Harry Binswanger’s 2013 praise of Goldman Sachs at Forbes.com ignore

[Nicky]

Then again, we mustn't forget profit becomes distorted with regulation.

Yes, an individual's profits can be distorted by regulation. But the overall picture cannot. If there are no great producers around, who produce great things and make a lot of profit doing it, then the overall picture will be bleak. No amount of regulation can change that.

If you live in the US, look around: is the overall picture bleak? It's not? That's because the vast majority of one percenters earned their wealth, and created the pretty picture you're looking at while doing it. If that wasn't true, you would be looking at a very bleak overall picture.

Prosperity doesn't flourish on distorting regulations and fake profit, it only grows on honest production and real profit. Overall prosperity is the perfect measure of how honestly the rich earned their wealth, because productivity and free trade always spread wealth around, and looting always spreads misery. That's why, whenever someone tells me that a rich country is morally bankrupt and politically corrupt, I can dismiss them on principle.

 

When you look at the massive, widespread wealth you see when you look at the United States, you can rest assured that there is massive, widespread honesty and ethical behavior behind it. (note that I'm referring to business ethics, not to whether Americans cheat on their wives or not )

Edited November 21, 2013 by Nicky

[whYNOT]

Actually now that I've read it, I think it is a very good, well-rounded article, with only passing focus on Goldman Sachs. He makes excellent, if predictable points (to O'ists).

One unusual point is exempting the producers from any taxation. That will have eyebrows raised and progressivists all a-dither.

I'm comparing it favourably to something similar by Nathaniel Branden some years back on what a company (Kimble, I think) brings to society, albeit totally self-interestedly.

Edited November 21, 2013 by whYNOT

[Eiuol]

 

 

When you look at the massive, widespread wealth you see when you look at the United States, you can rest assured that there is massive, widespread honesty and ethical behavior behind it. (note that I'm referring to business ethics, not to whether Americans cheat on their wives or not )

I agree.

 

I made 3 points, and you sort of responded to all 3. Sorry if it's a bit disjointed.

Taken in isolation, yes, Binswanger just made some categorizations, which is fine. But then came this line which changed the article's tone: "Here’s a modest proposal. Anyone who earns a million dollars or more should be exempt from all income taxes." I don't get it - why add the "earns a million dollars" qualifier? It seems to have some unqualified position on profit as though profit is a measure of personal worth. He doesn't go onto saying anything about what those producers do that's virtuous.

Well, he does go on to mention Lady Gaga and Buffet. Except he speaks badly about Lady Gaga as though fame is bad to have. That reminds me of I think Bentham who thought certain values are inherently superior. As though pop music deserves less respect than finance... Why not praise both people for being generally good people? So to me there are implications that Binswanger made a utilitarian social value argument.

That point is driven home with this line: "Since profit is the market value of the product minus the market value of factors used, profit represents the value created." It's just... odd that he simply says "profit represents value created". That's at best poor wording. There is a lot more that adds or takes away from value. Taken with the rest of the article, it appears that according to Binswanger making no profit represents less value than making a profit. If profit is just *a* value, well, it doesn't fit with what else he said in the article. The Lady Gaga example ruins it. I mean, why not acknowledge nonmonetary value that her fans get? It's like nonmonetary value "taints" the value of profit.

You make good points Nicky, I just think Binswanger failed to make any good points.

[Edmond Dantes]

When you look at the massive, widespread wealth you see when you look at the United States, you can rest assured that there is massive, widespread honesty and ethical behavior behind it. (note that I'm referring to business ethics, not to whether Americans cheat on their wives or not )

 

