Here is the comment, reproduced in full, before it is automatically removed in a couple weeks, in response to Infowars.com republishing The Daily Bell article, Central Banks Won’t Produce Natural Interest. Notice how they predictably fail to distinguish between public non-BIS-member central banks (Libya’s until the NATO bombing, Syria’s, Iran’s — notice a pattern?) and private central banks.
March 30, 2012 at 6:23 am
“The gibberish contained in the above excerpt is only magnified throughout the article.”
The article itself is, in fact, gibberish.
It is written by a person whose job is to write articles for a banking website about bankers and the jargon and gibberish that the bankers use while using the same gibberish to blast the banks, bankers, and banking practices that caused the website (and the author’s job) to exist in the first place, all the while still promoting the perpetuation of the machine that created itself.
Does that mean there is “greenbackerists”?
And the history lesson is completely un-necessary.
“…Knut Wicksell’s ‘natural rate of interest’”. But who was Knut Wicksell and what is the “natural rate of interest” – and does it matter?”
Creating a catchy phrase automatically means that the creator is a financial genius?
Critically analyzing the jargon while using the jargon shows genius, too?
Maybe the interest rates (“natural” or not) would be “better” (perspectively) if so much time and money wasn’t WASTED to have articles like this (and websites like TheDailyBell)…
What a RANT!
My fingers are out of breath…”
I first publicly questioned The Daily Bell on February 10, 2011, with Strange Bedfellows: The Federal Reserve and The Daily Bell.