Glenn Beck blames bad economy on existence of central banking system
By David Neiwert Sunday Jan 25, 2009 4:00pm
It's no wonder that Fox's newest conserva-star addition to its Angry White Men lineup, Glenn Beck, has such an emotional affinity for Sarah Palin. Because like Palin, Beck is not just a conservative; he's actually a good old-fashioned right-wing populist.
For those who follow such phenomena, Beck made it explicit Thursday on his Fox News show when he launched into a segment seemingly devoted to the thesis that the whole problem with the economy lies not with capitalism, but boils down to the fact that we rely on a central banking system:
Beck: I don't believe we're the infection here. Look around the world. I got together with the Heritage Foundation and looked at all of the -- where is this crisis hitting? It's hitting capitalist, socialist, communist, totalitarian governments, all of them, and everything in between.
At some point -- if you're the doctor again in the emergency room -- and you really want to get all these people healthy, you gotta rule out -- OK, well, it's not capitalism. OK, what is it? You need to stop to ask the question that a doctor would ask in that situation: 'OK, everybody, where did you eat? What have you had to eat?' All of these countries all have that in common. They've all eaten at the same restaurant -- the restaurant of Central Banking.
It is a system that no one is accountable to. No one. The brilliant geniuses that are supposed to be protecting us -- that's why central banks are around -- 'We'll stop it, we'll make sure there's no recession, there's no depression, we'll just keep these bubbles from happening.' They never at one point -- if we were Patient Zero -- at one point in no country did they say -- 'Hey, what -- what -- don't follow the United States. Don't do that.' Never? They've had their hands in all of the food and that's what's making us sick. Will anyone look at the Central Banking system?
Hmmm. It's kind of hard to decipher Beck's inchoate jumble, but we'll try. He seems to think people are blaming capitalism itself -- but what I think has taken far more of the blame has been laissez-faire capitalism, especially as practiced by movement conservatives, who never saw a deregulation scheme they didn't love. Rather than cope with the mountain of evidence supporting this reality, right-wingers like Beck flee to the comfort of reliable old conspiracist anomie.
For some reason, the fact that the global expansion of capitalism (not to mention the rise of the mass consumer class) was in fact enabled by the Central Banking system -- particularly its ability to create massive consumer credit and to regulate monetary supply -- seems not to have crossed Beck's radar. Yes, there are serious problems with the system, especially when it's being operated by Ayn Randian ideologues.
But Beck is like the conservatives who want to blame bad government on government itself -- and so their style of governance becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of catastrophically bad government. And all along, anyone with simple common sense can see that the problem isn't government but a lack of good government. Likewise with the economy: the problem isn't with centralized banking itself, but with the central-bank system's failure to function well -- namely, by providing proper oversight and sufficient checks and balances. The reason it failed to do so was not the system itself, but the failure of the system to be operated properly by conservatives who insisted that the more laissez-faire the better.
We have a pretty good idea where Beck is getting this: Rep. Ron Paul, who was on Beck's show just a few days before spouting his right-wing monetary theories which are largely predicated on well-worn right-wing populist tropes.
Beck only dips his toe in these waters here, but it should be understood that theories blaming the Federal Reserve system for all of mankind's ills have a long, hoary history on the American far right, most of them conspiratorial in nature and often deeply anti-Semitic.
Edward Flaherty put together a thorough exploration of some of the myths around the Federal Reserve system, including a discussion of some of Becks apparent misconceptions about its role in creating economic policy and how it came to be.
Most of all, the view of the mere existence Central Bank as the root of all economic evil has a long history of conspiracist support, even in the face of the cold economic reality that the existence of elites does not mean a conspiracy is afoot:
No single power bloc, company, family, or individual in a complex modern society wields absolute control, even though there are always systems of control. Wall Street stock brokers are not outsiders deforming an otherwise happy system. As Holly Sklar argues, "the government is manipulated by various elites, often behind the scenes, but these elites are not a tiny secret cabal with omniscience and omnipotence." There is no secret team...the elites that exist are anything but secret. The government and the economy are not alien forces superimposed over an otherwise equitable and freedom loving society.
As Matthew N. Lyons points out, "Scapegoating is not only about who is targeted, but also about who is not targeted, and what systems and structures are not being challenged by focusing on the scapegoat." For example, the Federal Reserve is a powerful institution that has made many decisions that primarily benefit the wealthy and corporate interests. William Greider's book Secrets of the Temple describes the Federal Reserve as a significant institution of modern corporate capitalism with bipartisan support. He shows how the legislation traces back to demands by populists to smooth out boom and bust cycles and rapidly fluctuating credit rates that especially victimized farmers. Grieder also discusses the long history of the debate over the wisdom of a central banking system, and how the legislation creating the Federal Reserve was passed in 1913 after a lengthy public debate. There is no antisemitism or conspiracist scapegoating in the text of the Greider book.
Compare this sober analysis to the works of G. Edward Griffin, Martin Larson, Antony C. Sutton, or Eustace Mullins. They portray the Federal Reserve as the mechanism by which a tiny evil elite covertly manipulate the economy. They trace its creation to a cabal who met secretly on Georgia's Jekyll Island and then somehow snuck the legislation through Congress overnight. Anyone with a library card can disprove this malarkey simply by reading microfilmed newspaper accounts of the contentious public debate over the legislation.
Sutton and Larson overemphasize the role of bankers who are Jewish, revealing mild antisemitic stereotyping. Mullins is a strident bigot who actually has two bodies of work. In one set of texts Mullins avoids overt antisemitic language while discussing his conspiracist theory of the Federal Reserve and the alleged role of forces tied to the Rothschild banking family. These texts involve implicit antisemitic stereotyping that is easily missed (sadly) by an average reader unaware of the history of conspiracist antisemitism and its use of coded language and references. In another set of texts Mullins displays grotesque antisemitism. Mullins uses his critique of the Federal Reserve to lure people toward his other works where his economic analysis is revealed to be based on naked hatred of Jews.
All the authors in this conspiracist genre suggest alien forces use the Federal Reserve to impose their secret agenda on an unwitting population, an analysis that ignores systemic and institutional factors and personalizes the issue in the classic conspiracist paradigm.
Glenn Beck wants everyone to think he's just an independent thinker -- that's his schtick, after all -- but, like Sarah Palin, he's tra-la-la-ing down the yellow brick populist road that has been traveled so many times by so many others on the right in the past. And it always leads not to an Emerald City but the witch's fortress, where flying monkeys await.
Login or Register to post comments.
Bill Clinton fades into obscurity. Just a figment of Bush and Monica's imagination now.
Sounds like some of the people who post here.
posts to prove you right Professor Ysbaddaden.
Dennis Kucinich takes on the private Federal Reserve Central Banking System..
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&s...
There is absolutely no doubt that the Federal Reserve and all private Central Banking systems need scrutiny and open conversation on their policies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brL1AKdhLyQ
Absolutely no intelligent conversation on this topic added by you. I think Late Night Music Club is coming up in a few hours. That sounds like it suits your personality a bit better than here.
I agree with you. Glenn Beck and Dennis Kucinich are in agreement. I also agree partly with Amato. Beck, and by your aadmission, Kucinich, are like Palin in their ignorant attempt to appear populist by railing against a system neither they or their fans understand but are willing to believe is arrayed against them in a conspiracy.
You are a defender of the current private Federal Reserve Central Banking System?
of your inferential comparison of the similarity of the views of Kucinich and Beck on the sources of our economic malady.
"I prefer Nixon?"
Everything they do is in secret.....
Pass it on......
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
— Thomas Jefferson
“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.” – U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House.
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -- Henry Ford
"All of the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arises, not from the defects of the Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation." -- John Adams
"The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government’s greatest creative opportunity. The financing of all public enterprise, and the conduct of the treasury will become matters of practical administration. Money will cease to be master and will then become servant of humanity." ~ Abraham Lincoln
It's too bad more people don't heed the advice and warnings of our respected leaders and elders.
the Jefferson one for example. I have asked you ad nauseum to correct that. I was willing to give some of you the benefit of the doubt the first 100 times I showed you that quote is a fake.
Now, if all you can do to make your point is resort to made up quotes as a reference... it is clear to me that some of you are being intellectually disingenuous.
The other quotes still sufficiently cover the topic at hand. You can remove the Jefferson quote, although I'd like to see where you back up the claim that it is false, and the point is still effectively made.
What is your take on the subject at hand? Are you happy with the Federal Reserve Banking System as it is?
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp
Do you disagree with any of the other quotes posted?
Why are these thoughts, spoken over 200 years ago, relevant today? Nothing in today's banking, monetary or fiscal systems resembles the situations encountered by the founding fathers. The sentiment that you posted, like quotes from the bible, can be twisted to suit your intentions. MZ
One thing interesting was that Henry Ford was sympathetic to Fascism and the Nazis, whereas, FDR helped create the modern system as we've known it since the Depression, until the republican Congress officially got rid of the Glass-Seagall Act.
Earlier quotes from people like Jefferson (debatable or not) and Adams seem more in regards to the power of the Treasury to mint money and none other. Additionally, Jefferson was for looser money/credit circulation, but not all the Founding Father's were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act
"The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[9] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[10]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999."
Take note that a Democratic President, Bill Clinton signed the bill and there were plenty of Democrats who supported it.
And now we have many who were behind eliminating the Glass-Steagall Act working for Obama, such as Larry Summers.
I find it odd that those who created this mess are now in charge of cleaning it up.
Reminds me of a quote by Albert Einstein: "How can we expect those who create a problem to fix it?"
Precisely.
I find it odd that those who created this mess are now in charge of cleaning it up.
I've looked at some of his picks for fixing the economy and thought exactly this, for these reasons.
Did plenty of stupid shit. But it was a Republican-controlled congress that passed it. And the CDOs and CDSs where a Republican creation. As were the lack of regulation that allowed them to be taken out on each other, recursively.
There is a HUGE difference between the US Treasury being in control of the money supply and the Federal Reserve being in control.
One difference is accountability. How can you hold the Fed accountable for the decisions they make if no one knows exactly what those decisions are?
Another difference is US Notes vs. Federal Reserve Notes. To the average consumer, they spend the same, but they way they are created is different. One ends up creating purchasing power while the other creates debt.
Henry Ford, famous Jew hater? I have no respect for bigots.
What does any sentient, reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful and fair-minded primate do when you encounter, voluntary or otherwise, the pre-college, hysterical and ignorant (given that the root of this descriptor is "ignore" as in to ignore collective, empirically-based knowledge all of which is readily available at any library) musings of an insecure, self-loathing adolescent who, unfortunately, has been given time on the citizen-owned public airwaves to foist this simplistic drek on the viewers? Turn off TV, change the channel, grab the 12 guage . . . Unfortunately, these are all reactive measures. Freedom of the press - - can be a double-edged sword much of the time!
twixt my twelve gauge and my keyboard.
who, unfortunately, has been given time on the citizen-owned public airwaves
Technically, he's on cable.
Which means both the FCC and any renewed Fairness Doctrine would not apply.
of course, on this beck is completely correct!
the central bank allows the government to spend as much as they want to, and pass the debt on to generations in the future. kids 50 years from now will still be paying for this carnage in iraq. neither political party opposes this, which is why there will never be any "change".
if you do not know this, you're ignorant of economics.
Well I have a political science degree, international relations, and paralegal degree, besides my four years in the Air Force. I belonged to two honor societies (Phi Theta Kappa & Golden Key), and the dean's list, and graduated cum laude (almost magna), and you?
but I did sleep at a holiday inn express last night!
I spent too much time filling my head instead of my wallet, so I'm afraid even a Holiday Inn is beyond affordability for me.
No worries! In my experiences, the faster you fill the wallet the faster you spend it anyway.
curiously...for some reason my cost of living is EXACTLY as much as my wages every single year! (like clockwork) ...no matter how many or few hours I work.
Unless someone finds work that somehow fulfills them, something else has to fill the gap. For some it's sex, for some it's drugs of anykind--including legal, for some it's religion, and for some it's study.
I wished I stuck to body building. At my peak I was 5'3", with a 33" waist, 45" chest, 47" shoulders, 20" biceps, and 40" thighs.
(To ysbaddaden):
Is quite nice this time of year!
Great location!
The air isn't that great, but you'd be about 15 minutes from Venice Beach to the west and Beverly Hills to the northeast, Staples Center due east for a Lakers game....about 40 minutes from Black's Beach (nude surfing!) to the south.
Great price (free!)....so long as you don't get caught.
From bitter experience on street corners with his "Will work for food" sign he knows from bitter experience there will be no change.
Or did you think he was talking about our President?
reference.
Just because an institution has caused troubly by being badly run, doesn't meant that it would cause trouble if it weren't.
"the central bank allows the government to spend as much as they want to..."
Wrong! The central bank determines "monetary" policy. The executive branch determines, with the concurrence of Congress, the "fiscal policy."
Uh, yeah. So what if the fiscal policy requires more money than exists? They run to the central bank to create the money.
So the statement, "the central bank allows the government to spend as much as they want to..." is correct.
Look we all know there is a subset of conservative pundit that in addition to being rabidly partisan, always wrong, not noted experts in any particular field, as well as being hateful, hurtful, racist, sexist, and only spew outrageous uninformed rhetoric deliberately to outrage and make money. I'm talking your Hannitys, Rushs, Becks, Coulters, O'Reillys, and so forth. For these people who, lets face it, are the real world equivalent of forum trolls, can't you just make a link on the main page, in the right margin titled "Stupid Pundits" or whatever, and update that when someone says something? (I was going to say 'when someone says something stupid' but it would have been redundant, since all they say is stupid.)
Its just that with Obama in the WH, these folks are going into overdrive and I'd hate to see C&L end up a clearinghouse for these morons' moronic utterances.
moronic utterances."
I beg to differ. I like the Wizard of Oz. The flying monekys especially. And old witches like Annie C.
Sure I know the Bush clan manipulated the current system and "Enroned" our Country, but I also think people need to look at the monetary policy and history of the Federal Reserve. Nothing should be off limits in the conversation we need to have.
Not nearly enough people have enough understanding of economics to rule out any so called conspiracy theories. The history of the Federal Reserve System, starting in 1913, and the monetary policy before that needs to be studied. The monetary proposals of Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy all fought against the private interests of private central banking institutions
Here's a contribution to the conversation.
The Creature from Jekyll Island ~ by Edward Griffin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3TAh1gy6rc
Take that as you will.
But no longer than you need.
Take too many turns and there are new drugs available as long as it isn't really prostate cancer.
Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation? Who do you trust for your economic news and analysis? What is your opinion on the Federal Reserve System. Do you think it is better in private hands or should be under a branch of the U.S. Government?
money masters... (59 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnwLgrSJZKs
this movie was obviously made many years ago but if you watch the first 5 minutes, it predicts the financial collapse that we are experiencing right now!...a very prescient movie.
The Money Masters Part 1 and 2 on Google.
Very long, but it gives you the entire history of money. Gives you an entirely new perspective on the current economic "situation" we are in.
People keep thinking they "lost" their pensions due to some corporate screw ups and greed. "Oops! Our bad!!"
Their pensions were not "lost". They were STOLEN! If we lose our Social Security we've been contributing to for 30 years it won't be that it was "lost". It will have been STOLEN!
These are economic CRIMES either of negligence, malfeasance or conspiracy to flat out steal our money.
I strongly feel there has been a planned economic coup d' etat in this country. There are no "accidents" at a level this high.
I find it incredible that Alan Greenspan can just sit there and say, "I was wrong."
the greatest transfer of wealth in history.
From those who do not have wealth, now and in the future, to those that had enormous wealth but lost it.
The Bankers lost their (that also means other's money) money because of extremely risky and professionally foolish behavior.
Extreme leverage positions on risky investments.
We are bailing them out in toto. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve have shown determination to pay off Credit Default Swaps at face value.
