Frediano

The smoking "they told us so" gun from 1999. http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/Policy%20page/fer1999.pdf "There should be no government guarantee of either hedge fund investors or creditors. They, of all people, are able to bear their own losses. Indeed, given the extraordinary events surrounding the LTCM episode, it is important that government regulators, and especially the Federal Reserve, make it crystal clear that hedge fund investors and creditors will have to bear the full costs of their mistakes or misjudgments. Hedge fund losses should be borne by hedge fund investors and creditors, and not by other market participants or taxpayers, either directly or indirectly." ... "The Federal Reserve's actions clearly raise a question about what its "lender-of-last-resort" policy is, and about whether in the future it intends to extend the Federal safety net that underpins financial markets to all finaincial institutions deemed "too large to fail." The prospect of receiving federal assistance in times of market stress has the potential to affect private incentives in undesirable ways and to create additional moral hazard risk in the financial system." LTCM, we were told, was a 'once in a hundred year event. Not ten years later, the potential of a $3.5B bailout became the reality of a $Trillion+ bailout. This was Alan Greenspan among those pushing this NYFed action back in 1998. Senility?

Brant: I for sure acknowledge the commonality, the good the bad, the saints the sinners, the on average, we're average, in both those with and without military experience. But there is an ethical issue that (for me) tilts the scales. Whatever results in the spectacle of that weasel LBJ nightly directing bombing missions in Vietnam has got to be burned. Whatever empowers the unsightly mess that is defense contracting, with folks dealing in safety and comfort of Georgetown Bistros for fun and profit with no incentive at all to see an end to conflict, while at the same time, other Americans are living in the hurt going nowhere by design 24/7 for as long as the political process will tolerate it-- that sick national thing, whatever it is, needs to be blasted to Hell. I've often thought about the similarities between Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Bush 41. They were among the last centrist American Presidents, shaped, I assume, by their at least similar WWII experiences. And yet, -- and this is what I can't wrap my head around -- Eisenhower basically gave this nation Nixon, and JFK gave us LBJ. Head-snap. Huh? Is that what fealty to 'electoral college map' RealPolitiks gives us? We -need- a mix of weasels and non-weasels to lead this nation, to give it 'weasel' balance? I'd just as soon we not put the weasels in power, but that is exactly what our political process seems to do. It is like a weasel magnet. Especially the similarities between Eisenhower and Kennedy. Kansas doughboy and NE Patrician son of rum runner? Nonsense. Look at their administrations and values. And why not? That was a much more unified America in that brief post WWII period. But there was something else creeping into America back then, like a disease-- something that, for fun, or sport, or profit or worse -- as part of an agenda to tear apart the greatest nation on earth -- something that manufactured differences between Eisenhower and JFK, requiring of those campaigns a kind of ... circus politics that persists today. This nation was -robbed- of what was going to be the 1964 JFK-Goldwater campaign when JFK was assassinated. These two colleagues had planned to set a standard for American politics that would have changed politics in America for generations; lost in a split second in Dallas. What we got instead was that shit on his shoes pig fucker scumbag LBJ, followed by that equal scumbag Nixon. (Literally, an LBJ tactic was accusing his political opponents of 'fucking pigs; sure it's not true but they will have to deny it!" That was LBJ. This nation has never recovered from JFK's assassination. It irreparably broke America. You and I have lived our lives on a sinking, burning ship.

Was Nixon's resignation really enough? Can someone explain to me, why after ten+ years of permitting a meat grinder to endlessly grind under 'limited' rules of engagement and 55,000 American lives thrown at 'something?' that ending that conflict with 'Oh-- never mind. We really didn't mean it' didn't end with history's biggest fragging ever? I will -never- understand that. There should have been bodies swinging from ropes in DC. Add 535+1+9 to the 55,000 on that black wall -- plenty of room for just a few more -- with a litte spraypaint on the Washington Monument: "And don't ever pull that shit again." Instead of taking it out on the weasel perps, this nation took it out on the heros. You know what? Screw -that- nation with a chainsaw.

If there are yet advocates of the idea of 'inexperienced civilian control over the military' who are, for instance, fond of what LBJ did in Vietnam, then I'd love to hear the theory of why permitting some to vote others into harm's way is some kind of virtuous act beneficial to the nation. Not only that, but in LBJ's case, permitted to micromanage the ways and means and missions and goals and objectives of their bleeding and dying on distant battlefields while the deals in the Georgetown Bistros back at the CronyFest on the Potomac rage on in full glory.

Someone in this nation's past sold us on the idea that inexperienced civilian control over the military was some kind of virtuous thing in and of itself. Do you know who has been pushing that meme? Inexperienced civilians, justifying their weaseldom; today embodied in the safe deals being made in Georgetown Bistros far from the bloody pointy end of the stick. They even have most of the military convinced this is a noble idea. It is B.S. And in practice, it is the E-1s who pay now and pay later with their blood and treasure, and the higher you slide up that E-scale, the more frequently you will find folks arranging their soft landing in Ike's MIC from where to run out the clock in their new role as bleeder of a nation of taxpaying E-1s.

