
regain freedom
Here’s an interesting read — It came in today via email, and surely there’s a webpage of this somewhere, It’s not “new news” but it is certainly an objective viewpoint you need to see!
Also if I may add, about 6 months ago I was watching a news program on oil, and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. This is out of context, but this is the actual question as asked. The host said to Forbes, “I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer, how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground.” Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, “more than all the Middle East put together.” Please read below.
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April (’08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn’t been updated since ’95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ; western South Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana …. check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska ‘s Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable…. at $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.
‘When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea..’ says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature’s financial analyst.
‘This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years’ reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It’s a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the ‘Bakken.’ And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end.. Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken’s massive reserves…. and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.
And if THAT didn’t throw you on the floor, then this next one should – because it’s from TWO YEARS AGO!
U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World! Stansberry Report Online – 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:
- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it’s all right here in the Western United States .
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy…..WHY?
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.
Don’t think ‘OPEC’ will drop its price – even with this find? Think again! It’s all about the competitive marketplace, – it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now, while you’re thinking about it …. and hopefully P.O’d, do this:
Pass this along. If you don’t take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices— because by doing NOTHING, you’ve forfeited your right to complain.
——–
Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book?
By the way…this is all true. Check it out at the l ink below!!! GOOGLE it or follow this link. It will blow your mind..
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
| You’re the First to Know Dear Friend, Well, it looks like you have made a difference.
Based upon the unbelievable support that I have receieved from 10,000 supporters like you, I have decided to throw my hat into the ring to challenge Chris Dodd for the honor of representing the state of Connecticut in the United States Senate. I will announce my candidacy on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show on Thursday, September 17 at 8:15am eastern time. Sorry for the short notice, but its important to honor commitments and keep these things under raps until the day the news breaks.
At this time last year I could not have imagined that that I would be making such an announcement today. I had never intended to become a candidate for public office. But these are extraordinary times. Our economy is falling apart in front of our eyes and Washington seems intent on making the wheels come off even faster. At a time when we desperately need adult supervison, the economically illiterate are running the show. As I love my country, it now seems clear that I must try to do something to help. The emotional and material support I have received from across the country has made the decision much easier.
So today it begins. As I’m sure you are aware, the rules in politics bear only scant resemblance to those which govern polite society. As a result, I am wading into strange waters, and I’m sure strange things will happen. But I promise to maintain my composure and give it my best shot. Based on the support that I have received thus far, I fully expect to be facing down Chris Dodd in the general election just 14 months from now.
As my campaign takes flight, I appreciate the patience and trust that you have shown. To commit time and money to a long shot candidate for high office is a hard choice. I hope to repay that trust with a first class campaign.
I look forward to your feedback and your continued support.
Thanks again, Peter Schiff |
|
You are receiving this email because you opted in at www.schiffforsenate.com to receive updates, or have made a donation to the campaign.
Unsubscribe striker@morality101.net from this list Our mailing address is: Copyright (C) 2009 Schiff Exploratory Committee All rights reserved. |

I received this in an email and found some food for thought. I think others may too.
BODY OF EMAIL TEXT
The numbers I checked out are okay except I can’t verify the $1 Billion to run the program. I suspect that is way off base. There was an article that said there were 3 agencies involved in the program but the government does not specify if these were existing employees or new hires or a combination of both but that 79 employees were brought in to assist in the program. If only 80 employees were involved I estimated their wages at $91,000 annually (with 30% fringe benefits) or $45,500 for six months for a total cost $3.6 million. If you throw congress and their staff into the equation you are talking, for three months, about $27 million.
Sorry about the lengthy follow up. I just wanted to be sure I was comfortable with the numbers.
What is clear is we are throwing money at a problem without reasonable numbers to determine the game plan results.
A good example of how our Federal Government uses your tax dollars to fund one of their money/earth saving programs and then announces how successful it was!!!!
· A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
· A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
· So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons a year.
· They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that’s 224 million gallons a year.
· That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
· 5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day’s US oil consumption.
· And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $375 million dollars at $75/bbl.
· So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.
. I billion of the package was for the Dept. of Transportation to administer the program.
. You don’t need to provide citizenship information, SS# etc. to qualify and Canadians and Mexicans can cross the border to cash in.
