Grandes tecnológicas brilham nos resultados. Já valem 18,5 biliões de dólares em bolsa

[salvadorveiga]

o Peter Schiff em Dezembro de 2006 a ser gozado enquanto previa a catástrofe:

http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=EoB4BS7CGAw

Camisa Roxa, tenho visto inumeros videos dele e e' impressionante o quanto era gozado...

Adorava ver a cara dos outros agora...

Ha um video ate' que e' ele contra 4...

Ele encaixa-se mesmo no meu perfil de pensamento... ouvi-lo falar e' um prazer !

Outro com a mesma linha de pensamento: www.chrismartenson.com e depois o Crash Course

[Camisa Roxa]

o Peter Schiff em Dezembro de 2006 a ser gozado enquanto previa a catástrofe:

http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=EoB4BS7CGAw

[Camisa Roxa]

Branco e deixo tambem aqui o testemnhuo do PEter Schiff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSPSiDX0 ... re=related

muito bom

[salvadorveiga]

Branco e deixo tambem aqui o testemnhuo do PEter Schiff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSPSiDX0 ... re=related

[Branc0]

Acaba por ser uma troca de mimos entre mim e o Camisa mas não resisto a colocar a opinião de Ron Paul sobre o falhanço de hoje
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFh6PU6qM9Q

Termina com o mesmo pesar que eu, sabendo que no fim vão ser os mercados livres que vão ser culpados quando foi a manipulação das taxas de juro de um banco que detém o monopólio sobre o dinheiro que nos trouxe até aqui.

Fica também o discurso que prestou hoje durante o debate e a profecia "If you aprove this bill you're going to destroy a worldwide economy":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFh6PU6qM9Q

[Camisa Roxa]

essa questão é bastante interessante porque a escola austríaca defende precisamente que em termos de política monetária deve caber ao Estado apenas a garantia dos pesos e medidas oficiais eheheh aliás, nada mais do que o que a Constituição dos EUA diz eheheh

Já Rothbard dizia no seu Mistery of Banking:

We referred to prices without explaining what a price really is. A price is simply the ratio of the two quantifies exchanged in any transaction. It should be no surprise that every monetary unit we are now familiar with—the dollar, pound, mark, franc, et al., began on the market simply as names for different units of weight of gold or silver. Thus the “pound sterling” in Britain, was exactly that—one pound of silver. 2

The “dollar” originated as the name generally applied to a one-ounce silver coin minted by a Bohemiancount named Schlick, in the sixteenth century. Count Schlick lived in Joachimsthal (Joachim’s Valley). His coins, which enjoyed a great reputation for uniformity and fineness, were called Joachimsthalers and finally, just thalers . The word dollar emerged from the pronunciation of thaler.

Since gold or silver exchanges by weight, the various national currency units, all defined as particular weights of a precious metal, will be automatically fixed in terms of each other. Thus, suppose that the dollar is defined as 1/20 of a gold ounce (as it was in the nineteenth century in the United States), while the pound sterling is defined as 1/4 of a gold ounce, and the French franc is established at 1/100 of a gold ounce. But in that case, the exchange rates between the various currencies are automatically fixed by their respective quantities of gold. If a dollar is 1/20 of a gold ounce, and the pound is 1/4 of a gold ounce, then the pound will automatically exchange for 5 dollars. And, in our example, the pound will exchange for 25 francs and the dollar
for 5 francs. The definitions of weight automatically set the exchange rates between them.

Free market gold standard advocates have often been taunted with the charge: “You are against the
government fixing the price of goods and services; why then do you make an exception for gold? Why
do you call for the government fixing the price of gold and setting the exchange rates between the various currencies?”

The answer to this common complaint is that the question assumes the dollar to be an independent
entity, a thing or commodity which should be allowed to fluctuate freely in relation to gold. But the rebuttal of the pro-gold forces points out that the dollar is not an independent entity, that it was originally simply a name for a certain weight of gold; the dollar, as well as the other currencies, is a unit of weight. But in that case, the
pound, franc, dollar, and so on, are not exchanging as independent entities; they, too, are simply relative weights of gold. If 1/4 ounce of gold exchanges for 1/20 ounce of gold, how else would we expect them to trade than at 1:5?

If the monetary unit is simply a unit of weight, then government’s role in the area of money could well be confined to a simple Bureau of Weights and Measures, certifying this as well as other units of weight, length,or mass. The problem is that governments have systematically betrayed their trust as guar dians of the precisely defined weight of the money commodity.

If government sets itself up as the guardian of the international meter or the standard yard or pound,
there is no economic incentive for it to betray its trust and change the definition. For the Bureau of Standards to announce suddenly that 1 pound is no equal to 14 instead of 16 ounces would make no sense whatever.