This is absurd.  America is over $17.3 trillion in debt.  Up from $1.3 trillion just 30 years ago.  Do you think this is because Americans have been as economically productive as they had always been, but just started living at 13 times their income?  Of course not.  It's because their actual productivity has declined, while their standard of living has stubbornly not.  Figuring out gimmicks to get people to spend money that they should be putting towards debt reduction isn't productive - even if it takes just as much effort, and even if just as many dollars change hands.  It's Brownian Motion.  The only reason why Facebook and cheeseburgers with pretzel buns enrich people to the degree that the Bessemer process and moving oil through pipelines (instead of by rail) did in times past is because, as a result of extraordinary credibility (and an extraordinarily powerful military) we have been given the fruits of the labors of 2 billion+ proxy slaves in places like China and India by their politically-powerful owners (so long as we give them their cut - and the rights to our hypothetical future production).  This - and this alone - is what makes today's ability to track your pizza delivery step by step on your cell phone seem like the introduction of pennicilin or vulcanized rubber.  The third world's proxy-slaves receive a fraction of the value that they create (and it doesn't matter if it's a greater amount, in real terms, than they were creating and receiving before "trade" with The West, or that they are ultimately responsible for their own governments - it remains an emperical fact)... so that Americans can continue to sit pretty despite everyone being either perpetually in college or selling pet supplies for a living (a $55 billion industry in 2011; more than the GDP of Britain).  This is what puts money in the pockets of people like Blankfein, and simply because it also puts money in the pocket of the man on the street doesn't change what it is.

 

Psychologically speaking, what kind of mind can evade all of that?  Certainly not a rational, honest, ethical one.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Edmond Dantes

[JASKN]

Psychologically speaking, what kind of mind can evade all of that? Certainly not a rational, honest, ethical one.

No need for this. The post you responded to demonstrates rationality and honesty, and doesn't reveal enough to give a clear picture of his moral stature.

No matter the debt situation between the US and China, their relative levels of prosperity would have been similar -- we started out much richer than the average Chinese worker. So, their labor would have worth less than an average American's, either way.

Nicky said, "Look around you," and you replied with an argument mostly about debt. Most of the problems with debt are not going to be made apparent for many more years. "Look around you" is an ok measure of wealth, but without debt obligations it isn't the whole picture. Likewise, when you ignore "look around you," you're not acknowledging the whole picture, either.

Edited November 22, 2013 by JASKN

[Nicky]

This is absurd.  America is over $17.3 trillion in debt.  Up from $1.3 trillion just 30 years ago.  Do you think this is because Americans have been as economically productive as they had always been, but just started living at 13 times their income?  Of course not.  It's because their actual productivity has declined, while their standard of living has stubbornly not.  Figuring out gimmicks to get people to spend money that they should be putting towards debt reduction isn't productive - even if it takes just as much effort, and even if just as many dollars change hands.  It's Brownian Motion.  The only reason why Facebook and cheeseburgers with pretzel buns enrich people to the degree that the Bessemer process and moving oil through pipelines (instead of by rail) did in times past is because, as a result of extraordinary credibility (and an extraordinarily powerful military) we have been given the fruits of the labors of 2 billion+ proxy slaves in places like China and India by their politically-powerful owners (so long as we give them their cut - and the rights to our hypothetical future production).  This - and this alone - is what makes today's ability to track your pizza delivery step by step on your cell phone seem like the introduction of pennicilin or vulcanized rubber.  The third world's proxy-slaves receive a fraction of the value that they create (and it doesn't matter if it's a greater amount, in real terms, than they were creating and receiving before "trade" with The West, or that they are ultimately responsible for their own governments - it remains an emperical fact)... so that Americans can continue to sit pretty despite everyone being either perpetually in college or selling pet supplies for a living (a $55 billion industry in 2011; more than the GDP of Britain).  This is what puts money in the pockets of people like Blankfein, and simply because it also puts money in the pocket of the man on the street doesn't change what it is.

 

Psychologically speaking, what kind of mind can evade all of that?  Certainly not a rational, honest, ethical one.

You are making some logical errors (my use of the word "error" is kind):

 

1. I used the word America to refer to the political entity comprised of 300 million of so people who live in the US. You are using it to refer to the federal government. Since this thread is very pointedly mainly about Americans who AREN'T in the government (businessmen), you are clearly relying on the fallacy of equivocation to make your point.

 

2. If we set point nr. 1 aside: you say that the federal government is 17.3 trillion in debt. You identify the main source of that loan as people in developing countries. You are factually mistaken. the main source of that loan (well over 50%) is American individuals and organizations. The second greatest source (the main foreign source) is other western governments and individuals, mainly Japan and Japanese businesses. 

 

Developing countries and their citizens are only the third largest category of lenders, and hold less than 20% of the federal government's debt.

 

3. you are using rhetorical devices as arguments (exaggerations like "proxy-slave", speculation about people's motives, not to mention personal attacks).

 

Ayn Rand was once asked to describe her Epistemology in a word. Her reply was: Reason. So an Objectivist forum is hardly the place to try and get away with what you're doing.

