0 votes

The Purpose Behind Engineered Economic Collapse

The Purpose Behind Engineered Economic Collapse
Giordano Bruno

"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." - Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913

Everyone loves money. Even people like myself who abhor the abuse of money and commerce, who understand the fraudulent nature of the system we live in, still work hard and save so that we might attain a sense of stability within that system. Many people see money as a focal point to their existence. But is it really money that they are after, or is it something else entirely? In truth, money represents 'security' in the minds of the masses. Money affords us the ability to survive, and the more of it we have, the safer we all feel. Because we subconsciously associate the extension of our very life with the variable health of the economic structure in which we live, we tend to become unwitting devotees to its continued existence, even if it is corrupt and condemned to failure. We gullibly deny the system or the currency that supports it is doomed to the contrary of all evidence because, even though it has beaten us bloody, we have never known anything else.

In light of this entrenched way of perceiving things, especially in the U.S., it is difficult enough to convince some people that the economy is in fact not providing the security they desire, but is actually destroying their future completely. To explain to them that this is deliberate, that the economy is designed to self-destruct, that is another prospect altogether.

Many people hit a proverbial wall on this issue because they simply cannot fathom that certain groups of men (globalists and central bankers) view money and economy in completely different terms than they do. The average American lives within a tiny box when it comes to the mechanics and motivations of finance. They think that their monetary desires and drives are exactly the same as a globalist's. But, what they don't realize is that the box they think in was BUILT by globalists. This is why the actions of big banks and the decisions of our mostly corporate establishment run government seem so insane in the face of common sense. We try to rationalize their behavior as "idiocy", but the reality is that their goals are highly deliberate and so far outside what we have been taught to expect that some of us lack a point of reference. If you cannot see the endgame, you will not understand the steps taken to reach it until it is too late.

In the past we have covered numerous instances in which global bankers have admitted to fraud on a massive scale, fraud which is now crushing our already fragile economy. We have covered the private Federal Reserve and how it knowingly facilitated the creation of the housing bubble, as well as how it is now inflating a Treasury bubble which is soon to implode. We have covered Goldman Sachs and its efforts to promote and sell toxic derivatives all over the world while at the same time betting against those derivatives on the open market. We have covered the manipulation of gold and silver markets by companies like JP Morgan, which have recently been exposed by whistleblowers and GATA investigations. And, most importantly, we have executed in-depth analysis on the growing weakness of the U.S. dollar in preparation for severe currency devaluation. These revelations raise questions, which is natural, but they also illicit misconceptions and reckless knee-jerk reactions, especially when broaching the fact that the illegal strategies of international banks are part of a greater agenda.

Below, we will examine some of the most common narrow minded responses to the issue of engineered economic collapse, as well as why people think the way they do when the "semi-sacred" subject of money is involved...

1. The economy is too complex to be controlled by just a handful of people...

This response often comes from people who make presumptions on economics, rather than actually educating themselves on how the system works. From the outside looking in, the world of finance appears chaotic; a mixture of mathematical and legal standards swirling in a void of mass psychology. Many Americans are either frightened off by the seemingly complicated field of study, or they find it rather boring and not worth their time. This, however, does not stop them from assuming that they know how money works.

The problem is that just because a person participates in his economy daily, it does not mean he has any understanding of how it operates. Many watch television on a daily basis, but few have any idea how the picture actually gets onto the screen, or how to fix a television once it is broken. Sadly, our egocentric culture has led a substantial portion of the public to imagine that they are experts on EVERYTHING, and thus, true researchers in the fields of economics and globalism get reactions like the one above constantly.

At bottom, once all the quasi-technical biz-babble used by mainstream talking heads is removed from the equation, economics is rather simple. Supply and Demand will always be at the center of any and every economy, regardless of the political atmosphere it exists in. These two fundamental factors can be manipulated to a point, by the creation of artificial supply, or the conjuring of false demand. This is achieved in many ways by global bankers, but primarily through domination of the issuance of currency, the ability to change interest rates at will, as well as the ability to inject or remove incredible sums of money from any market.

A perfect example is the suppression of silver prices by JP Morgan:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/whistleblower-exposes-jp-mo...

