Political leanings

[alan1chef]

Torurot, I never made any communist link with socialism. Don't stereotype Americans....you sound like a typical non-American...one of those who has never even been to America...one who watches American TV and assumes all Americans are like those images on a Budweiser commercial. Your ignorance is showing. Communism evolved out of socialism however the two are not alike. So what's your point? Neither are workable systems.

You also don't understand capitalism...you want to link it somehow to the current situation. That is a typical non-American understanding of capitalism. Don't confuse systems of government with systems of econonmics either.

As I said....I don't like bailouts and I don't like to see the government sticking it's nose into the private sector and I don't find what is going on today acceptable.

[Torurot]

I used to live and work in Honolulu. Is that stereotypical enough for you. Of course Honolulu is not the "mainland", so let's not go there. Bud ain't on my drinking list.

How about you pop up your definition of "Capitalism" otherwise we are just going to talk in circles.

Did you read this weekend about "free" trade USA subsidising it's dairy farmers? Always talk one thing, do another, while imposing directives through WTO IMF, "world" bank, XYZ et al on others. How about walking the talk for once America!! Guess that's just the "American way", and I just don't "understand"?

[pacman]

(alan1chef @ May 23 2009,01:19) Pacman, I suppose greater freedom at home in Australia would include 50% income tax rates and a dole system that is absolutely socialistic.

50% tax rate? Not to my knowledge, our highest rate is 45% payable on any income above $180,000 per annum. Granted our nominal rates are higher than the US but consider this quote I lifted off the web -

Given the fact that Australia provides universal health care, the amount that low income earners gain in not paying health care costs means that low income earners in Australia are actually better off than those in the US, despite paying slightly more in income tax.

And if not for George W never rejecting any bill that lowered taxes (17 I think was the number), our rates would be under the US.

With the current accounts crisis faced by the US, there is no alternative but for Obama to raise taxes. His latest quote is a beauty: "We are out of money".

And our welfare system, the cornerstone of our stable society, is branded socialistic (and therefore evil) by right wing commentators when they can't face the unpalatable truth that such a scheme would bankrupt the US economy in quick time.

The horrible realisation by Americans that they have been duped by their political masters & have bravely defended the American Way & Free Enterprise through thick & thin, only to wake up to the fact that the American Dream was stolen from them by corrupt Wall Street Banksters, must make most thinking people angry.

Consider that Alan, everything you have worked so hard for, all the ideals that Americans so proudly believe in, it is all in jeopardy. The US dollar is on the abyss, it is now clear that the Treasury & the Fed have decided to inflate away Americas debt.

With an unmanageable amount owed, with no willing lenders to prop up the banks, with massive cash requirements still needed, Ben Bernanke & Hank Paulsen will continue to print money till the whole lot collapses.

There are even unconfirmed reports that an alternative currency has been planned to replace the greenback, one brave analyst posted that China has been given a huge amount already just to buy their co-operation.

It sounds like science fiction & unless it happens, I have no way to verify the truth. Whatever that is, first deflation will destroy the value of everything, then inflation will follow the same path it always does - see Zimbabwe for the latest example.

So much for understanding capitalism, I will stick to the one true store of wealth, the one currency that has only gained when all other *fiat* currencies have collapsed over the past 5000 years - GOLD.

[pacman]

This proposed currency that I mentioned above is the Amero.

Originally touted as a joint North American currency to be shared between the US, Canada & Mexico, it is now the replacement-in-waiting when the dollar hyperinflates out of existence.

There is no way Canada nor Mexico will be included now, but out of curiousity, I googled "amero" & found 1,110,000 references to it.

The sites I opened are out of date now, they don't take into account the Global Financial Crisis but for those interested, a quick look may uncover something more relevant. I had no trouble finding the the news regarding the transfer of Ameros to China.

It seems the dogs are barking, I am reminded of the old saying - where's there is smoke, there is fire...

[f0xxee]

Oh god it has shattered me, but I agree with Alan on the flat tax. I agree with him 100%.

20% tax on everyone, no loopholes, offshore corporations, dodgy trust funds. 20% if you are on the dole, 20% if you are Microsoft, 20% if you are GM (100% if you are Monsanto coz I hate the cunts.) 20% if you are Warren Buffet.

The autralian tax laws now fill 40+ volumes and are unworkable. The money saved in collecting a flat rate alone would be worthwhile.

PS: I have just finished living in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, where making a buck is bare bones capitalism all the way. They want to make money.

