Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Another Ron Paul Critic at the Fed: "I Know Some Powerful People"

Stephen Williamson another Fed economist from the same Fed branch, the St Louis branch where another economist, David Andolfatto, called Congressman Ron Paul a pinhead is out with a clarifying rant.

He starts his rant by telling us that:
I have worked full-time at the Minneapolis Fed (2 years), and have been a visiting academic at the Federal Reserve Banks of Richmond, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Kansas City, Atlanta, and New York. I currently spend an average of something less than one day per week at the St. Louis Fed, in my hometown, where my full-time job is at Washington University in St. Louis. My title at the St. Louis Fed is "Research Fellow," and I have an office over there (no window unfortunately) with my name on the door. I also know some powerful people. I went to graduate school with 2 Fed Presidents, know 4 Fed Presidents well (Narayana Kocherlakota is a rather aggressive poker player; Dean Corbae is not), and am an acquaintance of Ben Bernanke's from back in the day (e.g. we both belonged to Glenn Hubbard's NBER group for a time).

I am not trying to boast here.

 He then goes on to attack some of Ron Paul's specific points:
1. The Fed is immoral. The idea here has to do with what Paul calls "printing money out of thin air." We have a government, and the government is a tyrant. The tyrant must confiscate resources in order to keep itself alive....Is the Fed immoral? Ron Paul wants you to think that what the Fed is doing is mysterious, secretive, and underhanded. We have all been hoodwinked but, according to him, he has figured it out, and will proceed to enlighten us. You can forgive Paul somewhat for the "printing money out of thin air" idea, as this is part of what is conveyed in conventional money and banking undergraduate courses. Indeed, Paul's exposure to formal economics training appears to be confined to a single undergraduate course, in which he seems to have been exposed to the money multiplier, probably the most misleading idea propagated in monetary economics
He then argues:
As discussed here, a central bank is best viewed as just another financial intermediary, the unique characteristic of which is that it has a monopoly on the issue of some class of liabilities. The Fed creates liabilities out of "thin air" to purchase the assets in its portfolio. A bank creates deposit liabilities out of thin air to purchase the assets in its portfolio. General Motors can create equity claims out of thin air to finance the purchase of new plant and equipment. Further, the fact that the liabilities of the Fed do not represent specific claims to anything in the future is neither here nor there. In private markets, in which Paul puts much trust, we have developed arrangements by which private firms issue claims (stock) which are not specific promises to pay anything specific in the future (dividends are discretionary). Further, private firms make no commitments about their future plans to issue more stock, or to buy back stocks, decisions which will affect the value of stock held by existing shareholders, just as decisions by the Fed affect the value of the existing stock of money outstanding. Nothing mysterious here at all

This is typical Fed bait and switch talk. By calling money "a liability", Williamson is removing it from a special class and arguing a point about Fed money because it falls into a larger class, also.  It's like calling Sports Illustrated cover girl Irina Shayk, a homo sapien. Well, yeah, she is a homos sapien, but being a homo sapien is not sufficient to get you on the Swim Suit issue cover of SI. Or maybe Williamson thinks this is going to happen.


Paper money as issued by the Fed can be, I guess, considered a liability, given their crazed Fed bookkeeping (which Ron Paul wants to audit). But the essence of money is that it is a medium of exchange. Gold, for example, has been used during various periods as money, but it is certainly not a liability. Debt issued by General Motors is a liability of GM, but it is not a medium of exchange. By confusing all these classes, of liabilities and mediums of exchange, it truly is worse than Williamson arguing that homo sapien is the only requirement to get on the cover of SI. But judging from his "powerful people" rant, I would not be surprised if he thinks Bernanke should be on the cover of SI.
Next, Williamson goes into a bizarre calculation of the impact of inflation, without once mentioning prices! Nothing about the price of food, energy or, even the iPad2. Don't spend too much time on this crazed paragraph, but just know he reaches a conclusion on inflation based on this thinking:
Now, Paul seems very focused on inflation, and the resources extracted from the private sector by way of the inflation tax. It would help here to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations to get an idea of the magnitude of resource extraction. From fourth-quarter 2010 NIPA numbers, GDP was about $14.9 trillion, and total expenditures (by all levels of government) were about $3 trillion, at annual rates (seasonally adjusted), so the tyrant was extracting about 20.1% of GDP (this is all levels of government). Now, inflation has been hovering around 1% per year recently, but suppose it were 2%, which is the Fed's stated inflation target (not officially, but Bernanke says as much in public). What is seignorageNIPA numbers, GDP was about $14.9 trillion, and total expenditures (by all levels of government) were about $3 trillion, at annual rates (seasonally adjusted), so the tyrant was extracting about 20.1% of GDP (this is all levels of government). Now, inflation has been hovering around 1% per year recently, but suppose it were 2%, which is the Fed's stated inflation target (not officially, but Bernanke says as much in public). What is seignorage, i.e. the implicit revenue the government collects, through the Fed, from the inflation tax? To calculate this, we need to know what the tax base is. Let's think of the current stock of reserves as essentially T-bills, which the Fed plans to retire in good time (to take it at its word). Then, the remainder of outstanding Fed liabilities is essentially currency (which certainly corresponds to Paul's language) which is just short of $1 trillion, so let's call it $1 trillion just for argument's sake. Then, with 2% inflation, the revenue from the inflation tax is about $20 billion per year, or 0.7% of government spending, or 0.14% of GDP. Small potatoes, and certainly not enough to justify an armed mob outside the Fed in Washington screaming "end the fed," as Paul seems to envision.
No not small potatoes, high priced potatoes!

