How The Federal Reserve Is Purposely Attacking Savers

Chris,
You have grown in your thinking (by way of meticulous research) to accept the fact that the game is rigged and the wealthy and powerful elite really do run the show.  Bravo!   Now, what to do? 

Great article Chris, as always. Like so many, I feel that I'm under financial attack. Being prudent and frugal are being punished by inflation. Being profligate and immoral are being rewarded. This is injustice on a giant scale. It is exponential in nature and will peak eventually. What this looks like on the other side of the peak is anyones guess but history provides a guide to the many directions it may go. Examples include, the French revolution, the ascent of Nazi Germany and the Russian revolution. If the elite wants to maintain the status quo, then they have no choice but to keep on printing at an accelerating rate. This will lead to to something that history tells us will probably be very unpleasant. The only questions are when and what will transpire after the peak of financial injustice.

Hi!, Patrons Of Peak Prosperity Et Al:
     Mr. Martenson:  Yes, we are under attack by financial repression that leads to many other too many to mention monetary effects that repress jobs creation known as unemployment and the statistics of which as measured by ShadowStats.com are greatly fudged downwards but this doesn't stop news letter writers nor the major media commentators from using those fudged figures within their essays does it, in order to downplay the realities harming OUR citizens capabilities towards making an honest living etc.  If you or your readers are unaware of The American Institute For Economic Research in Great Barrington, Mass. (888)528-1216, contacting them could perhaps add to one's learning curves on the subjects you have covered quite thoroughly except for OUR differences regards the true meaning of Democracy vs. a Republic form of government.  When we say OUR pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America we do not say do we "and for the Democracy for which it stands" but instead we say "and for the Republic for which it stands" do we not?  Anyone interested in pursuing information from the American Institute For Economic Research by calling their toll free telephone number, might ask about their publications (it's been awhile back sense they have resent me these articles and so their present offer of this information is not known) (1): Fungus On A Muck Heap which covers most of the issues you bring up in your article here today etc.; (2): Stand Still Little Lambs To Be Shorn covering the effects of inflation we have to live through; (3): How Do We Know We Know Anything?  Once you contact this non profit, educational organization, they will help contribute much more to your awareness regards present economic events with many statistical charts demonstrating in which direction they see OUR economy heading measured by either expanding or contracting graphs.  The price for receiving their online monthly reports is very light on your pocket book plus you have a choice to receive their Research Reports plus an Investment Guide helping you steer your coarse towards Peak Prosperity based upon your individual finances.  My deceased mentor from Holland helped me entertain my initiation into receiving their publications many years ago.

     Perhaps it would be helpful to some of you who read these posts to understand that in the New Testament Jesus constantly upbraided those hearing Him using the worlds "Because of your hardness of heart etc." which is to say His listeners would not or made no attempts to find the inner resolves to change their complicated normal biases such as the Sadducees who would not change their attitude that there is no resurrection from the dead and even though Jesus took measures to assure them (and US) there is; when He raised His friend Lazarus and restored Lazarus to his sisters Martha and Mary in St. John; Chapter 11.  Are we to think that OUR government and the FED. upon whom OUR government relies for its' spending habits will repent of their dependency upon one another for monetary survival or instead alternatively take down the whole society with them?  In Article 1; Section 10 of OUR US Constitution it calls for we the people to have only gold and silver coins as OUR everyday spending money with no paper money allowed doesn't it?  Had we the people and OUR government abided by this Constitutional edict, no way would there have been a Federal Reserve System that deals only in paper money, digital (so called) money and ATM money etc. Neither could there have existed the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 establishing the US $ as the world's hedge money based upon the US $ being redeemable in gold, because the gold in Fort Knox etc. would be in the pockets of we the people where we can keep track of it from one generation to another. The government, being restricted regards how much money it could spend by Natural Law, due to the small amount of gold and silver it could spend from receipts annually, could have NEVER achieved almost an 18 trillion $ deficit based exclusively upon spending gold and silver only.  The myth has been floated therefore that, based upon the limited gold and silver available for such a use, this monetary restriction would starve the world for liquidity but up until President Nixon closed OUR US Gold Window August 15, 1971, the US $ was supposedly backed by gold was it not and the world had plenty of liquidity upon which to make both national (domestic) and international (foreign) transactions.  Now that we have lost OUR we the people grass roots protection of the Constitution and we the people bear the consequences of their (government and FED.) inflation, we are malcontent and venting using many words which do nothing to alleviate the true nature of OUR monetary problems except but for feeding the malcontent of others like ourselves. We are now continuously required to live year by year servicing OUR inflationary or even deflationary entrapment. My mentor had me study Fiat Money Inflaton In France by Andrew Dixon White who was the co-founder of Cornell University.  White's essay covers how the inflation originated, what the inflation brought to the people of France (including the French Revolution and its' reign of terror etc.) and how it ended when Napoleon demanded the French Ministry pay their troops in gold coin rather than their depreciating paper money that robbed the troops of buying power whenever they could try and spend their service pay in the commercial centers plus the printing press plates were smashed in a town square in the center of Paris and those doing the printing of the depreciating paper money were finally hung from light posts.  That's when finally France commanded enough gold in her treasury to keep her finances on the straight and narrow road to prosperity but as we all know only for a certain amount of time.

