If We Are Using Every Stimulus Tool in the Book at the Top of the Cycle, What Are We Going To Do In The Next Downturn?

From the Telegraph

The world will be unable to fight the next global financial crash as central banks have used up their ammunition trying to tackle the last crises, the Bank for International Settlements has warned.

The so-called central bank of central banks launched a scatching critique of global monetary policy in its annual report. The BIS claimed that central banks have backed themselves into a corner after repeatedly cutting interest rates to shore up their economies.

These low interest rates have in turn fuelled economic booms, encouraging excessive risk taking. Booms have then turned to busts, which policymakers have responded to with even lower rates....

“Rather than just reflecting the current weakness, [lower rates] may in part have contributed to it by fuelling costly financial booms and busts and delaying adjustment. The result is too much debt, too little growth and too low interest rates.

"In short, low rates beget lower rates."

The BIS warned that interest rates have now been so low for so long that central banks are unequipped to fight the next crises.

  • HenryBowman419

    This has been obvious for several years. Little Ben Bernanke painted himself into a corner, with no strategy whatsoever of how to get out. He kept hoping the economy would grow and help him out, but Obama's super-regulatory state has squashed that.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    There is very real fiscal and monetary policy danger here, and the wizards in the Eccles building are asleep at the switch (after having worn it out).

    Greece and Puerto Rico are imminent risks (Greece probably not large), and we’re talking about expanding overtime for the workforce.

    It would be extremely difficult to enact worse economic policy intentionally than Obungle has done.

  • Matthew Slyfield

    Shhh, they might try it.

  • Vangel

    Well, we could always repeal the legal tender laws, kill the central banks, and go back to market chosen money. One last point, getting rid of the BIS would also be necessary.

  • W. S. Byrd

    We could, if we were insane. Putting our capitalists on leashes and going back to the tax rates in place during America's greatest growth period might be more productive. AND FAIR!

  • obloodyhell

    }}} may in part have contributed to it by fuelling costly financial booms and busts

    Hey, someone in government has finally heard of Von Mises?

    Not to worry, that person will be fired ASAP. Their pink slip is already being printed.

  • obloodyhell

    We could put on butt plugs and ball gags, and get almost the same effect!!

  • W. S. Byrd

    It's still a free country. Do so if it pleases you, but I will pass on the offer.

  • morgan.c.frank

    Put simply, borrowing piles of money to prop up demand just causes asset
    bubbles. It does NOT make an economy
    recover in real terms. If anything, it
    entrenches economic weakness and fosters greater instability as floods of cheap
    money and tighter regulation homogenize banking centers. It is the diverse ecosystem that can survive
    and adapt. Monocultures and
    overspecialized species risk extinction.
    Yet this is exactly what we are pushing at the major banking
    centers. “Too big to fail” has become
    “too homogeneous to survive”. We are
    also seeing exactly the opposite of what one would expect around risk pricing. As indebtedness has soared, rates are dropping. If one steps back and really looks at this
    with fresh eyes, this is a highly counter-intuitive result. If someone owes you a lot of money and wants
    to borrow more to the point where repayment looks iffy, you’d jack the rate way
    up (if you lent at all), not offer an even lower one.

    I shudder to imagine what the "bigger hammer theory" version of 3 rounds of QE and 7 years at the zero bound will look like. These peoplke have learned nothing. Monetary policy is a very limited instrument. You cannot print prosperity.

  • morgan.c.frank

    as we will pass on your dishonest nonsense. net of transfers, only 25% of americans pay any tax at all. regulation is out of control. taxes are far too high and government is far too big. your "solution" is a proven disaster. it's been tried, over and over. it NEVER works.

    we need to get out of our people's way, stop telling them what to do, stop taking their stuff, and let them make investment decision based on markets, not diktat.

    you are either staggeringly ignorant or utterly dishonest.

