I heard someone say, “The free market is a myth!”  They’re right.

Free markets wouldn’t tolerate the imposition of a central bank.

Free markets cannot engineer bailouts to the banking industry.

Free markets cannot bail out zombie companies with extorted money today and pass the debt onto the backs of the unborn.

Free markets don’t reward the incompetent at the expense of the competent.

Free markets can’t impose tax codes to alter peoples behaviour at large (look how the HRTC tax credit is diverting money from businesses who might have otherwise received it).

Free markets wouldn’t ascribe legitimacy to fiat money. Legal tender laws would be repudiated and vanish. In practice, we would return to sound money.

Free markets would not tolerate limited liability laws protecting those who direct their organizations in such a way that harm others yet leave them immune, except in rare high-profile cases where scapegoats are required to construct the facade of the State protecting the serfs.

Free markets wouldn’t provide moral hazards to various industries, backed by the State gun.

Free markets wouldn’t suffer the “Captured Regulators” problem where a revolving door is created between industry and the State who write costly rules incumbents can afford to shoulder but new competitors cannot.

Free markets would render the boom/bust cycles created by the State/banking cartel accepted today as “normal”, obsolete.

Free markets trend to create better quality products at lower costs. The opposite occurs when the State provides services as they can simply extort revenue streams from their victims.

Free markets don’t go to war or kill people as it is too costly to restore compensation to those injured.

Free markets don’t tolerate agencies with a monopoly on force.

Free markets would not accept paper tickets imposed on them by the very same people who would kill them if they refused to pay tribute by way of their paper tickets issued.

Free markets would not legitimize/validate the idea that it is morally acceptable for a violent monopoly to evict a family from their land in the event they should stop paying tribute to them, with all other market actors cheering on the gang of violent thieves and excoriating the victims.

Free markets don’t recognize political borders where people can be contained, restrained, and harnessed into the State debt-based fiat money pogroms where central banks pit us against each other, deflect us via the voting scam, and use us as pawns to enrich the invisible (although they are beginning to appear) beneficiaries.

This is why people are correct when they say, “The free market is a myth!”.

If only it weren’t.

Note to readers.  Feel free to add your own ideas of what free markets wouldn’t do…I’m sure I missed a whack of them when the steam on my rant wore out.

OK,  its bothered me enough.   Enough even to write this trivial little post.

Every mainstream article I’ve read says the same thing:

“OMFG!  Gold is at an all time high!”.

It is NOT at an all time high.

Gold hit an all time high of $877US/ounce back in 1980.  In inflation adjusted dollars, that translates to $2,298.60US/ounce in 2009.

If gold goes north of this price, THEN it will have hit an all time high.

Why is it mainstream media gets this all wrong?  Is a bunch of intellectually bereft sheep all running around quoting each other, or is there a central mis/disinformation agency coordinating what outlets will say?

Is it possible they don’t want to report the inflation adjusted number to let people know how much the State/banking cartel has ripped us off via their inflation pogroms?

In the spirit of Halloween, I give you a most unflattering picture of Mark Carney, un-photoshopped, our illustrious governor of Canada’s central bank fiat franchise.

Seriously.  This picture physically made me flinch and recoil from my f–king browser when this popped up.  Would you want this coming down a back alley at you?  Is that a freaking smile?  How’d the handlers not bury this one? It still disturbs me:

Let’s give an appropriate caption to this picture.  I’ll start:

“I’ll get you, my pretty!”

“Yeah, I am going to  suck the purchasing power out of the dollar!”

“All of us from the Goldman Sachs coven look like this in real life!”

“Go ahead.  Save your money.  I’ll take its value via inflation anyway.  You feeling lucky punk?”

Feel free to add your own.

I was approached a while ago by the creator (a college student doing a project) of this movie with respect to this post, and received a nice thank you for my input.

I haven’t watched it in its entirety, but I am starting to notice body language emanating from parasitic politicians FSK writes about frequently.  Pay particular attention to former prime minister Paul Martin’s idiosyncrasies. How did the author get these people to agree to appear on camera?

Here is the intro to what appears to be 15 parts.

As usual, the author holds out the false hope the State can be reformed, but its nice to see people working on exposing the scam.

I was watching Stefan Molyneaux deliver a speech at the NH Liberty Forum, and I thought he did an important exercise with the audience.  First, the sources:

Part I:

Part II:

The argument is entitled “Against Me”.  Molyneaux manages to summarize the issues with getting into debates with statists is not to fall into the traps where you pit charts, statistics, and endless data against them justifying why it is wrong to support a pro-State point of view.    The statist will simply pull out their charts, statistics, and endless data and use ad-hominem attacks against your sources.   Using the “Against Me” approach, you don’t have to recite a single fact, just simply reveal the violence/coercion inherent in the statist position.   You can stop banging your head against the table and spend endless hours collecting data to refute the Statist argument, wasting your time, effort, and energy to no avail anyway.

His theory is to bring the “gun in the room” in a statist debate to light.  Once the gun is pointed out, it shows the statist position in a debate, no matter what it is, is *ALWAYS* backed by the barrel of a gun.   Once the gun is seen, there is no intelligent debate anymore.  It is simply violence and coercion.  If you debate a statist in front of others and the gun is seen, others (ironically including the statist him/herself) get extremely uncomfortable as they see the lack of morality and evil inherent in the Statist point of view.

Let’s apply the theory in a synthetic, but all too often common argument:

Statist) “I support Obamacare!  Not supporting it is evil!”

You) “I totally support your right to believe in Obamacare.  Furthermore, I would never dream of using violence and coercion against you believing in Obamacare, nor *ACT* on supporting your beliefs.  If you wish to support Obamacare, open up your check book and write a check to the government to support it!  And I would never advocate that people show up in clown suits to haul you in jail for acting on your belief.”