Gold and silver represent competing currencies to the fiat dollars created by the Federal Reserve, and suppressing the value of these commodities helps to ensure that the public will never see them as a viable alternative to paper assets. JP Morgan, who along with other international banks has the ability to throw around massive quantities of capital wherever they please, suppresses the value of physical silver by issuing paper securities for silver that doesn't actually exist (creating an artificially high supply), and naked short selling silver markets to drive them lower (creating the false impression of low demand).

Another good example of economic manipulation is the private Federal Reserve's strategy during the 90's under Alan Greenspan to artificially lower interest rates, allowing banks to issue credit at historical levels for over a decade. Linked below is an article from Ron Paul's 'Texas Straight Talk' dated March, 2007, before the housing market even began its full swan-dive. In it, he discusses the Federal Reserve's direct role in the creation of the housing bubble:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst031907.htm

Men like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente, Jim Rogers, and many others were able to predict long before hand that the Federal Reserve's actions were creating an explosive mortgage and credit bubble, yet, we are supposed to believe that the Federal Reserve had "no idea" that their actions would result in a debt implosion?

Catherine Austin Fitts, former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Commissioner of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development under the first Bush Administration stated conversely that the mortgage bubble was absolutely not an accident, and that she had witnessed outright and deliberate fraud on the part of the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve Bank in creating the bubble. The fact that disturbed her most, however, was her discovery that only a small handful of international banks were responsible for the perpetuation of toxic mortgage debt, not just in America, but around the world:

http://solari.com/blog/?p=2058

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/08.10/purpose.html



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He stopped short of this possible and plausible motivation

which I read earlier today on another of bobbyw24's threads: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/142856:

"The ultimate dream of the statists is to eventually control all of us by eliminating the use of cash and establishing a total credit card based economy run through the central bank. In this way, they can deny the power to purchase food and basic necessities to all who rebel. And this would include ISPs who defy government mandates." Nelson Hultberg

Thanks. Charles A. Lindbergh Sr & Louis T. McFadden Congressmen

BobbyW24,

Thanks. Here is more background on your find.

Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., Congressman and Statesman, with my utmost respect. Minnesota 6th Congressional District from 1907 to 1917 Opposed WW I and The Fed. He was the farther of the famed cross Atlantic aviator.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+other+Charles+Lindbergh%3a...

Charles Sr. took his rural living habits with him to Washington, where he arose at four each morning and usually was in the office an hour later. "A large part of my father's political career was devoted to the study of money and its misuses," reported Charles Jr. In Minnesota, the new railroads brought in investment interests. "Land values went up, and taxes with them. Farm income was low while bank loans were expensive. 'A man can't pay off a mortgage at twelve percent no matter how hard he works,' my father said. 'Taxes ought not to be raised because of farm improvements.'"

A populist, C.A. asked many of the right questions about monetary chicanery even though he did not always understand the proper solution. The Money Trust was not his only political interest. He also hit out at a related issue, the nearly dictatorial power of House Speaker Joe Cannon, noting: "It is to the interests of the trusts and monopolies to keep the politicians so organized as to create a dominant central power, and bind up a mutuality of interests with it; for, to achieve their ends and prevent legislation for the people, all that is necessary is to reach those in control." Such a "comfortable condition," observed Professor Bruce Larson, "was a virtual conspiracy against the public interest."

Then there was the Rockefeller-owned Standard Oil Company, which Lindbergh claimed had undue influence on tariff legislation. The Rockefeller interests, he declared, had "an iron grip on the people's earning, and we now require protection against it rather than for it." At the time the U.S. was purchasing some 1.5 billion gallons of oil from Standard, while the company sold the same amount to England, France and Germany at a reduced price. "The difference," according to according to prep.

  • As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.
  • In keeping with: according to instructions.
  • Bruce Larson, "amounted to an additional tax of more than $30,000,000 on the American people...

And the cause was a tariff that protected the Rockefellers from foreign competition only in the domestic market.

Louis T. McFadden, Congressman and Statesman from Pennsylvania 15th District is another excellent statesman.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/hoax/mcfadden.htm
Strong speech against the Fed...
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGdDxJAnJMXkkB38dXNyoA;_ylu=X3oD...
Both have great speeches available on silverscreen and written text.

