In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

-          Genesis 1:1

In his 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis wrote, “The right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods.” 

Listed under the heading “Re-Envisaging The Social Role of Property,” Francis’ comments are not, as some of his more free market critics suppose, out of the mainstream of Roman Catholic economic thought.  Rather, the Pope’s attack on private property is simply a restatement of Rome’s long-held unchristian, erroneous, and socialist understanding of private property. 

To underscore Francis hostility to private property, we need look no further than the paragraph quoted at the top of this post, “The principle of the common use of created goods is the ‘first principle of the whole ethical and social order; it is a natural and inherent right that takes priority over others.’”  In Pope Francis view, collectivism is “ethical” while holding to the Bible’s view of private property, that it is lawful for a man to do what he wishes with his own things, is not. 

Contrary to Pope Francis, the common use of created goods, far from being the “first principle of the whole ethical and social order,” is a guarantor of poverty and tyranny.  One would think the many failed socialist states over the past 100 years, and the economic and political disasters suffered by those unfortunate enough to live in them, would make this clear.  But far from slowing them down, it’s almost as if the economic disasters suffered by the Soviet Union, Venezuela and a host of other nations embolden the socialists, including Pope Francis, to double down on calling evil good and good evil by pushing for more economic collectivism.     

In one of his lectures, John Robbins made the important point that systems of thought tend to go wrong from the g

very beginning. That is to say, systems of thought, in this case economic thought, tend to begin with faulty premises which then lead their adherents to faulty conclusions. 

This can be seen in the economic thinking of Pope Francis, who begins with the unbiblical notion of the “the principle of the universal destination of created goods” which in turn leads him to attack private property and capitalism – God’s economics – and to promote the form of coveting we know as socialism or collectivism. 

But while at least some Christians understand that capitalism is the economic system of the Bible, it may come as a surprise even to them that one must begin in Genesis to have a sound understanding of economics, specifically, the origin of private property. 

The Universal Destination of Goods   

In the first paragraph above, I quoted Pope Francis writing about the “universal destination of created goods.”  Unless you’ve previously studied Roman Catholic economic thought, this may be a new term for you.  As is often the case with new terms, it’s easy to read past them and instead focus on more familiar ideas.  But “the universal destination of created goods” – sometimes this same idea is expressed as “the universal destination of all goods” or simply “the universal destination of goods” – is the most important concept in Roman Catholic economic thought.  As such, it’s worth pausing here to discuss it.

In Ecclesiastical Megalomania, John Robbins wrote the following about the universal destination of goods,

The Thomistic notion of original communism – the denial that private property is part of the natural law, but that common property is both natural and divine – is foundational to all the Roman Catholic arguments for various forms of collectivism, from medieval feudalism and guild socialism to twentieth century fascism and liberation theology.  The popes refer to this original communism as the “universal destination of all goods” (38).

Robbins went on to note that the principle of the universal destination of goods is so important in Roman Catholic social thought that “all rights are to be subordinated to it.”  Robbins quotes Pope Paul VI writing, “All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle [the universal destination of goods].”

This quote from Pope Paul VI, found in his 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio, exposes as false the contention that Pope Francis is somehow, of all the popes, uniquely anti-capitalist.  Responding to charges of Marxism stemming from his anti-capitalist 2013 Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis denied the charge and added that, “there is nothing in the exhortation that cannot be found in the social doctrine of the church.”  In this case, Francis is telling the truth.  One can go a step further and say that there is nothing in Francis’ subsequent writing which cannot be found in the social teaching of the church.  This includes Francis’ statement about the fundamental importance of the principle of the universal destination of created goods from his encyclical Fratelli Tutti.  Far from being uniquely anti-capitalist, Pope Francis’ hatred of free markets and his love of collectivism puts him solidly within the tradition of Rome’s social teaching. 

Original Communism or Original Capitalism

Rome’s doctrine of the universal destination of goods, as important as it is in the Church-State’s system of social teaching, itself rests on a prior erroneous idea, that communism, not private property, was the original pre-fall economic order.

According to Rome, God gave the world to man collectively, not severally, to each man individually.  In his Trinity Review “Ronald Sider – Contra Deum,” John Robbins refutes this idea as expressed in the work of Ronald Sider, an ersatz Evangelical whose economic thought has more in common with the Popes of Rome than with the Bible.  Writes Robbins,

Sider would have us believe that when God put man on Earth, he gave the Earth to men corporately, not severally. Nowhere does he present any evidence for this idea. God, holding ultimate ownership of the Earth, gave it to men severally, not collectively. The argument for this may be found in the works of the seventeenth-century Christian thinker, Robert Filmer, of whom, presumably, Sider has heard. 

What Robbins is saying here is that contrary to the false teaching of Rome, the original economic order was one of private property, capitalism, not communism, that is to say, collective ownership. 

Since Robbins cites Robert Filmer, it is worth noting that Robbins’ 1973 doctoral dissertation from Johns Hopkins University is titled The Political Thought of Sir Robert Filmer.  With that in mind, let’s take a look at what Filmer had to say about the original, pre-fall property order. 

Wrote Filmer,

[F]or it is not possible for the wit of man to search out the first grounds or principles of government (which necessarily depend upon the original [origin] of property) except he know that at the creation one man alone was made, to whom the dominion of all things was given, and from whom all men derive their title (203-204, Patriarchy and Other Political Works, emphasis mine).

The idea here is that God, being the ultimate owner of all things, gave ownership of all the world to Adam, who parceled out his dominion to his sons, who did likewise for their descendants and so on and so forth.  Writes Robbins,

Filmer argues for private property in the state of innocence in the same way that he argues that paternal and regal power are one:  first, both power and property, which in effect are but different names for the same thing, were granted by God in Genesis.  Second, respect for both power and property is commanded in the moral law.  Just as obedience to governors is subsumed under the Fifth Commandment, so private property is established by the Eight Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.” In a sense, Filmer is much more loyal to the Scriptural account than the Fathers, who posit a “natural” community of goods before the Fall, despite the fact that, as Filmer points out, this would make the law changeable.  All other commandments are acknowledged to be valid both before and after the Fall; indeed, the Patristic doctrine was that the Ten Commandments were given because of the perverting effect sin had had on the law written in the hearts of men, and were not an addition to the effaced innate law.  It is the divine law as revealed in the Ten Commandments which Filmer substitutes for the natural law regarding community of goods [the universal destination of goods] which the Fathers had evidently adopted from the Stoics (Robbins, The Political Thought of Sir Robert Filmer, 277).