(You could point out that food is more important than healthcare to the vast majority of people, yet the production and distribution of food is a free market activity, should we not nationalize that as well?)

“Now, will you accord me me the same courtesy and respect ?  Do you support my right not to support Obamacare?  Furthermore, do you support my right to *ACT* on my belief?  Am I free to disagree with you?  Will you accord me the same respect I am according you?”

Statist) “Well…yes.” (What else is he/she going to say? If they say “No.” then the gun in the room is immediately seen.)

You) “So if I wanted to tally up my share/cost of Obamacare (insert any government boondoggle, scams, corruption, wars etc here), and I *ACTED* on my belief to withhold those portions of my taxes from the government, you would support me in my right to have, hold, and act on my belief?

Statist) Silence – Cognitive dissonance rising..

You) “I’m not free to do that, am I?  What would your level of support for Obamacare be if a large number of people withheld their tax dollars (I am deliberately leaving the central bank government monetary printing press out of the discussion as most do not understand how that operates) from supporting it, thus driving up the cost of *YOUR* personal share to enable it?”

The Statist might argue that they advocate the use of violence/force/coercion to ensure you pay tribute to the “Social Contract”.    You don’t have go there.  The gun in the room has just been revealed.  You’ve done your job.  You can’t reason with the barrel of a gun.  The debate is over.  The Statist’s final argument is violence.  The Statist’s has shown people in the room that he/she supports the gun to be pointed at you.  When (not if) will the Statist point (or support the pointing) the gun at everyone else?

Isn’t it nice that you have made the Statist feel uncomfortable for a change?

There was a funny bit in the presentation.   A (clearly) Ron Paul supporter has an exchange that goes something like this:

RP Supporter – “In a democracy, people make decisions about government policy directly.  In a Republic, we choose people to make those decisions for us.” (Ed’s note: She’s wrong.  I live in a so-called democracy.  I don’t remember when I could decide government couldn’t tax me, and we also are deflected into the voting scam by electing “representatives” into the Mafia.)

Molyneaux – pauses, and then states, “Well my first response would be the difference between a democracy and a republic is the illusory paperwork.”

Big applause from the audience.  Perhaps they are beginning to realize the concept of controllable government, under any form, is uncontrollable and corrupt.

Molyneaux has a good speaking style.  He provokes a great deal of laughs from the audience and keeps them entertained yet thinking it through.

Over at Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty site, I saw an amusing post that bears repeating here:

Here is an extremely “complex” view of free market healthcare:

Now, in contrast, here is the US government’s plan. It’s very simple.  Click for details (if you dare):

I saw this poster on the web:

The last sentence gets it wrong.  I took the liberty of modifying it:

There. That’s better.  Or this:

Let me know what you like best.

From Reuters via Yahoo News, Bernanke is on a PR campaign to prop up the Federal Reserve’s waning credibility as faithful stewards of its paper franchise monopoly.

Bernanke sought to demystify the role of the Federal Reserve, and especially debunk ideas that the Fed has almost unfettered power as an unelected fourth branch of government.

“I’m answerable to the American people,” Bernanke said.

Bernanke should do stand-up comedy.  He isn’t answerable at all to the American people and he said so to Bernie Sanders:

Now, Sanders expresses “outrage” (posturing) incredulously wondering if only “large, greedy corporations” get the money at the expense of other businesses.  Sanders of course, appears to not willingly or not wittingly admit corporations are creatures of the State as well.

As usual, the Fed gets a free pass again with this one:

Markets would likely assess that inflation would rise if Congress or the administration started to meddle with interest rate decisions, he added.

And the Fed’s track record on inflation since inception is…a saved 1914 dollar has the purchasing power of about 4 cents.  Whew Ben.  The purpose of the Fed is to loot and pillage everyone.  It’s not prejudiced.  It steals from all savings.

Next, the article cites Bernanke as “bristling with emotion” when “asked about a measure before Congress to open the Fed’s monetary policy decision-making to scrutiny by a congressional watchdog, the Government Accountability Office.”.

This of course is, HR 1207 and similarly S. 604, which Reuters fails to mention.  Bernanke whines:

“I don’t think the American people want Congress running monetary policy. That’s exactly what (the bill) would do,” he said.”

First, most American – and other nations -  people don’t understand monetary policy as they have been prevented from learning what it is via State run education and a bought off State/Media propaganda cartel.

Next, even if they DID understand monetary policy but are brainwashed into thinking they can control government, do you think they would agree money should be controlled by an unelected institution as opposed to an elected one?  In otherwords, if Bernanke was answerable to the American people, and the American people’s voices are represented via Congress, Bernanke should laud the measure, no?   The reporter of the article should have pointed that obvious flip-flop out, but as usual, the Fed gets a free pass.

If the reporter was doing their job, they should have mentioned that the Constitution expressly forbid outsourcing of monetary control to a third party. That’s exactly what happened when Congress created the Fed in 1913, oops I mean when Congress created the Second Bank of the United States  in 1816-1836, oops I mean Congress created the First Bank of the Unites States in 1791-1811.    This of course leads to the question, “Hey!  If the Constitution can’t prevent the banksters from lobbying Congress to give them a license on monetary control, why do we have a government anyway?  It’s supposed to protect us from each other, but it keeps feeding us to the wolves!”  You cannot restrain a predatory tiger (the State) in a paper cage (a Constitution).   It gnaws at the bars, fed by lobbyists, banksters, special interests, campaign contributions, and other such bribes.

