Assorted links


There's one reason to not reappoint Bernanke that nobody mentions – it would be good precedent. It would clear up the confusion between the Fed chairman and the Pope that was created during the Greenspan years.

I agree, Edward, there's no good reason to sack him. I'm just saying at some point it would be a good idea to end the idea of Chairman for Life. And I'm surprised nobody's compared this matter to the mess in Argentina.

Why should we approve someone who considers himself above the law? Bernanke won't even consent to an audit of the Federal Reserve. He has resisted disclosure and obstructed justice by lying about e-mails; and refusing to respond to subpoenas.

He is a scoundrel who not only failed to predict the crisis; but then went on to enrich Wall Street at taxpayer expense. Why should we keep him on? So that Goldman Sachs can pay out even larger bonuses next year?

Oh, wait, that's right. We'd be going through another Great Depression had Bernake not intervened. How do we KNOW this? Well, the same folks who failed to predict the market melt down have told us.

How can anyone who failed to predict the market meltdown have any credibility when it comes to discussing What Would Have Happened Without the Bailouts?

Also, for much of America, they are living in the Great Depression. If it weren't for unemployment insurance and more overall wealth, there WOULD be bread lines.

Instead, we have a stronger safety net in the U.S. But make no mistake: It's that safety net rather than the bailouts that prevented bread lines.

Tyler writes about Bernanke: "You can blame Ben Bernanke for not being more brilliant than the rest of us,. . . "

As you know, the problem Hayek pointed out is with the perspective that individual brilliance in central planners generally makes them good substitutes for the invisible hand. The Hayekian question arises: Does Bernanke know how little he knows and can know? If not, his "brilliance", whatever its level, is a thing to be feared.

The Onion post is excellent.

what's the currency exchange rate the zero-rupee note?

Am I the only one who thought the Onion article was a long-winded bore? All the humor is contained in the headline; the article itself is just filler.

So is printing a zero rupee note considered counterfeiting legally? What if I printed a 77 dollar bill and tried to buy stuff. Am I violating a law?

Just nitpicking....

This all Assorted links are very useful for me, thanks a lot for sharing this incredible link with us..

One zero rupee note equals one billion Zimbabwe dollars.

Give or take a few percent.

Comments for this post are closed