Freedom is the base that everything good is built on.
The US, like Norway and North Korea, is now a safe paradise where everything is free, but no one seems happy.
Americans think mandatory car insurance laws make them safe, but laws are useless if no one obeys them. Forty years ago you were shit out of luck if a poor person hit your car. The result is the same now if an uninsured driver hit you.
Americans scream mandatory airbags make you safe, but airbags can also kill you.
Norwegians are drunks now that females marry the state instead of a man and Muslims are overrunning the country.
In Socialists states, no one has morals because churches are closed and you must pay bribes to do anything. Theft is legal, but owning a gun is illegal.
Why bother having free college when no one wants to work when everything is free and hard work is punished with taxes and regulations?
People used to work hard because they thought they could keep what they earned. Now Americans have given up because the state will take everything through taxes, inflation, fines, fees, and forfeiture to fund welfare, wars, debt, and tyranny. When society collapses, the state will then use force to force people to work as slaves and the news is censored.
Thinking Patriots really need to start thinking about Plan B. Every day the US declines and nothing will improve because all of the lines have been crossed.
Maybe the only good news is that the Communists might win in 2020 and this slow death of the USA will accelerate so Americans can start Civil War 2.0 for real.
Americans should always be looking for a loophole for every law and tax.
Government workers should be seen as mobsters now. Actors, bankers, politicians, reporters, cops, and soldiers all work for the elites and are the enemy.
One must wonder if more government workers died, government workers would start thinking if they should quit. Why go to work if you might not come home? Is slavery preferable to death?
The same local friendly police officer who once might have wanted to stop murderers and thieves has now become the Gestapo and is responsible for also arresting and torturing lawyers, journalists, protesters, smokers, beggars, straw users, and business people, and will be happy to arrest you for hate speech, confiscate your guns, and force you to board the trains heading to the concentration camps.
Those who once escaped the Soviet Union to live in the USA probably felt more free, but Cubans who escape to live in the US today probably feel like they jumped from the frying pan into the skillet.
Now Americans should make plans to move abroad to escape the USA. Every country is a police state, but while the Gestapo would be eager to arrest Americans, the police in other countries might want to avoid an international incident and be more hesitate to arrest foreigners.
While Egypt might quickly execute Egyptians, Egypt might think twice about killing an American. Canada and New Zealand might not want to kill foreigners, but they might send them to barbaric countries like the US and Saudi Arabia who will.
Living in a police state means that you should avoid government workers and be careful that you're not talking to an undercover officer. Talking less means that you can avoid lying.
Time is running out.
Libertarian
boosted
Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers predicted that if Donald Trump were elected, there would be a protracted recession within 18 months. Heeding its experts, a month before the election, The Washington Post ran an editorial with the headline "A President Trump could destroy the world economy." Steve Rattner, a Democratic financier and former head of the National Economic Council, warned, "If the unlikely event happens and Trump wins, you will see a market crash of historic proportions." When Trump's electoral victory became apparent, Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman warned that the world was "very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." By the way, Krugman has been so wrong in so many of his economic predictions, but that doesn't stop him from making more shameless predictions.
People whom we've trusted as experts have often been wrong beyond imagination, and it's nothing new. Irving Fisher, a distinguished Yale University economics professor in 1929, predicted, "Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." Three days later, the stock market crashed. In 1945, regarding money spent on the Manhattan Project, Adm. William Leahy told President Harry S. Truman, "That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The (atomic) bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
In 1903, the president of the Michigan Savings Bank, advising Henry Ford's lawyer not to invest in Ford Motor Co., said, "The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty â a fad." Confidence in the staying power of the horse was displayed by a 1916 comment of the aide-de-camp to Field Marshal Douglas Haig at a tank demonstration: "The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous."
Albert Einstein predicted: "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." In 1899, Charles H. Duell, the U.S. commissioner of patents, said, "Everything that can be invented has been invented." Listening to its experts in 1936, The New York Times predicted, "A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere."
To prove that it's not just academics, professionals and businesspeople who make harebrained predictions, Hall of Fame baseball player Tris Speaker's 1919 advice about Babe Ruth was, "Taking the best left-handed pitcher in baseball and converting him into a right fielder is one of the dumbest things I ever heard." For those of us not familiar with baseball, Babe Ruth was one of the greatest outfielders who ever played the game.