     Mr. Martenson, a Democracy is rule by the majority vote; while in a Republic individuals make up their own rules on their own property, because they are the owners of the land upon which they pay taxes and remain the kings of their own castles.  Yes, in a Republic there can be public debates with rebuttals but NEVER have one's personal opinions over ridden by the masses voting against one's own personal ideals for their way of life which is totally private unto themselves and their families. If you for example you want to have an American flag waving in the breeze at your place, by majority vote the masses can not vote against and eliminate your decision on your property which is private. This is not to say we should eliminate the proper decisions made possible by common sense but that we are avowed to protect one's private, common sense from others' potential negative biases etc. from impinging upon OUR privacy. How would any of us feel for example if we lived in a community highly populated with modern day Saducees who voted we must be a member of their beliefs in total agreement of pack up and leave town?  How would that set in but in a Republic that could NEVER be given a chance to happen.  This could get into the many realms of psycho political operatives determined to rule, control and direct the actions of various groups of people.  We might even call some of these groups of people by name, by calling them political actions groups or lobbyists?  The list of possibilities is forever and ever endless!!        

CONCLUSIONS:  My mentor agreed with me that the FED. is somewhat like the Trojan Horse used to mask its' real purposes which is to rob the people of these United States for its' benefactors the International Banking Communities worldwide via inflation that funds deficits upon which we the people pay an annual, massive interest, funding wars whether won or not, because there are enormous amounts of money to made cultivating fears that lead to war sales of planes, tanks, ships, munitions etc., unemployment spawning food stamps, welfare projects and even student debts that add to interest payments paid to them, bailout backstops for too big to fail banks, huge corporate bonuses for which we the people pay while regular employees can hardly keep food on the table for themselves/children etc., awards to major, favorite government contractors who stand to gain from the impoverishment of we the people, etc., etc., etc.  As the old saying goes: "around and around she goes and where she stops nobody knows!"  However, one thing we do know is that this process is many decades long in the tooth and would have been totally eliminated had we the people and OUR government stood by and protected OUR U S Constitutional outlines given to US all freely by OUR Founding Fathers but as Doug Casey has stated many times: "The Constitution Of The United States Has Become A DEAD LETTER!"  My letter here and yours, Mr.Martenson, will make absolutely no difference in the final inning of the once great American Empire's decline.  Dr. Franz Pick wrote a book titled: THE TRIUMPH OF GOLD.  On the fronts piece he placed a picture of a tomb stone with the inscription…US $, AN ADVANCE OBITUARY which is to say as goes the currency of a nation so goes the nation itself.  Dr. Pick use to be the world's foremost currency expert and was a consultant to major world banks regards currency fluctuations etc. Anyone can look up Dr. Pick on the internet also his book.

RUSS SMITH, CA. (One Of Our Broke, Fiat Money States)

resmith1942@gmail.com  

             

          
     

Correct! This is the goal of the US Dept of Education. Check out "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America"

Certainly understandable.  I just had not seen that much emotion out of Chris before.  After what I have observed over the past 6 years I am not surprised at what Yellen said at all.  I just haven't seen it out of someone so "grandmotherly" as Chris said.  I actually don't think its in the cards at all to make a speech like what Chris wrote.  Sure we would see it as a breath of fresh air because we understand that reality.  But there are many why are happy living in the matrix and for an individual to snap them out of it would cause mass panic and anger toward that person.  Frankly I can't really blame them for allowing the reckoning to happen as a result of an economic accident then from a speech. 
 