If they enact the "Aggregator Bank" or "Bad Bank" as it is euphemistically called, it will be the Mother of all Slush Funds.
This is Crony Capitalism, it is Welfare for the Rich.
The Fat Cats that are getting the money continue to lobby for more.
There should be forensic audits, disgorgement of ill gotten gains and jail time for the crooks.
Too bad it was called Socialism, it is nothing of the sort.
We are the suckers.
Most of the derivatives that are being the center of this shitstorm, where never backed by real investments.
Basically, it looks as if the bankers had taken our money, place a few bets in Vegas... and behave as if those 100 to 1 bets were actual value. When the horse they bet came dead last, they threw a collective hissy fit and they freaked out.
What was lost was close to the $1.00 to purchase the bet. The bankers are requesting they are given $100.00... because they had assumed they had won those bets.
It is disgusting. And at the end of the day, most bankers did not lose a single dime of their own money. In fact they are making money as we speak...
At some point future generations will study this and will go "what the f*ck." We're going down the toilet because we as a society we seem to think the sense of entitlement of the elites should have precedence over reality.
based on forensic audits we would know precisely the amounts.
Instead we have loose talk about illiquid assets etc.
We would have a right to such audits because it is public money.
Unfortunately our corrupt congress saw fit to just give them the money with no apparent questions asked.
If as you say there was no loss of money, then there is massive fraud. On a vast scale.
I am not prepared to say that. I think the truth will lie somewhat in between.
Absolutely this was fraud. These Credit Default Swaps were nothing more than insurance on make-believe instruments.
What was lost was close to the $1.00 to purchase the bet. The bankers are requesting they are given $100.00... because they had assumed they had won those bets.
Very good indeed. More people can relate to your description.
The debt's a problem, but we fixed a worse one before! :-)
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html
1. Do you understand the derivative market?
2. Your analogy of betting in Vegas leaves out a key component. The "bet", in your example, was insured by a third party.
3. "Most bankers did not lose a single dime of their own money"... really? you are contradicted by your previous paragraph. ex. If I have 1'000 shares purchased at par and the value drops below par, what would you say that is?
your #2 does not apply. Because the 3rd-party insurers could not pay. They could not pay because they never expected the bets to go sour. They expected housing prices to go up infinitely. Therefore they didn't have enough money to cover. Besides, insurance is nothing BUT a bet -- we had betting people "insuring" the betting people, and it was all a complete house of cards.
CDSs are being valued at face because they cannot be marked-to-market.
in Fridays paper.
Headline: "Sweden's Fix For Banks: Nationalize
"Former government officials in Sweden say the only way to solve the crisis in the United States is for the government to be prepared to "temporarily" take full ownership of the banks."
I say take PERMANENT ownership and dump the Federal Reserve. The People should own the money of the United States and we should be able to borrow it with little interest at all. And it should be backed by silver and gold as the Constitution dictates.
Debt is like a cancer on our body politic.
Do you understand what the Fed does?
If, in your example, "people" (which people?) own the money of the US (??) and borrow it with little or no interest, there would be massive inflation. This is why any Central Bank exists, to influence money supply.
I would encourage you to pick up a economics book and give it a shot.
If "OUR" banks were REGULATED well, and housing mortgage rates were STANDARDIZED, if credit cards were STANDARDIZED and the money was backed by silver and gold, why would the money become inflated?
With the privately, corporately and highly secretively owned Federal Reserve Bank in control of THEIR currency (not the People's), they MUST continue to inflate the currency in order to keep the debt/credit spiral functioning.
THEY are now leading us into massive hyper-inflation.
There are many economics books to read and many college courses to take. You can sit ten Econ. professors in a room and NONE of them will agree.
Sometimes one simply needs a little common sense to understand right from wrong.
The Federal Reserve does not SERVE the people of the United States, IMHO. They only serve their corporate masters.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the economy is failing because the average person no longer has any real stake in it anymore. Small business has evaporated over the last 25 years, leaving nothing but corporate jobs that mean nothing more than a paycheck to go out and buy corporate shit that doesn't mean anything to anyone. The net has given us more a greater ability to connect with others, and yet all we use it for is arguing.
This dog eat dog mentality is getting old. It used to be about individuals providing services for one another. The higher valued and more complicated the service or skill set, the higher you got paid. Now we've become a world of salesmen, white collared thieves, and the poorest, least educated nations making all the shit to sell. It was only a matter of time before it failed.
All I can do is keep looking forward. I learn new skills, and hope I can get someone to pay me for them, or better yet, start my own business with these accumulated ideas and skills. Let these money changers and overpaid talking heads fade into obscurity.
Gold and silver? Come on, don't make me laugh you beady eyed prick...
Remember when the national conversation revolved around the final frontier. Now all we talk about is money and power, and the best way to lie, cheat, and steal yourself a piece...
the final frontier why did Star Trek only last three seasons.
the designers of the Enterprise forgot to add bathrooms. Five years is a long time to hold it.
others, and yet all we use it for is arguing."
That darned porn surfing sure connects people to a good argument.
over the past few years, and I think that precious metal and commodities are truly the only "safe," good investment. When you have no money to start with, you have to take risks in financial markets to make money, which you can then transfer to precious metals and stones.
if the intellectually challenged Beck spends a lot of time trying to decipher all the symbols on our paper currency? Damn that Trilaterlist Society!
