Posted by: graemebird | December 14, 2011

Comments Soon To Be Wiped By Quisling John.

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


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

Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

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

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

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

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

Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

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

Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

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

Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

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

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

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

Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

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

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

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

    Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

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

    Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

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

    Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

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

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

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

    Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply

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

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

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

Comment by Chodorov | December 15, 2011 | Reply



  1. Good post by THR

  2. Mr Bird

    Mar’n has been most impressive lately

    Obviously a gentile

  3. […] Financial Provides US$4 Million Growth Capital to Harmony … – Sacramento BeeComments Soon To Be Wiped By Quisling John. .recentcomments a{display:inline !important;padding:0 !important;margin:0 […]

  4. Wow. Gold and Silver have really dived. Good time to get organised to buy some or buy some more. I thought it was too good to be true that I had seemingly bought at the bottom. I’m in loss territory now. I’ll have to buy more somehow.

  5. As I suspected, John wiped all the comments and one didn’t need to be a soothsayer to know he would.

    Anyway, here is a video on using baking soda as a way of hurting cancer:

    • C’mon baking soda has lots of medical, cosmetic, domestic and culinary uses. But claiming it can cure or diminish cancer is equivalent to bogus research that states tall people are more likely to get lung cancer or nuns to die of ovarian cancer. It’s rabbit hole stuff. And gets us not one bit closer to understanding the enigma of cancer and how to effectively treat it.

      The fact is that we don’t know the causation of cancer though there are a lot of theories. We don’t know why some healthy and clean living people succumb and others who have all of the lifestyle or health indicators for developing cancer do not. And we don’t know why some people recover from cancer to die of something else many years down the track and others die in short time frames following a primary diagnosis of cancer.

      • Well some people think they have cured their cancer with baking soda. Mum was getting better when she was using baking soda. She then packed it in, because it made her feel sick and she was told to go through another bout of poisonous chemo-therapy. The chemo-therapy immediately killed her. LIke took her down immediately.

        There is no reason not to believe that baking soda cannot do the job, because the cancer cell simply cannot handle high pH. Cannot handle high pH at all. Will be killed outright or electrically drained in a high pH environment. So there is every reason to believe it could at least be helpful, and personal testimony suggests that this is true.

  6. Hang on. I thought the dude was for, like, free speech. You mean he censors comments he disagrees with? No. Tell me it ain’t so.

    I had to chuckle when Wiki revealed the priceless piece of information that Humphreys was gormless enough to advocate as a prime policy position of the LDP, presumably, the abolition of the old age pension. Ha bloody ha.

    That alone will assure he is forever considered a complete an utter tool.

  7. Yeah he’s mad as a hatter. A very troubled individual. I mean I’d want to wean us off the old age pension over 40 years, giving us time to make the changes to the economy, which made it basically unnecessary. But I’m thinking in the context of being particularly kind to the working poor, and to the old guys, so that we don’t have a human tragedy. But he ups and talks about cutting the old fellows off. He’s also soft on government spending. So he thinks more or less totally different to me. Its as if he’s running hard to discredit small government ideas.

  8. I can see why he censors my comments personally now. But he’s always done so. Even comments where I haven’t been rude to anyone. Particularly good comments that throw light onto one side of the argument. More than almost anyone I’ve seen he seeks to manipulate the debate, rather than facilitate the debate. In some ways he’s worse than the Prodeo crowd in this regard.

  9. Graeme, Menzies House not only censors comments and commenters, though less so more recently I think since it’s only lefties that keep it going, but it has in the past under Humphreys editorship published the IP numbers of those who have offended the blog masters. Shameful stuff.

    Mind you Judith Sloan and Sinclair Davidson have done that too. And Cambria has dobbed in people publishing under their real names to their employers hoping they will be penalised for the crime of making a comment on a blog during 9-5pm.

    Really low characters all round are some righties and faux-libertarians.

    Desperate and malicious. Thank the goddesses they are not screws in a prisoners of war camps.

  10. This is of interest re the cancer discussion.

  11. Right. The banking thief supporters seem to unaccountably get all these positions in control of all these blogs.

  12. Right, but if this Doctor had followed the science of the matter he would have a good chance of living. The choice is not poisoning yourself in order to live a little bit longer in pain. The idea is to beat the cancer.

  13. Did you read the whole article? In three minutes? You have sort of missed the point, again.

    And the point of the article is that doctors will pass on the treatments in order to live without the bullshit of therapies that make little difference.

  14. Right yeah I got that side of it. Its pretty disgusting really.

  15. “Dimon was responding Wednesday to a question at an investor conference about the hostile political environment towards banks.
    “Acting like everyone who’s been successful is bad and that everyone who is rich is bad — I just don’t get it,” said Dimon at the conference, which was organized by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.”

    So its not just Joseph Cambria. All these people are morons, vermin, and arrogant with it. He could have chosen just to shut up. Here is a fellow who makes all his money through market wrecking, and stealing. And he says “I just don’t understand…”

    Well he may not understand. Just like Corzine may not understand where the money has gone that he stole. All of these guys are a stupid as a bag of hammers.

  16. […] Introduction to Debt FinancingComments Soon To Be Wiped By Quisling John. […]

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: