Key parts of the world’s financial affairs have been hi-jacked by self-serving financial organisations, bureaucracies, country leaders and individuals. The outlook is dire.
Scroll to end to view previous articles
- Ludwig Von Mises explained the world’s adoption of faulty economics By Richard Ebeling, The Heartland Institute, 8 September 2019
- Billionaires, Bezos, And The Real Big Brother By Eric Zuesse, via ConsortiumNews.com & Zerohedge, 30 August 2019
- US Dollar’s Achilles heel, and gold to soar By Dr. Jim Willie, 13 August 2019
Ludwig Von Mises explained the world’s adoption of faulty economics
Ludwig Von Mises explained the world’s adoption of faulty economics By Richard Ebeling, The Heartland Institute, 8 September 2019
September 2019 marks 70 years since the appearance of Ludwig von Mises’s Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, one of the truly great “classics” of modern economics.
September 2019 marks 70 years since the appearance of Ludwig von Mises’s Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, one of the truly great “classics” of modern economics. Too often a “classic” means a famous book considered to have made important contributions to some field of study and that is reverentially referred to but is unfortunately rarely ever read any-more.
In economics, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations is a typical example of such a work. Every economist and a good number of people in the general public have heard of the “invisible hand” and the notion that self-interest furthers the public interest through the incentive mechanism of free-market competition; but in fact few economists nowadays have actually read more than a handful of snippets and brief passages from Smith’s profound treatise. Among the general public, the number of people who even know the snippets dwindles to almost nothing.
A still-read and still-relevant classic
However, Ludwig von Mises’s Human Action uniquely stands out as a classic in the literature of economics. Not only among “Austrian” economists but also for a growing number of other people, Mises’s brilliant treatise continues to be read and taken seriously as a cornerstone for understanding the nature of the free society and the workings of the market economy.
It has taken on even more relevance and significance in these first decades of the 21st century because of the economic crisis of 2008-2009, the full effects from which the American economy has still not fully recovered, and in the wake of a dangerous revival of a call for a “democratic socialism” that demands the implementation of various forms and degrees of government central planning. They have made the economic reasoning and public-policy analysis that runs through most of Human Action as timely today as when its first edition appeared in bookstores on September 14, 1949.
A few days after its publication, the famous free-market journalist Henry Hazlitt reviewed Human Action in his column in Newsweek magazine. He emphasized its importance by telling his readers,
[The] book is destined to become a landmark in the progress of economics.… Human Action is, in short, the most uncompromising and the most rigorously reasoned statement of the case for capitalism that has yet appeared…. It should become the leading text of everyone who believes in freedom, in individualism, and the ability of a free-market economy not only to outdistance any government-planned system in the production of goods and services for the masses, but to promote and safeguard, as no collectivist tyranny can ever do, those intellectual, cultural, and moral values upon which all civilization ultimately rests.
Keys to human progress
If the field of sociology did not have such a controversial history and so many conflicting notions about what its subject matter and approach are supposed to be about, it would not be misplaced to say that in Human Action, Mises demonstrated himself to be not only one of the greatest economists of the last century, but one of its leading sociologists as well.
In the most appropriate meaning of the term, Mises formulated a “science of society” in the tradition of Scottish philosophers such as Adam Smith. All that happens in the social world begins in the thinking and actions of individual human beings. They are the starting point for understanding society: man, as a purposefully acting being, gives assigned meanings to the world around him, selects desired ends, decides upon possibly useful means to their attainment, and undertakes courses of action through time in attempts to bring his desired plans to fruition.
Humans rose above animal existence through their developed capacity to reason, conceptualize, imagine possible futures, and conceive of ways of bringing them into reality. But on his own, man’s mental and physical powers are too limited for achieving much above bare subsistence. The profound key to the betterment of the human condition, Mises insisted, was man’s discovery of the benefits that could come from a division of labor through which men could specialize in their tasks and mutually gain through cooperative association that slowly but surely improved the standards of living, the quality of life, and the cultural elements that mark off “civilization.”
