Hillary Clinton Got What She Thought She Wanted

Be Careful What You Wish For…

Unlike others who have always despised Hillary, I’m becoming more pleased with James Comey by the second. I wonder why. Well, I have heard, but not checked myself, that he’s a professional lawman who has respect from both sides of the political isle. I understand that.

Whether or not I agree with all laws, I do have respect for professionalism and if one is really focussed on targeting true predators—and I’m writing this in admitted ignorance—then it’s impossible for them to do that job for the benefit of victims without also massaging the powers.

I find his dealing with Clinton more and more clever. Here’s what I wrote on Facebook shortly after.

While I await further commentary on the Hillary Scandal, my view, on an entirely pragmatic level is that Comey did Hillary no favor at all.

He may have just as well come out and said she’s not going to be prosecuted because, well, because we’re just not going to do it.

It’s difficult to see how in the political scheme of the upcoming election this in any way helps her. Who does it energize, exactly, but Republicans? Far more likely it could hurt her, in my view. A recommendation to indict would have surely made a female martyr of her.

Two other observations since:

  1. The left is very curiously quiet. The crickets are palpable.
  2. Obama hit the campaign trail for the first time on her behalf, today. Wow, that was some very quick trip planning, given the “separation of powers” and all that.

There’s no doubt that “the fix is in.” The problem for the left is that it is a very unpalatable fix. There was just no way in the world this could have been spun as “no evidence of wrongdoing.” That would have made Soviets in the 1980s blush.

So, many LOLs.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. thhq on July 6, 2016 at 06:05

    In Illinois the obvious solution to bad press was to start another free breakfast program for a previously neglected group. For Hillary it’s time to find a neglected group that needs free abortions. It’s time to play wag the dog.

  2. cremes on July 6, 2016 at 06:11

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

    Comey was a pussy. He should have said, “The Dept of Justice told the FBI that they will not prosecute Mrs. Clinton under any circumstances. The evidence collected by the FBI is quite damning, but it is pointless to recommend prosecution when the government agency charged with that responsibility refuses to do it. Under President Obama we have charged and prosecuted more government personnel for espionage than all prior presidents combined, but if your last name is Clinton then you are immune. This would-be criminal is still running for the highest office in the land. The last barrier to her criminality is the ballot box. The voters should choose wisely.”

    • Richard Nikoley on July 6, 2016 at 07:53

      I don’t disagree, but I think this is more effective. Shutting the leftists up, so far, anyway. Though I sure there will be spin..

    • Bret on July 7, 2016 at 13:56

      “Though I sure there will be spin..”

      I’ve already seen a Salon article whining about how Bush & his aides deleted some emails over the allegedly partisan firing of some US attorneys.

      Neither Hillary’s ‘classified information’ element nor her repeated insistences that no wrongdoing occurred did not appear to strike that author as a pertinent difference between the situations.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 7, 2016 at 14:18

      Well yea, that’s what they’ve come up with, a sort of cumuppance over perceived transgressions of predecessors, conflating a high percentage of public opinion with legal codes.

      The espionage statute happens to be one that explicitly does not require intent or malicious purpose. Gross negligence is all that’s needed and Comey basically parses words.

      Napolitano explains.


      The espionage statute that criminalizes the knowing or grossly negligent failure to keep state secrets in a secure venue is the rare federal statute that can be violated and upon which a conviction may be based without the need of the government to prove intent.

      Thus, in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of Al Qaeda operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan — but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account.

      And it famously prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home — someone who had a secret security clearance herself — because the calendar inadvertently included secret matters in the pages underneath the calendar.

      Yet earlier this week, FBI Director James Comey — knowing that his bosses in the DOJ would accept his legal conclusions about Clinton’s failure to keep state secrets secure, because they had removed themselves from independently judging the FBI’s work — told the public that whereas the inadvertence of the above defendants was sufficient to justify their prosecutions, somehow Clinton’s repeated extreme recklessness was not.

      It is obvious that a different standard is being applied to Clinton than was applied to Petraeus and the others. It is also now painfully obvious that the game of musical chairs we all witnessed last week when Bill Clinton entered the private jet of Comey’s boss — Attorney General Loretta Lynch — unannounced and spent 30 private minutes there with her at a time when both he and his wife were targets of FBI criminal probes was a trick to compromise Lynch and remove her and her aides from the DOJ chain of command regarding the decision as to whether to present evidence of crimes against either of the Clintons to a federal grand jury.


