ZIRP is Deflationary

23 Nov

Digital Dollars [courtesy Google Images]

Digital Dollars
[courtesy Google Images]

Most economists agree that lower interest rate will encourage American to borrow and spend and thereby stimulate the economy.  Therefore the lowest interest rate of all (Zero) would pack the most stimulating punch for the economy.

Result?  During our post-2008 economy stagnation, the Federal Reserve established a Zero Interest Rate Policy–commonly known as ZIRP.

That policy would certainly be reasonable if we still had a physical money (gold and silver) that would be effectively “trapped” in the US by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.  So long as the US dollar had physical substance, creditors’ dollars could not easily leave the US economy.  Therefore, creditor had little choice but to accept whatever interest rate was established by the gov-co.

But, today we live in the age of digital fiat currencies which have no physical substance or reality and can therefore cross oceans at the speed of light on the internet.

Result?  Currencies are no longer trapped in their domestic economies.

Result?  When today’s interest rates are lowered, the net result is not to make borrowing more attractive but rather to drive domestic credit out of the US—where interest rates are ZIRP (Zero Interest Rate Policy) and irrationally low—and into foreign markets that pay higher rates of interest.

Result? Today’s irrationally low American interest rates (ZIRP) should push currency out of the US economy, reduce the money supply available for borrowing, and tend to cause monetary deflation (falling prices; rising purchasing power of the fiat dollar) which, in turn, push the economy toward recession or depression.

Because digital dollars are is no longer trapped in a particular economy, the assumption that lowering interest rates will stimulate the economy is no longer valid—or it’s no longer as valid as it was before digital currency and the internet came to town.


•  More, I begin to suspect that interest rates may be more important than the “printing” of fiat currency.

“Helicopter Ben” and the Federal Reserve can print an additional four trillion fiat dollars to “stimulate” economy—but there won’t be much stimulation if the Fed simultaneously reduces interest rates to near zero.  No matter how much currency they print, the low interest rates will push that currency out of the US economy in search of higher interest rates.

I believe that’s why the “emerging economies” recently enjoyed two or three years of “stimulation” and impressive growth while the US economy remained stagnant.  The Fed printed an extra $4 trillion (purportedly intended to stimulate the US economy) but also lowered interest rates to near zero.  Some or all of the $4 trillion fled the US economy in search of higher interest rates, found them in emerging economies, and stimulated those foreign economies.

Implication:  In a world of fiat digital currency, the negative effects of irrationally low interest rates will be greater than the positive effects of printing trillions of more dollars.

Yes, since A.D. 2008, the Fed has printed an extra $4 trillion to stimulate the US economy.  But, because digital dollars are no longer trapped in the US economy, the Fed’s Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) pushed much of that $4 trillion out of the US and into emerging economies that paid higher interest rates.

I think the same effect would’ve taken place if the Fed had printed an extra $50 trillion in fiat dollars and simultaneously held interest rates near zero.  The primary “stimulus” of that $50 trillion would be felt in foreign countries that paid high interest rates.  Relatively little stimulus would be felt in the US economy locked own with ZIRP.

Implications:  1) Interest rates are more important to managing the money supply than the quantity of domestic currency being printed; 2) high interest rates actually increase the money supply, increase inflation, and thereby “stimulate” the economy; and 3) low interest rates (ZIRP) actually serve to drive currency out of the economy and thereby contribute to deflation, recession and perhaps even economic depression.


•  Therefore, it appears that if the government wants or needs higher rates of inflation to “stimulate” the economy, the government must raise interest rates and thereby attract currency back into the US from foreign markets and increase the domestic supply of domestic dollars available for loan in the US.

On its face, lowering the interest rates sounds like a great policy since it will encourage people to borrow currency.  In reality, ZIRP drives currency out of the country and there’s less currency remaining in the domestic money supply to be loaned.

In essence, what difference does it make if the interest rate falls to zero, if there’s no money available to be loaned?  ZIRP is about as effective as stimulating the domestic economy as is advertising that I’ll sell brand new Cadillacs for just $5,000 each (Wow! Whatta deal!)—when I don’t actually have any Cadillacs available for sale (Wow . . . whatta bummer).


•  Assuming the Fed really wants to stimulate the US economy, the Fed should soon raise interest rates, attract currency back into the US markets, and thereby increase inflation and economic “stimulus”.

