jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (13 posts)

A Perspective on Bernake

  1. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    Please, I am always looking for perspectives if any one has one big_smile

    I am trying to learn and understand how there can be such divisive differences in how people handle money and an economy.

    http://www.voteronpaul.com/newsDetail.p … -Know-2058

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Peter Schiff is a very smart guy.  He was sounding the alarm for years that the housing industry was in a bubble and that it was going to pop sooner or later.  You Tube his name and you can see him on CNN and other news outlets.  If you want to learn more about economics I recommend the following two sites.  http://www.miess.org - the website of the Austrian School of economics, the only school that predicted what we're going through now and http://www.thedailyreconing.com - Bill Bonner is the CEO of Agora Publishing.  They've been in the investment newsletter biz for decades now.  They're having a field day dissecting the latest boondoggles coming out of Washington these days.

    2. awsydney profile image61
      awsydneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Depends on who do you mean by "people".

      Money is handled by entrepreneurs but implicitly controlled by politicians. The economy is handled by politicians but implicitly controlled by entrepreneurs.

  2. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    You screwed the link LDT, should be http://www.mises.org

    smile

    1. SparklingJewel profile image67
      SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      you mean the Ludwig Von Mises Institute?  president Lew Rockwell?

      They have a new video out about the Federal REserve and economy. "Money and Sense" or cents...I think it is called.

      But I also viewed one about the Federal REserve by E.R. Griffith (?) I am not at home to check that name from my notes...but it was very intelligently and simply phrased, concise and to the point.

      1. ledefensetech profile image80
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        That's the one.  Are you thinking of G Edward Griffin, perhaps?  he's right in some respects, the government and a cartel of banks are in cahoots, but the whip hand is held by the government.  Have you ever read "As We Go Marching"?  It talks about how Mussolini grouped Italian industries and banks into cartels, much like the banks of the Federal Reserve are cartels.  Who do you think held power in Italy during that time?  The banks, or Il Duce?  Likewise, Hitler's Germany did the same thing.  Who was in control?  The banks or Der Fuhrer?

        http://mises.org/books/aswegomarching.pdf

        An interesting point the book brings up is that cartels are not able to be formed without the tacit approval of force.  Usually that means government, but not always.  The Colombian Drug Cartels come to mind, but if you want the cartel to be relatively stable you need government backing.  Otherwise the cartel engages in costly and bloody turf wars that sooner or later, destroy the cartel.  With government backing you can just throw people who don't agree with you into jail and you don't get the negative press that a street war would entail.

        1. SparklingJewel profile image67
          SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Is there any one "group" that leads them all (i.e. govts, bankers, Bilderbergers, or do all the elites just work together and spread their "take" from little people to each other?...

          1. ledefensetech profile image80
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            No there isn't one group.  It's more like an aristocracy than some great monolithic conspiracy.  Anyone can do it if they take the right path.  Of course what they are doing is immoral, so you risk your soul if you believe in such a thing.  Or your very life when people wise up and realize the scam you've perpetuated.  Again look at Hitler and Mussolini.  They were once tyrants, then abandoned or killed by their very subjects.  You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

            1. Aya Katz profile image88
              Aya Katzposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Especially if you lose the war! Do you think Hitler would have been abandoned by the German people if he'd won WWII?

              1. ledefensetech profile image80
                ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                In all honesty, he probably would have died.  Analysis of the records of his personal doctor show that he was under a lot of drugs.  One of the culprits is believed to have been methamphetamine.  If so, it would explain some of his orders.  Meth gives you the feeling of being invincible and could account for some of his "hold until the last soldier is dead" orders that crippled the Bundeswher on the Eastern Front.

                Then there would have been the economic problems after the war.  An economy run by cartel is inherently unstable, as we are finding out in the US today.  There's no telling how economic problems would have affected the Reich, but given that dictatorships are held more responsible for economic problems than democracies are, the results probably wouldn't have been good.  Again that's a bit of a WAG, but if you look at the history of the French Revolution and the history of Banana Republics, people tend to overthrow dictators that screw up the economy.

                1. Aya Katz profile image88
                  Aya Katzposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, yes, I'll agree to that. People tend to overthrow dictators who screw up the economy. Or screw up period. But not because they are dictators and not because they're involved in genocide!

                  1. ledefensetech profile image80
                    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Few people know that there were several assassination plots against Hitler before his victory in France.  All of them quietly went away after he won.  The military never really trusted him, but they felt he was the only way to keep Communism at bay.  The funny thing is Hans Guderian drug Hitler and the rest of the Wehrmacht after him into victory.  Had he not done his "reconnaissance in force" with his whole force to the English Channel, things may have bogged down and Hitler may have been taken out.  May have.  Often times, history isn't what we think it is.

  3. ledefensetech profile image80
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Whoops, thanks Misha.

 
working