News & Analysis
Central Banks Won't Produce Natural Interest
The Bank of England should raise interest rates next week ... Most people that read finance columns have heard of the "natural rate of unemployment", and many will know that the term was introduced by Milton Friedman. But far fewer will know where he got the term. He said himself, in his Nobel Prize lecture, that "The 'natural rate of unemployment' [is] a term I introduced to parallel Knut Wicksell's 'natural rate of interest'". But who was Knut Wicksell and what is the "natural rate of interest" – and does it matter? We shall see that it does indeed matter, and tells us something important about current UK monetary policy and the outlook for the UK economy and George Osborne's chances of delivering his fiscal plans ...Three years, now, at 0.5 percent, and counting. That compares with a natural rate of interest that was about 5 percent when times were better and will be around 3-3.5 percent now. (Essentially, add the 2.5 per cent RPI inflation rate that's about the target to the 1 percent or so sustainable growth rate, and you get a decent guess at the natural rate.) Having interest rates so far below the natural rate damages the sustainable growth rate of the economy. – UK Telegraph/ Andrew Lilico
Dominant Social Theme: We just have to figure out what's natural and then fake it.
Free-Market Analysis: Here comes Andrew Lilico, an economist with Europe Economics, and a member of the Shadow Monetary Policy Committee, according to the UK Telegraph (see article above).
The gibberish contained in the above excerpt is only magnified throughout the article. It is really incredible. What is it about price fixing that such intelligent commentators don't understand?
If you artificially set a price by force – and this is what central banks do – then that price is almost bound to be incorrect. Only the market itself can generate a "natural" rate of interest or determine monetary volume.
That's because the market itself is competitive. The "Invisible Hand" of competition creates naturally fluctuating interest rates and the appropriate volume of money stuff.
This is why monetary competition historically yields up evermore efficient and healthy money. People voluntarily choose the kind of money they want and the volume of money as well.
Within this context, gold and silver have proven to be a historically popular money stuff. Used with each other, gold and silver provide a ratio. If the ratio becomes distorted, people can tell that someone is trying to manipulate the market. This called bi-metalism.
Greenbackerism has made a startling comeback of late, which we have long predicted, citing Ellen Brown's effective boosting of the idea that government ought to have the sole franchise to print money.
But regardless of whether a mercantilist public/private body like the Bank of England or Federal Reserve prints paper-fiat money, or a fully public enterprise, such as those found in India or China, the problem of the natural rate and volume remains. Once human beings arrogate to themselves such decisions, money itself cannot help but be distorted.
Both India and China are now suffering from vigorous price inflation. That's because when human beings have a monopoly of something, it will inevitably be abused. It is impossible to expect mere flesh and blood not to print too much money. Money buys all kinds of fun, especially for those in control of it.
Over time, even within a competitive monetary environment, government eventually prints too much paper money, eventually debasing it. As this paper money became cheapened, people seek not to hold it, and try to get rid of it.
This is why schemes like Greenbackerism tend to lead to government consolidation of money authority. As people reject government money, those in charge gradually mandate its use. Within historical contexts, there tends to be an expansion of force as people are compelled to use what they would otherwise reject.
There are arguments that certain kinds of government monopoly money have proven more effective than other kinds. Ellen Brown, Bill Still and others argue that tally sticks were a wonderfully effective government initiated money that helped England build an empire.
But from our point of view this is perhaps a misreading on several fronts. First of all, there is nothing all that admirable about an empire. Societies tend to flourish, as we have often pointed out, when they are separate and singular but gathered closely together.
This allows people to travel from one place to another nearby place if they are being oppressed. Gradually over time, a culture of freedom is established as governments compete with one another to provide environments that are attractive and laissez faire.
Many great cultures have been established within this context. Rome had its Seven Hills, the Greek Golden Age and the Renaissance had city states, the United States had "these" united States.
Over time, consolidation usually takes place and gradually what was free and innovative becomes less so. Eventually dirigisme and socialism may set in.
Gradually the leaders of the consolidated country begin to become aggressive and to focus on outside threats to distract attention from an increasingly failed society. This is the empire phase.
It is unfortunate that most of history focuses on the "greatness" of empire when in fact, an "empire" is symptomatic of societal sickness not health.
During the tally stick era in Britain, Kings – having access to the money supply – apparently borrowed against the stock of tally sticks considerably for purposes of waging war. Not only that, but as tally sticks were generated to pay taxes, the volume of the money supply was seemingly artificially restricted.
