H/t Jon Nadler of Kitco. Professor Wolff is a Marxist who gets most of what has been going on in the US economy right. He does not seem to understand the role of the Fed, monetary policy, and the banking system in creating the problems he describes. Otherwise, he hits quite a few nails on their heads.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
H/t Jon Nadler of Kitco. Professor Wolff is a Marxist who gets most of what has been going on in the US economy right. He does not seem to understand the role of the Fed, monetary policy, and the banking system in creating the problems he describes. Otherwise, he hits quite a few nails on their heads.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Newt Gives It to the Taxpayers
The Economist was ebullient when Romney was winning. Now that Gingrich has trounced Romney in South Carolina, our financial overlords in the City of London and on Wall Street may be may be a bit less, but almost as, content. The difference between Romney and Gingrich is like the difference between Cary Grant and James Cagney. Romney, the debonair aristocrat, an opportunist beneath his manly charm, Gingrich, the thug who twirls around in a ménage à trois before mashing a grapefruit in taxpayers' faces (see Cagney's Gingrich-like performance in The Public Enemy above). These are two dogs out of the Council on Foreign Relations' kennel.
Of the four standing GOP candidates Romney is the most accomplished, having achieved impressive business success. In contrast, Gingrich's chief achievement, his appointment to speaker of the house, led to quick failure due to his incompetence. Romney is a stable and cautious friend of global financial interests while Gingrich is full of big ideas, each one more destructive than the last. In the last debate, Gingrich's proposal for a government subsidy to build a port in Charleston was an example. Gingrich seems to have planned a massive pork barrel project for each city in which a debate is held.
Romney blows with the winds; Gingrich proves that 180-year-old tax-and-spend Whig socialism is alive and well. Romney is in the centrist, globalist, and corporatist tradition of Richard Nixon; Gingrich is in the Whig tradition of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln practically bankrupted Illinois with frivolous infrastructure projects, and, now that Illinois's credit rating has been reduced, what better expression of the GOP's big government Whig tradition than to nominate Gingrich?
Presidents don't usually win or lose because of ideas. Lyndon Baines Johnson fought Goldwater over the New Deal, but Kennedy had just been shot. Perhaps Ronald Reagan fought a campaign of ideas, but would he have won without his actor's charm? And did he really believe that government was the problem? He didn't act like it. Rather than ideas, Nixon's half-day-old whiskers are the kind of issue that America's increasingly impoverished electorate emphasizes. America was once the richest and freest country in the world, but television news has led it to its favoring candidates, like Gingrich, Romney, and Obama, who are bleeding them, diminishing their freedom, and creating a paper money aristocracy at their expense.
That said, Gingrich is better than Romney for one reason: Gingrich can't win. He can't win because his image is tarnished, he is fat, his ideas are ridiculous, and he is an imaginative sexual virtuoso. That makes him preferable to Romney, who can win.
The most important thing in this election is a strident protest vote. The greater and more explicit the vote against the Federal Reserve Bank, the greater a threat to its political security, the sooner the Ron Paul revolution will win. In the event that Paul loses the primary race (and his 13% showing was better than in '08, but discouraging), a vote for the Libertarian Party in the general election will speak more loudly than one for the GOP candidate. There is more likely to be a stronger protest vote with a Gingrich than with a Romney candidacy.
As well, a Republican Congress coupled with a Democratic presidency is unlikely to achieve much. That is the best we can hope for. If the Republicans win both branches, we will see plenty of ports and plenty of pork in Charleston and every other hurricane-prone city in the country, if not the world.
The Economist was ebullient when Romney was winning. Now that Gingrich has trounced Romney in South Carolina, our financial overlords in the City of London and on Wall Street may be may be a bit less, but almost as, content. The difference between Romney and Gingrich is like the difference between Cary Grant and James Cagney. Romney, the debonair aristocrat, an opportunist beneath his manly charm, Gingrich, the thug who twirls around in a ménage à trois before mashing a grapefruit in taxpayers' faces (see Cagney's Gingrich-like performance in The Public Enemy above). These are two dogs out of the Council on Foreign Relations' kennel.