Not to mention I don't think that financial repression can work.  Federal debt is still growing faster then GDP.  If Financial repression is meant to lower that burden, then it is failing.  How much inflation would they need, well much more then could be politically inconsequential.  And with rates about as low as they can go the only other option would be the E dollar.  

I want to talk about the E dollar so badly but no one seems interested.  It really is the only way I can see that can get us out of this mess, due to massive growth in the private sector not being in the cards.  If anyone is please respond. 

Let's hear about the E-dollar.  ALL options are open at this time, no?
Some analysts say: Get out of all debt.  Others maybe say: Do as the wealthy and governments do: take on MORE debt.  Where do ethics come in here?  Morality? Is it really EVERY man for HIMSELF? Is there a social contract?

Play their game and make MONEY, but "lose" something much more important?

Don't play their game and lose MONEY but gain something more valuable?

Can we survive on "correct" values??  Whatever those are??  Your choice: FREEDOM.

bwh1214:I read the article you referenced and almost snorted my orange juice.  It's an Orwellian wet dream for absolute control over the nation's money supply (and therefore absolute control over its population).  Of course, since the author is "a liberal" by his own description, the e-dollar would be instituted "for our own good" (as he himself states).  As they say, there is no worse form of tyranny than that which is instituted for "the good of the people."  If you think the Federal Reserve system is horrible the e-dollar would be the Fed on steroids (negative interest rates would be instituted at a keystroke and there would be no way to avoid it). And if you think about it for a minute, people would catch on that the "currency" was being quickly and dramatically debased (inflation was exploding) and they would take steps to protect themselves.  The e-dollar would make keeping paper dollars under your mattress pointless, so people would buy gold and silver and/or they would spend their "currency" as quickly as possible to buy things they need that can't be debased by e-inflation.  Voila!  E-hyperinflation.  I do have to admire the e-dollar system's ability to do in very short order with laser focus, what the corrupt Federal Reserve system has been doing ever so slowly and subtly over 100 years, bathed in the soft glow of a pink-tinted incandescent bulb.  I think the TPTB would like to do exactly what the e-dollar system would enable them to do, but they realize it would be too obvious and would be rebelled against by the whole population.  It's much better, from their point of view, to slowly rob people blind a penny at a time (like a leech) rather than to take huge bites out of their hide like a lion or a shark.
The e-dollar, as described by the author, would mark the end of any nation that instituted it.  Revolution would result in one form or another.  I know, personally, if the US ever instituted an e-dollar I would take that as the starting bell for my race to withdraw completely from society and set up my fantasy Mad Max compound in the wilderness complete with a moat, a wall, and multiple gun turrets.
http://www.businessinsider.com/electronic-currency-2013-11
http://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/50888412664/a-minimalist-implementation-of-electronic-money
"Welcome to the Hunger Games.  And may the odds be ever in your favor."

Chris, when I read your refreshing rewrite of Yellen's speech I went "yes" but immediately thought too that we have now entered an immediate Depression too as your rewrite is NOT what people really want to hear. The other options alone would have spooked the market and cash hoarding and greed would have ruled from that moment on.
Some asked how they should play this to win. I tried to explain after now banking over $100,000 bucks in 10 weeks, and the paranoid here took me to task, and all the followers of which you stroke so masterfully agreed by use of that "Thumbs up" tool thing so everyone follows the "moral" path. I say beyond family, screw everyone else. I want to be first mover so I can capture those things of need too weather the on coming storms with better ease. Down here at street level its just a normal response to survival, you folks act like you are aghast, and I just say "dah!". Of course the "Man" is after your cash, so am I, so beware as that will be common place forever and ever. Always has been, DAH!

 

 

I agree, it won't work to keep this game going in the long term or even in the mid term. 
But what can it do? 
It can delay the day of reckoning - a goal of many in Washington (and perhaps an unconscious goal of many outside of Washington). 
More important, it sure is an effective wealth transfer tool, certainly a goal of those who are on the receiving end of the transfer.  They have both the motive (hoarding wealth) and the means (influence over the political process) to pull it off.
I think we're mostly in agreement about these points, but I thought I'd mention them again since the conversation seems to have focused on the goal of reducing government debt loads, with wealth transfer as an unfortunate consequence rather than an explicit goal of those with power and influence.

