Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘reader’

From the April 7, 2014 article, “Once, Twice, Three Times…Redux” by Bionic Mosquito at LewRockwell.com, a regular reader notes:

American libertarians like you have LRC in such high [e]steem, for good (past) reason, that you have difficulty to perceive the clearly unprincipled, biased stance of LRC on several matters.

…the last 3-4 years of LRC, for me, are marked by deep disappointment, mainly beca[u]se LRC’s proclaimed anti-state stance is subordinate to anti-US imperialism stance.

In sum, the anti-state principle is not systematically and impartially applied at LRC. It is subordinate to anti-US imperialism.

The irony is that Lew Rockwell entered into a voluntary agreement with the very same United States government that he regularly bashes and expects his readers to actually take that seriously.

I am glad to see LewRockwell.com’s obvious contradictions and tired, old rhetoric come under increasing scrutiny by others besides myself.

Despite that, some anarcho-capitalist recently commented on my post, Lew Rockwell tones down his anarcho-capitalist rhetoric in favour of more relevant and popular articles, and left in a huff when he tried to make it seem as if the two points I raised in the discussion had no real basis.

For more on Lew Rockwell, see my article, 10 questions for Lew Rockwell.

Read Full Post »

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.

“Benrod says:
March 30, 2012 at 6:23 am

“The gibberish contained in the above excerpt is only magnified throughout the article.”
Right.
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.
“Greenbackerism”
Does that mean there is “greenbackerists”?
Extreme 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?”
No.
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.

Read Full Post »