But how shall human beings collaborate — through plundering conquest or peaceful trade? It took thousands of years for people to stumble upon the superiority of market-based cooperation over politically based power and privilege. As production and trade become ever more complex owing to the extension of the system of division of labor, there had to arise a method by which the participants in the emerging relationships of supply and demand could know how and what to do.
A central theme through much of the Human Action is Mises’s insistence on the essential importance of economic calculation. In the early decades of the 20th century, socialists of almost all stripes were certain that the institutions of the market economy could be done away with — either through peaceful means or violent revolution — and replaced with direct government ownership or control of the means of production with no loss in economic productivity or efficiency.
Mises’s landmark contribution 100 years ago in 1920 was to demonstrate that only with market-based prices expressed through a medium of exchange could rational decision-making be undertaken for the use and application of the myriad means of production to ensure the effective satisfaction of the multitudes of competing consumer demands in society.
“Monetary calculation is the guiding star of action under the system of division of labor,” Mises declared in Human Action. “It is the compass of the man embarking on production.” The significance of the competitive process, as Mises had expressed it in his earlier volume Liberalism (1927), is that it facilitates “the intellectual division of labor that consists in the cooperation of all entrepreneurs, landowners, and workers as producers and consumers in the formation of market prices. But without it, rationality, i.e., the possibility of economic calculation, is unthinkable.”
Such rationality in the use of means to satisfy ends is impossible in a comprehensive system of socialist central planning. How, Mises asked, will the socialist planners know the best uses for which the factors of production under their central control should be applied without such market-generated money prices? Without private ownership of the means of production, there would be nothing (legally) to buy and sell. Without the ability to buy and sell, there would be no bids and offers, and therefore no haggling over terms of trade among competing buyers and sellers. Without the haggling of market competition there would, of course, be no agreed-upon terms of exchange. Without agreed-upon terms of exchange, there are no actual market prices. And without such market prices, how will the central planners know the opportunity costs and therefore the most highly valued uses for which those resources could or should be applied to satisfy the consumer demands of “the people”?
With the abolition of private property, and therefore market exchange and prices, the central planners would lack the necessary institutional and informational tools to determine what to produce and how, in order to minimize waste and inefficiency.
Therefore, Mises declared in 1931,
From the standpoint of both politics and history, this proof [of the impossibility of socialist planning] is certainly the most important discovery by economic theory.… It alone will enable future historians to understand how it came about that the victory of the socialist movement did not lead to the creation of the socialist order of society.
Government intervention and monetary manipulation
At the same time, Mises demonstrated the inherent inconsistencies in any system of piecemeal political intervention in the market economy. Price controls and production restrictions on entrepreneurial decision-making bring about distortions and imbalances in the relationships of supply and demand, as well as constraints on the most efficient use of resources in the service of consumers. The political intervenor is left with the choice of either introducing new controls and regulations in an attempt to compensate for the distortions and imbalances the prior interventions have caused or repealing the interventionist controls and regulations already in place and allowing the market once again to be free and competitive. The path of one set of piecemeal interventions followed by another entails a logic in the growth of government that eventually results in the entire economy’s coming under state management. Hence, interventionism consistently applied could lead to socialism on an incremental basis through an unintended back door.
The most pernicious form of government intervention, in Mises’s view, was political control and manipulation of the monetary system. Contrary to both the Marxists and the Keynesians, Mises did not consider the fluctuations experienced over the business cycle to be an inherent and inescapable part of the free-market economy. Waves of inflations and depressions were the product of political intervention in money and banking. And that included the Great Depression of the 1930s, Mises argued.
Under various political and ideological pressures, governments had monopolized control over the monetary system. They used the ability to create money out of thin air through the printing press or on the ledger books of the banks to finance government deficits and to artificially lower interest rates to stimulate unsustainable investment booms. Such monetary expansions always tended to distort market prices resulting in misdirections of resources, including labor, and malinvestments of capital. The inflationary upswing that is caused by an artificial expansion of money and bank credit sets the stage for an eventual economic downturn. By distorting the rate of interest — the market price for borrowing and lending — the monetary authority throws savings and investment out of balance, with the need for an inevitable correction.