KennethPollinger
Take a look at the link posted by thc0655 from business insider and it will explain the E dollar concept. 
thc0655 and KennethPollinger thank you so much for your interest, as you guys know sometimes it is difficult to discuss these ideas. 
thc0655 I think you may be looking at the E dollar to much from your perspective.  I agree that I would react similar to the way you would but I don't think the general population would.  I actually wrote a book/paper on my view of economics, and wrote on the topic of the E-dollar as a possible outcome.  Below are my thoughts, please read some or all and respond.  Thank you so much for your interest.  Oh and the Mexicans are actively looking at instating an E Peso as we speak.  Imagine being able to eliminate the zero lower bound.  Chris has discussed it as an issue the powers that be have not found away around, I think the E dollar solves this as well as many other problems.
The E Dollar not only addresses the debt and maintains the unbreakable covenant of historic shifts in US monetary systems.  Namely it allows the banks and government to get stronger.  I tried to respond to you a couple times with the link to the story but I guess the filter blocked it.  So if you would, type in There is an Electronic Currency that can save the Economy – but its not Bitcoin.  The business insider story on the E dollar will pop up.  
Talk about a patch! There are plenty of problems with this article such as how they don’t indicate why borrowers will not borrow to invest, but we know it is because there is already too much debt.  They also use the word invest in place of what should be the word borrow.  Insert borrow for invest and the story will make more sense.  The cause of the slowing or stopping of borrowing to invest is not some strange physiological new normal; it’s a rational realization that the nation as a whole, in all sectors, already has borrowed enough. But this solution makes perfect sense for central planners in the Fed, member banks, and the government.  So much so that I think it is going to be put in place in the not so distant future, although that’s just an educated guess. 
The reasons start with the fact that this plan maintains the unbreakable covenant of changing monetary systems, the powers that be, the government and the banks get stronger. After a number of years eventually paper dollars would lose so much valve they would go extinct.
The list of ways this helps the government is long.  First, since eventually the old paper dollar would go extinct and all commerce would be electronic, it would be easy for the government to track money thus easier to tax.  This would certainly please tax and spend liberals who try and vilify anyone who attempts to avoid taxes, even though that is what this nation was founded on. 
Another benefit of being able to track the new e-dollars is black market transactions in dollars would disappear.   This would delight right of center.  Without cash, illegal drug trade would have a major barrier.  An even a bigger feather to the right is that it would be more difficult for people to hide secondary income thus take advantage of entitlements while working “under the table”.  Illegal immigrates would also have a much more difficult time living in the US, talk about a plus for the conservatives.  The government also wouldn’t need to spend money to create new bills and coinage.
Finally the biggest pro is the governmental debt will be priced in the “old” dollars, meaning the burden of the national debt would decrease by as much as the Fed decides to set the negative interest rate at annually.
So we’ve pleased both sides of the isle, now on to the banks.
Well the benefit to the banks is quite clear, not only are you forced to keep your savings with them to speculate with and collect their standard fees on, but they also will be able to charge you interest for the privilege. 
Some of the concerns that run a distant third, those of the people of the United States COULD also be addressed.  I emphasize COULD because they will only help a certain portion of the population and only if the powers in the government and banks feel as if they need more popular support for the E dollar.  As with the government debt, the new system COULD allow ALL old debt to be priced in the old dollars thus lessening the burden on anyone holding previous debts, and with a large portion of the population with underwater home mortgages and huge student loans I’m sure the relief would be welcome. 
The losers in this would be those who were prudent and didn’t take on large debts but since there are far more debtors then savers, politically the plan would still be a winner.  I have to admit before learning the truth about our system I racked up my fair share of debt and a little piece of me would be relieved.
Though I think the Government would allow all debt to be priced in the old dollars the only debt that must be would be the government debt.  It would certainly be fairer to price all old debt in the old dollars, but I would not be surprised if the banks were able to use their substantial influence to swap old debts into the gradually more valuable E Dollar.  This is historically what has taken place when there have been failed currencies, and even though the debt agreements may have been made in those currencies the banks attempted, and were often successful in demanding payment in gold.  Even the most powerful such as President Thomas Jefferson was subject to such a debt payment.  
As was shown the Government and banks have no problem not only giving the citizens the short end of the stick in such monetary changes, but actions tantamount to theft are commonplace. An unfair arrangement surrounding the E Dollar would not be surprising. 
The other interesting thing that came out of the above story was the reference to bitcoin, and more importantly how the US government reacted to the Crypto Currency recently.  
When competing currencies to the dollar arise the governmental response has always been the same.  The threat is violently destroyed.  An example is the Liberty Dollar.  The Liberty Dollar was a silver backed currency that the founder, a Mr. Bernard von NotHaus, began to circulate to allow users an alternative to the dollar.  Ironically using the same medium to back the currency that was the original definition of the US dollar, a fixed weight of silver.  
This silver was stored in a central location while the paper currency circulated and could be redeemed at any time for the physical metal.  The owners of this silver were not the originators of the currency but those who were using it as an alternative to the dollar.
Von NotHaus was arrested by the FBI, tried and on March 18, 2011, was pronounced guilty of "making, possessing, and selling his own currency".   Take note that he was not charged with fraud but making and selling his own currency.   The silver backing the notes was seized and is still held by the government to this day. There was no due process for the rightful owners of the silver, not Von NauHaus, but the holders of the Liberty dollar certificates.
One of issues held by the government was the use of the name “dollar”, as if this word held special meaning.  The simple solution would have been to have the creators simply change the name, not throw the originator in prison, and steel property.  No this was done to set an example to those who would challenge the dollars homogony.  The point is any true threat to the dollar would be crushed in short order.