Of course, if my assumption (that the Fed truly wants inflation and economic stimulation) is false, Janet Yellen won’t raise interest rates any time soon.  If so, you should fasten your lap straps because the Fed’s true object is to collapse the US economy and give us a very bumpy ride.


Tags: , , , ,

34 responses to “ZIRP is Deflationary

  1. D-Day

    November 23, 2014 at 6:40 PM

    Exactly right.

  2. Roger

    November 23, 2014 at 8:00 PM

    Those who are in-the-know (and wish to share their knowledge rather than obfuscate the topic) consistently emphasize that the Federal Reserve is merely one player in a global banking cartel. Thus actions by the Fed should be analyzed in an international, rather than only a domestic, context.

    That makes a lot of sense. For example, it explains why the Fed’s policies are inexplicable to those who consider them exclusively in terms of the domestic economy. Paradoxes and mysteries often arise from reasoning based on ignorance: like assuming the objectives of the Fed are completely confined to a domestic United States paradigm when, in fact, the banking cartel’s thinking is international in scope.

    The international banking cartel, which chartered the Federal Reserve a century ago, has relied on a strong U.S. dollar (versus other major currencies) as a mainstay of their global empire since WWII. But the recent weakening of the dollar was threatening this currency’s dominate role by making it less desirable as the principle medium of international trade, central bank reserves, etc.

    For this reason, the three main branches of the international banking cartel – i.e. the central banks of the U.S., Japan and Europe – are acting together to strengthen the dollar versus other major currencies and preserve the status quo.

    This coordination among cartel members largely consists of a bias toward higher interest rates in the U.S. and a bias toward lower interest rates everywhere else.

    The result of this coordinated action by the international banking cartel can be seen in the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY), which was around 80 for a long while and then quickly shot up to 88 where it is now.

  3. Toland

    November 23, 2014 at 9:01 PM

    Al, there’s a misstatement in your article which I am sure you’d like to correct: “…the government must raise interest rates…”

    As we know, the government does not raise or lower interest rates. Only the Federal Reserve does that.

    This “independent” control of monetary policy has always been the main selling point by which the Money Power foisted their Federal Reserve on the American people.

  4. Adask

    November 24, 2014 at 1:03 AM

    Yes, the Fed’s “independence” has been advocated and justified for years. But Greenspan recently spoke out to justify his own actions as Fed chairman by essentially saying he was “just following orders” given him by the “government”.

    My point is that just because the Fed usually claims to be independent doesn’t mean that that’s the truth. It may’ve been true once that the Fed was independent–but is that true today? If so, why does the Fed tend to provide “good” economic conditions in an election year (especially presidential elections) rather than in non-election years? Isn’t that tendency to support incumbent politicians evidence that the Fed is not “independent” and does have some duty of service to the Congress and presidency?

    Even so, you’re probably right that I should’ve chosen a word other than “government” in the statement you quoted. I should probably have written “gov-co” which I generally mean to describe the Powers That Be, the de facto government, and whatever remains of the unconsittutional union between the once constittional government and the money printers.

    Nevertheless, I did write “government” and I don’t plan to edit the article to replace that word if only because it’s unclear what “government” means any more. De facto or de jure? Constitutional? Private? Independent or conspiratorial? Representative or oppressive?

    Can we really say that the money-printing power is no longer part of the current, de facto “government”?

    • Henry

      November 24, 2014 at 2:28 AM

      Hi, Al. You wrote: “Nevertheless, I did write “government” and I don’t plan to edit the article to replace that word if only because it’s unclear what “government” means any more.”

      That’s your choice, of course. Yet I see no need to contribute to the lack of clarity you mention. Instead, why not clarify matters through precise use of language?

      When most people read the word “government”, they think of the de jure institutions by which the people of the United States govern themselves. Maybe the de facto criminal mafia we allowed to take over departs from this definition in practice, but the Federal Reserve doesn’t even pretend to be part of the government. It was chartered as a private corporation in early 1914 and remains one today.

      You could say, and the accusation is often made, that Monsanto, another private corporation like the Fed, also colludes with bad actors in government such that the line between “government” and “corporation” is blurred. But shall we cooperate in this blurring by describing what Monsanto does as actions by the government?

      Rep. Lewis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, 1932:

      “We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks…. Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States government institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers.… The Federal Reserve Banks are the agents of the foreign central banks…. Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its powers, but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government. It controls everything here and controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will…. When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here…. A super-state controlled by international bankers and industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government.”

      • Roger

        November 24, 2014 at 2:52 AM

        “It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold. Interest is the invention of Satan.