This was great for those who controlled tally sticks – the ruling class – because an artificially restrained money deprived people of capital and likely had a retardant effect on social mobility and individual economic potential. Tally sticks were a perfect money for the elites.
There is seemingly no substitute for competitive money and for the Invisible Hand setting the volume and price of money. In economies that use gold and silver, hoarding and dishoarding sets the price of market money, along, perhaps, with the opening and closing of mines, depending on how much gold and silver is circulating. This is one reason why precious metals have been successful as money throughout history.
In the modern era, central banking has taken over the world – and the result is general catastrophe and ruin. This is only to be expected. It is in fact what those behind the system are intending to create.
The power elite that has seemingly installed modern monopoly fiat money – and the dollar reserve system itself – apparently seeks to build world government. It needs to foment economic turmoil and wars in order to move society toward one-world money.
Central banking is key to this strategy. The more monetary price fixing there is, the more economic chaos and catastrophe takes place. It is a closed loop, a virtuous circle from the power elite point of view.
The elites spend an enormous amount of time trying to justify central bank price fixing. It is one of their biggest dominant social themes – that only a handful of good, gray men can manage the economy and make decisions for everyone else.
Andrew Lilico wants us to believe that central banks ARE capable of mimicking natural rates of money production. In truth, there is no "natural interest rate" or rate of monetary production that human beings are EVER capable of creating.
Even if the top people at these monopoly money banks were capable of figuring out where the price and volume of money could be, there is no guarantee that they would generate the correct prices over time.
They would use their power for their OWN benefit. As indeed they have. We can see it clearly, even today. What misery there is in the world.
Conclusion: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Danny B on 04/16/12 10:42 AM
This is an excellent article showing that CBs are running out of policy tools.
Click to view link
 |
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 04/10/12 06:03 AM
Kinda funny that you would write that, since you DON'T have 'covered these points'. NOT ONE.
Instead you wrote hundreds of feedbacks and some 'articles', ACCUSING Austrian Economics and Libertarianism of having a 'Satanic Core' and to being part of a 'dialectic' to further elite rule.
However, you failed to demonstrate, even theoretically, let alone PROVE, that the elite could/would make use of decentralized, small communities and the lack of governmental monopoly-violence and monopoly fiat-money to further what 'they' desire most: CONTROL.
By the way, if the elite indeed sponsored Austrian Economics and Libertarianism to promote their designs, how come that one can hardly find even a few significant and overall sympathetic mainstream media stories about Austrian Economics and/or Libertarianism in ANY western country FOR DECADES?
Again, your ENTIRE approach rests on the claim that 'the transnational plutarchy that currently rules the world' via mercantilism, directed history and evermore worldwide centralization, would indeed BENEFIT from what you call 'extreme individualism', i.e., the freedom of every human being to live, associate and trade as he sees fit, as long as he doesn't harm others - while, at the same time, you are not able to provide a single shred of evidence for your outlandish claims. NOT ONE.
Hence, not only have you been debunked, for the most part YOU HAVE DEBUNKED YOURSELF.
Insofar, you have shown consistency, indeed.
|
Posted by memehunter on 04/08/12 02:17 PM
I have already covered these points earlier on the thread and I replied, directly or indirectly, to practically every point you make in this latest feedback. You have certainly not debunked anything.
|
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 04/08/12 08:27 AM
MH: 'Interesting that you did not comment on this paragraph from my earlier post'
AA: Not really, since I addressed the points later in my posting. You may have missed them. Hint: PRIVATE GOLD STANDARD based on voluntary participation, i.e., freedom, and loans based on hard money due to time preference of human beings.
Besides, what I think is REALLY interesting is that you did not comment on my debunking of your ENTIRE EFFORT:
I will requote it for you, memehunter:
Your ENTIRE approach rests on the claim that 'the transnational plutarchy that currently rules the world' via mercantilism, directed history and evermore worldwide centralization, would indeed BENEFIT from what you call 'extreme individualism', i.e., the freedom of every human being to live, associate and trade as he sees fit, as long as he doesn't harm others.
Now you're saying you CAN'T prove it. You don't have a single shred of evidence, apparently. You could at least have tried to outline the basic mechanism in one of your hundreds of feedbacks or in your articles for that matter. You wouldn't even need hard evidence, for the time being, to do that - you just would have to explain - or even speculate - just HOW the elite could/would make use of decentralized, small communities and the lack of governmental monopoly-violence and monopoly fiat-money to further what 'they' desire most: CONTROL.