Both have written & spoken eloquently for our cause of liberty. They both spoke honestly about our lack of sound money and banking.

End the Fed: Loaning You Blind, since 1913.

Sincerely,

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

What do you guys think of

What do you think of Gary North
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north878.html

The Myth of the Engineered Recession

by Gary North
by Gary North
Recently by Gary North: Eight Unbreakable Rules for Hard-Core Tea Party Activists (or Any Other Special-Interest Coalition)

There are lots of myths out there, but of all the recent financial myths that afflict the conservative movement, this one is the most preposterous: "The bankers engineered the 2008 financial crisis."

On first glance, the theory seems nutty. How did these people benefit from enormous financial losses? But when you examine it in depth, it seems even more nutty.

Why would the bankers create a crisis that destroyed some of the largest banks on earth? Wachovia went under. It was in the top five banks in deposits when it failed. The Royal Bank of Scotland also came close to failing. So did Anglo-Irish bank. Only government bailouts saved the latter two.

What would have been the motivation of the bankers who engineered the panic? If you are in control of politics and banking, why call worldwide attention to the fragility of the fractional reserve banking system? Isn't it a wiser policy to let things run smoothly? Why create a crisis so great that Congress must intervene?

The series of bank failures in 2008 called attention to the fact that bankers were in fact idiots. They had been completely taken in by promoters of toxic debt. The subprime mortgage market was a gigantic fraud. The various high-leverage risk-transferring contracts were equally fraudulent. The entire financial services industry looked like a casino run by imbeciles.

Warren Buffett said it best. There are three stages of financial development. The first is launched by the innovators. The second is extended by the imitators. The third is consolidated by the idiots. In 2008, we saw what the idiots had accomplished.

None of this is acknowledged by the conservative critic who proclaims: "It was a conspiracy. The bankers engineered the crisis."

For the conservative conspiratorialist, social change is to be explained as the result of a conspiracy. In his world "they" control everything. "They" call the shots. Social causation comes from the top. "They" are all-knowing.

The conservative conspiracy theorist shares with the socialist and the communist enormous confidence in the power of intellect to direct the affairs of society. They attribute to a central ruling committee the ability to foresee the future almost perfectly, to structure social institutions to alter this future to their advantage, and to implement their plans, despite the self-interest of billions of economic actors.

They believe in God. This God is the conspiracy.

Yet they are on to something. But before I get to this, I need to discuss another aspect of the conservatives' theory of an engineered financial crisis.

AUSTRIAN SCHOOL ECONOMICS

The theory of the engineered crisis calls into question Ludwig von Mises's 1912 theory of the business cycle, which is called the Austrian theory of the business cycle. Mises taught that the cause of the business cycle is fractional reserve banking, especially in nations that have central banks, whose function is to create a cartel for private banks. First the central bank inflates. This produces a boom. Then it slows the rate of monetary expansion because of rising prices. This causes the recession: a re-pricing of assets, especially capital goods.

Mises's theory solved the central theoretical problem of all recessions: why entrepreneurs make the same investment mistakes at the same time. Normally, we expect some entrepreneurs to be successful, but at the expense of other entrepreneurs. Some make good forecasts; others make bad ones. Some go long. Others go short. These plans offset. But not during economic recessions. Why not?

Mises offered an answer: because of the central bank's interference with the free market. It lowers interest rates by creating fiat money reserves by purchasing government debt. This lowers short-term interest rates. Businesses borrow to expand, because of these low interest rates. Then, when price inflation appears, the central bank reverses policy. It slows the rate of debt purchases. Short-term interest rates rise. Businesses lose money. They cut back on expansion. Bankruptcies increase.

This explanation is consistent with both general economic theory and the history of financial panics. It lays the blame on the central bank. For this reason, this explanation is universally rejected by academic economists, virtually all of whom support central banking, despite the fact that all central banks are government-created monopolies. The economists function as intellectual defenders of a bankers' cartel. They refuse to apply their theory of the inefficiency of cartels to central banking.

Pick up any college-level textbook on economics. Read the chapter on monopoly, oligopoly, and cartels. The textbooks say that most cartels are the creation of civil government. The chapter shows how monopolies are in restraint of trade. They operate so as to enrich the monopolists at the expense of customers.

