People

Sorry, no results were found.

Circles

Sorry, no results were found.

Posts

Pfizer’s annual revenue is expected to reach $101.3 billion in 2022, thanks to its COVID jab, which doesn’t prevent infection or spread, and Paxlovid, an ineffective and dangerous COVID antiviral that causes rebound.

Pfizer got plenty of free help from the federal government, which bullied and harassed people into getting the shots, and implemented rules that ensure hospitals and pharmacies will only prescribe certain COVID drugs, Paxlovid being one of them.

The key to getting away with a really big lie is making it so divorced from reality that the listener will assume their own perception is flawed, and then repeating it over and over again. This strategy has been used to great effect over the past three years, resulting in a massive shift from fact-based public health orthodoxy to irrational fantasy-based dogma.

Centralized top-down health care is far more attractive to Big Pharma investors than patient-centered care. The primary obstacle to the corporatization and monetization of public health has been truth, and this obstacle was finally overcome during the COVID pandemic.

The Big Lies told during the pandemic work because they veer so sharply from the truth. This break from factual reality is what makes it so difficult to question them, because if you do, you’re now questioning the entire hierarchy of public health.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/11/22/pfizer-art-of-the-big-lie.aspx

11/05/2022

‘Divorced From Reality’: Sen. Manchin Slams Biden’s Pledge To Kill Coal Industry Amid Energy Crisis

/

"Comments like these are the reason the American people are losing trust in President Biden and instead believes he does not understand the need to have an all in energy policy that would keep our nation totally energy independent and secure," says West Virginia Democrat.

www.infowars.com

10/17/2022

Is Inflation caused by the Federal Reserve Increasing the Money Supply?

Well maybe. I don't want to say straight-out, "no" or youn's won't listen to me anymore.

But first, we must divide up the question. I'll discuss the main point in some other post.
1. Temporary increases vs. permanent increases in money supply.
This is the temporary credit money vs. the permanent "hard money" question. It's not clear that the Federal Reserve has ever intentionally made any new hard money, as to quantity, as their target has always been interest rates--though perhaps they used to target current (i.e., temporary) money quantity--and not, or so it seems to this arm-chair expert, long-term permanent money quantity. Suppose now, this is the case. It may be we have no more money, excluding Treasury Notes, just in terms of Federal Reserve Notes and unborrowed money in Federal Reserve accounts--which corresponds one-to-one, by the way, with all un-borrowed money (in my reasoning)--than during the gold standard. Under the gold standard, the government could at least issue money, could it not, in some ratio to purchased gold. But if we have discontinued that system, by what means is money increased? Under the current system, without increasing money by buying gold and using that as an excuse to issue new currency, it would seem we likely have less Federal Reserve Notes and, permanent Federal Reserve Notes and non-borrowed balances than during the gold standard era as a ratio to the size of the economy, though the gold standard being the gold standard, that would be the case anyway if it still existed today. So how? Perhaps, bit, by bit, as seems to be needed in open-market operations. But whence the 31 trillion? And how much of that is held by the Federal Reserve, and hence actually "monetized?" Research alarm ringing here--I didn't do my research, don't know my... How much?

2. Major inflation vs. two percent "target" inflation.
Two percent:
Does the Fed cause the inflation or follow the inflation? My guess is contrary to what the Fed thinks, it is only following not altering the inflation rate. But if so, then why is it a constant two percent? Maybe my guess is wrong.
Mechanism
My working hypothesis is this insidious constant two percent inflation is the result of the constant accumulation of pricing power that accumulates in every trade between any two parties to trade: because while trade may be fair, no trade can ever be equal. Yet, why the two percent? Maybe I am wrong here? But explain the mechanism, then? Ok, ok, you say it is the Fed. "printing money." Yet is it the Fed. or the Treasury that "prints" money? It seems to be a combination, a two-stage process, for any long-term money "printing," with the control over and timing of each stage divorced one from the other.

The Treasury, stage one is responsible for ultra long term "money printing." I put money printing in quotes because we are not talking literally paper money. It prints money in the form of Treasury Notes--yet, yet--we can hardly say that anything, at stage one has happened yet, as it is but an exchange of extent money in the economy for savings accounts with the Treasury we call, Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills. The central bank is prohibited in participating directly in Treasury Auctions and all Treasury auction sales are to the public.