Edmonds (a highly thought of on line auto retailer, auto comparison web site.
Edmunds.com estimates that the average cost to the taxpayer will be about $20,000 per vehicle.
If all buyers have qualified for the higher $4,500 rebate, the “cash for clunkers” program will mean a marginal increase in car sales of 22,000 this quarter. $1 billion divided by 22,000 means a net cost to the government of $45,354 per car. (This is a cost estimate for the first $1 billion and does not consider the additional $2 billion.)
. Some clunker deals are being rejected by the government because they don’t meet all of the program’s specifications. For example, the trade-in must have been continuously insured for the 12 months prior to the clunkers transaction.
Car & Driver
. if you’re trading in a car that’s worth $3000, your net gain is only $500. Although if your car is worth $100, CFC couldn’t come at a better time.
people driving cheap old beaters are probably doing so because they can’t afford a new car. And $3500 doesn’t go far when the average transaction price of new cars hovers around $24K. The vouchers don’t apply toward the purchase of used cars, for which the majority of old beaters are traded in.
However, we hope these legislators don’t expect it to meaningfully help the domestic automakers. Many of the automobiles with fuel-economy ratings high enough to qualify for the vouchers come from Japan and Korea
Washington Post
Cash for clunkers’ effect on pollution? A blip (The article has been pulled from the post. This was the the title of the article.)
Wall Street Journal-Auto Repair Association comments.
The automotive after-market, a $250 billion industry that employs about 4.6 million people, could be among the biggest losers in the clunkers program, said Kathleen Schmatz, head of the Automotive After-market Industry Association: “It’s everybody from the Fortune 500 parts manufacturer all the way through the supply chain to the independent repair shop.
On the other hand, this is crackpot economics. The subsidy won’t add to net national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one taxpayer’s pocket from someone else’s, and merely pays that taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return for something he might have bought anyway. By this logic, everyone should burn the sofa and dining room set and refurnish the homestead every couple of years.
U.S. News and World Report
Cash for Clunkers may have cut our oil consumption by less than 0.2 percent per year. It didn’t even save us a day’s worth of gas. (The numbers in this report are a little different
than the numbers I received in red above but are very close).
What’s more, some analysts wonder if Cash for Clunkers really created any new sales at all. It’s possible that the program simply caused some people to buy cars earlier than they otherwise would have. What good comes from adding to August sales if we subtract from future sales to do it?
Even if it brought in new buyers, that scenario might create its own economic problems. The program led hundreds of thousands of Americans, for instance, to take on new debt in the midst of a recession and an uncertain job market.
WHICH FLATION WILL GET US?
from garynorth.com
Date 9/8/2009
One of them will. That’s if things work out really well. Two or three will if things go according to the Austrian theory of the business cycle.
Americans have been living in the eye of the monetary hurricane. Prices have been stable. In July, both the Consumer Price Index and the Median CPI were flat compared to June. (http://GaryNorth.com/public/5405.cfm)
There are five flations to consider.
Deflation
Inflation
Stagflation
Mass inflation
Hyperinflation
We had better consider all of them.
FLATION: MONETARY OR PRICE?
We should always keep in mind the fact that there are two ways to define flation: (1) as a change in the money supply; (2) as a change in the price level.
This assumes two more things: (1) we can accurately define money; (2) we can accurately identify the price level. Both are questionable.
The Federal Reserve three years ago dropped M3. It said that M3 was useless as an indicator of future prices. That was a long time coming. The FED was correct. M3 was the most misleading of these M’s: M1, M2, M3, MZM. It always vastly overstated the looming rise in the CPI. There is no doubt which M is best in this regard: M1. For my detailed “Remnant Review” article on this, go here:
http://GaryNorth.com/monetarystats.pdf
Furthermore, there is more to an M than predicting future consumer prices. There is also the question of predicting the business cycle. There is no agreement here among economists.
Then there is the price level. Which basket of goods and services should statisticians use? What relevance should a statistician place on any of a hundred commodities and services? This weighing will change when consumer tastes change. No index survives intact over time. They all are revised when there are major changes, from the CPI to the Dow Jones averages.
I look for trends. I use M1 and the Median CPI.