Then read the chapter on the Federal Reserve System. None of the analysis of the first chapter is applied to the second. This is not random. This is marketing. Any textbook with an Austrian School analysis of central banking will not be published by a mainstream publisher. There has never been an exception to this rule. You can look it up.

In the field of economic theory, the academic economists' support of central banking is the best example of how political power, control over money, and the use of this money to silence academia by hiring thousands of economists as advisors have combined to neuter an entire profession.

The only academic commentators who have identified this systematic use of money to corrupt academia are the Austrian School economists, the Marxists, and the New Left allies of the Marxists. These are fringe groups in academia. They have little influence. They never have had much influence inside the self-screened academic guild.

The conservatives who theorize that the 2008 crisis was an engineered crisis have a better understanding of the power of central banking in politics than the economists do. But the critics fail to understand that central bankers are constrained by free market competition. Bankers do not understand or accept Mises's theory of the business cycle. They do not understand monetary cause and effect. They are either Keynesians or Chicago School monetarists, and both schools of opinion are supportive of the concept of central banking. So, they don't know what they are doing.

Every once in a while, their policies produce a financial panic and recession. But they do not learn from experience. They do not go looking for a new theory to explain their policy failures. They are committed to faith in government and government's licensed monopoly, the central bank.

This is inconceivable to the conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy is above the law – not just civil law but economic law. For the conspiracy theorists, there is no economic law. There is only the all-seeing eye of the conspiracy.

Then how did Austrian School forecasters foresee the recession of 2008? Are they part of the conspiracy? Were they tipped off by David Rockefeller that the recession was being planned at the highest levels?

I saw it coming and said so in print. So did Peter Schiff. How did we know? Because we had read Mises and Rothbard. Because we believed them. And, in my case, because I always predict recession when the inverted yield curve appears. What is this? Whenever 90-day T-bill interest is higher than 30-year T-bond interest, the curve is inverted. A recession always follows. Other non-Austrian forecasters know of this relationship, but because of their enormous faith in central banking, they conclude, "This time it will be different." It never is.

INSIDERS' BRAGGING RIGHTS

I have said that the conspiracy theorists are on to something. There is a group of world leaders who make decisions for the way the world works. The best introduction to this group is David Rothkopf's book, "Superclass." He is part of the group, not because of his wealth, but because of his contacts. They trusted him to tell the story in a non–Alex Jones way: no bullhorn and lots of footnotes. He is on the inside, and he lets some of the story – the part he was allowed to see – get out.

A conspiracy theorist would not believe that the Insiders would allow any non-believer into the inner sanctum. But the fact is, they do, and they have.

Over three decades ago, Cleon Skousen hired a researcher to produce a series of book-sized magazines on the world's leading Insider groups. Skousen made them an offer: "We will publish anything you provide to us without comment." The groups did this. Skousen kept his end of the bargain. He published a series of reports in his magazine, The Freemen Digest, which was published by his Freemen Institute. I possess a set of these reports. They are invaluable. The list of organizations covered is here.

The series ceased, Skousen informed me years later, because of a dispute with his researcher. The man had finally gotten inside the inner sanctum: The Bank for International Settlements (BIS). He was given access to 20,000 documents. He told Skousen that the Freemen Institute had to write a critical attack on the BIS. Skousen said no: a deal's a deal. So, Skousen fired him. He could not publish what would have been by far the most important issue of the magazine.

Here is the corker. The Council on Foreign Relations ordered 3,000 copies of his report on the CFR to make available in libraries around the world.

Skousen was the author of The Naked Capitalist (1970). That book was a long commentary on the 20 crucial pages in Carroll Quigley's 1966 book, Tragedy and Hope. These were the pages where he exposed the connection of leftist political groups with the Morgan and Rockefeller banking interests, going back to 1900. So, Skousen was well known to these groups. But they cooperated. Why? Because they wanted to get part of their story to the public. Skousen saw his opportunity. They might reveal far more than he could discover as an outsider. They authorized him to publish this. He succeeded.

