In this edition of the show Max interviews Ed Harrison from CreditWritedowns.com
Saturday, March 31, 2012
On the edge with Max Keiser and Ed Harrison
PressTVGlobalNews
on Mar 31, 2012
In this edition of the show Max interviews Ed Harrison from CreditWritedowns.com
In this edition of the show Max interviews Ed Harrison from CreditWritedowns.com
Piece Of My Mind
By Jim Grant
My friends and neighbors, I thank you for this opportunity. You know, we are friends and neighbors. Grant’s makes its offices on Wall Street, overlooking Broadway, a 10-minute stroll from your imposing headquarters. For a spectacular vantage point on the next ticker-tape parade up Broadway, please drop by. We’ll have the windows washed.
You say you would like to hear my complaints, and, on the one hand, I do have a few, while on the other, I can’t help but feel slightly hypocritical in dressing you down. What passes for sound doctrine in 21st-century central banking—so-called financial repression, interest-rate manipulation, stock-price levitation and money printing under the frosted-glass term “quantitative easing”—presents us at Grant’s with a nearly endless supply of good copy. Our symbiotic relationship with the Fed resembles that of Fox News with the Obama administration, or—in an earlier era—that of the Chicago Tribune with the Purple Gang. Grant’s needs the Fed even if the Fed doesn’t need Grant’s.
In the not quite 100 years since the founding of your institution, America has exchanged central banking for a kind of central planning and the gold standard for what I will call the Ph.D. standard. I regret the changes and will propose reforms, or, I suppose, re-reforms, as my program is very much in accord with that of the founders of this institution. Have you ever read the Federal Reserve Act? The authorizing legislation projected a body “to provide for the establishment of the Federal Reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper and to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes.” By now can we identify the operative phrase? Of course: “for other purposes.”
You are lucky, if I may say so, that I’m the one who’s standing here and not the ghost of Sen. Carter Glass. One hesitates to speak for the dead, but I am reasonably sure that the Virginia Democrat, who regarded himself as the father of the Fed, would skewer you. He had an abhorrence of paper money and government debt. He didn’t like Wall Street, either, and I’m going to guess that he wouldn’t much care for the Fed raising up stock prices under the theory of the “portfolio balance channel.”
It enflamed him that during congressional debate over the Federal Reserve Act, Elihu Root, Republican senator from New York, impugned the anticipated Federal Reserve notes as “fiat” currency. Fiat, indeed! Glass snorted. The nation was on the gold standard. It would remain on the gold standard, Glass had no reason to doubt. The projected notes of the Federal Reserve would—of course—be convertible into gold on demand at the fixed statutory rate of $20.67 per ounce. But more stood behind the notes than gold. They would be collateralized, as well, by sound commercial assets, by the issuing member bank and—a point to which I will return— by the so-called double liability of the issuing bank’s stockholders.
My friends and neighbors, I thank you for this opportunity. You know, we are friends and neighbors. Grant’s makes its offices on Wall Street, overlooking Broadway, a 10-minute stroll from your imposing headquarters. For a spectacular vantage point on the next ticker-tape parade up Broadway, please drop by. We’ll have the windows washed.
You say you would like to hear my complaints, and, on the one hand, I do have a few, while on the other, I can’t help but feel slightly hypocritical in dressing you down. What passes for sound doctrine in 21st-century central banking—so-called financial repression, interest-rate manipulation, stock-price levitation and money printing under the frosted-glass term “quantitative easing”—presents us at Grant’s with a nearly endless supply of good copy. Our symbiotic relationship with the Fed resembles that of Fox News with the Obama administration, or—in an earlier era—that of the Chicago Tribune with the Purple Gang. Grant’s needs the Fed even if the Fed doesn’t need Grant’s.