  • morgan.c.frank

    regarding market chosen money, i think it's coming. digital currency is the big revolution of the next 15 years. bitcoin was a shot across the bow. the newer versions (like ethers) will be woven int o th actual kernels of programming languages.

    anything (apart from gold) is better than government scrip. the dollar has lost 97% of it's value in my lifetime. how can you do worse than that?

  • W. S. Byrd

    I won't bother to pass on your staggeringly ignorant and dishonest nonsense. . . .

  • J Calvert

    Everything you describe is accurate, but cheap credit makes bankers rich and allows politicians to never run out of money to spend. So ZIRP is the new black....

  • Vangel

    anything (apart from gold) is better than government scrip. the dollar has lost 97% of it's value in my lifetime. how can you do worse than that?

    It can't. But I disagree with your premise and only argue that all we need is to get rid of the legal tender laws. While I would agree that would clearly kill of the paper dollar I clearly expect that the markets will choose a commodity based monetary unit just as they have throughout our history. Digital money can be created out of thin air just like fiat money so I doubt that people will be as trusting as you seem to think. It is much more likely that you will get a system where ownership of a monetary commodity will be transferred electronically from one account to another whenever a transaction is made.

  • Vangel

    America's greatest period of growth was during the 19th century when there was no income tax.

  • Vangel

    Governments hate someone that challenges their position intellectually. That is why most economists get compensation from the Federal Reserve System, government agencies, government departments, or the financial institutions that depend on the current arrangement. Guess what happens when that comes to an end after the next contraction?

  • W. S. Byrd

    Well, we went away from gold for very sound and well-documented reasons. And as far as anything else being better, do you intend to barter for everything. Maybe you need a heart transplant, but the only surgeon around does not take ignorant opinions as payment. Regardless of my bad joke, what would you do then. Take his family hostage like a good warlord?

  • W. S. Byrd

    RIGHT! But only for the 0.1% that you love! That is being repeated today, and needs to be stopped. Due to modern information distribution, it will be stopped as eventually the older retired dumb ones die off, and the effect of networks such as the dirty-moneyed funded Faux Noise are seen for what they are. I only fear that you do not do so much damage as to make a transition violent, e.g. another Russian Revolution.

  • W. S. Byrd

    Well, all governments are quite safe from you. . . . Capitalists encourage "contraction." Yes, it gets an occasional unready or unlucky one, but that gives them an additional chance to redistribute our earned wealth to themselves.

  • W. S. Byrd

    Are you a typical Rethug that hates education? Who do you think governments should take economic advice from? Worshipers of greed like you. Every nation that has put a businessman in charge soon regretted it. The U.S. has never had a successful economy under a businessman, or by the use of right-wackjob business principles. Except maybe Clinton.

  • Vangel

    Well, we went away from gold for very sound and well-documented reasons.

    Yes we did. We could not fight World War I if the nations were still on the gold standard because the voters would have turfed out the ruling classes. We could not support a welfare/warfare state unless we were on a fiat money standard.

  • Vangel

    You are right. Whenever there is someone in charge you can't have a successful economy. Central planning never works my ignorant friend.

  • W. S. Byrd

    You can take this however you please, but it is not a threat. Based literally on what you have always argued, and especially on what you just said, in the nation without laws that you want to create, you would have been killed in the first two minutes of showing your face. Don't think all your big money would let you hole up somewhere so you could steal while online. There wouldn't be any electricity for you. In fact, the only market would be the village one where you might buy a few half rotten vegetables. And, they would kill you and take what you have stolen from them.

    Now, sensibly, you actually agree with my earlier statement by having no other answer than your typical idiotic response. So, central planning has its pitfalls, but nihilist anarchy such as you and your gang of goons preaches, is total idiocy. You can only speak that way because sensible people have denied your mob the ability to actually institute the madness you suggest. If we wanted to get rid of all your kind, all we need do is let you have your way for a couple of days. Just a couple of days. That is all it would take. You exist only because you are restrained from destroying yourselves.