As an ex trade unionist in a very militant organization I still believe that health, education and state security should exist as a birth right. But I dislike Socialism as it degrades mans natural need to better himself and the world he lives in.
Capitalism is so very far from perfect, but it has on the whole improved the world more than opposing dogmas.

[Stogie]

I agree. Flat Tax... It's easy to manage and fair to all.

[Snick]

Flat Tax and remove corporate taxes replacing corporate tax with a tax based on presence within a country/state (i.e. a 10,000 person company can't incorporate in Cayman Islands and not pay corporate taxes in their country).

Although flat tax is 'unfair' in some respects. It is less unfair then every other form of taxation (to paraphrase Winston Churchill).

[pacman]

(pacman @ May 05 2009,19:19) One thing I will add concerns the question of paying income tax - the best way to avoid tax minimisation schemes that unfairly favour the big corporations is to to do away with income tax completely.

This has been well argued by smarter men than I but either a deposits tax or a broad goods & services tax takes care of government revenue far more fairly & effectively.

Imagine a world where no-one needs to fill in a tax return, where the tax lawyers have to find a real job instead of dreaming up ways to defraud the state...

The increase in efficiency in the way a country would run is staggering. In the US alone, it is calculated that such a plan could fund their own health care scheme.

In response to the proposal suggesting a flat tax rate, I repeat above my own post from earlier in this thread. I am not over all the detail on just how this works, I just know that a tax based on declared income will lead to a big increase in the black economy & act as a big incentive to hide income.

Combine a universal consumption tax with a deposits tax on all bank transactions & income tax can be abolished altogether. Or that's the theory...   (yes, I know I have written one OR the other above & here I have one PLUS the other, as I said, I am not the author of the plan)

[Torurot]

Here's another one for Al's "Capitalism" which until we get a working definition we are just going to keep in "".  "Capitalism" without oversight always deteriorates into theft. It's nothing but a grand form of piracy, usually from those that can lest afford it. It's the complete reverse of Robin Hood.  Mean while over in "Fed"/bank land it's "privatise the profits, socialise the losses".  Ain't "Capitalism" grand.  

Credit Default Swaps
The Poison in the System
http://counterpunch.org/whitney05222009.html
By MIKE WHITNEY Weekend Edition May 22-24, 2009

[alan1chef]

The Definition of Capitalism

[1] When people ask about the definition of capitalism, they are often looking for an answer that explains the "capitalist system." The definition they expect to receive is one which explains Adam Smith's "trickle down theory of economics" and promotes the "unequal distribution of wealth." These preconceptions represent some of the most common myths and misconceptions about capitalism which must first be dispelled before any definition of capitalism can be properly understood.

[2] There is, for example, no such thing as the "capitalist system," in the sense that it is commonly referred to in the media. Interestingly, when capitalism is discussed, it is frequently discussed in the language of Marx. Thus, we hear much of systems, surpluses, distributions, means and modes of production, and all manner of precise, scientific-sounding classifications, but we hear precious little about what the definition of capitalism actually is.

[3] In fact, the term capitalism was never used by Adam Smith and its first recorded usage was not until 1854,1 although Marx would frequently dance around the term in references to "capitalistic production" or the "capitalist system."2 Smith, on the other hand, referred to what is now called capitalism as a "system of natural liberty."3

[4] If we are to insist upon precision in our language of economy, as the social scientists no doubt do, we have to distinguish between systems that occur naturally and systems that are devised by human beings. This distinction is not trivial, because those who refer to the "capitalist system" do so in order to portray the free market as little more than a man-made parasite, while elevating their own preposterous political projects to an equal level of economic science.

[5] As political scientist, Kenneth Minogue, points out,

the thing called an "economy" is essentially capitalist. ... The economy is preeminently what ideology seeks to abolish. Instead, a society is proposed in which the relationship of exchange will be replaced by deliberate planning in accordance with some such formula as the famous "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." It would be inaccurate to describe this as a socialist economy, because it isn't strictly an economy at all.4

[6] As with all systems, an economic system may be either natural or artificial, the former being defined by freedom and the latter defined by coercion. The natural system, capitalism, I will refer to as an informal system; the artificial systems, I will call formal systems.

