CNBC Experts Say We’re All Slaves To A Global Government Run By Bankers

CNBC’s Kudlow Report panel recorded by wakeup2nwo:

4 sec: “Do we all work for Central Bankers? Is this Global Governance at last? Is it One World… with the Central Bankers in charge?”

1 min: “To answer your question: We are absolutely slaves to Central Banks”

1 min 16sec: “Markets are driven by policy now, they’re not driven by market forces”

1 min 26 sec: “Fiat currency that’s continually watered down.. so the markets go up and we feel good about it”

2min 25 sec: “We are basically beholden to Central Bankers”

2min 30sec: “..admits (Federal Reserve) are debasing currency and borrowing our way to false prosperity”

2min 48sec: “Every Central Bank in the world has to devalue their currency”

3min 28sec: “Free markets will fight back and ultimately they’ll win”

25 Comments on "CNBC Experts Say We’re All Slaves To A Global Government Run By Bankers"

  1. stupid hippies! take a bath! 

  2. Liam_McGonagle | Jun 26, 2012 at 2:47 pm |

    More pearls of wisdom from our Free Market Sage Larry Kudlow:

    Kudlow firmly denied that United States would enter a recession in 2007 or that the it was in the midst of a recession in early- to mid-2008. In December 2007, he wrote: “The recession debate is over. It’s not gonna happen. Time to move on. At a bare minimum, we are looking at Goldilocks 2.0. (And that’s a minimum). The Bush boom is alive and well. It’s finishing up its sixth splendid year with many more years to come”.

    In May 2008 he wrote: “President George W. Bush may turn out to be the top economic forecaster in the country” in his “R” is for “Right”.

    He said that “I don’t believe we’re heading into a recession” in regards to the large Wall Street drop of August 4, 2011 and recent signs of weaknesses in the United States’ GDP.”

    I think it’s safe to say that Kudlow and co. are, at very least, unreliable imbeciles,  if not outright disinformation agents for the very plutocrats “Libertarians” pretend to disdain.

    • Signal Reference | Jun 26, 2012 at 3:47 pm |

       why dont u just focus what hes talking about there. the general idea of what  they are saying is true, why do u always have to be a pompous ass hole..

      seriously..ur the most annoying one on this site. And im not even disagreeing with you thats how annoying you are

  3. Drats! They know we know that they know that we know!

  4. The only thing to get is money | Jun 26, 2012 at 3:39 pm |

    We don’t have a free market? Oh! I didn’t know that!

  5. Camron Wiltshire | Jun 26, 2012 at 4:22 pm |

    It’s interesting to see these types of outright admissions lately, confounding through revealing truths as thought it’s no big secret.   Looking forward to on air admission of Building 7 being an obvious controlled demolition next. Will Americans pay attention then? 

    Unleash the sycophantic throng of naysaying faux skeptics and the toady underlings who parrot their every logical fallacy as gospel.  The sword of reason is ready to slice and dice 🙂  

    • Rowan Duffy | Jun 26, 2012 at 6:40 pm |

      Nothing in there is an “admission” of anything and everything they are saying is both incoherent and wrong.  The central banks aren’t capturing the “real economy” the “real economy” has long since captured the central banks.  These guys want people to have no influence on the economy and want capital to rule everything without hindrance.  The capitalists and their banks and investment funds dictate what policies are best for them.  This is not a dictatorship of government central banks and policy makers, its a dictatorship of international capital.

      Further the idea that QE is a devaluation of capital is idiotically confused monetarism.  It’s just demonstrably false.  QE pumped ludicrously large amounts into the banks in hopes of creating liquidity, something which it failed to achieve much of.  The amount of inflation caused by the QEs is incredibly small and the reason for that is that money in the bank doesn’t do anything.  It’s simply a potential command on future labour.  It’s not until it is exercised that it can cause inflation.  It’s not the amount of money that matters, it’s the rate of flow of capital that causes inflation. 

