I’ve been listening to another Tom Luongo interview, and I’ve done a transcript for the 28-47 minute range of a 137 minute interview. Overall there’s a fair amount of overlap with his other interviews and articles. However, this segment is very timely, what with a coup going on in the UK, because Luongo spends quite a bit of time discussing the background to the coup in the ginned up financial crisis. I think readers will be fascinated by his ideas in that regard.
Interesting to note that, right on cue, a key partner in the putative Italian coalition, Mr Bunga Bunga hisself, is taking flak for not hating on Vlad.
Not connected to the fiscal topic of this post but I found this tidbit in the news and thought it key. It's buried halfway down the feed and isn't making major headlines, I guess because it's the Shetland Isles which are hardly thought of at all here, however, I couldn't help but wonder if this incident was a message....
Ah, that's interesting. Yesterday Mercouris was saying that there was talk going around that the sudden trip of Wallace to DC was because they believed US/UK comms were compromised.
My guess is the Fed is focused on saving the us economy, and riding out the storm of major changes happening to the world’s financial structure. The Russian Sanctions are speeding this up, as Russia has been preparing for a while. Don’t throw me the Briar Patch said Brer Putin…
Europe is in denial, and is thinking the us will still save them, and allow them to continue business as usual milking the US financially.
Biden Administration is trying to fundamentally change the economy and enrich their friends, while destroying their opposition. With a war on fossil fuels, middle class, maga types, police, Christians, parents, farming, and controlled immigration. And treating our Allies with disdain / no respect.
China has major issues, and we will see what direction they take after the leadership conference. Zero Covid is hurting their economy.
Though Luongo gives us lots of food for thought, I’m still not entirely sold on his theory regarding the Fed v. Davos. It seems too tidy and convenient (i.e., too good) to be true. More like wishful thinking. We’ll see.
Meantime, something he says here just doesn’t ring true to me. He says Powell fought tooth and nail against all the spending. But I remember Pelosi crowing back in 2020 that the Fed chair told her to “think big” regarding fiscal stimulus spending. Just did a quick google search and found this, for example:
To my mind what Luongo says about the Fed vs. Davos conflict makes sense at a high level.
The Fed would certainly want to remove the constraints on its control of U.S. monetary policy imposed by the offshore dollar market and LIBOR. On the flip side of that It also makes sense that they would want to isolate the U.S. from the vicissitudes of European finance and the actions of its central and commercial banks - especially given that the Fed knows sovereign debt crises are chronic over there due to the very nature of having a common currency with fragmented national fiscal policies. Now, add in Davos and its lust for world domination and total economic control via a CBDC and abolishing commercial banks. That makes the Fed's and the "NY Boys" incentive to fight them existential as Luongo notes in this transcript. I have no problems whatsoever accepting that the Fed (and its "shareowners") are acting against Davos in every way it can to preserve its own power and actual existence.
If you accept this then it gives you a basis for evaluating what Luongo proposes about the scope and details of the war. I accept that the information he provides is fluid along with his observations and opinions, none of which are infallible. Beyond that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions and questions - we are all learning new things every day.
I have no idea why the Fed would have encouraged Pelosi to "go big." That doesn't make sense without knowing the context from their perspective. It is true though that they have no choice but to deal with the spending Congress passes into law. Excellent catch, BA!
I think the Fed vs Davos theory is the best one out there right now.
But Luongo extrapolates it into every situation, which may not be legit. Or, put another way, I don't think there's a single mind behind every Davos actor. Smaller actors may get instructions, but big actors like SPOTUS, heavily influenced/controlled by Blackrock, will do their own thing within the parameters of the ideology and their own ambition.
From wiki: (have read Powell is aggressively bipartisan in maintaining open dialog w both parties, he may be esp astute politically and knew he needed the D support to re appointed and confirmed this his support and go big comments in early 20, would he have been re confirmed had he opposed?)
"Nearing the end of his first year in the White House, President Biden nominated Powell for a second term as the head of the Fed, and the Senate Banking Committee approved of his renomination with only one dissenting vote; he was confirmed to a second term in an 80-19 vote on May 12, 2022.[14] Following President Biden's renomination of Powell, the Fed Chairman retired his previous words "transitory inflation", ..."
This may explain WHY Powell went along with the spending spree. But my beef is with Luongo for (apparently) grossly misrepresenting Powell as having opposed the spending.
agree -- it does seem he construes anything within his lens and bias; personally thought he crooned way too much when the former FED employee DD Booth said things in line with his views -- a sports analogy, act like you've been there before and not such a big deal; net/net, he prob gets more right than most others -- and this morning it seemed he has prepped his audience for what just went down w Truss resigning.
Of course. Given Powell's public statements, at a minimum Luongo does need to explain how those statements square with Luongo's claims re Powell. There could be explanations, but we need to see those and evaluate them.
BA, I agree to an extent. CTH believes that the Fed is trying to kill the economy to coincide with the destruction of the oil industry (i.e., reduce the economy while the nuts push us into electric). Mark Levin talks about the de-growth movement that started in Europe and goes along with the Climate Change wackjobs. I'm not sure who I believe, Luongo or CTH.
OTOH, Dimon is going around calling for more drilling. I think he even was quoted saying: Drill, baby, drill! I don't think there's much doubt he's the power behind Powell. The Dems didn't want to confirm Powell because he wasn't on board with their climate agenda--which is at the core of Davos.
Also, btw, later Luongo says the big energy scheme is hydrogen power, which he claims is practical and can be generated by individuals with propane powered motors. He claims the WEF doesn't want individuals to be allowed to do that. What do I know?
Hydrogen is a great fuel, but like any gaseous fuel, it is impractical as a passenger vehicle power source. About 15 years ago a Ford engineer asked me to help them develop a system to pressurize hydrogen to 10,000 psi! The gas cylinders that you see in labs and hospitals are only pressurized to about 2400 psi, so 10k psi is A LOT. And hydrogen is highly flammable. They told me that that's the necessary pressure to store enough H2 fuel in a reasonably sized tank to provide a vehicle range that's similar to a gasoline powered car. A liquid fuel contains vastly more energy, per unit of volume, than any gaseous fuel. So, even if you could generate pure hydrogen without consuming vast amounts of energy, it's still not practical for passenger vehicle use. And probably not for long haul truckers.
Natural gas powered municipal fleet vehicles, like buses, are practical, with their fixed routes.
Now I do think that fuel cells in general are viable for residential power generation, using natural gas or propane for the fuel. But I expect that they are being held back by the global warming cultists.
Here’s where I am sure Luongo is right. The Fed’s true agenda is not really taming “inflation” which they must know is not due (or merely due) to an excess of currency, but to broken supply chains and energy prices.
So what is the Fed up to? There are more possibilities than Luongo’s theory, just one example off the top of my head:
Fighting a rearguard effort to defend their precious “credibility,” which is key to the Fed’s real power. I am convinced by those who argue the Fed’s primary tool is psychological manipulation of markets. Think Wizard of Oz. Powell claimed “inflation” would be transitory. Turned out to be fairly sticky. It will come down and when it does the Fed can say, “I did that!”
The Fed’s history I think justifies skepticism regarding its effectiveness and competence. Which is one reason I remain skeptical of Luongo’s theory. He seems to be accept the fed’s own self-image as being at the center of the monetary universe. The offshore dollar market (so-called Eurodollar system) is beyond the fed’s ability to measure/monitor, much less control. It might *influence* it, like it influences domestic U.S. markets, but that’s about it.
Finally, I am one of those who may be asking, “Since when has the Fed ever been our friend?” I mean ordinary people. The thing has had the stink of an elite cabal since it’s beginning. (See the book “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin). If we are ever able to breakup the security agencies in this country (FBI, et al.) the Federal Reserve should be next for the ash heap.
"Fighting a rearguard effort to defend their precious “credibility,” which is key to the Fed’s real power."
In fact, within the last week I quoted Luongo saying that that's EXACTLY what the Fed is concerned for--to safeguard their image as credible stewards of the currency. That's close to a direct quote.
Nor is Luongo saying that the Fed is our friend. I made that clear by including that portion of the interview in the transcript. He also obviously thinks highly of DDB, who literally wrote the book on why the Fed should be abolished.
Interesting to note that, right on cue, a key partner in the putative Italian coalition, Mr Bunga Bunga hisself, is taking flak for not hating on Vlad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/20/world/europe/silvio-berlusconi-vladimir-putin-russia-italy.html
As predicted.
Not connected to the fiscal topic of this post but I found this tidbit in the news and thought it key. It's buried halfway down the feed and isn't making major headlines, I guess because it's the Shetland Isles which are hardly thought of at all here, however, I couldn't help but wonder if this incident was a message....