As Lew Rockwell pointed out just today:
Not Hyperinflation Yet

But the 3.9% increase in food prices last month—the most since Nixon—is an alarming indicator.
 Yet, in Williamson's mind, and his equations, there is no problem. He ignores what people have to pay for food at the grocery store or for gasoline. As long as his equations tell him, inflation is under the Fed "target", there is nothing to worry about:
...with 2% inflation, the revenue from the inflation tax is about $20 billion per year, or 0.7% of government spending, or 0.14% of GDP. Small potatoes, and certainly not enough to justify an armed mob outside the Fed in Washington screaming "end the fed," as Paul seems to envision.
He then finally admits what the Fed is about, secretive taxation, but of course this secretive, underhanded tax, is superior in his mind to the "primitive" concept of honest, upfront taxation. I kid you not:
There is then a whole branch of economics - public finance - that deals with the issue of how those contributions can and should be made, and the consequences of alternative means of resource extraction for the government. In primitive economies, where the costs of collecting taxes are high and financial markets undeveloped, it can be economically efficient for the government to generate much of its revenue with the inflation tax. In modern economies, we think not.
He then bizarrely tells us that the Fed isn't doing any significant inflation taxation:
 We recognize that inflation is costly, and modern disciplined central banks keep inflation rates low.
He says this despite the trillion in assets that the Fed has bought since the crisis and the continued buying of assets (now Treasury securities via QE2). A lot has ended up as excess reserves not in the system, but the increase in prices to date makes one shudder, if like a Japanese nuclear reactor, significant amounts of funds start to leak from excess reserves into the system.

The former-Canadian, Williamson, then tells us he is not an expert on the United States Constitution, but brushes aside this admitted lack of knowledge about the constitution to tell us that, as far as he is concerned, the Fed is constitutional, since the income tax is constitutional:
I'm not a constitutional expert, by any means, but this argument seems to be coming from the same place as this, which does not quite say that the income tax is unconstitutional, but comes close. I know the idea is floating around. Get serious.
Williamson then goes on to state that Ron Paul wants price "stability" which indicates that Williamson hasn't even read all of Ron Paul's book, End the Fed, or doesn't understand what he read:
Paul seems to think that the Fed is the wrong tool for getting the job done. What's the job that we want done? Apparently we want price stability, so let's take that as given.
Congressman Paul would most assuredly want falling prices (like we now have on computers, cell phone and televisions) not "stable" prices---which is just cover for Fed created inflation.

Williamson then goes on to defend "New Keynesian Economics" because, among other things, some of its adherents won the Nobel Prize. Aside from this being an appeal to authority and an incorrect way to argue, the clueless Williamson apparently doesn't realize that the Nobel Prize in economics was also awarded to Friedrich Hayek specifically for his work on business cycle theory, which proved that it was central banks like the Fed, which cause business cycles.

Williamson goes on:
Currently, there is first-rate research being done at all of the Federal Reserve Banks in the system, and at the Board of Governors in D.C., and some of those research groups would easily rank among the top 20 among working groups of macroeconomists in the world. Bad economics! What an insult!
Yet, none of these "first-rate" researchers warned of the housing bust. Indeed, New York Fed economists, McCarthy and Peach, just before the housing bubble burst, issued a paper denying there was a housing bubble.

At the same time, Austrian School economists from across the spectrum, (which is the School of thought that Ron Paul follows), warned about the developing housing bubble.