Athenian Democracy: anyone could not only speak at Assembly, but had a kind of moral obligation to, if not speak, at least attend and pay attention to what was being said. But, only those who had passed through the Ephebes (military training and service) could vote in Athenian Democracy. The Ephebes was not only the guardian of Athenian Democracy, but its gateway to Athenian Citizenship. There was a difference between 'denizens' and 'citizens' and only 'citizens' could vote. But denizens could speak at Assembly. Were in fact paid to attend to speak at assembly, if needed. It was also possible to lose ones citizenship, including, being assessed as 'an idiot.' Idiocy included 'debt to the state.' Debtors to the state paid off their debt to the state as 'slaves' in the state silver mines and/or paying fees to the state. From these fees, rightful denizens, including citizens, were paid to attend Assembly and speak. It was regarded as idiocy to permit those already in debt to the state to be able to vote themselves additional debt from the state, and so, was not permitted. Tell me; what is there not to love about Athenian Democracy? IMO, it requires only one adjustment to transition to modern times: eliminate its old world sexism(women were not allowed into the Ephebes). Make it more like the Israeli IDF today.

Not only should it be a prerequisite to becoming president, it should be a prerequisite to a citizens right to vote-- just like it was in Athenian Democracy. There is -nothing- positive to say about the history of inexperienced civilian control over the military in this nation; nothing. Not for a single moment since LBJ's weasel micromanagement of Vietnam, which after ten years and 56,000 American lives, this government ended with a 'Never mind, we really didn't mean it.' Not serving in the all volunteer military is not necessarily a sign of cowardice, but it sure as Hell is a sign of no experience sufficient to direct this nation's military as CIC, which is the number one job of POTUS. (It is not the #1 job of POTUS to 'run the Economy;' that was the failed USSR.) The only folks in this nation voting on if and how this nation goes to war should be the folks who will fight and die in those wars, period, not the folks who will profit from others fighting and dying in those wars. That is a criminal abomination of epic proportions. Screw 'civilian control over the military;' it has been nothing but a massive weasel fest.

Being a debtaholic may be a lousy life plan, but there are no third parties involved when the FED 'buys' US Treasury Debt. There is no 'debt' behavior by the population required for the FED to accept US Treasury Bond (paper bond with zeros printed on it) as debt. The other kind of debt that the FED could hold would be, repackaged bank debt, from private banks, that package that debt and sell it to the FED. That would be, GSE's repackaging debt as MBS and selling repackaged debt to the FED. But that is minority debt on the FED balance sheet, not majority debt. Majority debt is US Treasury debt bought directly from Treasury. There is also a trace amount of Gold held as 'assets'. (0.011 T of that 4.5T in listed FED balance sheet assets is Gold. That's it.) Some amount of it is bank debt backed by repackaged debt owed by third parties. (And some of that might actually be real debt, though much of it was not, which was the basis of 'the crisis' in 2008.) But that isn't the majority of the $4.5T in 'debt' held by the FED. The majority of that debt today is funny money US Treasury debt sold directly from the Treasury to the FED. The only drunken sailor in any of that is the insatiable gaping maw of the US Treasury. This has skyrocketed since 2008. (Treasury indirectly backed all the 'E-Coli' infected not really debt that the GSEs were holding from that experiment in keeping the real estate bubble inflated beyond the Boomer Pig in the Python demographic bubble. A confluence of interests, but they shepherded precisely that segment of our population least able to bear the title 'last investor into the bubble' into -exactly- that role. None of that was possible without the direct participation of the government in the real estate/ mortgage market. The perps who created the crisis blamed 'the market' and got even greater power to Screw The Pooch.

For sure. What I meant by 'works' was, without perverting the value-for-value economies, as in, what happens when a counterfeiter shows up and spends funny money. Think about that; if 'spending' in and of itself is 'stimulative' then why do we object so strongly to what counterfeiters do? Aren't they by definition -- by 'Keynseian Logic' -- stimulating something called 'The Economy' by 'spending?'

The above abuse of the FED is part of what is drastically wrong with our implementation of a central bank. The concept of a central bank only works if certain rules/practices are adhered to. 1] The central bank cannot directly participate in the economies. 2] The debt that a central bank accepts must be real debt backed by real -value- or else the current accounts it issues in return for holding that debt are value-less value-proxies; counterfeit. Debt must be -real- debt or else the system of fractional reserve banking and a central bank is simply a means of government counterfeiting and stealth taxation on all of the value producing economies. (This was exactly the 'crisis' of 2008; the fractional reserve system was over-whelmed with too much debt that was not backed by actual value-- like, a legitimate ability to repay in the future. This fake debt came from exactly the perps who who were holding it in such vast quantities, by design, and yet, they convinced the balance of the nation to eat their losses by way of the socialization of their risk-- that that was necessary to 'save the economy as a whole.' More like, saving their ability to continue to cornhole the economies; to cling to their tsunami of money for nothing Gig, to endlessly tax the value producing economies without bounds or even notice. They got away with it and left a rotted, gutted shell. Paper bond debt backed only by future bigger paper bond debt is not debt that is backed by actual -value- only by paper bonds; zeros on paper. Other abuses of our FED: instead of simply being returned to the pool of available current accounts available to buy and hold bonds, all interest received by the FED is simply handed over to the US Treasury to spend by the US Government. This is reported as 'profits' and America reads the headlines and nods its head, not recognizing the latest increase in taxation on the value producing economies.