      Understand clearly. Leftism is a cancer, a mental disorder that rots brains. Read PZO for good evidence.

  3. Cathy on July 6, 2016 at 08:29

    I was despondent yesterday after I saw she was free. I cannot look at her ugly face and see that cat that ate the FBI director smile. Worse still was the image of her and Obama together laughing and I also think I saw Huma smiling for the first time ever. Its obvious that they all think they have gotten away with it. I truly am trying to believe that you are right about Comey not doing her any favors. In a world that didn’t include the Clintons, Obamas and massive voter fraud I would believe this. I’m really hoping Bernie’s supporters raise holy hell at the convention and before.
    You’re right about the crickets from the left. This started with the overturning of Bob McDonnel’s conviction by the Supreme Court. I fully expected my liberal co workers to become completely unhinged as well as the local newspaper to go ballistic. After all, they practically ran out of ink here in Virginia with printing all the articles on McDonnell’s trial and conviction. All that has been written was the Governor, a Hilary acolyte, saying that there shouldn’t be another trial, McDonnell has been through already. Translation: our gal is still in the sights of the FBI and besides, all that fakery with the former governor accomplished its goal — I got elected governor and he won’t be anyone’s VP choice. Crickets indeed!! I think that the left secretly knows that between now and November, the Clintons can mess things up. Time will tell. For me it has always been about keeping another Clinton out of the White House.

    • pzo on July 6, 2016 at 08:50

      Wow. Go have a cold one. Or, several.

  4. pzo on July 6, 2016 at 08:32


    Any powerful, driven person is going to stretch, push the boundaries from time to time. I don’t know if she did this arrogantly, or just a take the cookie and see what happens decision.

    We don’t build presidential candidates from a parts menu. They are human beings with all the faults we all have. All the hand wringing, such as her poll results showing her to be “not trustworthy,” etc, mean nothing in November. (As if Trump can be trusted!)

    I’m a hell of a lot more concerned about the corruption known as Congress. Every member, bought and paid for to one degree or another.

    • thhq on July 6, 2016 at 09:14

      I think it was done intentionally, with secretiveness and control in mind. An also rather carelessly. Nixon tapes with new technology.

      I’ve given up hope that anything much can be done about this. Repealing Obamacare would only marginally reduce the out of control spending. Reelection depends far more on pandering to voters than keeping hands out of cookie jars or flys zipped. Substantial handouts are necessary to buy the votes, financed by the ever-rising debt ceiling. Jimmy Carter, Bush 1, Clinton 2nd term were stung by practicing fiscal prudent policy. Bush 2 and Obama didn’t make that mistake. Neither will Hillary or Trump on anyone else, until the dollar goes the way of the Bolivar.

  5. Woodchuck Pirate on July 6, 2016 at 12:21

    Every leap of faith is a tax on consciousness. I reject faith in all forms.

    I don’t find anyone maintaining faith in statism without a correlated money trail of someone else’s money. Taxation is theft. Thieves make worst leaders. It’s 2016, there are no other excuses, only guilt motivates the last of the voters to vote instead of withdraw their consent and participation with statism.

    All wars are banker’s wars, all politicians are bought and owned by bankers, the livestock are overpopulated, welcome to WWIII. There does not exist any nation as republic under the rule of law, statism is truly dead. The guilty, gutless, parasitic babyboomers have consumed their children’s future, their grandchildren’s future, and now turn their eyes toward the unborn. They vote because they are paid entitlements to live on their knees. They could not be any less relevant because statism is already dead. The sooner they rot the better.

    There will be nothing but devolution and idiocracy until civilization is completely burnt to ashes. The boomers are committed to their endgame of running out the clock, idle til dead. Trump is every bit bought and paid for as Hillary. There’s no cause for a free man to feel anxiety; it’s false choice to pretend anyone in control cares a rat’s ass for your miserable status, loyalty, religion or potential as future livestock.

    Neither is it rational to pretend that any measurable portion of the human race deserves to be saved. Free men have already decided to die on their feet, and have loaded their shotguns, now enjoying what’s already come. Have a laugh at the unconscious ones, the devil knows his own or so they say.

    Woodchuck Pirate
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

    • pzo on July 6, 2016 at 12:41

      You are Hughey Long, Hitler, a schizophrenic, and the book of Revelations rolled into one.

      I prefer hewing a bit closer to sanity.

  6. Woodchuck Pirate on July 6, 2016 at 12:52


    Ahh the kneejerk reaction of challenged ego, recoiling to grasp pain body comfort zone, hiding from truth, muttering repeatedly “this is not a dystopian society”.

    Enjoy your sociopathic relationship with state.

    I am no-thing.

    Woodchuck Pirate
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

    • pzo on July 6, 2016 at 16:32

      As St. Ronald famously said, “There you go again.”

      (I do agree we are on the cusp of becoming dystopic but nowhere near the reasons, best as I can interpret, you espouse.)

  7. Woodchuck Pirate on July 6, 2016 at 12:58

    As this is a thread in observation of Clintonian fascism, perhaps a historical documentary of the systemic evil facts is appropriate?

    Woodchuck Pirate
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

  8. Jen W on July 6, 2016 at 16:14

    There are now meme’s going around about how when all the Republican government “war criminals” are held accountable, then and only then can Hillary’s emails be discussed. LOL. Apparently some people think all politician’s should be allowed to be above the law.

    • Cathy on July 6, 2016 at 16:35

      Along with ALL the dimocraps including Hillary, who couldn’t authorize war fast enough? Maybe we need some memes or just plain answers as to why Bill let Saddam Hussein get away 3 times while he was president.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 6, 2016 at 18:24

      Well, beyond the fact that Hillary as Senator voted for all that, and as SecState supported it, it was legal, which is to say sanctioned by various powers, debated, relatively out in the open.

      See, leftists always conflate morality and law code as it suits them. They’re automatic liars and they only care about morality when they want to go around a few of the laws they continually agitate for, on behalf of friends. Moreover, when contra the other side, they use “morality” to call for “prosecution” when there are no applicable laws.

      The left is a fucking evil cancer. See PZO for a good example, above.

    • Jen W. on July 6, 2016 at 19:15

      Not to mention the Left often think (and try to vote) their version of morality should be pushed on everyone else. Not much better (if better at all) than militant Muslims trying to get Sharia Law everywhere. There is increasingly little room for the middle ground with the Left these days.

  9. pzo on July 6, 2016 at 16:41

    Cathy, Bill let Saddam get away 3 times…………….from what? If any president could be accused of that, it’s Bush I.

    Saddam was our allie, in case you’ve forgotten, for many years. Reagan sold him the nerve gases he later used on his Kurds. We let him do our proxy war against Iran by supporting him during the Iraq-Iran War. You’ve heard of Iran Contra? Maybe, probably not.

    We had no bone with Saddam during the Clinton presidency.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 6, 2016 at 18:31

      Things change. He was convenient until he invaded Kuwait, and that must be viewed in the context of 1990, not 2016.

      I was a US Navy officer with the French at the time and was on Colbert, along with Clemenceau, ultimately delivering supplies to Saudi Arabia, and even though they had been strong allies with Iraq, that invasion was way the fuck over the line, even for them.

    • Cathy on July 6, 2016 at 20:28

      pzo, I should’ve taken your original advice of having a cold one or three. I am confusing Saddam with Osama bin Laden, whom Bill was offered at least three times but waffled or refused. Sorry, you are right, at the time Saddam was an ally. I think we can agree that the Middle East is a huge mess.

  10. pzo on July 6, 2016 at 17:16

    Further, Cathy, I realized you have another sweeping error in you statement, that all the “dimocraps” voted for the Iraq War. I know, I know, facts and research are sucky when you just want to be partisan angry.

    Here are the facts:

    Summary: In the Senate, 21 Dems, and 1 each Republican and Independent voted against the war. In the House, it was 126 Dems, 6 Republicans, and 1 Independent voted against the war.

    It’s obvious which party is the war party, although that wasn’t the (incorrect) point of your screed.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 6, 2016 at 18:44

      LOL. Sure, dems who reached their Peter Principle and just want a 40 year career in the house or senate make fools of fools like you forever. The ones who make even bigger fools of you morons always go with military intervention.