The “depression” or “recession” phase of the business cycle occurs when the monetary authority either slows downs or stops any further increases in the money supply. The imbalances and distortions become visible, with some investment projects having to be written down or written off as losses, with reallocations of labor and other resources to alternative, more profitable employments, and sometimes significant adjustments and declines in wages and prices to bring supply and demand back into proper order.
The errors of Keynesianism
The Keynesian revolution of the 1930s, which then dominated economic-policy discussions for decades following the Second World War, was based on a fundamental misconception of how the market economy worked. What Keynes called “aggregate demand failures” (to explain the reason for high and prolonged unemployment) distracted attention from the real source of less-than-full employment: the failure of producers and workers on the supply side of the market to price their products and labor services at levels that potential demanders would be willing to pay. Unemployment and idle resources were a pricing problem, not a demand-management problem. Mises considered Keynesian economics basically to be nothing more than a rationale for special-interest groups, such as trade unions, who didn’t want to adapt to the reality of supply and demand, and of what the market viewed as their real worth.
Thus Mises’s conclusion from his analysis of socialism and interventionism, including monetary manipulation, was that there is no alternative to a thoroughgoing, unhampered, free-market economy — and one that included a market-based monetary system such as the gold standard. Both socialism and interventionism are, respectively, unworkable and unstable substitutes for open, competitive capitalism.
The classical liberal defends private property and the free-market economy, Mises insisted, precisely because it is the only system of social cooperation that provides wide latitude for freedom and personal choice to all members of society, while generating the institutional means for coordinating the actions of billions of people in the most economically rational manner.
The apparent triumph of capitalism over collectivism, following the demise of the Soviet bloc in the 1990s, has, unfortunately, turned out to be mostly an illusion. Governments in the Western world did not reduce their size or intrusiveness in the economic affairs of their citizens. The interventionist-welfare state has remained alive and well, and continued to grow along with the government debts to pay for the entire redistributive largess.
Central banking and free banking
But the heart of the interventionist system is government control of the monetary system — indeed, it has remained an untouched element of monetary central planning through the institution of central banking.
Fortunately, over the last forty years, Mises’s analysis and defense of gold-backed, private competitive banking in place of government-monopoly central banking has finally begun to win over a growing number of Austrian and other advocates. (See my ebook Monetary Central Planning and the State.)
Monetary manipulation by central banks inserts one of the most disruptive distortions into the process of economic calculation. Interest rates — which are meant to inform market participants about the availability of savings relative to the demands for investment expenditures, and which facilitate the coordination of resource use over periods of time relative to the demands of income earners for consumption in the present versus the future — send out misinformation to both producers and consumers under the pressure of monetary expansion.
The financial crisis and its interventionist aftermath
In the wake of Federal Reserve monetary mischief during the early years of the 21st century, imbalances and distortions were once again generated by monetary policies that resulted in the financial and economic crisis of 2008-2009.
There soon occurred the return of the “ghost of Keynes past.” In the face of the inescapable need for the rebalancing and re-coordination of misdirected resources and malinvested capital for a full return to normal and sustainable, market-based growth, government spending and budget deficits to “stimulate” the economy out of a recession were once again insisted upon.
The focus remained on “aggregate” output and employment, which always hides from view the underlying microeconomic relations that are at the core of the market process. How can the multitudes of market participants discern where and to what extent market errors have been made under the pressure of past monetary and interest-rate manipulations if the price system is not permitted to perform its job of telling the truth about the reality of supply and demand? That is, the degree to which resources were misallocated and wrongly priced during the preceding boom. Or the extent to which men, material, and savings-backed financial funds need to realign themselves to restore a properly understood full-employment market-driven economy.
The recovery period was drawn out for almost ten years, longer than most other periods of post-boom readjustments since the end of the Second World War. How could people know what to do and where to do it in the social system of division of labor, when the crucial tool of economic calculation was undermined by government bailouts, subsidies, price floors, capital-market interventions, and continuing monetary manipulation and near-zero interest-rate policies that threatened new misdirections of capital and labor, with the risk of another boom-bust cycle to come?