Brant: If you buy a T-Bill from Treasury, you hand over current accounts from 'you' to Treasury. Yes, like 'war bonds.' And your current-accounts represent past deferred value created by YOU, actually in the economies. So when Treasury spends your current accounts, there is no perversion of the economies (by that act alone). You have 'loaned' your already created deferred value to the Treasury. In the future, that Treasury will pay you back with some small amount of interest and you will go celebrate your big win in the future by going out into the future economies with the current accounts that Treasury has paid you back with, and then look for actual value in those economies. (Where did it come from?) It might have come from taxation on a value producer. In that case, the current accounts handed to you by Treasury is backed by actual value in the economies. Or, it might have come from a secretary at Treasury , empowered by a Congress painlessly signing pen to paper, printing zeros on a piece of paper and called it a bond, who took that piece of paper to the FED, who handed her a trillion dollars in spendable current accounts created from nothing but that piece of paper, and then that secretary handed some of those current accounts to you. That 'bond' bought from Treasury by the FED is not like the 'bond' bought by you from Treasury. Your bond purchased from the Treasuryis backed by actual value. The other bond is backed only by a promise to show up in the future with a new piece of paper with even more zeros printed on it. (It's not even backed by direct taxation on value producers-- the debt is not ever paid down or paid off. It is only ever increased. The net effect of painlessly only ever increasing the debt is to replace old debt only with new debt and add more debt as funny money spending, which is indirect taxation on the value producing economies. It is indirect taxation because Treasury turns around with those valueless unbacked dollars and walks into the value producing economies and demands actual value for them. This tsunami of funny money benefits those closer to the tsunami than it does the balance of the economies, which is why DC and Wall Street are happy and Main Street has been on its ass. This is exactly what 'counterfeiters' do, and we've been told by the perps closest to the tsunami that this process 'stimulates' some singular thing they like to call 'the' Economy. I'm sure counterfeiters find counterfeiting stimulating, too. Via this process -- a 'crisis' is always too good a thing to waste, this two party infestation of the CronyFest on the Potomac has found a way to tax and ride the value producing economies -endlessly- , without bounds, and especially, without calling the process 'taxation' because after decades of this, the nation still doesn't have a clue why it is on its knees and bleeding from the ass.

Brant: The real dollar liabilities of the Federal Government are zero. If we focus on the dollar. And the applicable word is 'zero.' Because when it comes to dollars, 'zeros=zeros.' But not when it comes to value. This hellish partnership between the US treasury and the FED has us focuses on 'the dollars.' ANd what is happenening is, the value producing economies are being robbed blind. Not equally, but in proportion to how far the actors in the economies are separated from the tsunami of funny dollar 'zeros' just created. Look at the latest FED balance sheet. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm It claims to hold 4.5T is assets. 0.011B of this is Gold. The rest -- all of it, is 'debt.' But all debt isn't created equal. The lions share of that 'debt' is US Treasury debt, which is not 'real' debt, which is the basis of your claim above in reference to 'dollars.' But screw the 'dollars' (which is exactly what they did.) Follow the 'value.' Here is -exactly- the foundation of that US treasury debt. A secretary at the US treasury prints a 1 with 12 zeros behind it on a piece of paper. In theory, that debt is backed by the 'full faith and credit of the US treasury' to go out and tax the value producing economies in the future and repay that debt with real value(provided for by the value creating economies.) But that isn't what happens. And before you say, 'Thank God they don't tax us to pay off those bonds' think again. But not only do they not tax anything of value to ever pay off those bonds with real value, they never pay off the debt, period. In the future, during the next 'crisis of funding government' Congress simply signs pen to paper effortlessly , creates nothing of value(not even, tax on future economies)and simply raised the debt ceiling-- allowing a secretary to print now a 1 with 13 zeros on it to 'pay back' the old note/debt with a 1 and 12 zeros on it, but again, with fresh, new current accounts in US treasury and more zeros on paper bonds held by the FED. Total new value in the economies so far? Zero-- the artistic value of zeros printed on paper bonds. But what does the US treasury do with the funny money? It 'spends' it. It goes out into the value producing economies and the US Government expropriates/demands actual value and hands out valueless dollars backed by the same value that existed before with less current accounts in existence. And the recipients turn around and look for value for those dollars, may or may not find any, but the fact is, the farther away you are from that tsunami of valueless dollars raining from on high, or simply holding dollars in some fashion, the more you are getting hosed. As far as the value producing economies are concerned, how is this any different than counterfieters? Exactly the same economic act. As well, how is the impact significantly different than just being taxed? The difference is, the CronyFest on the Potomac can direct its 'spending' in the most power grubbing way possible, in order to buy votes and cling to the Gig. The 2008 'crisis' was a crisis in clinging to the Gig. The Perps told America it was necessary to socialize the risk of past financial weaseldom in order to 'save the economy as a whole' and a bewildered Main Street let them do it. The only 'crisis' in 2008 was going to be weasels taking a bath for past weasledom, exactly like 1998 with LTCM and the NY Feds implicit backup. The weasels shed their risk on the taxpayers. The weasels avoided the discipline of market education. The weasels traded off a few for sale signs in the toney CT and Northern VA burbs in exchange for a ton of for sale signs across the rest of the nation; a free for some, paid for by the same folks who fight and die in the wars that these weasels profit from. Today the weasels cheerlead the cooked unemployment and inflation numbers and tell Main Street not to believe its own lying eyes. They point to 'record highs on Wall Street' and there is where your 'dollars ... zero' accounting shows up. Because of high real unemployment/low utilization, wages are suppressed, which suppresses prices, and so, the funny money erupts where it can-- as inflated stock prices scored in units of dollars, with companies 'valued' for hanging on to stagnant pools of non-circulating dollars. IOW, this insanity sold as 'priming a pump' was really 'priming a siphon' and the pools of dead dollars ran downhill and collected in non-circulating pools. There is no connection between 'record Wall Street highs' and prosperity on Main Street; there is no circulation of value in the value producing economies. Worse, it is largely recognized that taking on risk and having actual skin in this rigged game is like pre-paying your own ransom. And so, the sick economies of waiting we have today. Broken by politico financial weaseldom going back decades and crossing party lines.