The world's greatest geniuses are by no means exempt from out-and-out nonsense. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was probably the greatest scientist of all time. He laid the foundation for classical mechanics; his genius transformed our understanding of physics, mathematics and astronomy. What's not widely known is that Newton spent most of his waking hours on alchemy. Some of his crackpot experiments included trying to turn lead into gold. He wrote volumes on alchemy, but after his death, Britain's Royal Society deemed that they were "not fit to be printed."
Then there's mathematical physicist and engineer Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), whose major contribution was in thermodynamics. Kelvin is widely recognized for determining the correct value of absolute zero, approximately minus 273.15 degrees Celsius or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit. In honor of his achievement, extremely high and extremely low temperatures are expressed in units called kelvins. To prove that one can be a genius in one area and an idiot in another, Kelvin challenged geologists by saying that Earth is between 20 million and 100 million years old. Kelvin predicted, "X-rays will prove to be a hoax." And he told us, "I can state flatly that heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
The point of all this is to say that we can listen to experts but take what they predict with a grain or two of salt.
Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers predicted that if Donald Trump were elected, there would be a protracted recession within 18 months. Heeding its experts, a month before the election, The Washington Post ran an editorial with the headline "A President Trump could destroy the world economy." Steve Rattner, a Democratic financier and former head of the National Economic Council, warned, "If the unlikely event happens and Trump wins, you will see a market crash of historic proportions." When Trump's electoral victory became apparent, Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman warned that the world was "very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." By the way, Krugman has been so wrong in so many of his economic predictions, but that doesn't stop him from making more shameless predictions.
People whom we've trusted as experts have often been wrong beyond imagination, and it's nothing new. Irving Fisher, a distinguished Yale University economics professor in 1929, predicted, "Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." Three days later, the stock market crashed. In 1945, regarding money spent on the Manhattan Project, Adm. William Leahy told President Harry S. Truman, "That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The (atomic) bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
In 1903, the president of the Michigan Savings Bank, advising Henry Ford's lawyer not to invest in Ford Motor Co., said, "The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty â a fad." Confidence in the staying power of the horse was displayed by a 1916 comment of the aide-de-camp to Field Marshal Douglas Haig at a tank demonstration: "The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous."
Albert Einstein predicted: "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." In 1899, Charles H. Duell, the U.S. commissioner of patents, said, "Everything that can be invented has been invented." Listening to its experts in 1936, The New York Times predicted, "A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere."
To prove that it's not just academics, professionals and businesspeople who make harebrained predictions, Hall of Fame baseball player Tris Speaker's 1919 advice about Babe Ruth was, "Taking the best left-handed pitcher in baseball and converting him into a right fielder is one of the dumbest things I ever heard." For those of us not familiar with baseball, Babe Ruth was one of the greatest outfielders who ever played the game.
The world's greatest geniuses are by no means exempt from out-and-out nonsense. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was probably the greatest scientist of all time. He laid the foundation for classical mechanics; his genius transformed our understanding of physics, mathematics and astronomy. What's not widely known is that Newton spent most of his waking hours on alchemy. Some of his crackpot experiments included trying to turn lead into gold. He wrote volumes on alchemy, but after his death, Britain's Royal Society deemed that they were "not fit to be printed."
Then there's mathematical physicist and engineer Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), whose major contribution was in thermodynamics. Kelvin is widely recognized for determining the correct value of absolute zero, approximately minus 273.15 degrees Celsius or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit. In honor of his achievement, extremely high and extremely low temperatures are expressed in units called kelvins. To prove that one can be a genius in one area and an idiot in another, Kelvin challenged geologists by saying that Earth is between 20 million and 100 million years old. Kelvin predicted, "X-rays will prove to be a hoax." And he told us, "I can state flatly that heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
The point of all this is to say that we can listen to experts but take what they predict with a grain or two of salt.
Libertarian
boosted
Once enough suffering had been dealt to the populace, globalists and extreme leftists would arrive on the scene to offer anti-populism as a solution; meaning the centralization and socialization of everything on a scale never before witnessed except perhaps in the darkest days of the Bolshevik Revolution.
This theory allowed me to predict the success of the Brexit vote in the UK, Trumpâs entry into the White House, the Federal Reserveâs interest rate hikes and balance sheet cuts into economic weakness, and now it is looking more and more like my March prediction of a âNo Dealâ Brexit will turn out to be correct with Boris Johnson rising to the position of Prime Minister. So, I continue to stand by it.
By extension, for a couple of years I have been examining the strange correlations between the background and policies of Donald Trump and the background and policies of Herbert Hoover; the Republican president that oversaw the great crash of 1929 and the beginning of the Great Depression.