      Laf that you try to through leftist “principles” around here. What a fucking joke.

    • Cathy on July 6, 2016 at 20:33

      I was referring to Hillary Clinton. She voted for invading Iraq as well as Nancy Pelosi. I bring up these two hags because they are the most outspoken about how awful the Iraq war was. Their votes are part of the public record. Its just ironic how the left wants to quickly change the subject away from what has been happening the last couple of days to “what about Bush and Cheney”? That’s more of a question for Eric Holder.

  11. pzo on July 6, 2016 at 19:22

    Jeezuz Jen, everyone votes for and supports their version of morality. What? The ReThuglicans don’t? The Libertaians don’t?

    You don’t have to like me or my ideology, but you may have heard something about pots and kettles once upon a time. Very dishonest to proclaim only one segment of the political spectrum is pushing their morality.

    • Jen W. on July 7, 2016 at 04:55

      Pzo, your assuming everyone votes. Not everyone does. I haven’t in the past two elections and the last time I did, I wrote in a Japanese anime character. Despite what you may think, some people believe the world would be a better place through treating those they interact with regularly how they, themselves would like to be treated. It has nothing to do with a voting both.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 7, 2016 at 07:07

      Typical leftist equivocation. All lumped into “morality,” such that one person’s stance against rape, murder, theft, battery, kidnapping, etc. is equivalent to a blathering leftist’s “morality” to commit all of those crimes so that some people get “free stuff” at the expense of others.

      No quarter. Leftism is a cancer.

    • thhq on July 7, 2016 at 07:33

      Debt is a cancer on the nation. Entitlements are paid for on credit.

      Politicians are not the cure.

  12. pzo on July 7, 2016 at 06:35

    @Jen, your comment that I responded to, and your last one, are related. The first is about alleged sins of us libs, saying nothing about the cons, the second is about your own preferences.

    While I am damned glad that this isn’t Australia with mandatory voting, I do believe that those who don’t vote – as flawed as the system may be – shouldn’t bitch when things don’t go the way they prefer.

    Yes, Richard, I know.

  13. pzo on July 7, 2016 at 08:00

    @thhq: We’ve always had debt. Our nation borrowed to conduct the Civil War. Local governments borrow to build schools and sewers because it needs to be done. Individuals borrow for both good reasons (educatio) and bad (a new car when the old one is OK.)

    Our debt has gone down as a percentage of GDP under the Obama administration. That is the only way to compare indebtedness, not a raw number.

    Focusing on debt as something to wring hands over is the neoliberal’s way of misdirecting citizens. “There’s no man behind the curtain.”

    • cremes on July 7, 2016 at 08:21

      @pzo, do you think no one can easily check your bullshit claims? Let me quote you here:

      “Our debt has gone down as a percentage of GDP under the Obama administration.”

      Has anyone else spotted the bullshit yet? Yes, it’s that entire sentence. Here’s a link to a chart of the US debt-to-GDP ratio. Note the parabolic RISE under the Obama administration.

      But I know how leftists think and how they lie. @pzo is telling a partial truth if in his empty head he was mentally including that the ratio has gone down from its PEAK during WWII.

      See here for a chart that goes back to the 1940s to see it.

      @pzo, what else ya got?

    • thhq on July 7, 2016 at 12:52

      Pzo we used to pay debt back. Not anymore. IMO the problem started with Nixon abrogating Bretton Woods to pay for LBJ’s war and Great Society. Reagan was the first one to really grasp what that meant. There are limits to Tax and Spend, but no limit to Borrow and Spend. Any politician that doesn’t increase the borrowing pays the electoral price. Look at Jimmy Carter and GHBush. They didn’t get it.

      The dollar must steadily decrease in buying power for this to work.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 7, 2016 at 13:36

      Dollar decreasing in buying power = euphemism for currency debasement = euphemism for inflation = euphemism for taxation without representation = euphemism for theft.

  14. pzo on July 7, 2016 at 08:04

    Lots of people don’t vote. Dumb and smart alike. Glad you and George have that right to not vote.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 7, 2016 at 10:45

      “have that right to not vote”

      Notice more of the same leftist “logic.” He’s glad I have a “right” to not be compelled to do something by force against my will.