In the immediate aftermath of the 2008-2009 downturn, the argument was constantly made that many banks were too big to fail, that depositors needed to have their various bank accounts protected and guaranteed, and that the repercussions of allowing the financial markets to adjust on their own to the post-boom reality would have been too harsh. In fact, Mises had responded to such arguments in his 1928 monograph, Monetary Stabilization and Cyclical Policy, even before the Great Depression began, by warning of what today is understood as “moral hazard,” that is, the danger of reinforcing the repetition of bad decisions by the government’s bailing out mistakes made in the market:
In any event, the practice of intervening for the benefit of banks, rendered insolvent by the crisis, and of the customers of these banks, resulted in suspending the market forces that otherwise would have served to prevent a return of the expansion, in the form of a new boom, and the crisis which inevitably follows. If the banks emerge from the crisis unscathed, or only slightly weakened, what remains to restrain them from embarking once more on an attempt to reduce artificially the interest rate on loans and expand circulation credit? If the crisis were ruthlessly permitted to run its course, bringing about the destruction of enterprises which were unable to meet their obligations, then all entrepreneurs — not only banks but also other businessmen — would exhibit more caution in granting and using credit in the future. Instead, public opinion approves of giving assistance in the crisis. Then, no sooner is the worst over, than the banks are spurred on to a new expansion of circulation credit.
Just as there was a huge shift toward more and bigger government in the years leading up to the publication of Human Action, so today we are seeing an expansion of governmental presence and domination of social life, especially in health care, education, and the energy sector — as well as the financial and capital markets.
But where will all the money come from to fund this new gargantuan largess for expanded political paternalism? In the Austria of the interwar period of the 1920s and 1930s, Mises had witnessed and explained the consequences from unrestrained government spending that finally resulted in the “eating of the seed corn” — capital consumption. Mises warned of this danger, too, in the pages of Human Action, and the fact that there must be a point at which the interventionist welfare state will have exhausted “the reserve fund” of accumulated wealth, after which the consumption of capital becomes the only basis upon which to continue to feed the fiscal demands of the redistributive state. Those currently in political power in Washington seem hell-bent on bringing that about in the decades ahead.
The enduring value and importance of Human Action
A “predecessor” of Human Action had appeared in German in 1940. Shortly after it appeared, Friedrich A. Hayek reviewed it, emphasizing its astonishingly unique qualities:
There appears to be a width of view and an intellectual spaciousness about the whole book that are much more like that of an eighteenth-century philosopher than that of a modern specialist. And yet, or perhaps because of this, one feels throughout much nearer reality, and is constantly recalled from the discussion of the technicalities to the consideration of the great problems of our time…. It ranges from the most general philosophical problems raised by all scientific study of human action to the major problems of economic policy of our time…. [The] result is a really imposing unified system of a liberal social philosophy. It is here also, more than elsewhere, that the author’s astounding knowledge of history as well as of the contemporary world helps most to illustrate his argument.
The years since the original appearance of Human Action in 1949 have done nothing to diminish the validity of Hayek’s interpretation. Indeed, the social, political, and economic conditions of our world today give Ludwig von Mises’s treatise a refreshing relevance matched by few other works written over the last century.
That is what has resulted in its being read by more and more people today, rather than simply being one of those many “classics” collecting dust on a shelf. If enough people discover and rediscover the timeless truths in the pages of Human Action, the ideas of Ludwig von Mises may well assist us in stemming the growing tide toward an even larger leviathan state that dangerously looms in front of us.
[Originally Published at the Future of Freedom Foundation]
Billionaires, Bezos, And The Real Big Brother
Billionaires, Bezos, And The Real Big Brother By Eric Zuesse, via ConsortiumNews.com & Zerohedge, 30 August 2019
Jeff Bezos is the owner of The Washington Post, which leads America’s news-media in their almost 100 percent support and promotion of neoconservatism, American imperialism and wars. This includes sanctions, coups, and military invasions against countries that America’s billionaires want to control but don’t yet control — such as Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Russia, Libya, and China.