But you didn't. You don't. You can't. Well, no surprise here, memehunter.
MH: ' I also advocate a balance between the community and the individual (remember the dialectic between extreme individualism and extreme collectivism?)'
AA: Yes, memehunter, I noted that you try to construct a(nother) dialectic and peddle 'solutions' to that effect. See you fiat-money, free-lunch-for-all with a governmental 'minimum of coercion' to do the trick.
These are brilliant ideas indeed ... NOT.
 |
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/06/12 10:17 AM
Hi memehunter and Ingo . . . big brothers now?
BANKSY: Click to view link
 |
Posted by Bischoff on 04/05/12 04:04 PM
I fully agree with you. I think to converse is valuable. If it gets crazy, you can just check out. Thanks, memehunter...
|
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/05/12 03:52 PM
Hi memehunter and Ingo,
Like, duh . . . I'm an alien! MetaPhorian, to be exact.
(Actually, I'm half MetaPhorian, half English, half Irish, and half Canadian, but that's beside the point.)
We use on/off limbic switching to convert everyone to being free thinkers. Either that or you end up giving yourself an auto-lobotomy. Sorry guys . . . I just got a tech note on the last part.
ALL SYSTEMS ARE BANKSY
Click to view link
|
Posted by memehunter on 04/05/12 01:37 PM
Interesting that you did not comment on this paragraph from my earlier post:
"I also note that AE generally supports the gold standard and its attendant 'paper-gold' schemes (whether government-sponsored or not), does not condemn usury (and even justifies it, see Böhm-Bawerk), and seeks to eliminate trade barriers and reduce the influence of national governments (see Mises)."
AA: However, interest on loans made with hard, non-fractional-reserve money is not - for obvious reasons: The evident time preference of human beings and their apparent willingness to enter voluntary contracts to that effect.
M: I have made a distinction between payable and unpayable interest. If your interest-bearing currency is initially issued as debt, it does not matter whether it is made of paper, gold, or tally sticks, it is essentially an exploitative device to the benefit of the currency issuer. It's not the first time that I said this, in case you have not noticed, Abu. Also, your voluntary contract between two parties concerns all other users of the currency is which the loan is made: if there is a common agreement that loans made with this currency should be interest-free, then your parties should use a different currency that allows interest-bearing loans.
AA: You can't even come up with a reasonable, theoretical scenario as to how the elite would benefit from a free society, let alone provide hard evidence for your claims.
M: And can you come up with a reasonable scenario (that makes sense and that agrees with the facts) as to why the elite has continuously supported Austrian economics and Libertarianism? The evidence is overwhelming at this point. As I wrote, that would at least suggest that the elites "attempted to direct the development of AE/L in a way that would benefit them."
AA: Some people don't like and/or fear freedom, however, for various reasons. Hence their 'need' to supervise fellow humans and their urge to smear proponents of freedom as 'evil', ultimately.
M: Libertarianism (especially the anarcho-capitalist flavor that you seem to adhere to) proposes one very particular brand of freedom, one focused on extreme individualism. As I wrote earlier, one can denounce some aspects of Libertarianism and Austrian economics and be pro-freedom, simply it's a different type of freedom from the one you advocate. I advocate freedom from Money Power. I also advocate a balance between the community and the individual (remember the dialectic between extreme individualism and extreme collectivism?).
|
Posted by memehunter on 04/05/12 01:20 PM
Bischoff,
I think you are right about Weebley. It's too bad, because he has shown us that he is sometimes able to have an intelligent discussion, but most of the time he's not making any sense at all.
Thanks for your advice. I read about the Delphi technique, but I don't know what technique Weebley is using (apart from his use of steganography). It does seem fairly ineffective, in any case.
I think the easiest thing to do is to simply ignore comments that do not make sense or that are mostly inanities and to try to reply only to those that at least make a modicum of sense. That's how I deal with Abu Aardvark.
|
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 04/05/12 11:48 AM
MH: 'I cannot 'prove' that the plutarchy will benefit from Austrian economics (AE) or Libertarianism (L)'
AA: You're guessing, then? Well, that seems kinda strange since your ENTIRE approach rests on the claim that 'the transnational plutarchy that currently rules the world' via mercantilism, directed history and evermore worldwide centralization, would indeed BENEFIT from what you call 'extreme individualism', i.e., the freedom of every human being to live, associate and trade as he sees fit, as long as he doesn't harm others.