        — Thomas Edison, 1921


        “The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make cat’s-paws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business.”

        — John Hylan, Mayor of New York City, 1922


        “The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds’ central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups.”

        — Carroll Quigley, “Tragedy and Hope”, 1966

      • Adask

        November 24, 2014 at 3:54 AM

        If you’d read my article on reading as an act of guessing ( you might realize that there may be no “precise use of language” in writing.

        Second, I don’t expect to live long enough to enter into every nit-picking debate as whichever word I chose to use was sufficiently precise.

        Do you think you comprehended to fundamental idea I tried to express in the ZIRP is Deflationary article? If so, why do you suppose other readers are less able to comprehend than you? Do you think I have some obligation to explain my notions with such precision that 8th grade students can comprehend them.

        I hate to break it to you, but reading requires not only me to make an effort to communicate with some precision, but also each reader’s correlative obligation to make some effort to understand. If my writing is too hard for you to comprehend, perhaps you shouldn’t to read that which you lack sufficient intelligence or worth ethic to comprehend. Perhaps you should start with the MainStreamNews and when those article are sufficiently clear to you, you might move up to a high school text on history or some such.

        If you did comprehend the fundamental idea I was trying to communicate about ZIRP, why do you waste you time and mine complaining about my “imprecise use of language”? Could it be that you feel more comfortable providing criticism than insight?

        As you correctly observed, the language I use is my choice. I chose. If the choice offends or disappoints you, sorry ’bout that.

  5. Toland

    November 24, 2014 at 4:54 AM

    Adask wrote > “Nevertheless, I did write “government” and I don’t plan to edit the article to replace that word if only because it’s unclear what “government” means any more.”

    Very well, Al. The unclear meaning of “government” is definitely a problem. That’s true enough. But is referring to the Federal Reserve as the “government”, without mentioning the highly controversial nature of conflating these two entities, part of the solution to this problem?

    Perhaps, in order to have a serious discussion about the Fed, there are basic facts of which everyone should be aware – for example, that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation in which the US government is not a shareholder, etc.

    • Roger

      November 24, 2014 at 6:02 AM

      Conflating the Federal Reserve and the government is not merely “controversial”, it’s technically incorrect in several respects, including from the legal perspective. But so what?

      The First Amendment protects technically incorrect speech too. Why are you so stringent on this point, anyway? Do you have a disability or something?

      Maybe Al is employing poetic license in his treatment of the Federal Reserve. Did you stop to consider that? Go back and reread the article in a voice of lyrical poesy, if you have it in you. If not, you’re clearly not up to the subject matter, so get lost.

      • Toland

        November 24, 2014 at 2:37 PM

        How long until Edoms pops in and makes the usual “vague innuendo” claims about the discussion we’re having?


        November 24, 2014 at 3:16 PM



        Why no repose to the proof of your girl friends true identity TROLL? You are much a “FOOL”.
        Try being a MAN!


        November 23, 2014 at 6:56 PM

        “Standing Firm” https:*//

        …” J.M.

        March 26, 2014 at 3:42 AM

        “Nothing in this world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more commonplace than unsuccessful men with talent. Genuis will not; unrewarded genuis is almost a proverb. Education alone will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.

        March 24, 2014 at 9:34 PM, your message in pertinent part, you say, on this thread,

        WELL, that is in my honest EDUCATED opinion”….

        THAT “FOOL” made a big deal out of that truthful comment>>>

        On the same thread >>>

        March 25, 2014 at 2:42 AM


        This was FINALLY the beginning of the end for “Les Fuchs” J.M. etc.

        NOW lets try to keep up with the FACTS and the TRUTH! This is from your girl friend “Les Fuchs” at BMANS REVOLT just days ago on November 17 >>>


        Phil Lings says:
        November 17, 2014 at 3:18 pm

        Anthony, E.T. is not here to click on links. E.T. is here to give links for US to click on. In a message from E.T. on the Adask Law Blog, E.T. explained his position on a matter & then added, “This IS my HIGHLY EDUCATED OPINION.”
        I don’t believe ANYBODY who IS highly educated, that understands what humility means, would say that,i.e, THIS IS MY HIGHLY EDUCATED OPINION”…. >>>

        THAT “FOOL” made a big deal out of that truthful comment of mine and has revealed that he is “Les Fuchs” J.M. etc. AND if you care about FACTS and truth you will see there, that I said “In My Honest Educated Opinion”

        On that thread from March 26, 2014 at 3:42 AM here at ADASKS site HENRY said this >>>>
        I’m just pointing out what JM says JM is.