Stage Two: the Federal Reserve buys some Treasury Notes, Bonds, Bills, from the public in Open Market Operations. Yet the goal, generally, is not printing money, but, you know, Open Market Operations--fiddling around with interest rates such as the inter-bank lending rate between, private, Federal Reserve Member Banks and other Reserve account holders, if there are any--I think there are, for instance, Treasury auction Primary Dealers are mostly non-banks, and certainly their customers are.

Major Inflation:
It seems to be from very specific causes. And hence, one's first assumption is not from "printing money" in the abstract. This happened three times, four if you count since when--April of this year? But you can hardly count that since gas prices have gone down again and have returned to, compared to 2008 highs, mildly deflationary levels. Where's the two percent, or is that insidious two percent just some residual result of leaving the gold standard? Well, no, it's something that with a few short exceptions of zero average price changes, happened throughout the twentieth century outside of the major inflationary episodes. The nineteenth century was generally deflationary, no? Ok, those episodes: World War I: reversed after a price-stable roaring twenties during the Great Depression. World War II reversed the Great Depression price drop to the post World War I level. Then, when America went off the gold standard (all of you breathe a collective, "ah hah!), during the nineteen-seventies. Each of these episodes constituted a doubling of average prices. The Great Depression, a halving. Or so goes my analysis of some chart I found somewhere.

Boom Bust
What of boom bust? The booms of boom bust haven't generally been periods of large-scale inflation. Ok, please don't quote me this nonsense period we have been in, as obviously one can't make a rule out of pure bull. What there is in the boom bust is the "relative value story" of financial asset price increase, but not a general major price increase. You say, what about the boom time of World War II? I say: where's the bust part of the cycle after World War II? You say, ah, what about the Great Depression? It followed the boom of the roaring twenties, which followed the inflation of World War I. I say, but the chart I found somewhere says the ten year long Roaring Twenties, the actual contiguous time period to the G.D., it was a period of absolutely stable average prices. You say, what about the seventies? I say, that's not a boom bust cycle--where's the sudden financial crash? It just went on and on with stagnation, albeit one imagines with healthy wage increases--unlike the jobless "recoveries" that became famous later.

So we seek for the boom bust cycle elsewhere. I would argue the boom bust would happen anyway, but that the extremities, of this rolling, every growing in scale and intensity, boom bust is the result of deflationary credit bubbles. I think generally people would agree with that, although the truth may be somewhere else, someone might turn up and explain to me--I don't pretend to be an expert. But I think on top of that basic idea, there's the question of sectoral balances. Why does--my idea--the bust happen suddenly and at the height of the boom? Sectoral imbalances due to the high savings rate of the boom. And the high taxes paid by a booming economy. These two--in my current working hypothesis--albeit theorized here in my armchair.

Videos

Sorry, no results were found.

People

Sorry, no results were found.

Circles

Sorry, no results were found.

Videos

Sorry, no results were found.

Posts

Pfizer’s annual revenue is expected to reach $101.3 billion in 2022, thanks to its COVID jab, which doesn’t prevent infection or spread, and Paxlovid, an ineffective and dangerous COVID antiviral that causes rebound.

Pfizer got plenty of free help from the federal government, which bullied and harassed people into getting the shots, and implemented rules that ensure hospitals and pharmacies will only prescribe certain COVID drugs, Paxlovid being one of them.

The key to getting away with a really big lie is making it so divorced from reality that the listener will assume their own perception is flawed, and then repeating it over and over again. This strategy has been used to great effect over the past three years, resulting in a massive shift from fact-based public health orthodoxy to irrational fantasy-based dogma.

Centralized top-down health care is far more attractive to Big Pharma investors than patient-centered care. The primary obstacle to the corporatization and monetization of public health has been truth, and this obstacle was finally overcome during the COVID pandemic.

The Big Lies told during the pandemic work because they veer so sharply from the truth. This break from factual reality is what makes it so difficult to question them, because if you do, you’re now questioning the entire hierarchy of public health.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/11/22/pfizer-art-of-the-big-lie.aspx

11/05/2022

‘Divorced From Reality’: Sen. Manchin Slams Biden’s Pledge To Kill Coal Industry Amid Energy Crisis

/

"Comments like these are the reason the American people are losing trust in President Biden and instead believes he does not understand the need to have an all in energy policy that would keep our nation totally energy independent and secure," says West Virginia Democrat.

www.infowars.com

10/17/2022

Is Inflation caused by the Federal Reserve Increasing the Money Supply?

