Note I am re-posting this with corrections.

I was intending to not post any more, but I've got to address this some where publicly. I hope some of you email this rebuttal to Armstrong and get him to address my criticism.

I do not agree with the following analysis. Armstrong's models are correct, but he is incorrect about the existence of TPTB because for example he believes in a multi-polar world where Russia, China, and the USA are not actually complicit and not just pretending to be antagonists. He ignores all the proof that I've sent him that they are indeed fake antagonists who are controlled by TPTB. The data in his models can not capture this complicity between the world's axis powers.

What FDR effectively did was make the dollar undervalued relative to gold, thus the international bankers (whom he worked for) were who held gold were revalued upwards by double relative to the minions holding dollars after the gold was confiscated from the people.  And going forward to 1971, the dollar became ever more debased so international bankers were cashing dollars for gold at the fixed exchange rate. The depository domestic banks weren't holding the gold any where, they were fractional reserve systems. The gold was held at Fort Knox and whether it is still there or not, there are IOUs owed internationally so it is effectively not ours any more. Armstrong needs to read the essays of the late Howard Katz (the One Handed Economist) who explained that Americans were eating more butter, chicken, and had a higher standard of living after 1929 and before the New Deal was instituted. 1929 was a haircut for Wallstreet not Mainstreet. It was after the New Deal started that the real hardship began which by the time of WW2 it got so bad that woman had to go work in factories and no one could eat butter. The collapse of 1929 was a collapse of finance, but the basic necessities of life became more valued and thus production increased. My grandfather on my mother's side was walking around with a basket selling potatoes after 1929. Whereas the New Deal paid people to walk on crops and destroyed the farms exacerbating the Dust Bowls. One could say that perhaps FDR was induced politically to try to do something by the Dust Bowls, but what he did effectively was socialism of stealing private wealth, misallocating into public works programs, and overvaluing the dollar thus over decades sending all the gold overseas.

This doesn't mean I think gold can be money. You can clearly see it is a tool for the government and bankers to fund socialism and expropriate from the private sector.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/34677


P.S. This myopia is also related to why Armstrong's proposed solutions for Greece and the sovereign debt crisis in general are untenable at best, and even if they could be implemented they would be a horrible result for mainstreet over the long-term, because all his proposals involve the centralization of power. I have explained why in prior posts about them. For example, the only way Greece could survive a GrExit would be with the access to international markets, but the axis powers are complicit. As for the debt for equity swap Armstrong proposes (sovereign debt exchanged for corporate shares), I explained in the past that this requires that investors have a fungible valuation of disparate companies. The only way that proposal is workable is if it is basically transferring a basket of all public companies to a single entity that holds all the debt, i.e. the TPTB. It is just same FDR gold swindle in disguise all over again. I really think Armstrong works for TPTB. He is advocating a one-world currency reserve and world domination by TPTB. That is coming and inevitable, and our escape is the Knowledge Age and our own decentralized, scalable, anonymous cryptocurrency.