Williamson then goes on to quote Dr. Paul writing:
Remember that the people who run the Fed are just regular people, as flawed as anyone else. The only difference is that they have massive power to break civilization. Any institution that can do this is by nature tyrannical and is specifically what the Constitution was trying to prevent.

Williamson's reply to Congressman Paul's comment:
I'm sure that Ben Bernanke does not look in the mirror in the morning and think of the guy he sees as being capable of breaking civilization. Central bankers may be powerful, but there's no need to go overboard here.
I remind you that Williamson writes this as millions have lost their homes and millions are out of work because of Federal Reserve manipulation of the money supply and interest rates. That Williamson can cast off so flippantly the power to inflate and destroy a currency and an economy is utterly remarkable and sobering.

With such a flippant attitude, no wonder Williamson is annoyed at the warnings of Dr. Paul. It busts his world  view of Fed as God.

In Williamson's attack on Congressman Paul, we truly see how those at the Fed think. Their equations tell them there is no significant inflation, so they don't care what people have to really pay for food and gasoline. They believe they are the "first rate" researchers, even though they argue incorrectly and have missed every major call in the economy.

After this attack from Williamson, it should be more clear that Ron Paul is correct and that we should End the Fed!


  1. I don't understand why any of this is shocking. You didn't actually expect a "Research Fellow" at an institution with a faulty grip on reality (re: no inflation) to actually put out something coherent, did you?

  2. Odd that Williamson would seem to invite comparison between the Fed and private issuers of equity and debt securities. Is he familiar with the governance, accounting and disclosure requirements (and attendant penalties for noncompliance therewith) to which private issuers are subjected by the state and the plaintiff's attorneys?

  3. "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

    Was this quote going through anyone else's mind as they were reading this? Looks like we are getting closer!

    Also notice how he compares Stock and Corporate debt, which is a right to ownership of an actual company, to US Federal Reserve Bank notes, which is a right to nothing and is only backed by the 'faith and credit' of the US government. What a joker.

  4. "Indeed, Paul's exposure to formal economics training appears to be confined to a single undergraduate course. . . ."

    Yes, because individual study of Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, etc., means nothing. Only sitting through government-accredited college courses counts as experience in economics, according to statists. Of course, if that's the case, then Keynes himself should be considered wholly inexperienced in economics.

  5. Yikes, is this guy stupid!

    BTW, after that Bernanke photo I'm cancelling my subscription to this blog. :)

  6. Credentialist. I couldn't read past the fun fed-filled name dropping before my eyelids began to droop.

  7. "I am not trying to boast here."

    Uh huh.

    Anyhow, the diatribes of Williamson and Adolfatto are like syllabuses of errors, albeit without intent to make them so. Study them well, identify every misrepresentation of the truth, every logical fallacy, etc., and a person should be able to hold his own against these court intellectuals of the organized crime class, i.e. the smart set, of which the members often have MBAs and JDs, a highpaying job on the inside of the racket, and contempt for the $45k/yr cop whose job it is to protect the smart set.

    Of course, the cop, too, is part of the racket. So also the freedom fighters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other places where those freedom fighters have been so busy putting their boots, bullets, and bombs since even before the rise of the FRS. But aversion to racketeering is not why the smart set holds the cop, or the soldier, in contempt.

    That stated, Williamson is right to excoriate Ron Paul for that figure of speech about the FRS printing money. It's terribly misleading, and to repeat it is foolish.

    Now, on the other hand, if, after the FRS is broken up, Williamson would like to condemn Ron Paul for being an oily, Christian theocrat with impure motives for opposing the FRS, well, then Williamson would be in good company.

  8. The cranks are getting desperate. The little Crank Yglesias today squeals:

    Bored by the proceedings at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul one day in 2008, I decided to try to gather some color down the road in Minneapolis, where Ron Paul and fellow dissident conservatives and libertarians were holding a counter-convention at the Target Center. At one point a speaker thundered that Barack Obama and John McCain “both have a lot to learn about Austrian business-cycle theory.” The crowd went delirious with cheers, and soon chants of “end the Fed” echoed throughout the arena.

    It was funny at the time. A bunch of cranks talking about their crank monetary theories and espousing a crank prescription.

    Today, Paul is the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Monetary Policy.

    As always, not a word in five pages explaining what the ABCT might be or what might be wrong with it. Because he can't.

  9. Anonymous from March 16, 2011 4:16 PM said:

    "That stated, Williamson is right to excoriate Ron Paul for that figure of speech about the FRS printing money. It's terribly misleading, and to repeat it is foolish."