[7] Why is capitalism an informal system? A crucial part of the definition of capitalism is the idea of laissez-faire, a French term which roughly translates into "allow to do" or "leave alone." Capitalism is an informal system in the sense that it does not seek to impose answers upon society to the three fundamental questions facing all economies: What should we produce? How should we produce? And, for whom should we produce?5

[8] Capitalism suggests that rather than these questions being answered by kings, governments, or even well-intentioned central planners on society's behalf, these questions should be answered by you and I and every other individual in a free market. In other words, capitalism is simply what occurs when we are all left to our own economic devices; as a system, capitalism is characterized by the absence of formal systems. As Adam Smith explained, "All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord."6

[9] Milton Friedman put it another way: "Fundamentally, there are only two ways of co-ordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion ... The other is voluntary co-operation of individuals."7 Formal economic systems (communism, feudalism, etc.) are defined by some form of coercion in order to direct production and to impose answers upon society; the definition of capitalism, the informal system, is the absence of coercion.

[10] A more encyclopedic definition of capitalism would be of an informal economic system in which property is largely privately owned, and in which profit provides incentive for capital investment and the employment of labor. Capitalism is also the philosophy that the government's role in the economy should be strictly limited and that the forces of supply and demand in a free market, while imperfect, are the most efficient means of providing for the general well-being of humankind.

[11] It is commonly thought that average citizens in a market economy benefit only when profits "trickle down" to them, like pennies spilling from the overstuffed pockets of the rich. The economist Thomas Sowell calls this bizarre definition of capitalism the most politically prominent economic theory to never exist.8 He explains,

When an investment is made, whether to build a railroad or to open a new restaurant, the first money is spent hiring the people to do the work. Without that, nothing happens. Even when one person decides to operate a store or hamburger stand without employees, that person must first pay somebody to deliver the goods that are going to be sold. Money goes out first to pay expenses and then comes back as profits later€”if at all. The high rate of failure of new businesses makes painfully clear that there is nothing inevitable about the money coming back. ... In short, the sequence of payments is directly the opposite of what is assumed by those who talk about a "trickle-down" theory.9

[12] While profit is a word routinely pronounced with the negative emotion of a swear word in the modern political discourse, it is profit alone that provides incentive to undertake financial risk, such as the risk involved in starting a business.

[13] Incentive is the key word. Incentives matter so much that economists James Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, and Dwight R. Lee begin a marvelous little book with the declaration, "All of economics rests on one simple principle: that incentives matter. Altering incentives, the costs and benefits of making specific decisions, alters people's behaviour."10 Where profits are denied, entrepreneurship and innovation are stifled and all our lives are the worse for it. Beneath the definition of capitalism is the realization that we are never so efficient and effective as when we pursue our own reward.

[14] And yet, profit is often portrayed in the media as the "unequal distribution of wealth" as though the invisible hand of Adam Smith were reaching down from the clouds to drop billions of dollars on the evil and the undeserving, while robbing the righteous poor of what is owed to them. As Dr. Sowell notes,

Most income is of course not distributed at all, in the sense in which newspapers or Social Security checks are distributed from some central place. Most income is distributed only in the figurative statistical sense in which there is a distribution of heights in a population ... but none of these heights was sent out from some central location. Yet it is all too common to read journalists and others discussing how 'society' distributes its income, rather than saying in plain English that some people make more money than others.11

[15] Why do some people make more than others under capitalism? There can be any number of reasons from the differing skills of workers to their differing age and experience to the supply and demand relationship between employers and employees. Moreover, those who assume more risk inevitably earn dramatically more or dramatically less than those who assume less risk. Whatever the case may be, however, income in a capitalist economy is earned not through "selfishness" but by helping others. Gwartney, Stroup, and Lee explain,

People who earn large incomes do so because they provide others with lots of things that they value. If these individuals did not provide valuable goods or services, consumers would not pay them so generously. There is a moral here: if you want to earn a large income, you had better figure out how to help others a great deal.12

[16] Economist Walter Williams offers similar insight into the definition of capitalism: "Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man."13

[17] While those who equate the definition of capitalism with the unequal distribution of wealth revile the inequalities that inevitably result in market economies, Milton Friedman puts these inequalities in their proper perspective as compared with the formal economic systems:

Consider two societies that have the same distribution of annual income. In one there is great mobility and change so that the position of particular families in the income hierarchy varies widely from year to year. In the other, there is great rigidity so that each family stays in the same position year after year. Clearly, in any meaningful sense, the second would be the more unequal society. ... Non-capitalist societies tend to have wider inequality than capitalist, even as measured by annual income; in addition, inequality in them tends to be permanent, whereas capitalism undermines status and introduces social mobility.14

[18] This concept of social mobility is a routinely overlooked aspect of the definition of capitalism. In a capitalist society, individuals are not condemned to their lot in life. Capitalism not only encourages individuals to better themselves, but provides market incentives for them to do so.
All The World's A Market
[19] What is a market? It is not the mystical, impersonal force that is so deeply reviled on the left and so strangely worshiped as an omniscient deity on the right. A market is simply an environment of exchange that brings buyers and sellers of products, services, labor, and ideas together and facilitates trade between them. Far from being impersonal, a market, just like a society, is the sum of the individuals involved in it and therefore contains all the information presently known. In a broader sense, a market is merely a mirror of ourselves.

