem.

    He’s a bit of an heroic figure in one sense. I think he was one of those blokes who helped design the Reagan tax cuts which included accelerated depreciation. So it basically forced all these guys to retool and launched America back way ahead in high-tech. Those were the days. If this clown Paulson doesn’t let these debts unwind then you cannot really expect that sort of resurgence again. I look at this fellow and his eyes have gone crazy. Bernanke is wandering around after him saying things like ” Sometimes he goes too far…. But he’s the first to admit it!!!”

    Paulsons gone mad and he needs to be neutralised in some way or another. The natives think he’s some sort of white god but he’s really just a rent-seeking savage.

  52. Roberts is a chump:

    “Alex, what is foreign direct investment?”

  53. amazing. Disgusting. is now publishing protectionist tracts. The old man would be vomiting in his grave.
    you should join them Birdy.

  54. No mises has come out against Paul Craig Roberts argument. Although I don’t think they’ve adequately critiqued what he has said. Thats by no means the Mises position. The Mises position is not the Paul Craig Roberts position.

    Thats why I said that I didn’t think he’d really diagnosed the problem correctly. But I suppose no disclaimer on my part is going to satisfy a mad ideologue who has misunderstood comparative advantage as flagrantly as you have.

    Note that Krugmans research that you linked to is more in line with my own position. The position that the two of you have totally misunderstood the implications of comparative advantage and what it means for manufacturing.

    So for example the Mark Suter public service idea seems to be that we are SUPPOSED TO lose our manufacturing to China who is then supposed to offload it in the future to Africa. Well this is mindless idiocy and obviously so. And has nothing to do with any valid notion of comparative advantage at all.

    The two of you just simply have to get over the really mindless shit that you have been sold on.

    For one thing its embarrassing.

  55. I’m not going to put up with an idiot like Mark abusing a true patriot like Roberts whose maybe got one or two small things technically wrong. Your comment will have to be wiped Mark. I’ll just give people time to see it.

  56. censorship of ideas eh graeme?

    say you might want to respond to pedro over at thoughts on freedom. it looks like he’s whippng your ass.

  57. “What can be done? Neither Senator Schumer nor I have solutions. Pressed for solutions by the New York Times editors, we said the solution was to restore the conditions necessary in order for free trade to produce mutual gains to the countries involved. But as we could not specify how factor immobility could be restored, the editors allowed us to present a problem without offering a solution.”

    See here is the thing. I know precisely the sort of things I’d do. I wouldn’t be restoring factor immobility but I would REINDUSTRIALISE. I don’t think there is any shortage of things that can be done particularly in America. Stopping the bleeding of red ink everywhere is the first step. Simply putting the trade balance in more or less permanent surplus is a good thing for a chronic debtor nation, depending on the means by which this is acheived.

    But you’d have to be a lunatic to imagine that the US particularly and Australia as well haven’t got a problem.

    We’ve gone over this so many times and every time we’ve seen that the Hill/Soon delusion rests on clear and blatant logical fallacies.

    The logical fallacy goes like this:

    1. under capitalism trade deficits wouldn’t matter.

    2. Therefore trade deficits never matter regardless of context.

    Clear logical fallacy.

    The two of you have been picked up on it so many times.

    So what we have here is simple stupidity.

  58. Essentially the US has been white-anted by the Paulson brigade and the deficit-spenders. Fractional reserve reductio ad absurdem as well as spending gone wild.

    Under fractional reserve gold the continual production of ponzi-gold would lead to a loss of reserves. This is somewhat akin to what has happened with the fiat money having no balancing mechanism so long as the foreign lenders were themselves socialist money rackets.

    In one way the Americans made a net comsumption gain at the expense of their long-term ability to make stuff. Nothing at all to do with comparative advantage. And in no way confirming the lunatic Australian view of us being SUPPOSSED to lose our manufacturing.

  59. what’s your 10- year plan for REINDUSTRIALISATION Jihad-Birdy?

  60. Well you remember that I wanted to force the banks to increase their reserve asset ratio (10 YEAR PLAN!!!!!!!) as we indirectly released more cash while keeping actual monetary growth very low.