Debtaholism is not just a disease of the debtors, but of lenders. It is precisely analogous(in my mind)to the difference between the concept of a central bank and the reality of how our central bank is implemented. There is nothing inherently appealing about debt, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it either, if/when/where debt is administered under a set of principles. Individuals choose debt as an alternative among many. Lenders choose to lend to debtors as an alternative among many. There is a market for debt. There is even a market for preachers standing on street corners and demonizing Evil debt. The young often choose debt over deferred satisfaction of wants and needs, true. But in a world with debt being gamed and risk shed onto others, all kinds of people are glomming onto debt. The choice is made by debtors and lenders (in a rational marketplace.) Is a debtor offering an actual value -- a promise to create fresh new value in the future-- in exchange for present value? Is the risk of failure reasonably assess-able? Or, as is the case today, is the risk being gamed somewhere, shed by unseen actions of others with access to OPM, such that the principles involved in this debt/lender transaction are shedding their risk unwillingly onto third parties? A young person with no area under the curve-- with no past assets -- claims yet to offer an actual asset as collateral: the ability to create new value. In exchange for that value, they ask for present value at some negotiated exchange rate, current value for future value. Not without risk. But when intelligently managed (ie, what bankers used to do as part of their business model), the transactions were not destructive to the economies, and in fact, were one means (not 'the' means) of building future economies. There is, in theory, no perversion of present or future economies when the sum of debt is equal to the sum of savings + investment and when that debt is backed by actual, legitimate promise to create new value in the future; it is a (not 'the') required element in the magical conversion of deferred present value into an actual future value-- balanced on an accounting basis, and balanced on a reality basis, as in, how the future is funded to show up ready to create new value. But this simple model of debt/savings is fringe in our economies. Somewhere on the way down from the top of the hill, we became overcome with a belief in debt itself out of any balance as the means to 'grow' the economies-- to sustain growth not backed by fundamentals, but by artificially expanding debt. Which is exactly what happened to the real estate market. The Boomer demographic wave -- the pig in the python -- had largely moved through real estate prime time, and is now cresting only on the upper end of that scale. The overall market had to shrink, or at least, could not sustain the same rate of growth as when the pig was moving year by year inexorably through the python. Government policy and private short sighted bottom line interests combined, a conflation of agendas, to artificially keep the bubble inflated. How? By substantially lowering the requirements for credit. By eliminating the past principles of sound lending. By shepherding precisely the segment of our population least able to afford the title "last investor in the bubble' into exactly that role. Insanity. Sobering; in order not to fundamentally pervert the value for value economies, the sum of all debt should equal the sum of all savings and investment after present spending(including taxes) = present consumption(including by government ). (the present spending/present consumption is inherenty in balance; what is left is a balance between deferred present value and implied future value. Those last must also balance or else we are usually, becuase it is most often debt that dominates, trying to net steal from the future.) But there is no such thing as public savings or investment; every tax dollar and then some is immediately spent by governments. (There is a fringe exception: the capital accounts maintained by some local school districts, representing deferred spending of taxes. But that is it when it comes to government and savings/investment.) So, the sum of all (private + public) debt should equal the sum of all (private) savings and investment after paying taxes, or else the current value for value economies will be perverted. That is not in balance, and our economies have long endemically been perverted by this imbalance. There is no longer any faith in the economic system because it has long been gamed at every instance by government and institutions and by rats on a broken and sinking ship. The gaming is not going to stop, not even when the wheels fall off. The gaming will just get more intense, because that is our tribe; on average, it is average. Especially in DC. Here is an easy prediction; compliance rates with our taxing laws are at an all time low; we are well into the 'at the point of a gun' mode of keeping the gig flying for another 15 minutes..