The crucial fact is monetary policy. According to the Austrian theory of the business cycle, the cycle is completely the outcome of prior central bank monetary policy. Booms and busts are the result of central bank monetary inflation, followed by reduced expansion. The other schools of thought reject this theory. The other schools of thought are wrong. For an introduction to this issue, see Chapter 5 of my mini-book, “Mises on Money.”
http://LewRockwell.com/north/mom.html
DEFLATION
Most of those who forecast deflation have in mind price deflation. A few think monetary deflation will take place because of bankrupt banks, but the position is difficult to defend. The FDIC can keep bank doors open. There are no runs on banks involving currency withdrawal. There are only runs involving the transfer of digital money to other banks. This does not affect the money supply.
Price deflation can come through the free market. It results from steady increases in economic output in an economy with stable money. Here is my slogan: “More goods chasing the same amount of money.” A gold coin standard economy provides such a world, as long as central banks do not protect insolvent banks. So does 100% reserve banking, which we have never had. This is not the scenario offered by deflationists.
Here is their scenario. Banks create credit. Fiat money lowers interest rates. People borrow. This is consistent with Austrian economics. This credit structure cannot be sustained indefinitely. Austrianism also teaches this.
Here is where the schools of opinion depart. The deflationist says that people in general cannot pay their debts. They default. So, prices fall. Not just prices of market sectors that were bubbles, but all prices.
There is a problem with this argument. If you find that half of the things you regularly buy cost less, you buy the same amount, or maybe a little more, and then buy more of something else. This includes the purchase of capital goods.
You don’t put currency in a mattress. You buy something with the money that falling prices allows you to keep. You buy more of B when the price of A falls . . . or more of A.
Simple, isn’t it? But those who call themselves deflationists do not understand it or believe it.
The same money supply is out there. Someone owns each portion of it. You own some. I own some. We both would like to own more . . . at some price. But the credit contraction of a popped market bubble does not affect the money supply if the central bank or the Treasury or the FDIC intervenes and prevents a fractional reserve bank from going bust and taking all of the digital money with it.
This is economic logic. If the logic is incorrect, then there should be detailed theoretical criticisms of it. Or, given the weaknesses of human thought, maybe logic does not correspond to reality. Economists are famous for constructing detailed theories that do not conform to reality. But the free market theory of price changes as the result of the supply and demand for money in relation to the supply and demand for products and services is straightforward. It undergirds all of economic theory. Throw it out, and what remains of economic theory?
If a central bank creates a boom with fiat money, and then ceases to inflate, it can create deflation. How? By refusing to bail out busted banks. It allows the money supply to contract as bankrupt commercial bank deposits disappear. Fractional reserve banking implodes. That will create a deflationary depression. We have not seen anything like this since 1934: the creation of the FDIC.
Don’t bank on this just yet.
INFLATION
Monetary inflation produces price inflation. On this, Chicago School monetarists and Austrian school economists agree.
If the central bank expands the money supply, prices will rise. This takes time. Economists debate about the lag time: 6 months, a year, 18 months. But monetary expansion will raise prices. The new money has to go somewhere. It has to wind up in someone’s bank account.
If the central bank expands the monetary base by buying assets of any kind, it creates money to buy them. The recipients of those assets spend the money. If the Treasury gets it, Congress spends it. (In both theory and practice, if Congress gets its collective hands on money, it spends it. All economists are agreed on this point.)
The expansion of money by the central bank is the source of economic booms and specific asset bubbles. The expansion of money temporarily lowers the interest rate. Someone borrows this newly created money.
America suffered from monetary inflation from 1914 to 1930. Then, with a 3-year hiatus of collapsing banks, we have suffered from 1934 until today. The dollar has fallen by 95% since 1914. No, I don’t believe the CPI tells us this exactly. But I can follow the trend. The trend is up for prices and down for purchasing power.
For as long as the Federal Reserve creates money, we will have price inflation. The only thing that can retard this is if the FED raises reserve requirements or commercial banks send excess reserves to the FED. The monetary effects are the same: increased reserves are the result. This reduces the multiplier of fractional reserve banking.
Price inflation of under 10% per annum is what I call inflation. But before we get to this, we will suffer from stagflation.
