SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: bart13 who wrote (120712)7/10/2016 9:21:10 AM
From: bart13  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 218652
 
Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy’s tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. […] The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit.

— Alan Greenspan, 1961

Since 1978, we have had four different Fed chiefs. Some were smart. Some were honest. Only Paul Volcker was smart and honest. Bernanke was honest… we believe. As near as we can tell, so is Janet Yellen. Both may mean well, but both are careful not to think out of the Deep State box.

Alan Greenspan was smart. But he is a scalawag. He knew all along that the system was corrupt and self-serving. He had explained it in essays he’d written prior to joining the Fed.



The committee, that in hindsight, actually screwed the world (here’s a little hint for TIME, for next time: “committees” have never saved anything). A bunch of quintessential Deep State minions…

Now, Mr. Greenspan is 90 years old. Either he feels the cold downdraft of the beckoning grave… or he is simply forgetting to mumble. In an interview in the wake of Britain’s decision to end its membership of the European Union, he had this to say:



If you look at human history, there are times where we thought that there was no inflation and everything was going fine. […] The oil prices have had a terrific impact on global inflation and would not be surprised to see the next unexpected move to be on the inflation side. You don’t have it until it happens.



The former Fed chairman says he believes another debt crisis is inevitable. He believes it will lead to high levels of inflation. His solution? Gold:



“Now if we went back on the gold standard and we adhered to the actual structure of the gold standard as it exists let’s say, prior to 1913, we’d be fine. Remember that the period 1870 to 1913 was one of the most aggressive periods economically that we’ve had in the U.S., and that was a golden period of the gold standard.”




He’s right about the pre-Fed decades as well. Real economic growth in the US has never been faster or more equitable than under the gold standard in the much-bewailed “Gilded Age” (much-bewailed by leftists that is – they hate economic progress and free markets) – click to enlarge.



By now the McKinsey report on global debt has become a little dated…if is fair to assume that debt growth has continued at the same pace. While government debt growth rates have slowed slightly since this report was published (Q2 2014), corporate debt growth has taken off like a rocket – click to enlarge.

“Higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which will also spur spending,” said an earnest, but perhaps dim, Ben Bernanke in 2010.

“Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that… will further support economic expansion.”

Six years later, all we see is a misbegotten credit bubble and $60 trillion more, worldwide, of debt.

Alan “Bubbles” Greenspan Returns to Gold




To: bart13 who wrote (120712)7/10/2016 3:48:22 PM
From: GPS Info  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 218652
 
Wow, you seem to have spun yourself into a wild frenzy of posts. 23 and counting in a few hours.

It's not a justification that they happen, it's a fact.

Yes, I am aware that atrocities have happened. This fact was not in dispute.

I am trying to understand how many Islamic villages will need to be destroyed (by Democrats or Republicans) to reduce the number of terrorist attacks.

Do you feel proud that Obama got the Nobel Peace prize these days after killing and murdering so many since 2009?

Not especially. I don't remember feeling proud of anyone's Nobel Peace prize.

How does that stupid question feel? <g>

It feels exactly the same as before.

There will be whole families of terrorists killed, whether you and I approve of it or not.

OK, you and I don't need to approve of it. The question was fairly simple: how many dead family members will it take to stop the terrorists?