There is, however, all too much of an economic incentive for governments to change, especially to lighten, the definition of the currency unit; say, to change the definition of the pound sterling from 16 to 14 ounces of silver. This profitable process of the government’s repeatedly lightening the number of ounces or grams in the same monetary unit is called debasement.

How debasement profits the State can be seen from a hypothetical case: Say the fur, the currency of
the mythical kingdom of Ruritania, is worth 20 grams of gold. A new king now ascends the throne, and, being chronically short of money, decides to take the debasement route to the acquisition of wealth. He
announces a mammoth call—in of all the old gold coins of the realm, each now dirty with wear and with the picture of the previous king stamped on its face. In return he will supply brand new coins with his face stamped on them, and will return the same number of rurs paid in. Someone presenting 100 rurs in old coins will receive 100 rurs in the new.

Seemingly a bargain! Except for a slight hitch: During the course of this recoinage, the king changes the definition of the fur from 20 to 16 grams. He then pockets the extra 20% of gold, minting the gold for his own use and pouring the coins into circula tion for his own expenses. In short, the number of grams of gold in the
society remains the same, but since people are now accustomed to use the name rather than the weight in their money accounts and prices, the number of rurs will have increased by 20%. The money supply in rurs, therefore, has gone up by 20%, and, as we shall see later on, this will drive up prices in the economy in terms of rurs.D ebasement, then, is the arbitrary redefining and lightening of the currency so as to add to the coffers of the State.

The pound sterling has diminished from 16 ounces of silver to its present fractional state because of
repeated debasements, or changes in definition, by the kings of England. Similarly, rapid and extensive
debasement was a striking feature of the Middle Ages, in almost every country in Europe. Thus, in 1200, the French livre tournois was defined as 98 grams of fine silver; by 1600 it equaled only 11 grams.

A particularly striking case is the dinar, the coin of the Saracens in Spain. The dinar, when first coined at the end of the seventh century, consisted of 65 gold grains. The Saracens, notably sound in monetary matters, kept the dinars weight relatively constant, and as late as the middle of the twelfth century, it still equalled 60 grains. At that point, the Christian kings conquered Spain, and by the early thirteenth century, the dinar (now called maravedi ) had been reduced to 14 grains of gold. Soon the gold coin was too lightweight to circulate, and it was converted into a silver coin weighing 26 grains of silver. But this, too, was
debased further, and by the mid-fifteenth century, the maravedi consisted of only 11/2 silver grains, and was again too small to circulate.

[Branc0]

Quando no video Bernanke fala de que tem a autoridade para criar dinheiro concedida pelo Congresso (tendo delegado o poder que lhe dava a constituição) vemos Ron Paul a dizer "coinage" em background.

Pode haver alguém que pense que o Ron Paul é contra as notas e a favor das moedas que a FED emite o que seria ridiculo, mas obviamente o que Ron Paul é a favor é da "coinage" de moedas de prata e ouro e contra as notas de crédito emitidas hoje pelo sistema monetário.

Para que fique claro coloco aqui os artigos da constituição que me fizeram chegar e que demonstram o sentido que ele queria dar à questão:

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have Power... to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."

"Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt."

[Camisa Roxa]

excelente Ron Paul, como quase sempre...

antes era visto como o D. Quixote que lutava contra moinhos de vento, agora esses andam a engolir sapos e já prestam muita atenção ao que Ron Paul diz pois tudo o que ele previu acabou por acontecer

a escola austríaca mostrou-se como a mais correcta para prever toda esta crise de expansão de crédito, o boom & bust

[Branc0]

Bom, o camisa disse mais ou menos o mesmo que o Ron Paul hoje.

Dear Friends:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

[Camisa Roxa]

realmente os "intelectuais" e os media bem como até alguns economistas cometem os erros do costume: acusar o mercado e clamar por intervenção do governo quando foi precisamente a intervenção do governo que criou toda a crise, desde a expansão monetária aos juros baixos, às FMs, aos actos legislativos que obrigam os bancos a conceder empréstimos etc. etc.

e agora cereja no topo do bolo querem servir a conta aos tax payers os eternos burros de carga do sistema...

e o pior é que isso não resolve nada, apenas compra mais tempo para a próxima implosão financeira...

[Branc0]

E fica aqui as questões que colocou hoje a Ben Bernanke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6rQ0U01Yc

[Branc0]

Mais um artigo de Ron Paul que gosto sempre de partilhar com o forum

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.

The events of the past week are no exception.

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."

That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

• The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.

• Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.

• Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.

There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh.

Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?

When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?

Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.

In liberty,
Ron Paul