Now you're saying you CAN'T prove it. You don't have a single shred of evidence, apparently. You could at least have tried to outline the basic mechanism in one of your hundreds of feedbacks or in your articles for that matter. You wouldn't even need hard evidence, for the time being, to do that - you just would have to explain - or even speculate - just HOW the elite could/would make use of decentralized, small communities and the lack of governmental monopoly-violence and monopoly fiat-money to further what 'they' desire most: CONTROL.
But you didn't. You don't. You can't. Well, no surprise here, memehunter.
MH: 'anymore that you or anyone else can 'prove' theoretical axioms of AE such as 'pure time preference'
AA: Is that so? While there are indeed debates among Austrians about some aspects of the 'PURE Time Preference Theory of Interest' ...
Click to view link
... one has to be deaf, dumb and blind - or live in a cabin in Alaska for that matter - to NOT see family members, friends, colleagues, etc., more often than not, preferring 'present goods' (goods available for use at present) to 'future goods' (present expectations of goods becoming available at some date in the future).
I don't know about you, but in my vicinity people buy cars, TV sets, machinery, et. al. on credit when they seem to need or want the items - as opposed to buying them later, when they would have saved enough money to buy them without taking a loan.
Now, please don't reply that interest on fiat-money out of thin air is a nasty and destructive fraud - of course it is - since fiat-money is a an outright fraud altogether. However, interest on loans made with hard, non-fractional-reserve money is not - for obvious reasons: The evident time preference of human beings and their apparent willingness to enter voluntary contracts to that effect.
For further reading see:
Click to view link
MH: 'However, I can show, using the 'cui bono'/ 'follow the money' principle (regularly employed by the DB), that elites have supported AE/L for a very long time, which strongly suggests that they benefit from it, or at least that they attempted to direct the development of AE/L in a way that would benefit them.'
AA: Again, you're guessing. You can't even come up with a reasonable, theoretical scenario as to how the elite would benefit from a free society, let alone provide hard evidence for your claims. Instead you try to smear advocates of freedom to be 'influenced by Satanism' via transparent guilt by association-techniques.
Besides, you live in Europe and use Euros - or in the USA and use US Dollars, right? So you participate actively in the blatant ponzi-scheme that causes so much misery - all the while you scream bloody murder when someone defends hard money and freedom. Kinda ... strange, eh?
MH: 'For more on why AE is a tool of the elites, I recommend following some of the links listed here - this should answer most of your questions'
Click to view link
AA: Wheee, Anthony Migchels again. Alright, I took the freedom to actually read through this site. Oh, boy ...
Here are some remarkable, random gems from it:
'Government is a neutral institution, associated with a Nation. Public Opinion can always force its hand'
'The idea that Gold cannot be printed and that that give security about the volume is nonsense. Bankers routinely have withheld vast quantities of specie from circulation, only to inflate at a later stage again.'
'Inflation hurts savers, creditors and people on pinned incomes. But it is pleasant for debtors, of which there are far more than creditors. And, very important, inflation is associated with economic growth. People stop hoarding cash and rather invest and spend.'
Click to view link
And on it goes like that. Uninspired, almost entirely fact-free hogwash from a self appointed do-gooder who (compulsively?) demonstrates his ignorance of human nature, history and economics in almost every paragraph. Pretty sad, all in all.
To conclude, again:
I think that, at the end of the day, Austrian Economics represents 'merely' a long overdue and reasonable formulation of what may seem self-evident to anyone who cares to take an unconditional look at human nature and consecutive history.
The case for freedom, as defined by Austrian economists, is a valuable instrument to further a broader, overall understanding of where we are, how we got here, and where we might be headed to - nothing more. A child can figure it out. In fact, children - yet in lack of authoritarian brainwashing - are doing just that, of course.
Freedom itself 'needs' Austrian Economics just as much as the stars are in 'need' of observational astronomy.
Freedom stands for itself.
Some people don't like and/or fear freedom, however, for various reasons. Hence their 'need' to supervise fellow humans and their urge to smear proponents of freedom as 'evil', ultimately.
