A change in sentiment?

It would appear that the main stream media is in the process of becoming somewhat more critical of government action and may be willing to take a stand against what are flagrant and obvious illegal if not criminal practices.

Here is a clip by MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan whom along with a number of other commentators I cannot recall ever questioning the actions of our “leaders” and monetary “authorities”.

I don’t know what is causing the change in sentiment in the main stream press and, for the time being, I reserve judgment.

The information provided in the video clip is factual if greatly watered down. I suspect the watering down is necessary to make it intelligible to the greatest number of people. For example, it is true Goldman Sachs have taken public money and have made a killing by acquiring assets at distressed prices at the height of the financial panic. What is not explained is how Goldman Sachs should know which assets to acquire. That, is a much more complex concept that relates to far more criminal behavior than taking public money and retaining all the profits. If you browse any of the blog sources you find on my blog such as Karl Denninger or the team at Zero Hedge or search for High Frequency Trading on my blog (HFT) you will realize that criminal behavior runs deep and involves government collusion. HFT is not the only illegal action undertaken by GS or the government. There are dozen of other instances of criminal collusion and contravention to the letter of the law. Things like the suspension of mark-to-market rules for example. How about taking over Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac two clearly private enterprises that have never been government sponsored entities? Or the riding roughshod over GM bondholders but unilaterally and arbitrarily sparing bank bondholders. How about the information black-out imposed by government on who got TARP money and how much?

The list of acts of fiduciary negligence and criminal activity is fairly long and was heralded by numerous red flags along the way.

However, what seems to escape most people is what might have caused this latest crisis. Indeed, is there one overarching action or decision or dynamic that can be highlighted and pointed at that would explain what is happening today?

If you’ve read any of my posts, I think there is.

In my opinion, this is nothing but the logical conclusion of the dynamic brought about by our monetary system. That is, what is happening today is nothing but the direct and logical consequence of the use of an unchecked fiat monetary system.

Incidentally, I wish everyone to realize that although we live in societies that are presumably steeped in economic and personal freedom, no government anywhere in the “free” West has ever asked ratification for their unilateral and arbitrary choice of monetary system.  Even worse, in our presumed economically free capitalist societies, government retains the power to set interest rates.

Once the government of a democratic society awards itself the right to impose the monetary system and manipulate interest rates, the one logical and inescapable outcome is the gradual erosion of the purchasing power of the unit of currency i.e. inflation.

Inflation is a dynamic that is both exponential in nature and, therefore, limited mathematically. Being exponential, inflation has a number of preordained and inevitable effects on society and the economy. One of the inescapable ramifications of inflation is that by artificially, pervasively and aggressively inducing inflation into a monetary system, government induces a rise in price level hence a rise in GDP. However, as GDP progression becomes ever more dependent on generating more inflation, the intrinsic wealth structure of society is progressively impaired. As the dynamic progresses, financial value runs away from intrinsic value at ever greater speed until the only way to induce more inflation requires ever greater degrees of government collusion in carrying out actions that eventually become criminal. This causes government to become an ever greater actor in the economy and eventually the existence of the political structure becomes dependent on generating ever more inflation.

But since expanding government can only subsist if it is financed by increasing tax revenue, then the generation of ever greater inflation becomes a goal unto itself.

The problem is that the logical conclusion of a fiat monetary system is known and inevitable. It has happened before. We know how it ends. Government intervention can at best stretch out the time line but cannot avoid the conclusion. In the process, government becomes a progressively larger actor in the economy. But as government is a non profit construct, its existence is predicated on increasing tax revenue thus progressively sapping the life blood of the economy.

The point at which the economy no longer generates enough revenue to service debt, that is the point at which financial value spurred on by leverage and gimmickry (i.e. hedonic adjustments, CPI manipulation, absurd leverage of 80 t0 1 )  is the most distant from intrinsic value. At that point, due to the yawning gap between what assets are worth on the market and the amount of debt that needs to be extinguished, returning to equilibrium causes social and economic devastation in the form of rising unemployment and a reduction of social services expenditure (road maintenance, mail delivery, social medicine, teacher salaries, civil servant salaries, food stamps… pensions… ).

Historically, similar junctures have resulted in world wars. We can only hope that this time will be different. But hope, as you know, is not a sound strategy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_meeting/#33346455

(look for “Ratigan: Goldman Sachs magic trick”)

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “A change in sentiment?”

  1. guidoamm Says:

    Many thanks for the tip. I already followed your link from the Ambrose thread. Grateful you should check in.

  2. David W. Lincoln Says:

    Guido, I conclude that a lot of light would be shed on the subject when one peruses “Check the Numbers” by Ross McKitrick & Bruce D. McCullough for the Fraser Foundation, which can be found here: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/caseforduediligence_cda.pdf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: