Reynolds has a blind spot, and as a result promotes a myth.
Read more ...
One of the persistent themes accepted unquestioningly by the media is the necessity—and independence—of the Fed. Neither is true, of course, as this article points out.
If anyone is ever in doubt about the power of the big banks, this article ought to disabuse of such doubts.
The international banks are so corrupt that no one can believe a word they say. In fact, it would probably work well to bet against any declarations. On Friday CEO Grubel said he had the full support of the board. Saturday he was gone. Just part of the public cleansing so necessary to keep UBS’s public image clean and shiny.
It’s getting harder and harder to write about this guy since he has nothing to say and takes forever to say it. As another writer wryly remarked, the Fed has only two things to sell: money and blarney. I’m amazed that so many people seem to keep buying!
Some things are highly predictable in an unpredictable world. One of them is that government interference in the lives of people will have unintended consequences—often hurting the very people government is trying to protect or reward. Justice is a natural law, and won’t be repealed…just delayed.
This whole scenario illustrates, once again, the amazing and audacious corruption of the big banks, and their complete surrender to pragmatism and self-interest. The fact that only one state’s Attorney General has objected is disheartening, but on the other hand, all it takes is one to spoil their party.
This article was such fun to write. There was so much that could be said about Bank of America – way more about their deceitful behavior and shenanigans in the mortgage market. Suffice to say, the analyst hit awfully close to the mark when measured simply by the response of the bank. And I loved being able to use Hans Christian Anderson’s story at the end. That was perfect!
It’s easy to laugh at the attempts of mainstream economists to see green shoots where none exist (or have faded away). It’s harder instead to find something positive to say, but I found it. In a perverse sort of way: the worse the economy gets the better the chances that Obama will be a one-termer.
This is a perfect example of controlling the conversation so that the real issues can be avoided. Instead of talking about how to arrange the tax code, the conversation should be about cuts in government spending. That’s the best way to reduce taxes, not just rearranging how they are paid.