        > “I usually don’t feed the trolls but I was hoping that he would be removed after ALL of this attention to the FACT that he is a TROLL!” (That was what E.T. said he quoted me)

        (Henry then said) It’s odd how this hope, shared by many, has been in vain, especially since Les Fuchs has been removed so many times before and has now so obviously reappeared as JM.
        Maybe something’s up on the DL. <<<

        HENRY was expressing his opinion that we AGREED!

        AS we there there and BMANS he says "in pertinent part" I have only seen that TROLL say that!

        So What do you look like NOW TOLAND?
        Your Girl Friend has not denied that he is Les Fuchs one time!

        I am not stupid and I saw him for who he is after reading just three of his comments!

        You have been SHOWN, so lets stop with your childish Bull SHH…..

      • Henry

        November 24, 2014 at 5:00 PM

        Edoms, since you have succeeded in alienating your potential allies, you’re on your own dealing with Les Fuchs until you descend back to earth and patch things up.

        Also, if past performance is a guide, don’t expect intervention from anyone who’d flatter and recruit a troll to drive out the Thorn in their side. Les Fuchs has proven quite effective in keeping you off your game.

  6. Adask

    November 24, 2014 at 7:00 AM

    In the 1990s, I began to understand that communication is a very strange, almost mystical, phenomenon.

    When we speak face to face with other people, we are constantly searching for feedback to tell us if the listener understands/agrees with the statements we’re making. We watch to see if their eyes roll, look away or glaze over to signal that they don’t understand and/or don’t care about whatever we’re saying. We watch their body language and whether they are nodding or even grunting their agreement. If any of the listeners conduct suggests they don’t understand/agree or care, if we’re smart we’ll either stop talking or switch to another subject that the listener might find interesting.

    Even on the telephone, where we can’t see (and read) the listener’s face, we can hear the listener’s periodic grunts of approval and faint “uh-huhs”. So long as we get that constant feedback from our “audience,” we can proceed to speak with confidence.

    But when you write, an entirely different form of communication takes place. The writer faces the almost incredible challenge of learning to write without any feedback. Yes, the writer might receive feedback (like these Comments) after he’s written his book or article. But while writing is actually taking place, the writer receives no feedback. As a result the writer must learn how to write for and “audience” that he cannot see, hear, or even remember on a personal basis.

    It was even worse over a three or four year period when I performed one-hour monologues on radio shows. You go ahead and try to talk ourt loud in a way that makes sense and is logically ordered for just five minutes–but without any feedback from any audience–and you’ll soon start to wonder if you’re making any sense at all. Try to do it for an hour, and you’ll wonder if you’ve lost your mind.

    It’s almost like speaking in tongues. You can’t really know if you are writing in a way that others will correctly understand or if you’re making so much gibberish that your prose is almost incomprehensible.

    Every time that people seem to understand whatever it is I’ve written, I experience a sense of wonder. I don’t know what I did to make them “understand”. I kind of “write and hope” that somebody will understand.

    But in the process of writing I am constantly choosing particular words based on the kind of audience I hope to reach–that I hope will “understand”. There is no one writing formula that appeals to all readers. I could write some texts with a “formula” that 2nd graders could like and understand. I could write another text that 8th graders would like and understand, and a third text that college graduates would like and understand. But I couldn’t write in a single writing “formula” that would appeal equally to 2nd, graders, 8th graders and college grads.

    In the end, I write for an audience that I imagine to be interested in ideas that are insightful or at least thought-provoking in a writing style that is sufficiently precise and logical as to be fairly easy to follow but also so colloquial that it feels fairly comfortable to the reader, and not so arrogant or egotistical as to lose any more readers than necessary.

    The “range” of my writing is constantly changing. The particular “range” of writing formula for every article I write gains a few readers. That same shifting style always loses a few reader.

    I would much prefer that I be judged based on the substance of my writing than my style, but the truth is that I am always judges on both.

    Writers don’t get immediate feedback while they write–except maybe from themselves. We try to communicate with people we can’t see or hear–people we don’t even know and can only barely imagine.

    I doubt that many people can grasp or even suspect the mystery that’s inherent in successfully communicating in writing. But I sense that mystery every time I start to write. That mystery lies close to the heart of my notion that successful written communication borders on something “mystical”.