We've been stabbed in the gut, and instead of stopping the bleeding Dr Beck wants to know which restaurant we ate at?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28842027/
advisor to say "We'll have you up and running in no time. It'll even have that new car smell when you get back on the road this afternoon."
expressed this concern well before the election, so I'm assuming you are praising his consistency, are you not?
Dennis Kucinich is off his rocker too. Instead of just criticizing the people who bring up the private Federal Reserve System acting as our central bank, what do you have to offer. What are your complaints or proposals. I've never heard of anyone who says the Federal Reserve System is above criticism.
Here's what Dennis Kucinich thinks. A historically progressive patriot at the service of the under-served in America.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&s...
Dennis is not off his rocker, he has always made sense.
Glenn Beck is a thinker?
They used to run Beck's op-ed pieces on the CNN website back when he was under contract to them. Way, way too many of the comments seemed to begin with the phrase, "I'm not a thinker like you are, Glenn, but I agree totally ..." So, apparently, some people think he is a thinker. God help them (and keep them away from the rest of us).
I mean, he was a top 40 DJ, drug user, and full-time nincompoop in many of his earlier incarnations. Perhaps he can get together with Phil Gramm and figure a way out of this for the country.
is being paid by Limbaugh so that El Rushbo isn't the dumbest right-wing talking head.
..he's a Mormon, so he might have some of those magic underpants??
I can understand being a Mormon if you were born into that religion, but I've always thought that anyone who, like Beck, CONVERTS to Mormonism as an adult has to be just incredibly stupid. Nephites? Lamanites? The angel Moroni? It all seems so obviously made up and silly. I'm sure in 500 years the passage of time will add a veneer of respectability to Joseph Smith's writings, but for now they read like really, really shitty sci-fi.
This theory would also explain why Harry Reid has been such a lousy leader in the Senate: he's probably just not very bright. For that matter Gladys Knight and Rick Schroder probably aren't too bright either. And if Mitt Romney's wife seemed dumb as a box of rocks to you back during primary season, now you know why: it was because she probably IS dumb as a box of rocks
Beck may be more in the tradition of the late New York Dolls bassist Arthur 'Killer' Kane. Both converted after years of alcohol and drug abuse had no doubt decimated their brain cells. Kane, who had't been too bright even BEFORE his years of boozing ( his fellow Dolls claimed that he had difficulty breathing AND playing the bass at the same time), had also suffered some brain damage as a result of a failed suicidal defenestration - an excuse that Beck does not have.
As an aside, I think Mormon values are generally pretty good values and I've met a lot of admirable people who were Mormons. The rank and file of their church are not nearly as crazy and hateful as their hierarchy. That said, an adult would have to be as stupid as a Scientologist to convert to Mormonism.
Thank god for the Muslims and Christians. Scientology and the Saints give religion a bad name.
Hey, I'm ex-Latter Day Saint
Now, a Latter Day Demon.
Better latter than never.
play on LDS I heard while touring through Utah was "Lotta Dumb Shits".
" and you really want to get all these people healthy, you gotta rule out -- OK, well, it's not capitalism..."
OK: Just HOW do you rule out Capitalism? And after doing that, why not blame the problem on fairies or little green men?
Jeeze the stupid....it BURNS!
Both Capitalism and Central Banking merit a lot of conversation on these threads. We are in a monetary mess and to rule out any alternative viewpoints doesn't sound too intelligent to me. In other words the conventional wisdom and system is not working out. We need to re-evaluate our knowledge or lack of knowledge on these subjects. Duh.
"All of the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arises, not from the defects of the Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation." -- John Adams
I think you can basically reduce it to:
1) Greed
2) Lack of oversight due to ( see #1 )
Then we need to discuss how these people get by with lack of oversight and get by with their corruption and what systems are in place to allow them to get away with their unlawful greed and schemes. I personally think the privately owned central bank is a huge asset to their greedy and unlawful ways with no oversight. When is the last time Fort Knox was audited. When was the last time the books at the Federal Reserve were audited. What are the systems these guys use to get away with their shit. What legislation allowed it. ETc Etc. Enron profited from certain legislation and business practices. That is what we are trying to dig into in my opinion and what needs to be dug into hard core.
Here's a great documentary on Enron and their greed and lack of oversight.
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room.
Saw it. The fish rots from the head down. shrub and darth are stinking fish heads.
I have faith that Obama will improve things as far as oversight.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/st...
for that Adams quote... TY
These guys are so adamant about government getting out of the way of the market.Well how do you like it so far Glenn?.What an ugly mess.Strip Malls and billboards and tiny little parking spots and crappy services and products and lousy fat saturated food and depressed kids and shitty wages and rising corporate power and greed and a widening gap between the rich and poor...whew.
Its a spiritual wasteland.
Sounds like Judge Doom's ambition in Roger Rabbit.
When did the government 'get out of the way'? Was it yesterday? I missed it.
Scratch Bleak, Limpballs, Vanity, Mockin', Gibbon (Mel or John) and you'll find a racist just below the surface. They're all self- loathing projectors.
I never made a particular study of the Federal Reserve, but I do know it was formed in 1913 in response to a major bank run in 1910. There were like six major depressions in the 19th century, and innumerous bank runs. Centralized banking has been controversial since Andrew Jackson. So they keep trying to form a system that's a combination of the local bank that responds to local concerns and a national bank that would keep order.