These are aggressive wars against countries which have never aggressed against the United States. They are not, at all, defensive, but the exact opposite.It’s not necessarily endless war (even Hitler hadn’t planned that), but war until the entire planet has come under the control of the U.S. Government, a government that is itself controlled by America’s billionaires, the funders of neoconservatism and imperialism — in both major American political parties, think tanks, newspapers, TV networks, etcetera.
Bezos has been a crucial part of neoconservatism, ever since, at the June 6-9 2013 Bilderberg meeting, he arranged with Donald Graham, the Washington Post’s owner, to buy that newspaper, for $250 million. Bezos had already negotiated, in March of that same year, with the neoconservative CIA Director, John Brennan, for a $600 million ten-year cloud computing contract that transformed Amazon corporation, from being a reliable money-loser, into a reliably profitable firm.
That caused Bezos’s net worth to soar even more (and at a sharper rate of rising) than it had been doing while it had been losing money. He became the most influential salesman not only for books, but for the CIA, and for such mega-corporations as Lockheed Martin. Imperialism has supercharged his wealth, but it didn’t alone cause it. Bezos might be the most ferociously gifted business-person on the planet.
Some of America’s billionaires don’t care about international conquest as much as he does, but all of them at least accept neoconservatism; none of them, for example, establishes and donates large sums to, anti-imperialistic organizations; none of America’s billionaires is determined to end the reign of neoconservatism, nor even to help the fight to end it, or at least to end its grip over the U.S. government. None. Not even a single one of them does.
But many of them establish and donate large sums to neoconservative organizations, or run neocon organs such as The Washington Post. That’s the way billionaires are, at least in the United States. All of them are imperialists. They sponsor it; they promote it and hire people who do, and demote or get rid of people who don’t. Expanding an empire is extremely profitable for its aristocrats, and always has been, even before the Roman Empire.
Bezos wants to privatize everything around the world that can become privatized, such as education, highways, health care, and pensions. The more that billionaires control those things, the less that everyone else does; and preventing control by the public helps to protect billionaires against democracy that would increase their taxes and government regulations that would reduce their profits by increasing their corporations’ expenses. So, billionaires control the government in order to increase their takings from the public.
With the help of the war promotion of The Washington Post, Bezos is one of the world’s top personal sellers to the U.S. military-industrial complex. He controls and is the biggest investor in Amazon corporation, whose Web Services division supplies all cloud-computing services to the Pentagon, CIA and NSA. (He’s leading the charge in the most advanced facial recognition technology too.)
In April there was a headline, “CIA Considering Cloud Contract Worth ‘Tens of Billions’,” which contract could soar Bezos’s personal wealth even higher into the stratosphere, especially if he wins all of it (as he previously did).
He also globally dominates, and is constantly increasing his control over the promotion and sale of books and films, because his Amazon is the world’s largest retailer (and now also one of the largest publishers, producers and distributors.) That, too, can have a huge impact upon politics and government, indirectly, by promoting the most neocon works helping to shape intellectual discourse (and voters’ votes) in the country.
Bezos is crushing millions of retailers by his unmatched brilliance at controlling one market after another as Amazon or as an essential middleman for — and often even a controller of — Amazon’s retail competitors.
He is a strong believer in “the free market”, which he has mastered perhaps better than anyone. This means that Bezos supports the unencumbered ability of billionaires, by means of their money, to control and eventually absorb all who are less powerful than they.
Because he is so enormously gifted himself at amassing wealth, he has thus-far been able to rise to the global top, as being one of the world’s most powerful individuals. The wealthiest of all is King Salman— the owner of Saudi Arabia, whose Aramco (the world’s largest oil company) is, alone, worth over a trillion dollars. (Forbes and Bloomberg exclude monarchs from their wealth-rankings.)
President Donald Trump touches lighted globe with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Saudi King Salman at the opening of Saudi Arabia’s Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology on May 21, 2017. (Photo from Saudi TV)
In fact, Bloomberg is even so fraudulent about it as to have headlined on Aug. 10, “The 25 wealthiest dynasties on the planet control $1.4 trillion” and violated their tradition by including on their list one monarch, King Salman, whom they ranked at #4 as owning only $100 million, a ludicrously low ‘estimate’, which brazenly excluded not just Aramco but any of the net worth of Saudi Arabia.