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20169092/major-incident-shetland-isles-phone-internet-cables-cut/
So, a fishing trawler? Er, two fishing trawlers in the past week?
Ah, that's interesting. Yesterday Mercouris was saying that there was talk going around that the sudden trip of Wallace to DC was because they believed US/UK comms were compromised.
Well it was obscured in today's newsfeed so I'm guessing Alex is on to something.
Possibly something else. Stay tuned.
Crazy times, and I’m not sure what is going on.
My guess is the Fed is focused on saving the us economy, and riding out the storm of major changes happening to the world’s financial structure. The Russian Sanctions are speeding this up, as Russia has been preparing for a while. Don’t throw me the Briar Patch said Brer Putin…
Europe is in denial, and is thinking the us will still save them, and allow them to continue business as usual milking the US financially.
Biden Administration is trying to fundamentally change the economy and enrich their friends, while destroying their opposition. With a war on fossil fuels, middle class, maga types, police, Christians, parents, farming, and controlled immigration. And treating our Allies with disdain / no respect.
China has major issues, and we will see what direction they take after the leadership conference. Zero Covid is hurting their economy.
Though Luongo gives us lots of food for thought, I’m still not entirely sold on his theory regarding the Fed v. Davos. It seems too tidy and convenient (i.e., too good) to be true. More like wishful thinking. We’ll see.
Meantime, something he says here just doesn’t ring true to me. He says Powell fought tooth and nail against all the spending. But I remember Pelosi crowing back in 2020 that the Fed chair told her to “think big” regarding fiscal stimulus spending. Just did a quick google search and found this, for example:
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/488108-pelosi-powell-discuss-ambitious-fiscal-stimulus-plan-as-coronavirus-slowdown/
To my mind what Luongo says about the Fed vs. Davos conflict makes sense at a high level.
The Fed would certainly want to remove the constraints on its control of U.S. monetary policy imposed by the offshore dollar market and LIBOR. On the flip side of that It also makes sense that they would want to isolate the U.S. from the vicissitudes of European finance and the actions of its central and commercial banks - especially given that the Fed knows sovereign debt crises are chronic over there due to the very nature of having a common currency with fragmented national fiscal policies. Now, add in Davos and its lust for world domination and total economic control via a CBDC and abolishing commercial banks. That makes the Fed's and the "NY Boys" incentive to fight them existential as Luongo notes in this transcript. I have no problems whatsoever accepting that the Fed (and its "shareowners") are acting against Davos in every way it can to preserve its own power and actual existence.
If you accept this then it gives you a basis for evaluating what Luongo proposes about the scope and details of the war. I accept that the information he provides is fluid along with his observations and opinions, none of which are infallible. Beyond that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions and questions - we are all learning new things every day.
I have no idea why the Fed would have encouraged Pelosi to "go big." That doesn't make sense without knowing the context from their perspective. It is true though that they have no choice but to deal with the spending Congress passes into law. Excellent catch, BA!
I think the Fed vs Davos theory is the best one out there right now.
But Luongo extrapolates it into every situation, which may not be legit. Or, put another way, I don't think there's a single mind behind every Davos actor. Smaller actors may get instructions, but big actors like SPOTUS, heavily influenced/controlled by Blackrock, will do their own thing within the parameters of the ideology and their own ambition.
Interesting. I did some searching just now and came up with more of that. I'd like to see Luongo challenged on that.
From wiki: (have read Powell is aggressively bipartisan in maintaining open dialog w both parties, he may be esp astute politically and knew he needed the D support to re appointed and confirmed this his support and go big comments in early 20, would he have been re confirmed had he opposed?)
"Nearing the end of his first year in the White House, President Biden nominated Powell for a second term as the head of the Fed, and the Senate Banking Committee approved of his renomination with only one dissenting vote; he was confirmed to a second term in an 80-19 vote on May 12, 2022.[14] Following President Biden's renomination of Powell, the Fed Chairman retired his previous words "transitory inflation", ..."
This may explain WHY Powell went along with the spending spree. But my beef is with Luongo for (apparently) grossly misrepresenting Powell as having opposed the spending.
agree -- it does seem he construes anything within his lens and bias; personally thought he crooned way too much when the former FED employee DD Booth said things in line with his views -- a sports analogy, act like you've been there before and not such a big deal; net/net, he prob gets more right than most others -- and this morning it seemed he has prepped his audience for what just went down w Truss resigning.