Now this next part is pure speculation but, why, would bitcoin, something that is touted by many as a direct competitor and even destroyer of the dollar be allowed to survive?  In addition, during the hearings held in congress on bitcoin, there were many positive things said.  According to the headline of a Bloomberg story “U.S. Agencies to Say Bitcoins Offer Legitimate Benefits” or the Wall Street Journal “Authorities See Worth of Bitcoin”.  It was referred to in the hearings as digital currency, and a car dealership in California even called it legal tender in the media. This struck me as very strange considering I knew of the treatment of other “competing currencies”
This cordial treatment of bitcoin is confusing.  I came to the conclusion that maybe the US government felt that they could control bitcoin.  They could have easily noticed the possible threat of bitcoin early on and decided to obtain as many as possible. Bitcoins come into existence through a system of electronically “mining” them, by which computers solve math problems and in exchange gain the currency similar to real world gold or silver mining.  The mining of bitcoins is how the first owners come to possess them.  They have to be initially distributed somehow.  Well the US government has pretty much more computing capacity than anyone so they could have obtained them through mining.  They could have also bought a significant amount at under a dollar, where the price was for a significant time.   This in addition to the governments seizure of a huge number of bitcoin after the shutdown of the Silkroad, a black-market using bitcoin in drug and other illicit trade, could allow the US government to hold 70, 80 or 90% of the bitcoin market and no one would be the wiser because of the claimed anonymity of bitcoin. 
I thought that they could then use this market share to crush the market and claim “see bitcoin doesn’t work”.  But this left a big hole in my thought process.  What then, what if bitcoin survived and after the government used its bitcoin to crush the market, bitcoin rebounded and started competing with the dollar again.  Government agencies officially classed bitcoin as a money service similar to money gram or Paypal, not a currency which is how it is being used.  The FBI claimed that the Liberty Dollar was illegal because it was a currency.  Bitcoin is clearly a currency but instead of classing it as a currency and thus having to shut it down under the same laws that brought down the Liberty Dollar, the government went out of its way to class it as a money service.   Why would it not be crushed swiftly like the liberty dollar?
The answer came to me while reading about the E dollar and listening to an interview of one of the creators of bitcoin, Gavin Andresen by Chris Martenson.  Mr. Andresen was questioned as to how other crypto currencies, which have popped up by the dozens, would compete against bitcoin.  He indicated that bitcoin’s design and source code could not be improved upon enough to overcome bitcoin’s “first kid on the block” advantage.  He said this with one caveat, if a government created a crypto currency similar bitcoin, supported by tax collection and legal tender laws it would have clear advantages over bitcoin, and take back market share.
This and reading the story on the E dollar made a possibility clear.  The government could easily crush bitcoin price with their market share, say it is illegal, and make a few examples sending people to prison, sizing assets ect, all in the name of protecting the American people, for any number of reasons.  At the same time they could say, as in the congressional testimony, that bitcoin had many benefits but was too dangerous without oversight.  But with the introduction of a US crypto currency, the E Dollar, all of those benefits would be realized without the risk because of additional regulation and safeguards.  Point being, they may be allowing bitcoin to soften people up to the idea of a purely electronic currency, and that is why it is being handled with kid gloves. 
The hypothesis on bitcoin may be reaching, but something certainly feels off with how the government has handled bitcoin.  The E dollar is a real possibility though, and if you’re still not convinced, consider how you think an everyday business man living in 1926 would have responded if told the US Government would take all of the citizens’ gold coins in 1933 under the harsh penalty of 10 years in prison?  How about if you told someone living in 1961 that ten years later the dollar would not be backed by gold and would, in fact, be backed by nothing.  Still skeptical of the possibility of the E dollar and of a bank taking a little from your account each month, and paper dollars going away?  Well half of that was just introduced in May 2014 when a central bank just as large as the FED, the European Central Bank, the issuer of the Euro, just introduced negative interest rates, and from the responses on CNBC it is a great move. Cash transactions in Europe are also illegal over 1000 Euro. I don’t think the American people will even bat an eye at the E dollar.
So if this new E dollar system addresses main issue with the current economic environment, namely too much debt, which under the current system cannot be solved, why should it be resisted?  Well first, the E dollar would still be a debt based dollar and future generations, our children and grandchildren, would end up in the same place we are today in twenty, fifty or one hundred years. Second and most importantly it is still rooted in fraud just like the goldsmith loaning what isn’t his to loan.  Fraud should not be addressed by finding a patch to allow it to continue, you stop it.  Granted rash decisions have no place while we are in such a precarious position, bold yes; rash no. 
The E Dollar could be used as a bridging tool to maintain a functioning economy while transitioning to a more sound monetary system, but any such attempt should be treated with skepticism and monitored closely. 
There is another challenge to a shift to the E-Dollar, will the international community accept being paid back in the “old” dollars that would decrease in value.  Other nations are certainly relatively more powerful compared to the last major monetary shift when the US decided they would not redeem dollars for gold, and probably are developing their own plan for how to deal with the inevitable failure of the current monetary system. Unlike shutting the gold window in 1971, the rest of the world may not just “go along”. Dealing with interest rates and the bond market would also pose significant challenges.
The E dollar may never come to fruition, but one thing is for certain the current monetary system is unsustainable, and will be overhauled as it was in 1913, 1933, 1945, and 1971.  Based on stresses now being observed in our economy this overhaul could be in the relatively near future, and due to larger imbalances will be more profound.  To be best prepared for and even prosper in this new economic system it would be invaluable to understand the forces that made it necessary and that the powers that develop it DO NOT have your best interest at heart.  