Bloomberg didn’t even try to justify their wacky methodology, but merely presumed the gullibility of their readers for its acceptance. That King, therefore, is at least seven times as rich as Bezos is. He might possibly be as powerful as Bezos is. The supreme heir is lots wealthier even than the supreme self-made billionaire or “entrepreneur” is.
Certainly, both men are among the giants who bestride the world in our era. And both men are libertarians — champions of the belief that property rights (of which, billionaires have so much) are the basis of all rights, and so they believe that the wealthiest people possess the most rights of all, and that the poorest people have the least, and that all persons whose net worths are negative (having more debts than assets) possess no rights except what richer people might donate to or otherwise grant to them, out of kindness or otherwise (such as familial connections).
This — privatization of everything — is what libertarianism is: a person’s worth is his or her “net worth” — nothing else. That belief is pure libertarianism. It’s a belief that many if not most billionaires hold. Billionaires are imperialistic because they seek to maximize the freedom of the super-rich, regardless of whether this means increasing their takings from, or ultimately impoverishing, everyone who isn’t super-rich. They have a coherent ideology. It’s based on wealth. The public instead believes in myths that billionaires enable to be promulgated.
Like any billionaire, Bezos hires and retains employees and other agents who do what he/she wants them to do. This is their direct power. But billionaires also possess enormous indirect power by means of their interdependencies upon one-another, as each large corporation is contractually involved with other corporations, especially with large ones such as they; and, so, whatever power any particular billionaire possesses is actually a shared power, along with the others. (An example was the deal Bezos made with Graham.)
Collectively, they network together, even with ones they might never even have met personally, but only through their representatives, and even with their own major economic competitors. This is collective power which billionaires possess in addition to their individual power as hirers of employees and other agents.
Whereas Winston Smith, in the prophetic allegorical novel 1984, asked his superior and torturer O’Brien, “Does Big Brother exist?”
“‘Of course he exists. The Party exists. Big Brother is the embodiment of the Party.’
‘Does he exist in the same way as I exist?’
‘You do not exist,’ said O’Brien.”
Big Brother poster illustrating George Orwell’s novel about modern propaganda, 1984.
This collective power is embodied by Bezos as well as any billionaire does. A few of the others may embody it too, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Charles Koch, Sergey Brin, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and Jack Dorsey. They compete against each other, and therefore have different priorities for the U.S. government; but, all of them agree much more than they disagree in regards to what the Government “should” do (especially that the U.S. military should be expanded — at taxpayer’s expense, of course, not their own).
Basically, Big Brother, in the real world is remarkably coherent and unified – far more so than the public is – and this is one of the reasons why they control Government, bypassing the public.
Here is how all of this plays out, in terms of what Bezos’s agents have been doing:
- His Amazon pays low to no federal taxes because the Federal Government has written the tax-laws to encourage companies to dothe types of things that Bezos has always wanted Amazon to do.
- The U.S. government consequently encourages mega-corporations through taxes and regulations to crush small firms by making it harder for them to grow. That somewhatlocks-in the existing aristocracy to be less self-made (as Bezos himself was, but his children won’t be).
- Elected politicians overwhelmingly support this because most of their campaign funds were donated by super-rich individuals and their employees and other agents.It’s a self-reinforcing system. Super-wealth controls the government, which (along with the super-wealthy and their corporations) controls the public, which reduces economic opportunity for them. The end-result is institutionally reinforced extreme wealth-inequality, becoming more extreme all the time.
The billionaires are the real Big Brothers. And Bezos is the biggest of them all.