STAGFLATION
This was the burden of the 1970′s. There was monetary expansion and massive Federal deficits. Why, the Federal deficit was a staggering $25 billion in 1970, and as bad the next year. Unthinkable!
The dominant Keynesian theory was that Federal deficits would overcome recessions. The central bank need only inflate enough to cover part of the Federal deficit. But there were two major recessions in the 1970′s. Unemployment rose, and prices rose. That combination of events was dubbed stagflation.
That we can have economic stagnation in today’s world is obvious. Just about every mainstream economist and forecaster is predicting slow economic growth next year. The familiar V-shaped recovery is not a popular forecast these days. More typical is the forecast of Muhammed El- Erian, the CEO of PIMCO, the largest bond fund in the world. He calls this “the new normal.”
Global growth will be subdued for a while and unemployment high; a heavy hand of government will be evident in several sectors; the core of the global system will be less cohesive and, with the magnet of the Anglo-Saxon model in retreat, finance will no longer be accorded a preeminent role in post-industrial economies. Moreover, the balance of risk will tilt over time toward higher sovereign risk, growing inflationary expectations and stagflation. (http://tinyurl.com/p4vsbd)
This scenario is a combination of slow growth and rising prices. Today, we have no growth and flat prices. So, slow growth and rising prices is not much of a stretch conceptually.
I think stagflation is likely, once the recovery comes. But we are seeing a gigantic Federal deficit. Ross Perot in 1992 spoke of a giant sucking sound. He said that was the sound of jobs lost to Mexico. I think it is the sound of the Federal government sucking up all excess capital in the United States and much of the world. This money will not be going into the private sector.
What is the basis of a sustained economic recovery? Increased capital formation. We are seeing capital destruction.
For a time, we will suffer from stagflation. It will not be stagdeflation. It will be staginflation.
What do I envision? Economic growth under 2% per annum, coupled with price increases of 5% per annum or more.
MASS INFLATION
This phenomenon will appear when the Federal deficit cannot be covered by private investment and purchases by foreign central banks. This seems certain within a decade. I think it is likely before the end of the next President’s term. I think the Social Security trust fund will cease to provide a surplus that is used to purchase nonmarketable Treasury debt, as it is today. The trustees will have to sell some of these nonmarketable Treasury debt certificates back to the Treasury. The Treasury in turn will have to sell conventional Treasury debt to cover the redemptions by the trust fund.
This stage will be the indicator that the present borrow-and-spend model has failed. The FED will be called upon to supply the difference between purchases of T-debt by the public and borrowing by the government. When the FED complies, the rate of monetary inflation will rise. Prices will also rise.
I define mass inflation as double-digit price inflation above 20% but below 40%. Americans have not seen this. No industrial nation has seen this except after a major military defeat.
The disruption of the capital markets will be extreme. The government will absorb virtually all capital formation. There will be no net capital formation. There will be capital consumption.
The international value of the dollar will fall. But other Western nations will be pursuing comparable policies. It is not clear how far the dollar will fall. It depends on the competitive race to national self-destruction. Every Western nation faces the day of reckoning: the bankruptcy of Social Security/Medicare.
At this point, the FED will have to make a choice: put on the brakes or destroy the dollar.
HYPERINFLATION
The worst-case scenario is hyperinflation. Ludwig von Mises called this the crack-up boom. It leads to the destruction of the currency. The economy will move to barter or to alternative currencies. The division of labor will collapse.
No modern industrial economy has suffered this since the recovery after World War II. The West is not Zimbabwe. The West is not a backward agricultural nation that still has functional tribal organizations to help their members.
Think about the implications of your money not buying anything of value. How would you live? You are urban. You are dependent on a complex system of computerized production and distribution. It is all governed by profit and loss. The profit-and-loss system will cease to function at some point. That is when the economy shifts to a new monetary system.
This would be the destruction of wealth on the scale of a war. It would create a new social order.
I do not think the Federal Reserve will allow this. This would destroy the banking system. The FED’s unofficial but primary job is to preserve the biggest banks in the banking system. If it’s a question of providing fiat money for the government’s debt vs. destroying the dollar, the FED will cease buying Treasury debt.
That will be the turning point.
DEFLATION
Then we will get the crash. The FED will protect the biggest banks, which will swallow the assets of smaller banks. A lot of smaller banks will go under. They will take deposits with them.