As did Adam, so too did Noah who, as Robbins notes, “was more or less a second Adam,” dividing the world among his three sons after the flood.  

In summary, both Robert Filmer and John Robbins taught, and taught correctly, that the original economic system at the founding of the world was capitalism, not communism. 

The Pivotal Role of Genesis

As noted in Part 1, the goal of this series is to apply the lessons of Genesis to the many, serious, and seemingly insoluble problems America, and more broadly, the nations of the West, face in the early 21st century.  And one of the most important lessons we can learn from Genesis is that the original economic system of the world, before the Fall, was, contrary to general consensus of the church Fathers and the teaching of the Popes of Rome, one of original private property, not original communism. 

It is said that the worse fate than can befall and idea is not to be brilliantly attacked, but to be incompetently defended.  By tracing the private property order back to the foundation of the world, one can establish that capitalism is the economic expression of Christianity and thus and idea that can and must be defended against those who would push communism, fascism or any other economic system that attacks the institution of private property. 

But private property has suffered at the hands of incompetent defense.  John Locke, for example, believed in private property but struggled to account for it.  For example, in his Second Treatise on Civil Government Locke explicitly denied Filmer’s contention that all titles to private property originated in Adam and agreed with the church Fathers that God gave the world to mankind collectively.  As such, he had to find some way to get from collective ownership to individual ownership. Locke solved this problem by arguing that collective property became private property when men mixed their labor with it.  “Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property” (Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, 288, Laslett, ed.). 

So for Locke, it is the mixing of one’s labor with property held in common that makes it one’s own.  But where, we may ask, does one get the permission to mix his labor with property held in common?  Would this not be stealing from the commons?  Locke cites no Scripture for his argument. 

This is not a competent defense of private property, but it is a very common notion among those who would seek to defend capitalism against the predations of the Popes and other socialists. 

Reprove, Correct, Instruct

In his second letter to Timothy, the Apostle Paul wrote that all Scripture is God breathed and, “Profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”  This includes the good work of defending private property and limited government, what John Robbins called constitutional capitalism, “the economic and political consequent and counterpart of Christian theology.”

Whether it is the Antichrist Popes of Rome, a president, prime minister, or member of Congress, anyone who teaches a form of economics that undermines private property and seeks to use government to steal from one man in order to give to another, Christians have a moral obligation to rebuke, correct and instruct them in the truth of the Word of God. 

Economics is not an independent science.  It is a branch of theology. But, unfortunately, many Christians today are nearly as in the dark concerning what the Bible says about private property as unbelievers.  This needs to change.    

View fullsize

Edward Snowden. Permanent Record. Read by Holter Graham. New York: Macmillan Audio, 2019. Audible edition. https://www.audible.com/pd?asin=1250622689&source_code=ASSORAP0511160006

In his autobiography, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden lays out stimulating discussions on education; identity and privacy; the Internet; whistleblowing; government power, contracting, surveillance, and abuse; cloud storage; and encryption.

Alter ego

Snowden makes an interesting case for using alternate identities and anonymity online, which can make people more willing to learn, admit when they’re wrong, and change their view; whereas using real identities tends to defensiveness and obstinacy in order to preserve reputation. He blames government and business for the Internet’s shift towards the latter. Anonymity, however, is a double-edged sword that just as easily emboldens people to be vicious and wicked (needless to say, much online behavior reflects this) and to shirk responsibility/accountability.

Growing Up…Online

Snowden’s upbringing sheds light on a number of issues. In some ways the young Snowden reminds me of my younger self, an obsessive, all-or-nothing kind of guy, diving headlong into whatever captured my attention, rarely coming up for air. Growing up, especially through puberty, Snowden spent most of his time playing video games and going online, learning as much as he could on messaging boards, without hardly any moderation or supervision. He advocates this kind of activity as a way of self-discovery, of growing up and finding identity; and sees hacking as a way of becoming equal with adults, since technical skill and acumen matter more than age. Somewhat similar to Snowden, however, several mass shooters spent lots of time in the Internet’s sewers, messaging boards like 8chan:

https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/8chan/

The truth is that the Internet, video games, and media in general are often too much for young impressionable minds to handle, especially without close parental supervision. They’re highly addictive, even for adults, and much of the content is inappropriate for youth. They foster impatience, heighten irritability, fuel tempers, destroy self-control, the list goes on and on:

https://www.frictionlessfamilies.com/technology-in-the-family

https://www.drkardaras.com/research.html

Parents need to wake up and stop overexposing their kids to technology and media.

Snowden’s life is also a sad but all too common object lesson of the devastating impact of divorce on children. It affected Snowden deeply when his parents were no longer together. He rightly describes it as both becoming a parent—maturing too quickly by being overexposed to adult problems—and as losing a parent, at the same time. Divorce is a vicious cycle that harms the children the most, including, but not limited to, the separated parents outdoing each other by buying the nicer gifts for their kids, and using the kids to spy on the other parent’s love life; kids having to choose which parent to stay with, and having to “be the parent” with their own parents when they become unstable; and, one of the worst consequences, kids constantly blaming themselves for the divorce. Even though his parents eventually “reconciled” by agreeing to flourish separately, the damage is done and requires supernatural intervention to truly overcome.

Cyber Religion

It’s interesting how Snowden uses overtly religious language to describe the early Internet, what he calls the most successful anarchy he’s ever experienced, which is consistent with his general distrust of authority, and thinking people are better off raising themselves in an online world that’s free of government corruption and corporate greed. He claims that the nascent Internet was more forgiving of online transgressions, and gave people the freedom to start over. The Internet was his idol, and the online communities he frequented his church, an attempt to find community and a sense of belonging. It reminds me of the documentary Ringers: Lord of the Fans, which shows real people forming cults that practically worship Tolkien’s fictional characters. One woman claimed The Lord of the Rings saved her life. Ian McKellen, the actor who played Gandalf, made the stupefying assertion that The Lord of the Rings is true and the Bible is false. John Calvin rightly said the human heart is a perpetual idol factory. It’s sad to see even conscientious individuals, who want justice to triumph corruption, idolize the most ridiculous things, exchanging “the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans‬ ‭1:25‬); rather than worship Christ Jesus, the real God-Man, “the way, the truth, and the life” (‭‭John‬ ‭14:6‬)‬‬, the only One who can truly forgive all our sins and give us, not just a fresh start, but a perfect record of righteousness based on Christ’s perfect life and finished work on the Cross. No works required, just faith: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (John‬ ‭5:24‬).

