This is part six of on-going email debate between me and one of my leftists pals from Hollywood.

 

Round Six — Paul

Tom:

With regards to Roosevelt, you confirmed my point; measuring FDR against the man who never was.

Roosevelt and Churchill shared aristocratic backgrounds .  And their politics were not as different as you imply.

As a member of Parliament in the early 1900′s, Churchill supported unemployment insurance! And the regulation of sweatshops and mines .  Churchill was, in fact, quite close to Prime Minister Lloyd George .  A Welshman of modest origins who championed working people.

And though he was a disaster for working Americans, you voted for Bush Jr .  Confirming my suspicions that Libertarians vote Republican .  They are, essentially, a wing of the party .  So when Libertarians disown Republicans it is essentially disingenuous .

The Tea Party disowned Bush mainly because of TARP .  But the bailout was actually cheap .  Most of that money has been paid back; a largely under-reported story .  Less than 50 billion is outstanding .  Which is pocket change compared to a meltdown of the markets.

They would have melted because Citibank was teetering .  Another under-reported story .  And yes, Citibank, ‘was’ too big to fail .  It’s collapse, on top of AIG and Lehman Brothers, would’ve triggered a crash like ’29 .

I just think that TARP should have come with the restoration of Glass-Steagel .  And it seems absurd that banks are fighting Dodd-Frank which was largely watered-down from it’s initial form .

Nevertheless I believe that bailout showed the necessity of a central bank .  And your historic analogy, concerning the Fed’s creation, is actually a little off .  J P Morgan functioned as our central bank before the Fed was born.

In fact, the Fed was actually created to get that function away from Morgan .  And interestingly Morgan died shortly afterwards.

Regarding the Crash of ’29, you describe it as a correction .  One that warranted no response from government .  This view overlooks the extent of phony paper issued then as common stocks .  Like the phenomenon of ‘holding companies’ .  Which were exactly that .  Companies marketed as stocks whose only business was holding stocks.

And strangely layers of holding companies would clump like stupid geese .  Swallowing and defecating one continuous line of string .  So when the crash finally came, all those holding companies went down in a line.

But the ’20′s were, on paper, at least, a Libertarian paradise: unfettered capitalism and small federal government .  No SEC or FDIC .  Agencies whose missions would later seem quite obvious .  But whose missions Libertarians continue to dispute.

Though if you’re measuring FDR against the man who never was, you can dispute Global Warming while your state is literally burning (from epic drought conditions) as Rick Perry did .

Here’s what I don’t get .  When it comes to government, Libertarians are puritanically cynical .  Imagining levels of rot warranting wholesale purges .

Yet when it comes to private enterprise, Libertarians see the best in folks .  Like anyone in a suit and tie is probably a good family man .  And one can just assume they’re principled and honest.

Isn’t that a paradox? This paranoid Pollyanna mix? But again, if you’re measuring FDR against the man who never was, nothing has to make any sense.

Every day financial pages report malfeasances .  Like Inside-trading scandals, wire fraud indictments, juiced-up stocks, currency manipulations, toxic spills, faulty product deaths, etc, etc, etc.

And if you don’t see these stories, you’re not tracking finance .  You’re probably watching FOX or listening to Limbaugh.

Inherent in capitalism is a history of buccaneering .  Going back to Francis Drake .  And New England privateers .  A certain degree of piracy has always been attendant .  A reflection perhaps on mankind more than economics.

So again it seems peculiar that Libertarians have this Pollyanna streak with regards to business .  What’s more, in this age of multi-nationals, so many businessmen live beyond our borders .  Hatching schemes we might view as common piracy.

Here I feel compelled to note that Libertarians are ideologues not unlike Soviet style Communists .  Subscribing to philosophies everyone must buy*.  Which leads to puritanical purges .  Like we’ve seen with the Tea Party .

But Tom your arguments would impress The Cato Institute .  Where you should have a fellowship .  Think of the prestige!
You could use your wonkish talents to crank out wonkish papers .  That other Libertarians will think are simply brilliant .

If you need a reference call on me .  I will tell the Koch Brothers that Tom Naughton is politically reliable!

Paul

 

Round Six — Tom

Hey, Paul –

With regards to Roosevelt, you confirmed my point; measuring FDR against the man who never was.

No, I measure FDR by the bone-headed policies he instituted.

Roosevelt and Churchill shared aristocratic backgrounds.

So did Bush and Gore.

