The interesting part of the New Yorker article was the point that before the Fed was created, the elites had to self-fund bailouts to prevent the hoi polloi from rioting outside their Park Avenue penthouses. Post-Fed, the elites no longer had this “noblesse oblige” arrangement, creating another layer of remove from the general population while also preserving their wealth from costly bailouts. Not sure if entirely historically accurate.. but interesting. And reason #247 to end the Fed.
Whenever I drive past a big landscape project or roofers at work, I have half a mind (I only have half a mind anyway) to pull over jump out and yell ICE! Nobody move! How many would run or stay in place because they don’t understand English. Then I remember I’m not Johnny Knoxville. Or Bam
“Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism” sounds an awful lot like fascism or communism, probably more a hybrid of both.
The best we can hope for at this point is a controlled collapse of the bankster cabal. If it is happening, we won't really know until it is over. I don't see them succeeding with a CDBC scam, at least not in the US. There are too many people aware of just how wrong such a system is. Of course, they will try.
Several months ago a friend gave me a challenge - try and find a bill with Janet Yellen's signature on it. I can't. Lots of Steve Mnuchin and Jack Lew but no Yellen. Why? Try and find one!
Open borders are simply a response to Trump. Trump ran on the platform of building a wall, then our response to that is opening the border. Trump was tough on Iran, so we'll throw money at them and eliminate sanctions. Trump put the Houthi rebels on a terrorist list, so we'll take them off (until we need to put them back on). It's a pretty long list opposite responses, and it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not.
Back to the market, didn't you have a chart a couple of articles back that indicated there is often a decline in the market after rate cuts start? And I thought cuts were typically a response to a slowing / worsening economy, as opposed to causing a worse economy? I get that lower rates increase the money supply, but given past history it doesn't seem very wise to be betting on the market once rate cuts start. What am I missing?
Nvidia OMG
It's up about $35 since I made that chart
The interesting part of the New Yorker article was the point that before the Fed was created, the elites had to self-fund bailouts to prevent the hoi polloi from rioting outside their Park Avenue penthouses. Post-Fed, the elites no longer had this “noblesse oblige” arrangement, creating another layer of remove from the general population while also preserving their wealth from costly bailouts. Not sure if entirely historically accurate.. but interesting. And reason #247 to end the Fed.
I'm reminded of a Jim Grant piece on the banks https://twitter.com/RudyHavenstein/status/750408001933021184
I think removing all explicit or implicit bailout protections, plus actual enforcement of the criminal code, would get the job done.
Whenever I drive past a big landscape project or roofers at work, I have half a mind (I only have half a mind anyway) to pull over jump out and yell ICE! Nobody move! How many would run or stay in place because they don’t understand English. Then I remember I’m not Johnny Knoxville. Or Bam
“Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism” sounds an awful lot like fascism or communism, probably more a hybrid of both.
The best we can hope for at this point is a controlled collapse of the bankster cabal. If it is happening, we won't really know until it is over. I don't see them succeeding with a CDBC scam, at least not in the US. There are too many people aware of just how wrong such a system is. Of course, they will try.
Several months ago a friend gave me a challenge - try and find a bill with Janet Yellen's signature on it. I can't. Lots of Steve Mnuchin and Jack Lew but no Yellen. Why? Try and find one!
I haven't paid any attention. I'll keep an eye out.
Great stuff!
Thank you!
Open borders are simply a response to Trump. Trump ran on the platform of building a wall, then our response to that is opening the border. Trump was tough on Iran, so we'll throw money at them and eliminate sanctions. Trump put the Houthi rebels on a terrorist list, so we'll take them off (until we need to put them back on). It's a pretty long list opposite responses, and it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not.
Back to the market, didn't you have a chart a couple of articles back that indicated there is often a decline in the market after rate cuts start? And I thought cuts were typically a response to a slowing / worsening economy, as opposed to causing a worse economy? I get that lower rates increase the money supply, but given past history it doesn't seem very wise to be betting on the market once rate cuts start. What am I missing?
I like your anti-Trump theory.
https://twitter.com/RudyHavenstein/status/969660326990954496
Your cause/effect question is interesting. I'd see the rate cuts as more an effect. The two-year is heading down already for what it's worth.
My rate cut post was here
https://rudy.substack.com/p/rate-cut-cycles-pivoting-prices-lower