“Homo contractus”

Snowden levels sharp criticisms against the Intelligence Community’s (IC) government contracting, a way of “hacking” the federal head count limits placed on each agency. The black budget he leaked implies that the IC employs just as many contractors as government employees. Due partly to rapid advances in technology, the government turned to the private sector to hire contractors, sidestepping the established vetting and hiring process. Employees often start working for the government to get clearance levels and then jump ship to the highest bidding contractor the first chance they get. IC directors and Congresspeople land cushy jobs with the contracting companies they hired for the government, a blatant conflict of interest. What passes off as “innovation” is more like governmentally assisted corruption. This in part made it possible for Snowden to gain access to all the NSA’s secret documents as a contracted sysadmin fairly quickly.

The Cloud of centralized servers

I appreciated Snowden’s criticism of “cloud” storage, which is regressive technology that stores our data in untold racks of servers consolidated in large data centers, euphemistically pitched as “the cloud.” Consenting to these cloud services means that companies do whatever they want with our data: read it, scan it, sell it, delete it. We don’t really know where our data is and what cloud companies are doing with it. And who knows what parts of the cyber world our data has traveled.

Overall, this is an important book that deals with many pertinent issues affecting us today, though I would’ve liked for Snowden to add VPNs to the discussion, but he didn’t mention them; or to treat some of the controversial fallout resulting from his leaks, such as Operation Socialist:

https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/48/

He gives an excellent discussion of the need for encryption to permeate our online activity and for users to take advantage of anonymous browsers like Tor and messaging apps like Signal, which will reform the Internet back to the “purer” form that Snowden reminisces about:

http://reformedlibertarian.com/articles/politics/simple-online-privacy-measures-everyone-should-be-taking-but-arent/

Disclaimer: The book has some salty language, which was a little unexpected because it starts relatively clean.

Well, what I wanted to talk about for a few minutes is the various efforts that are going on in public and behind the scenes by the Fed and other government officials to guard against a free-fall in the markets...

- Former Clinton advisor George Stephanopolous on Good Morning America 

Last week's post served as an introduction to the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, better known to the public as the Plunge Protection Team.

It seemed good this week to spend a little more time on the same subject, as the existence and the activities of this organization are perhaps the most important, least understood and most underreported factors driving financial markets today.

Financial markets such as the New York Stock Exchange are presented to the public as the very essence of free market capitalism.  But in the opinion of this writer, the reality is something quite different. 

Far from being a place where buyers and sellers meet to determine fair value for financial assets, today's financial markets are a rigged game designed to mislead the public about the true nature of the financial condition of the West.

Some may wonder why a Christian blogger would delve into the subject of the Plunge Protection Team (PPT).  It seems on the surface as if it's a bit conspiratorial, a topic more appropriate for some tin foil hat blogger than for someone intent and spreading the light of truth.  But to see the discussion of the PPT in this light is, at least in my view, a serious mistake.

That the PPT is a real entity with real power is a very easy matter to prove.  The case that it has been and is being used by the powers that be to prop up favored markets and suppress those out of favor, though circumstantial in nature, is quite strong.

Exposing such chicanery is among the most important tasks a Christian financial writer can undertake.  As University of Austin finance professor John Griffin recently noted, the Bible's command to "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them," can be applied to outing the lies and fraudulent activities of powerful financial and governmental interests in the same way it can be applied to other evil deeds. 

With that in mind, let's take a closer look at the PPT.    

The Establishment of the Plunge Protection Team

Perhaps the most sensible place to begin our discussion of the PPT is with Executive Order 12631 of March 18, 1988.  You may find it here in the Federal Register.  But since it's only a few hundred words long, I'll reproduce it in full below.

Executive Order 12631--Working Group on Financial Markets

Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12631 of Mar. 18, 1988, appear at 53 FR 9421, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 559, unless otherwise noted.

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish a Working Group on Financial Markets, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Establishment. (a) There is hereby established a Working Group on Financial Markets (Working Group). The Working Group shall be composed of:

(1) the Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee;

(2) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or his designee;

(3) the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or his designee; and

(4) the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or her designee.

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee, shall be the Chairman of the Working Group.

Sec. 2. Purposes and Functions. (a) Recognizing the goals of enhancing the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of our Nation's financial markets and maintaining investor confidence, the Working Group shall identify and consider:

(1) the major issues raised by the numerous studies on the events in the financial markets surrounding October 19, 1987, and any of those recommendations that have the potential to achieve the goals noted above; and

(2) the actions, including governmental actions under existing laws and regulations (such as policy coordination and contingency planning), that are appropriate to carry out these recommendations.

(b) The Working Group shall consult, as appropriate, with representatives of the various exchanges, clearinghouses, self-regulatory bodies, and with major market participants to determine private sector solutions wherever possible.

(c) The Working Group shall report to the President initially within 60 days (and periodically thereafter) on its progress and, if appropriate, its views on any recommended legislative changes.

Sec. 3. Administration. (a) The heads of Executive departments, agencies, and independent instrumentalities shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the Working Group such information as it may require for the purpose of carrying out this Order.
(b) Members of the Working Group shall serve without additional compensation for their work on the Working Group.
(c) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of funds therefore, the Department of the Treasury shall provide the Working Group with such administrative and support services as may be necessary for the performance of its functions.

So what can we glean from this short but not so sweet E.O.? 

For one, it's a high-powered group.  As Section one tells us, it is comprised of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Chairman of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. 

In fact, one would have a hard time coming up with a higher powered group of financial overseers than the officers referred to above. 

But it's not just the group's power that's impressive.  It's also highly secretive.

Consider the US Treasury Department, home to a powerful and secretive group known as the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF).  The ESF was, as it were, born in monetary sin and shapen in financial iniquity, the seed capital of which was extracted out of the hides of the American public by the iniquitous Gold Reserve Act of 1934.  As Investopedia notes,

The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 is an act that took away the title of all gold and gold certificates that were held by the Federal Reserve Bank.  The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 made the trade and possession of gold a criminal offense for the citizens of the United States.  Sole title of this gold was given to the U.S. Treasury.  It was not until 1975 that Americans could again own or trade gold.

Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution reads, "No state shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts," but the after less than 150 years, the federal government decided it was proper to criminalize the possession of real money.  In this writer's opinion, that's about all you need to know to properly assess the authoritarian character of the members of Congress who drafted the legislation and of Franklin D. Roosevelt who signed it in to law.  