One of Hooverâs first actions as president in response to the fiscal tensions of 1929 was to support increased tax cuts, primarily for corporations (this was then followed in 1932 by extensive tax increases in the midst of the depression). Then, he instituted tariffs through the Smoot-Hawley Act. His hyperfocus on massive infrastructure spending resulted in U.S. debt expansion and did nothing to dig the U.S. out of its unemployment abyss. In fact, infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam, which were launched in 1931, were not paid of for over 50 years. Hoover ended up as a single-term Republican president who paved the way socially for Franklin D. Roosevelt, an thinly disguised communist and perhaps the most destructive president in American history.
It was Hoover and his âprotectionistâ policies that were blamed for the Great Depression (along with the gold standard), yet it was the Federal Reserve which created the entire calamity. The Fedâs policy easing in the 1920s led to the extensive bubble in banking and stock markets, and the Fedâs rate hikes and liquidity tightening in the early 1930âs exacerbated the crash and extended the depression for many years. Former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke even openly admitted that the Fed was responsible for the Great Depression in a speech made in honor of Milton Friedman in 2002. He stated:
âIn short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn.
Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. Youâre right, we did it. Weâre very sorry. But thanks to you, we wonât do it again.â
Of course, the Fed IS doing it again. For over a year and a half the Fed has been instituting liquidity tightening into economic weakness at the onset of the crash of one of the biggest financial bubbles in the history of the economic world. It is a bubble they created with the intention of deliberately imploding it, and the process has already begun. As I have noted numerous times, the crash in fundamentals is well underway, with almost every sector of the economy in retreat except the three indicators that the Fed and the government statistically manipulate: GDP, employment, and stock markets.
Trump is not innocent in this scheme, either. After months of rightly criticizing the Fed during his campaign for inflating a fake economy and stock market, Trump pulled a 180 on his supporters after becoming president and has now attached his administration so completely to the Everything Bubble (and stock markets in particular) that it is assured he and his conservative followers will take the blame as it collapses.
I am also not the only person noting the comparison between Trump and Herbert Hoover. Trumpâs similarities to Hoover are being mentioned endlessly the past year in the mainstream and leftist media with a particular focus on the trade war. Trumpâs trade conflicts are providing the perfect cover for the banking elites to pull the plug on the economy, while escaping any blame. The narrative is being set up for a crash and the plan is to make populists, nationalists and sovereignty activists the scapegoats.
Among the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's responsibilities are approval and regulation of pharmaceutical drugs. In short, its responsibility is to ensure the safety and effectiveness of drugs. In the performance of this task, FDA officials can make two types of errors â statistically known as the type I error and type II error. With respect to the FDA, a type I error is the rejection or delayed approval of a drug that is safe and effective â erring on the side of over-caution â and a type II error is the approval of a drug that has unanticipated dangerous side effects, or erring on the side of under-caution.
Let's examine the incentives of FDA officials. If FDA officials err on the side of under-caution and approve a drug that has unanticipated dangerous side effects, the victims of their mistake will be highly visible. There may be congressional hearings, embarrassment to the agency and officials fired.
It's an entirely different story if FDA officials err on the side of over-caution and either disapprove or delay the approval of a drug that is both safe and effective. In that case, the victims will be invisible. They will have no idea that their suffering could have been eliminated, or in the case of death, their loved ones will have no idea why they died. Their suffering and/or death will be chalked up to the state of medicine rather than the status of an FDA drug application. Their doctor will simply tell them there's nothing more that can be done to help them. The FDA officials go scot-free.
Let's look at some of the history of the FDA's erring on the side of over-caution. Beta blockers reduce the risk of secondary heart attacks and were widely used in Europe during the mid-1970s. The FDA imposed a moratorium on approvals of beta blockers in the U.S. because of their carcinogenicity in animals. Finally, in 1981, the FDA approved the first such drug, boasting that it might save up to 17,000 lives per year. That means that as many as 100,000 people died from secondary heart attacks waiting for FDA approval. Those people are in the "invisible graveyard," a term to describe people who would have lived but died because the cure that could have saved them was bottled up in the FDA's regulatory process.