http://www.businessinsider.com/electronic-currency-2013-11
Quercus bicolor.  Since you agree with my view that Financial repression will not work take a look at the link above as well as my comments on it in post 29 and let me know your thoughts.  

I love this.  I have been trying to start a dialog on the only way I see the govt getting this thing under control, the E Dollar, for over a year but have not gotten anyone to have an intelligent discussion. 

Guys thanks a lot for restoring some of my faith in humanity.   Frankly I would love it if Chris would put my thoughts in a story on his site or write on the subject himself.  

I can understand, sympathize with, and share Dr. Martenson's anger regarding the willful looting of savers via monetary policy.  However, at the same time, this is simply a plan that has been played out countless times before – both here in the US as well as in the decline of most civilizations throughout recorded human history.
While reading this I kept referring back in my mind to some of John Michael Greer's recent articles and interviews (e.g. Episode 81 of the Extraenvironmentalist, Falling Empires).  What we are seeing here is the largely predictable manner in which the rule of law falls apart – or rather elites operate according to a separate set of rules outside of those maintained for the hoi polloi.  A corollary to this trend is the increasing disconnection of elites from society-at-large, something that can be made clear almost everywhere you turn.  There was an excellent article by Mary K. Odum on the US medical establishment's "response" to Ebola that provides an example of this phenomenon at work.  Here's a brief snippet (emphasis mine):