They (you?) will continue their quest for control - as they must, apparently - to complete their misery.
|
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/05/12 11:20 AM
Hi Ingo,
Keep talking . . . this is getting interesting. And I guess you forgot I said this to you:
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/04/12 08:01 PM
snip---
"I believe in a barter economy, overlaid with 1 or more hard to counterfeit freely and equally distributed currencies, including gold, silver, and wherever tickles my fancy at the time."
snip---
|
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/05/12 08:34 AM
Hi Ingo,
I love talking with you; your "meds" thing is a hoot! if I was indeed on "meds," I wouldn't be able to string more than 3 words togther.
I love "getting down" with you on issues like "gold is money" as long as you have some paper between you and the borrower. It's like you are the aircraft controller always telling me, the rogue test pilot, to defenestrate, when you know, and I know this is a simple monetary engineering thing . . . or problem you have that you're trying to cover up with flaming verbiage . . . much like the F-104 from a few years back.
It's fun to fly your plane over and over . . . a challenge . . .
. . . booming and zooming
Click to view link
|
Posted by Bischoff on 04/05/12 08:28 AM
@ memehunter
I guess you have figured out for yourself that Agent Weebley is an outright fraud.
This guy is not interested in logical discussions. He merely takes any comment and casts doubt at it. His mission is to prevent any one from seeing logic in your comments. As you have noticed, he takes no stand, he has no core believe, he doesn't answer questions.
All he does is to demean your comments with a bunch of jive to goad you into latching out at him. He gets a thrill, if he can attack your ego.
The question is whether he does this to feed his own personal psychosis, or whether he chills for statist interests with his attitude. When he describes himself as "Agent", it does set you to wondering, doesn't it... ???
The best way to deal with a guy like that is to try and figure out how to use him to make your points, while exposing his attempts to sow doubt in the logic and fact of your comments. However, you won't find it easy. The guy is no dummy. He understands how to attack you in your ego.
So, if you want to bother, watch him and take your swipe at him without letting him get to your ego. If you're lucky, you can even have him make points for you without him recognizing it.
So, don't let him get under your skin. (He will intepret this comment as success to have gotten under my skin) Instead, try using him to expose the propaganda of the manipulators and control freaks. It won't be easy.
|
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/05/12 07:19 AM
Hi memehunter,
How's yer neck?
If you're referring to your Reply on 04/03/12 11:20 AM, you had no questions for me . . . just an admission, couched in a paragraph or 2, that you are indeed a statist, like Ingo, who also just eventually hid behind a myriad of comments to avoid Freud.
Click to view link
I was waiting to hear back from you because you always come back, pretending not to have your tail between your legs, because this, my dear chap, is your job; the product being a less than desirable sophist disturber, which carries a hefty pig-bag price tag for those on the fence looking out of the pretty farm and accidentally let themselves see your sty as the place to roll around in for a while, until they see the rotating knives once again.
Your co-workers at at the East Anglia CRU need to stop breathing in each other's exhaled waste CO2 . . . which is a euphemism for self-peer reviewing, leading to contrived facts.
I'm stuck on righting the writing of George Orwell right now, so forgive me for being so brief. You may want to tune in?
Click to view link
|
Posted by memehunter on 04/05/12 12:56 AM
W: I am currently waiting to hear back from memehunter
M: Well, I don't know what you are waiting for, Weebley. I'm glad that you visited the "Recovering Austrians" website and enjoyed the presentation. I am not involved in the administration of the site but, from what I see, it is simply another Wordpress website, so all your fussing around was probably unnecessary.
You can ask Anthony Migchels if you really want to know, but my guess is that there is very little "money behind it" (if not zero, probably about a hundred thousand times less than the amount of money poured on the Daily Bell... ).
You never answered my questions, by the way.
|
Posted by Bischoff on 04/04/12 11:14 PM
Weebley,
You are off your meds again... When you get like that, I can't talk to you. You know, when you're off your meds your psychosis really becomes apparent, and I can't deal with you.
When you are on your meds, you do have good days. During those good days, you occasionally give me some points upon which I can expand, but when you're in your psychotic state, it's hopeless.
So, I pray that you get back onto your meds, and that you be well soon. We'll talk then, ok... ???
|
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/04/12 08:01 PM
Hi Ingo, buddy, chum, pal . . . let's talk, shall we?
I know you were speaking to Abu Aardvark, but I am currently waiting to hear back from memehunter, who must be out for some exorcise with his peer reviewers. I hope he gets deliverance and we get possession of him soon. Maybe the Edison is going on in his lighthouse?