Today, the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute is leading the battle to bring some sanity and compassion to the drug approval process. It recently published a paper by Mark Flatten, titled "Studied to Death: FDA Overcaution Brings Deadly Consequences." Flatten examined the FDA's approval process and made some important recommendations. Flatten criticized some FDA practices, saying, "Instead of having to prove a new treatment is safe for its intended use, the FDA now reviews drugs based on how they might be used by doctors to treat individual patients, effectively substituting the judgment of agency regulators for that of practicing medical professionals." He added: "Instead of proving a drug achieves the medically beneficial results that its makers claim, the FDA requires proof the new treatment will improve long-term outcomes. So it is no longer enough, for instance, to prove a new drug will reduce blood glucose levels for diabetics. Drugmakers must show, somehow, that this will make patients live longer."
One Goldwater Institute suggestion is to allow drugs approved in certain other countries, such as Canada and the European Union, to receive nearly automatic U.S. approval. After all, those countries have drug regulatory structures similar to that in the U.S. Why should treatments approved in those countries not be available here?
The Goldwater Institute is also calling for a bill to restore free speech in medicine. It thinks Congress should allow drug manufacturers to provide information about "off-label use." This is a common practice in which doctors prescribe FDA-approved drugs to treat conditions other than those the FDA originally approved them for after new beneficial uses arise.
Strong evidence of FDA over-caution bias comes in the 1974 words of then-FDA Commissioner Alexander M. Schmidt: "In all of FDA's history, I am unable to find a single instance where a congressional committee investigated the failure of FDA to approve a new drug."
Let's think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification â wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
I see the beginnings, the root or the seed, of a massive narrative change in the elevation of political extremists like Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, also known as âthe squadâ. Yes, they seem to be universally hated in Washington right now, and the abject failure of AOCâs âGreen New Dealâ makes it appear as if there is little support for their ideas, but again, look at how much attention these nobodies are accumulatingâ¦
I am reminded of the early hints of Barack Obamaâs run for president even though he had little political experience compared to his opponents, most of it as a state senator. People running against him during his early career on the Democratic and Republican sides seemed to keep dropping out of the races due to sexual scandals. Then, Obama received overt attention from the mainstream media and even The Daily Show before he ever announced his run for the Oval Office. The build up was obvious for analysts that recognized the signals. Obama had been anointed by the elites.
AOC and âthe squadâ are being marketed in a very similar manner to Obama; as hopeful, young, vibrant, full of energy and ready to take on the world. The kind of cheesy, heart-clutching Disney movie sales pitch that Democrats and leftists go crazy for.
Today, comparatively âmoderateâ Democratic presidential candidates for 2020 such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are falling all over themselves to promote âthe squadâ and get their political approval and support. It is clear that hard line leftists are dictating the conversation on Americaâs future governmental path, and that path is one of extreme centralization, globalization, and bureaucratic tyranny in the name of fraudulent environmental panic.
Interestingly, Elizabeth Warren is garnering attention lately with her warnings of coming economic calamity under the Trump Administration. Her observations are very obvious to most of us and not worth noting here; itâs nice that Warren is mentioning the prospect of economic danger in the mainstream, but sheâs years late to the party. I would point out, though, that this marks a turning point in the 2020 election conversation. Suddenly, the Democrats are seriously talking about the potential for a financial crash â which says to me that the crash that is already happening today is about to accelerate even more in the next year. The globalists are setting the stage for the Democrats to say âSee, we told you soâ, as an election year approaches.
At this point, given her recent statements, I will have to predict that Elizabeth Warren is the intended Democratic candidate for the 2020 election.
It is important to remember that public sentiment is fickle, and can change so swiftly it boggles the mind. With the advent of a major economic disaster and maybe even a kinetic war that the US cannot sustain or win in the long run, the predictions of globalists and leftists that populist movements are a âcrisis waiting to happenâ would be fulfilled. Trump has no real control over the economy, of course, and the Fed determines when and how a financial bubble will pop; but that will not stop the majority from laying the blame on the feet of Trump and his political base. The introduction of hardcore socialism as the preeminent American ideal would be a much easier sell at that point.
In the middle of societal catastrophe, that which we once thought impossible becomes probable. I predict that the âfour horsewomen of the Apocalypseâ and their ilk are chosen by the globalists to take control of the US in the next decade after Trump and the populists are fully discredited in the eyes of more than half the country and the world. To be certain, there are many of us who will not accept open socialist/communist governance and all the tidings that come with it (including carbon controls and disarmament of the population), and I have no doubt civil war would erupt.
The point is, we should expect this outcome as one the globalists will force. The signs are visible now. The policies of these women, which are utterly insane and bankrupt of logic, are going to become the prevailing ideals of the next political revolution. Count on it.