And their politics were not as different as you imply.  As a member of Parliament in the early 1900′s, Churchill supported unemployment insurance! And the regulation of sweatshops and mines.  Churchill was, in fact, quite close to Prime Minister Lloyd George.  A Welshman of modest origins who championed working people.

This is a minor detour away from the larger issues, but Churchill was, you recall, the leader of the Conservative party .  In the 1945 election, when the voters ousted him in spite of his inspiring leadership during the war, the Labour party campaigned on promises to create full employment, a tax-funded universal National Health Service, and a cradle-to-grave welfare state.  Churchill was against this creep towards socialism, as evidenced by one of his many famous quotes:

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

And though he was a disaster for working Americans, you voted for Bush Jr .  Confirming my suspicions that Libertarians vote Republican.  They are, essentially, a wing of the party.  So when Libertarians disown Republicans it is essentially disingenuous.

Most libertarians I know have concluded that we stand a better chance of taking over the Republican party than launching a successful third party, since our system is skewed in favor of a two-party system — same strategy employed by the “progressives,” who took over the party that was essentially the racist party of the Old South for many generations.

Given a choice between a Republican who agrees with libertarians on perhaps 50 percent of the economic issues and a Democrat who believes the key to prosperity is to raise taxes and expand the welfare state, I’ll vote for the least objectionable choice every time.

By the way, how is the Great Savior Obama’s economic program working out for the working American so far? I seem to recall something about unemployment being high, in spite of the trillions in “stimulus” spending.

The Tea Party disowned Bush mainly because of TARP.  But the bailout was actually cheap.  Most of that money has been paid back; a largely under-reported story.  Less than 50 billion is outstanding.  Which is pocket change compared to a meltdown of the markets.

The story is “under-reported” because it isn’t true.  The “it’s almost all paid back!” story is Obama administration P.R.  nonsense.

Let’s take just one example: GM.  Officially, they’ve paid back $4.7 billion of a $6.7 billion loan.  But that doesn’t count the other $40+ billion GM sucked up from the taxpayers in the form of GM stock purchased by the government.  The Obama administration also put $13 billion of bailout money in an escrow account, and GM largely “paid back” the $4.7 billion by tapping that account.  In other words, they “paid back” the government loan with government money.

You can read up on the full shenanigans here:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/27/gms-phony-bailout-payback

Even if GM somehow manages to pay back the full amount, the government has no business taking taxpayer money and “investing” on our behalf in a failing business.  (Next thing you know, they’ll give a half billion or so to a solar-energy company that will go bankrupt a year later.)

They would have melted because Citibank was teetering.  Another under-reported story.  And yes, Citibank, ‘was’ too big to fail.  It’s collapse, on top of AIG and Lehman Brothers, would’ve triggered a crash like ’29.

No company is too big to fail.  The system meltdown threatened by the banks and the Fed was an excuse to save a lot of politically powerful and wealthy bankers and investors from taking the financial bath they had coming to them.  Instead, the Fed bought up a bunch of worthless mortgages (with money created out of thin air and backed by taxpayer IOUs), transferring the losses from the investors who willingly engaged in the risks to ordinary citizens who didn’t.  This also only postponed the day of reckoning, when the artificial expansion of the economy produced by magic Fed money will collapse.

[NOTE to readers:  I recently finished reading "The Big Short," an excellent book by Michael Lewis (author of "Moneyball") on the Wall Street meltdown.  He agrees that letting AIG and the big banks fail without any federal intervention would have caused a financial meltdown.  But he contends that the solution should have been a carefully managed bankruptcy and transfer of assets of each company, not a slew of bailouts.  Back to the debate ...]

Nevertheless I believe that bailout showed the necessity of a central bank.  And your historic analogy, concerning the Fed’s creation, is actually a little off.  J P Morgan functioned as our central bank before the Fed was born.

Pardon me while I laugh my ass off for a few minutes before responding …

…  Okay, that’s enough.  Paul, the housing bubble and inevitable meltdown was CAUSED by the existence of a central bank.  Take away the central bank, and people can only borrow capital others have saved.  The Federal Reserve enabled and encouraged the borrowing frenzy to occur by creating new magic money out of thin air so the banks could continue lending and lending, even after they’d exhausted the pool of qualified borrowers.  The only reason we “need” central banks to provide bailouts when economic bubbles finally burst is that central banks cause the bubbles to occur in the first place.  Without a central bank, a borrowing frenzy can’t happen.  If you have an explanation for how a borrowing frenzy can go on without a central bank, please share it.

