Greenspan's Treason- What they are doing behind closed doors

[loftycity]

Greenspan's Treason
Swindling Posterity
By MIKE WHITNEY

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney03202004.html

"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

Thomas Jefferson

"The threat of democracy can be overcome if economic sovereignty can be eliminated."

Noam Chomsky

There are two principle factors that keep an economy humming along; interest rates and the amount of money that is circulating through the economy. Interest rates are presently at historic lows (40 year low) and the Bush tax cuts have added nearly $530 billion a year ($625 billion by Mr. Greenspan's calculations) to the amount of money that is moving through the economy by way of transactions, investment etc.

Still, the economy is "dead in the water."

What's going on?
(snip)
The tax cuts have failed because they are designed to fail.

They are simply a "rewards system" for Mr. Bush's core constituency. They are a further illustration that "supply side" economics doesn't work. Giving boatloads of money back to people who people who don't quickly spend it does not stimulate the economy. It would be of considerable benefit to the American people to have the "Voodoo" contingent of the Bush economic team purged once and for all from the White House Staff.
(snip)
Never the less, Mr. Greenspan's role in this
Eventually, Greenspan will be required to raise interest rates and send the American economy spiraling towards the canvas. (which will probably happen at the first mention of "national health care") Already, the dollar has taken a brisk thrashing by the Euro (25% in the last eight moths) But, Greenspan knows that raising rates now would spell disaster for the Bush reelection campaign, so the "hammer-lock" on rates continues at the ultimate expense of the average American.

(snip)
The "shackle" of debt is being applied by America's bespectacled warden; Maestro!

A quote from Noam Chomsky epitomizes the Fed Chairman's underlying motives.

"The threat of democracy can be overcome if economic sovereignty can be eliminated."

Thanks, Alan.
****************************
(the repuke plan is so ugly. And what kind of Nirvana do they expect from this? I suppose they want the slave state-easier to think you can pull this off-- than to do) Can the rapture take them all away?

[kalian]

1. Debt = slavery....

plain and simple...

[rapier]

3. notes

Before we get too far down the road I might remind everyone that the demand for credit, and its production has always been a primary DEMAND of Americans. That includes particularly the progressives of the 1890's.

Before there was a Federal Reserve the populist call was for the downfall of the Wall Street monied interests like the legendary JP Morgan. The famous call by William Jennings Bryan, the famed populist, (and actually socialist, and fundamentalist, which is another story) not to hang us on a cross of gold was a call for easy money and easy credit.

The roots of the Federal Reserve, our central bank, sprang from progressive origin. Now we know how flawed the system is but when it comes to money and its creation and disbursement there is no perfect system. In any such system those that have ALWAYS end up controlling things. So it goes.

The old hard money men Jennings despised have morphed into todays soft money men. I site Kudlow as an example of the long and now total reversal of the financial elite from hard money, meaning gold, believers into todays partisans for expansion of money and debt without limit.

The first duty of the Fed was to insure the QUALITY of bank assets so as to prevent the periodic but regular propensity of American banks to fail. Soon, by the 20's, that morphed into an obsession with the QUANTITY of money. That obsession has grown for 75 yeras.

While Greenspan is guilty of many sins in my eyes, as is the Fed and the banks and on and on, let's not forget the always popular basis for easy credit in America. It's popular.

Of couse responsible central banks are not supposed to be popular. Much less their leaders be made into demigods.

While it is well and good to question where we have been, where we are and where we are going always remember that if you find yourself calling for a return to hard money you are falling into what to me is Reaction. Let me asure you if somehow we ended back up with a gold hard money system, an impossiblility I think but who knows, we would find that a small elite, much smaller than todays controlled the money. And that elite would be of the right, in spades.

[cliss]

2. I was really shocked when I read Greenslime's

recent statements about the 'american consumer debt is manageable' and 'the national debt is manageable'. After reading a few threads, I understood that Alan Greenscum is an indentured servant to the BeelzeBush administration.

It took longer than normal for it to sink into my thick head. I had always read, in book after book as I inched my way toward a BA in Economics that the Federal Reserve is an independent agency and it answers to no one, least of all the president. It was set up that way. The plan was to have an agency which would not succumb to the temptations (or pressures) of the day and chart its own course, come what may.

It looks like the last of my illusions were finally shattered here at the DU.

This man is owned by the Bush administration.

[factroid]

4. the only solution...

... is for the eventual evolution to an ethical society, where vested interest is rare; but, of course we're talking millenia from now at the rate we're going, though I think we might see fairly rapid changes soon, for the better (maybe after the scare of BrushWorld 2084).

In the meantime, I guess we can keep plugging the dikes and demand a change in leadership; starting with ousting Bush, Cheney etal.

Now, if any of you would consider the best and quickest solution to get us started down the right road, consider supporting Kucinich. Either he'll make it in 2008 (pushing Kerry from behind in 2004), or 2012, or 2016 or . . . it is enevitable - either he, or his successor - will carry the ball for America's founding principles. But, if you miss the window, it could be problems before we have another such as he (well there is Nader too of course, though dispised of late, unfairly, as 'the spoiler; the stats don't prove that out, by the way).

LET'S HAVE SOME VISION DEMOCRATS! KERRY IS A WAFFLER!

But, of course, he might be somewhat amenable to being forced into taking some decent initiative. But, "not tough enough on terrorism?!!" Good Lord!

Do you want change, or the same old rag? - or, in fact, being complicit in taking American over abyss?

Investigate and ponder before making a snap judgement...
www.kucinich.us