I wish those issues of The Freemen Digest were online. Almost no one in the conservative movement has ever seen them. If Glenn Beck could persuade the copyright holder to let him post them, they could get the publicity they deserve. They would also provide Beck's research team with gems.

PARETO'S LAW

Pareto's law was discovered by sociologist-economist Vilfredo Pareto in the late 19th century. He studied the distribution of wealth in various European nations. He discovered that this distribution centralizes wealth. About 20% of the population owned 80% of the value of a nation's capital. It did this all the way up.

If 20% of the population owns 80% of the value of the nation's capital, then 4% (20% of 20%) own 64% (80% of 80%) of the value of the capital. This has turned out to be the case. So, about 1% of the population would own a little over half. This has turned out to be the case.

Most subsequent studies indicate that this same distribution applies to every society studied. It does not matter whether the countries were pre-social democratic nations (pre-1900), or where, or how socialistic they are. The same distribution exists. No one has offered a cogent explanation for what does not conform to anyone's economic or social theory.

For a recent assessment of wealth distribution in the United States, read G. William Domhoff's article, "Wealth, Income, and Power." He has been studying this for over three decades.

The socialists attack capitalism's unequal distribution of wealth. But whenever socialists have come to power, this distribution has not changed. So, they refuse to discuss Pareto. In contrast, free marketers insist that capitalism tends toward the equalization of wealth. It hasn't so far. So, they don't talk about Pareto, either.

This is a deliberate oversight. Pareto's mathematical presentation known as Pareto optimality is beloved of welfare state economists. His entire presentation is conceptually flawed, because it assumes that your scale of economic values is the same as mine and everyone else's. Murray Rothbard refuted this idea back in 1956, but still Pareto's theorem is discussed as relevant.

Any time you read a report on the evil of capitalist wealth distribution that cites a recent study on this inequality, you can be sure it will not cite a study of any socialist or high-tax nation. The author probably does not imagine that the distribution is Pareto-normal. He wants only to persuade voters to implement his favored reform.

What is really maddening is that Pareto's 20–80 rule applies to all sorts of institutional statistics that have little to do with wealth distribution. About 20% of a police force makes 80% of the arrests. About 20% of first-year subscribers to a newsletter resubscribe. (How we publishers wish it were 80%!) About 20% of recipients of a free e-letter actually open it. (Why not 80%?) And so it goes.

I wish I knew why. If I knew why, maybe I could find a way to get the 80% on my side . . . at least until I got imitated.

DON'T ROCK THE BOAT!

This means that the existing distribution of wealth and influence favors the existing hierarchy. The distribution does not change. An individual's position in the hierarchy can change – usually for the worse. After all, it's easier to slide down life's gravy train than to climb higher.

If you were at the top of the heap – in the top 1% or maybe even the top two-tenths of a percent – would you want to engineer a crisis?

Think about this. If the system has made you the top dog, why would you risk shaking the foundations? Why would you rock the boat? Why would you get Congress involved in bailouts of the biggest institutions?

The theory of the engineered crisis makes no sense, given a theory of a top-down conspiracy. If those at the top are really in control, but can lose control, why would they want anything to change? Change is the enemy of those on top.

The conspiracy theorists say that "they" did it. "They are after the people's wealth!" But "the people" don't have enough wealth to go after. The people in the bottom 80% own 20% of the wealth.

The conspiracy theorists overestimate their importance – politically, economically, and socially. They think that they can take over if only they can expose the conspirators. But the cost of doing this is astronomical. Besides, the effect of such a revolution only would be to change the people at the top. The masses would not benefit.

What works? Economic growth. A rising tide raises all boats. Liberty provides economic growth.

What people need – "people" defined as those in the bottom 80% – is liberty. The distribution of wealth is not going to change. The ethics of the way to wealth should therefore be this: "Thou shalt not steal," not "thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote."

CONCLUSION

The Insiders did not engineer the economic crisis except insofar as they have used central banking to further their advancement, beginning in 1914 in the United States.

Central banking inevitably produces financial crises. Central bankers try to avoid crises by inflating, then stabilizing, then inflating, and in so doing, they create crises. This is the teaching of Mises. One intervention leads to the next.

The Insiders engineered the crisis of 2008 by building the flawed machine in 1914. They are now trapped. So are we.

