Iran sentences American man to death in CIA case
WTF?
My FB friend Steve posted this:
"Whoa! There is a former Federal Reserve Economist (David Barker) on Dylan Ratigan’s show on MSNBC (on MSNBC?!?) talking about his book called ‘Welcome to Free America’, in which he argues for an absolutely privatized system/society (roads, education, security, defense, courts, insurance, etc) that would absolutely replace every aspect of the government.
He is very well spoken and knows his stuff. He sounds like a fellow solid AnCap, perhaps of the Friedmanite (David) consequentialist type (although clearly influenced by Rothbard as well). Ratigan treated him with respect and sounded intrigued by his book and such ideas.
Very nice. Won’t be anything new for me I’m sure, but I will definitely buy/read this book regardless."
Did anyone else catch this by any chance?
-
Former Federal Reserve economist
-
On TV (MSNBC)
-
Promoting THAT
I would love to see a tube of this.
That’s insane
Although it is definitely interesting that a former Fed economist wrote this and promoted it on TV, it was not a good book imo.
I am not sure who the target audience is. It is a bad introduction, and anyone who has read anything about this subject will find nothing new or interesting. If you wanted to give someone a good and short (76 pages) introduction, I would recommend Chaos Theory by Bob Murphy.
How the hell did you get and read a copy so fast?
Hey Wesker,
I found this video: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1315263549001 .
Google does find a url for the show you mentioned ( http://www.dylanratigan.com/2012/01/09/show-guests-for-january-9-2012/ ), but when you go there it’s not there anymore.
Copy was instantly sent to my Kindle. It was only a little over 100 pages.
Thanks for finding that video, Nielsio. It is still interesting to see this being discussed in the mainstream even though I didn’t like the book.
Homeland Security monitors journalists
And somehow, I’m sure the mainstream media won’t care.
^ Just to let ya know
Thanks Heather!
get it, girl
The finance plumber “Super” Mario will think about it 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbSN42qFhxU
Prof. Dr. Mario Draghi at the IX. Ludwig-Erhard-Lecture in Berlin, Germany - 12/15/2011.
Q: I’m going to ask my question in German: My name ist Ralph Bärligea and I’m the chairman of the “Hayek Circle” at the University of Passau. We all know that the financial crisis was mainly caused by central banks due to too low interest rates - the mortgage crisis in the US but the sovereign debt crisis was caused by too low interest rates as well, by the the fact that the ECB accepted the deposition of government bonds and by granting loans to banks without demanding any equity capital as collateral. How would you as a representative of a central bank assess the idea of the abolition of the monopoly on money creation and the support of a development towards a market-based monetary system in which every investor is liable for his own decisions? When you as a lender of last resort grant loans, you are in fact also making an investment but there’s no investor who is liable for this kind of investments. In addition to that, it is questionable in my opinion that you as a central instance can possess the same amount of knowledge as many decentralized investors.
A: Let me say just one thing about the crisis: I think the monetary policy was one circumstantial additional element to creating an environment where a crisis could actually erupt as it finally eventually did. But I think that real root of the crisis has to be found in the several serious regulatory flaws in one financial jurisdiction. I think these regulatory jurisdiction flaws are not a one of event. It had been flaws, it had been created throughout several years starting more or less with 2000/2002/2003 onward until the crisis. And this environment has created a situation where you had assets which were impossible to price correctly because they were opaque. You had a weakening of the regulatory controls of all kinds - without going into too much detail. And around this you had an abundance of liquidity coming from monetary policy, but also coming from what was called the savings glut. In other words: money flowing into the capital markets from the Asian countries and other emerging market countries. And so again we had a situation which is in a sense similar to what I have described before for government bonds. We had risk premia that were not reflecting the inner riskiness of the assets. In this environment you also had excessive and misperceived leverage - that is to say: debt. In this environment of lacking transparency, very low interests rates, perverse incentives into action, you also had, you obviously had the actors raising too much debt and not even understanding how high was there debt often, because it was concealed by the very opacity of the instruments they were using to raise money. So, that’s to give a overall fair picture of the background of which the crisis had erupted.
But, the next step is to say how would be a world without central banks? I don’t know. Frankly, you see, that’s one of the things which one like me should ask. Because we tend to, sort of, work so much into our own nest that we often avoid the big questions like: How would the world be if I didn’t exist? And I promise I’ll reflect on this!
@John, why was she even asking that question? A person who would decide their vote on whether or not they were able to shake hands with a politician is a vapid loser. Good riddance, I wouldn’t want that person supporting the Paul campaign anyway.
@JJ: What are we, in grade school? Ron Paul is supposed to be Santa Claus and fly around the whole country with flying reindeer, shaking each and every prospective voter’s hand??
Clayton -