Of the four standing GOP candidates Romney is the most accomplished, having achieved impressive business success. In contrast, Gingrich's chief achievement, his appointment to speaker of the house, led to quick failure due to his incompetence. Romney is a stable and cautious friend of global financial interests while Gingrich is full of big ideas, each one more destructive than the last. In the last debate, Gingrich's proposal for a government subsidy to build a port in Charleston was an example. Gingrich seems to have planned a massive pork barrel project for each city in which a debate is held.
Romney blows with the winds; Gingrich proves that 180-year-old tax-and-spend Whig socialism is alive and well. Romney is in the centrist, globalist, and corporatist tradition of Richard Nixon; Gingrich is in the Whig tradition of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln practically bankrupted Illinois with frivolous infrastructure projects, and, now that Illinois's credit rating has been reduced, what better expression of the GOP's big government Whig tradition than to nominate Gingrich?
Presidents don't usually win or lose because of ideas. Lyndon Baines Johnson fought Goldwater over the New Deal, but Kennedy had just been shot. Perhaps Ronald Reagan fought a campaign of ideas, but would he have won without his actor's charm? And did he really believe that government was the problem? He didn't act like it. Rather than ideas, Nixon's half-day-old whiskers are the kind of issue that America's increasingly impoverished electorate emphasizes. America was once the richest and freest country in the world, but television news has led it to its favoring candidates, like Gingrich, Romney, and Obama, who are bleeding them, diminishing their freedom, and creating a paper money aristocracy at their expense.
That said, Gingrich is better than Romney for one reason: Gingrich can't win. He can't win because his image is tarnished, he is fat, his ideas are ridiculous, and he is an imaginative sexual virtuoso. That makes him preferable to Romney, who can win.
The most important thing in this election is a strident protest vote. The greater and more explicit the vote against the Federal Reserve Bank, the greater a threat to its political security, the sooner the Ron Paul revolution will win. In the event that Paul loses the primary race (and his 13% showing was better than in '08, but discouraging), a vote for the Libertarian Party in the general election will speak more loudly than one for the GOP candidate. There is more likely to be a stronger protest vote with a Gingrich than with a Romney candidacy.
As well, a Republican Congress coupled with a Democratic presidency is unlikely to achieve much. That is the best we can hope for. If the Republicans win both branches, we will see plenty of ports and plenty of pork in Charleston and every other hurricane-prone city in the country, if not the world.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
The CNN South Carolina Republican debate this evening, facilitated by CNN's John King, paid more attention to Ron Paul than did the Fox debates, but, like Fox, CNN aimed to avoid covering Paul, for Paul threatens corporate interests. Time Warner owns CNN; Rupert Murdoch owns Fox. Paul's reference to the corporate media is more threatening to them than Newt Gingrich's elitist media. Given that Paul's results have doubled Gingrich's in the first two races (although Gingrich is out-polling Paul in South Carolina), there were many CNN camera shots that excluded Paul but included Gingrich, Romney and Santorum. There were long periods when King completely ignored Paul. Even on medical issues, concerning which Paul has more competence than the other candidates, King ignored him. Eventually, someone in the audience cried out about the imbalance, and King relented.
Even more revealing was Anderson Cooper's "360" post-debate analysis. There was almost no mention of Paul. I watched it simply to see how infrequently they mentioned Paul. I left the room a few times, but I don't think they mentioned him at all.
Paul's anti-Fed platform profoundly threatens Anderson Cooper's employer, Time Warner, which would not have been formed 11 years ago without the Federal Reserve Bank's counterfeit liquidity. That AOL-Time-Warner merger bought martinis for investment bankers at the expense of the average American's real hourly wage. What better example of mal-investment than Time Warner itself? What greater waste? How much did the Fed extract from the public to finance sleazy Wall Street investment bankers' fees for that value-destroying merger? To hear Paul condemning mal-investment and the corporate media on Time Warner itself, the belly of the Wall Street beast, was cause for celebration.