Well maybe. I don't want to say straight-out, "no" or youn's won't listen to me anymore.

But first, we must divide up the question. I'll discuss the main point in some other post.
1. Temporary increases vs. permanent increases in money supply.
This is the temporary credit money vs. the permanent "hard money" question. It's not clear that the Federal Reserve has ever intentionally made any new hard money, as to quantity, as their target has always been interest rates--though perhaps they used to target current (i.e., temporary) money quantity--and not, or so it seems to this arm-chair expert, long-term permanent money quantity. Suppose now, this is the case. It may be we have no more money, excluding Treasury Notes, just in terms of Federal Reserve Notes and unborrowed money in Federal Reserve accounts--which corresponds one-to-one, by the way, with all un-borrowed money (in my reasoning)--than during the gold standard. Under the gold standard, the government could at least issue money, could it not, in some ratio to purchased gold. But if we have discontinued that system, by what means is money increased? Under the current system, without increasing money by buying gold and using that as an excuse to issue new currency, it would seem we likely have less Federal Reserve Notes and, permanent Federal Reserve Notes and non-borrowed balances than during the gold standard era as a ratio to the size of the economy, though the gold standard being the gold standard, that would be the case anyway if it still existed today. So how? Perhaps, bit, by bit, as seems to be needed in open-market operations. But whence the 31 trillion? And how much of that is held by the Federal Reserve, and hence actually "monetized?" Research alarm ringing here--I didn't do my research, don't know my... How much?

2. Major inflation vs. two percent "target" inflation.
Two percent:
Does the Fed cause the inflation or follow the inflation? My guess is contrary to what the Fed thinks, it is only following not altering the inflation rate. But if so, then why is it a constant two percent? Maybe my guess is wrong.
Mechanism
My working hypothesis is this insidious constant two percent inflation is the result of the constant accumulation of pricing power that accumulates in every trade between any two parties to trade: because while trade may be fair, no trade can ever be equal. Yet, why the two percent? Maybe I am wrong here? But explain the mechanism, then? Ok, ok, you say it is the Fed. "printing money." Yet is it the Fed. or the Treasury that "prints" money? It seems to be a combination, a two-stage process, for any long-term money "printing," with the control over and timing of each stage divorced one from the other.

The Treasury, stage one is responsible for ultra long term "money printing." I put money printing in quotes because we are not talking literally paper money. It prints money in the form of Treasury Notes--yet, yet--we can hardly say that anything, at stage one has happened yet, as it is but an exchange of extent money in the economy for savings accounts with the Treasury we call, Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills. The central bank is prohibited in participating directly in Treasury Auctions and all Treasury auction sales are to the public.

Stage Two: the Federal Reserve buys some Treasury Notes, Bonds, Bills, from the public in Open Market Operations. Yet the goal, generally, is not printing money, but, you know, Open Market Operations--fiddling around with interest rates such as the inter-bank lending rate between, private, Federal Reserve Member Banks and other Reserve account holders, if there are any--I think there are, for instance, Treasury auction Primary Dealers are mostly non-banks, and certainly their customers are.

Major Inflation:
It seems to be from very specific causes. And hence, one's first assumption is not from "printing money" in the abstract. This happened three times, four if you count since when--April of this year? But you can hardly count that since gas prices have gone down again and have returned to, compared to 2008 highs, mildly deflationary levels. Where's the two percent, or is that insidious two percent just some residual result of leaving the gold standard? Well, no, it's something that with a few short exceptions of zero average price changes, happened throughout the twentieth century outside of the major inflationary episodes. The nineteenth century was generally deflationary, no? Ok, those episodes: World War I: reversed after a price-stable roaring twenties during the Great Depression. World War II reversed the Great Depression price drop to the post World War I level. Then, when America went off the gold standard (all of you breathe a collective, "ah hah!), during the nineteen-seventies. Each of these episodes constituted a doubling of average prices. The Great Depression, a halving. Or so goes my analysis of some chart I found somewhere.