HR 1207 was created by Ron Paul.  He is a shining gem in a pile of shit and I was quite interested in him during the 2008 primaries.  Ron Paul exceeded the limit on the carefully controlled debate spectrum.  The Media cartel, acting in the best interests of the Status Quo/Establishment parasites, either ridiculed but more often than not, ignored him.  Paul argued for the abolition of the Fed, citing it was unconstitutional.  I think he even introduced a bill to that effect, but no-one (obviously) would co-sponsor it.  1207 calls for “auditing” the Fed.  As usual, the existence of government institutions is not to be questioned, but the useless debate over the mechanics of “control” can be allowed. Ron Paul’s argument, “The Fed should be abolished because it is unconstitutional!” is weak.  The stronger argument is, “The Fed should be abolished because it is immoral!”.

The correct question to ask is, “Why do we need government either via the Fed or Congress to control our money at all?”.  Ask that question and it immediately leads to, “Who needs a government anyway?”.  Do we need to be governed?  Yes.  Does that mean we need to have a monopoly on violence to govern?  No.  Any monopoly on violence is automatically corrupt.  It will be sought out those who wish to manipulate it to their advantage to the disadvantage of others.  Always.

The article ends with the typical “man on the street” interview:

Retirees Elbert and Gloria Willingham of Overland Park, Kansas, who were among the studio audience, gave Bernanke two thumbs up.

“I’m very impressed with Bernanke. I strongly hope that Obama sees fit to reappoint him — it would be bad for the economy if he didn’t,” Elbert Willingham said.

“He’s down to earth and believable. He’s got the ideas, but also the practical understanding,” his wife added. “He cares about the small businessman.

Of course, the media would not cite anyone who gave Bernanke “two-thumbs down”, preferring to rush to numbskulls with heads filled with pablum.  These people STILL know nothing other than the cut of Bernanke’s jib.  He’s “believable”?  That’s these two dipshits “analysis”?  Bernanke’s a “good liar” and we think he should be “reappointed?”.    Epic fail.

And they vote:

The citizens of Toronto are currently enduring a strike by the union responsible for garbage collection.   Citizens have been polarized by viewing either the Toronto’s municipal governmeent as the enemy or the union.

What we have here is not unions vs. the city. This is a false opposite fallacy erected by the State. What we have is the productive class (citizens who pay taxes) vs the parasitic class (the municipal government AND the union).

What people lack is the ability to rationally think of what a true free market solution would look like as most of us have been prevented from learning via State-run indoctrination camps called “public education” and the pro-State shilling by the mainstream media cartel.  So I’ll put the question bluntly, “What would the garbage collection market look like in the absence of government?”.

Government is simply a ruling monopoly on violence that takes money from you by force in return for “services”.   You are SOL if you say, “F–k the city!  They are providing me a lower quality of service for higher prices!  I have no control over it!  I am going to withhold X% of my taxes representing the service(s) I disagree with in protest!”.  Doing so would risk violent government assault against that person.

The city is a monopoly who “owns” the garbage collection market. This is akin to the Mafia “owning” the drug trade. All “own” these markets as they would deploy violence against those who would enter it without permission (a license). Licenses are extremely valuable.

As an aside, the worst thing that could happen to the Mafia is to decriminalize the drugs it traffics.  Why?  Because their excessively high profit margins – thus justifying risk – would vanish virtually overnight.  It would no longer be lucrative to arm yourself to the teeth to protect the trade.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the Mafia contributes heavily to campaigns of the most rabid anti-drug politician.  Lobbying the government to ban substances that have high demand is profitable for the Mafia!  What we get instead is politicians declaring a “war on drugs” to appear like they are “doing something!”.  As usual, government expands via ineffective new departments, we all pay via higher taxation/inflation and body counts from the drug “wars”.  This is not free market activity although some cite the drug trade as criticism of “free markets” – when it isn’t.

On the other hand, unions are State-sanctioned organized labour cartels that artificially distort the price of labour.

A union would not be given “legal” – a word reserved for use by the ruling monopoly on violence – status. A union is a State-sanctioned labour cartel, artificially driving the cost of labour up and the quality of service down. This trend is not a normal occurrence in a free market. Organized labour will prevent others from wanting to work harder at lower prices. How low? What ever the market deems the economic value of their work is.

There is nothing wrong with workers saying to an employee, “F–k you! We’re leaving because we hate the working conditions here and the way you treat us!” and starting a competing business elsewhere.

There is also nothing wrong with an employer saying to his workers, “F–k you! I am firing the lot of you and replacing you with those who want to work!”

No entrepreneur can say, “F–k the city! I can offer better garbage removal at lower prices! Let me canvas people in a particular area to see if they want to subscribe to my service!” as they have to compete with “free” – garbage collection is paid via property taxes, and a homeowner is SOL if they withhold even a portion of their taxes, as they would risk the State violently cracking down on them to enforce tribute or protection money payments.

As usual, we have been divided by the “union vs. the city” fallacy.  It is, “the State vs. the free market” battle.

In a free market, no one would have a monopoly on anything. Nothing would prevent anyone from starting up a garbage collection business, nothing would prevent people from choosing the best provider, and we would see the natural free market trend of   quality of service going up and the cost down.

As usual, we all pay for lower quality of government “service” through higher taxes.

Via Kitco, this article by Darryl Robert Schoon describes Goldman Sachs (GS) as a “vampire on the jugular of America”.   Obviously, Schoon derides GS as a heinous organization, “The banksters profit at the benefit of everyone else!”.

Schoon uses Matt Taibbi’s article in the Rolling Stone as a springboard to  his with the quote “organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy”.