      You need to stop reading paranoid right-wing fantasies and take a bit of a vacation with some Karl Marx and figure out how economies actually function.

      • Camron Wiltshire | Jun 26, 2012 at 7:42 pm |

        Sorry.  How is the Federal reserve a “right wing” fantasy again? 
        Also I posted the article more as a means to demonstrate the psychological techniques being employed to confound by revealing truths amidst a litany of contradictory jargon, ie disinformation.  The purpose being multifaceted but a likely primary aim is to introduce certain realities as a controlled burn and to dilute the shock of revelation over time.  Or perhaps who knows, ratings, a pang of conscience?  I’m not omnipotent and don’t presume to be so again attack the message not the messenger and try not to be a royal douche and you might actually enjoy a conversation of ideas rather than a snarky self-righteous rant.
        Perhaps you should do your own studies into the obvious parallels between communism and central banks. 
        ” 5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a “national bank” and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting in the United States.   This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist objective.   Yet, most Americans naively believe the U.S. of A. is far from a Marxist or socialist nation.Perhaps Of course the “federal” reserve is no more “federal” than federal express so I will clarify that is in fact not national but does dominate our national policy which of course is conveyed amidst the muckety muck of the pundits here.So amidst your own muckety muck you alluded to some more nuanced awareness but it soon devolved into you just repeating your misguided understanding of what my purpose in posting was and then a screed for your belief in marxism which if you understood history would realize has always led to the absolute degradation and destruction of life, liberty and property.Don’t appreciate you projecting strawman labels onto me either.  I don’t believe in the easter bunny or the two party system thank you very much.Here is a definition of the ostensible goals of central banks.Central bank. An ideal type (q.v.) rather than a scientific term since no two central banks are precisely alike.
        Almost all modern countries have a central bank which is a large bank operating either as a direct governmental institution or as a private institution whose management is strictly controlled by the government. Most central banks were established by law as the result of a national financial emergency, such as the collapse of a prior credit expansion (U.S. Federal Reserve Banks), or the desire of the government for more funds than it cares or dares to raise through taxes or private loans (Bank of England). Central banks usually attempt to control interest rates, reserve requirements and note issues of the nation’s banks and act as the bank of last resort when other banks are pressed for funds while holding investments which the central bank will discount on demand. By such technical procedures, the central bank attempts to control the quantity of “money in the broader sense” (q.v.) and thus indirectly influence prices, production and employment. Central bank policies are usually determined by a desire to (1) prevent financial panics, recessions or depressions, usually by the expansion of circulation credit (q.v.), and (2) provide the government with funds to cover any deficits not fully covered by funds from private sources.
        I’m no economist so I won’t presume to bash your literary skull in here, but I will say it seems to me that an increase in the supply of currency would necessitate an increase of inflation as the law of supply and demand would imply yes?  
        Feel free to expound on your beliefs but try not to be a douche about it k?

        • ….they are merely awaiting the reflection of their thoughts, in time, theyll believe they were the ones who saw through it first, by then, it will be too late…

        • Lifobryan | Jun 26, 2012 at 11:14 pm |

          A Fable:

          The Money Bird (eagle on the back of the dollar bill) flexes & admires his physique in the mirror. He says: “Wow, my right wing sure is muscular. And my left wing is almost just as buff.” 

          After one last glance at his reflection he thinks, “Oh yeah, I forgot –  I’m dyslexic. And this is a mirror. Damn I’m all confused between left & right again …..”

        • Camron – that is the way i see it too. I would be more than happy for Duffy to set you and me right. Lets hope he can 😉

          • Camron Wiltshire | Jun 27, 2012 at 1:47 pm |

            Thank you Maxde.  Yes, time will tell, I don’t anticipate a follow up myself.  

        • Rowan Duffy | Jun 28, 2012 at 7:51 am |

           “How is the Federal reserve a “right wing” fantasy again?”