Of course. Given Powell's public statements, at a minimum Luongo does need to explain how those statements square with Luongo's claims re Powell. There could be explanations, but we need to see those and evaluate them.
Hmmmm.
BA, I agree to an extent. CTH believes that the Fed is trying to kill the economy to coincide with the destruction of the oil industry (i.e., reduce the economy while the nuts push us into electric). Mark Levin talks about the de-growth movement that started in Europe and goes along with the Climate Change wackjobs. I'm not sure who I believe, Luongo or CTH.
OTOH, Dimon is going around calling for more drilling. I think he even was quoted saying: Drill, baby, drill! I don't think there's much doubt he's the power behind Powell. The Dems didn't want to confirm Powell because he wasn't on board with their climate agenda--which is at the core of Davos.
Also, btw, later Luongo says the big energy scheme is hydrogen power, which he claims is practical and can be generated by individuals with propane powered motors. He claims the WEF doesn't want individuals to be allowed to do that. What do I know?
Mark - re his hyd power idea do you have a link to that? Would like to review.
Thanks.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=hydrogen+cars&ia=web
Hydrogen is a great fuel, but like any gaseous fuel, it is impractical as a passenger vehicle power source. About 15 years ago a Ford engineer asked me to help them develop a system to pressurize hydrogen to 10,000 psi! The gas cylinders that you see in labs and hospitals are only pressurized to about 2400 psi, so 10k psi is A LOT. And hydrogen is highly flammable. They told me that that's the necessary pressure to store enough H2 fuel in a reasonably sized tank to provide a vehicle range that's similar to a gasoline powered car. A liquid fuel contains vastly more energy, per unit of volume, than any gaseous fuel. So, even if you could generate pure hydrogen without consuming vast amounts of energy, it's still not practical for passenger vehicle use. And probably not for long haul truckers.
Natural gas powered municipal fleet vehicles, like buses, are practical, with their fixed routes.
Now I do think that fuel cells in general are viable for residential power generation, using natural gas or propane for the fuel. But I expect that they are being held back by the global warming cultists.
“Never underestimate Brandon’s ability to f*!# things up”
https://twitter.com/TFL1728/status/1582830356868177924?cxt=HHwWiICpjdn0q_crAAAA
When we say that inflation is structural and there's little the Fed can do to contain it with rate hikes, this article is Exhibit A in evidence.
This is why the Fed isn't trying to tame inflation, it's trying to destroy the people who created this mess
Here’s where I am sure Luongo is right. The Fed’s true agenda is not really taming “inflation” which they must know is not due (or merely due) to an excess of currency, but to broken supply chains and energy prices.
So what is the Fed up to? There are more possibilities than Luongo’s theory, just one example off the top of my head:
Fighting a rearguard effort to defend their precious “credibility,” which is key to the Fed’s real power. I am convinced by those who argue the Fed’s primary tool is psychological manipulation of markets. Think Wizard of Oz. Powell claimed “inflation” would be transitory. Turned out to be fairly sticky. It will come down and when it does the Fed can say, “I did that!”
The Fed’s history I think justifies skepticism regarding its effectiveness and competence. Which is one reason I remain skeptical of Luongo’s theory. He seems to be accept the fed’s own self-image as being at the center of the monetary universe. The offshore dollar market (so-called Eurodollar system) is beyond the fed’s ability to measure/monitor, much less control. It might *influence* it, like it influences domestic U.S. markets, but that’s about it.
Finally, I am one of those who may be asking, “Since when has the Fed ever been our friend?” I mean ordinary people. The thing has had the stink of an elite cabal since it’s beginning. (See the book “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin). If we are ever able to breakup the security agencies in this country (FBI, et al.) the Federal Reserve should be next for the ash heap.
"Fighting a rearguard effort to defend their precious “credibility,” which is key to the Fed’s real power."
In fact, within the last week I quoted Luongo saying that that's EXACTLY what the Fed is concerned for--to safeguard their image as credible stewards of the currency. That's close to a direct quote.
Nor is Luongo saying that the Fed is our friend. I made that clear by including that portion of the interview in the transcript. He also obviously thinks highly of DDB, who literally wrote the book on why the Fed should be abolished.
Points well taken.