But the government is not allowed to profit. And the FRB I understand is, which can then be reinvested to the profit of either the FRB, the government or both. However, that makes them subject to the same pie-in-the-sky financial schemes of dubious merit, high risk, and major pay-off of it works. The Congress does have the power of oversight, but rarely does, perhaps do to the non-sexiness of the issues in terms of getting reelected, and it's rather abstract nature. Since Nixon took us off the silver standard our dollar is based on such hard to grasp concepts as the GNP and the GDP.
But today, like the past, it's National Credit Crises then suddenly everyone is interested. But it's not helpful to turn the Fed into somekind of Trilaterial Commission kind of conspiracy mongering.
That would be 'innumberable'. They haven't been managed lately, because the Repubs do't believe in managing anything in the money business, they believe that it will manage itself. Which, frankly, it never has.
Luckily big brother does a fine job.
Yes, there were "depressions" in the 19th century. They mostly called them "panics" and they were usually over in about a year or two.
After the creation of the Fed, there was a depression that lasted over a decade. Would it have been shorter had there been no Fed? Would there have been a "Roaring 20s" and a huge credit bubble waiting to burst had it not been for the Fed? Hard to say, but the Fed was a central character in the story of the Great Depression.
Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy all had policies that took on the private interests of the central banking cartels of their time. Hopefully everyone has looked into that.
With the fed setting the prime lending rates, leading rates and others, has led to less cut-throat ways of one bank destroying another, or causing a run on it, or refusing to bail it out, creating massive sufferings by people who trusted their banks with their money.
However, if the FRB get to where their interests outweigh the government's that has to be curtailed.
the Federal Reserve had little to do with the current monetary crisis.
The current crisis was mostly brought on by Republican insistence on deregulating everything they possibly could. That is, they unhooked all the regulatory burglar alarms because, with Bush, they were finally able to unhook damn near everything. Then the bankers had no oversight, so naturally they took advantage -- casino royale style.
Furthermore, the alternative to the Federal Reserve is this: Whatever top-dog politician happens to be in office can make the economy go up and down at whim -- i.e. make everything very rosy at election time, to get re-elected. Oh wait, that's exactly where we were prior to the Fed system. Ouch!
So I don't like the Fed system much, and maybe it needs some tinkering -- but it is not the vast conspiracy that the nut-jobs like Beck make it out to be.
The worst thing that happened to us no doubt was the de-regulation and winks and nods the Bush people gave to corporate owners like Enron and the others. These people knew they could get away with their thievery and crap and no-bid contracts in Iraq like Halliburton. The other thing was that an outrageously expensive war along with huge tax cuts didn't spell well for the average American.
I just need to defend criticism of the Central Banking system because I think too many people are hesitant to look at such things.
I think one problem with the Central Banking system is it tries to anticipate fiduciary trends much like a weatherman tries to predict weather patterns.
And it was meteorologists who came up with the whole concept of "Chaos Theory." And even with institutions like the FRB you probably have a mix of economic schools who don't always agree with each other, and have a particular vocabulary that the average person cannot follow.
Wow. You sound like Ludwig von Mises, one of the biggest laissez-faire, free market economists ever.
The men in the white lab coats (figuratively) are centrally planning things they cannot predict or control.
But if the planning were done in a decentralized manner, by the very entrepreneurs taking the risks, with money that wasn't easily or cheaply come by, then you wouldn't have so much volatility in the market. Also, any failures or crashes would remain more localized. You don't have some central planner spreading the losses around to everyone.
The Fed had everything to do with this crisis. The Dems deregulated the banks in the Clinton years, Barney Frank was a major supporter of Fannie and Freddie deregulation.
Cartoon proportionality is interesting.
Just now at the end of The Simpson's, Marge was tucking in Bart, she was patting his belly, and then his tootsies, but his tootsies were so close to his belly, it almost look like Marge was patting Bart's testes.
Next time we are blogging about Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Central Banks, and the Yellow Brick Road, I will be sure to watch the Simpsons
so I can escape the wrath of orangutans, which are related to, but surely not, flying monkeys.
Where do you keep it? I mean, which drawer, specifically?
Doesn this mean that David Neiwert thinks the World Bank does good and is necessary also?
This issue is something "economical conservatives" have been very concerned with. I don't know that many "progressives" or "socialists" who care enough about money to bother understanding and researching this properly. Has it ever occured to you that some key points in this "conservative" attitude in economics are justified? That people who care deeply about this issue might be at least partly right about it? This issue has defined an entire movement, so it can't all be BS can it? Don't you trust people to at least act well-meaningly on the issues that they actually know in detail, those issues that they actually know better than others, simply because they understand money (if nothing else)?
That said, "economical conservatives" haven't got monopoly on this issue at all:
Fighting the World Bank among other corrupt banking institutions that are perpetuating the evils of the world, yes including the undemocratic Federal Reserve in the USA, have been _major_ "leftist" issues for many years, -read the signs on the thousands of activists that supposedly are a large part of C&L's base.
Yeah yeah, David Niewert, we all understand that you identify strongly with one side of the political spectrum, project your narrow interpretation of that spectrum, and you do anything to trow stones at what you regard as the other side. The danger is that such attitudes very quickly can lead to ideological blindness.
I think you are in no position to try and put a new label on this, drawing up new lines and casting judgment and splitting "the left" and "the right" on this issue.
And labeling people who care about this issue "far right-wingers" and "anti-semites" is unfair and bigoted on your part, and it undermines serious discussion on the topic. Pulling out the anti-semite strawman once again for this issue makes you look bad. Every time you use that BS argument to try to silence dissent, it makes you look worse, and no better than BillO or Rush or anyone who blindly supported "their side" and attacked the other in however arbitrary ways.
