 BobbbNY:
I’m familiar with what you are saying, but do not agree with it all. It is more of a symbiotic relationship between the bankers and the pols. The current group of Progressives in power- and I include most of the Republicans in that statement- WANT the big spending programs, WANT to increase their power, WANT the Socialistic nonsense, because it enhances their positions. The bankers are only too happy to bankroll that. They also use their leverage to affect agency regulations, even legislation and policy priorities.
It is difficult to say how much of something like the Viet Nam war was driven simply by profit and how much was driven by geopolitics. Yes, I know that they interact. We know the Soviet Union and China really were trying to take over the world and the US was seeking to prevent that, economically dominate it and use force to their advantage to do so. We know that there was also a native freedom movement in VN, which got wrapped around the axle of the glorious international Marxist workers movement.
Long before the Fed, we still had “panics.” Not all were instigated by the bankers, although all were opportunities to profit. You will recall that Andrew Jackson was so proud that he “killed the bank,” but that didn’t stop the financial oscillations.
In fact, much of the country felt it necessary to create something like the Federal Reserve, although I doubt if they had any inkling of the monster it would become, nor was it any kind of real consensus.
No, I don’t believe that Michele is at all unpatriotic or a willing tool of the bankers. You are selling her short and have seemingly not done your homework. She is a product of a good MidWest middle class upbringing: patriotic and pious as she can possibly be, given what she knows. Give her extra credit for doing far more than most and even bringing “Mises to read on the beach” (her words). She is trying to expand her horizons in a manner that few politicos sincerely attempt. I don’t believe she had any clue how bad it was when she voted for TARP or the Patriot Act, although her consciousness is evolving.
Rick Perry is another whole story. He is a cynical, double-talking statist Fascist. Romney is a more sophisticated Perry with less charisma. They both adhere to a less militant Socialism than The One.
Unfortunately, Ron has some fatal flaws. Any “ism” taken to an extreme and not applied sensibly, creates problems, Exhibit A was his behavior at the Iowa debate, which killed any chance of the GOP base supporting him, although most Ron fans fail to comprehend that. While he’s right about too much meddling and resources directed to the military, he is amazingly naive about geopolitics. The rest would take too many keystrokes. Not being a great typist, I would prefer to cover that by phone, if is your desire to pursue this. I have more hope for Paul 2.0—Rand.
Most of my holdings are not in dollars anymore, not even in any fiat. From your rhetoric, I would say that you agree?
 Commenté il y a 4804 jours |