Well, there is no doubt (IMO) that looking back at our history, central banking was like a gateway drug to socialism. But my point was, there is nothing fundamental, as in, inherent in the mechanics of what a central bank is if it functions under restrictions, that perverts value-for-value economies. It is not the mechanical fact of a central bank that is 'socialism.' It is the unattended faulty functioning of it -- the violation of the required non-participator principles-- that is 'socialism.' The abuse of the concept of a central bank. And in reality, if it is the nature of tribal human nature not to be able to resist the urge to abuse it, then it is more that a gateway drug to socialism, it is the one-way on ramp with the anti-backup spikes, because parasitic tribal power does not relinquish parasitic power willingly. The on ramp is abetted by the following problem: by what Magic is deferred spending, current value, converted into an actual future value? And its corollary: do we believe, as an act of faith, that there is an actual present value in the promise of a future value? If we believe that personally, than we personally accept a promise of a future value as an actual present value. But this is not only an accounting transaction; it is an (not 'the')actual means of converting a present value into an actual future value. It is not 'the money' that is key to this alchemy of current to future value; it is the value. You create present value. You consume present value. If you end up with excess , deferred present value, then depending on the nature of that value, most value loses value over time. The Universe has rigged that game. That Chevy IROC-Z is going to rust out. That extra loaf of bread is going to rot. That Resort in the poconos that looked so bright and shiny in the 80s is going to look kind of dated 30 years later. That CP/M How To book you offered in 1981 doesn't quite have the same value today. If you -do nothing- with that deferred consumpition present value to -preserve- it, it will be lost over time. It was of value at the time and in the context you created it; the world has moved on. The Universe has exacted its entropic toll on the toll road into the future. So you get the great idea, "I will sell my excess present value and convert it into cash!" Great, now you have cash. So put it under the mattress for 30 yrs, and then go out into the future economies and find value for that case. Where does that future value come from? Your original deferred value has long left the economies. Deteriorated, depreciated, consumed. You have in your hand the heating value of the notes in your hand. But wait; you say, why not certificates 'backed by Gold.' You mean to say, way back when, when you created your excess value, someone took your excess value and handed you over certificates backed by Gold or some other commodity that itself is an actual value of some kind? You could have exchanged your excess present value for the Gold itself, and then just hung onto the Gold for 30 yrs, and then, in 30 yrs...you'd have your Gold. Then, in 30 yrs, you look around for someone in thise new present economies with excess value they want to sell, and you hand them the Gold. Or, as a convenience, Gold certificates, and lather, rinse repeat. OK, so this alchemy, under this model, depends on the total amount of Gold reserves in someone's hands at any given moment. The entire market for this alchemy consists of retired Gold miners who want something you might have. Or, who have exchanged that Gold with the issuers of Gold backed certificates at some rate. So, where the future value comes from is clear; it comes from someone who has created excess value in the future who is willing to exchange that excess value for the certificates in your hand. Where the initial value of the Gold came from was from its intrinsic value as a durable desired scarce commodity that is difficult to find and mine and requires effort to bring into a form usable for its desired purpose. And, as well, an initial sign of socialism was the attempt to artificially dictate the value of that commodity and control it's 'price' independent of market supply and demand. Gradients drive everything. Populations might grow, but economies limited by the supply of Gold as backing for deferred future value will have gears grinding, straining to move forward. There would be incentive for folks to 'invest' in commodities other than Gold, with their commensurate risk. Even, in the promises of others to create value in the future. Ie, to accept debt-- real debt, backed by a real promise to create value in the future. And our economies evolved many forms of that transaction, and where it was transparent, so that the underlying risk was asessable even if not ultimately knowable, individuals have accepted that risk and that debt as an actual present value in exchange for present value. When done 'right' -- this is not only acceptable risk, but the required means of turning present value into future value. There is no future value without future creation of value. There is no future creation of value without the future means of creating that value. And there is no future means of creating future value without investment in the means of creating that future value. When that alchemy is managed correctly, present value is actually converted into actual future value. (Or, the alternative is to shine our Gold in the future. If Gold is the only value we ever seek, then totally not a problem. Is that the case?) When we are young, we have no area under the curve. We have no accumulated wealth, the passage of time and our efforts and accumulation of deferred consumption. But what we do have is a future at risk and the potential to create future value. We have the abililty to promise to create future value. When we are middle aged, we have not only some area under the curve, but are creating excess value beyond present needs. We have the means as well as the need to defer present value into future value. One way (not 'the' way) to do that is to accept the debt of those with the ability to promse to create future value(as their only current asset.) So there is a market, and it is met, with suppliers and consumers of debt. When we are old, we have more area under the curve, but are in a position of cashing ids,n on old deferred value. DO we eat our Gold? or do we consume new present value? From where? Created by whom? When this alchemy is managed reasonably, it is win-win all around, at every stage. it is why it works. But here is the God awful truth; this complex scheme of alchemy can be abused at every turn by every player, especially by our tribal machinery ever searching for 'resources.' And it has be, to the point that we might have broken it. regards, Fred

