Free exchange Murder most foul When periods of economic growth come to an end, old age is rarely to blame … In June America’s economic expansion will be seven years old. That is practically geriatric: only three previous ones lasted longer. The record boom of the 1990s survived only ten years. It is tempting to look at that ten-year mark as something like the maximum lifespan of an expansion in America, and to worry, correspondingly, that the current expansion’s days are running short. But are they? – Economist
Here’s another article from the Economist newspaper (magazine, really) defending monopoly central banking by pretending that there may not be a linkage between money printing and economic depression.
On every level, this article is wrong. It’s propaganda. The Economist likes to mimic a “thought” magazine in that it deals with complex topics in an objective and sometimes eloquent way.
But it is only a mimic. It has a series of very specific goals. Every aspect of its editorial presentation is positioned to support and expand its readers’ appreciation of globalism.
When it covers news items it almost invariably does so from the standpoint of government entities and individuals. It is rare for the magazine to cover individual entrepreneurs and their achievements.
When the magazine does cover individual businesspeople it usually reports on financiers. And often those financiers occupy a perch of uneasy mercantilism – making enormous sums of money transforming various government programs into public or quasi-private resources.
Yet after the Depression, governments took on the job of countering pessimism. Bigger welfare states provided bigger “automatic stabilisers”, meaning spending on things like unemployment benefits, which pump more money into an economy as growth weakens.
Central banks began manipulating interest rates more vigorously to keep growth on track, and eventually adopted targets to help instill the expectation of steady growth.
This is the reason, according to the article that a period of economic growth need not end. We learn, for instance, that a Netherlands expansion ending in 2008, lasted nearly 26 years. If Australia keep going, that country’s expansion may move beyond 26 years, as the current one dates back to 1991.
How long can we expect an expansion to last? According to the Economist, at least a decade.
This doesn’t make any sense to us observing Canadian, British and US expansions.
In fact, we have a hard time figuring out what an expansion is at all. We watched central banks boost Western economies after the tech bubble burst around the turn of the century.
Central bankers were successful in boosting economic activity in the early 2000s but in retrospect that sort of monetary expansion led to the crash of 2008-2009.
We look at the rise in the price of gold relative to the dollar and it seems like a bear dollar market started in 2000 and persists today.
The gold cycle that began early in the 2000s persists today as well.
For us, these waves of economic activity are not in any sense normal. They are the result of price distortions.
The Economist tells us that vigorous manipulation interest rates by central keeps growth on track.
This is a ridiculous statement from our point of view. What is “growth” when it is being boosted by monetary debasement?
It’s some sort of trick. And then we are told that central banks “adopted targets that helped instill the expectation of steady growth.”
What planet are these anonymous writers living on? There hasn’t been any growth at all in Western economies since 2008. And we’d make a case that the economic activity of the entire 2000s was nothing but perfervid monetary debasement.
What this article is desperately trying to do is delink central bank money printing from cyclical recessions and depressions.
But our own experience and our own eyes tell us that printing money does not create prosperity, only a facsimile of it.
We haven’t had prosperity in the West since modern central banking began.
Keynesian money printing doesn’t work. It creates enormous debt bubbles and misaligned economic priorities.
An economy run via central banking is either in the throes of a series of asset bubbles or their collapse.
And over time, the collapses grown more prominent and destructive.
Central banking does indeed create economic collapses.
The “growth” from low-priced “money” is a sham.
And it’s even worse because the people running monopoly central banks know the system is a sham.
They are just pretending that it’s not.
And they are trying to pretend that this system somehow was put in place for our benefit.
But it was not. It was put in place to fail.
They just don’t want to admit it. Because if they admit then the argument about doing away with monopoly central banking begins.
And if central banks are erased, then internationalism loses its main trigger, its main tool.
There will be no New World Order without central banking causing the endless catastrophes generating ever widening, international consolidation.
You cannot get to a world government without monopoly central banking and their artificially created monetary chaos.
But we’re not supposed to understand that.
We’re supposed to believe that these manipulative central bankers and those that stand behind them have our best interests at heart.
Conclusion: They do not. The chaos and depression of monopoly central banking is getting worse as monetary debasement gets worse. The only way that real prosperity will return is if money is privatized and competition is reasserted. Until then, try to stay outside of the system. One method: buying gold and silver and taking delivery.