    So, continue to lie all you want, my dim-wit, arrogant, ignorant, abusive, bullying troll of a friend to no-one. You are not even a friend to yourself.

  • W. S. Byrd

    Wrong answer again, Mr. eVangeliar. The U.S. was on the gold standard during W.W. 1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    See what happens when idiots play with history, or anything actually. They hurt themselves and look like fools.

  • W. S. Byrd

    We went away from gold for very sound and well-documented reasons. . . . For one thing, a society dependent on a metal standard has almost no growth potential. As bad as I hate capitalism, as practiced conventionally today, or according to your idiot proposals, no growth means societies die.

    I could tell you what I really do, and all the different degrees and training I have, but I rather enjoy you making an arse of yourself. No use in giving you something of real quality to wipe your arse on.

    By the way, I have found no evidence that you are anything except a fraud in your claims as an engineer. You could not even SPELL Hooke right!

  • W. S. Byrd

    Since you cannot address inconvenient truths, nor any truth for that matter, here is this again:

    Well, we went away from gold for very sound and well-documented reasons.
    And as far as anything else being better, do you intend to barter for
    everything. Maybe you need a heart transplant, but the only surgeon
    around does not take ignorant opinions as payment. Regardless of my bad
    joke, what would you do then. Take his family hostage like a good
    warlord?

  • W. S. Byrd

    Welfare state? Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo. You sound like my mother's wall clock, except while it made silly sounds on the hour, every hour, you make them constantly at random. At least here clock had some use. But, even if her clock was broken, as they say it would have been right twice a day. While I cannot remember you ever being right.

    Like the worst of the right-wackos. You know everything. Human rights, economics, history, climate, . . . because all you have to do is just make up the stupidest and most hateful thing and you are always right. Well, that is just your "misconception" talking.

  • Vangel

    Based literally on what you have always argued, and especially on what you just said, in the nation without laws that you want to create, you would have been killed in the first two minutes of showing your face.

    When have I ever said that there should be no laws? I suggest that your reading comprehension problem is still with you my ignorant friend.

  • Vangel

    Wrong answer again, Mr. eVangeliar. The U.S. was on the gold standard during W.W. 1! And all the other notable nations were too.

    The United States did not go off the gold standard because it entered the war late and had not inflated the supply of dollars to such an extent that redeemability was endangered. But Britain, France, Germany and the other 'notable nations,' whichever those would be, went off the Classical Gold Standard and adapted freely-fluctuating exchange rates. That was a time of competitive devaluations, capital and exchange controls, tariffs and quotas. As a result, consumers, savers, and investors experienced the end of the period of international trade and investment that brought prosperity around the world.

    The Classical Gold Standard did not fail; It was ended because governments could not keep their monetary promises. The printed so many pounds, francs, marks, etc., that there was no way to redeem them without bleeding reserves away from the banking systems. We have exactly the same thing now as the American government has made $200 trillion in promises that can never be redeemed as long as the purchasing power of the currency remains the same.

    To put in in perspective given the promises of $200 trillion a child born today would be responsible for a repayment of more than $600,000. When we adjust that for the fact that half the American population pays no income tax a child of the productive class that pays the taxes will be on the hook for $1.2 million in debt. It is obvious that such a repayment will never happen and that the majority of debts will not be repaid at par.

    Note that at the end of the monetary inflation period most currencies lost most of their purchasing power. Even in the US, which entered the war late and did not spend nearly as much as the warring powers the currency lost around 10% of its purchasing power between 1918 and 1920. The adjustment created a massive inflation in Germany and major devaluations in the winning countries. The US went through a massive contraction as the war industries were liquidated by the markets. The uncertainty and instability were so great that the major countries got together and instituted a fake gold standard in the form of the Gold Exchange Standard that had Britain go back on the old exchange rate and saw the Pound as a key currency. That allowed the UK to inflate its supply without losing specie but did not last very long. When European banks experienced capital flight the nations that held UK paper tried to redeem it and force the English government to abandon the Gold Exchange Standard.