Worth noting is that Gold Reserve Act completed the transfer of wealth from the American people to the federal government that had begun the previous year with Executive Order 6102, which required Americans to turn in, "all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates now owned by  them to a Federal Reserve Bank."  Roosevelt's Executive Order required that this be done by May 1, 1933, with criminal penalties of a, "$10,000 fine or 10 years imprisonment, or both."

"The main rationale behind the order," Wikipedia notes, "was actually to remove the constraint on the Federal Reserve which prevented it from increasing the money supply during the depression."  In other words, the Fed couldn't rob people effectively enough when they had gold in their possession.  First they had to take the gold, then the powers that be could go about the nefarious business of plundering the people.

Once the government had the gold, it didn't take long for them to finish their act of robbery.  Another feature of the Gold Reserve Act (GRA) was that it revalued gold.  Prior to the passing of the GRA, gold was valued at $20.67 per ounce.  The GRA set the price of gold at $35 per ounce, meaning that upon its passing, Americans immediately suffered a loss of about 69% on the gold forcibly taken from them by the FDR's 1933 Executive Order. 

Question: So if the American people lost 69% on their gold, did that wealth just disappear?  Answer: Of course not! The stolen wealth was merely transferred to the Treasury where it was used as seed capital for the ESF.

As Wikipedia rightly notes, "The resulting profit that the government realized funded the Exchange Stabilization Fund established by the Gold Reserve Act of 1934."

The ESF has now been in business for 84 years, making it one of the longest running and egregious criminal enterprises in Washington D.C.  And given the many outrageous crimes committed daily in the Swamp, that's saying quite a lot.

The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, while more in the public eye than the ESF, still manages to operate to a large extent in secrecy.  Several attempts have been made to audit the Fed over the years, but to date, the Fed has successfully resisted all attempts to open its books to public scrutiny. 

Then Fed Chairman Janet Yellen's letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is instructive on this point.  In her letter dated November 16, 2015, Yellen objected to auditing the Fed, saying that subjecting the Fed to an audit would, "politicize monetary policy decision...undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve," and was, "based on the false premise - that the Federal Reserve is not subject to an audit." 

While the Fed may be audited in some sense as Yellen argues, it's not the type of thoroughgoing audit Ron Paul and Rand Paul have argued for over the years. 

Yellen, as Fed Chairmen before her, and doubtless as those who will come after her such as current Fed Chairman Jay Powell, was jealous to guard the Fed's "independence."  Translated into plain English, she wants to continue the ability of the Fed to serve the interests of the financial elite, principally the big banks that own the Fed, at the expense of the American people.   

Evidence of the PPT's Handiwork

For our purposes, I will not go in to a great deal of technical detail in an attempt to prove the case that the PPT manipulates markets.  Rather, I shall rely on quotes from those who would know.  Considering that these quotes come from highly placed and well-qualified individuals, their comments deserve serious consideration.

The term Plunge Protection Team can be traced to a 1997 article in the Washington Post of the same name.  According to the piece, "The government has a real role to play to make a 1987-style sudden market break less likely."  So just how does the PPT do this? Well, the article doesn't say specifically.  It talks about ensuring communication between government agencies remains open.  But does mere communication help stabilize markets in the midst of a crisis? Imagine the following conversation:

            Treasury Secretary:  Hey, the S&P's off 5% already and it's only 11am!!  What do you think?

            Fed Chairman:  Yep, darn if it's not.

Talk, as they say, is cheap.  And very obviously stabilizing markets requires more than just talk.  Implied, though not explicitly stated, is that the Fed and probably the ESF will intervene in the financial markets to produce the sort of "almost miraculous" recovery that occurred the day after 1987's Black Monday.  After all, no one can see what the Fed or the ESF are doing with their vast financial resources.  "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," is not just a famous line from the Wizard of Oz, it's the M.O. of these two groups.  And they both have better curtains than did the wizard. 

In short, of course the Fed and the ESF are rigging the markets.  The Washington Post all but said so back in 1997.  "But," as the cheesy infomercials like to put it, "wait, there's more!"

Consider the statement at the top of this post by George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America.  I've seen the date of his appearance as alternatively September 17, 2000 and September 17, 2001.  If it was the later, this was the first day that the NYSE reopened after 9/11.  In either case, this Clinton insider very clearly hints at governmental intervention in the financial markets to "guard against a free-fall."

The quote from Stephanopoulos continues, "the Fed in 1989 created what is called the Plunge Protection Team, which is the Federal Reserve, big major banks, representatives of the New York Stock Exchange and other exchanges and they have been meeting informally so far, and they have a kind of an informal agreement among major banks to come in and start to buy stock if there appears to be a problem."

In 2015, Dr. Pippa Malmgren who actually served on the PPT and whose father was a high level presidential advisor and scholar made this telling remark," [T]here's no price discovery anymore by the market...governments impose prices on the market."

The New York Post's John Crudele has written critically of the PPT for years.  Typical of his work is this story from 2014, " 'Plunge protection' behind market's sudden recovery."

In 2007, Crudele expressed his frustration with the lack of transparency by the US Treasury on the workings of the PPT, writing,

After a year and a half of stalling, the US Treasury finally complied with The Post's requests for information about The President's Working Group on Financial Markets - delivering 177 pages of crap. 

In essence, the Treasury's Freedom of Information  officials said that the Working Group - affectionately nicknamed the Plunge Protection Team - doesn't keep records of its meetings. 

How interesting and convenient!

PhD. economist Paul Craig Roberts, former Undersecretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan and former Wall Street Journal Associate Editor, is another highly placed individual whose written extensively on the activities of the PPT.  In his article "Do Financial Markets Still Exist?" he wrote, "For many decades the Federal Reserve has rigged the bond market...and for about a century, central banks have set [rigged] interest rates...It appears that...the Fed is rigging the stock market by purchasing S&P equity index futures in order to arrest stock market declines driven by fundamentals."

In December 2008, widely watched market commentator Nouriel Roubini was quoted as saying, "The Fed (or Treasury) could even go as far as directly intervening in the stock market via direct purchase of equities as a way to boost falling equity prices."

Nouriel Roubini was formerly an advisor to New York Fed governor Tim Geithner, a major figure in the 2008 financial crisis.

Market analyst Charles Biderman commented in 2009 that while the market cap of US stocks soared by more than $6 trillion, "We cannot identify the source of the new money that pushed stock prices up so far so fast."