      Leftism is a cancer. It rots minds, PZO being a prime case in point.

  15. pzo on July 7, 2016 at 09:38

    @cremes: You ask, I provide.

    Notice that the ratio peaked at 121.7 and is now 104.17, ergo, it is going down.

    Cool charts.

    The “parabolic rise” “under Obama” was because GW tanked the economy with The Second Republican Great Depression. So, first, expenditures, even if the same, rose relative to a declining GDP, and then we had to pull some Keynesian hat tricks to stop our free falling economy. Remember that 800,000 jobs a month loss back then? And it worked. If it didn’t work as well as hoped for, look no further than the party of obstruction in Congress.

    Further, Obama’s alleged “parabolic rise” is barely worse than the rise under St. Ronald. And the latter wasn’t pulling us out of a crashing economy, either. And that the rise was stopped and headed down under the administration of Bill Clinton, who handed off a healthy economy with a budget surplus to GW.

    • cremes on July 7, 2016 at 10:10

      @pzo, I already provided that link plus I guessed what your bullshit explanation would be in my original reply. You clearly didn’t read or understand it because you sent the SAME LINK back to me.

      You are so full of shit your eyes are brown. However, I am glad that you revealed yourself so clearly to everyone reading these comments.

      I did forget that another page from your usual playbook is to try and change the subject to “St. Ronald” and that GWBush killed the economy so Obama HAD to do what he did. It’s always someone else’s fault or “they did it first.” You child.

      For folks who don’t want to read the whole thread, @pzo said, “Our debt has gone down as a percentage of GDP under the Obama administration.” Now let’s look at the numbers. When Obama took office in 2008 the debt-to-GDP ratio was 0.76. As of 2015 under Obama, it is now 1.04. Last I checked, 1.04 is GREATER THAN 0.76 so therefore the ratio has INCREASED under Obama.

      @pzo, shall I guess that your response (should you feel one is necessary after this ass beating) will once again try to deflect from Obama back on Bush or Reagan with a “they did it first” bullshit comment? Why yes, I do believe that’s what you will do. That’s all you’ve got. The math certainly doesn’t support your statement but I’m sure you believe that math is biased.

      You child.

  16. pzo on July 7, 2016 at 10:47

    Yeah, call me names, don’t address the statistical issues I brought up. Just because I snip at “St. Ronald” and GW doesn’t mean I’m not correct. It’s not deflection, which is what you righties always come back to when there are some inconvenient historical data points. Your defense is not the historical record, but my insolence at demeaning those two failures.

    Well, here’s another way or two we are different. I’m not exploding from anger, which seems to be a commonality here. Nor will I step down into the cesspool where you come from by calling you names.

    Have a nice day. Take a pill and chill.

    • cremes on July 7, 2016 at 11:00

      I’m not angry, @pzo. You can’t defend your statement and are trying to deflect by going back to Bush & Reagan (and I don’t give a shit what they did or didn’t do).

      What about the math? Can you defend the debt-to-gdp ratio going from 0.76 in 2008 to 1.04 in 2015 as a REDUCTION? Let’s hear your explanation on this specific topic. No more deflections.

      But you’re a stupid child. I’ll call you all the names that I want. You refuse to answer on factual grounds (dialectic) so I have to poke and prod you on rhetorical grounds. That you have little mastery of either is little surprise.

      So, how does 0.76 in 2008 increasing to 1.04 in 2015 count as a reduction? Answer this. And if you can’t, then Richard should enforce his strict “no cunts” policy and boot you.

      Richard, thanks for the forum. I’m having fun today kicking the local village idiot.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 7, 2016 at 11:12

      Most people on the right I’ve heard from in the last decade or so fully acknowledge and are incensed about the Republican spend and grow debt thrifts.

      Leftists NEVER, NEVER are, because they are a cancer, with brain rot, lie automatically, and ALWAYS, ALWAYS shift blame to Republicans and not even where the Republican contribution is valid, i.e., deficit spending, but because they advocate cutting “taxes,” an euphemism for stealing less of people’s stuff in order to buy votes with “free stuff.”

      No quater. All leftists are a pathetic scourge on humanity, a cancer that rots brains.