    Right to "excoriate"? First, Ron Paul has taken a Christ-like, multi-decades long beating criticizing the FED (and other government departures from the US Constitution). His plain language explanations of the FED's basic actions (IE "printing money") has attracted perhaps millions of people to this discussion, most of whom were NOT well educated in these topics.

    While you post in anonymity, Ron Paul courageously makes his case against the FED in public view...enduring constant criticism, marginalization and ridicule.

    And "printing money" aint that bad a summary for what the FED does in concept, and gets the listener to - perhaps for the first time - to consider the money supply is manipulated and thus the dollars' value is manipulated...which is interest rates, all of which is a mind-boggling idea.

    "Now, on the other hand, if, after the FRS is broken up, Williamson would like to condemn Ron Paul for being an oily, Christian theocrat with impure motives for opposing the FRS, well, then Williamson would be in good company."

    IF the FED is ever broken up or disbanded, we'd have Ron Paul to thank. Not you. Not Robert Wenzel. Not anyone at the Mises Institute. Not anyone on this blog site, as inciteful and informative as they are. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, buy no single man has done more in the past few decades to uncover and expose the dreadful FRS than Ron Paul. For this, I am forever grateful and in awe.

    And finally, Ron Paul is hardly an "oily, Christian theocrat with impure motives". Given what he has done for the cause of individual liberty, Ron Paul enjoys my ultimate respect. I've done my homework on Ron Paul, and he is no theocrat.

  10. Technically, the Fed bitch is right. Not only do Fed Res bankers not create money from thin air, but they do not create money at all.

    Fed Res bankers buy fiduciary instruments and sell checking account credits, which is what commercial bankers do as well.

    In turn sellers of fiduciary instruments buy checking account credits.

    So when Fed Res bankers buy US 10s, they sell to the US Treasury checking account credits and gain hold of U.S. bonds.

    In turn the U.S.T. releases these checking account credits to various government agencies, who spend such credits to buy labor from government workers and contractors as well as buy stuff to run government.

    Eventually, these workers and contractors trade their checking account credits for things, sometimes cash from ATMs and bank tellers.

    When the average demand for cash increases as monitored every Wednesday through Saturday, Fed Res bankers order the U.S.T. to mint more notes and U.S. Treasury token coins. Fed Res bankers pay for the minting, again with checking account credits.

    And voilĂ ! That's how money gets created. And now you know the alleged secret.

    All economists from every school get it oh-so-wrong. All are clueless when it comes to all things money, credit, commercial banking and central banking.

    You can not go wrong if you remember this:

    A banker is a merchant who buys money and debt and sells bank credit.

    Said another way, a banker takes deposits (buys money and debt) and credits (sells checking account credits) customers' accounts.

  11. Ron Paul is well known as the most honest man in Washington.

    He proposes an honest monetary system. Can that be bad?

  12. It gets real personal. Willy's initial name-dropping of the 'important people' he knows is revealing. These academics strive for mainstream acceptance of themselves (it affects party invites, tenure, etc.) and their ideas (to avoid being shunned as not 'normal'). They are mostly non-productive cowards, wallowing in academia, liberal think tanks, and the Fed, etc.
    Yeah Ron Paul !!
    See my site, and the text of my Monetary book at parts 1 and 2 in the left margin.
    Regards, Dave

  13. HR 1098, The Free Competition in Currency Act

    Save the Humans!

  14. Mr. Wenzel,

    If Bernanke has deltoids, traps and triceps like that, I'll eat five hundred pieces of his freshly printed script.

    (Has Bernanke ever done a days work of physical labor - much less know what those bars and round objects are in a weigh troom?)

  15. @Smack: Well, yea. Except that nowadays we are all forced to use the monopoly bank credit note, as compared with other points in American history when there existed many bank notes issued by many different banks all competing with each other for the public trust.

  16. Be careful of what you wish for. Although I am for the removing of the fed, one must understand the full impact of such changes. Removing the fed will change just about everything in your life and for most people, this will be difficult and destructive. Changing the currency should be done naturally by competing with "honest money."

  17. I found Williamson's diatribe espousing economic nonsense very revealing. What it revealed to me is that those affiliated with the Federal Reserve know deep down that the game is up. The image of Bernanke seems rather appropriate because the emperor stands naked devoid of any economic clothing. The days of central banks such as the Federal Reserve, that have left a trail of economic destruction around the world, are clearly numbered. Thanks to the internet, courageous politicians such as Ron Paul, and informative web sites such a, the genie of truth is out of the bottle and cannot be put back. After all, one can suppress and hide the truth for a while but ultimately truth wins out over deceit and lies.