    • Anthony Clifton

      November 24, 2014 at 11:01 AM

      How’d you like to be Nominated to be Secretary of Defense for these United States
      & er um Israel…?

      since you almost had some VIETNAM experience you just might be eligible…
      since you now have the ability to write what is legible..
      and readable..mostly, staying away from the “J” word

      anyway, there probably are numerous House and Senate members that
      would gladly second your nomination just to see the Show…

      on C-SPAN.


    • henry

      November 24, 2014 at 2:37 PM

      Each of us has a cloud of ideas in our mind. Each idea is part of a complex structure that is based on our direct experience, the success and failures of others, ideas that have been acquired from other sources that are deemed to be true, and ideas that the individual generates. It is difficult to organize one’s thoughts so that others can fit them into the conceptual structure in their mind.

      There are several distinct forms of communication — dialog, monolog, lecture, and debate.

      A monolog is one person talking where that person does not want feedback. Socialists specialize on monologs. They know that they are smarter than the audience. They don’t want to hear conflicting facts and/or ideas. Newspapers, television and websites without comment sections are the medium of the monolog.

      A dialog has two, or more, parties who are exchanging ideas. The dialog starts with one party proposing a few ideas and the reasons why they hold the ideas. Other parties then ask for them to clarify the ideas and then propose alternatives. Talk radio, websites with comments are two methods that support dialogs between people who have never met.

      A lecture is where one person organizes his/her thoughts on a subject then communicates these ideas to an audience. They want feedback that comes when the audience is tested to see if they have comprehended the thoughts of the lecture.

      A debate is an intellectual sport where each participant organizes his thoughts into a fortress. They take turns repairing damage caused by others and trying to create the most damage to others by shooting ideological cannon balls at other fortresses. This kind of debate is fundamentally dishonest. If you show the weakness of your structure then others will target it. There is usually a moderator who will keep the debate moving. The experts then help the audience evaluate who won. The debate creates more heat than light.

      This site promotes dialog. Al is able to organize his thoughts similar to a lecture but follows up with a dialog. The average man would not be interested in this site because they have been cowed into a state of ignorance and/or apathy. If you wanted to expand the audience, put pictures of Kardachian’s butt on every post. Otherwise, accept the smaller audience of people who can participate in a dialog.

    • Catherine Baldwin

      November 27, 2014 at 1:47 AM

      Dear Mr. Adask, I really like your writing, sometimes love your writing, and speaking. This writing is especially good. I know you are a student of the Bible. There is a mystical element in everything actually.Thank you for your insight and old fashioned courageous manner, quite wonderful.

      • Adask

        November 27, 2014 at 4:03 AM

        Thanks very much for your compliments.

        Thanks even more for reading and considering my articles.


    November 24, 2014 at 7:21 PM



    What did I do but defend my self? I still have not received Rogers clarification of his comments (s). I reached out to him, and have yet to hear from him. I do not lie. Roger has said much the same thing three times! HE has yet to address my concerns!

    WHY do I have to repeat what I have said? I made my self very clear! Others are using this to ridicule and attack me while ignoring the facts that I presented!

    It is nothing new for me to have to STAND in the truth by my self. That is what much of the problem is in the world. Many KNOW the truth, but will not STAND in it!
    IS the TRUTH something that we defend only upon some “CONDITION”? I need to “patch thing up”? before you stand in the truth? Never would have thought to hear that from you Henry!

    • Henry

      November 24, 2014 at 8:57 PM

      Edoms, I really have no idea what you’re talking about. I suggest you drop the self-importance routine long enough to understand that I’m trying to help here. Would an apology from Roger put an end to the drama? If so, I’m sure I can get him to apologize for whatever. As of now, he’s probably not reading your comments and therefore doesn’t know you have been offended – let’s go with that as a working assumption. What is your answer?


        November 24, 2014 at 9:48 PM




        You said that You have “no idea what” I am talking about, yet you inject yourself in the “MIX”! You sound like a “silly woman”.

        I want no “apology”! Why do you think I want one?
        AS a MAN I speak what I have to say leaving no doubt what about I mean, or WHO I am talking about! Do I offend you?

        THE “drama” has been instigated , NOT by Roger, but by “FOOLS” that have SMELLED BLOOD, and and do not care about the FACTS!

        Henry says “I am sure I can get him to apologize” … REALLY Henry?

