Will China or Russia Fill The Gap When The Federal Reserve Fails?

[Brian4Liberty]

Will China or Russia Fill The Gap When The Federal Reserve Fails?

The idea that The Fed could make dollars that they can counterfeit "as good as gold" was always a fairy tale. The idea that the Fed would create a "stable" currency was always a fairy tale. The idea that the Fed could "run" the economy, or prevent recessions and depressions was always a fairy tale. The Fed destroys the economy and brings about depressions. All fairy tales must come to an end. But what will replace it?

 

[osan]

One should be asking what a Federal Reserve "failure" actually means.

If the Fed is an instrument of the so-called "global elite", how could it fail? We are presumably talking about a cabal that has been in existence for well over a century or three. The cabal has been so well connected, and therefore powerful, that it was able to establish the Fed in the first place, purportedly at some ungodly hour, during the holidays of 1912, without a Congressional quorum, and with no overt objection to the apparent skullduggery recorded. If all that is true, how then did so disciplined and clever a cadre suddenly become so uncontrolledly stupid, such that the circumstance for which they had labored so carefully and diligently could be frittered away in so absurdly transparent a manner as that to which we are bearing witness? This all appears as bait and theater.

Consider the Fed as a means to an end in the way that the charlatan fraud causes to come into existence an asset, only to destroy the thing of apparent value pursuant to an objective that remains hidden from the investors he lures in. Perhaps the destruction of those investors is the latent goal itself, or merely a happy byproduct of the long con. Either way, something occurs which appears so loathsomely terrible that the mean man finds it impossible to accept as the product of deliberate intent. And so the event is taken as a sad accident, perhaps of men run off the rails of good judgment, as the perpetrators slink away into the shadows, apparent victims of their own petards. Has the establishment of the Fed been such a con? If the organization which owns and runs the Fed is comprised of such smart people, then you can safely assume that they have not placed themselves in harm's way. This in turn tells us that either their actions are not what they seem in terms of the dangers proclaimed by "experts", or the actions that give rise to such have been taken with the deliberate intention of wrecking the asset, leaving the American people to hold the bag, along with other choice suckers the cabal might wish to see structurally harmed, and leaving themselves in improved positions.

Two and two are not quite adding up to four here, in terms of appearances. I find it difficult to believe that an organization such as the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States of America suddenly finds itself stricken across the Board with mental aberrations of sufficient identity to lead that body to toss itself off the cliff like a horde of lemmings. The statistics of human behavior in no way support such a theory. The very presence of boards of directors are intended to prevent the occurrence of such dangerous excursions from prudent reason, and they tend to be effective pursuant to that end.

And so once again we return to the question of what, precisely, is it to which we bear witness? If the Fed were to "fail", what form the golden parachute of its overlords? Perhaps more saliently: what are the truer and more perennial instruments of material power that govern this world, to which our eyes are perhaps disallowed apprehension? Nobody just walks away from such assets, no matter the perks of the country club memberships to which they might repair, for the mere thought of it is nothing better than a Hollywood fantasy floating on the currents and tides of stark political reality.

 

[TheTexan]

One should be asking what a Federal Reserve "failure" actually means.

If the Fed is an instrument of the so-called "global elite", how could it fail? We are presumably talking about a cabal that has been in existence for well over a century or three. The cabal has been so well connected, and therefore powerful, that it was able to establish the Fed in the first place, purportedly at some ungodly hour, during the holidays of 1912, without a Congressional quorum, and with no overt objection to the apparent skullduggery recorded. If all that is true, how then did so disciplined and clever a cadre suddenly become so uncontrolledly stupid, such that the circumstance for which they had labored so carefully and diligently could be frittered away in so absurdly transparent a manner as that to which we are bearing witness? This all appears as bait and theater.