There is nothing inherently wrong(as in, perverting value in the economies) with the idea of a central bank that issues notes based on debt, as long as it follows certain restrictions on its behavior; it is the operations of our FED and US Treasury which ignore those restrictions that is exactly the problem with our implementation of a central bank. 1] It, as the holder of last resort, must insure that the debt it holds is -actual debt- with a legitimate future value. By necessity, it must then insure that the debt packaged and handed to it by member banks is -actual debt- with a legitimate future value. If that fundamental function of a central bank is not met, then its operations (issuing current accounts in exchange for holding debt) perverts present and future value in the economies. 2] It cannot directly or indirectly participate in the value for value economies using the current accounts that it generates. It can only generate revenues from fees for service (value for value.) If in any way it 'spends' the current accounts it creates, or interest received based on holding those notes, it will pervert the value for value economies. Our FED accepts paper bonds from Treasury with zeros printed on them that are eventually repaid only with yet more paper bonds with even more zeros printed on them. This fails #1. Our FED returns all interest received (from any source) to the US Treasury for our government to spend. This fails #2. That is the essence of how the operation of the FED perverts our economies; it is -not- independent from our government if it is accepting valueless bonds and also handing over 'interest' to the US Treasury. What should the FED do with interest received? Return it to current accounts from which it will need to 'create' less 'money from nothing' the next time it accepts a bond. Not 'hand it to the US Treasury to spend.' Why couldn't it do that? It could. But if it did that, the US Treasury couldn't spend the interest received by the FED. Independent my ass. The media breathlessly announces these transfers as 'FED profits' handed over to the US Treasury. Bull. It is the US Treasury effectively running the presses, money from nothing of value (such as the real value of legitimate debt, a -real- promise to create new value in the future economies in exchange for present current accounts.) regards, Fred

The onlysociety with complete freedom would be a society with no laws at all. To advocate any kind of law is to advocate some restriction on freedom. I could live easily, with complete freedom enough, advocating for laws restricted to prohibiting forced association as the basis for any constitutionally permitted law. I can readily refer to past and present instances of forced association running amok. I can't imagine an instance of free association running amok. There are restriction on freedom, and there are meaningless restrictions on freedom; I will never lose sleep over me or any peer on earth losing the freedom to force association. Murder, rape, theft, fraud, extortion... laws against same all readily licenced on the basis of prohibiting forced association. What necessary action by anyone (a private individual or an institution of state government)is so necessary that it demands forced association? Modern America, for decades, does not even staff its #1 mission of the federal government -- national defence -- via forced association. It is an all volunteer military. If not that, then ... what critical function of government justifies forced association? What necessary act of any peer, including pursuit of that Holiest of Holies-- that which peers want from other peers-- justifies an advocacy of forced association? And so, a basis for law that I could easily live with. Not complete freedom? I'd sleep like a baby losing my freedom to advocate forced association. No, I'm not talking about absurd examples, like forced association with your own skin or family as a child. I am talking about political forced association, where I define politics as the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence. Who, anywhere, can justify advocacy of forced association? We've run the experiment many times; humans naturally flee forced association. For a good reason. None of us mere peers are that smart to impede the free meander of intelligence in the universe.

Violins, cowbells...like something, I suspect. They are all but -begging- the US to engage in some fashion, I suspect, because they know under the present regime that would be some inneffective gesture politics half measure. 'limited' bombing.' Making a few hovels bounce in the desert. Because ... I suspect .. no matter what we do or won't do (within the present administrations preferred 'limited' range of options)... it will be inneffective in thwarting any actual attack on a US city; their purpose, beyond expanding into a power vacuum, is to add to their recruitment PR effort by poking a stick into the eye of the Great Satan, once the source of Magic Jinny Make Boom From Sky. By provoking the US into an inneffective 'limited action' of making a few hovels bounce for our petty internal political optics, they too, get to use the footage of hovels bouncing in the Squalor Caliphate as PR optics. They can and will claim, for their global PR purposes, that the next get lucky and manage to light the fuse this time in their own shoes crap fight over in US streets is a -response- to the bombings by the US in the Squalor Caliphate. Respond or don't respond, they are still going to poke a stick in the eye of the Great Satan. Great Satan will run around madly for a few months/years and weather the pain, and the Squalor Caliphate will use the footage of Obama and Pelosi and Reid and the rest of those critters running around and making speeches as surefire recruitment videos. ("You are being held down by this dross?" Come join the Squalor Caliphate! Be sure to wipe with the left and eat with the right or off with your head." At least Obama isn't using the word 'must' aimed at these Dark AGers like he once did at Putin. It just makes him look...well like he is. Either weak due to incompetence or weak due to malevolence. There isn't a third possibility. Which weak would we prefer? He's weak because he's clueless pampered Golden Passer Ivy Leaguer, or he's weak because he's closet commie silently cheering on the emergence of the Squalor Caliphate? Now there's a difference in search of a distinction.