  18. When ones policies/views/opinions cannot be refuted logically, the opposition turns to ad hominem attacks. Oily theocrat, I laughed so hard I about lost my breakfast when I read that lil ditty. Is that you "Willy"?

  19. I can't decide which is worse. Do these men know the truth and write this stuff as a smoke screen, or do they actually believe that the FED is great for the nation (not just the bankers and elite economists) and all who reside therein?

  20. The essence of the Fed argument is this: that government is not immoral but is a very necessary and good thing. The sneaky way that the Fed taxes the public (through the inflationary "seignorage") is a better way of paying for government services than by beating the money out of people through taxes. Presumably a stealth tax is considered superior because the people are less aware that they are being taxed and will be less resistant.

    Which leads to the question ... if government is good and moral then why do they have to either defraud people out of their money or beat it out them in order to support it? Evidently there is something about government services which make them extremely valuable, yet this value is so invisible to its supposed beneficiaries that they must be compelled to support it through a combination of lies and threats.

    Can a project of supposed beneficence and charity to be supported by fraud and violence? No. It's a contradiction.

  21. you have to understand - the FED thinks they invented life as we know it, therefore - they believe the rules of life and society are owned by them. they are sovereign.

    I don't believe the FED is in control as the curtain they hide behind is at the dry cleaners, and in fact - will be there for a while getting the moth holes repaired too.

    we effectively allow the FED sovereignty, as our defacto king - we did this and we do not even realize it

  22. I've came to believe that these people believe their own shit. When liars actually fall for their own lies. Reprobates plain and simple. Drug dealers that use their own product. Stupid, foolish, and all the other likened adjectives that best describe these kinds.

  23. I am not sure if Mr Wenzel has problems with reading or if he has problems with comprehension:

    Mr Williamson writes: "In primitive economies, ... it can be economically efficient for the government to generate much of its revenue with the inflation tax. In modern economies, we think not."
    But Mr Wenzel concludes that in Mr Williamson's mind, the inflation tax "is superior to the "primitive" concept of honest, upfront taxation."

    Or, is Mr Wenzel trying to intentionally deceive its readers here?

  24. I love Dr Wenzel!

  25. The moron's name should be posted on the ladies toilet stall - not some windowless broom-closet, then maybe the AH would get it.

  26. Davos: Now, that's a deep and thoughtful argument from a true intelectual....

  27. I think Williamson explained to us the true reason why he is scared.He has a nice office, gets to play poker with Fed Presidents, all while maintaining his job as a Professor.It's every academic's dream.

    If the Austrians win, people like him will be forced to look for work.

    Maybe he will finally understand how an economy works when he is selling bootleg DVDs to make ends meet.

  28. The Keynesians are undone by their "neutrality of money" assumption

    In fact, the efficacy of new Debt is subject to the price level. The productivity of new debt is inverse to the price level, which is a function of total debt.

    At the current price level (25), a dollar of new debt only produces $.04 new real output, as debt servicing consumes the rest. The "marginal productivity of debt" can even be negative.

  29. BTW, Keynes was a money crank. Say's Law has never been refuted, Keynes claim to the contrary notwithstanding.

  30. Williamson has responded to this article already today on his blog! Mr. Wenzel has certainly hit a nerve. :-)

  31. The Mick is dead right. I noticed this same fantastic blunder in his logic. He compares the fed printing money to private companies issuing stock. All I can say to that is:

    Bad economics! What an insult!

    When I buy shares in Ford I know what is backing them. Same with GM, Dell or anyone else. WHAT IS BACKING FED DOLLARS? Nothing but the productivity of a bunch of people who don't even recognize the Fed's legality. Yet they issue more and more of this so called "stock" at the same price against decreasing productivity (increased unemployment). Is this dope actually suggesting that he would by shares of Ford, issued by GM at 3 times the price? Amazingly enough, you don't even have to guess. He is proud to proclaim that he would because, in his view, this is economics at its highest intellectual level.

    Folks the fat lady has sung. Its over. If you're not already socking gold under the mattress, your reality and future is fully in the hands of this same class of dopes. And obviously there's no telling them anything because they are right and righteous and not to be challenged. Because they've been going to school for the 30 years that you've spent being a productive member of society...

  32. "Davos: Now, that's a deep and thoughtful argument from a true intelectual."