David Niewert and C&L, please don't try to make this a wedge issue, because you will loose support and you end up splitting people who might come from different starting points, but might end up agreeing on the important parts, -you know human values over that of the machine etc.
The "left" and the "right" paradigm has been manipulated and the population split differently through modern history and throughout the world even today. It's not fixed, scientific terms. It's a tool for creating simplistic understanding on several planes of political and ideological thought, and making rigid categorisations for that which is 100% analog and exist in all shades of gray. Over-categorizing and labeling that which is complex, rarely grants wisdom.
The political spectrum is also a tool for dividing and conquering (eg. by using wedge issues), to split common sense into two sides each playing their role, but not communicating with each other. That is so easy to manipulate. Please don't be a "useful idiot" for a destructive process working against discussion and common sense. That is totally counter to the values of democracy.
I'm seriously worried C&L have hired propagandists instead of journalists at this point.
but I will not wade into wedgies no matter how great the temptation.
they are atomic?
Thank you for your reasoned analysis of this issue. It is much appreciated and agreed with here.
David Neiwart's anti-semitic argument was in a historical context, around the time of the creation of the Federal Reserve. Around the same time in Russia they were reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and soon after WWI the Germans were blaming the loss of the war on unspecified enemies, which easily got turned into the Jews, and Jewish bankers. We have much the same conspiracy theories today, one-worlders, Trilaterial Commission, Humanist Conspiracy, and even Liberal Conspiracies, that to all intents and purposes sound like the same ones as early 20th century, trying to pass themselves off as respectable.
You would know that the purpose of the World Bank is entirely different. You are comparing apples and oranges, you nitwit.
Also: "This issue has defined an entire movement, so it can't all be BS can it?" Why yes, it can. I give you an example in the Children's Crusade, where an issue defined an entire movement. As for understanding money, the only thing that the radical free marketeers have shown is a great willingness to amass it, and a junkyard dog attitude toward anyone who would place limits on their abilities to do that, necessary or not.
And you compare the mentioned issue with the Children's Crusade? Who's the nitwit?
Maybe you need to learn how undemocratic and outside of your control your precious Fed is.
The World Bank and espeically the IMF serve the same goal, economic warfare. So ok, maybe I should have mentioned IMF before the World Bank since it's closer to the Fed in function. But they are part of the same structure and philosophy, -and that's not a benign one.
If you like being a slave to interests completely out of your control, fine. Just don't call it democracy. Those who control the money, the amount of it in circulation, those who profit from the cycle of debt, have more control and veto powers than elected politicians. The Fed operates outside of your democratic system, and the fact that American people don't own their own money printing central bank is absurd.
I really enjoy coming to C&L. Great name, great articles.. I love the way its set up.
The thing I cant stand is being a conservative and having to put up with the far left name calling bullcrap. I understand this site is left, but it goes to the effing extreme. I suppose I am far right on alot of issues, but to be called an anti-semite or a conspiracy nut is far from the truth.
This is an issue that I side with Beck, Schiff, Paul and (gasp) even the good ole lefty Kucinich. Not to mention an ever growing portion of the American population.
Its these same folks that believe the World Bank and UN hand out flowers and lollipops instead of economic slavery and bullet holes.
rectal surgery on government-run health care, even though he had private insurance. Nothing he says has anything but a purely coincidental relationship with reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZHycYmewng
Would that qualify beck for moral rectitude?
"He seems to think people are blaming capitalism itself -- but what I think has taken far more of the blame has been laissez-faire capitalism, especially as practiced by movement conservatives, who never saw a deregulation scheme they didn't love."
Maybe the conservatives in the US aren't. But in Europe and Asia (including Japan) there have been some financial editorials at least pondering if capitalism is at fault and if this is the end of capitalism .. not just capitalism under lose rules.
Not the majority response, but an undercurrent in many places. But, I wonder if Beck even knows that.
You assume Mr. Beck seeks opinions outside his box?
Does ann colter seek opinions outside her box?
I take everything Kucinich has to say very seriously, he has always done what was right, he always seems to know what is really happening.
I saw many videos over the years about the federal reserve and about federal income tax. I have come to the conclusion the central bank is actually corrupting our entire lives, do you really want to work 45 hours a week along with you wife @ 45 hours a week just to make ends meet, you don't want to live? History shows slowly that we get paid less and have to work longer, the central banks have been, for almost 100 years, robbing us of our country and enslaving us in debt. They are ruining out morals and social fabric.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ&fe...
Will somebody watch this and tell me why I shouldn't believe it? It is in 5 parts, only linked first part, you should be able to handle the rest. I might add so many more educational videos out there on this subject.
Here's one with the full version...
Men Behind the Curtain ~ 47 minute primer on the Federal Reserve System
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1693...
Hope you keep passing it around. Peace.
zeitgeist is bs. See above link.
http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zei...
Why hasn't somebody done a little homework on Glenn Beck's past? He's nothing but an old shock jock who used to be addicted to coke. Oh yeah, and he's a major prick.
1. A central bank's duty (Fed in the US, ECB in the EU) is to influence the economy through policy (Interest rates, money supply, etc.)... not prevent individuals and businesses from eating themselves financially.