It is Paul who is marginalizing CNN, King, and Cooper, not the reverse. Only Paul raised the key issue: America's debt and its monetary policies. Only Paul was willing to state the obvious--America's, both Democrats' and Republicans', monetary policy is bankrupt.
As the public is beginning to see that only Ron Paul raised the chief issue facing America, monetary policy, his numbers will continue to outpace expectations. If he can continue the 20% level that he has won in New Hampshire and Iowa, he will transform American political dialogue. Paul is the most radical major candidate since Eugene V. Debs polled 913,693 votes for the Social Democratic Party in 1920. The Progressive system that socialist Debs advocated, and that Republican socialist Theodore Roosevelt implemented, has failed. Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party willing to discuss its failure.
Even more revealing was Anderson Cooper's "360" post-debate analysis. There was almost no mention of Paul. I watched it simply to see how infrequently they mentioned Paul. I left the room a few times, but I don't think they mentioned him at all.
Paul's anti-Fed platform profoundly threatens Anderson Cooper's employer, Time Warner, which would not have been formed 11 years ago without the Federal Reserve Bank's counterfeit liquidity. That AOL-Time-Warner merger bought martinis for investment bankers at the expense of the average American's real hourly wage. What better example of mal-investment than Time Warner itself? What greater waste? How much did the Fed extract from the public to finance sleazy Wall Street investment bankers' fees for that value-destroying merger? To hear Paul condemning mal-investment and the corporate media on Time Warner itself, the belly of the Wall Street beast, was cause for celebration.
It is Paul who is marginalizing CNN, King, and Cooper, not the reverse. Only Paul raised the key issue: America's debt and its monetary policies. Only Paul was willing to state the obvious--America's, both Democrats' and Republicans', monetary policy is bankrupt.
As the public is beginning to see that only Ron Paul raised the chief issue facing America, monetary policy, his numbers will continue to outpace expectations. If he can continue the 20% level that he has won in New Hampshire and Iowa, he will transform American political dialogue. Paul is the most radical major candidate since Eugene V. Debs polled 913,693 votes for the Social Democratic Party in 1920. The Progressive system that socialist Debs advocated, and that Republican socialist Theodore Roosevelt implemented, has failed. Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party willing to discuss its failure.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Ron Paul's second place showing in New Hampshire frightens the Establishment: Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Bank, the money center banks, and the the nexus of institutions that surround these, especially the legacy media from MS-NBC to Rush Limbaugh. According to The State Column Paul's popularity had surged five percent in a Reuters Poll prior to his win in New Hampshire. Now that he has come in second with better than 20 percent of the New Hampshire vote Paul's issues cannot be ignored. If the Establishment continues to play its ignore-and-defame game, Paul's movement will continue to grow. The end result will be the Fed's curtailment or abolition whether or not the Establishment is willing to debate him. We do not need the Establishment media to spread Paul's message.
Paul's movement will grow because numbers bestow credibility, and the pain that the Fed and Wall Street have inflicted on the average American is becoming increasingly evident over time. Our economic future is bleak; but our recent economic past is bleak too. Real wages have been stagnant for the past 40 years, a stagnation unknown prior to the abolition of the gold standard, the expansion of the Fed's money-creation powers, and the expansion of government regulation under the Great Society. The gold standard's abolition unshackled the Fed's power to destroy the American economy. The massive harm it had done in the 1940s and 1950s through the federal urban renewal program that decimated America's cities expanded into a series of massive stock market, real estate, and financial bubbles that dwarf all past eras' financial instability. The long term effects of the Progressive destruction of America's wealth will be felt for another century.
The most recent Fed-induced crisis began with the culmination of the long Reagan-initiated stock market bubble of the 1980s and 1990s, the short Bush real estate bubble of the early 2000s, and the collapse of European socialism in Greece, Spain and other southern European states, whose recent history is still another part of the sequence of Fed-induced bubbles.