The money machine will break. The political order will change when the money machine breaks. There will be different people on top after the money machine is replaced. Let us work to see that the money machine is not put in any governmental agency's hands. Congress would be worse than the Federal Reserve System, contrary to Ellen "web of debt" Brown and the other gold-hating Populists, whom I call false flag infiltrators.

These people call for "sovereign money." Whenever you hear "sovereign money," think "Nancy Pelosi dollars, Barney Frank dollars, and Obama dollars."

Let the free market choose the monetary unit. Let depositors determine which banks survive and which banks perish. In short, get government out of the money business.

August 21, 2010

Republicae's picture

North is absolutely correct

North is absolutely correct on this one! Economic collapse does not help secure power, instead it creates instability within the social arena. The last 97 years or more have been an exercise in the placation of society, creating a complacent population of productive serfs; why would you upset the serfdom with the potential for revolution. Revolution can bring about the most uncertainty of any social and political upheavals, it would not only present a risk, but a real danger to those who presently hold the most powerful positions in the political economy that has been created.

The fact of the matter is that economic principles can only be distorted to a certain point, beyond that point those principles or laws begin to reassert their power, when that happens all the attempts at control and manipulation begin to break down, exposing the fraudulent nature of the distortions. It is impossible to control the powers of economic principles for long, look at the attempts in the former Soviet Union, or for that matter, look at our own country.

97 years of Federal Reserve Banking has distorted the economic market systems to such a degree that every possible thing is being done by this government and its agents in the FED, that they no longer have very many tools at their disposal.

Governments hate disorder of any kind, they tend to seek the application of order either through a reward system or through coercion or both. To think that there are those within either government or some sort of "uber-elitists" who either have the ability or the desire to destroy the economic system that benefits them to such a high degree doesn't make much sense. Why cripple your own working "serfs", why destroy the system that keeps them so neatly contained in complacency. After all, it has taken nearly 100 years to create this serfdom, why risk destroying it through the uncertainty of a revolution that would not only threaten the position and power of this and other governments, but also the very wealth that this serfdom has generated. Today, the "serfs" work for pennies per hour and the return on their productive output is enormous. Factually, the current system of fiat serfdom is the most productive in the history of the world, the redistribution of wealth and power has never been so great as it has under this current system.

Sorry, but I too think that there are many who give both government and those internally connected power-players far too much credit. I see a disorder within the economic system that follows the exact patterns explained by Von Mises, Rothbard, Reisman, Hazlett, etc.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Excellent! Thanks.

I am an old dog, leaning new tricks.

Keep your postcards coming.

Regards,

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

This is a great post, and should be on the front page Michael.

Thank you bobbyw24 for the post.

Yes, a MOST excellent thread...

...I tend to agree with the logic that although the POTENTIAL to collapse the economy exists...all the instability would HURT those who would do such a thing...

...consider though...we cannot continue on the path of "dumbing-down" our children...

My over-arching perspective is that our Creator is not manufacturing children any differently than He ever has; so every soul has that God-given potential NOBODY knows...and so, for any human force to try to control, stagnate, restrain or re-direct that POTENTIAL(let alone seek to PROFIT off it my means of usury or deceit); they best FEAR God in the most common sense manner which everyone is inherently and consciously aware of, if you know what I am saying.

We have to, and I believe we can; get this UNDER CONTROL...what is really difficult is that we have remain UNWAVERING and STEADFAST to our principle goal; getting SELF-LESS statesmen elected to office, who will simply do for our children and our posterity what is RIGHT - because these attempts to soften the blow, or maintain that which is unsustainable to garner VOTES is absolute LUNACY!

Thanks-and actually DP member ckpac

posted it a few days ago

Follow me on Twitter for breaking news from a libertarian perspective

www.twitter.com/AbolishTheFed

Bookmarked and bumped

this is a keeper.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

Very good thread

Why is this idea so hard to convince others that it is happening? Is it because our "financial planners" don't want us see through their rhetoric?

Sorry I missed your post and

Sorry I missed your post and sorry for the dup posting

Follow me on Twitter for breaking news from a libertarian perspective

www.twitter.com/AbolishTheFed