Image 01 Image 03



A committee of economists have proposed “the creation of an International Monetary Policy Committee composed of representatives of major central banks that will report regularly to world leaders on the aggregate consequences of individual central bank policies.”

And who will run this? Why, a committee of economists! I mean, sure, the Fed has screwed up in the past and the ECB may have had a few missteps, like when they took hundreds of billions of euros worth of risky securities as collateral to boost euro zone banks. But, really, that’s just because these central banks didn’t have solidarity throughout the globe. There was always this “foreign competition” getting in the way, with their smug growth rates…. Obviously more centralization is the answer!

[Centralization fragilizes the system. It makes crisis less frequent, but much larger in scope  when they happen.]

H/T Arnold Kling of EconLog



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Yay, now we can all crash and burn together! Shouldn’t we be going for more diversification of economies rather than less, so we can all rise and fall independently and we don’t have to pay for our neighbors mistakes and unrealistic lifestyles ( think Greece). When the water level settles, we will all be wading through the muck together.

Be sure to put Paul Krugman on the committee.

I think it’s called failing upwards.

I have no problem with this provided:
A) They have no official policy setting ability.
B) The money for funding this group is self-generated by donations or the members are volunteers.
C) There is no restraint on members publishing their opinions, i.e. if 4/5 of the group decides France needs to change its currency to the Disney, and 1/5 think they should change to the Eisner, the majority should have no authority to prevent, hinder, or obstruct in any fashion the publications of the minority.

It sounds like a wonderful place for Economists to go and Economize with their peers, safe from the troubles and stresses of the Real World. Perhaps we can arrange for a nice hotel on the grounds so they don’t have to mingle with the rabble, along with room service and plenty of cartoons on TV.
Seriously, did you expect a group of Economists to do something *other* than determine things would be better if only the world were “guided” by a group of Economists?

BannedbytheGuardian | September 16, 2011 at 8:16 pm

Will they all agree to pay for sex extras from Refugee Hotel Maids/Bellboys so as to save us all the dramas?

This is exactly what Glenn Beck said today. They’re trying for the one world government (my inference), they’re trying to suck us in so we’re even more dependent on other governments. If our currency is tied in with theirs, they have more access to redistribution.

Wm., take a look at this: The FBI is teaching the truth, and Spencer Ackerman thinks they are close to violating the Constitution. Scroll down the page, on the left side are downloadable PDF’s which lay out FBI teachings. One of them shows that devout adherents of Judaism and Christianity eschew violence for nonviolence. However, devotion amongst Muslims is more likely to lead them to violence. It’s amazing! I never thought the FBI would actually teach the truth about Islam.

    Midwest Rhino (not RINO) in reply to Juba Doobai!. | September 17, 2011 at 9:22 am

    Interesting article … of course the author spins the FBI findings as dangerous, the same spin as Al Qaeda. But I’ve said this for years … it seems the most devout fundamentalist Muslims ARE “radical Islam”.

    The more westernized versions are less devout, but still sympathetic. But examining the hard and overwhelming evidence is spun by the PC crowd as dangerous and hateful.

    Here is one quote:

    “There may not be a ‘radical’ threat as much as it is simply a normal assertion of the orthodox ideology,” one FBI presentation notes. “The strategic themes animating these Islamic values are not fringe; they are main stream.”

A thousand years ago, the barbarians assaulted civilization from the outside wearing animal skins. Today, they assault civilization from within wearing Armani suits. They still pillage and destroy for their own personal gain while producing nothing. But now, they tell us it is for our own good…

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to WarEagle82. | September 17, 2011 at 2:22 am

    Being a textiles & general fashion fan -I hope you have more details. I got a soft spot for a 1970s buck skin jacket but even the Picts threatening the Romans 100 ad wore rustic early tartan .

    Ditto Hannibal wore fine linens.

    For your Illuminati people -fox fur stoles have disappeared but plenty of mink & sable coats & leather briefcases. Thigh high boots make regular exciting comebacks.

    Mens suits are a study in themselves. Fascinating history & quite an art. But mostly boring.

    I could go for some animal outfits but it did not seem to help rep David Wu.