Next, Schoon laments “Democracy no longer serves the role intended by America’s founding fathers.”.   Um…the founding fathers never intended democracy to serve any role, that’s why the United States was founded as a Republic.   The word “democracy” never appears anywhere in the US Constitution.  Most people can’t tell you what a Republic vs. Democracy is anyway.   But, boy, can they ever go on about sports, Brangelina, and Jon and Kate Gosset.  The founding fathers recognized that democracy leads immediately to powerful centralized governments whereas Republics intend to limit centralization.  Problem is once a centralized power is established, it immediately seeks to increase that power – think parasites multiplying and consuming a host a la cancer.

I like Schoon’s writings.  He is aware of the problem and is finally coming around the correct root cause analysis:  Government is the problem.  Goldman Sachs is a symptom.

At the very end of the article, Schoon gets it right:

“When Wall Street pimps take their cut of America’s money, they’re not alone. Without the US government, the pimps of Wall Street couldn’t do you like they do.”

He needs to take it to the next logical question, “Why do we need a government anyway?”  People who are proponents of gold/silver money recognize the perils of fiat.  Monopolization of money production is second only to the government’s monopoly on violence.  State brainwashing from the cradle to the grave makes it difficult for this idea to flourish, but the Internet is breaking the mainstream media – essentially a propaganda tool for the State – monopoly on information dissemination they have held for generations.

Organized greed will ALWAYS defeat organized government.  Why?  Because the greedy immediately start infiltrating/lobbying government and financing political campaigns to have it serve its purposes! Where do politicians go when they leave office?  Right into positions made available to them in return for performing “favours” for the industry.

Do people need to be governed?  Yes.  Does that automatically mean their needs to be a government to govern them?  No.  Our behaviors – human action – are governed by many forces, most of them outside of the insitution of government.

Stefan Molyneaux does a decent job explaining this:

The Stateless Society and Caging the Devils: The Stateless Society and Violent Crime

I was watching the movie, “The Shawshank Redemption” – a movie derived from a Stephen King novella, “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption” and I was struck by a particular segment of the movie.

In case you don’t know the plot of a movie, in a nutshell, it is essentially about the development of a friendship between 2 men (Red and Andy Dufresne) serving time in Shawshank prison over a great number of years.

In this scene, new inmate Andy has approached long time resident Red in the prison courtyard as Red was the man who could “get things” from the outside world and bring them into the prison.  Andy wanted a “rock hammer” – a very small hammer about 7 inches long – it looks like a toy hammer.  Red of course was wary of the item and the trustworthiness of his new client and negotiations commenced.

The Youtube segment can be found here:

Note: I couldn’t figure out how to splice the video to hone in on the clip I wanted you to see, as the “start” and “end” parameters don’t appear to work as documented via a Google search.  I went over to splicd.com that uses Youtube APIs to generate a link that shows the specific segment to emphasize; you can see that here.

Now, Red knows that Andy is having trouble with the small group of prisoners who rape other prisoners – “bull queers” – so Red wants to get an idea what Andy wants the rock hammer for.  Andy says if there is any trouble he “won’t use the rock hammer.”.  Red then asks him if he will use the rock hammer to tunnel his way out of prison, in which Andy snickers.    Red wants to know what is so funny.  Andy replies, “You’ll understand when you see it.”.  In other words, Red is assessing risk to his business if he trades with Andy.

Once Red makes up his mind to go ahead with the exchange,  price is negotiated.  The rock hammer goes for about $7 in the outside world.  Red tells Andy is normal markup is about %20, but states the rock hammer is a specialty item – “risk goes up, price goes up” – and wants $10 for it.  Andy agrees; it isn’t clear in the movie how Red is paid.

Next, Red outlines the terms and conditions of the sale.  Red states that the item is high risk to Andy – “if they find it, you’re gonna lose it.”   If the hammer is confiscated, Red warns Andy that he is not to reveal who got him the hammer.  Red states if his name is mentioned, “we’ll never do business again.  Not for shoelaces or a stick of gum.  You got that?”.  Andy agrees and thanks him.

An agorist network is where a counter-economy is initiated by participants to trade outside of the taxation/inflation system – a virtual prison – we all are enslaved to.   Some say, “What if someone rats you out to the State!?!”.  An agorist network has TREMENDOUS value to the participants.  They are preventing the State from confiscating the fruits of their labour via taxation.  If they trade in cash and hold that cash for any length of time, they need to convert it to gold or silver rounds/bars to prevent State theft via inflation.  If someone betrays the network, they will immediately be ostracized from the network and their trustworthiness factor goes to ZERO.  No one will do business with them again.  They will be denied access to participate in the agorist network; economic pariahs if you will.

The movie then cuts to a scene where they show the process and the participants bringing in Andy’s rock hammer (shown here via splicd).

The agorist network is keeping the prisoners – a supposedly heinous bunch of people – honest!  Recognizing the value of the network, they all seek to benefit from it.  If any participant betrays another, they’re done.  It’s very interesting that an prisoner does NOT do something that would prevent them access to the “economy” to obtain goods/services to increase their standard of living.  In other-words, their self-interest prevents them from doing harm to others.

Wow.  That’s something you don’t hear everyday.  That is completely the opposite of a corporation where government grants limited liability to decision makers that direct the company in such a way that harms others.

Now some might say, doesn’t Red hold a monopoly position?  He’s exploiting prisoners!  Nonsense.  If a prisoner thought Red was f–king them over, they would start another network or seek out another competitor.

In fact, there is a scene later in the movie where Andy wants to surprise Red with a gift – a harmonica.  In order for Andy to keep it a secret, he orders the harmonica through a “competitor” although that exchange process is not a scene in the movie.