In the same article, Biderman quotes former Fed governor Robert Heller's 1989 Wall Street Journal opinion piece where Heller wrote,

Instead of flooding the entire economy with liquidity, and thereby increasing the danger of inflation, the Fed could support the stock market directly by buying market averages in the futures market, thereby stabilizing the market as a whole.

Do you think a former Fed governor just might know a thing or two about what it takes to rig the stock market? 

In a 2017 appearance on CNBC's Smart Money, "Legendary vulture investor Asher Edelman, the 1980's model for Gordon Gekko," argued that, in his view, the PPT was the only thing propping up the market.  He also expressed his concern about being in the market, saying that "I don't know when the plug is going to be pulled."

Finally, I come to my main man Dr. Ron Paul.  Paul has commented many times over the years on the activities of the PPT. In a May 4, 2018 appearance on CNBC's Futures Now, the good doctor had this to say,

I think the plunge protection team is alive and well.  I think they're involved and they do provide some protections.  The world is engaged in that type of maneuvering.  But eventually though, the market rules.

More examples could be provided, but I hope the above citations, all taken from prominent and respected people, will help the reader to see the PPT less as a myth or conspiracy theory and more as a reality, one which influences the public perception of the stock market and, hence, the entire US economy, and one that accomplishes this end by very dishonest, deceptive and immoral means.

Closing Thoughts

Investopedia, a mainstream, and in many ways helpful, provider of investment information, dismisses any notion of the PPT's manipulating markets as conspiracy theory.  As its article on the PPT puts it, "The name PPT was coined by the Washington Post in 1997.  Although the team had a viable purpose when initially created, conspiracy theorists suspected that the team was created to shore up, or even manipulate, the markets."

Now where would anybody get such an absurd idea?  As the quotes above demonstrate, it's not whackadoo weirdo conspiracy theorists who are the ones talking about the PPT's market manipulations, it's of the most mainstream, most connected, most market savvy voices out there who believe this.  

If the PPT is, in fact, manipulating financial markets, and it is the conviction of this author that this is what is happening, the PPT and its constituent organizations such as the US Treasury Department and the Fed are guilty of violating any number of Biblical and Constitutional principles of government.

The origins of the Fed and of the ESF should immediately alert anyone jealous of his liberty that these groups are up to no good.  The Fed's origin can be traced to a secretive meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia in November 1910.  The ESF was created by open fraud on the part of Congress and the Roosevelt administration with the cooperation of the previously mentioned Federal Reserve.

The Bible demands open meetings, but the Fed and the ESF love the darkness and will not come to the light,  lest their evil deeds be exposed. 

Such agencies, based as they are on lies and theft, never can bring forth good fruit.  As Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount, "A bad tree bears bad fruit."  And if the Fed and the ESF work evil on their own, what shall we expect when they combine forces in the PPT? 

Is it much of a stretch to suppose that such agencies, having worked financial evil on their own, would produce even more evil when they combine forces as part of the PPT? 

Should Americans expect transparency and honesty from such bad actors?  Or would it be more reasonable to expect that they, like the rulers of the Gentiles in Jesus' day, would "lord it over" the people.

In the opinion of this writer, the answer very obviously is the latter.  And one of the ways these organizations "lord it over" the American people is to continually give them a false picture of the real economy by rigging markets to support the official narrative that everything in the economy is awesome, that the stock and bond markets are safe and stable and the best places for your money, and that you should never consider being so foolish as to put your money elsewhere such as gold and silver.    

This official rosy scenario was encapsulated in Janet Yellen's comment in June 2017 when she said that another 2008 like financial crisis is not likely "in our lifetime."

To this I would reply, that really depends on whose lifetime you're talking about.

(To be continued...)

"There's no price discovery anymore in the market...governments impose prices on the market."

- Dr. Pippa Malmgren, former member of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets

When I began writing this series on the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC), the 10th anniversary of which we marked last month, it seemed best to provide the reader with some context.

After all, we're marking the 10th anniversary of the event, which for many people seems like ancient history already.  So there's that.  But more importantly, to really understand the GFC and the Great American Bailout of 2008, a little history certainly helps provides some perspective. 

The crash of 2008 did not happen in a vacuum.  Rather, it was the inevitable result of prior decisions, some of which could be traced back to the 1987 Black Monday crash that wiped out over 22 percent of the value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in a single day. 

Other contributing factors could be traced further back to the  1920's and 1930's, the years immediately preceding and following the stock market crash of 1929.  Just as the 1920's roared in large part due to excessive money printing by the Federal Reserve,  the party ended in 1929 when the Fed, attempting to reduce the money supply that had created a financial bubble, instead crashed the stock market. 

The 1930's saw unprecedented governmental regulation of the financial markets and of the economy in general, the effect of which was to prolong the  economic misery far longer than was necessary.  During that decade, economist John Maynard Keynes supplied the needed intellectual justification for all this governmental regulatory interference in his 1936 book titled The General Theory.

In Keynes twisted world, it was savers who were causing all the problems in the industrialized economies of the West.  What was needed was more debt.  And if people wouldn't go into debt on their own volition, then their governments needed to step up and do the spending for them. 

Finally, one could trace the 2008 crisis back to the progressive era of the early 20th century, specifically, the creation of the Federal Reserve in the United States. 

For the purpose of this series, it is not my intention to cover the creation of the Fed, the Great Depression or Keynesian economics in great detail.  For our purposes, it is sufficient to note them here.  Lord willing, I hope to address these topics in future series. 

In last week's installment, we left off discussing the October 1987 stock market crash, an event that has come to  be known as Black Monday.

As part of our discussion, we noted that on the Tuesday following the big Monday crash, things were looking pretty shaky for major US markets.  But just when things looked their worst, an event occurred which some observers described as almost miraculous, a huge and unexpected rally in the futures market that jump started a rally in the major market indices.   

Some attributed the rally, "to a mysterious burst of bullish sentiment."  Such an explanation seems strained to this author.  Why, in the midst of the worst market crash in history would there be a "bust of bullish sentiment."  One of the basic rules of stock trading is to avoid attempting "to catch a falling knife."'  If the market's tanking, let it tank and buy once it appears a bottom has formed.

More realistic is  the view of some traders who chalked up the rally to manipulation of the futures market by a few major firms. 

Although the article from which I drew this history, a Pulitzer Prize winning piece from the Wall Street Journal, did not specifically mention governmental or central bank intervention, it is the opinion of this author that ultimately it was the federal government in conjunction with the Fed that "saved" the day.    