In fact, the Fed was actually created to get that function away from Morgan.

You believe that story, eh? And I guess if you read that Rockefeller was publicly opposed to the creation of the Fed, you’d also believe he was actually against it? Rockefeller and other rich bankers publicly opposed the Federal Reserve as a ploy to convince the public that the Fed must be bad news for rich bankers, even as they were working behind the scenes to make sure the Fed was created.  The ploy worked.  Years later, it became public knowledge who was at the secret meeting on Jekyll Island during which the Fed was concocted.  One of them (can’t remember which) fessed up in a magazine article 30 years later.

Regarding the Crash of ’29, you describe it as a correction.  One that warranted no response from government.  This view overlooks the extent of phony paper issued then as common stocks.  Like the phenomenon of ‘holding companies’.  Which were exactly that.  Companies marketed as stocks whose only business was holding stocks.

And strangely layers of holding companies would clump like stupid geese .  Swallowing and defecating one continuous line of string.  So when the crash finally came, all those holding companies went down in a line.

Which proves the crash of ’29 wasn’t a correction how, exactly? Sounds like a rather dramatic example of a correction to me.  Stupid behavior was punished.  That’s what corrections do — if the morons in government don’t start bailing out the morons in the market.

But the ’20′s were, on paper, at least, a Libertarian paradise: unfettered capitalism and small federal government.  No SEC or FDIC.  Agencies whose missions would later seem quite obvious.  But whose missions Libertarians continue to dispute.

It’s not unfettered capitalism when the Federal Reserve is creating new magic money out of thin air to allow a borrowing frenzy to continue.  In real capitalism, you can’t borrow capital that doesn’t exist.  As Paul Schiff aptly described our latest borrowing frenzy and subsequent bust: Yes, the bankers and investors acted like a bunch of drunk teenagers.  But the Federal Reserve provided the endless supply of alcohol and encouraged them to drink it.

Though if you’re measuring FDR against the man who never was, you can dispute Global Warming while your state is literally burning (from epic drought conditions) as Rick Perry did.

Not sure I see the connection there, but I don’t dispute that the earth warms and cools in cycles.  I definitely dispute that we can say with anything remotely resembling scientific certainty that humans have zip to do with it.  But if you want to cite a drought as proof of man-made global warming (because droughts never happened before the late 20th century, right?), then I’ll share a few headlines and leads from news stories of the past few years with you:

Rare October snow brings winter landscape to NY.

This winter has been one of the toughest in decades, with temperatures today reaching as low as -38C in large areas of the Midwest.

Germany marked record low temperatures for the third day in a row on Thursday

Charlottes Pass at 13 degrees below average set a new Australian record for cold today at -13 degress celcius.  This sets a new cold record for April for anywhere in Australia

If it seemed cold to you in Green Bay on Saturday, it was.  The high temperature for the day, reached at 9:50 a.m., was 52.  That set a record for the lowest high temperature for June 6, according to the National Weather Service office in Ashwaubenon.

Northern Arizona residents were digging out Tuesday from a storm that left record snowfall in Flagstaff, knocked out power to tens of thousands, shut down two major interstates and kept children out of school.

Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday — the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922.

By the way, it’s 27 degrees in Tennessee this morning — 13 degrees below the historical average.  Newsflash: the weather changes.  Always has, always will.

Here’s what I don’t get.  When it comes to government, Libertarians are puritanically cynical.  Imagining levels of rot warranting wholesale purges.

Yet when it comes to private enterprise, Libertarians see the best in folks.  Like anyone in a suit and tie is probably a good family man.  And one can just assume they’re principled and honest.  Isn’t that a paradox? This paranoid Pollyanna mix?

I’m sitting here trying to figure out if you’re just yanking my chain, or if you’re actually that ignorant of what libertarians believe.

Going all the way back to Adam Smith’s free-market treatise “The Wealth of Nations,” libertarians have contended that humans act in their own best interest, period.  It’s because of this self-interest (or greed, if you prefer) that Smith warned against allowing government officials to have control over the economy — he knew full well that eventually the smart greedy merchants would get together with the smart greedy government officials and rig the game so they could all get rich together at everyone else’s expense.