I thought this was interesting. If some say, “An agorist network will NEVER work because people are not trustworthy!”, cite prison as a working model!

From this article, apparently the political State of Canada is having issues.  As usual, the core of the problem is not being honed in on, but deflected to the standard, “Well at least it wasn’t as bad as last month!” which is now considered good news.

One statement made me LOL: “We jumped into this recession totally unprotected.”. Nope.  Central banks manipulating monetary policy led us by the nose into this recession.  Signed.  Sealed. And delivered.  As usual, the government/banking cartel is not to blame.

What we are witnessing here is the results of the structural defects in the way our monetary system operates.

Some call it the Debt Virus. Others call it the Compound Interest Paradox.

Since every dollar in circulation is backed by one “anti”-dollar of debt, it eventually must be paid back to those privileged to issue it. Who are they? Well, the BoC is one. The chartered private banks are another. Paper money represents about 5% of the total money stock; the other 95% is bank created credit, created via a few computer keystrokes when a loan is created; the loan ends up as a deposit in an account.

By way of a simple accounting trick, the loan is an interest-bearing asset and the deposit a liability. Thus the books balance.

Over time, old loans (plus interest) are paid off. However, only the principle was created. The interest was not. Where does that come from? From new loans created *AFTER* the old ones. A loan, once paid off, actually *DEPLETES* the total money stock by the amount of the interest.

This is pure Ponzi requiring infinite economic growth (i.e. the rate and amount of new loans *MUST* be equal to or greater than the rate and amount of loans being retired.

In order to incent us to take out more loans, our central planners via the BoC, artificially lower interest rates, in hopes of stimulating loan creation. Trouble is we are not responding the way they want us to. If this process continues, the collapse of the Bank of Canada Loyalty Points (dollar) in hyper-deflation of the dollar is inevitable.

What this means is that more and more businesses and people must compete harder and harder for the remaining dollars in circulation to pay off their outstanding debt (as well as live). Businesses must sell at lower prices to pay off loans that are becoming increasingly difficult to service. Jobs are lost. Salaries reduced. Some strain. Some struggle. Some lose to bankruptcy.

We have to reinvent what money should have been before the government/banking cartel hijacked it.

For immediate release:

This year, Canadian taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. Wouldn’t economy do well if government stopped robbing people via taxation extortion? In fact, maybe it wouldn’t have soured in the first place?
A. Shut up.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But I hear people are saving money and paying off debt.  Isn’t this simply a round-about subsidy to the banks who create money out of thin air as you gave them the license to counterfeit money when they issue a loan?
A. Shut up.

Q. OK.  If I am to buy a flat screen TV, which one should I buy?
A. It doesn’t matter.  My spouse and my colleagues’ spouses bought as much stock as we could in companies who make flat screen TV’s, prior to this announcement.  I also have a position waiting for me at one of these companies in return for the favour when I leave office. Funny how that works out…for me.  Was that out loud?

Q. Isn’t that a conflict of interest?
A. When you have a monopoly on violence you can do pretty much what you want.  You need not be consistent in any viewpoint.  People have been scammed into thinking voting can change things.  If it really could, we’d have made voting illegal.  Ooops.  Was that out loud again?

Q.   If we made stuff they wanted with the money we send them, I can see how it might work, but bottom line is that we buy the crap they make, but we don’t buy the crap we make..which is very little these days.  So how does this help the Canadian economy?  Doesn’t it really stimulate the Chinese economy?
A. Shut up.

Q. How long will countries that make stuff accept our money – which loses value to inflation – if we have nothing to offer them?  Won’t they stop after a while?  When we have no skills left?  When they buy out all of our hard assets like real estate, mines and mining rights, or whatever we have left at firesale prices?
A. Shut up.

So let me get this straight. It’s kinda hard for the layperson like me to get my head around it:

Q) You lowered interest rates in 2000-2001 to levels we hadn’t seen in 40 years or so to stave off the dot com recession and the fragile nerves of people post 9/11, right?
A) Right.

Q) You didn’t want that little recession to hurt people who flocked to the over-inflated dot com industry as a result of wild speculation, right?
A) Right.

Q) So by lowering interest rates, this encourages people to borrow and spend, right?
A) Right.

Q) Doesn’t lowering interest rates make otherwise impractical projects practical? Or sometimes, if all that new money flows into a particular asset class, like housing, it causes the value of that asset to rise? Isn’t this called malinvestment? I.e. Investing in something that doesn’t really meet market demand because interest rates distort market decisions?
A)Yes.

Q) So loose credit policies you authorized (easy money) created the housing bubble? I.e. People were afraid *NOT* to get a loan to buy a house otherwise they thought they would be priced out of the market? This encourages speculative behaviour, right? Even prudent savers would be tempted, no? It’s a positive re-enforcing loop, is it not?  In otherwords, most people acting in their rational economic self-interest based on the market distortions you created *CAUSED* their – in the oft repeated phrase of the former head of the Federal Reserve – “irrational exuberance”?
A) I suppose it is.

Q) So YOU created the market distortion that led to a boom in housing! Yet, when things go bust, the free market takes the blame? Because of your disastrous monetary policies? What’s free market about that?
A) Shut up.

Q) Isn’t a free market and a central bank opposite ideas? If one exists, the other doesn’t?
A) Shut up.

Q) I know what I’ll do, I’ll vote someone in who understands what you’re up to and will fix your wagon! What do you think of that?
A) Good luck with that. Blue, Red, Orange, or Green…knock yourself out. It doesn’t matter. There is no real choice in your feudal system. Only top and bottom.   I’m on top…and you’re not.