    I find it amusing that the US is now in the same position as England after WW I. There is all that paper out there that depends on the confidence of the nations that hold it as a reserve for their own currencies. While the US may prove to be the last one standing its collapse will be as great as that of any other nation because it has the most to lose when the Federal Reserve Notes are no longer the primary reserve asset for the global financial system. My son did a small project for his government class on the history of the G8 last year. He found an interesting description of a meeting held in which the G8 and the IMF were doing mock scenarios to practice a situation in which the FRN was no longer the primary reserve asset held by G8 nations. No wonder the Indians, Chinese, and Russians are purchasing physical gold as well as gold mines as insurance for the inevitable day of reckoning.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/06/China-gold-US-dollar.jpg

  • Not Sure

    The 19th century? When millions of people left their friends, families and everything they owned behind in Europe and Asia to come to America? Because there was no opportunity here for ordinary people, right?

  • W. S. Byrd

    You did all that lying to impress me? Well, it didn't.

    America entered WW1 in 1932 because the public needed something to spend all those excess millions the capitalists gave us.

    ROTFLMAO AT YOU. How dumb can one idiot be. I have to admit though, when you have a good hold on a total lie, you just won't let go.

    WW1: 1914-1918
    U.S involvement: 1917-1918
    Great Depression caused by reckless, unrestrained, unregulated capitalism, nearly destroying every industrialised nation and their populaces: 1929-1938 (generally)

    For all to see:

    You don't know any history.
    You have no value for truth and lie all the time.
    You will literally do anything to advance your evil.
    You are too stupid to realize that you have FOREVER made my case for me.

  • W. S. Byrd

    One thing that shows the ignorance of you metalists is, you can't accept the obvious that your precious metal is worth no more than the market will bear.

    But the two worst things are, your economy is limited to the amount of metal that you have on hand at any one time. Which obviously, your economy is completely hostage to the producers of that metal.

    Another by product is, that stuff is very inconvenient to move, store, and tender.

  • W. S. Byrd

    I do not work tomorrow. [Yes, somebody has to support useless mouths like you.] So, as a special treat, I fixed spaghetti and sauce for everyone's dinner. One of my neighbors kids came and got me when your idiocy popped up. Boy, did your stooopid sure make for good dinner conversation. We usually have to work up into a festive mood, but you sure provided some instant laughs.

    What is really unconscionable though, you are supposed to be a Canadian national [enemy alien is closer to the truth], so you should know about WW1, AND the metal standards. A one generation removed communist, and you have no idea of your own country's history. Tsk, tsk.

  • W. S. Byrd

    By the demands you make for your perfect society, you do! BUT, you have actually made EXACTLY that statement on quite a number of occassions. You just have not made that claim in this particular blog . . . yet.

  • W. S. Byrd

    I do not know how to take someone that is that dumb. I could argue your point with you, but let's go back to what I said.

    Mr. Vangel wants a return to the 19th century. During that time only about 10% of the population had any claim to being middle class. The robber barons held ALL the money. Things were so bad for the lower 30% there were real fears of a revolution. At the beginning of the 20th century, those heroes of his and yours even wanted Roosevelt to have the military shoot these people in the streets. Remember the unions your mob hate so badly? They started gaining real power about this time. Roosevelt was not that easy on them, but he tried to be just and fair, . . . and the crisis passed.

    The eVangeliar wants a return to those good old days where the 0.1% just dictated what our laws would be and our courts could decided. The PEOPLE, as stated in the Constitution, struggled long and hard to make a better life. Your capitalists did not hand it to them on a silver plate. A better analogy would be, they made them wade through a cesspool to get rights and a better life.

    I can also point out that a lot of people came here based on the "legends" they had heard about America's wonders. Many just got caught up in the elites money making schemes doing hard, dangerous labor for almost no pay. As well, many came here because of persecution at home. Sure, many made good, but your propaganda sweeps the millions under the rug that "failed."