    I consider banks that lend without deposits an invalid business model. So its the phase-out. And while that is happening they ought not be borrowing from overseas. Cambria has confirmed that he thinks this would collapse the dollar. But combined with no monetary growth a fall in the AUD ought not be a collapse (AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGG STALINISM BY WORD ASSOCIATION) but it ought to bring us into trade surplus pretty much straight away. The next thing is to harden up the money by developing a phase in plan to go from fiat to multi-commodity over maybe ten or 15 years ( LORD HELP US….. 2 OR 3 FIVE YEAR PLANS BY WORD ASSOCIATION….. HIDE THE CHILDREN) simply through the appropriate cost recovery for fiat and the appropriate tax exemptions for 100% backed commodity-money.

    Then of course you have everything you can do to increase savings and reinvestment rates via whatever tax exemptions you can have. Mass sackings and the closing down of heaps of bureaucracies in order to be able to get rid of the company income tax on retained earnings….


    Improving property-rights and getting rid of NIMBY but especially for energy-production projects. Sorting out clear rules for private infrastructure. Particularly small container wharves. Having blanket 15-50 year tax exemptions for a lot of this stuff but making sure that supply will be so massive that this doesn’t likely lead to easy profits. Nuclear power would be an example here. ……………………………………

    … So yeah there is plenty of things that one needs to get on with. Yet they all involve improving property rights clarity and reducing the footprint of government. Or should we say these days govybank. Bankyment.

    Maybe looking at ways to pay down debt more quickly in the old fiat money. Given that peoples assets will probably have been reduced in price thats not out of the question.

    Rod Clarke mentioned something about letting payments in PRINCIPAL also be a tax deduction and one can think of problems with that but also of ways that this could be handled to alleviate the burden of suddenly be caught up in tight money and falling asset prices.

  61. why don’t you want the younger generation like and Z to own our own homes Graeme?

    You milk this ponzi money for all it’s worth and then cut it out for the rest of us? for shame.

  62. Yeah I thought that was pretty funny. Don’t tell me you are waiting for housing to get to 7%+ yields again and that will be your signal to go hog wild and each buy up half a dozen places???

    Making sure of course that you are conservative like Humphreys and bail out well before the game of musical chairs ends right?

    I’m sure you’ll get your chance man. But just do what you can to make it the last or second-to-last chance. Even then you can still make a killing off the poor foreigners who are still on fiat. Just wait until their yields are up well above interest and go run the multiple-property gig wherever. In fact having Australia as the hard-money base will surely help you in this endeavour.

    But wealth creation is more about getting some franchise like a Kinkos or something. Expanding its cashflow and selling out and going on holidays for about nine months and pulling a similiar caper off again.

    We are not getting the loan money going to where it can create real wealth. And we are unlikely to until we are used to an environment where living and working space gets a little bit CHEAPER every year.

    But face it. These clowns will give you and Z another really easy to predict run at the housing pass the parcel, musical chairs, hot potato. Just don’t offload to the black man and then blame the recession on him. Be pleased with your winnings without trying to get in the way of improving the system.

  63. Assalamualikum

    Mr Bird if you please

    Do you think Islamic banking system would be preferable to this ponzi money scheme?

    Less waste, better allocation of capital? Yes?

    You see there is much of value in Islam. If only I can change your mind on Israel. My Palestianian brothers deserve their land back

    may Allah progress your objectives

  64. Mr Bird
    One more thing

    Obama no Muslim! Obama worse infidel than McCain. He wants to kill babies. Good Muslims should vote Republican.

  65. The POTENTIAL is there Mustafa. I suspect you’d have to deal with equity a lot. Your religion has interest as the main problem. But its the ponzi-scheme which is the main problem. Its hard to see how one can do without interest very easily.

    You’d really have to work hard on solving any conflict of interest between the owner/manager and equity investor. You’d have to get that brilliantly sorted and then maybe that approach could reap dividends. So if you could pull that off, yes you would have advantages, because the new money creation just causes problems.

    I think a good Muslim should write in “Ron Paul” on his voting slip. I think a good ANYONE ought to do that.

  66. thanking you Mr Bird
    I am not American but I have many family in America.