That’s all the time we have for today!  I hoped you enjoyed the new Q and A format. Thanks for coming! Don’t let the door hit your a$$ on the way out!

Below is some helpful advice on how to best to help the Canadian economy by spending your stimulus cheque wisely:

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China .
If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs.
If you purchase a computer it will go to India .
If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras , and Guatemala (unless you buy organic, in which case it will go to the US, and they need the money more than us, actually).
If you buy a car it will go to Japan .
If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan .

And none of it will help the Canadian economy.

We want to keep that money here in  Canada . You can keep the money in Canada by spending it at yard sales, going to a hockey game, or spend it on strippers, domestic beer or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in Canada.

A poster in a comment forum made the following (all too often common) comment about gold with respect to fiat (government decreed) money and I responded.  I thought it worthy of a post:

I’ve never understood the appeal of gold.

You cannot eat it. It isn’t used to make anything that cannot be done with other metals. The only reason it has value is because other people think that it does.

Have you not just described what fiat (government decreed) paper money is as well?

That aside, historically there have been many commodities used as money. Salt, sea shells, wampum, tobacco, yak dung, but as time progressed, local markets became less localized and wider in scope thanks to transportation improvements.  Commodities used as money either suddenly or progressively were displaced as the commodity as it became widely available.

For example, a given market might have used “salt cakes” ( baked salt whose weight denominated its value – the larger the cake, the more purchasing power it had – but as soon as the first foreigners arrived who had salt in plenty quickly traded it for as much as they could.  They flooded the local market with salt.  Prior to that, local savers who stockpiled salt cakes to trade for wealth (the ability to acquire products and services in their market) found themselves poorer (or destitute) as salt lost its value.  In otherwords, there was a massive expansion of the money supply (salt cakes in circulation) that eventually (or quickly) wiped out salt as money.

The last of the free market monies evolved into metals such as gold or silver as they met a number of desirable characteristics such as:

- Durability
- Portability
- Fungibility/Interchangeablity.
- Divisibility.
- Scarcity.

Money, no matter what form, is simply an intermediate medium of exchange. Wealth is not money, it is the disposition of money into the market in exchange for goods and services that gives rise to wealth.

At this point, take note of what forces brought money into existence.  It wasn’t government.  It was the market.  Money is a commodity like all other commodities.  It is subject to the most basic force of economics, the law of supply and demand.  The free market demanded money be brought into existence as it facilitated trade; it was more efficient than barter (commonly described as a “coincidence of wants”) and it allowed for division of labour.

Another interesting point to note is a business cannot tell “how it is doing” via the barter system.  Consider in month 1,  Acme Inc. captures 5 lbs of lye soap, 3 pitchforks, an iPod, a bushel of hay, a tractor, and a woolen suit but spends one hoe, 25 horseshoes, one Blackberry Storm, and 3 books.  In month 2, Acme Inc brings in 3 wagons, 1 horse, a generator, 3 bottles of whisky but spends 1 carton of cigarettes, 3 French Hens, 2 Turtle Doves, and a partridge in a pear tree, how does the owner go to his accountant and say, “How have we done this month compared to last month?”

Money is simply a universally accepted commodity that is used as an intermediate medium of exchange all actors accept in confidence knowing others will accept it from them.

Why did the free market demand money come into existence? If government and the banking cartel did not have a monopoly on money production, would money never come into existence? History proves this false. On the surface, we accept money from others knowing others will accept it from you. But the forces behind ascribing value to government fiat as opposed to what gives free market money value are night and day. If I have time, I’ll post on that subject.

What if there is a severe depression and people are forced to trade their gold for the items required to live? How much value would gold have then?

Whatever the market values gold at.

So what gives fiat money value as opposed to free market commodity money?

On the surface, they appear to be the same. You toil to produce something of value to others, earning money with the implicit assumption others will accept that money from you in exchange for goods and services you value either in the present or at some later date. Sometimes we call this “confidence”. I don’t dispute this.

However, when it comes to paying tribute/protection money/taxes to government, what form of money *MUST* you use? The one they monopolized via legal tender laws – their own fiat money.

If I opened up “Gilligan’s Money Store” and I printed up pretty, uniform pieces of paper with different inks and designs on them indicating different denominations to reflect each notes purchasing power (we call these dollars but at my store, I call them tribbles) and told everyone in the market to use my notes as money, what would happen? I would be ignored or laughed at. Why? Some say “What’s to prevent another from opening their own store and doing the same?!” Others may say, “You can print as much as you want and falsely lay claim others labour. You’re a cheat!”

However, what if I had a bunch of goons working for me with superior firepower over the market, and I say, “You will pay tribute to me in my form of money…or else! You will report to me how much money you make and I will decide how much of it you get to keep…or else!” Resistance to my edicts will be met with a violent crackdown on you and your family. In this manner, I have just created demand for my money under threat or actual violence.  By demanding my money in the form of taxes, I make it impossible for you to boycott my form of money.  This is the purpose of the income tax.  Some say that FDR outlawed gold in 1933 and demanded it be turned in in exchange for fiat Federal Reserve notes as people were boycotting government money, thus avoiding theft of their labour via taxation and inflation.

Now that I have seized control over the money supply, I can steal its purchasing power slowly over time via the inflation tax. I can’t do it quickly, or the serfs I rule would get disgusted and boycott my money in favour of other forms of money in an agorist economy – the grey/underground market.

Commodity based money cannot be destroyed.  It can be reshaped, and its value is subject to the forces of supply and demand, but it is not created out of debt as is our fiat money via the State/Banking cartel.

Free money is created by productive members of society; fiat is created by the parasitic political/banking class.

