The collapse is baked into the cake at this point. So we have two choices.

1: Leave the gangsters in power, Bernake included, and let the system collapse.
2: Replace the gangsers with somebody we suspect is better (?Volcker or Paul?).

If we leave the Bernake and company gangsters in power, they and their horrific policies will be utterly discredited. So at last we’ll have a chance to turn to other economic theories, and perhaps even something semi-rational — because the current approach would no longer be considered.

If we replace Bernake now, the collapse will still occur, and we can be absolutely, positively certain that the Greenspan-Bernake-Paulson-Geitner-gangster-bankster criminals will jump up and down and scream “You see, we told you so. We had the problem fixed and you blew it by replacing our scheme just when we were on the verge of a glorious recovery”.

Of course that claim is utter BS. But they would still be the most powerful faction, and would surely regain control of the entire economy of the USSA again, and continue to run the country for the exclusive pleasure of their gangster-bankster cartel.

So, while Bernake is “the worst”… we are probably better of letting him and his criminal cartel take the fall that they most surely deserve. I hate to say this, but I do. Get rid of Bernake and we might suffer horrific “unintended consequences”.’

- honestann

Related Posts:

• This is one of those extremely uncomfortable cases when the right thing to do is the wrong thing. What do I mean?
• The only way to make sense of current events, is to understand:
• How do we get out of at least a dollar collapse?
• How exactly does the President “pressure” bankers to lend more?
• Bernanke 2005 vs 2009: “There’s No Housing Bubble to Go Bust”

Leave a comment