Ron Paul's strong showing augurs well for the future of America because the alternative to a decentralization and libertarian reorganization of the American republic is fascism, that is, increasing stagnation, decline, and government suppression.
To put Paul's performance in perspective, recall how radical his platform is. He is calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank, and he has received more than 20 percent of the vote. Paul is a more radical candidate than the Communist Party's, and the Establishment would probably prefer a CP candidate to Paul. No major candidate has called for the abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank in decades, possibly since the Fed was established in 1913. The Republicans who dominated the 1920s, especially Warren G. Harding and his vice president and successor Calvin Coolidge, did not question the Progressive institutions that Republicans Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, and Democrat Woodrow Wilson, had forged on behalf of Wall Street.
Until now, the media has been able to marginalize the few who have raised the gold standard and the Fed as issues. But the Internet has increasingly made the legacy media obsolete, and the argument against the Fed is powerful. Few institutions in world history have caused so much harm as has the Federal Reserve Bank. The academic and Establishment ideologues who defend the Fed do not have historical evidence or palpable economic outcomes on their side. The Fed has gradually destroyed the American dream. Today, American industry is a pathetic shell of its former self, and its banking and business leaders empty-headed cuckoos who depend on public welfare and are unable to refrain from common criminality--witness the recent Corzine scandal.
Until this year, the Establishment has been successful at preventing large scale discussion about the Federal Reserve Bank. Even now, the legacy media attempts to deflect discussion of Paul's chief issue by calling him names and raising difficult-to-explain positions like his opposition to federal laws like the Civil Rights Act. It is difficult for Paul to explain complex positions to bubble-brained television announcers and to overcome a legacy media drumbeat of lies, such as Gary Weiss's recent syndicated column.
I am getting back into gold soon. But the instability, decline, income inequality, and large scale business criminality that directly results from Progressivism is under direct threat, and this can only mean a reassessment of the wealth-reallocation machine that makes holding gold desirable. The Establishment is likely fearful, but it will have to engage Paul or cope with an ever more radical response.
Paul's movement will grow because numbers bestow credibility, and the pain that the Fed and Wall Street have inflicted on the average American is becoming increasingly evident over time. Our economic future is bleak; but our recent economic past is bleak too. Real wages have been stagnant for the past 40 years, a stagnation unknown prior to the abolition of the gold standard, the expansion of the Fed's money-creation powers, and the expansion of government regulation under the Great Society. The gold standard's abolition unshackled the Fed's power to destroy the American economy. The massive harm it had done in the 1940s and 1950s through the federal urban renewal program that decimated America's cities expanded into a series of massive stock market, real estate, and financial bubbles that dwarf all past eras' financial instability. The long term effects of the Progressive destruction of America's wealth will be felt for another century.
The most recent Fed-induced crisis began with the culmination of the long Reagan-initiated stock market bubble of the 1980s and 1990s, the short Bush real estate bubble of the early 2000s, and the collapse of European socialism in Greece, Spain and other southern European states, whose recent history is still another part of the sequence of Fed-induced bubbles.
Ron Paul's strong showing augurs well for the future of America because the alternative to a decentralization and libertarian reorganization of the American republic is fascism, that is, increasing stagnation, decline, and government suppression.
To put Paul's performance in perspective, recall how radical his platform is. He is calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank, and he has received more than 20 percent of the vote. Paul is a more radical candidate than the Communist Party's, and the Establishment would probably prefer a CP candidate to Paul. No major candidate has called for the abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank in decades, possibly since the Fed was established in 1913. The Republicans who dominated the 1920s, especially Warren G. Harding and his vice president and successor Calvin Coolidge, did not question the Progressive institutions that Republicans Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, and Democrat Woodrow Wilson, had forged on behalf of Wall Street.
Until now, the media has been able to marginalize the few who have raised the gold standard and the Fed as issues. But the Internet has increasingly made the legacy media obsolete, and the argument against the Fed is powerful. Few institutions in world history have caused so much harm as has the Federal Reserve Bank. The academic and Establishment ideologues who defend the Fed do not have historical evidence or palpable economic outcomes on their side. The Fed has gradually destroyed the American dream. Today, American industry is a pathetic shell of its former self, and its banking and business leaders empty-headed cuckoos who depend on public welfare and are unable to refrain from common criminality--witness the recent Corzine scandal.