A nurse in Dallas who was caring for the first EVD patient in the US, in “full isolation gear”, has contracted the disease. Frieden’s first comment on the situation was to blame the nurse. “At some point there was a breach in protocol. That breach in protocol resulted in this infection,” Frieden said. He looked panicky as he announced it, but that is no excuse for blaming the victim. Now you’ve made me mad, Frieden, and it seems that you have made other nurses mad, too. If risk communication by the CDC takes this approach, the nurses are just going to say “I quit” like the nurses in Madrid and West Africa. The optics are poor when a series of wealthy white men unfamiliar with isolation procedures start telling the nurses what to do and where they went wrong. Nurses’ voices have been systematically muzzled over the past two decades with the privatization of healthcare, but this may be where we find our voice.
And then there's this from JMG (excerpt from "Dark Age America: The Senility of Elites," published 9/24/14 on The Archdruid Report):
The irony, and it’s a rich one, is that the same conviction tends to become just as widespread outside elite circles as within it. The illusion of invincibility, the conviction that the existing order of things is impervious to any but the most cosmetic changes, tends to be pervasive in any mature society, and remains fixed in place right up to the moment that everything changes and the existing order of things is swept away forever. The intensity of the illusion very often has nothing to do with the real condition of the social order to which it applies; France in 1789 and Russia in 1917 were both brittle, crumbling, jerry-rigged hulks waiting for the push that would send them tumbling into oblivion, which they each received shortly thereafter—but next to no one saw the gaping vulnerabilities at the time. In both cases, even the urban rioters that applied the push were left standing there slack-jawed when they saw how readily the whole thing came crashing down.
 
The illusion of invincibility is far and away the most important asset a mature ruling elite has, because it discourages deliberate attempts at regime change from within. Everyone in the society, in the elite or outside it, assumes that the existing order is so firmly bolted into place that only the most apocalyptic events would be able to shake its grip. In such a context, most activists either beg for scraps from the tables of the rich or content themselves with futile gestures of hostility at a system they don’t seriously expect to be able to harm, while the members of the elite go their genial way, stumbling from one preventable disaster to another, convinced of the inevitability of their positions, and blissfully unconcerned with the possibility—which normally becomes a reality sooner or later—that their own actions might be sawing away at the old and brittle branch on which they’re seated.
 
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2014/09/dark-age-america-senility-of-elites.html
In short, I would no more expect the Federal Reserve to behave in an honest manner with the American people than I would expect a serial adulterer to suddenly become a good spouse.  It's not in their DNA.  They are fully wedded to the same policies and approaches that were set in motion long ago, and now exist largely as products of that long-established inertia.  And just because they stand up and lie about what they are doing while promoting this or that policy does not mean that they are actually in control, outside of their ability to facilitate the looting of the public apparatus by their well-connected friends (overseers?).

The Chinese have a saying regarding the rise-and-fall of dynasties in their long and storied history.  It goes along the lines of: Dynasties ascend the staircase in hobnailed boots, and come down the other side in silk slippers.  We're well into the silk slippers phase of this game.  That being said, if what I'm surmising here is true, what is there that we can do?

I'd forget completely about trying to reform the system, for the reasons that JMG outlined in his piece that I excerpted.

You can go the route of precious metals to try and preserve wealth, but there is no guarantee that those resources won't be seized/outlawed by the authorities in the future, as was done in 1932.  Unless you're a member of the inner circle or one of its high-ranking sycophants, you'll likely lose.

You can invest in real, physical goods and real estate, but unless you are able to purchase them outright without debt, you stand the very real possibility of losing them in a severe downturn.

The conclusion that I've reached, even if I've been unable to make the leap to putting it into practice in my own life, is that Dmitry Orlov had it right several years ago.  Collapse now, and avoid the rush.  JMG would characterize this as the Voluntary Poverty promoted by Thoreau all those years ago.  The side benefit of this kind of a change is that it almost automatically forces you to start relying on others in order to maintain your own existence, which in turn develops those deep community networks built on a foundation of trust and mutually-shared obligations.  Of course, this kind of path is anathema even to many of us in the PP crowd, because it goes against EVERYTHING that we have been inculcated to believe our entire lives.  And I in no way exempt myself from that conundrum, as I consider myself to be painfully afflicted by this narrative as well.

CAH,
Great post!

My family has held onto farmland for close to 125 years and we have purposely continued to farm the land and lead a simple lifestyle to help be prepared for the inevitable realignment (for want of a better term) that is coming.  My only worry is that during the Great Depression many families lost their homes and farms from the inability to pay the property taxes.

As usual, this site provokes some of the most well thought out discussion available anywhere.  Thanks everyone!

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
George Washington et al. accomplished this by shooting those who disagreed.  Some of you will move to the next level of understanding; some of you will not.  It only takes 3%.

I for one am not looking for "the system" to reform itself.