We will get bank runs. People will demand currency. The FDIC will be busted. These banks will go under. So will depositors’ money. It will be “It’s a Wonderful Life” without the 6 o’clock escape hatch in the script.
You had better have your money in Potter’s Bank, not the Bedford Falls Building & Loan.
The contraction of digital money will be matched by a truly serious recession. Bankruptcies will be widespread. Unemployment may not rise, but only because the final phase of mass inflation had created so much unemployment.
This will be a period of restoration. The cost of the restoration will depend on how bad the dislocations of the mass inflation had been. If they are very serious, which I would expect, the time of recession will be tolerable if you have currency and a job. But the investment strategies of hedging against mass inflation will produce losses. An opposite set of strategies will appear. Be a debtor in mass inflation. Be a creditor in the post-inflation recovery.
If the Federal Reserve intervenes again, repeat the cycle from the top. But the numbers will be much larger.
CONCLUSION
Pick your flation. You can try to beat it, but each successive flation threatens your capital.
We are entering a period of capital consumption in the United States. I think this problem will afflict the West. The same political promises have been made. They will be broken.
He who sustains his lifestyle through these flations will be blessed indeed. Getting rich will be miraculous.

from email subscription at GaryNorth website.
This article is from Australia, for goodness sake! It’s written more for the viewpoint of investors, but will apply to everyone. Obviously Australians can see past the brainwashing better than we Americans!
Due to the continuing increases in the debt, now beyond any ability of America to pay, our vaunted dollar will most surely collapse. This article says it will be replaced by the yuan of China; well maybe, maybe something else, but which doesn’t really matter.
The USA Fed and Treasury will be unable to maintain the charade forever. Adding to the debt will absolutely result in severe inflation or hyperinflation of our dollar, and America will be forced to admit bankruptcy. That will mean that all the funding for defense, collectivist shams, … everything, will cease.
The government and it’s welfare system will be unable to pay itself to send you more checks, because it is out of “real” money. This will be the economic collapse, far worse than the Great Depression.
It will be plain hell falling into that abyss. The many who have never learned to be self-sustaining. who have survived only via the welfare system, will have no means of buying food or services, no reserves, and will resort to being the thieving criminals they have always been. There will be severe shortages of everything as producers fail and their goods and services disappear.
The bright light at the end of that tunnel can be the opportunity for, either Anarchy (NO RULER) or a new constitution, which severely and absolutely limits the powers of government and it’s force upon the people.
We must return to Reason and assert our true Right to Life. Either we get it together at that time, or humanity, if it survives at all, will return to the Stone Age. All the alternative scenarios are too horrible to even think about.
This article, while oriented to investors, holds much which must be grasped by we everyday folk. Understanding it will not be enough, for each of us must act to prepare for the events ahead.
Failure to use your mind and your Reason may well mean that you cannot survive.
ONLY LIBERTY IS MORAL. Force and Sacrifice of collectivism is the immoral cause of this collapse, and if one fails to choose liberty, humanity can well disappear. The leftist brain-dead altruists are not your friends, they are your mortal enemy.
See it now, or you’ll see it later the hard way. Ditch them!
I bring up a brief discussion on the nature of inflation in response to possibly one of the most foolish articles I have seen lately. At Seeking Alpha, Henry Bee writes that Auditing the Fed is Economic Suicide. In an incredible feat of intellectual gymnastics, Bee lays down the accusation that somehow the public knowing what is happening with the money supply will be the end of the free market:
The free market understands that auditing the fed is a very dangerous line to cross. If crossed, U.S. inflation will likely skyrocket over the next decade to unseen levels. U.S. economy tanks. Bond investors lose money as interest rates rise. Stock investors earn negative real return as equity risk premium rises and aggregate PE ratio tank. The US Dollar erodes due to higher domestic inflation relative to foreign inflation. Gold and commodity prices rise.
Perhaps we can forgive Mr. Bee for being Canadian, and therefore not understanding the history of the Federal Reserve and monetary policy in the United States. Or perhaps we can direct him to the aforementioned Milton Friedman, or maybe Murray Rothbard, or F.A. Hayek, for some simple education on monetary policy. Remember, “gold and commodity prices rise” only in terms of the value of the money itself. They are physical, tangible things. They always retain the same value, and it is the value of the money itself that changes due to inflation. After beginning with the Vault, Bee continues and moves on to the Balance Beam:
How Does Auditing the Fed Cause Inflation?