The advocates of our own form of national totalitarianism like to criticise federalism on the basis of the Civil War and the issue of slavery. Think of the irony in that. The difference between '12 years a Slave' and '3 years until my 15 year Pin at the Firm' is precisely the issue of free association, and -that- is their basis for advocating a nationalized imposition of forced association? A federal government empowered precisely to inhibit all forms of forced association -- including slavery -- especially by itself is precisely the purpose of the federal government in a free nation of states. It is not 'Either Slavery or Totalitarianism.' That is their argument. Nonsense. It is neither Slavery nor Totalitarianism. It is either free association or forced association. Freedom or Totalitarianism.

Look at all these competing ideas of governance(including none.) I think that alone is trying to tell us something. There is a principle, a characteristic of resilient systems-- we see it all the time. "Pure" iron -- monolithic iron -- is not all that strong; it is not 'steel.' In order to be 'steel', it needs deliberate imperfections in the lattice of material making up the material. The effect of these imperfections is to prohibit 'micro cracks' from propagating through the entire lattice. Think of micro cracks as a local failure, or, in the case of our federalist republic of states under a federal government, the propagation of really bad ideas. Another example is, a bridge suspension cable. Look at it. It is not 'a' cable. It is a strand of many cables, and each strand is a strand of many smaller cables, and so on, down to wires. It is not 'a' cable. It is not a source of single point of failure. Look at the Sear's Tower in Chicago(or whatever it is called these days.) It is not 'a' tower. It is 9 towers in a bundle, standing together, ' like a stack of cigarettes(the inspiration for the designer.) This principle is captured in ideas like "All our eggs in one basket"... "One Size Fits All"...."Single Point of Failure." And the American founders were brilliant in embracing the concept of -federalism- as an attempt(a today long failed attempt)to distribute models, plural, of governance, as opposed to enforce a single 'totalitarian' form of national governance. 13....15...eventually 50 state experiments running in parallel with completely free association between them; the ability for the nation to vote with its feet, fleeing towards or away from whatever our definition of insanity is. For most of the history of America -- for the -entire- history of adding stars to our flag -- our federal government was a mostly -outward- facing institution, as it was intended to be. Even as recently as JFK's America, the federal budget was over 50% national defense, reflective of the purpose of our federal government. When the New World matured-- when we stopped putting stars on the US Flag -- the process of our federal government turning increasingly inward looking accelerated. This process began with the Civil War, was amped up in the 20th century, and has accelerated virtually unchecked ever since. We no longer can be said to have a 'federal government', we now have a dominant national government which is endlessly demonstrating that principle described above. When we attempt to impress massive uniformity over a wide scale over the entire nation, we risk creating a 'lattice' that can fail all at once, with greatly reduced means of stopping really bad ideas from ripping through the whole structure. In a federal system of 50 states in parallel, free people with the ability to vote with their feet are a natural check on insanity -- and this is important, no matter how each of us defines insanity. Worse, when we succeed in impressing a national uniformity with no means to freely associate-- where we are unable to flee bad ideas impressed by local governance, by increasingly turning every issue imaginable into a nationwide steel cage death match struggle for national domination, 51% to 49%, we tear this nation apart rather than unite it. The American principle is "United We Stand" not "United It Stands." A free America is a plurality -- a 'we' -- not a totalitarian 'it.' And our tribe and its weasel magnet Cronyfest in DC is inexorably on a Holy Crusade to turn what was once a free America into the latest tribal pisshole 'it' on a national scale. This used to be the nation of free people who fought against totalitarianism, not embraced it. So from where this national rot, the source of our national decline? Because what was once an external threat to American freedom has long -- for decades long before any of was born -- been turned into an internal threat.

In the Hebrew bible , Jerusalem in mentioned 669 times . In the Koran , it is not mentioned once . Jerusalem means something to Jews , this was my point . Even as I do not believe in God and take no part in religion at all , " Next year in Jerusalem " , is powerful for me . Indeed... it will be powerful for all Jews. During the last blood moon tetrad, the Jews were at war in Gaza. During this blood moon tetrad, the Jews are at war in Gaza. The final total lunar eclipse of this series of four will take place on September 28th, 2015 and the path of the eclipse will pass directly over Jerusalem. Greg Just in time for the end of the US federal govt fiscal year. This year's 'spend it or lose it' festival should be a real doozy. I kind of miss 2012, the last End of The World. It's weird looking back on the last End of the World. Just, apparently not weird enough to quell the prediction of the next one. Like clockwork. The predictions, not the eclipses. Eclipses are not like clockwork. Everyone knows they are brought on by Dagon if the grain festival in Gaza comes up a Wheat Thin shy of perfection.

Israel is not an aircraft carrier or air base for the United States. If American planes are stationed on Israeli soil under American control then that'd be true. That was the case for Great Britain in WWII, in spades. --Brant For sure. No need at all. The US has fighter jets stationed in Jordan on Jordanian soil under US control, much less, Israel, and has for years. The number waxes and wanes based on current tensions. Since at least the 90s for sure, and probably since the 80s.. I've talked with warrant officers stationed at those bases, grumbling to me about spare parts for US F16s. The US F16s based in Jordan are among the world's worst kept secrets. By design. They do no good if nobody knows they are there. It is only domestically that they are some kind of half-assed national secret. Most of America thinks we were just in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is an expensive 8 lane logistic paved highway from Ike's MIC straight into the ME and has been for years. The US has bases in some number like 15 M.E. countries. The US wouldn't need a base in Isreal; they have their own crowded bases. How many Israelis in uniform in Israel? They don't need a US base in Israel; their bases are crowded already. They got an area the size of NJ covered quite well, as allies.