Smith also pointed out that when businesses can’t get rich by leveraging the coercive powers of government (that is, when free markets exist) they are forced to compete with each other, which leads to higher efficiency, lower prices, and better products.  As I stated in an earlier reply, when I created a trademark docketing system that was far less expensive than what was already on the market, it wasn’t because I have warm fuzzy feelings towards trademark attorneys.  I created that system because I’m self-interested — I wanted their money — and yet the trademark attorneys benefited.  The reason New Yorkers can buy beef in the local grocery store isn’t that ranchers in Texas love New Yorkers and want to take care of them.  The beef arrives in New York because the Texas ranchers are greedy.

When government stays the @#$% out of the way, the only way a business can get a consumer’s money is to offer a product the consumer wants at a price the consumer can afford.  Good intentions have nothing to do with it, as any libertarian economist would happily tell you.  That’s why you’ll never see a libertarian marching in the streets and whining like a five-year-old after figuring out that corporations care more about profits (egads!) than people.  We don’t expect corporations to care about people.  We’re adults.

The reason we’re cynical about government is that government gives coercive powers to self-interested people (which is bad enough) and then gives those self-interested people the ability to spend other people’s money (which makes matters worse).  In free-market exchanges, there is no coercion.  You can’t make me buy your product or invest in your company .  You can only try to persuade me.  But morons in government can take my money and invest it in GM or Solyndra, without any worries about bad investments costing them a dime personally.  That’s the difference.

If anyone is suffering from a Pollyanna complex, it’s today’s “progressives,” who (against all evidence) believe that when people take a job in government, they immediately cease acting out of their own self-interest and start making decisions based on what’s good for the rest of us.

If the heads of Fannie and Freddie are paid bonuses based on the size of their total mortgage portfolios, a libertarian would fully expect them to boost their own pay by lowering their mortgage standards and buying increasingly risky mortgages from the banks, allowing and encouraging the self-interested bankers to keep writing those mortgages — which is what happened.  When the housing meltdown occurred, we didn’t whine about how greedy and irresponsible the bankers were.  We pointed out how Fannie, Freddie, Congress, the Fed, etc., created a perverse set of incentives that practically guaranteed the self-interested bankers would do exactly what they did.

By contrast, in 1985 — before those asinine incentives were created — my best friend was turned down for a mortgage even though he was an attorney employed at a large firm and had a 10% down payment.  The bank wouldn’t write a mortgage for anyone who didn’t have a 20% down payment.  Why? Because they were greedy, and without Fannie and Freddie taking all the risky mortgages off their hands, the self-interested decision was to minimize risk.

But again, if you’re measuring FDR against the man who never was, nothing has to make any sense.

No, I judge FDR by the bone-headed policies he instituted.  But now that I think about it, I’ll happily measure him against Harding.  During the steep recession of 1921 — which was worse than the first year of the Great Depression, with manufacturing declining by something like 40% and stocks declining rapidly — Harding ignored the advice of Herbert Hoover, who wanted to engage in corporate bailouts and massive spending to prop up the economy.  (Yes, Hoover — your “laissez faire” guy.) Harding said the market needed to be allowed to clear itself of the malinvestments, and it did.  The recession was over a year later.  Too bad Hoover didn’t learn the lesson.

Every day financial pages report malfeasances.  Like Inside-trading scandals, wire fraud indictments, juiced-up stocks, currency manipulations, toxic spills, faulty product deaths, etc, etc, etc.  And if you don’t see these stories, you’re not tracking finance.  You’re probably watching FOX or listening to Limbaugh.

Again, I’m not sure if you’re yanking my chain or simply ignorant of what libertarians believe.  In case it’s the latter, I’ll fill you in: Libertarians believe in voluntary exchanges between free adults.  If a company defrauds you, it isn’t voluntary — you weren’t given what you agreed to.  If a company poisons my land or water, I didn’t volunteer for that.  If a product kills or maims me, I didn’t volunteer for that, and the company that produced it should be held liable.

You seem to believe libertarianism means corporations are never punished for anything.  That’s simply not true.  Libertarianism means 1) if I want to make a voluntary exchange with someone else and we agree to the terms, you don’t get to step in and stop us simply because you don’t believe our deal is good for you, and 2) you don’t get to force me to make exchanges I don’t want to make.  In other words, we all get to act like free adults living in a supposedly free country.

Inherent in capitalism is a history of buccaneering.  Going back to Francis Drake.  And New England privateers.  A certain degree of piracy has always been attendant.  A reflection perhaps on mankind more than economics.