Until this year, the Establishment has been successful at preventing large scale discussion about the Federal Reserve Bank. Even now, the legacy media attempts to deflect discussion of Paul's chief issue by calling him names and raising difficult-to-explain positions like his opposition to federal laws like the Civil Rights Act. It is difficult for Paul to explain complex positions to bubble-brained television announcers and to overcome a legacy media drumbeat of lies, such as Gary Weiss's recent syndicated column.
I am getting back into gold soon. But the instability, decline, income inequality, and large scale business criminality that directly results from Progressivism is under direct threat, and this can only mean a reassessment of the wealth-reallocation machine that makes holding gold desirable. The Establishment is likely fearful, but it will have to engage Paul or cope with an ever more radical response.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Tonight's Republican debate was a big government stew with small government seasoning. Ron Paul, who remains the only Republican candidate to raise the possibility of shrinking government, was the seasoning. Stew-meat-and-potato candidates Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman talked about the importance of the private sector and job creation, but they had nix to say about how to cut government. Gingrich said he favors less government; nevertheless, he offered ideas about how an ever-bigger government can spend on infrastructure. He, like rest of the beef, potatoes, and onions of the big-government Republican stew, had no specific plans to make government smaller; Gingrich and Romney merely say they like the private sector. Big government Progressives of the past like George W. Bush, George H. Bush, and Richard M. Nixon said the same kinds of things and did nix to shrink government. We can expect the same from tonight's stew meat.
Ron Paul may have been the small government seasoning, but I found him not seasoning enough. He made a number of good points, such as his mentioning that none of the other candidates had a any ideas on how to shrink government. But he erred in saying that the Fourth Amendment prohibits states from banning contraceptives. The decision that claimed this, Griswold v. Connecticut was the pivotal case of federal judicial imperialism that led to Roe v. Wade (the significance of this question escaped Mitt Romney, who seemed to not have heard of Griswold).
Paul's position is wrong if he claims to be the constitutionalist candidate. The Tenth Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In deciding Griswold, the Supreme Court claimed that there are penumbras to the Constitution. But that claim is a flat contradiction of the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment precludes any concept of penumbras. It says that powers need to be delegated. The claim that delegation can be through non-delegation, i.e., through penumbras or shadows, is self-contradictory. Hence, Paul advocates expansion of federal power. This is understandable when considering that many libertarians apply a state minimization approach--if something reduces government then they are for it. Griswold reduced government when defined as the sum of state and federal government, but it sledge hammered states' rights. In the long run states' rights reduce government because the states can compete. By instituting federal control, the federal government imposes ever more fascistic control.
Equally unconvincing is Paul's apparent claim that the Commerce Clause permits the federal government to require that states sell contraceptives because banning them would interfere with interstate commerce. That would imply that the federal government has the power to require that the states do anything it wants, since anything can be imported across states. A national building code, for instance, could be viewed as a matter of interstate commerce. In fact, that is precisely how the Democrats overturned judicial resistance to the National Labor Relations Act.
Paul claims to favor the Constitution, and Griswold is very much in the anti-constitutionalist, "living constitution" tradition. If the Fourth Amendment is extended to "penumbras" and then foisted on the states through another series of illegitimate decisions starting with Gitlow v. New York, then pretty much anything goes as far as reinterpreting states' rights and the Constitution out of existence.
Rather than Paul's government minimization approach, federal government minimization is closer to the Constitution. Take the First Amendment, which says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This could not have meant that the states are forbidden from establishing a religion because all of them had established religions at the time the First Amendment was written. States have the right to establish a religion, although I don't favor their doing so.