        Your friend Les Fuchs also tried to SPEAK for Roger! WHAT the “FUCHS” is up with you people?
        A bunch of brain dead GOYIM offended by the TRUTH? Seeking to destroy the truth with your weak ass attempts to defend what I saw as a lame, backstabbing attack, by a COWARD that does not have the courage to defend his own comments? I speak plain English and that is frowned upon by those that have PRIDE issues!

        What a terrible display! Busy bodies and gossipers are abundant here! Where are the MEN? MEN that will stand up for truth?

      • Henry

        November 24, 2014 at 10:45 PM

        Edoms, you say the word “truth” a lot, but you don’t have the appearance of someone who tells the truth. For one thing, those whose business is the truth never self-inflate to the size of the Goodyear blimp, waiting for an inadvertent prick to let loose a hurricane of resentful hot air.

        Secondly, those whose real aim is to spread the truth try to minimize the distraction of inter-personal drama. You, on the other hand, appear to seek out such conflicts and aggravate them when they already exist. Speaking of which, here’s a rule of thumb: Changing the subject to personal characterization is the favorite recourse of a liar whose been caught with a logically weak argument. Look around.

        And no, I’m not calling you a liar, Edoms. You’re just an incoherent mess. Good luck with your issues.


        November 25, 2014 at 1:55 PM



        Henry is correct Roger. What we say is of no “consequence”. Hiding from what we say is manly and VERY Christ like! So what if you call people with an “agenda” John 8:44 DEMONS. Three times I have seen you do that. And we know who you meant, or you would have explained it to me.

        And Henry called me a liar but not really. Right Henry! I tell you I am only defending myself, and the proof of that is here to see. But you don’t care. You continue your little Drama ignoring that fact.

        What “logically weak argument” are you talking about? Or is that just more CRAP?

        RIDICULE and SLANDER! The TOOLS of those with out an ARGUMENT!

        Thanks a lot Henry! I did not intend to offend you! But plain speech does that to some people!

      • Roger

        November 24, 2014 at 11:07 PM

        Apologize for what, Henry? Explain please.

      • Henry

        November 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM

        Never mind, Roger. It was nothing of consequence.


    November 24, 2014 at 7:22 PM

    Samuel Clemens …”It is easier to deceive someone than it is to convince them they have been deceived”… Samuel Clemens
    Does pride have anything to do with that? How about willing ignorance?

    I too should ‘listen’ to God! As we see, Gods word is true, and to go against His word is futile!

    …”Hosea 4:4 Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: for thy people are as they that strive with the priest”… GOD
    …”YES, the “Priest” can not be argued with. Nor can the SHEEPLE that have been deceived by the ‘Priest’. God does not over look willful ignorance! HE punishes the willing ignorant”… EDOMS THORN
    …”Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children”… God
    …”God does not condemn the willing ignorant to ‘Hell’, but the willing ignorant do condemn those that ‘strive’ with them”… EDOMS THORN
    …”Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect”… Samuel Clemens
    …”II Cor. 10:12 “For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.”… The Apostle Paul
    …”Think for yourself”… EDOMS THORN
    Hosea 4:7 As they were increased, so they sinned against me: therefore will I change their glory into shame”… God
    2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears”… The Apostle Paul
    …”Most of the Glory of the believer will be found in ‘Heaven’, also our rewards”… EDOMS THORN

    …”My words but a whisper your deafness a shout! I can make you feel but I can’t make you think”… Jethro Tull and EDOMS THORN resembles that remark.
    Thick As A Brick

  9. Cody

    December 2, 2014 at 11:43 PM

    The Federal Reserve has a .gov web address. Does that have any bearing or present any evidence as to whether or not the FRB is a gubmint institution?

    • Cody

      December 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM

      “As they carry out their duties, members of the Board routinely confer with officials of other government agencies, representatives of banking industry groups, officials of the central banks of other countries, members of Congress and academicians.”

      • Cody

        December 3, 2014 at 12:16 AM

        This is a free pdf that the Fed uses to explain itself. There may be a nugget of truth or two to check out inside.

      • Adask

        December 3, 2014 at 11:54 AM

        Nice find.

        It will be the basis of an article that I’ll probably finish and publish today, tomorrow at the latest.


  10. Toland

    December 3, 2014 at 12:56 AM

    The U.S. government owes the Federal Reserve nearly $3 billion, on which debt the U.S. government pays interest.

    Does someone want to claim this is a debt the U.S. government owes itself? Is the U.S. government sending regular interest payments to itself?

    • Toland

      December 3, 2014 at 1:04 AM

      Make that nearly $3 trillion.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s