[20] As part of the definition of capitalism, it was noted that capitalism is an informal system in so far as it does not require implementation by some higher authority. The reason for this is that capitalism is fueled by the power of markets, which are as natural and as necessary to human beings as water to a fish. As long as there are human beings, there will always be markets.

[21] While this aspect of the definition of capitalism is commonly denied, we see evidence of the inevitability of markets wherever trade is forbidden or restricted. In modern capitalist societies, black markets flourish for vices the government has attempted to outlaw, such as drugs, weapons, and prostitution. In communist societies, black markets thrive in response to frequent consumer shortages. In developing nations where laws and bureaucracy impede rather than facilitate legal exchange, black markets are the primary source of economic growth, often replacing legal markets entirely.

[22] In short, if one doubts the definition of capitalism as a natural system and markets as essential to human life, one needs look no further than the indestructibility of markets throughout human history as evidence to the contrary.

[23] The most common critique of market-driven economies is that they are "unfair." The market, we are told, "exploits people." The fallacy here is two-fold. First, the market in and of itself is neither fair nor unfair; it is merely a reflection of ourselves. If we perceive the market to be unfair, such as in the difference in wages between teachers and professional athletes, then that injustice is a reflection on who we are as a people not on the market system in the abstract.

[24] "Fairness," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Beneath the definition of capitalism is a belief in the supremacy of economic freedom, and freedom entails protecting individuals from outside interference, even in the name of "fairness." Dr. Friedman wisely observes that one of the biggest objections to a market economy is that "it gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."15

[25] Second, a free market cannot, by definition, exploit anyone, given the elementary economic principle that a voluntary and informed trade always benefits both parties; why would either party make the trade otherwise?

[26] Ultimately, what a market accomplishes is to collect all the information presently available between buyers and sellers, and then to determine the relative value of what is being exchanged. We live in a world of scarce resources, and those resources must somehow be divided; the market accomplishes this through fluctuating prices. High prices ration goods and signal producers to produce more where possible and for consumers to conserve; low prices encourage consumption and signal producers to allocate scarce resources elsewhere.

[27] As Friedrich von Hayek explains, in this kind of price system

only the most essential information is passed on and passed on only to those concerned. It is more than a metaphor to describe the price system as a kind of machinery for registering change, or a system of telecommunications which enables individual producers to watch merely the movement of a few pointers, as an engineer might watch the hands of a few dials, in order to adjust their activities to changes of which they may never know more than is reflected in the price movement.16

[28] In other words, there is a little bit of magic in every price tag, as every price contains an astonishing amount of information about the choices made by consumers and producers condensed into a few numbers.
Criticism of Capitalism
[29] If there is a valid criticism of capitalism to be made, it is essentially the same argument against anarchism of the right, which is that freedom feeds upon itself.

[30] Thomas Sowell writes that when he taught economics, he used to offer an A to any student who could find a kind word that Adam Smith had to say about businessmen in The Wealth of Nations. No one ever did.17 Perhaps the skepticism of Smith and many other free market economists over the benevolence of business people stems from the melancholy truth that those whom the market most rewards seldom have any qualm with subverting it; all too often, those who should be the capitalism's most ardent defenders are quick to bite the hand that feeds them.

[31] Monopolies are by no means precluded by the definition of capitalism, and with such power comes the power to stifle innovation, crush competition, and harm the average consumer with higher prices. Moreover, where individuals or corporations violate the principles of fair trade, such as by concealing or falsifying information, their own personal freedom and wealth may be enhanced at the expense of both society and the free market they betray.

[32] Ironically, the same concept of laissez-faire that is so essential to the definition of capitalism can devolve into tyranny if interpreted too literally. The incentive for profit is unfortunately also incentive to cheat. It is easy to see how a pure market economy in absence of all rules and regulation is little more than survival of the fittest. Coupled with prudent governance, capitalism produces democracy; without it, a capitalist society is little more than an oligarchy.

[33] Very few people, much less conservatives, desire a society built on economic Darwinism where gross inequalities of opportunity are the norm and where only the affluent have access to basic social services. Moreover, few would want to conduct business in an environment where no set of standards was enforced in the market and where no rules governed the behavior of businesses and individuals.