These peoples rights to compensation and return were never fulfilled, and they and their descendants remain refugees today. Losing a war of aggression has consequences for the losing aggressors and those aligned with them. As will losing the next one. And the next one. How many times are dark ager S4Bs going to attack Israel and get their head handed to them before they modern up? Now the dark agers are flying cheap UAVs cobbled together at Radio Shack. This is exactly what they need to do; enter a modern battlefield wielding beacons of 'come get me' to bring on the Magic Jini Make Boom.

Fine, but let's not forget how some of that land was acquired. I doubt if anyone on this list would be satisfied if, after having their land confiscated, were assured that the confiscators would make much better use of it than they, the legitimate owners, did. From a Quaker peace outfit: Ghs "During 1947 and 1948" was -long- after the local events that resulted in the defensive state of Israel. The George Gilder video describes some of this, and (conveniently ignored)history describes the rest. The Turks/failed Ottoman Empire and its 700+ years of colonization of the land rimming the Med. came to abrupt halt when they sided with Germany in WW1 and lost a WW. Ataturk saw the handwriting on the wall and led Turkey into modernity, but the former O.E. colonies were left in the turmoil of a vaccuum; a war weary West divided the vacuum up into 'mandates', tried to redraw the maps, and unconquered dark agers in the deserts never got the message that the rest of the world wanted to peacefully get on with the party called 'modernity.' So look at the history of Jews settling in America vs. those settling in B.M. Palestine during the early part of the 20th century. Did all the reasonable Jews come to the US, and all the Arab baby eaters settle in BM Palestine? The difference was, the sensibilities they were met with from the majority population they tried to settle in. In the US, KKK sensibilities are suppressed. In BM Palestine, KKK sensibilities were institutionalized in the local governing entities, such as the Jerusalem High Muslim Council, of which Arafat's Uncle Nazi -- The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Hussein Yes, lets not forget how that land was acquired, in the words of Arafat's Uncle Nazi. A copy of his testimony (with added comments in blue) is here http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/1937.htm but basically, his complaint in 1937, referring back to the 20's, was -still- that 'Too many Jews are buying land in the 'hood.' In the US, emigrating Jews lived alongside of Arabs, Germans...even the Welsh for chrissakes... and peacefully built synagogues, started businesses, became teachers and doctors and lawyers without anyone bombing children. In BM Palestine, the majority met them with the Hebron Massacre in 1929. To flash ahead to '1947-1948' -- in the immediate aftermath of WWII and the evidence of a world gone mad, with gas chambers and institutionalized hatred aimed at the Jews-- and focus only on the defensive response which was the State of Israel -- is complete nonsense. By then the Jews realized -- exactly like today with all the rampant spineless gesture politics loose in the world -- that they are on their own, nobody in this world is going to lift a finger when the local KKK dark agers wage their S4B war of petty jealousy and envy, and if they are going to exist anywhere in peace in this world, they need to defend that right. S4Bs launch rockets into Israel, Israel responds with a remarkably restrained hand. Enough already, the dark agers are not evolving, and the moderates are doing nothing to clean out their own swamps. Like all conflicts, the humane thing to do is -end it.- In this case, only one way to do that. The ';Third Way' has totally failed. Remove the remarkable restraint, and roll.

Outstanding. Nails it on the head. With the left, 'Rich vs. Poor' sensibilities triumph over the KKK basis for this conflict; "Too many Jews buying land in the 'hood" -- a paraphrase of Arafat's Uncle Nazi precise complaint in the 20s as part of the Muslim High Council in Jerusalem -- could as well be reformulated "Too many successful Jews buying land in the 'hood." “The envy of excellence leads to perdition; the love of it leads to the light.” ― George Gilder, The Israel Test

As Louis CK(of famed Catholic Church research)once pointed out, we knew that the 'Indians' were not 'Indians' within fifteen minutes of landing in America....but we still call them 'Indians.' "You guys aren't Indians? This isn't India?" "No." "OK.. We're still going to call you Indians." In perfect world, the FoxWoods Tribe buys the Redskins and changes their name to "The Drunken Reservation Rats." Just for the pleasure of watching the apoplectic reaction of effete white liberal Ivy Leagers who are suddenly... in 2014....with their panties in a bunch decades after the Trail of Tears over the name that fat federal bureacrats dressed like hogs have been screaming out at trendy Geoergetown Bistros for decades, all part of AMericas version of 'The Hunger Games" played out in the CronyFest on the Potomac. Go 'rats! Hail to the Drunken Reservation Rats!... Free offensive name change by a federal government that has wiped it's butt on treaties for centuries for every march down a Trail of Tears; just wait long enough for the wailing to die down, they will get to it eventually. Naming a football team staffed by the descendants of former slaves 'Redskins' is offensive. Buying Manhattan for $24 worth of beads, not so much. The Giants should be renamed 'The Not F'n Midgets.'