- Former Lehman Brothers chief economist warns ‘risk incentives’ could cause new crisis By Adam Creighton, The Australian, 22 October 2018
- Ten signs we’re heading for economic Armageddon By Liam Dann, Herald News Business Editor, 11 February 2018
- The Greatest Bubble Ever, Why You Better Believe It – Part 1 and 2 By David Stockman via Contra Corner blog, ZeroHedge, 31 December 2017
- This Is What A Pre-Crash Market Looks Like By Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse blog, 14 November 2017
- The Economic End Game Continues By Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com, 5 November 2017
- Get Ready for a World Currency by 2018 By Jay Syrmopoulos, 13 July 2017
- Without Glass-Steagall America Will Fail By Paul Craig Roberts, 10 June 2017
- Creating another ‘crash of 1929’ By Jeff Thomas, Editor, International Man, 20 April 2017
- Why Investors Deserve to Get Mauled By Vern Gowdie, Daily Reckoning, 21 March 2017
- Bubbles always burst, eventually By Vern Gowdie, The Daily Reckoning, 16 March 2017
- This Global Debt Bomb Is Ready To Explode By Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog, 14 March 2017
- Great Political and Social Leaders Always Call Out Bankers By Waking Times, 16 February 2017
- What Will President Trump Do About The Central-Bank Cartel By Thorstein Polleit, via The Mises Institute, 14 February 2017
- The Deep State’s Doomsday Bug By Bill Bonner, Bonner and Partners, 1 February
- Only Glass-Steagall Can Save the U.S. from Another Epic Crash By Pam Martens, 31 January 2017
- This could be the biggest ‘black swan’ of 2017 By Nick Giambruno, International Man, 24 January 2017
- Banks Owned or Controlled by the Rothschild Family From HumansAreFree.com, 23 January 2017
- The ‘Axis of Gold’ is launching an attack on the U.S. dollar By Jim Rickards, 29 December 2016
- rickards-the-global-elites-secret-plan-for-the-next-financial-crisis By Jim Rickards, Editor, Currency Wars Alert, 28 October 2016
- we-are-living-on-borrowed-money-time By Vern Gowdie, The Daily Reckoning, 13 October 2016
- deutsche-bank-in-dire-straights From Zerohedge, 30 September 2016
- big-banks-a-culture-of-crime By Jeff Nielson, Bullion Bulls Canada, 30 September 2016
- jim-rickards-there-will-be-a-war-on-gold From Tekoa De Silve at Sprott Thoughts, 14 September 2016
- supervisor-of-massive-fraud-at-wells-fargo-leaves-bank-with-125-million-bonus From Zerohedge, 13 September 2016
- The-end-game-of-central-banking-is-nigh By David Stockman via Contra Corner blog, Zerohedge, 8 September 2016
- Are Central Bankers Coming To A Bitter End By Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com, Zerohedge, 30 August 2016
- Pentagon Cannot Account For $6.5 Trillion Dollars By Jay Syrmopoulos, Global Research, 17 August 2016
- IMF, An Inheritance of Incompetence By John Mauldin | Aug 13, 2016
- Abolish the FOMC By David Stockman, from Zerohedge, 11 August 2016
- Memo To The Donald – 10 Great ‘Deals’ To Save America Before It’s Too Late By David Stockman, via Zerohedge, 10 August 2016
- The War on Cash is still being planned in the background By Jim Rickards, Editor, Rickards’ Gold Speculator, from The Crux, 5 August 2016
- IMF admits disastrous love affair with the euro and apologises for the immolation of Greece By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, The Telegraph, 31 July 2016
- Central banks hell-bent on a currency debauch Lenin would love By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 22 July 2016
- Financial collapse, the trigger is inconsequential By Jim Quinn, Zerohedge, 7 July
- The global monetary system is collapsing From Sean Goldsmith, Editor-in-Chief, Stansberry Research, 3 July 2016
- Marc Faber, clear message to sick political elite From Zerohedge, 29 June 2016
- Australia faces danger as politicians ignore danger signs By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 23 June 2016
- Australian Labor’s amazing economic magic pudding By Nick Cater, The Australian, 21 June 2019
