Watch the professional liar here discuss the “future of the economy” with a hack. Watch him quote the snivelling worm Greenspan. Anyone care to donate a bullet or two for the summary execution of these criminals?
-Jon
Honestly, I couldn’t watch the whole thing.
It makes me think of the principle of equilibrium. Many equations of motion have equilibrium points, where the motion of the system will come to rest or oscillate about. For example, an unexcited pendulum has a stable equilibrium point at the bottom of its arc, perturb it slightly and it will return to the equilibrium point. But it also has an unstable equilibrium point at the top of the arc. Balance a (rigid) pendulum just right, and it will stay straight up in the air. Perturb it just slightly, however, and it will fall to the stable point at the bottom of the arc. Interestingly enough, if you excite the base of the rigid pendulum (move it just right), you can create a stable equilibrium point at the top of the arc, and it is the bottom position that is unstable.
“What does that have to do with the thread?”
Well, the laws of economics are like gravity. The pendulum is the state of the economy. The excitation of the base are the government interventions in the marketplace. If the pendulum is allowed freedom (no excitation), then it will healthily stay in a position everyone can anticipate (the bottom of the arc). Little changes in the position don’t drastically affect the motion, and they don’t alter the equilibrium position one bit.
If you prop the pendulum in an unstable position (inverted), then it requires constant attention and correction to keep it there. Any little perturbation of the system demands an immediate correction (intervention), or the system will “crash” back to its stable position.
Galbreath seems to ignore the fact that denying the laws of economics is like denying gravity. Putting the economy in an unnatural state that requires constant intervention to maintain (FRB) obviously necessitates constant intervention to maintain it. In his world the correct position of the economy is its altered state (FRB at low reserve, massive government spending), and that means you need massive and constant intervention (fiat money, deposit insurance, central bank, interest rate manipulation, prevention of competition, etc.) to keep the whole mess in the “desired position”. If you think it is good to keep the economy in an unnatural position, you logically must endorse intervention.
However, if one wants stable, then you have to understand the nature of the system. Stable money is necessary. Prevention of theft or fraud is necessary. You reach a different logical conclusion about intervention.
He just needs to stop denying reality. But I am guessing that isn’t going to happen short of your solution…