One of the reasons for my opinion is Executive Order 12631 which was signed by then President Ronald Reagan in March 1988, just a few short months after the big crash of October 1987.  It established what is officially known as the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, a group better known by its more informal name, the Plunge Protection Team. 

It is to this Executive Order that we now turn our attention.

Yes, Virginia, There Is a Plunge Protection Team

For many people who follow financial markets, the existence and activities of the Plunge Protection Team (PPT) are considered something of a conspiracy theory. 

If someone were to go on a major financial channel and state that the government is manipulating the financial markets by means of the PPT, he would be greeted with howls of laughter in much the same way as if he'd announced he'd just returned from being beamed up to an alien mother ship where he'd visited with Elvis. 

In other words, to speak of the PPT is to court being labeled a tin foil hat wearing whackadoo.  If you don't believe me, check out this 2008 clip from CNBC. 

Taken in the midst of the GFC, most of the six (six!) CNBC commentators can barely contain their disdain for their one loan guest who dares suggest the PPT was involved in a couple of big ramp ups in the S&P during October 2008. 

   <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/X06kz9dzXho" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There are several noteworthy comments made by the CNBC crew.  I've listed the times of each comment for your convenience.

0:56 - One of the commentators makes a weak attempt to refute the guest by suggesting he had his days mixed up.  Scott Nations, the man making the claims that the PPT had interfered in the S&P on 10/10 and 10/28 2008, had said that 10/10 was on a Friday.  The CNBC host can be heard saying, "that was Thursday, right?" She comes back again at the 1:16 mark and asks the question again. 

The answer is no, it was not a Thursday.  10/10/2008 was on a Friday, just as the guest said it was.  He wasn't confused at all. 

1:30 - Bank of America Chief Economist Mickey Levy makes an appearance.  He shakes his head and grins when asked if the government's out there manipulating the market.  His response to this question is, "Absolutely not," and calls a discussion of this "silly."

3:30 - Guest Scott Nations asks the skeptical CNBC crew for their explanation of two shocking and unexplained moves up in the S&P index on 10/10 and 10/28.  None of the smirking hosts rises to the challenge.

3:51 - CNBC host Joe Kernan raises the question of the 3:51 mark whether legislation would be needed for the government in intervene in the markets.  Skeptical host Steve Liesman admits, "No, I suppose they [the government] could do that." Indeed they could.

4:22 - Perhaps most disappointing are the comments by Rick Santelli.  Santelli is one of the few individuals on CNBC who seems to be relatively sound in his views on economics and politics, but he falls into mocking the claims of the guest as though his claims about the PPT were the stuff of tabloid headlines. 

4:56 - Veteran UBS Director of Floor Operations Art Cashin seems to almost dismiss the very existence of the PPT.   After Joe Kernan likens belief in the PPT as the stuff of conspiracy theory,  Cashin replies that talk of the PPT is "black helicopter crap."

For those who may not know him, Art Cashin is one of the best known and most respected names on Wall Street, having become a Member of the NYSE in 1964 at the age of 23.  What he says carries weight, which is the likely reason CNBC brought him into the discussion to pile on their badly outnumbered guest. 

It is the opinion of this author that guest Scott Nations was thrown to the lions, as it were, not because he was wrong in what he said, but precisely because he was right. 

As has become more and more apparent in recent years, the job of the mainstream media is not, as many people suppose, to inform the public.  Rather, the MSM serves as the propaganda arm of powerful governmental and private interests - call it the Deep State or the establishment if you will - who want the public as ill-informed and dumbed down as possible, all the better to continue robbing us blind.

If you watched just the above segment on CNBC, you'd come away with the impression that anyone who so much believes in the existence of the PPT is a raving lunatic.  And to suggest that the PPT manipulates markets?  Well, that's simply off the charts madness. 

But the truth is far different.  Not only is the PPT a real government entity, as can easily be shown, but there's ample evidence to suggest that it is used to manipulate financial markets, just like Scott Nations stated in his CNBC interview.

Of course, the existence and the activities of such a group raise troubling moral questions.  By what Constitutional, not to mention, Biblical right does the government interfere in the workings of the free market?  Do not the activities of such a group artificially create winners and losers?  Does not the work of the PPT create market distortions which must be corrected, and will not these corrections be painful?

In short order, the answers are: Government has no right, either Constitutionally or Biblically to intervene in the markets; Yes, the PPT's activities artificially create winners and losers, and the proper term for these activities is theft; Yes, the PPT distorts the market in ways that will require a painful correction at some point.   

(To be continued...)   

I was talking to my stockbroker today and I said, "Waiter!"

- Jay Leno, October 1987

Jay Leno's opening joke on the Tonight Show got a huge laugh from the audience, and with good reason.

That may sound a bit odd, but you need to consider the context. You see, his wisecrack came within days of the Monday, October 19, 1987 stock market crash, an event that has come be known as Black Monday.

On that fateful day, the Dow had dropped over 22%, a record one day percentage plunge exceeding even the big one-day percentage plunges that marked the 1929 stock market crash, and people were in the mood for some good comic relief.

To give a sense of what people were thinking at the time, TheStreet ran an article last year marking the 30th anniversary of Black Monday. In his piece, author Michael Brown noted, "Many thought the crash was the start of the next Great Depression and the headlines of the day reflect it."

As it turned out, no Great Depression ensued. In fact, things got back to normal pretty quickly. Today, Black Monday is considered something of a one-off oddity. An interesting piece of investing trivia to be sure, but not something terribly relevant for today.

What does Black Monday have to do with the 2008 financial crisis?

You may be wondering at this point why I'm dragging Black Monday into a discussion of the 2008 financial crisis. What's October 1987 have to do with our current situation?

In the opinion of this author, the answer is quite a lot. Allow me to explain.

A month after Black Monday, James Stewart and Daniel Hertzberg penned a Pulitzer-prize winning article for the Wall Street Journal titled "Terrible Tuesday: How the Stock Market Almost Disintegrated A Day After the Crash."

The focus of their piece was not on Monday plunge, but on the events of the next day, Tuesday, October 20. They opened their article by writing, "A month ago today, the New York Stock Exchange died. But within an hour or two, it was raised from the dead."

So just how was the stock market resurrected on Tuesday when all seemed lost? The article's subheadline provides the answer. It reads, "Credit Dried Up for Brokers And Especially Specialists Until Fed Came to Rescue."

Stewart and Herzberg give more details in their article, writing, "Only the intervention of the Federal Reserve, the concerted announcement of corporate stock-buy-back programs, and the mysterious movement - and possible manipulation - of a little-used stock index futures contract saved the markets from total meltdown."