I seem to recall incidents of buccaneering and plundering long before capitalism ever came along.  Yes, of course, it’s a reflection on mankind.  To repeat, libertarians believe people are self-interested — including those who work in government.

So again it seems peculiar that Libertarians have this Pollyanna streak with regards to business.

See above.  You are criticizing an attitude libertarians don’t hold.

What’s more, in this age of multi-nationals, so many businessmen live beyond our borders.  Hatching schemes we might view as common piracy.

If they’re hatching a scheme to sell me products I’ll willingly buy, it’s not piracy.  If they’re bribing government officials to get deals they shouldn’t have, then the problem is the self-interested government officials being empowered to rig the game, which makes them worth bribing.

Here I feel compelled to note that Libertarians are ideologues not unlike Soviet style Communists.  Subscribing to philosophies everyone must buy* .  Which leads to puritanical purges.  Like we’ve seen with the Tea Party.

Hmmm ..  I must’ve missed a few newscasts.  When the Tea Party members start dragging people away to gulags? What I’ve seen are people exercising their right to protest against the actions of their government.

But as far as subscribing to philosophies everyone must buy, have you paid any attention to what’s happened on college campuses? Nitwit leftists routinely stealing all the copies of the campus conservative newspaper? Students charged with “hate speech” for putting up posters advertising a speech by the (black conservative) author of “It’s Okay to Leave the Plantation”? A history student in California given an F and told by his professor to undergo therapy because he wrote a paper supporting the war in Iraq? Students attempting to physically attack Ann Coulter when she gave a speech on campus? Another of her speeches canceled because of student riots? Give me a break …  leftists are some of the most intolerant people on the planet.

(Wish I could remember who did this …  someone parked a car with Kerry For President bumper stickers on it in an ultra-conservative voting district.  Nothing happened to it.  He also parked a car with Bush-Cheney bumper stickers on it in an ultra-liberal voting district.  Tires slashed, key scratches, window broken.  When leftists preach tolerance, what they mean is that they tolerate white liberals, black liberals, Asian liberals, Catholic liberals, Jewish liberals, atheist liberals, straight liberals, gay liberals, and transgender liberals.  If you’re not a liberal, they’ll start — strangely, I might add — comparing you to the people who ran the Soviet purges.)

But Tom your arguments would impress The Cato Institute.  Where you should have a fellowship.  Think of the prestige! You could use your wonkish talents to crank out wonkish papers.  That other Libertarians will think are simply brilliant.

I appreciate the sarcastic compliment, but they wouldn’t be impressed by me.  They already know what I know, plus a lot more.  I’m still trying to put my finger on your definition of “wonkish,” however.  Near as I can tell, it’s something like “studies subjects before developing opinions on them and cites facts with references in debates instead of spouting opinions.”

Tom

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark
11 Responses to “Debate With A Leftist Pal, Part Six”
  1. Bruce says:

    I think that one of the Libertarians point of views is, the more rules you make , the more there are to break. You can’t idiot proof it or bullet proof it.

    I do not eat at McD’s, but, I think their work around the San Francisco law is brilliant.

    http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_mcdonalds_outsm.php

    I’m lovin’ it.

  2. Jenny says:

    Please let this go on forever.

    He shows no signs of relenting yet.

  3. Howard says:

    Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark!

  4. SnowDog says:

    Tom, don’t forget the moral argument for liberty: everything the government does is backed by violence and threats of violence. Isn’t it time to stop trying to solve our social problems with threats of violence?

    That’s a good point. In a long-ago live debate with Paul, I told him I’d happily debate the economics, but even if he could prove absolutely, positively that socialism produces a superior economy, I’d still be against it. Freedom first.

  5. Sean says:

    The last paragraph is golden. I’d disagree with one thing, though, I think you could and should write for Cato. I nominate you for official PJ O’Rourke understudy. The world needs more PJ O’Rourkes.

    Wonk on.

    Being compared to PJ O’Rourke is a huge compliment. Thanks.

  6. Paul L in MA says:

    Does Peter Schiff have a brother named Paul?

    Adam Smith’s great book argues that “merchants and manufacturers” as a class are a great benefit to the consuming public, and in some passages, specifically sticks up for certain unpopular professions, such as retailers and grain speculators, who were misunderstood as not doing real services for people.

    Yet Smith always warns against letting such classes influence legislation too much in their own favor. There is still a conflict between their particular interests and the general interest.