2. Why do persons who speak loudest, in general know the least?
When I meet people like this asshole I just tell them that their ignorance is easily explained: Nobody ever learned anything by talking. Although Beck may be an exception--if talks long enough even he might realize just how stupid he sounds.
I would say that Greenspan had a duty to sound loud warnings about the mortgage bubble -- but he abdicated that duty. He thought the invisible hand of self-interest would restrain the bankers.
Excuse me while I snort, puke, and laugh at the same time. Damn, hate it when that happens.
Your confusing the role of the Fed with government regulations and execution (which was non-exsitent).
Get rid of the federal reserve system, the economy handcuffer and quell interest rates so bankers don't become billionaires while the working stiff gets....stiffed.
Get rid of the federal reserve system, the economy handcuffer and quell interest rates so bankers don't become billionaires while the working stiff gets....stiffed.
How does the Fed "handcuff" the economy?
How do interest rates make bankers billionaires?
that charges "us" money to print currency; a government agency could do the same for free.
I know where you're coming from, I used to read and hear things like this and group them in with the anti-UN crowd (the Kix cereal boxes and the stamps on road signs, talk like that). As I learn about money and wealth, I have come to the same conclusion about fiat currency and central banking.
The fed doesn't print money
Increase money supply. Currency is just one bucket of money supply (M0). That's M .. zero.
The Fed. works up in the M2 level and usually tracks M0, M1, M2 & M3. Theoretically you see the secondary impact in the M3 numbers.
Except they stopped tracking M3 recently. Some in the finance world were bothered by this, some put on tin foil hats and ran about screaming and some shrugged. I'm not at the Krugman level, so I can't tell you which response was correct.
Yes it does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE&fe...
When Groups Don’t Think
Collaboration, done right, produces dazzling results.
So why is it often disastrous?
January-February 2009 by Jake Mohan
http://www.utne.com/Science-Technology/When-G...
Your youtube link is a "commentary" not fact.
Try picking up an economics book. You might learn that devaluing currency (an evil in your youtube link) is not a bad thing.
Try to find solutions, not boogie-men.
I posted it in hopes of someone, maybe like you, that could note the flaws and link me in the right direction. If you get a chance, could you? Thanks again
PS. I noticed your reference too, devaluation, I'll start there...
It may sound dull, but it will provide you with a great bit of knowledge. Pick up:
1. Exam Cram: Series 7 Securities Licensing Exam (USD 40). It has an good overview of financial instruments and is not written in an academic manner.
2. Freakonomics; great all around economics book for those interested in real life economics and what makes the world work.
I have recommended these both to family members in the past. In the end, they are just pieces of a puzzle you have to put together.
Do you know anything about the Working Group on Financial Markets?
Honestly, I don't give too much thought to a group attempting to manipulate markets. The stock market is a volatile industry. If one group was able to do that, I guarantee every investor in the world would follow everything they do more carefully.
There is a remark on buying stocks by the Fed. Yes, the Fed recently bought stocks, this is true. However they do not have voting rights (hence no nationalization of the banks). I have heard it is warrants for preferred stock they bought. It is a safe location for a number of reasons. However, if as some prefer, the US nationalizes the banks, it will need to convert the warrants to common stock, having two known effects:
1. Diluting current common stockholders equity. The worst outcome being that if your mutual fund you've invested in for retirement has shares, you will lose a good amount of value.
2. US govt. may lose ability to reclaim debt from institutions, ie. tax-payer funds may not be returned as the govt. opts for sub-ordinated status.
I appreciate your opinions. I noticed you said,
"I don't give too much thought to a group attempting to manipulate markets. The stock market is a volatile industry."
Do they manipulate the markets and if they do, wouldn't that mean they have an effect on the volatility you mention?
I don't know how trust worthy this reporter is, but I found this below.
Snip - "The Working Group's main goal, officials say, would be to keep the markets operating in the event of a sudden, stomach-churning plunge in stock prices -- and to prevent a panicky run on banks, brokerage firms and mutual funds." > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business...
In ending, How can investors know what they are going too do in hindsight?
The group seems to exist to influence the market. It would be practically impossible to measure that influence, due to the natural volatility in the market and shear number of players.
Yes, I somewhat agree with the general idea of the quote you have. Again though, this "group" is just one part of a much bigger entity.
Investors would have past decisions and tendencies analysed and modeled. The result would be a "pricing in" for the stock market (means that all information available is represented in the stock market).
The problem with the current situation dates back 4 years. We started making decisions in 2004 to hedge against this.
Do you trust the private Federal Reserve System? You don't think it deserves any criticism or reform? I personally like that link because it provides context to an issue that far too many Americans know too little about. We haven't even begun to have the national discussion needed yet on this issue.
Good links.
I'm just trying to learn...
You assume to much from my comment.
I did not say the Fed was perfect. What I said, was that it has its place in influencing the economy.
I agree with you that many persons have no understanding of economics, and its a shame. However, using commentary (much like we chide the talking heads for) is not the right avenue I believe.
having an insiders knowledge and ability to obscure and shill for the team.
And an outsiders keen amateur eye in recognizing utter criminal BS and skulduggery by our wonderful financial system and its 'players'
I look around and see the system collapsing like a house of cards, thats good enough for me to know that its rotten to the core.
Please explain. I'm not following your statement.
going by your recommendations in finance for dummies/yokels.
When you are out of your honeymoon period in 'adventures in financeland', come back and tell us how wonderful and moral it all is.
Login or Register to post comments.