Today, in the Globe and Mail, Canada’s Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the deficit for this year will come in around $50B.  We are approximately one tenth the population of the United States, so our deficit would be around 10 times higher if we had a US based population, which translates to about $500B.

Then and now quotes comparing what Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said during and after the campaign for the Oct. 14 election about recession and a deficit.

“This country will not go into recession next year and will lead the G7 countries.”
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Oct. 10)

“If you don’t want a carbon tax and tax increases and a deficit and recession, the only way to ensure that is the case is to vote for the Conservative party.”
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Oct. 12)

“We may well be in a technical recession.”
- Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (Nov. 23)

“The most recent private-sector forecasts suggest the strong possibility of a technical recession at the end of this year and beginning of next.”
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Nov. 23)

“I know economists will say well, we could run a small deficit but the problem is that once you cross that line as we see in the United States, nothing stops deficits from getting larger and larger and spiralling out of control.”
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Oct. 6)

“We will not run a deficit.”
- Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (Oct. 9)

“If we do short-term deficit spending as a deliberate policy we will have to be able to demonstrate to Canadians that those deficits will genuinely be short term.”
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Nov. 15)

“The government of Canada today is not planning a deficit. But if the government of Canada decides . . . that we do have to engage in fiscal stimulus, that government spending is essential not just to shore up economic activity but investment markets, that would be the occasion we would go into what would be called a cyclic or a short-term deficit.”
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Nov. 23)

You’d think reporters would challenge them on their credibility and bring up these past statements.   I think our mainstream media would absolutely get a bailout if required.  Why?  Who else would so sychophantically shill for the State?   Why does the media keep running back to these failures for statements when there clearly is no credibility?

People think media is apart from the State, when they are actually extensions of it.

A corrupt politician is nothing new.  Admitting it openly and running a campaign based on the slogan:

“All for me, nothing for you.”

is new!  What a refreshing change!  Croats flock to support openly corrupt politician.

He is now in second place!

Nice to see some truth in advertising!

Also known as the “I don’t care how many brown-skinned bastards (pissed at us from being sodomized over generations of our foreign policy meddling, conveniently under-reported or left out by mainstream analysis) are mass murdered overseas by our government and their tools!  Who will build my f–king road?” argument.

In a fantastically stunning display of free markets being able to provide and care for the most of us, Kauai residents took it upon themselves to complete critical repairs themselves after the State said, “We’re sorry.  Due to mismanagement of the theft of your labour taxes, we won’t be able to provide you the $4M and 2 years we estimate it will cost to repair the road.  Sorry about that.  However, if you miss one payment of your protection money taxes, we will kill you we shall begin the collection process.

The residents raised the money and manpower themselves, and completed the repairs in EIGHT DAYS! That’s right.  8 days.

Now, I wonder if they received a tax break for services rendered?  I wonder if the $4M is just a lone one-off overpricing of a State service?  Oh.  Wait.  I don’t wonder that at all.

Someone posted this in a newspaper forum directed at me:

You referred at multiple intervals that we share a ‘parasitic relationship’ with the State/Central Bank. As far as I’m concerned, the parasite dies when the host dies.

The parasite also dies when the host recognizes it as such and overthrows it.  The host need not die.  Not to say there isn’t any pain associated with it – it is always painful when the victim pulls the vampire out of his/her neck.

Isn’t it in the best interest for the State and the Central Bank to ‘leech’ in the shadows and not deprive the citizens from basic needs (foreclosure homes, job losses, astronomical amount of debt, denied access to natural resources – oil/water/food)? The bankers can manipulate the economy as much as they want, but they are pushing us on the edge of a revolution. With the internet, I really don’t see how hard it is to track down these bankers, one by one, and put them under a guillotine.

You lay too much blame at the feet of the bankers.  Banking is not the enemy here, it is the State.  In a true free market, fiat money issued by government would have no value.  A free market and a central bank are mutually exclusive – if you have one the other doesn’t exist.

In a true free market, the imposition of a fiat paper scrip issued by the parasitic State/Banking class would not be acceptable. What would give it value? If I opened up Gilligan’s Money Printing Shop and printed pretty pieces of paper with different inks and designs indicating different values or denominations and told the true free market to use my “money”, what would happen? I would be utterly ignored or laughed at. However, if I had some goons working for me and had superior firepower over the rest of the market, then told them to use my money to pay tribute to me, what would happen? I just created an artificial demand for my money and demanded it in the form of taxation.  Most of us do not see it this way as a result of successful suppression/brainwashing by the State/Media cartel.

By borrowing on what’s being said from Chris Martenson’s Crash Course, the Greek philosopher Plutarch once stated, “A imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics”.

It’s not the imbalance that the oldest, let alone fatal ailment of all republics.  It is the imposition of the State we coerce each other into accepting.  The State creates the imbalance of “fair”.  I may not be as rich as others, and others may not be as rich as me.  Wealth is the absence of poverty and poverty is the absence of wealth, yet at all times, both terms are subjective.  If one man can lay claim to another’s labour in the absence of honest trade via force or fraud, that is what is “unfair”.    What facilitates that?  The State.  The State is nothing more than a group of people jockeying to remove themselves from the obligation of production to facilitate their consumption where they become economic parasites we have been brainwashed into us sanctioning them to do so (we are victims).

Yes they might have bigger guns. But the people should never be afraid of the State, the truth lies in the opposite. As Chris said, we simply lack the political will to contest in unison. And when that happens, no gun is big enough to stop us.

We are afraid of the State.  Terrorist taxation agencies.  State run public education brings the police into the schools under the guise of “community spirit” but all the kids are looking at their gun in the holster.  This is part of the Authoritarian brainwashing and sets us up to subjugate ourselves to enforcers of the State.