Inflation is caused by a central bank that loses control of its money supply. There are two ways that a politically compromised central bank can lose control of its money supply.
I’ll interrupt Mr. Bee while he’s still doing some of his simple posing, and before he really gets going with the tumbling. Inflation is caused by a central bank that loses control of its money supply? I think not. Remember, inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Inflation is caused by the introduction of more money into the supply. Who introduces more money into the supply? The central bank. The Federal Reserve is our central bank. Incidentally, Mr. Bee might be interested to know that since its inception, the Federal Reserve has practiced nothing but inflationary monetary policy and, in about 100 years, has managed thereby to devalue the dollar by approximately 97%. It would seem then, that the Federal Reserve itself has been the cause of inflation all along. But I will allow Mr. Bee to continue:
Road to Inflation #1: Repeating the Political Cycle
When the central bank is not independent, politicians have historically pumped up the money supply (for temporary economic boost) shortly before an election to buy votes with a lower unemployment rate. After the election, the effects wear off, returning the economy to its natural rate of unemployment but at a higher inflation rate than before. Because it is hard to fight off inflation quickly, by the time the next election rolls around the economy has not been squeezed back to its original inflation rate. Politicians pump up the money supply again, this time from a higher base inflation. As this cycle repeats itself, the central bank loses control of the money supply.
Bee makes a good point here in defending the separation of church bank and state. However, akin to a balance beam backflip, Bee here asserts that an audit of Federal Reserve will allow politicians direct control of the money supply. Since the discussion surrounding HR 1207 has been one of simply getting a look at the books, Bee’s arguments, while valid conceptually, are unfounded in reality. Indeed, both Barney Frank and Ron Paul have agreed with Bee’s own argument, and intend to be disciplined in making the audit one that trails real time by enough that exactly what Bee purports to be the danger will not happen.
That said, I would like to ask Mr. Bee a simple question. What makes you suppose, Mr. Bee, that the Federal Reserve is not already unduly influenced by politicians? As I have explained in the past, the Fed is largely a conglomeration of private banking institutions, overseen by a Board of Governors, headed by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, currently Ben Bernanke. The Board of Governors is a seven-member panel appointed by the President of the United States. This means, Mr. Bee, that seven people who, through their appointment, answer to the President, and the President alone, control all that is our monetary policy, all that is our money supply, and therefore all that is our inflation. If Ben Bernanke and six others answer only to the President, how exactly is the Federal Reserve not influenced by politics in the manner you suggest already?
Bee goes on to discuss a second road to inflation:
Road to Inflation #2: Financing Government Spending
A central bank that lacks independence from politicians makes it tempting for the government to finance an inappropriately large portion of its spending through printing money. A central bank that promises to finance too much government spending also loses control of the money supply.
Now honestly, there is only just so much we can forgive of Mr. Bee for his being Canadian. This really represents a complete lack of attention to current events. Inside of a four month period, the Federal Reserve just financed a $700 billion bailout of the US Financial industry through TARP, an effort, mind you, that resulted in all that money going to the noble purpose of, well, nobody really knows, followed by the $800 billion stimulus package. Based on Barney Frank’s admission in the video found in this post, Ben Bernanke indicated to him when the bailouts began with AIG, that he had $800 billion to play with. Well that covered TARP. The only logical inference then is that the Fed printed the rest to finance the stimulus. Our central bank is already following this road, Mr. Bee. The only question is, how much have they inflated the money supply?
Well the answer from the Fed has been, to this point, simple. Silence.
When seven men who answer to one man control the entire money supply, and hold no accountability, they can do as they please. Adding a check to this highly centralized power by making their actions transparent to the public cannot be a bad thing.

founder - Mises.org
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Just how bad is the current plague of economic fallacy?
Consider the front page of the New York Times today (July 15, 2009):
SEACHANGE IS SET IN A HEALTH PLAN – House Democratic leaders took a big step toward guaranteeing health insurance for most Americans on Tuesday as they unveiled a bill that detailed how they would expand coverage, slow the growth of Medicare, raise taxes on high-income people and penalize employers who do not provide health benefits to their workers.