    Maybe you should be so intellectually inclined to read this morons words, with specific regards to his claim to fame is having a broom closet at the Fed with his name on the door. And oh, he knows some really powerful people.

    Then, perhaps, you'll understand my post. If you don't get it then - you won't ever get it.

    PS Intellects designed the Titanic that wouldn't sink, and they put a nuclear reactor on a fault line - 40 years later it stores 600,000 spent fuel rods. Intellect without common sense DOES NOT impress me. At all!

  33. Here's tragic flaw #2 in his Williamson's arguments. He talks about 2% monetary inflation not being significant. As Wenzel points out briefly, he makes no mention of price inflation. The lie of implication here is that inflation is 2% across the board, and hunky dory with the fed. The reality is that over the past few years inflation in the price of FOOD has been ~15%, the price inflation in energy has been ~15% while the the price of cars, homes, computers and many other material goods PRODUCED BY PEOPLE WITH JOBS has deflated. So maybe the average looks good, but net sum of the individual factors is tragic. EVERYTHING IS TRENDING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. Thus less people are working, less things are being produced, and nobody can afford the resulting increase in prices. LIFE is not something that can be measured by moving averages. But this lesson is lost on a person who brags about their lifetime spent sucking from the public teat.

    I can only assume his failure to see that these same types of statistic-based assessments has created tragic embarrassments everywhere in the world of science, economics and medicine, is necessary and purposeful oblivion. This from a man who can't say enough about his own superior intellect. Something stinks....

  34. The FED better hire a P.R. firm becuase, this
    this guy sucks!

    Ron Paul 2012!
    Trump is a loser!

  35. What kind of idiot is this "Stephen Williamson?" He says:

    "private firms issue claims (stock) which are not specific promises to pay anything specific in the future (dividends are discretionary). Further, private firms make no commitments about their future plans to issue more stock, or to buy back stocks, decisions which will affect the value of stock held by existing shareholders,"

    HUH? Is he serious? Stocks are SHARES OF OWNERSHIP IN THE CORPORATION! And who told him that they can "issue more shares" at will, underselling existing shareholders? That's a LIE! They CANNOT DO THAT!
    Only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can do that! (And the main characters in "The Producers..." but they KNEW that they were committing grand fraud, and they went to jail for it!)

    As for "buying back shares," that's a corporate decision-- but it's got nothing to do with anything!
    When you buy stock, you're not buying it for dividends-- again, you're PURCHASING part of the corporate enterprise!

    I couldn't read any further. If this moron doesn't know this most basic function of the free market, then it shows just how BRAIN-DEAD these morons are in the federal reserve!

    But by giving him slack, he hangs himself: i.e. if a corporation DID issue more shares of stock, they would be committing FRAUD by selling the same corporation, twice-- and it's the same thing, when the Fed prints more money, i.e. They're selling other people's property!

    I've got to stop before I hang myself.

  36. Davos: you left out how "intellect" also gave us a World Trade Center that was safe against impacts by aircraft-- as long as they didn't have any FUEL in them. Talk about "no common sense--" they seemed to be under the impression that the aircraft around New York City, consisted only of catapult-launched gliders!

  37. Davos: Perhaps I would understand your post(s) if you put forth some arguments. Incoherent rambling about broom closets and toilets just doesn't do it. Sorry.

  38. To anon @11:31. When people resort to name calling, they've already lost the intellectual argument. Do you agree to this statement by Ron Paul?

    Make no mistake, these cretins are Criminals of the highest caliber and their theft of the Great Nation and subjugation of it's Sovereign is not a small matter.

  40. You know the actual discussion regarding the fed's role in this whole debockle is lost to a great degree. Mostly due to the raving loonies on both ends of the political spectrum. People making unhelpful comments like "DESTROYZ TE FED!" are not doing much to ligitimize these imporant facts to the greater public.

    Try toning down your rhetoical fires a bit and stick to getting the message out in a non-psycho way. Ultimately changes made will have to come from the powerful few. To get their attention you cannot be a crazy with a shotgun yelling about the "govvemnt."

  41. Where is he coming up with his numbers for total government expenditures? He says that government at all levels spent about $3 trillion. That is not even close. The federal budget alone was far more than this figure for 2010.

  42. Smack McDougal-

    You seem like you understand money and money creation, etc. but then you say something incredibly ignorant. Mises understood this just fine, read Marxism Unmasked: From Delusion to Destruction.

  43. Jesus, all you mouth-breathers really believe that Ron Paul idiocy. Dumb as stumps, the lot of you.