Even if the “political will” was there, people have been successfully conditioned to think “All my problems will be solved if I remove these members of the parasitic class and replace them with another parasitic class!”  We call this voting.
I’ll tell you whats nuts. A bunch of us trying to coerce each other by voting the new shade of lipstick on the pig of the State. Oooohhh, should we paint it Red? Blue? Orange? Green?

“F–k you, Voter B! I am voting Green to keep Blue off the pig!”
“Oh yeah? F–k you, Voter A! I am voting Blue to keep your Green off!”

“You’re all wrong! I am voting Blue ‘cuz the Red leader appears wimpy!”
“Oh yeah? What about Blue’s $400 haircut?”

“I studied all the policies and I am well-versed in government finance, I am voting Red because I believe they have the best vision”
“Oh yeah Mr. Hi-falootin expert? I am voting ABC ‘cuz my pappy says so! I will cancel your expert vote cuz I ‘toopid.  Now I am off to the monster truck show!”

You tell me what’s nuts. In the meantime, because of the voting scam – the deflection of what is going on behind the scene – that keeps us at each other’s throat, the pig keeps f–king us all.

So my question to you is, do you think that the current events we are living today were planned (‘engineered’) as some say? Or has this been an unprecedented experiment by the bankers driven by greed and it is now beyond their control (even the bankers are shi*ting in their pants)?

Sometimes the parasite needs to try out new things.  Joking.  Conspiracy or coincidence?  It’s a waste of energy asking that question.  It is like when people say, “The Federal Reserve is privately owned!”.  It doesn’t matter who owns it.  It is what it does that is important.  Either way, it’s wrong.  And it has to stop.

A blogger I read quite regularly, FSK, uses the term “fnord” to describe hidden messages contained within another messages.  I suppose a “fnord” is a “subliminal message” meant to prevent or encourage you to think a certain way, cloaked in a seemingly harmless unrelated message.  Some say, “I can see the fnords!” which means that you have the ability to blatantly see the hidden messages all around you.  Sometimes the fnords are intended to be seen, making other fnords undetectable.  Some can see more fnords than others, depending on their critical thinking abilities or levels of cracking their brainwashing.

I see a lot of fnords, but probably not all.  How would I know about the ones I don’t see, unless someone else points it out?  Anyway, on to my point.

I read an article about Canada posting a trade surplus.  Trade surpluses are excessively hyped by the media, making me wonder why.  Bear with me for a moment while I explain.

Trade deficits between nations are known simply because nations keep statistics on them.  Of course when a nation is running a surplus, it means the amount nation exports is more than they imported over a specified time period, usually reported monthly.  A trade deficit is the converse, imports exceed the dollar value of exports over a given time period.

If a nation is in surplus, there is much back-slapping amongst voters in pride over their nation.  If a nation runs a deficit, or deficits for a while, such as the United States, there is fear and protectionist sentiment wrapped in patriotism that starts to appear.  Why?

Do we have a trade deficit between provinces?  For example, is there a surplus or deficit between Ontario and British Columbia?  Does it matter?    How about between cities?  I.e. Toronto and Montreal? Does it matter?  Between North Toronto and Central Toronto? Does it matter?  How about between the street you live on and another street?  Between households?  Why doesn’t it matter?  Those statistics aren’t being tracked!  How would we know?  Then why are statistics being kept between nations?  If Montreal ran a trade deficit with Toronto, would people say, “People living in Toronto are benefiting at the expense of Montreal!”

Trade surpluses/deficits are used as propaganda to perpetuate the pro-State “us vs. them” mentality.  Thus, the political insiders can use it as justification to set up trade wars, “Buy American!” or “Buy Canadian!” campaigns, culminating in new taxation (such as tarriffs) on imports or exports.  Such taxation benefits the political parasitic class, not the Customer.  At all time, it is the citizen who pays for these policies as it inhibits his/her ability to seek out the best products for the most reasonable price.

Trade deficit propaganda sets us up to have our pockets picked.

This isn’t going to be much of a post but I thought I would share the data.

E-gold was raided by the State.  It was facilitating trades between people using gold and silver money to avoid theft of their purchasing power through inflation.  Some might have been using it to escape theft from taxation as well, although some may have reported their earnings this way.  I think reporting it would have been stupid, but to each their own.

I asked e-gold a while ago to provide me a summary of the rate of new accounts opening.  To my surprise, they sent it cheerily to me!  I sum it up for you here:

• 1997    525
• 1998    956
• 1999    9,771
• 2000    122,869
• 2001    206,482
• 2002    261,804
• 2003    458,762
• 2004    652,657
• 2005    891,974
• 2006    1,212,778
• 2007    1,135,850

What I don’t know is (a) if all people used these accounts they opened or let them go dormant, or (b) how much gold and silver was traded between people or (c) the velocity of the trades, but it is a crude indicator of interest level.  I stupidly neglected to ask them for that information too, but I really thought theu were going to ignore my email, or think I was an agent of the State if I asked for all of the detailed information.

The statistics page at e-gold is here.  As of this post, they currently have 5,140,158 accounts opened, but only 1,982,344 are funded with gold, 687,769 with silver, 5,734, with platinum, and 199,550 with palladium.  An account may hold more than one metal, but it sure doesn’t add up to 5.1 million.

Dollars to donuts, alot of account holders probably vacated once they were raided by the State.  This is what happens when people try and preserve their wealth by trading outside the taxation/inflation system we are all slaves to.  However, the State pitches it as “OMFG!  Oh noes!  This is a haven for criminals and terrorists!  Or maybe even child pornography rings! We has to gets ‘em!”