So there you have it. The V-shaped recovery - a "V-shaped" recovery is a term used by financial types when talking about a sharp plunge in value followed by a rapid recovery, so called because the price chart of a stock or stock index goes nearly straight down and then straight back up producing a v-shape on the chart - that occurred after Black Monday was orchestrated by the Federal Reserve System (henceforth, The Fed), which is the name of the Central Bank of the United States.

And just who was it who was running the Fed at the time? It was none other than rookie Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, a man then little known but someone who would go on to become perhaps the most famous Fed Chairman of them all.

It is not my intention here is go into great detail about Mr. Greenspan, his previous life as an Ayn Rand devotee and supporter of the gold standard, the philosophical about face he pulled to become counterfeiter in chief during his 18 years as Fed Chairman, and his subsequent attempt to rehabilitate his image following his retirement.

While these are things worth commenting on, for our purposes I would prefer instead to draw your attention to another noteworthy aspect of his career: that of an activist central banker. Many consider Greenspan to be the first of the modern, activist central bankers, the man who set the "gold standard" for central bank interventions in the economy to which today's central bankers look for guidance.

If Stewart and Herzberg are to be believed, it was the Fed under Greenspan's guidance that bailed out the stock market in 1987. In their article, they bring up three principal items that prevented a stock market meltdown following Black Monday, intervention by the fed, a concerted announcement of corporate stock buy-buybacks, and market manipulation.

In the opinion of this author, Stewart and Herzberg may have been more accurate if they had simply mentioned intervention by the Fed which consisted of orchestrated announcements of stock buy-backs and manipulation the stock market behind the scenes through asset purchases.

Since 1987, market intervention by central bankers in concert with governments has grown to the point that one insider has stated flatly, "there's no price discovery anymore by the market...governments impose prices on the market."

Now one may be tempted to reject the idea of central bank and government intervention in financial markets as just a lot of undocumented conspiracy theory with no basis in anything resembling fact.

To this I would respond that not only do central bankers and governments have both the motive and the methods for interfering in financial markets, but the evidence that they do is overwhelming.

[caption id="attachment_4664" align="aligncenter" width="413"] A chart taken from Stewart and Herzber's November 20, 1987 Wall Street Journal article showing the "miraculous" jump in the Major Market Index future contract (circled).  Many believe this was the catalyst for the rapid recover of the stock market from Black Monday's sharp selloff.[/caption]

Take, for example, the 1987 Wall Street Journal article cited above which clearly states the Fed's role in propping up the market.

Later in the same article we find the following,

Tuesday, [October 20, 1987] 12:38 p.m. With the closing of the Big Board [the New York Stock Exchange] seemingly imminent and the market in disarray, with virtually all option and futures trading halted, something happened that some later described as a miracle: In the space of about five or six minutes, the Major Market Index futures contract, the only viable surrogate for the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the only major index still trading, staged the most powerful rally in its history. The MMI rose on the Chicago Board of Trade from a discount of nearly 60 points to a premium of about 12 points. Because each point represents about five in the Industrial average, the rally was the equivalent of a lightening-like 360-point rise in the Dow. Some believe that this extraordinary move set the stage for the salvation of the world's markets.

How it happened is a matter of conjecture on Wall Street. Some attribute it to a mysterious burst of bullish sentiment that suddenly swept the markets. Some knowledgeable traders have a different interpretation: They think that the MMI futures contract was deliberately manipulated by a few major firms as part of a desperate attempt to boost the Dow and save the markets (emphasis mine).

...statistics supplied by the Board of Trade lend circumstantial support to the thesis that the index was driven upward by a small number of sophisticated buyers...

...the market got another important psychological boost: the announcement of stock buybacks by major corporations...

..."It looks like there's almost a get-together on the part of corporate America to prop up the market," Stanley Abel, a consultant specializing in buybacks, observed that day.

...On Wednesday, Americans woke to newspaper headlines proclaiming the largest rise in the Dow's history

Note how the sudden rise in the MMI index is explained by some as a "Mysterious burst of bullish sentiment." As with theology, so with finance, when someone starts talking about "mysteries," one would do well to be skeptical.

No profit seeking trader in his right mind would plow money into a futures market while the entire financial system was locking up. In trader's lingo, doing this is like catching a falling knife. It's best just to let the knife fall and pick it up once it's hit the floor.

In the opinion of this author, the traders had it right. The Major Market Index contract was manipulated up, almost certainly with the Fed and/or the Exchange Stabilization Fund supplying the capital for the purchases.

Going back to the question I posed earlier, What does Black Monday have to do with the 2008 financial crisis?

I would answer the question this way. There's an old saying, you can't tell just one lie. Tell a lie, and you'll find you have to cover it up with another lie, then another, then another.

And as with lies, so it is with market interventions. You can't do just one. One intervention inevitable begets another intervention. And not only that, but as with lies, the market interventions must get bigger the longer they go on.

Interfere in the financial markets and you'll soon find you have a tiger by the tail. You can't hold on. But at the same time, you can't let go either. It's not an enviable place to be.

This is the import of the Terrible Tuesday interventions for our current situation. It is the contention of this author that the massive interference of the Fed and possibly other government entities in the 1987 stock market crash set the precedent for, and indeed required, the increasingly large interventions that follow in the years leading up to 2008, and indeed which continue to the present moment.

The Bible tells us "Thou shalt not bear false witness" and "Thou shalt not steal." These are commands of God, part of the summary of the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments. And these commands apply to all men everywhere at all times, central bankers and government officials receive no special exception.

It is the contention of this author that by interfering in markets to make them appear better than what they are, central bankers and government officials are lying to the public. Further, their clandestine use of public funds to effect these market manipulations are nothing other than theft.

But there's an even more fundamental problem here than just lying and stealing by central bankers and the politicians who love them.

The more fundamental issue is the immorality of central banking itself.

It is not this author's contention that things would be better if only we had better, more honest central bankers. It is this author's contention that central banking - all of it, both in theory and in practice- has no warrant in Scripture, no warrant in the Constitution and represents perhaps the most serious threat to the remaining liberties of the American people and the citizens of other Western nations of any institution in the modern world.

Not only does central banking create artificial distortions in the economy, distortions which enrich the well-connected few at the expense of the many, but it enables the growth of government, both of the welfare state and of the warfare state, to a degree that would be impossible in a system of honest money.

Lord willing, next week we shall trace the activities of the Fed, specifically its increasing interference in the financial markets in the years between 1987 and 2008, showing how the activities of Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and others set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis, the after effects of which continue to envelope the United States and the West, and for that matter, the entire world to this present day.