          The federal reserve isn’t a “right wing fantasy”.  The right wing fantasy is that somehow the real productive market is being lead around by politicians and the public when what we really need is radical deregulation so the bankers can be freed from the tyranny of the public.

          Further, the supply of currency does not necessitate inflation as is painfully obvious to anyone who has actually looked at the volumes of QE.  Inflation occurs from the flow of money in the economy, not from its nominal existence in bank accounts.

          Supposing I print 16 billion quid and you stuff it under your bed.  How much inflation will that cause.  The answer is none.  This is effectively what QE was.

          Further, the banks can increase the money supply regardless of the amount printed by the fed by changing their reserve ratios.  Debt is the source of money, not printing presses.

          For a brief introduction to how banking actually works (i.e. not in right wing fantasy land):

          “Feel free to expound on your beliefs but try not to be a douche about it k?”

          douchey comment. 

          • Liam_McGonagle | Jun 28, 2012 at 11:30 am |

            Excellent summary, Rowan.

            But my sense is that “Cameron” feels that he (or she or it, whatever a “Cameron” might be) is far too clever to be deceived by any informed argument based on factual analysis.  Remember, he/she/it saw a Wikipedia article on logic once, so he/she/it ‘knows’ what he/she/it is talking about.

            Generally speaking, Americans misusing the term “Libertarian” to describe themselves are short-cut seekers.  They don’t feel they have to actually LEARN anything to have a valid opinion.  In their worldview, the proof of a position’s validity is whether or not it can be proven wrong ON ITS OWN TERMS.

            Therein lies the magic of the Church of Paul–by defining every problem as the result of a malevolent cabal of “others” whose actual operations are so totally opaque as to preclude factual analysis, they absolve themselves of the necessity to confront a falsifiable hypothesis. 

            At this point, the labels of “correct” or “incorrect” can only be applied to people, not to a hypothetical proposition.  The only workable criterion is whether the speaker agrees with you or not.  Ergo, every attempt to confront the self-proclaimed “Libertarian” with the poorly thought-out inconsistencies of his position only serves to reinforce that position’s hold over the “Libertarian”s imagination.

            “Cameron” continually posts pieces like this, intended, in his/her/its fevered fantasies, to conclusively prove a one-world conspiracy of unions and political hacks to rule over poor, oppressed billionaire CEOs of multinational corporations.  The common thread running through all of them is that their only half-*rsed logical appeal is argumentum ad verecuniam–no facts or statistics directly relevant to the topic at hand, merely the vehement opinion of some featherbrained liar whose mere appearance on a corporate media outlet whose is meant to impart some authority.

            Le me assure you, your excellent points are appreciated and understood.  Just not, unfortunately, by those who most need the remedial education.

    • Blindswordsman | Jun 28, 2012 at 3:21 am |

       And if the Sword of reason fails.  The Sword of Doom will reach out and touch the so called ‘untouchables’. 

  6. sam23sirius | Jun 26, 2012 at 5:20 pm |

    Buncha right wing conspiracy nuts…

  7. …in the end all I have learned since this financial crisis began    -is how the ordinary taxpayers have helped so much the so called great creative geniuses who created this mess in the first place.  And now our lives depend more and more on this extremely small minority. 

  8. I'm Just Saying | Jun 27, 2012 at 2:00 am |

    I just finished watching the movie  Rum Diaries, I have two quotes from the movie I would like to share; “Look at me Kemp- – -You’re not sleeping, you’re wide awake. This is the American dream.” and “Your paying to be in the dream. There’s a slim veneer, Kemp, between a dream and the reality. You wake them up and people may start asking for their money back.”
     I had no where else to post these incredibly true dialogs. I feel there is some relevance, if not Oh Well. rake me over the coals fellow commentators.

    • Camron Wiltshire | Jun 27, 2012 at 1:43 pm |

      Entirely appropriate.  Thank you for sharing.  
      Liminal synchromystical a perfect representation of the our state of being.
      Awakening to the nature of our dreams.

Comments are closed.