Consider the Fed as a means to an end in the way that the charlatan fraud causes to come into existence an asset, only to destroy the thing of apparent value pursuant to an objective that remains hidden from the investors they lure in, but which perhaps destroys those investors as the latent goal itself, or as a happy byproduct of the long con. Has the establishment of the Fed been such a con? If the organization which owns and runs the Fed is comprised of such smart people, then you can safely assume that they have not placed themselves in harm's way through their actions made apparent to the public. This in turn tells us that either those actions are not what they seem in terms of the dangers proclaimed by "experts", or the actions that give rise to such have been taken with the deliberate intention of wrecking the asset, leaving the American people holding the bag, along with other choice suckers the cabal might wish to see structurally harmed.

Two and two are not quite adding up to four here. I find it difficult to believe that an organization such as the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States of America suddenly finds itself stricken across the Board with mental aberration that leads that board in so compromised a state of sanity that the entire institution tosses itself off the cliff like a horde of lemmings.

And so once again we return to the question of what, precisely, is it to which we bear witness? If the Fed were to "fail", what form the golden parachute of its overlords? Perhaps more saliently: what are the truer and more perennial instruments of material power that govern this world? Nobody just walks away from such assets, for the mere thought of it is nothing better than a Hollywood turd floating on the currents and tides of political reality.

Interesting thesis. It would certainly explain why it hasn't failed so far: the global elites do not yet want it to.

 

[osan]

Interesting thesis. It would certainly explain why it hasn't failed so far: the global elites do not yet want it to.

Or never will?

Remember that rotten as it is, the current arrangement can easily continue into the indeterminate future. Inflation is not necessarily a danger, so long as it is managed properly.

Print more currency, prices rise. IF the overarching goal is to keep the hamsters scurrying wildly on the wheel, going nowhere, then give cause to raise their incomes sufficiently to keep life moving ahead, day over day. Even if the relative position of the individual in the scheme of things runs at a continuing loss, so long as he perceives himself as having enough to survive, he will likely remain docile, and that latter bit is key.

Everything, and I mean everything in terms of economics boils down to RATIOS. The amount of currency in circulation in absolute numbers is perforce arbitrary, and therefore of no concern whatsoever, in sé. It is the proportionality of that number to the things of perceived real value, as well as that of individual holdings that determines said individual's reality. If he has enough, he remains a good boy. If he is pushed beyond the threshold of "nothing to lose", his behavior will likely change as a perceived matter of survival. That is the point where things become potentially dangerous for the tyrant.

So once again, print money, jack prices, increase wages. Do this with proper calculation and it makes no whit of difference that a loaf of bread cost fifty trillion dollars, if the man in line has five hundred quadrillion in his wallet. Ratios. They are all that matter in such affairs. But this is precisely where Theye have been so clever. Print money X%. Jack prices X%. Raise wages Y%, where Y < X. Johnny Q. Publick has now become poorer by the proportion of (X - Y)%, and he never saw it coming - never knew what hit him. It comes in thin slices, like salami (hence the now forgotten term "salami politics"), each chafing, but not enough to rouse the beast. Before you know it, circumstance is gone from single-earner household with wife and three healthy, happy, intelligent children, to barely surviving on two incomes and a single, disaffected, morose child who cuts himself, familiy vacations long having gone the way of the dodo and utterly alien to the modern "family".

This is pretty sinister stuff, and we are drowning in it to such a degree that we are no longer able to see that forest for the tree into which our faces have been pressed to the bursting point of our skulls.

Manage the ratios correctly, and this system of phony baloney "living" can be maintained indefinitely. Knowing this, do we believe that the presumably smart people running this freak show are actually losing control? I cannot yet come to such a conclusion, and must therefore at least entertain the possibility that we are being lead down a very specific garden path in a carefully weighed manner. What we currently experience is what Theye want for us. The one thing I can say for certain is that there is nothing organic about that which we are experiencing in terms of economics. I will venture no further than this economic angle, though there is much more.

 

[oyarde]

as far as i'm concerned the fed is a failure and as you can see they are still in business so i'll believe it when i see it.