    Now, I have only hit the tip of the iceberg. Go ahead and do your revisionist nonsense. As an historian I know what the truth is. I will end with the observation that many immigrants did do well, but as today, those people that actually work for their livings are the poorest of the land. Andrew Carnegie for instance, did not make his millions being a clerk, much less working 12 hour days, 7 days a week in his steel mills.

  • W. S. Byrd

    Read The Jungle. I know you won't, but it is a true summary, whether you like the political sell in the novel or not.

    And by the way, how long do think you would have lasted as a coolie on the railroad. Working in all kinds of weather conditions, back-breaking labor, 12 hour days, everyday, no holidays, no sick days, no vacation. If you got hurt, you just got left behind. If you died they threw you into the nearest hole, . . . and you got left behind. And for all that you didn't make enough to fed or house a family in the nearest rotten shack. If you can convince me, then I will agree with all you say. Of course, I have never heard a convincing argument yet.

    [And please do not dishonor yourself with the false claim that I said America was all bad. But by and large, our capitalists were, . . . and are.]

  • Vangel

    We went away from gold for very sound and well-documented reasons. . . . For one thing, a society dependent on a metal standard has almost no growth potential.

    Yet, the US grew the fastest when its currency was linked to gold.

    As bad as I hate capitalism, as practiced conventionally today, or according to your idiot proposals, no growth means societies die.

    Free societies to not die. They thrive. And how can you claim to hate crony capitalism when you support the very system that robs savers, workers, and investors of purchasing power?

  • Vangel

    Well, we went away from gold for very sound and well-documented

    reasons.

    Yes, there was a good reason to go away from gold. The United States used gold certificate between 1863 and 1933 a form of paper currency. Whoever held each certificate could exchange it for gold coins at the rate of $20.67 per troy ounce. The total face value of Gold Certificates issued by the Treasury from 1905 to 1928 came out to just over 15,000 metric tons of gold but there were only around 6,000 metric tons of gold in reserve. That meant that around 60% of the certificates had been retired and the Treasury had just enough to cover the ones that were outstanding.

    The bigger problem was the Federal Reserve Notes that had been issued. The total outstanding came out to around 20,000 metric tons against 6,000 metric tons that were needed to cover the Treasury Gold Certificates. Essentially, that mean that most FRNs were circulating naked, which was why FDR chose to bail out the rich owners of the Federal Reserve System by confiscating gold held by citizens.

    FDR's order made illegal the private ownership of gold bullion by American citizens. It also took away the legal tender status of Treasury Gold Certificates held by the public. The gold certificates had to exchanged for non-gold instruments issued by the US Treasury or the Federal Reserve Banks. The order allowed the Treasury to transfer 6,000 metric tons of gold to the Federal Reserve and when the dust cleared the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank owned American government issued Gold Certificates that were backed by American gold, while the American government held Federal Reserve Notes that were backed by “credit”. The bailout of the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank prevented its failure because there was no danger that the 20,000 ton shortfall would lead to redemptions in an environment where workers and savers were not allowed to hold the gold that used to back the currency.

    Note that FDR was actually clear that the US could not possibly make good on its promises.

    Much has been said of late about Federal finances and inflation, the gold standard, etc. Let me make the facts very simple and my policy very clear. In the first place, Government credit and Government currency are really one and the same thing. Behind Government bonds there is only a promise to pay. Behind Government currency we have, in addition to the promise to pay, a reserve of gold and a small reserve of silver. In this connection it is worth while remembering that in the past the Government has agreed to redeem nearly thirty billions of its debts and its currency in gold, and private corporations in this country have agreed to redeem another sixty or seventy billions of securities and mortgages in gold. The Government and private corporations were making these agreements when they knew full well that all of the gold in the United States amounted to only between three and four billions and that all of the gold in all of the world amounted to only about eleven billions.