My chief criticism of Paul, though, is that he should do more to state his case. The Republicans' debates are staged by media lackeys of the same special interests who gain most at public expense from the Federal Reserve Bank: Wall Street, big government, banks and big business. As a result, the Republican debates are exercises in pointlessness. Paul was right to point this out, and thankfully there is a Ron Paul to do so. At the point where he brought up monetary policy and the Fed there was a palpable freeze in the audience. Discussion of the Fed and monetary policy are not permissible ingredients in big government stew. For that reason, Paul needs to do more to bring the debate about the Fed to the fore. No institution has been more destructive of the nation's welfare. It takes guts to say things on national television that the debate planners don't want a candidate to mention. Paul is three quarters of the way there. But he needs to be more aggressive.The seasoning needs to be stronger.
Ron Paul may have been the small government seasoning, but I found him not seasoning enough. He made a number of good points, such as his mentioning that none of the other candidates had a any ideas on how to shrink government. But he erred in saying that the Fourth Amendment prohibits states from banning contraceptives. The decision that claimed this, Griswold v. Connecticut was the pivotal case of federal judicial imperialism that led to Roe v. Wade (the significance of this question escaped Mitt Romney, who seemed to not have heard of Griswold).
Paul's position is wrong if he claims to be the constitutionalist candidate. The Tenth Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In deciding Griswold, the Supreme Court claimed that there are penumbras to the Constitution. But that claim is a flat contradiction of the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment precludes any concept of penumbras. It says that powers need to be delegated. The claim that delegation can be through non-delegation, i.e., through penumbras or shadows, is self-contradictory. Hence, Paul advocates expansion of federal power. This is understandable when considering that many libertarians apply a state minimization approach--if something reduces government then they are for it. Griswold reduced government when defined as the sum of state and federal government, but it sledge hammered states' rights. In the long run states' rights reduce government because the states can compete. By instituting federal control, the federal government imposes ever more fascistic control.
Equally unconvincing is Paul's apparent claim that the Commerce Clause permits the federal government to require that states sell contraceptives because banning them would interfere with interstate commerce. That would imply that the federal government has the power to require that the states do anything it wants, since anything can be imported across states. A national building code, for instance, could be viewed as a matter of interstate commerce. In fact, that is precisely how the Democrats overturned judicial resistance to the National Labor Relations Act.
Paul claims to favor the Constitution, and Griswold is very much in the anti-constitutionalist, "living constitution" tradition. If the Fourth Amendment is extended to "penumbras" and then foisted on the states through another series of illegitimate decisions starting with Gitlow v. New York, then pretty much anything goes as far as reinterpreting states' rights and the Constitution out of existence.
Rather than Paul's government minimization approach, federal government minimization is closer to the Constitution. Take the First Amendment, which says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This could not have meant that the states are forbidden from establishing a religion because all of them had established religions at the time the First Amendment was written. States have the right to establish a religion, although I don't favor their doing so.
My chief criticism of Paul, though, is that he should do more to state his case. The Republicans' debates are staged by media lackeys of the same special interests who gain most at public expense from the Federal Reserve Bank: Wall Street, big government, banks and big business. As a result, the Republican debates are exercises in pointlessness. Paul was right to point this out, and thankfully there is a Ron Paul to do so. At the point where he brought up monetary policy and the Fed there was a palpable freeze in the audience. Discussion of the Fed and monetary policy are not permissible ingredients in big government stew. For that reason, Paul needs to do more to bring the debate about the Fed to the fore. No institution has been more destructive of the nation's welfare. It takes guts to say things on national television that the debate planners don't want a candidate to mention. Paul is three quarters of the way there. But he needs to be more aggressive.The seasoning needs to be stronger.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Hi there Prof Langbert;
This is ______ from your intercession 2011 human resources class and fall 2011 business seminar class. I just completed my curriculum in Brooklyn College. I found out today when I checked my degree-progress in the school's website. I just wanted to thank you again. I had a wonderful time taking your class and thank you again for the good grade that you gave me. Brooklyn College was my second choice when I enrolled back to college but I'm glad that I ended up in Brooklyn College. I had a great experience at Brooklyn College. My experience there is something that I will remember for many years to come. Again, Thanks much, have a nice day, cheers!