    I will consider your advice but we cannot waste vote letting a decadent infidel like Obama into power even if he is less pro-Zionist. Obama would let women become more loose and kill more babies.


    You might want to look at this one. If your young up and coming businessmen don’t want to use interest the way to go is for them to work hard to get the best imaginable articles of association to try and minimize any conflict of interest between them and the investor whilst still leaving them the opportunity to do famously well. Its all about making equity investment more convenient, transparent and fair than taking on debt if they want to, for reasons of faith, avoid this interest business. Than they might pay a solid dividend on the basis of some proportion of return on total assets.

    There is a lot of things you could do. Fix your accounting against the silver price for example. So that the investor can expect solid dividends if a notional profit is made in terms of this silver accounting but only minimal dividends are paid if there are paper profits but no profits when aligned to silver…. or something like that. Whichever seems the fairest. I think the company is potentially the better form of business ownership if you can put an enourmous amount of thought into the articles.

    So it might be that the religious proscription appears to be a ball and chain at first but if the hard yards can be done you might wind up with a real advantage.

  68. Hey Graeme aren’t you gonna read this Mustafa guy the riot act man? Remember? We are all Israelis now.
    Good Muslims should vote Republican.
    Well that’s what these guys say. Apparently they think Obama’s gonna take the football away and the game’s gonna be over.
    I myself see a ‘leftist-reversal’ happening…

    AIDE: Well Mr President what should we do about Iraq?

    PREZ OBAMA: Get the hell out. I promised.

    AIDE: But sir. We’re in recession, we’re short of oil and if we pull out the Russians and the French will get the oil we’ve invested $3 968 374 638 358 930.49 in. They’ll use it to boost the Euro and fuck up the Greenback. The US govt will go bankrupt and there will be 87% unemployment.

    PREZ OBAMA: Is that bad?

    AIDE: It will ensure that we will be enjoying the living standard of a Vandal circa 12 000 BCE for at least the rest of the millenium.

    PEZ OBAMA: I’m not sure I follow.

    AIDE: Yes Mr President. It’s bad. Your approval rating will probably suffer a tad.

    PREZ OBAMA: (panics) Oh. My God! (regains compsure) Very well. I see. I see that it wasn’t a core promise. Nuke Baghdad! And Poland as well just in case.

    AIDE: Right you are sir. The war fever that’ll be released, the triumphalist chest-beating that will engulf the morons, ahem, electorate, will give you a window of opportunity sir.

    PREZ OBAMA: What for?

    AIDE: (wink wink) Well have you seen the Clinton Bedroom? It’s right next to the Kennedy Jacuzzi.

    PREZ OBAMA: (Sleazy grin) Well noooo…

  69. I’m making no speculations about Mustafa. I just assume he is one of you guys with a fake beard on.

  70. Assalamualikum Mr Bird
    I am very hurt and offended you choose to insult and degrade my faith like this. I wear a beard because all men in the Prophet Mohammad’s day allah bless his soul wore beards.

    I am not one of your infidels pretending to be me. I am me, a devout conservative Muslim man. I am not stupid goth-kid Adrien or stupid wog Cambria or inscrutable oriental Soon. Please to apologise for this Mr Bird?

  71. Mr Bird

    This Paulson. Is he Zionist?

  72. Hey Mustafa.

    Don’t yer reckon ye should be capitilizin’ Allah’s handle there old bean? Do you miss out on virgins in Paradise for that?
    I’m making no speculations about Mustafa. I just assume he is one of you guys with a fake beard on.
    Yeah I’d take that bet. It ain’t me. Promise. Steve Munn?

  73. Look Adrien. Don’t insult people who you don’t know. I don’t know whose having a lend of me or not. So there is no need to be rude.

    Hank Paulson is a leftist and a CO2-bedwetter. He’s also a madman who doesn’t understand economics or is simply more worried about covering his own ass and those of his banker friends. He’s basically trashing the US economy.

  74. Mustafa.

    Jason’s plenty scrutable; he says things like: “Fuck off you mindless troll”. I think it’s an old Confucian saying. 🙂 .

    Did you hear the one about the horny soldiers, the new Sgt Major and the camels? It’s a corker.