    Second Fireside Chat; May 7, 1933

    FDR managed to turn a contraction into a Great Depression which did not end until he was in the ground. But even that end did not solve the problem because the US dollar was still backed by gold that would eventually be redeemed. By 1970 the US had inflated so much that many nations were worried about the value of the paper that they were holding. In particularly, the French were draining away American gold reserves at $45 an ounce and the American gold supply was in danger of disappearing. By 1971 Nixon and Volker decided to close the gold window at the NY Fed and ever since then you have had a floating currency that has lost most of its purchasing power.

  • W. S. Byrd

    LIAR, all wrong and already proven.

  • Vangel

    I base my arguments on principles and logic. You on the other hand tend to favour faith and emotion. As I pointed out, you would not have the welfare/warfare state in a hard currency system because the productive class would not tolerate the high levels of direct taxation that the transfers require. As we debate this your country spends about as much on military related activities as it takes in from personal income taxes in a given year. Do you really think that 'conservatives' would support the level of foreign intervention if they knew that everything that was withheld in the form of income taxes went to pay for those interventions?

  • W. S. Byrd

    Except for the direct quotes, you got it all wrong again. Even the exchange rate. It was "20 for 20." Your just making up nonsense.

    I do like the fact that you proved that I was right. You really don't know anything except what you can make up or be spoon fed by other liars. Like, the U.S. being off the gold standard in WW1. And those reasons you gave. Hilarious. You do make for good conversation. I will admit that. My friends and relatives, and neighbors, all pretty much left giggling about your idiocy.

  • W. S. Byrd

    Like I told several friends last night, the truth is, I don't even need to do anything but push the enter key. You keep this bullying bombardment up, even though even a small rodent knows you do not have anything to convince me with. You just make a spectacle of yourself.

    Don't think I don't know your sick sociopathic personality. I stood up to you while you were bullying good posters out of good blogs. You have always lost every exchange. Yet, you cannot take that. You need to punish me for my impertinence because the god-head Vangel has been thwarted. But, the only person you are punishing is yourself. I already proved everything I ever needed to, and you set to work to reaffirm that proof everyday with your inane, insane, lying and bullying.

    AND, like I said dozens, probably several hundreds of times by now, I can say this right to your face because you are too deranged and stupid to stop doing deranged and stupid things.

  • W. S. Byrd

    You base your extremely sociopathic, emotional arguments on your faith that what you desire must be. You have no principles, and you use no logic. Greed is your logic. "All for me, and none for thee."

    I do temper my opinions with the observations that I am not the center of the universe. That does make me much different than you. I think the word is, . . . HUMAN!

  • Vangel

    One thing that shows the ignorance of you metalists is, you can't accept the obvious that your precious metal is worth no more than the market will bear.

    You are confused. The people who like gold want the market to decide what is to be used as money, which is why they want to end the legal tender laws that rob workers and savers of purchasing power and transfer wealth from the poor and middle classes to the financial system. As a typical central planning type you see nothing wrong with a privately owned monopoly on the issuance of money even as you pretend to hate the very crony capitalists that you support being bailed out and given every advantage that the government can provide.

    But the two worst things are, your economy is limited to the amount of metal that you have on hand at any one time. Which obviously, your economy is completely hostage to the producers of that metal.

    No. The function of money is to make exchanges possible. You do not need any particular amount of it to do that. Whether you can exchange a car for one gram or one troy ounce of gold is irrelevant. In the 19th century the growth of money was well below the growth of population and total output but that did not stop the greatest period of expansion and innovation in your country's history.

  • Vangel

    By the demands you make for your perfect society, you do! BUT, you have actually made EXACTLY that statement on quite a number of occassions. You just have not made that claim in this particular blog . . . yet.

    References please. When have I made any demands or talked about a perfect society. Note that I am not a Utopian like you. I believe that your version of New Socialist Man is no better than Marx's or Lenin's.

    Note that anyone can look at my posting history on any blog because I do not keep it private. A few years ago your posting history was used to show that you were making contradictory statements depending on the blog and issue being discussed, most likely because you have no principles. After that became a problem for you, your history became private so nobody can use your own words against you.

