The only denial is that a stable currency would end the good life. Its the instability of currency policy that causes the bangs and busts that have totaled a whole lot more than 2 since 1917 and particularly 1876. The FED was created (by Banksters) for their benefit, not ours. The first hit from Rothschilds AND FED http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics ...the_Federal_Reserve/house_of_Rothschild-5.htm
What you've got to bear in mind is that instability is terrible for the majority and I disagree that you need it in order to get the good life. The only people this kind of thing benefits are the politicians who want to be able to have the power to create as much money as they want. I can guarantee that if they took power away from the banks and they didn't get so many favours from politicians they'd be pining as much as everyone else for a more solid and stable standard. Everyone else is simply going to suffer because not only do WE have to pay for it in the long run but also it means that we have very little bearing on how a country is run as they would have us believe.
I didn't see the interview but Liesman routinely gets his clock cleaned by Rick Santelli. Liesman frequently comes across as a moron so I wouldn't put much stock in anything he says or does.
This quote "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed) 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826) is usually answered with the comment that the FED isn't a private bank. (in rebuttal, see my earlier post about the formation of the FED.) The ability to change interest rates, and, separately, to extend credit has exactly the controlling effect that Jefferson was worried about.
Thank you for very kindly providing that link to the interview. - - You may be interested to know that these busts (created by bank fraud money printing) have been long standing in American history. They predate the Fed, and the Fed was created in order to extend the banksters ability to increase their profits by printing more paper - while passing off the risks to the public. It was also created so that those in the central govt could finance their schemes without going directly to the public for taxes. The cost is in the hidden tax of inflation and eventual economic bust. So, its a bankster/lawyer-liar-politician partnership. - - The first such instance of the creation of a paper money printing bust in our country occured in 1819. Here's a link to an outstanding book on the subject: http://mises.org/store/Panic-of-1819-Reactions-and-Policies-P388C18.aspx If you click on the Mises.org Home page link at the top left of the page, you can even find an online version of the book for free if this subject interests you. They have many excellent books on the Fed and on economics at the store. Ron Paul has lectured several times at the Mises Institute and is very knowledgeable on economics and its history. Regards, - -
thanks tiger - my knowledge of such goes back only to the 1870s, and the manipulation of the rails... i'll definitely take a look at that site later.. appreciate the lead.
Capitalism is fine but capitalism without that small nit-picky part of it that politicians, etc. don't like, namely failure, everything we do leads to bubbles.
Another link of interest might be http://www.financialsense.com/fsn/main.html See this weeks Hunter Lewis Author "Where Keynes Went Wrong" interview.
Yes, that is my quote. Please pay more attention to what you are reading - nowhere is there a claim of causal relationship between Fed establishment and the wonderful developments since. And it might be worth your while considering whether the lack of a causal link supports or attacks the broader point you are trying to make.
IOW you admit your post was nebulous but you are upset he used your line of reasoning and came to an equally nebulous but different conclusion.