  17. pzo on July 7, 2016 at 10:51

    Holy shit, Richard. You have left all logic behind, off the rails.

    ““have that right to not vote”

    Notice more of the same leftist “logic.” He’s glad I have a “right” to not be compelled to do something by force against my will.”

    OK, I don’t give a fuck. You are arguing negatives. I say you have the right to not vote and it’s immediately some leftie plot supporting that right. Jeeeeeezuz. You are at a point that if I said you are smart you will find some circular way of refuting that based on my defective personality.

  18. Hap on July 7, 2016 at 22:15

    I’m on the “right”, if that’s what people wish to think. I am not exactly sure what I am on the right of since there is no center…that’s all bullshit. I thought I was a Republican, but I’m one of those who cannot tell the difference between the parties…..and especially when it comes to robbing the future to pay for an exceedingly expensive vote buying present. May I suggest that this is one of the most immoral of all strategies? Stealing and murder tend to sum up one shitload of “sins”.
    I would agree with one of the commenters above regarding the abandonment of the gold standard as a huge tragedy for society. At the end of his life, ever that champion of freedom, Milton Friedman, repented of having argued for it so vociferously. In fact, he had to repent of his beloved monetarism. Nobel prizes tend to wed one to theories beyond their falsification. Hell Obama had no theory and even bankrupted forever ..the Nobel Prize.

    Anyway, money not tied to time and a reliable measuring stick is monopoly money. That’s what we have.

    I’d love to rant like Woodchuck or piss on myself like PZO trying to contort with semantics. How about this one….BLAME THE JEWS…..that always works, for someone. Did someone say…banker up top?

    • Richard Nikoley on July 7, 2016 at 22:53

      Lol, blame the Jews. Ha!

      …Anyway, damn, as much as I respect Milton and his son David, you know who’s responsible for payroll withholding?

      The whole landscape would be vastly different in America if people had to write a check every payday. We’re talking Boston Harbor different.

    • Bret on July 8, 2016 at 14:31

      I’m about as libertarian as they come, but I can’t get on board with this gold standard stuff. Gold seems to me an arbitrary substance to wed the dollar to…as arbitrary as any other, including silver, corn, oil, and so on. Like any natural resource-based commodity, its supply and demand fluctuates, as does the value of the dollar if so linked. This fluctuation would kick poor people squarely in the nuts, and I just can’t see how this strategy would be a solution to a poorly managed currency.

      Rather than a commodity-backed standard, I think the key to a healthier dollar is less centralized control over it. I don’t have all this worked out by a long shot, but generally speaking, decentralization and competition are effective cures of messes made by central planning. Perhaps getting rid of the iron fist of the Fed & the way it sets interest rates would go a long way…perhaps having alternate currencies would do something. I’d be interested to get anyone else’s thoughts on this…including why I am totally wrong and a gold standard would work best, if that’s the case.

      Fully agreed on the payroll withholding. That was a sad development, and has certainly enabled much of the federal government’s insatiable greed & recklessness. Looking at 7.65% combined FICA (double for contractors), plus around 13% federal income tax for the average Joe (after the progressive scaling), for a total of 20.65% of an employee paycheck / 28.3% contractor? And if that wasn’t enough, then add state income tax… Not a snowball’s chance in hell.

  19. Hap on July 8, 2016 at 11:54

    Economics is often known as the “dismal science”…..economics is subject to all sorts of distortions beyond common sense. Furthermore, beyond unintended consequences is the “evidence cemetery”, coined by Taleb (I believe), which is that vast unknown that is ignored by all, even the most eminent of economic theorists…..that which might have been but never occurred but for some meddlesome planner and high falutin “thinker”. I believe our most serious error is arrogance….perhaps followed by complacency and lack of faith in our own abilities direct our own lives.

  20. Hap on July 8, 2016 at 21:12

    Not room here to explain why a gold standard is appropriate……but the arguments, for and against are laid oout clearly in George gilders new book…..Scandal of money. There is strong logic and a very long history behind gold. Book also presents lengthy discussion of Bitcoin and alternatives. The fed no longer meets ts charter.

    The book is thorough and brilliant. Politicians have to be deprived of debasing money…..and distorting markets.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k