You piped in with . . . well I'm not quite sure what, but let's see, shall we?
Click to view link
I can just imagine what you would be like if there was no government . . . a mess . . . starving yourself to death? There should be a law against that, right?
You'd never buy any solids, liquids or gases, because 'big brother' didn't say it was OK. You wouldn't buy gasoline, instead opting to walk because you couldn't trust the seller; he's putting 10% in his pockets, no less! No, Ingo, he's just laughing so hard he lost control of his bodily functions.
You storm off in a huff when you ask the baker how many joules it took to make the loaf. She shrugs her shoulders, smiles, and says: 'are you Mr Bufu?' . . . while she looks over at the other cashier PSing herself . . . while you continue to get weaker by the day.
Oh, how government has brainwashed you.
Ever heard of a sting operation . . . privately funded? You and a bunch of other GOM go hire someone to surreptitiously buy loaves at the bakery, test the caloric content, convert to joules, and report back!
I happen to own tape measures, jerry cans, and weigh scales. The manufacturers of these products would have to be collusion with the solids, liquids and gases providers, for, let's say an inch to get progressively shorter over time. Like a US dollar has slowly lost 97% of its value in the last 100 years, an inch would be 1/32nd of an inch by now with or without government involvement? I think we'd notice . . .
Pull the other one, Ingo.
Not that I could change your mind, as you seem to be resolved in your almost religious conviction to [insert state here.] I believe in a barter economy, overlaid with 1 or more hard to counterfeit freely and equally distributed currencies, including gold, silver, and wherever tickles my fancy at the time.
I find it kinda funny . . . I find it kinda sad.
How come you won't lend me your gold, Ingo? Why do you have to create risk-free paper against it? Scared?
Click to view link
PS: I guess Bre-X fixed them instead . . . way too much product for the effort expended?
|
Posted by Bischoff on 04/04/12 06:38 PM
"I do NOT 'insist on government fixing weight and volume' of gold, never did, never will."
Curious...
You do not believe the U.S. Gallon should be a fixed amount of volume set by Congress... ??? It should be what any person say it is... ???
You also believe that an inch be any length one decides it is... ??? There should be no standard. People can decide these things for themselves, right... ???
The amount of work (work expressed in joules) required to bake a loaf of bread should have absolutely no standard against which it can be compared, right... ??? People can decide the value of baking a loaf of bread all themselves, they don't need to standard, like the work required to produce a certain amount of gold, right... ???
Well, why didn't you come out and say that you believe in a "Barter Economy", instead of dancing around trying to tell people that you believe in Money.
It's alright by me, if you don't accept Section 8 and Section 10, Article I of the U.S. Constitution which gives the Congress the power to set the value of work in terms of work required to produce a certain amount of silver and gold, and to prohibit the states from making anything legal tender which is not silver and gold.
"I do NOT 'insist on government fixing weight and volume' of gold, never did, never will."
Well, frankly I never did think that you cared much for the U.S. Constitution.
P.S. The ... government doesn't fix weight and volume of gold. It fixes the work required to mine and refine a specfic amount of gold as the standard measure against which to judge value (work required to produce) any other good or service.
|
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/04/12 04:12 PM
Coo-ell!
Agent Weebley
April 4, 2012 at 9:40 pm
Man, the presentation is first rate. I wish I had the money behind me like this . . . you must be turning heads right around!
Click to view link
|
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/04/12 03:53 PM
Hi memehunter,
I just tried to post a comment to that "recovering austrians" site of your team's, but the site wanted my logon to ARG MetaPhoria, which, er, like, get outta town . . . really? Just because I have a Wordpress site doesn't mean I want to join the password club. And it's a "download version" for my private domain . . . not just another wordpress site!
Anyway, I'm currently trying to logon again from another angle . . . using Mozilla with a JonDo proxy, but it's a little slow, since a VPN from Canada to double barreled IPs from Germany or France takes a while to pipe through The 13 Turtles.
This is what I was trying to say:
"Man, the presentation is first rate. I wish I had the money behind me like this . . . you must be turning heads right around!"
Hang on . . .
Q: Java off?
A: Yes please.
ttfn
Oh, I just got back to where I was. Hmm, it knows me. It asked me again. There's some serious software going on there. I'll try weebley@Click to view link (brand new email address I created for Gaby Hinsliff. Nope, the comment just disappeared into the ethernet. Hey, that's a great idea. Thanks, memehunter!
|
|