"I just lost $30,000," replied the shaken caller after a long pause.

It was the fall of 2008, and I had just started work for a large financial services firm as a 401(k) telephone representative.  Little did I know when I took the job a few months earlier that the US, and much of the Western, world, was on the cusp of what many would come to view as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930's. 

The Dow and S&P both were selling off hard, day after day, week after week.  People were scared. 

Many of the panicked calls that I took were people who wanted to know what the balance of their 401(k) account.  In some ways, this struck me as a bit odd.  After all, it was 2008 and the internet had established itself as a staple of American life over a decade earlier.  "Why don't these people just go online?," I wondered to myself.

In retrospect, perhaps one reason people called was that, rather than just watch as the computer screen displayed years of hard won retirement savings evaporate as the morning dew, they just wanted to talk to someone.  That's certainly understandable.

Ten years on, much of the American public thinks of the 2008 crisis, if they think about it at all, as a ancient history.  Just last week, the Dow hit a new record high and seems to be headed higher still. 

President Trump tweeted out back in June, "In many ways this is the greatest economy in the HISTORY of America and the best time EVER to look for a job!"

American consumers seem to agree.  According to the August results from The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index, consumer confidence is closing in on a new record high. The record of 144.7 set in May 2000 is just a chip shot away from the August 2018 reading of 133.4.  Considering that the Consumer Confidence Index dates back to 1967 and that this is a widely watch data series, a new record high in this index would represent a significant achievement. 

If we look at the employment picture, everything appears to be headed in the right direction as well.  The Washington Post reported in May, one suspects a bit grudgingly, that The U.S. now has a record 6.6 million job openings.  

According to the article by Heather Long, "The United States now has a job opening for every unemployed person in the country, a sign of just how far the nation has turned around from the recession that cost so many Americans their jobs nearly a decade ago."

Signs of economic success are so abundant that, as CNBC reports, "[Former] President Barak Obama has entered credit-taking mode on the economy."  

Politicians aren't the only ones talking victory laps either.  Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner - the principal architects of the 2008 bailout of the financial system - gathered earlier this month at a forum in Washington D.C. to justify their actions of ten years ago.

According to CNBC's report, "We stepped in before the banks had collapsed and we did some things to fix the financial system which are very hard to explain because they are objectionable things," Paulson said.  "In the United States of America there's a fundamental sense of fairness that the American people have. ...You don't want to reward the arsonist."

"However," the article continues, "they [Bernanke, Paulson, and Geithner] said doing nothing would have caused the economy to capsize.  They acknowledged that some of the terms were distasteful, but they were necessary given the options at hand."

In essence, the big three argued that they had to do evil that good might come, a line of thinking condemned in the Scriptures but one that is all too commonly used by vested political and financial interests in midst of financial crises to convince a wary the public to go along with their latest scheme to enrich themselves at the people's expense.

Indeed the moderator of this forum was Andrew Ross Sorkin, who, as the CNBC article notes, wrote the 2010 book Too Big To Fail, The inside story of how Wall Street and Washington fought to save the financial system - and themselves.  described as a chronicle of the 2008 crisis from the inside.  I have not read this book, but the subtitle does, I think, let the cat out of the bag on the true motives of the bailout.

Unlike the unctuous self-justifications of JP Morgan's CEO Jamie Dimon, who recently argued that JP Morgan's actions during the financial crisis were done "to support our country and the financial system," Sorkin's subtitle at least admits the too big to fail meme was all about bankers and politicians saving themselves, not the country.

This is not to fault politicians and bankers for having a sense of self-preservation.  The Scriptures tell us that no man ever yet hated his own flesh, and this certainly includes those who run the political and financial systems. 

No.  The fault of bankers and politicians is not in their having a sense of self-preservation, it's that they lie and steal to get what they want.

In capitalism, in a free market economy, in a nation governed by the rule of law, there is no such thing as too big to fail.  In capitalism, banks have a God given right to make money...and a God given right to lose it. 

But in our decadent, late stage of empire society, dominated as it is by crony capitalists and their supporting cast of politicians, the Wall Street masters of the universe believe themselves entitled to never ending profits, while losses, well, those are for the little people to bear.

It is the opinion of this author that the intertwined political and financial systems of this country, rather than reflecting anything remotely like a Christian ethic, have become the embodiment of what Jesus talked about when he took his disciples to school for their arguing about who was the greatest. 

According to Jesus, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship [lord it over] them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors. ' "

It would be impossible to find a better description of the words of Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner and Dimon than these.  First, they conspired to rip off the American taxpayer by forcing machinations such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) through Congress as well as the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing (QE) program, about which the American people had no say at all, since it was decided upon by the Federal Reserve, an unelected body, paid for by private banking interests, that does not answer to the public. 

TARP and QE were tools of a corrupt and inept financial and political elite, which they used to keep themselves ensconced in power at the expense of ordinary Americans.  To put it another way, they lorded their power over the American people. 

And, as if that weren't bad enough, they then have the gall to turn around and act as if their actions were for the good of the country rather than for themselves.  That is to say, they claim that, in the end, they're really our "benefactors."

And if you think the QE and TARP from 2008 is the end of the bailout road, think again.  Wall Street Insiders reports that during the forum mentioned above, Tim Geithner, "called the effort to combat financial instability a 'forever war.' "  So we have more bailouts to look forward to.  Strangely, this rhetoric is similar to what the advocates of the Global War on Terror say about their efforts, which today have proven largely ineffective. 

Question, if your war on terror, financial instability or whatever has no end in sight, doesn't that suggest you don't know what you're doing?  Can anyone imagine George S. Patton saying such a thing?  Just asking.

Enough of this nonsense!

It is the contention of this author that, contrary to all the self-congratulatory talk about how well the economy is doing, there are abundant signs that all is not well in the US economy.  In fact, one could even argue that we're in the midst of a slow-motion crash, but one that is concealed from public view by money printing, market manipulation and propaganda, what one market observer has called Management of Perspective Economics (MOPE).

Further, it is this author's contention that, not only have the machinations of the political and financial elite not helped to bring stability to the financial system, they actually are the cause the current instability and all but guarantee a future crisis far bigger than the one in 2008. 

Lord willing, it is my intention over the next few weeks to bring the light of Scripture to the 2008 financial crisis.  It is my hope to take a look at what was done then, where we are now, and where we're headed as a result of the decisions that have been made.