Boom Bust
What of boom bust? The booms of boom bust haven't generally been periods of large-scale inflation. Ok, please don't quote me this nonsense period we have been in, as obviously one can't make a rule out of pure bull. What there is in the boom bust is the "relative value story" of financial asset price increase, but not a general major price increase. You say, what about the boom time of World War II? I say: where's the bust part of the cycle after World War II? You say, ah, what about the Great Depression? It followed the boom of the roaring twenties, which followed the inflation of World War I. I say, but the chart I found somewhere says the ten year long Roaring Twenties, the actual contiguous time period to the G.D., it was a period of absolutely stable average prices. You say, what about the seventies? I say, that's not a boom bust cycle--where's the sudden financial crash? It just went on and on with stagnation, albeit one imagines with healthy wage increases--unlike the jobless "recoveries" that became famous later.

So we seek for the boom bust cycle elsewhere. I would argue the boom bust would happen anyway, but that the extremities, of this rolling, every growing in scale and intensity, boom bust is the result of deflationary credit bubbles. I think generally people would agree with that, although the truth may be somewhere else, someone might turn up and explain to me--I don't pretend to be an expert. But I think on top of that basic idea, there's the question of sectoral balances. Why does--my idea--the bust happen suddenly and at the height of the boom? Sectoral imbalances due to the high savings rate of the boom. And the high taxes paid by a booming economy. These two--in my current working hypothesis--albeit theorized here in my armchair.

10/15/2022

Good Points of Credit Money

Credit is flexible to the needs of the economy. It is only used in relation to concrete real-world projects or needs. In that sense, one might say that temporary credit money is more "real" than permanent non-credit money. So in my classification of hard money versus soft money, do we say credit is hard money and un-borrowed owned-outright money is soft money? Maybe.

Credit can be managed on-the-spot by the agile central banks, whereas hard money is the result of budgeting processes, what the tax intake happens to be, or not be, and, in the current system, a strict balancing of the intakes and expenditures of the national government--in other words, hard money is government centric and not broader-economy centric, and thus hard money is somewhat divorced from the real needs of the economy, because it is produced by the simple calculation of a balanced government budget. Such a government budget balancing has no bearing on the balancing of the financial situation of the economy as-a-whole, and in that relation is entirely irrelevant. In my understanding, Treasury auctions are triggered by the Treasury General Account, whenever it goes below zero, at the weekly Treasury auction, the amount in Treasury Bonds that is required to create a balanced account is issued and offered at Treasury auction. It is a strictly mechanical system, which being strictly mechanical has no rational bearing to the real needs of the economy, but only to a technical balancing of the Treasury General Account at the Federal Reserve. Now, correct me if I am wrong, because others are saying the amount of Treasuries to be auctioned is triggered by the passage of the national budget by Congress. Yet I think that cannot be if the amount of Treasuries is supposed to strictly balance deficit expenditure, as the quantity of taxes to be received cannot be known a-priori. If we change our system, and allow the Treasury to manage bond sales, and not simply issuing bond sales in this automatic triggering manner--to allow the Treasury to manage bond sales in accordance of its estimates of the economy's requirements for hard money: that would be the more rational approach, as what the balance of the government's expenditures and income is is not a meaningful figure since the government is the currency issuer: what is important is the balance of spending instead with the whole economy.

Now, the Congress could do this also, by estimate, balancing taxes with expenditures such that that balance is, intended to be, sufficient to meet the needs of a growing economy.

Now, no worries, the Federal Reserve does all this for us. Our marvelous, appointed Chairman and Governors. Hence, the beauty of soft money... Did I add a little sarcasm in at the end? No real thought-out meaning in my sarcasm, though: perhaps a bit of research first?

08/02/2022

CORRUPTION
AUGUST 02, 2022
Hunter Biden Is America’s Prince Andrew
BY: ELLE REYNOLDS

Wayward sons Andrew and Hunter have both been doted on by powerful parents and appear to have been insulated by law enforcement.

He’s the son of political royalty, brought up in luxury, and used to having access to anything he pleases. That licentious attitude has led him into disturbing sexual dalliances, making an embarrassment of himself and his family across global headlines, only to be insulated, protected, made excuses for, and continually welcomed at public events by his doting parent and the law enforcement of his country.

You’d be forgiven for thinking I’m talking about Britain’s Prince Andrew, who was friends with sex trafficker and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and has been accused of rape by one of Epstein’s victims. But the above descriptions also mark the wayward son of our own potentate: Hunter Biden.

Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II, experienced a PR disaster in 2011 when the Daily Mail published claims from Virginia Roberts Giuffre that Epstein had forced her, only a 17-year-old at the time in 2001, to engage in sexual trysts with Andrew.