[Nicky]

Nicky said, "Look around you," and you replied with an argument mostly about debt. Most of the problems with debt are not going to be made apparent for many more years. "Look around you" is an ok measure of wealth, but without debt obligations it isn't the whole picture. Likewise, when you ignore "look around you," you're not acknowledging the whole picture, either.

I appreciate your point as far as theory, but I don't think debt is much of a factor in this case. I already addressed the government debt issue: most of it is internal, and internal debt is irrelevant to our discussion (how much Americans owe each other doesn't affect how much they have in total). That leaves overall external debt (including private).

 

Sure, America's overall external debt is astounding. It's $52.000 per capita, which amounts to almost $17 trillion. Bad news, right?

 

No, not really. It would be bad news, if it was a one way street. But it's not. Fact is, any nation with a significant financial sector is going to have a lot of external debt, and in turn a lot of external lending. Switzerland's external debt is $152.000 per capita,  Britain's $160.000/capita, Hong Kong's $105.000, and  Luxembourg's is $3,696,467 per capita. And none of that is a bad thing, it just means there is a lot of financial trade being done in these countries. What matters to our discussion is how much the net debt is (external debt - external lending, roughly speaking - I don't see the point of going into associated risk). Either way, I have no idea where to find that specific figure. Unsurprisingly, the usual suspects (sensationalist libertarian/conservative "doomsday is coming" type of outlets) aren't advertising it.

 

The closest I found is the current account balance (CAB). Here's a list of countries by current account balance as a percentage of GDP, in reverse order. The US current account balance is only -3.11% of GDP. Hardly something to give us pause before declaring the US a prosperous country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance_as_a_percentage_of_GDP

Edited November 22, 2013 by Nicky

[Nicky]

As an aside, I find it hilarious that the same anarcho-socialists who are now denouncing the practice of developing countries lending the US money as "the US proxy-enslaving poor workers in third world countries", have been for decades denouncing the IMF and World Bank (institutions which facilitate lending in the other direction) as, AGAIN, tools of enslavement for, AGAIN, poor workers in third world countries.

 

What gives, dudes? At least ONE of those has to be the enslavement of the rich westerners, doesn't it? How can two opposite actions both victimize the same exact party?

 

[edit] Just to be clear, I oppose both of the above actions, and any other that involves bureaucrats playing banker with taxpayer money. I just like keeping track of quantities, using an ancient human invention called numbers. It's a pet peeve of mine. Call me crazy, but when something makes up 3% of a country's GDP, I'm not a fan of someone acting like it's the main thing that nation does for a living. 

Edited November 22, 2013 by Nicky

[Edmond Dantes]

Nicky,

 

It wasn't a personal attack.  I was describing the psychology of the people we are discussing, not you.  That is, after all, the topic of this discussion.  I regret that you misunderstood that.

 

Nothing you said discredits my argument.  Debt "owed to ourselves", or to Westernized institutions in other countries, is still debt.  It still indicates a lack of productivity (or, more precisely, value added as a result of what is produced).  It still doesn't change the fact that we're dependent upon foreign (ie: state-controlled, even if not officially) industrial infrastructures for the fundamentals of civilized life.  It isn't an indication of "great plans for the future", it's an indication that everyone everywhere is trying to game everyone else.  

 

I won't quibble with you about who owes who what, because it doesn't matter.  Ultimately it is all dependent upon the ability of our government to farm out the consequences.  What do you think would happen to the consumer credit markets if, suddenly, the Federal Government started paying it foreign debts?  I mean really paying them?  As in: taking real wealth from Americans and shipping it overseas?  The lenders would immediately start calling in their loans in order to cover their own asset losses, and the price of consumer credit would skyrocket (sending the average American household's already impossible requirement to go 10 months without any consumption in order to get out of debt to 3, 4, maybe 5 years).

 

The figure of $17.3 trillion is a reflection of what the government has done in order to keep the illusion of prosperity at home floating along.  It's is nothing more than the government shouldering the burden of our own profligacy because, as I alluded to in my earlier post, it is the one institution that everyone (most importantly foreign powers) is afraid to stand up to.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Edmond Dantes

[Nicky]

Nicky,

 

It wasn't a personal attack.  I was describing the psychology of the people we are discussing, not you.  That is, after all, the topic of this discussion.  I regret that you misunderstood that.

 

Nothing you said discredits my argument.

Right. You freely admit to discussing the psychology of someone during a debate on economics, but me pointing out logical fallacies doesn't discredit your argument.

Nothing you said discredits my argument.  Debt "owed to ourselves", or to Westernized institutions in other countries, is still debt.  It still indicates a lack of productivity

Oh I think your primary school math teacher would strongly disagree with that one.

Sally has 20 bucks. Jimmy has 30 bucks. How much do Sally and Jimmy have in total?

Now Sally gives Jimmy 10 bucks. Jimmy gives Sally 15 bucks. Sally gives Jimmy 17 bucks. Quick, how much do Sally and Jimmy have in total now? (Note that the key here is to answer quickly: that's where the lesson lies, not in performing the additions and subtractions)

Edited November 22, 2013 by Nicky

[Ben Archer]

 

If you live in the US, look around: is the overall picture bleak? It's not? That's because the vast majority of one percenters earned their wealth, and created the pretty picture you're looking at while doing it. If that wasn't true, you would be looking at a very bleak overall picture.

With credit/consumption (not the private sector) driving the economy, I'd say this is debatable. If regulation is what's fueling the majority of economic growth, wouldn't that point to a very bleak overall picture? 

 

 

 

Nicky said, "Look around you," and you replied with an argument mostly about debt. Most of the problems with debt are not going to be made apparent for many more years. "Look around you" is an ok measure of wealth, but without debt obligations it isn't the whole picture. Likewise, when you ignore "look around you," you're not acknowledging the whole picture, either.

 

 

 

How many years would you guess when you say "many"? I think 5 to 10 at most, without some huge investment by the US in competitive technologies. Medium wage is where it was at 1989, and global deflation heavily offsets domestic inflation. China has definitely boomed but they have an ageing working class, manufacturing coming to a halt, and massive debt problems. China is where the next big bubble will be. So again to me this seems very bleak.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Ben Archer

[softwareNerd]

People like Blankfein face a similar predicament:  they can either be a cronyist/pragmatist/statist to a great degree (in order to be a capitalist to any degree), or they can be neither (ie: work at a fraction of their capacity. "Work in a rock quarry").

Are you saying that -- assuming Blankfein is a potential great achiever who finds himself in a very mixed economy -- his moral choice would be to "work in a quarry" (i.e. below his capacity)?

I have a very middle-class neighbor to owns a little take-out place. he knows a couple of city "politicians". Not sure if it helps to know someone on the local zoning board when you for a signage "variation". He's donated small amount ($200) to the mayor's last campaign. What about folk like this in your view? Do you condemn him as much as Blankfein, on his relationship with politicians? [After all $200 is equivalent of Goldman paying a few million dollars of its market cap.]

Assuming you say that Blankfein is far worse, my question is why: is it purely scale, or is it the type of business Blankfein is in (part of the JamesShrugged's alleged "banking cartel"), or something else?

[Edmond Dantes]

Oh I think your primary school math teacher would strongly disagree with that one.

Sally has 20 bucks. Jimmy has 30 bucks. How much do Sally and Jimmy have in total?

Now Sally gives Jimmy 10 bucks. Jimmy gives Sally 15 bucks. Sally gives Jimmy 17 bucks. Quick, how much do Sally and Jimmy have in total now? (Note that the key here is to answer quickly: that's where the lesson lies, not in performing the additions and subtractions)

 

That's cute, but that extra dollar is still borrowed.  It still doesn't change the fact that Sally sells a zombie video game app that Andy, Johnny, and Bobby play in leiu of their homework or mowing the lawn.  Or that Jimmy sells credit default swaps because Sally bought more house than she needed (and Mary and Amy are willing to buy them because they need to make a quick buck in order to keep little Andy, Johnny, and Bobby happy by having the newest video game for them come Christmas time).  I'm not disagreeing with you that money lending, per se, is a productive activity.  I'm simply pointing out that all of the "production" it's facilitating today isn't productive (and that it's only our government's massive foreign borrowing that neutralizes the consequences).  That extra dollar isn't making our lives better.  It's simply (temporarily) keeping them from getting worse.  

Edited November 22, 2013 by Edmond Dantes

[Ben Archer]

  That extra dollar isn't making our lives better.  It's simply (temporarily) keeping them from getting worse.

I have to agree on this. The median real after tax and after inflation wage story is just unbelievable.  It’s actually been falling America, I would say, almost every year since ’74 It doesn’t work like a real economy.  And the number one reason why it doesn’t work is because gains in productivity do not flow through to the workers. 

 

All those gains in productivity get high jacked by the financiers.  So you see, today, in the U.S., 20% of the total net income of the S&P 500, 20%of all the net income that’s made in the country is generated by finance companies.  Think about how insane that is. Interest rates are, you know, with the ten-year treasury is 2% or whatever.  How can these finance companies be making up such a huge percentage of our national corporate income?

 

 

 

The closest I found is the current account balance (CAB). Here's a list of countries by current account balance as a percentage of GDP, in reverse order. The US current account balance is only -3.11% of GDP. Hardly something to give us pause before declaring the US a prosperous country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance_as_a_percentage_of_GDP

 

You have to also look at the persistence of the current account, not just the percentage. The US Current Account deficit is 2.7% of GDP, down sharply from 5.8% in 2006. 

 

The Fed certainly fears these doom and gloom scenarios you mention. Consider the policy response to the 2008 crisis compared to the 1930s. In the 1930s, policymakers believed in laissez–faire and just sat back to let the market forces establish equilibrium. Of course then WW2 happened and we increased spending 900%, ending the depression. In 2008 however, the policy response has been entirely different. The Fed has done everything not to allow market-forces to work and establish any sort of equilibrium as they're terrified that that level of market-determined GDP would be 30–40% less than it was in 2006.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Ben Archer

[Edmond Dantes]

Are you saying that -- assuming Blankfein is a potential great achiever who finds himself in a very mixed economy -- his moral choice would be to "work in a quarry" (i.e. below his capacity)?

I have a very middle-class neighbor to owns a little take-out place. he knows a couple of city "politicians". Not sure if it helps to know someone on the local zoning board when you for a signage "variation". He's donated small amount ($200) to the mayor's last campaign. What about folk like this in your view? Do you condemn him as much as Blankfein, on his relationship with politicians? [After all $200 is equivalent of Goldman paying a few million dollars of its market cap.]

Assuming you say that Blankfein is far worse, my question is why: is it purely scale, or is it the type of business Blankfein is in (part of the JamesShrugged's alleged "banking cartel"), or something else?

 

As I said in my original post on this thread, it isn't that people like Blankfein or your neighbor* engage in that sort of behavior, it's that they do so for no other reason than their own personal agrandizement.  It's predatory - and just because doing it may cancel out the negative effects of the same sorts of predatory actions that others take against them doesn't change that.  I'm by no means saying that you shouldn't engage in such activities, I'm simply saying that if you do, you should see it for what it is (and, as I said, take whatever benefit you receive from it and dedicate it solely to making it - by whatever means necessary - so that such activities aren't required in order to also do legitimate business activities.  I would consider that just as "Roarkian" as working in a quarry).

 

*I should point out that the example of your neighbor isn't the same as the examples of Goldman's behavior that the OP listed.  It's apples to oranges.  Your neighbor is simply paying "protection money" so that he can do something he should have every right to do anyway.  I'm sure Goldman does such things too (ie: that a significant portion of it's "government insider favors" are simply bribes in order to be left alone), but they also do things on that actively harm competing businesses and individuals.  I don't think it's the scale that makes them worse, it's that.

[JamesShrugged]

Are you saying that -- assuming Blankfein is a potential great achiever who finds himself in a very mixed economy -- his moral choice would be to "work in a quarry" (i.e. below his capacity)?

I have a very middle-class neighbor to owns a little take-out place. he knows a couple of city "politicians". Not sure if it helps to know someone on the local zoning board when you for a signage "variation". He's donated small amount ($200) to the mayor's last campaign. What about folk like this in your view? Do you condemn him as much as Blankfein, on his relationship with politicians? [After all $200 is equivalent of Goldman paying a few million dollars of its market cap.]

Assuming you say that Blankfein is far worse, my question is why: is it purely scale, or is it the type of business Blankfein is in (part of the JamesShrugged's alleged "banking cartel"), or something else?

Alleged bank cartels? Are you really denying the existence of central banking in the US?

[Ben Archer]

Alleged bank cartels? Are you really denying the existence of central banking in the US?

 

"Central banking" is a bit ambiguous. It's not completely nationalized but it's enough to where the bankers have the power: Fannie and Freddie essentially nationalized the mortgage market when they were put into "conservatorship." The biggest four banks control a third of the deposits. Derivatives are still in full force and even trickier than before. The Volcker rule was never actually implemented  One good bit of news was Janet yellen replacing Ben, instead of Larry Summers (who was a big fan of derivatives deregulation and repealing Glass-steagall)

 

So there are a number of things that contribute to their power but I don't think it represents a "cartel"

[Nicky]

That's cute

No, that's logic. Look it up, get back to me. End of conversation.

[Edmond Dantes]

No, that's logic. Look it up, get back to me. End of conversation.

 

"Logic."  In what rationalistic, context-less universe?  Are you seriously trying to tell me that having 51 units of worthlessness is better than having 50?  Simply because Sally and Jimmy know how to react to economic fluctuations - at least 50% of which are politically-caused (so say nothing of the indirect distortions in motivation) - and as a result come out ahead, doesn't mean that they've expanded their real wealth.  It's one thing to say that Sally doesn't think ipods will ever replace CDs, so the market takes her money and gives it to Jimmy who does - but it's another thing entirely to say that Sally is wrong because she doesn't think that moving from CDs to ipods at all costs (ie: at the cost of being able to create the basic necessities of life) is the most advantageous long-term use of her resources.  Back before the government made conservative, low-risk, predictably profitable (because they were based upon production that was adding objective and proportionate value to people's lives)... back before predictably profitable investments were effectively outlawed (to pay for the welfare state, etc), Sally's opinion would have been seen as the rational one.  Simply because Jimmy and everyone else is too stupid to see that the demand for ipods isn't because "those other, simpler things have been taken care of" (but rather because they are being taken care of at the expense of our freedoms, international credibility, and even our national security) - and such people benefit as a result of their actions - doesn't mean that they're right.

 

You can sit there and insist that the ability to pull up just about any movie you want to watch within a matter of minutes (instead of having to get in the car, drive to the video rental store, etc), is some stupendous achievement, but it doesn't cancel out the fact that the time you saved only needed to be save because you had to spend extra time on the clock (because inflation, regulation, and taxation continues to rise, while your hourly wage remains the same) or the commute (because you can't live close enough to be able to walk to work unless you want to be killed by an inner city gang member who's hard up because he just spent the last of your paycheck/his welfare check on Chinese-made designer sneakers)?  How much cheaper do you think gasoline, for instance, would be if we didn't have to cow tow to the Middle East - because China, India, and Japan need their oil (most of ours comes from Canada and Latin America) - so that we can continue to get what those countries manufacture?

 

Yes, 51 is greater than 50 - but only if a whole bunch of other 50's are becoming 49's in 4 or 5 other aspects of one's life at the same time.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Edmond Dantes

[JamesShrugged]

"Central banking" is a bit ambiguous. It's not completely nationalized but it's enough to where the bankers have the power: Fannie and Freddie essentially nationalized the mortgage market when they were put into "conservatorship." The biggest four banks control a third of the deposits. Derivatives are still in full force and even trickier than before. The Volcker rule was never actually implemented  One good bit of news was Janet yellen replacing Ben, instead of Larry Summers (who was a big fan of derivatives deregulation and repealing Glass-steagall)

 

So there are a number of things that contribute to their power but I don't think it represents a "cartel"

One group of individuals *federal reserve) has a monopoly on printing legal tender which the law requires everyone to accept as payment. That group sells the legal tender to another group (banks) at very low rates. That group then sells the money to a group (general public) that is not privy to the low interest at high enough rates to make a "profit." Thats a banking cartel. here is a great book on the topic http://mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf

Edited November 25, 2013 by JamesShrugged

[Ben Archer]

I'm sure there are many parallels, but the history of the US banking system—which you could say gained traction in '68—is a little more complex in its formation. Banking cartels probably do not employ nearly as many decent people as Goldman & Sachs, who, backed with Keynesian & Austrian economic ideas, believe they're doing the right thing, (with Quantitative Easing, and fixing interest rates) and taking the best measure to keep the US economy afloat. 

 

Like I've said though, I think if anyone believes the show of prosperity in the US, they're forgetting the lessons of the 20's.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Ben Archer