A BLEAKER PATH FOR WORKERS TO SLOG – In California and a handful of other states, one out of every five people who would like to be working full time is not now doing so. It is a startling sign of the pain that the Great Recession is inflicting, and it is largely missed by the official, oft-repeated statistics on unemployment.
It’s sometimes said that economics is a difficult subject because it requires high-level, abstract thinking, and tracing of cause and effect through several logical steps. And yet, really, how hard can it be to see the contradiction in the above?
Here is the problem. Mandating benefits to employees imposes costs on employment. The would-be worker bears the cost. It makes the worker more expensive to hire. The employer has to pay not only a salary but also a benefit. If you make it more expensive to hire people, fewer people will be hired.
It is no different from eggs at the supermarket. If they are $2 each, you will purchase fewer of them – you will economize. This is nothing but the law of demand: consumers will demand less of a good at a higher price than a lower price. A salary plus benefits amounts to a price that the employer must pay to purchase the work of a laborer. At a higher price, less work will be purchased by the employer.
That means that requiring employers to provide health benefits to employees and potential employees will make the job situation today worse not better. It will intensify the current problem that people want to work more but are having a hard time getting employers to hire them.
The answer is the same in every recessionary environment. The price of labor must fall in order for the surplus of workers to be absorbed into the market. Raising the cost of hiring only further entrenches the problem and creates new forms of unemployment.
There is no real reason to prove these assertions empirically since they flow from the logic of economics. Nonetheless, Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway spent years accumulating evidence of the link between full employment and lower labor costs, on the one hand, and higher labor costs and unemployment on the other. What they found in their book Out of Work was that the entire problem (or nearly the entire problem) of unemployment can be explained through the issue of the costs of hiring and employing. In other words, there is no mystery here. Unemployment can be created or solved by the application of policies and laws.
In a free market, however, there is no unemployment that persists that isn’t chosen by the workers themselves. That’s because the price of labor is continually fluctuating based on supply and demand. Everyone who wants to work can work, simply because we live in a world in which there is always work to do. Only artificial interventions can generate the unemployment problem we have today.
Even so, and for reasons that are unknown and can only mystify the learned person, the Congress and the Obama administration keep trying to pretend as if reality doesn’t exist. Here they are imagining that they can just order businesses to give everyone health care and then suddenly health care for all comes into being.
As with all programs, we have to ask: what is the cost? I don’t mean what the cost adds up to in terms of government spending. I mean: what is the social cost of overpricing labor relative to what the market would bear? In this case, there is no way to know in advance, but we can know that fewer people will be hired than otherwise.
And then what happens? Business goes to government hoping for a subsidy or for fully socialized medicine as a way of sloughing off the costs on the whole of society instead of bearing them directly.
Sadly, there is no way that free health care can be granted to all living things with the stroke of a pen. Broadening availability will require that the entire sector be turned over to the private sector, so that it can be controlled through the price system like everything else.
As it is, the imposition of new penalties on business will make them less, not more, likely to hire people, which will thereby intensify the labor problem. It is like trying to cure a drug overdose with the injection of poison. New mandates on business are exactly what we do not need.
In other words, the whole idea is just plain dumb, not to mention incredibly ill-timed. The worst possible time to be imposing new mandates on business of any sort is during a downturn. Make the mandates labor specific and you have a recipe for causing the unemployment rate to land in the double digits and go up from there, higher and higher until the entire economy shuts down.
Presumably, not even Congress and the President would benefit from this result.
Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Deflation Vs. Inflation: The Great Debate Rages On – Marc Courtenay — Seeking Alpha.
“Suppressed during the war, wages and prices exploded. Autoworkers, steelworkers and others went on strike for higher pay. In 1946 and 1947, consumer prices rose 8.5% and 14.4%, respectively.
Cap and Trade appears to be a Done Deal.
website: http://www.wejappe.com/
also linked within
http://digg.com/politics/Cap_and_Trade_appears_to_be_a_Done_Deal
with comments
This website is the apparent beginning of webwork by wjappe, a m101 member and good friend at Digg. Give him all the support he deserves. I have been hoping he will also start writing here on m101!