  75. Don’t insult people who you don’t know. I don’t know whose having a lend of me or not. So there is no need to be rude.

    Who are you? And what have you done with the Bird?

  76. Adrien
    Please to apologise for thinking I am Steve Munn. This Munn is one who enters the other way yes? And enters the wrong sex? Allah does not condone such behaviour and you spit on my parents and my parents’ parents for thinking I am such a man,

    You apologise now goth-boy.

  77. Come on Adrien. Leave him alone. Stop being a nuisance and try and get a grip on this outbreak of flagrant national suicide in the US. I’m sure you have some sort of questions to ask where you can compare my answers to Cambrias and so verify that I’m telling you the truth and he’s not.

    By the way, he’s going to make a tonne of money on oil. And that is very apparent even at this stage.

    So fire questions my way and try and understand things.

  78. Mustafa the Beneficient. I humbly supplicate myself in hope of forgiveness. May Allah grant you the grace to grant me mercy. A picture of my Goth homeland.
    By the way, he’s going to make a tonne of money on oil.
    Who? Paulson or JC?

  79. why these banks so powerful in US Mr Bird? they produce nothing.

    Is President Bush in their pocket?

  80. He’s confused. He’s got an economics degree. But he’s basically Keynesian/Supply Side. So he knows that tax cuts are good but thats about all the useful information he has. He’s Mr Washington now. I’ve got a thesis that Presidents only stay immune to Washington for about two or three years and then they are co-opted. I think he was basically a good President until about mid-2003.

    Paulson comes in. And he’s “earned” a million dollars maybe 500 times. People are impressed by that. And if you had asked the President or Jason Soon two years ago whether a bailout in this sort of form was acceptable they would say no. They would say give them cash at high interest to help them handle the bank run but thats it. But this megastar crazyman shows up and quite literally he would become like a big brother. To Bernanke who only has a neoclassical/Keynesian understanding. And to Bush who is similiar. So they are won over when the guy is basically a song and dance man.

  81. JC. Says:
    October 22nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
    No I’m not making a killing in oil. The idiot. I’m long oil at 70ish bucks and it’s now below my entry price. However I’ve done quite well on a few oil services firms I bought. I’m going naked long on those stocks. LOL.”

    You moron JC. What an idiot. Don’t you know to always go to source.

    I said you were GOING TO make a killing on oil. Since small oil companies have been scandalously underpriced and 70USD is a ridiculously low price to pay for oil in a market that is on the verge of shortages.

    You will make a great deal of money on this one. There isn’t even any real risk involved. Get it right you dummy. Don’t go on secondhand information. It might work for momentum trading but it will let you down in the real world.

  82. GMB,
    Speaking of naked shorts, any chance you could give me an answer to my question? I would be interested in your response.

  83. You got it.

  84. President Bush has been good man. He called Islam ‘religion of peace’. He liberated my Iraqi brothers from infidel Saddam. Now Iraq back to Islamic rule. Very good ,man. I cannot believe he can be so stupid. This ‘neoclassical’ economics to blame? You use word a lot.

  85. Fractional reserve economics is to blame. But only indirectly going decades back. One cannot escape the intellectual-political environment that one acts within if one is a politician. Well you might be able to but it would take real genius. Like a younger Ron Paul or a Martin Van Buren.

    So him and his fellow Texans come to Washington with a lot of independence and some fine ideas about sorting things out for a change. But his crowd, effective as they were at first, were all bogged down and neutralized pretty early on.

    Reagan was a bit of an exception. He appeared to be able to lurch back to being the old Reagan whenever it looked like he was drifting into the norms of Washington.

    You’ve got a couple of good guys like Ron Paul and Tom Coburn. But the whole thing is rigged that you have to go along to get along. And its really enemy territory. The whole city has turned into a giant looting and counterfeiting racket. And when they need to do something serious they cannot appear to get anything done. I’m not blaming the administration too much as it was constituted in its original form. But they made a couple of really bad strategic errors early on that I hope no well-meaning people ever will do again.

  86. “Fractional reserve economics is to blame. ”


    “Mises and Hayek are to blame”.

    Busted Graeme, busted.

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: