Benke: Liar and the Worst Failure in the History of World Finance

Hacker Boy (hackng into this disgracefu blog for the benefit of all mankind, and still having no comment on the ridiculous allegation that I am connected to Ruper Murdoch)L "Now you have done it, Skip. You have called Obama "Liar-in-Chief" and gotten away with ti. But now you are messing with Ben Bernanke, the savior of this country and the man who appears to be running the economy of this country--at least according to Wall Street. You might as well be Pontius Pilate. They are going to shut down your blog. Google will never allow this kind of vicious attack on the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Calling him a "liarr"!!!!! What are you thinking? The Catholic Church has already begun the process of determing whether Bernanke has accomplished enough miracles to be designated as a saint. You, Skip, are attacking St. Bernanke. He is cerainly the saint of Wll Street. They worship him. His words have the power to move the stock market 500 or a1,000 points. No, Skip, this is the END for you. Tim Pawlenty may have again sealed his doom in tonight's Repubican debate, but that disgraceful title alone has sealed YOUR doom. I won't even bother to resond to any of your usual sleight of hand in response to my hacking. "


Skip: "Hacker Boy has a point, beyond the one on the top of his head. Ben Bernake and the Federal Reserve have assumed the mantle of the peoople really in charge of this economy. This is partially to fill the CACUUM left by the abdication of leadership by President Obama. It is partially because the Fed has gradually been designated by the economic fascists on Wall Street as their poxy for running the country THEIR WAY. It is partially because President Bush gave the impression that Wall Stret's Hank Paulson (Goldman Sachs, and only nominally a Republican) and the Fed's Bernanke wer IN CHARGE as Bush said that the coun try faced Armageddon, from which only those two men could save the country. It did not matter to Bush that the same two men PRESIDED OFVER THE COLLAPSE OF OUR ECONOMY--both men being apporinted in early 2006 and doing nothing to prevent the economic collapse. This two-man dictatorship--sort of like the times Rome put two men in charge--would necessarily give way to Bernanke alone, because Paulson's time was limited (Bush ending his term). It may be, therefore, that this is the most dangerous attack this blog has yet made on a person responsible for ruinging this country. Oh, this blog said lthe same things about Bernanke back in 2008, but he had not yet achieved such power and sainthood. At that time, this blog accurately called Bernanke the SECOND Wrost Failure in the History of World Finance. Since then this blog has promoted Bernanke to the number one spot, for the very reason that Bernanke has CONTINUED to ruin our economy, while we were lucky enough for our prcoess to take care of Paulson. Problem: We got a Paulson CLONE in Geitner, but Geitner is even more a Bernanke CLONE (Geitner coming from the Fed, where he had been head of the New York Fed). Nevertheless, this blog has no fear. We are not afraid of Bernanke, Hacker Boy, or even Rupert Murdoch (boycott Foxx--as the Repubican debate once again proved to be the correct call by this blog)."


Now that we have disposed of Hacer Boy, on to Bernanke. The full reasons why Bernanke is the Worst Failure in the Hiistory of World Finance will be expolored in another article, to be published either tomorrow or over the weekend. Suffice it to say, for now, that Bernanke has presided over the WORST recession since World War IiI, AND the WORST "recovery" since World War II. Further, he is directly responsible for both failures, although nott alone. This article will deal mainly with the LIE that Bernanke told in connection with the Tuesday Fed meeting, statement, and which was fawned upon by the mainstream media, Fox and Wall Street.


This is not the only lie that Bernanke has told, but it is one of the most outrageous, obvious lies that any policy maker has ever devised for POLITICAL purposes (the "politics" here being the canonization of St. Bernanke, and not specifically the reelection of Barack Obama, although it may have been for that purpose as well). Bernanke, ofr example, has told Congress that the Fed is NOT "printing money" when it engages in "quantitative easing"--a falsehood so obvious that no one even pretends to believe it. I don't think even Bernanke really pretends to believe it, or cares whether anyone else does. It was just a thing to say to avod the whole discussion about whether the Fed had any business printing money in a manner UNPRECEDENTED in American history. Note that this was all a FAILURE, as the Fed has FAILED to produce a real "recovery' from the recession that Bernanke let happen.


What lie, then, are we talkng about. You must have heard about it, if you are bothering to pay any attention. The Fed--meaning Bernankee, although he was joined by several others--announced thqat it would hold interest rates at essentially ZERO for two whole years, for the purpose of giving business "certainty" in planning for the future.


Why is this a lie? I feel like leaving it to you, as an exercise, since it is so obvious. But no one else seems to have pointed out that the emperor--St. Bernanke--ha no clothes. So I guess it is up to me.


Now the media did suggest that the Fed is telling us that there will be NO real "recovery" for at least two years, because otherwise this "promise" makes no sense. The problem is that it makes no sense anyway, and it is FALSE that it gives any more "certainty" than before the Fed made the statement. How can the Fed possibliy GUARANTEE that there will be no rise in interest rates for two years? It can't, and the attempt to do so was a CLUMSY LIE.


No, I don't care whether the Fed has the ability to do it or not--although there are many circustances when the Fed would not have the power to hold the line on interest rates. If rates staart rising outside of the Fed, NO amount of "central planning' can possibly reult in the Fed keeping rates artificially low as they become INCONSISTENT with rates in the privatrte economy, and around the world (if that occurs). The Fed can do it now BECAUSE the econmoy is so WEAK--a FAILURE of Bernanke and the Fed.


It gets worse, in terms of how outrageous this lie is. What BINDS Bernanke and the Fed to this "promise" (just like what BINDS Congress to the SHAM spending "cuts" they keep announcing for the ar future)? NOTHING. This is not a matter of opinion This is an absolute FACT Further it is obvious. What keeps the Fed, and Bernanke, form CHANGING THEIR MIJNDS? Nothing. In other words, the statement the FedBernanke made is no different from the former statement that the Fed will keep interest rates low "indefinitely". In practice, it is the SAME to say either that you "intend' to keep this policy in place for two years, or that you arekeeping it in place so long as economic conditions warrant. Same thing. Oh, I guess you could say there is some sort of psychological difference, but it is absurd to say that the new formulation gives "certainty". Hogwash.


Let lus go to the Weimar Republic. You should know this story--about the INFLATING of the German currency, hyperinlation, and the rise of Hitler. Yep. Thhis all led into not only Hitler, but the Great Depression. Am I saying that Fed policies are going to lead to hyperinflation? Not exactly. I believe there is a danger of that, but the world economy may be so WEAK that we never get there. But say that the United States somenow starts GROWING, and INFLATION starts rearing its ugly head (as, in a way, it already is).


If you believe Bernanke, the Fed will IGNORE inflation--even hyperinflation--and FORCE interest rates to rmain low no matter what. That is impossible, unless Bernanke is insane (maybe a possibiity, as he comes to believe in "St. Bernanke" to the rescue). It is simply abusrd to suggest taht the Fed would IGNORE real inflation, just because of a PROMISE . It makes much more sense to jsut consider Bernanke an outraeous liar. You can allmost hear Bernanke thinking: "What is the harm? I knowit is a lie. But I also know that everyone seems to take whatever I say--not matter how stupid and outrageous--as gospel. It is not like I will CHANGE anything I do because of this promis. If it becomes convenient, I will just do what I would have done anyway. Probably, no one will even remember the promise, and if they do they will realize that no one should ever have believed I would hold to the promise if it no longer made any sense. In the meantime, maybe this white lie will stabilize the markets."


Is there anything wrongwith my versioin of wht Bernanke and the Fed have to be thinking? Yes, there is, beyond the sheer arrogance. What is wrong is that it is ABSURD. It is not even a plausible lie. That not only proves Bernanke cannot be believed, but it proves that NO ONE ELSE (who pretended to buy the Fed statement) can be beilieved. How can you "trust" ANYONE who would think that the Fed statement was in any way different form saying that the Fed would keep interest rates the same for the indefinit future? Is the Fed really simply endorsing this blog: telling you that the people on Wall Street, and in the media, are The Stupidest Peole on Earth--where only a FALSE "timetable" can keep thm from "fretting" ove whether interest rates might be raised?


How STUPID do you have to be to think that the subject of raising interest rates can be avoided if inflation reaches, say, 8%? You obviusly have to be only as stupid as Wall Street, and the media, actually are. Or is this all just a conspiracy of deception? Either way, it is very disturbing.


I KNOW that the Fed does not consider inflation a "danger". But exactly what do you not understand about the Fed FAILING to make correct predictions? The idea that Bernanke knows the future is simply absurd. He has PROVEN that he often has no clule about the future. There is certainly a possibility that inflation will accelearate, but NO possibility that the Fed would totally ignore such event.


Could the Fed have said that we "foresee no reason to change interest rates for about two years, absent an unexpected change in the economic situation we expect over the next tow years." Of course the Fed, and Bernanke, could have made such a (basically) HONEST statement. This leads to the obvious conclusin that the statement was meant to be DISHONEST. Do I really know the exact wordig of the satement? What if the Fed did have caveats that the media just fialed to report? That would simply make the media WORSE LIEARS than Bernanke. It is impossible to believe that this was not rEPORTED the way the Fed wanted it to be reported, and that the Fed INTENDED to suggest a "certainty" about the future beyond its power to promise.


Q.E. D. Ben Bernanke is a liar. Stay tuned for the article that will show you conclusively that he is also The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).