    If you are serious try being consistent in principle, not just an emotional automaton who cares nothing about logic or facts.

  • W. S. Byrd

    "Do you really think that 'conservatives' would support the level of
    foreign intervention if they knew that everything that was withheld in
    the form of income taxes went to pay for those interventions?"

    Duh, of course they would and do. The rank and file "conservative" is not consevative at all these days, but a fascist NAZI-style wannabe without very much real sense. More often than not, without much education. And all too often hates information and education. Do I exaggerate? Well, NO. These people may be a minority, but they are vicious and determined. They have clout.

    Now, not to be too complicated for you, but there are a number of reasons. Some of these depend on an individuals station in life. The rank and file are easy to stir up using the very principles Dr. Goebbels expounded. For the more "advanced" people, it is greed. So, let me sum up for the entire group in general terms. Generally, they think they are fighting a religious war, and/or, fighting to possess valuable resources that they see no problem with taking. Sort of like Vangel, but with guns instead. So, they often think this spending is a good investment. The truth is, the worst, and richest, of these people would like to see the Federal government shut down, except for the military. They certainly do not see soldiers as people, but as a tool to bully others into giving them what they want. Taxes would then go down, . . . or up, but all would be spent on military intervention. That is what they want.

    Of course, the rich like the Kochs, and like wannabes like you want, there would be no taxes on the upper 1%. "We the People" would pay for all of this.
    If I wanted to

  • W. S. Byrd

    Citations are meaningless to you. As they say, been there, done that. As well, there are no reasons for me to give you citations to what we already know to be true. For example, the statements that I have made, and keep making, have been cited many times. You just move to a different thread, or as you did today on several occassions already, you just move to a different blog.

    As for views, mine are largely the same. I learn, and modify my beliefs as needed. You just switch to a different lie when you get tired of the one you are using.

    As for your "history," I don't normally look a it at all. I have, but not very often. AND, in any case, your history is for you to figure out. All your statement is is a WHINE. If you cannot deal with fair criticism, then you need to find something else to do. My profile is private because your evil kind cannot take having anyone stand up you your bullying and trolling. Your kind threaten people. I have never threatened you. Never have I done so, but I have pointed out what the inevitable outcome of your evil will be. AND, I have expressed my dread on the disaster that will be when you drag all of us into the abyss.

  • W. S. Byrd

    What I said STANDS. You cut and paste out of context. You lose again. You refuse to answer, as always, your history and factual errors [LIES].

    THE GREATEST GROWTH OF AMERICA THAT BENEFITED THE ENTIRE NATION WAS POST-WW2. PERIOD. Yeah, the 19th century made those you love rich. THE 0.1%.

    One thing that shows the ignorance of you metalists is, you can't accept the obvious that your precious metal is worth no more than the market will bear.

    But the two worst things are, your economy is limited to the amount of metal that you have on hand at any one time. Which obviously, your economy is completely hostage to the producers of that metal.

    Repeat your lies as long as you like, they will always be lies and will always be called such.

  • W. S. Byrd

    "As a typical central planning type you see nothing wrong with a privately owned monopoly on the issuance of money. . . "

    WHOA, that is exactly what I have a problem with. You want a private money supply controlled solely by capitalists for capitalists. If what you want happens, useless mouths like you would starve. Literally starve. They would shove you out as you are too puny, and stupid, to compete.

    However, even the capitalists know that would be a disaster. That is why they supported central banks to begin with, and lobbied for their creation.

  • Vangel

    Read The Jungle. I know you won't, but it is a true summary, whether you like the political sell in the novel or not.

    Some of us have read The Jungle. The fact is that the book was not a true summary. Upton Sinclair was factually inaccurate. He just had a problem with the meat packing industry, which increased productivity and improved food quality, because he favoured socialism. He had a very similar problem with credibility as Ida Tarbell.