[34] It is for this reason that modern capitalist economies are often called "mixed economies" in that they combine free markets with the oversight of government. Though they adhere to the definition of capitalism, they are not enslaved to it. For capitalism to avoid self-destruction, even the most pro-business conservatives usually agree that government is crucial as a regulator and a referee.
Why Are Most Conservatives Capitalists?
[35] While Adam Smith is usually credited as the father of the free market, the basic idea beneath the definition of capitalism was aptly expressed thousands of years before his birth by the Chinese sage, Lao Tzu, who advocated the almost paradoxical concept of wei wu wei, or action without action, an idea which speaks to the essence of laissez-faire.

[36] While conservatives differ with one another on many individual economic issues, most modern conservatives agree that a free market is the sole path to prosperity for humankind. The idea of action without action appeals to the average conservative who deeply believes that government should not meddle in the fiscal affairs of the individual beyond its function as regulator and referee. But conservatives are not utopians, and they hold little hope for a world in which everyone is perfectly happy and everyone's wants are perfectly met; rather, conservatives view our economic options as a set of imperfect choices and regard capitalism as the least evil among them.

[37] Conservatives are routinely accused of being obsessed with money and of reducing human beings to economic creatures. The definition of capitalism established here clearly refutes that claim. If conservatives are passionate about capitalism, it is not because they are passionate about money; rather, it is because they are passionate about freedom.

[38] In an age in which the definition of capitalism is routinely distorted to bolster the arguments of ideological interests, it is rarely mentioned that capitalism is a liberal economic idea; the liberal argument, between conservatives and modern liberals, is not an argument about whether to abolish the free market, but a conflict between two differing visions of capitalism.

I hope that explains it enough...here is the link...http://www.conservative-resources.co...apitalism.html.

[Lefty]

A Day in the Life of Joe Republican. Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because a liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because a liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because a liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some left wing environmentalist wack job fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because a godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because a liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because a liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because a liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.

[pacman]

   Essential reading for right wing extremists everywhere...        

I would put that up for post-of-the-month if we had such a thing...

The irony for me is that I have always tended to a more right wing view of the world. Not a hard liner, but I have never trusted the left in charge of the public purse.

I lay the full blame for my shift in attitude at the feet of George W & Dick Cheney, they have destroyed the right for many years to come.
Thanks Lefty, help yourself to a Guess Bar T-shirt next time you are there...        

[Tomcat]

(pacman @ May 27 2009,12:26)  Essential reading for right wing extremists everywhere

yeh, right

The Employment laws in the EU are so onerous that most Companies now just get the job done in China rather than get tied up in employment law .
I wouldnt dream of opening a Factory in France...or Spain or Germany...

Employing people is a nightmare now anywhere in Europe. Just try sacking someone...it is a problem even if you have good reason.

[Torurot]

That's slippery defn of "Capitalism" Al, but thanks for posting it. I guess based on that "Capitalism" is whatever you want it to be in. So be it! If we had a poll of all the Foxtards on whether "socialism" is right next to "commie", and ungodly homo Fag, well you already know the result, they would equate the two to a man! So I'm going to have to continue to put "socialism" in quotes for the benefit of our US readers. ALL our NON US readers know exactly what I mean.

Mean while back in the home of the "free", the cuntry the precipitated the greatest econo0mic malaise since the great depression the "Fed's" are STILL working hard to fck you up!! Thanks for NOTHING America!! "Free" trade USA my arse!

When Deflation Becomes Entrenched
The Next Leg Down
http://counterpunch.org/whitney05262009.html
By MIKE WHITNEY May 26, 2009

Go "socialism" & Fair trades and profit. Good on ya Lefty for posting your piece.

[pacman]

The entire concept of Free Enterprise in the United States has been corrupted by Federal interference so it bears little relationship to any formal definition of Capitalism.

What is not commonly understood is that the Federal Reserve is not an arm of Government but a privately owned bank that has usurped the role of money creation in the US.

They have created a false boom economy for the past 60 years by continually allowing the creation of money whenever a loan is raised.

I am not qualified to go into the historical background behind this fiduciary trickery but now the party is over. The piper must be paid.

US banks have been technically bankrupt for a long time, all the bail-out money pouring into their coffers is only going into propping up their balance sheets.

It was Woodrow Wilson who passed the necessary legislation that allowed the creation of the Federal Reserve & in his final speech, he begged the forgiveness of American citizens for dooming them to inevitable bankruptcy. It just took much longer than he envisaged.