Sincerely;
Good morning Professor,
I would like to thank you for being such a dedicated professional. Overall your class was my favorite at Brooklyn College. I'm looking forward to a long life of continued education, success, and most of all, happiness! Happy New Year to you and your family!
Dear Professor Langbert:
Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge with me. I enjoyed taking your class. Have a Merry Christmas and a wonderfully, Happy New Year.
Dear Professor Langbert,
Thanks for the advice. ( I believe I'm using advice correctly this time :-) ). Thanks for the knowledge you've imparted to me during the semester. The classes on success, goal seating and ethics were informative and enlightening.
Best wishes. Happy Holidays!
Regards
By regular mail:
Professor Mitchell Langbert:
Thank you for the knowledge imparted to me during this semester. It was enlightening and has given me confidence to succeed. The books we covered were enlightening and thought-provoking. I thoroughly enjoyed the books The Fountainhead, Ragged Dick, How to Win Friends and Influence People, and The Millionaire Next Door.
Once again, thank you.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
The Kingston Freeman published my letter in response to Gary Weiss's Op Ed concerning Ron Paul:
Dear Editor:
Congressman Ron Paul disavows letters which he says he did not write (syndicated columnist Gary Weiss, The Street – Freeman website, Dec. 28, “Ron Paul captures the crackpot vote").
Contrast that Christmas-sized portion of hate doled to Paul to your handling of Barack Obama.
In 2008, there was no criticism of then-Sen. Obama’s associations with anti-Semites and felons, to include Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Father Pfleger. In contrast, Weiss convicts Paul without trial.
Paul is the only candidate to question both parties’ refusal to discuss the bipartisan commitment to the Federal Reserve Bank and its creation of income inequality by diverting wealth from the public to Wall Street.
As Nicola Matthews and James Felkerson of the Jerome Levy Institute reveal, in the past few years the Fed has purchased $29 trillion in assets. The assets were financed with dollars the Fed printed from thin air.
We have not felt the effects because central banks prop up the dollar.
To the extent that the toxic assets are less than the $29 trillion, there is a loss to the public, likely in the trillions.
The entire American GDP is about $14 trillion.
But that’s the least of it.
Dear Editor:
Congressman Ron Paul disavows letters which he says he did not write (syndicated columnist Gary Weiss, The Street – Freeman website, Dec. 28, “Ron Paul captures the crackpot vote").
Contrast that Christmas-sized portion of hate doled to Paul to your handling of Barack Obama.
In 2008, there was no criticism of then-Sen. Obama’s associations with anti-Semites and felons, to include Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Father Pfleger. In contrast, Weiss convicts Paul without trial.
Paul is the only candidate to question both parties’ refusal to discuss the bipartisan commitment to the Federal Reserve Bank and its creation of income inequality by diverting wealth from the public to Wall Street.
As Nicola Matthews and James Felkerson of the Jerome Levy Institute reveal, in the past few years the Fed has purchased $29 trillion in assets. The assets were financed with dollars the Fed printed from thin air.
We have not felt the effects because central banks prop up the dollar.
To the extent that the toxic assets are less than the $29 trillion, there is a loss to the public, likely in the trillions.
The entire American GDP is about $14 trillion.
But that’s the least of it.
By tripling the money supply since 2008 (from $800 billion to nearly $3 trillion), the Fed and the two major parties have opened the door to the money center banks increasing the American money supply 30-fold.
The potential instability exceeds that of the 1930s.
So far, only Paul has raised these issues.
Maybe I can see Weiss’ point:
Why discuss the Fed when there are plentiful opportunities in the op-ed market to call Paul, R-Texas, and his supporters names, but few to discuss substantive issues?
The potential instability exceeds that of the 1930s.
So far, only Paul has raised these issues.
Maybe I can see Weiss’ point:
Why discuss the Fed when there are plentiful opportunities in the op-ed market to call Paul, R-Texas, and his supporters names, but few to discuss substantive issues?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