- During the Next Crisis, Entire Countries Will Go Bust By Phoenix Capital, 16 June
- Criminal Bankers Threaten Entire World Economy By Greg Hunter, USAWatchdog, 25 May 2016
- Keynes must die so the economy may live By Llewellyn Rockwell, 24 May 2014
- In praise of the gold standard Via The Mises Institute, 16 May 2016
- “A scramble for gold has begun” By Jim Rickards, Editor, Currency Wars Alert, 22 April 2016
- The Keynesian House Of Denial By David Stockman, 19 April 2016
- Dick Smith retail chain failure gives capitalism a bad name Article 20 March
- China’s economic doomsday machine By David Stockman, Zerohedge, 11 March 2016
- The European Depression Was A Deliberate Act From Zerohedge, 3 March 2016
- Syria’s state-owned central banks By ‘anonymous’, 18 February 2016
- 22 Signs of global economic turmoil By Michael Snyder, Zerohedge, 6 February 2016
- Will Bitcoin of similar replace fiat currencies when confidence dies By David Uren, The Australian, 29 January 2016
- The deflation monster has arrived By Chris Martenson, 17 January 2016
- The Big Short, a must-see movie about Wall St From ZeroHedge, 24 December 2015
- Iceland shows how to treat criminal banksters From Zerohedge, 25 October 2015
- By David Stockman via Zerohedge, 17 Dec 2015
- Bankers will be jailed in the next financial crisis By Mike Kreiger, Zerohedge, 16 September 2015
- Marc Faber warnings Interview with Mark Faber, Zerohedge, 3 September 2015
- Global financial crash, 12 signs By Michael Snyder, 13 August 2015
- How a glitch nearly crashed the global financial system
- The bankruptcy of the planet accelerates
- “Central banks are out of control”
- How a glitch nearly crashed the global financial system From Zerohedge, 10 August
- Most of the world’s banks are headed for collapse By Doug Casey, 16 July 2015
- How much of the Greek debt is legitimate By Kurt Nimmo, 7 July 2015
- Greek debt, ‘illegal, illegitimate, odious and unsustainable’ From Zerohedge, 18 June
- The perils of populist democracy and debt By Gary Johns, 17 June 2015
- The FED knows the financial sun revolves around the financial earth By James Rickards, The Daily Reckoning, 12 June 2015
- Lessons for Australia are stark By Henry Ergas, The Australian, 8 June 2015
- The Perfect Storm Approaches James Rickards, Contributing Editor, The Daily Reckoning, 3 June 2015
- “Central banks are out of control” By David Stockman, Zerohedge, 25 May 2015
- Terminal phase of the global financial system David Stockman interview, by Eric King, Contra Corner blog, 19 May 2015
- Grexit jingle mail By Charles Hugh-Smith, OfTwoMinds blog, Zerohedge, 16 May 2015
- Massive bank crimes receive the usual token slap From Zerohedge, 13 May 2015
- Deutsch banks decade of ‘lying, cheating and stealing’ From Zerohedge, 6 May 2015
- How this debt-addicted world could go the way of the Mayans By Satyajit Das, MarketWatch, 28 April 2015
- None dare call it a fraud, it’s just a ‘savings glut’ By David Stockman, 13 April 2015
- “The UK economy is a ticking time bomb” By Simon Black, Sovereign Man, 8 April
- Banks will be obsolete within 10 years By Simon Black, Sovereign Man, 5 April 2015
- No Fed bets from the IMS From Silver-Coin-Investor.com, 2 April 2015
- USD dominance is dying rapidly From Zerohedge, 26 March 2015
- Austrian bank Black Swan From Zerohedge, 16 March 2015
- SWIFT and the de-dollarization axis From Zerohedge, 10 Mar 2015
- China’s fiscal cliff By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, The Telegraph, 6 Feb 2015
- The real economy is about to implode By Brandon Smith. 5 Mar 2015
- EU financial suicide, extend and pretend By Charles Hugh-Smith, 19 Feb
- Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Interview, Prof Michael Hudson, 16 Feb 2015
- Audit The Fed, And Shackle It Too By David Stockman, Contra Corner, 13 Feb 2015
- GREECE should exit the eurozone ASAP By Alan Kohler, The Australian, 10 Feb 2015
- Greece, the EU and crony capitalism By David Stockman, Contra Corner, 5 Feb 2015