Rector

 

 

 
To me, financial security is a simple fraction: Savings/Expenses
the higher that number, the more secure I feel.  You can make a fraction grow faster by reducing the denominator than you can by increasing the numerator.  
With negative real interest rates, the government is trying to get you to spend more and invest all savings.  in the "market."  Instead, you should reduce your expenses and invest your savings in assets that reduce your expenses even further. 
Solar panels pay an 8% IRR. What does the stock market pay?  8% in the denominator is better than stock market returns in the numerator 

[quote=melissaoverbrook]Correct! This is the goal of the US Dept of Education. Check out "
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America"
[/quote]
While I am not familiar with the work you linked here, the title was very close to the book that got my wife and I to bite the bullet and homeschool our kids.
The book that changed us was Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, by John Taylor Gotto.
In it he clearly articulates the various regimes and practices of modern public schooling that are designed to create conformity, obedience to authority, and a profound disconnect between and among the various subjects it 'teaches.'
Perhaps the greatest sin is that schools, both public and private quite often ruin a child's curiosity.  As long as you don't do that, they'll be fine.
So we were able to homeschool and we did, and we are now 12 years into that experiment and I could not be happier with the results.
Our kids are curious and engaged and full of hope and life, as they should be.  Everything is related, and interconnected and flat-out magical as long as you remain curious and they have.  There.  That was easy.
Education is not about collecting facts, it is about connecting facts.  Well, at least that's what education should be, but all too often is not.
Why would we, as a population, agree to give ourselves substandard educations?  Why would we not revel in the magical mystery tour that life is, as opposed to turning into drudgery at an early age?  Teachers should really not be that at all, but mentors, more like experienced tour guides who know that it is far better to let the travelers round the corner and 'discover' the beautiful waterfall for themselves, than tell them all about it and force them to slice it into meaningless names before seeing it.
If any of you meet my kids (or have as the case may be) you'll see what I mean…they are intelligent human beings…not kids or students or children.  And that is the potential birthright of every young human being…as long as they are not taught otherwise along the way.

Martin Armstrong is convinced that the gang in charge wants to create an E-currency for all the reasons listed above.
Do they imagine that simply because the currency is now electronic, black market behavior will go away?  It will just change form.  No doubt they'll institute a new criminal charge, that of not using E-currency.  The temptation to control everything "for the good of society" is so strong, both on the right and the left.

I saw a lady (mid-30s) buying a relatively large amount of groceries yesterday with cash - she plopped down $200 in $20 bills.  You don't see that every day.  I caught myself thinking, "hmm, I wonder where all that cash came from."  That's the popular thinking here in the US.

In Thailand, on the other hand, I've seen cash used routinely for large transactions (in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars - and their income is 1/5th of ours) and nobody even blinks.  Withdraw $10k in cash?  Your banker doesn't ask you a million questions, eye you suspiciously, and then run off to file a suspicious transaction report with the Treasury.  The teller checks your ID, compares it to the one on file, smiles and says "here you go" handing you a large stack of cash.

Our culture has changed dramatically and most people probably do not notice.  One more step: electronic money - how difficult would that really be for the bulk of the nation?

I do think it would be good news for PM holders.  I suspect a required-use electronic currency would spur a move into gold and silver - and as the government got more repressive and had more control over the economy, gold and silver would become even more attractive.

Armstrong (again) maintains that gold - portable concentrated wealth - is a hedge against government economic mis-deeds, and thus the price of gold should rise as confidence in the government itself falls and/or the level of repression rises.

 

Armstrong (again) maintains that gold - portable concentrated wealth - is a hedge against government economic mis-deeds, and thus the price of gold should rise as confidence in the government itself falls and/or the level of repression rises.
There's a (slight) problem that I have with this outlook, and it's quite common among all financial types.  It only looks at one type of capital (financial) while ignoring the other kinds that are out there.  I highly recommend that everyone read the article "The Eight Forms of Capital" by Ethan Roland of Appleseed Permaculture (http://www.appleseedpermaculture.com/8-forms-of-capital/), as it explains how there are other, often unrealized forms of capital we can tap into but often ignore in favor of financial capital. Chris had Ethan on his podcast back in May to discuss this as well: https://peakprosperity.com/podcast/85573/ethan-roland-8-forms-capital If we can shift toward social, natural and spiritual capital, we can significantly reduce our reliance on financial capital.  The former forms are much, much harder for the authorities to regulate, while they will attempt to regulate, distort, and just plain seize the latter.    

Our son-in-law's new film opened in LA & is currently on tour up the west coast.  The trailer can be seen at http://classdismissedmovie.com.  Please give it a go!