Giuffre claimed to have had three such interactions with Andrew, in London, New York, and on Epstein’s island, and her story was backed up by flight logs and a photo of her with Andrew with his arm around her bare waist. Additionally, “according to a sworn deposition by Juan Alessi, a former employee at Epstein’s Palm Beach estate, Andrew attended naked pool parties and was treated to massages by a harem of adolescent girls,” Vanity Fair’s Edward Klein reported.

While Hunter Biden’s sexual promiscuities don’t involve alleged child sex abuse or rape (as far as we know), his potentially criminal debauchery has been extensively captured on camera, thanks to explicit videos leaked from a laptop he abandoned. He blew through tens of thousands of dollars in matters of months — some funded by his now-president father — on prostitutes.

In videos that have been discovered on his infamous laptop, Hunter recorded compromising and graphic videos of himself with women tied to Russian sex rings, sometimes with drugs involved. He could also potentially be prosecuted for violating sex trafficking laws for transporting prostitutes over state lines.

Hunter Biden’s marital life, predictably, was also problematic. In 2017, Hunter divorced his wife of 24 years and started a fling with his dead brother’s wife Hallie, before they broke it off two years later and Hunter married a third woman, Melissa Cohen, a month after ending things with Hallie. Meanwhile, Hunter was busy fathering a baby born in Arkansas in 2018 but denied the baby was his until the woman sued him for paternity.

Both Andrew and Hunter have been doted on and historically excused by their powerful parents, and appear to have been insulated by the law enforcement agencies of their countries. Andrew didn’t withdraw from public life until 2019, eight years after the Giuffre accusations broke. And the queen didn’t strip him of his royal titles until earlier this year, before allowing him to escort her to a conspicuous public event two months later.

Likewise, Joe Biden has repeatedly come to Hunter’s defense, saying he’s “proud of him,” insisting “my son did nothing wrong” regarding his suspicious business dealings in Ukraine, and keeping Hunter close at presidential events.

Law enforcement has appeared to turn a blind eye to both Hunter and Andrew’s behavior. London’s Metropolitan Police have “examined Giuffre’s allegations against the Prince at least twice since 2015 but never opened an investigation,” according to Forbes. And a whistleblower report last week alleged that FBI officials had opened a sham investigation into damning evidence against Hunter, including evidence on his infamous laptop, in order to brand it as “disinformation” and then scuttled further investigation of it.

Meanwhile, Hunter, who was discharged from the Navy Reserves for a positive cocaine test, may have lied on a federal background check form in order to purchase a gun — a gun which was later trashed behind a grocery store in a bizarre incident that the Secret Service reportedly interfered in to cover up.

Despite all of their concerning behavior, both men have lived cushy lives off of their powerful parents’ success. Andrew has lived lavishly on his mother’s royal dime, receiving a yearly income of more than $300,000 from the queen while he performed official duties but lived a lifestyle far beyond it. The queen also reportedly contributed to his multimillion-dollar settlement with Giuffre and allegedly interfered to preserve Andrew’s $368,000-a-year security detail after he stepped down from royal responsibilities.

As for Hunter, his first prominent job after law school was as an executive vice president at a bank that was a big campaign donor of his dad’s. In 2014 he joined the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma, earning $50,000 per month despite no experience in the energy industry. It was while he served on Burisma’s board that his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, coerced the Ukrainian president to fire the country’s top prosecutor who was eying a probe into Hunter’s company.

Burisma and its founder have been accused of money laundering and tax evasion. Joe Biden has also reportedly financed, perhaps unwittingly, some of Hunter’s dalliances with prostitutes, wiring his son $100,000 over a two-month period with some of the money reportedly going to Hunter’s escorts. Politically, one of Hunter’s most significant offenses might be his habit of selling access to his father in an apparent pay-for-play in foreign business deals.

Although the two wayward sons differ in the details of their alleged misconduct as well as their reactions to it — Andrew has denied Giuffre’s allegations while Hunter can’t refute the videos he filmed himself, and Hunter has been implicated in more extensive political corruption — both have tarnished the reputations of their parents, their countries’ law enforcement agencies, and anyone else who excuses them.

They both show that a double standard still remains for favorites of the politically powerful and that the people protecting them don’t care who knows it.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/02/hunter-biden-is-americas-prince-andrew/

Wayward sons Andrew and Hunter have both been doted on by powerful parents and appear to have been insulated by law enforcement.

thefederalist.com