It is hard to say at this time if Trump, like Hoover, will be a one term president. If the economic crash continues on its current pace then it is unlikely that Trump could secure a second term in 2020. That said, the advent of a shooting war with a country like Iran could conceivably change the dynamic even in the midst of a financial crisis.
Whether in 2020, or 2024, I believe Trump and the populist revolt will be replaced with a socialist fervor beyond anything we saw during the Obama Administration. Just as conservatives surprised the world in 2016, I believe the hard left will surprise the world in the next 5 years.
I find it rather suspicious the amount of media attention hard leftist politicians with little experience are receiving in the mainstream media these days. I am also suspicious of the amount of attention Donald Trump is paying to these same politicians in what appears to be another scripted wrestling match for the benefit of the public. Yes, Iâm talking about the âfour horsewomen of the Apocalypseâ and the ongoing soap opera dramatics between them and Trump that continually keep these junior upstarts in the spotlight despite all reason.
Once enough suffering had been dealt to the populace, globalists and extreme leftists would arrive on the scene to offer anti-populism as a solution; meaning the centralization and socialization of everything on a scale never before witnessed except perhaps in the darkest days of the Bolshevik Revolution.
This theory allowed me to predict the success of the Brexit vote in the UK, Trumpâs entry into the White House, the Federal Reserveâs interest rate hikes and balance sheet cuts into economic weakness, and now it is looking more and more like my March prediction of a âNo Dealâ Brexit will turn out to be correct with Boris Johnson rising to the position of Prime Minister. So, I continue to stand by it.
By extension, for a couple of years I have been examining the strange correlations between the background and policies of Donald Trump and the background and policies of Herbert Hoover; the Republican president that oversaw the great crash of 1929 and the beginning of the Great Depression.
One of Hooverâs first actions as president in response to the fiscal tensions of 1929 was to support increased tax cuts, primarily for corporations (this was then followed in 1932 by extensive tax increases in the midst of the depression). Then, he instituted tariffs through the Smoot-Hawley Act. His hyperfocus on massive infrastructure spending resulted in U.S. debt expansion and did nothing to dig the U.S. out of its unemployment abyss. In fact, infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam, which were launched in 1931, were not paid of for over 50 years. Hoover ended up as a single-term Republican president who paved the way socially for Franklin D. Roosevelt, an thinly disguised communist and perhaps the most destructive president in American history.
It was Hoover and his âprotectionistâ policies that were blamed for the Great Depression (along with the gold standard), yet it was the Federal Reserve which created the entire calamity. The Fedâs policy easing in the 1920s led to the extensive bubble in banking and stock markets, and the Fedâs rate hikes and liquidity tightening in the early 1930âs exacerbated the crash and extended the depression for many years. Former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke even openly admitted that the Fed was responsible for the Great Depression in a speech made in honor of Milton Friedman in 2002. He stated:
âIn short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn.
Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. Youâre right, we did it. Weâre very sorry. But thanks to you, we wonât do it again.â
Of course, the Fed IS doing it again. For over a year and a half the Fed has been instituting liquidity tightening into economic weakness at the onset of the crash of one of the biggest financial bubbles in the history of the economic world. It is a bubble they created with the intention of deliberately imploding it, and the process has already begun. As I have noted numerous times, the crash in fundamentals is well underway, with almost every sector of the economy in retreat except the three indicators that the Fed and the government statistically manipulate: GDP, employment, and stock markets.
Trump is not innocent in this scheme, either. After months of rightly criticizing the Fed during his campaign for inflating a fake economy and stock market, Trump pulled a 180 on his supporters after becoming president and has now attached his administration so completely to the Everything Bubble (and stock markets in particular) that it is assured he and his conservative followers will take the blame as it collapses.
I am also not the only person noting the comparison between Trump and Herbert Hoover. Trumpâs similarities to Hoover are being mentioned endlessly the past year in the mainstream and leftist media with a particular focus on the trade war. Trumpâs trade conflicts are providing the perfect cover for the banking elites to pull the plug on the economy, while escaping any blame. The narrative is being set up for a crash and the plan is to make populists, nationalists and sovereignty activists the scapegoats.
Libertarian
boosted
Young people are taught to love immorality, welfare, war, debt, and tyranny and become outraged when an old person says morality, personal responsibility , peace, balanced budgets, and freedom are better.
- Libertarian
- https://neinchan.com/pol/
Joined May 2019