In the not quite 100 years since the founding of your institution, America has exchanged central banking for a kind of central planning and the gold standard for what I will call the Ph.D. standard. I regret the changes and will propose reforms, or, I suppose, re-reforms, as my program is very much in accord with that of the founders of this institution. Have you ever read the Federal Reserve Act? The authorizing legislation projected a body “to provide for the establishment of the Federal Reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper and to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes.” By now can we identify the operative phrase? Of course: “for other purposes.”
You are lucky, if I may say so, that I’m the one who’s standing here and not the ghost of Sen. Carter Glass. One hesitates to speak for the dead, but I am reasonably sure that the Virginia Democrat, who regarded himself as the father of the Fed, would skewer you. He had an abhorrence of paper money and government debt. He didn’t like Wall Street, either, and I’m going to guess that he wouldn’t much care for the Fed raising up stock prices under the theory of the “portfolio balance channel.”
It enflamed him that during congressional debate over the Federal Reserve Act, Elihu Root, Republican senator from New York, impugned the anticipated Federal Reserve notes as “fiat” currency. Fiat, indeed! Glass snorted. The nation was on the gold standard. It would remain on the gold standard, Glass had no reason to doubt. The projected notes of the Federal Reserve would—of course—be convertible into gold on demand at the fixed statutory rate of $20.67 per ounce. But more stood behind the notes than gold. They would be collateralized, as well, by sound commercial assets, by the issuing member bank and—a point to which I will return— by the so-called double liability of the issuing bank’s stockholders.
Nigel Farage on kicking the can
George Galloway wins Bradford West byelection
Original source
George Galloway, the leading figure in Respect, has grabbed a remarkable victory in the Bradford West by-election, claiming that "By the grace of God, we have won the most sensational victory in British political history".
It appeared that the seat's Muslim community had decamped from Labour en masse to Galloway's call for an immediate British troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and a fightback against the job crisis.
On a turnout of 50.78%, Labour's shell shocked candidate Imran Hussain was crushed by a 36.59% swing from Labour to Respect that saw Galloway take the seat with a majority of 10,140.
Labour had held the seat in 2010 with a majority of 5,763. It marks an extraordinary personal and political comeback for the controversial politician who lost in the UK general election in 2010, and in the Scottish parliament in 2011, appearing to confirm that the remainder of his career would lie in broadcasting and celebrity programmes.
It is also a bitter blow to Ed Miliband, who failed to capitalise on the suddenly plummeting support for the coalition, and did not see the threat posed by Galloway until too late. Read more
George's most recent appearance on this blog.
NDAA - The death of individual liberties
RTAmerica
on Mar 30, 2012
A group of journalists and activists made a statement at a court in New York against the National Defense Authorization Act. The group has filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration and are determined to overturn NDAA. The bill allows the US military to legally detain suspected terrorists indefinitely and without charge or trial - that includes American citizens. This also means that journalists covering terror threats and interviewing terrorists fall under the umbrella. Raha Wala, an attorney with the law and security programm at Human Rights First talks to RT's Kristine Frazao about some legal implications of the bill.
A group of journalists and activists made a statement at a court in New York against the National Defense Authorization Act. The group has filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration and are determined to overturn NDAA. The bill allows the US military to legally detain suspected terrorists indefinitely and without charge or trial - that includes American citizens. This also means that journalists covering terror threats and interviewing terrorists fall under the umbrella. Raha Wala, an attorney with the law and security programm at Human Rights First talks to RT's Kristine Frazao about some legal implications of the bill.
'Want gas? Stop wars! UK fuel panic orchestrated by NWO'
RussiaToday
on Mar 29, 2012
There is panic at the petrol pumps in Britain, ahead of a possible tanker driver strike. Some stations have already run dry after a government minister suggested people should fill their tanks and stock up with fuel cans. RT discusses the topic with political analyst Peter Eyre who's in Birmingham in the UK.
There is panic at the petrol pumps in Britain, ahead of a possible tanker driver strike. Some stations have already run dry after a government minister suggested people should fill their tanks and stock up with fuel cans. RT discusses the topic with political analyst Peter Eyre who's in Birmingham in the UK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)