tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post1813776193931686066..comments2023-10-19T10:43:38.825-04:00Comments on Free Advice: PotpourriBob Murphyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post-43231981408947458092010-02-21T13:06:19.949-05:002010-02-21T13:06:19.949-05:00Bob, I see what you meant.
From reading the paper...Bob, I see what you meant.<br /><br />From reading the paper, I understood that the BoE did not had enough gold to exchange all its notes for gold (it had gone fiat to pay for IWW), so I understood that to stop people from exchanging pound notes for gold it tried to push interest rates higher than market rates. So some gold came to England looking for those high interest rates. So instead of issuing notes, the BoE sold pound denominated assets and tried another gimmicks to sterilize the gold. And to hide it, the BoE asked the New York Fed to sell the gold and adquire US treasuries denominated in dollars. But to hide that it now had dollar denominated assets, it hide them under "other assets" (wich was a mix of assets reported in pounds).<br /><br />I only gave it a couple of hours, but that seemed solid for me and was happy about it. Guess I need to give it some more time.Hugonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post-39871222628749960492010-02-21T00:01:08.934-05:002010-02-21T00:01:08.934-05:00Much of the core of "global warming science&q...Much of the core of "global warming science" = Piltdown Man<br /><br />Who would have guessed that Silas Barta agrees ...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13532630855794099767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post-8644480635257274102010-02-20T19:48:35.602-05:002010-02-20T19:48:35.602-05:00^ HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH what cran...^ HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH what crankery.notacranknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post-55553380056955843562010-02-20T16:10:57.116-05:002010-02-20T16:10:57.116-05:00Here's a cool site:
http://www.bigeye.com/nan...Here's a cool site:<br /><br />http://www.bigeye.com/nanothermite.htm<br /><br />and a great quote:<br /><br />"I think there is only one conspiracy theory worth mentioning, the one involving 19 hijackers. I think viewers should ask themselves what evidence they have seen to support the official conspiracy theory. If anyone has seen evidence, I would like to hear about it. No one has been formally charged. No one is "wanted." Our work should lead to demands for a proper criminal investigation of the 9/11 terrorist attack. Because it never happened. We are still waiting for it. We hope our results will be used as technical evidence when that day comes."<br /><br />Keep in mind there are obvious disinformation agents and plants posting here (e.g., Cody). I guess you've hit the big-time, Bob, to attract such attention from Leviathan.Beefcake the Mightynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post-62617628275631676962010-02-20T14:25:24.600-05:002010-02-20T14:25:24.600-05:00I really don't understand why you found Barta&...I really don't understand why you found Barta's comment surprising.Yancey Wardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post-46841179895717380702010-02-20T14:10:34.308-05:002010-02-20T14:10:34.308-05:00Re: World Government. Whether or not that Rockefe...Re: World Government. Whether or not that Rockefeller quote is correct, this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inu9vKXsrFA&feature=PlayList&p=7B13E9D5CFE2E0FD&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=13" rel="nofollow">youtube video </a>seems authentic. It is pretty scary considering that it was John Anderson who came out of nowhere in 1980 to be the ubiquitous "Third Party Candidate" just as libertarian candidate Ed Clark seemed ready to gain some attention. Anderson's third party bid was mentioned in EVERY SINGLE media mention of the 1980 presidential campaign.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post-43889118429817234382010-02-20T10:22:17.091-05:002010-02-20T10:22:17.091-05:00Hugo,
That's just about the opposite of the s...Hugo,<br /><br />That's just about the opposite of the standard Rothbardian story, though. In that story, the Bank of England was losing gold, and so told the Fed to push interest rates <i>below</i> the market rate, to help England.<br /><br />I'm not saying that we have to choose between the Austrian <i>business cycle theory</i> explanation and this guy's paper about the BofE, but I am saying that the standard Austrian explanation for why the BofE pressured the Fed is backwards. And that should be a little disturbing, if we can make the ABCT story fit whether the BofE had too much or too little gold.Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post-8329753151652728742010-02-20T06:18:27.088-05:002010-02-20T06:18:27.088-05:00Just to clarify the previous:
The 1995 paper expl...Just to clarify the previous:<br /><br />The 1995 paper explains how the BoE was trying to set the interest rates higher than the market rate, and the Fed helped with that.<br /><br />The reason the BoE wanted higher interest rates was to trick the market into believing that the pound was stronger than it really was, so there would be no attack on a overvalued pound. This obviously made people send their gold to england and the BoE had problems to keep the rates artificially high, and that is why it had to do all the lying and cheating. The paper explains the process in detail. The New York Fed helped the BoE to get rid of the extra gold, so nobody could suspect what was going on.Hugonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post-41079034621313844092010-02-20T06:04:43.314-05:002010-02-20T06:04:43.314-05:00About a week ago all the gold bugs were going nuts...<a rel="nofollow">About a week ago all the gold bugs were going nuts over this Tyler Durden discussion of a 1995 article on economic history (!!). The thing that I don't get is, why did the Bank of England pressure the Fed to cut rates in 1927? That's the theory I endorsed in my Depression book, thinking that the BofE was hurting because of the overvalued pound and so wanted the Fed to weaken the dollar by cutting US rates (thus fueling the stock market boom in the late 1920s). But if this prof whom Tyler Durden has found is right, then the Bank of England was actually suffering from a massive inflow of gold. So what's the deal? Sure, it's great to get new evidence that central bankers are naked liars, but Austrians need to do some soul-searching if they want to endorse this guy's paper.</a><br /><br />I dont see any contradiction between austrian economics and the pound being overvalued. Rothbard explains in his book "History of money and banking in the USA..." that :<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">After the end of the war, Strong’s monetary policy was delib-<br />erately guided by the prime objective of helping Great Britain<br />establish, and impose upon Europe, a new and disastrous gold-<br />exchange standard. The idea was to restore “England”—which<br />really meant the Morgans’ English associates and allies—to her<br />old position of financial dominance by helping her establish a<br />phony gold standard. Ostensibly this was a return to the prewar<br />“classical” gold standard. But the return, in the spring of 1925,<br />was at the prewar par, a rate that hopelessly overvalued the<br />pound sterling, which Britain had inflated and depreciated dur-<br />ing the fiat money era after 1914. Britain insisted on returning to<br />gold at an overvalued par, a policy guaranteed to hobble British<br />exports, and yet was determined to indulge in continued cheap<br />money and inflation, instead of contracting its money supply to<br />make the prewar par viable. To help Britain get away with this<br />peculiar and contradictory policy, the United States helped to<br />pretend that the post-1925 standard in Europe—this gold bul-<br />lion-pound standard—was really a genuine gold-coin standard.<br />The United States inflated its money and credit in order to pre-<br />vent inflationary Britain from losing gold to the United States, a<br />loss which would endanger the new, jerry-built “gold stan-<br />dard” structure. The result, however, was eventual collapse of<br />money and credit in the U.S. and abroad, and a worldwide<br />depression. Benjamin Strong was the Morgans’ architect of a dis-<br />astrous policy of inflationary boom that led inevitably to bust.</a><br /><br />pages 270-271<br /><br />So basically the Morgans wanted a over-valued pound to gain finatial power over Europe, and the USA helped them by inflating the dollar, and that helped to create the bubble that bust in the 1929 crash.<br /><br />And the original paper about how the Bank of England managed to keep the pound overvalued by cheating and lying to the market is very interesting. It says a lot about the mindset of central bankers. Recomended lecture.Hugonoreply@blogger.com