    Big business LOVES regulation… if it means barriers to the entry of little competitors! It just ain’t a story of big bad business versus big virtuous government. They collude!

    But unions are not necessarily better. Smith complained too about the “unions” of his time, curiously called “corporations” then. They sought laws to prevent too many individuals becoming certified to practice certain skilled professions.

    Put self-interested businessmen together with self-interested politicians, and you get crony capitalism.

  7. RJ says:

    I have a liberal friend who attacks my wife on her facebook posts all the time. Reading the bit about “tolerant” liberals made me do some digging. This site has more info about it: http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200410070852.asp

    Looking forward to your next post!

    Love this line:

    Apparently, these attacks are so common that you can now buy a T-Shirt with a picture of a slashed-out Bush-Cheney logo and the legend, “A person of tolerance and diversity keyed my car.”

  8. Martin says:

    Hi Tom

    I love the one about the house of commons debating global warming with a record low outside. must have mised that one.

    Anyway, i want to say something, but you gotta be patient with me, because i am kinda slow. While we are on the topic of geography, climate and all that, it seems to me that progressives prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the world is round. i know this must dissappoint them something awful, since they hate Christopher Columbus so much. Life is a bitch.

    Now let’s see if i get this right. Progressive means you go foreward, right? Now if you go forward in a round world it means that you eventually end up where you start. I am told by my scientific progressive (oxymoron, i know) friends that this is what bright people call a hypothasis, and you gotta test it. I am not sure why they don’t test their own hypowhatevers, but then I am not so smart. Anyway, i figured i would try a test.

    People began to progress when they realised that it was not so good to take advantage of the little guy so they tried to figure out how to protect him from the big guy or a bunch of other little guys. Now i know i am already wrong because i am sexist because i say him and guy, but i am not so bright and cannot cope with making an adjustment all the time.

    As time went on the progressives came up with great ideas like the magna carta and later the american constitution. We progress until we reach today.

    A little guy starts a business but the business fails, bad investments, bad luck, whatever. He croaks.

    A bunch of big guys have a business but the business fails, bad investments, bad luck, whatever.

    He does NOT croak. He takes money from all the little guys to pay off debts and reinvest. The big guy beats up the little guy again.

    Now Tom, help me here. have I proved my hypowhatever? Is the world round? can i say one thousand four hundred and ninety two cheers for Christopher Columbus, my hero?

    Martin

    You can cheer Columbus at the risk of being labeled a sexist and racist for doing so.

    I always put “progressive” in quotes because I don’t think empowering government at the expense of individuals is any sort of progress.

  9. Bridget says:

    “Good intentions have nothing to do with it, as any libertarian economist would happily tell you. That’s why you’ll never see a libertarian marching in the streets and whining like a five-year-old after figuring out that corporations care more about profits (egads!) than people. We don’t expect corporations to care about people. We’re adults.”

    I totally quoted this on Facebook. This is exactly how I feel about the Occupy movement. It’s getting so ridiculous that the “Occupy Little Rock” people in my city were in the Christmas Parade today. I shudder to think what they threw out to the children.

    If the Occupy Wall Street dimwits had any clue about what led to the financial near-meltdown and the Wall Street bailouts, they’d be occupying the steps of the Capitol building.

  10. “Years later, it became public knowledge who was at the secret meeting on Jekyll Island during which the Fed was concocted. One of them (can’t remember which) fessed up in a magazine article 30 years later.”

    Frank Vanderlip. He was there on behalf of the Rockefellers and Kuhn, Loeb (international bankers). JP Morgan had Benjamin Strong from his bank, Henry Davison, Senior Partner of JP Morgan Company, and his own personal U.S. Senator Nelson Aldrich (who was also John D Rockefeller Jr’s father-in-law).

    I know all of this because I still have your new copy of “The Creature from Jekyll Island.”

    It’s a new copy because I left your old copy on the plane in Rome when we got to Italy. I’m assuming the knowledge of how corrupt central banks are must’ve then spread by osmosis as only a couple of months later Italy and the whole Euro folly is now cratering.

    My bad.

    Cheers

    I couldn’t come up with the name because you have (had) my copy of “The Creature from Jekyll Island.”

    Shame on you, creating a panic in Europe. Take better care of your books next time.

  11. RedDot says:

    Tom,

    You are kinda sorta brilliant. Thanks!

    Thank you.

  12.  
Leave a Reply