Thursday, December 10, 2009


Radical Murphy Back in the Hizzouse

After the previous post detailing my wimpy DC panel presentation, I am proud to showcase what will probably be used in the future to prove what a "nutjob" I am (once I get famous enough to be worth discrediting). A sample:
The “Texas summit of March 2005” refers to the “Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America,” which came out of a meeting in Waco, Texas between President George W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and Mexican President Vicente Fox. For the record, the federal government’s website has a special section devoted to refuting the (alleged) myths of the SPP, including the claim that the SPP is a prelude to a North American Union, comparable to the European Union. Yet despite the official protestations to the contrary, the global trend toward ever larger political and monetary institutions is undeniable. And there is a definite logic behind the process: with governments in control of standing armies, the only real check on their power is the ability of their subjects to change jurisdictions. By “harmonizing” tax and regulatory regimes, various countries can extract more from their most productive businesses. And by foisting a fiat currency into the pockets of more and more people, a government obtains steadily greater control over national—or international—wealth.

But if indeed key players had wanted to create a North American Union with a common currency, up till now they would have faced an insurmountable barrier: the American public would never have agreed to turn in their dollars in exchange for a new currency issued by a supranational organization. The situation will be different when the U.S. public endures double-digit price inflation, even as the economy still suffers from the worst unemployment since the Great Depression. Especially if Obama officials frame the problem as an attack on the dollar by foreign speculators, and point to the strength of the euro, many Americans will be led to believe that only a change in currency can save the economy.

For those who consider such a possibility farfetched, remember that one of FDR’s first acts as president was to confiscate monetary gold held by U.S. citizens, under threat of imprisonment and a huge fine. Yet nowadays, that massive crime is described as “taking us off the gold standard” which “untied the Fed’s hands and allowed it to fight the Depression.” The same will be said in future history books, when they explain matter-of-factly the economic crisis that gave birth to the amero.
Thanks for your attention. The tinfoil hats are on your left as you exit.

Do we feel "uncomfortable" yet?

What wise guy [bully boy?] said this:

“When I hear excess talk of conspiracy theories and when I read about the fear of the North American Union and the NAFTA Superhighway and all that, in a general sense among some elements of the right, that is a belief in liberty, but it’s a mood or tenor that I feel very uncomfortable with even if I might agree with a lot of the policy prescriptions. Ultimately I regard a lot of those people as less liberal, liberal in the good sense and in the broad sense....I’m uncomfortable with a lot of those strands."
Dr. Murphy, not sure if you saw Krugman post this but I thought you might enjoy it.

The new Larouchies

Hmm. I’m fairly accustomed to having speaking events disrupted by Larouchies (when I was in Cambridge a while back we had a guy yelling about banana fungus, among other things, who had to be shouted down by the audience).

But last night at Baruch the problem was Austrian economics/Ron Paul people who just wouldn’t stop talking.

On the whole, I might prefer the banana fungus.
"But if indeed key players had wanted to create a North American Union with a common currency, up till now they would have faced an insurmountable barrier: the American public would never have agreed to turn in their dollars in exchange for a new currency issued by a supranational organization."

Of course they would have, just like the people of Europe did when they were told "Your liras/pounds/francs/marks will be no good after date X."

Fiat money is backed by the state's ability to collect taxes, and if your taxes have to be paid in Ameros, you'll use Ameros.
Gene, I wasn't aware that the public automatically does whatever the government says, and moreover that if Europeans agree to do something, then Americans do too.

What if I said, "The American people would never agree to La Marseillaise as their national anthem!"

You could blow me up pretty easily on that one.

(The currency issue is not as extreme as the national anthem, I'm just making a point.)
Yes, I recall fondly how the American people refused to use the fiat dollars the government converted to in 33, which is why we are all still making our purchases with gold.
Great Gene, now you've just made the exact point of my article. The American people needed the crisis of the Great Depression to be forced to go off gold--had Calvin Coolidge ordered that in 1926, there would have been a revolt.

Just wait for everything I predicted to come exactly true, and then email me in 24 months, "Bob you dolt! We just had to turn in our dollars because Obama blamed the speculators for the 22% inflation last month! I thought you said Americans would never turn in their dollars!"
Really? A revolt? I think the last time Americans revolted was about 1775.
I'm about to fire the shot heard 'round the blogosphere Gene. I'm saying the government pushes as far as it can, as public opinion will allow. So what does that mean? It means that if they pushed harder, the public would do something--ultimately, they would stop paying taxes, start rioting, etc.

If Obama announced tomorrow that he had the right to spend the first night with every new bride, you don't think that might cause some waves? You think the only reason he wouldn't announce such a policy, is that he wouldn't think it was good for the country?
Great Post. Heading over to read the full article now. Love the comments as well.
I live through a currency crisis in Argentina back in 2001. It wasn't pretty, but the people knew exactly where to place the blame. They stormed The Pink House (their version of the White House, only painted in cow's blood) and the enite administration was booted from office.

When a currency crisis hits the U.S., I think people will demand a gold/silver standard once again.
I wish I could say that Americans would demand sound money, but we are so far removed from a regime of sound money that I doubt that most people even have a concept of what it is. As a college professor, the very term is something one does not use in the company of other faculty members, should one wish not to be ridiculed.

Americans have come to believe that if the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court order something into existence, then, by George, it must exist, and the order MUST be obeyed. I have come to the conclusion that there really is little constituency for liberty anymore in the USA, and that we are going to see some real-live repression soon enough. Furthermore, most people will support it, as long as the government can demonize the "right" people.

It all reminds me of a "Little Rascals" episode in which the father tells Spanky, "You will eat your mush, and you will like it." No doubt, the government will tell us, "You will spend the Amero, and you will like it!"
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]