Federal Reserve Anti-Blogger Rant

This story was hilarious. Kartik Athreya is employed by the Federal Reserve as a propaganda artist. He wrote an article criticizing bloggers who write about economics.

Summarizing his point, he's saying:

At the Federal Reserve, we spend a lot of time and effort making up lies that fool the American people. These bloggers are ruining all our hard work!

Economics is a subject where a lot of people think they're experts, when they really know less than nothing. "Taxation is theft!" and "Inflation is theft!" pretty much refutes all mainstream economic writing.

I've received a lot of negative comments for The Compound Interest Paradox and my series on the Black-Scholes Formula. A lot of economics "experts" think they know a lot on this subject, when they really know less than nothing. Some pro-State trolls have tried arguing that my analysis is wrong. So far, I have not seen any convincing counter-explanations. (I no longer feel obligated to refute every stupid comment someone makes. That's probably a healthy attitude.)

Kartik Athreya says:

Blogs aren't peer-reviewed. Therefore, blogs have no useful information.

For State science, the "peer review" process becomes a censorship process. No mainstream economics journal would publish my analysis of the Compound Interest Paradox or the Black-Scholes Formula. That does not prove that my analysis is wrong. That proves that mainstream economics journals are shills for the State, rather than conducting true science. (I'm not in the academic career track anymore. I haven't bothered submitting such articles for publication in mainstream economics journals.)

I am convinced of the soundness of my arguments. I don't need "peer review" to tell me if I'm right or wrong. I'm not seeking an academic career. That makes self-publishing on a blog for an audience of 200 people sufficient (for now).

Kartik Athreya says:

Bloggers don't have an economics PhD. Therefore, they don't have anything useful to say.

Much of the financial software I write is more work than a typical PhD. I doubt that most/all of the economists working at the Federal Reserve could handle calculations that I do every day. Most of them could probably not handle simple calculations like "What is the VaR for a portfolio consisting of 100 shares KO and 100 shares MSFT?" or "Calculate an approximation for the Black-Scholes price of this option."

"You need a PhD to have useful thoughts on a subject!" is a State-promoted lie. An economics PhD merely indicates that you've been pro-State brainwashed to think in a certain way. Independent thinkers like me get weeded out of the PhD academic training process. If I tried to write a PhD thesis on the Compound Interest Paradox or Black-Scholes formula, my adviser would probably reject it. He would say "Don't waste time on such foolishness! You have to think about your career! If you write such nonsense, nobody will take you seriously!" If I insisted, the PhD committee might reject my thesis. No journal would publish my paper.

Via blogging, I skip the academic journal censorship process. Ironically, I have more academic freedom than most university professors! However, I'm writing as a hobby rather than as a job.

This also affects other areas. "FSK doesn't have a State psychiatrist license. Therefore, FSK is unqualified to criticize the 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness." Once the majority of people in a career are frauds, then the independent thinkers get weeded out. That is the evil of State licensing cartels.

Fortunately, it isn't illegal to write about economics on the Internet, even though you have no economics PhD. Pre-Internet, there was no way for intelligent people to get together and compare notes. Via the Internet, intelligent people are discovering the evils of the State monetary system.

Any new and important idea is the minority when first discovered. The "peer review" process works against academic progress. Galileo went to jail for suggesting that the Earth was not at the center of the universe. Kartik Athreya would love to have the power to jail people who criticize the Federal Reserve. Fortunately, part of the pro-State brainwashing in the USA is "freedom of the press". That worked well when only State insiders owned a printing press! The Internet gives everyone the power to publish their own newspaper via a blog. Only a State parasite would suggest that blogs are evil.

The #1 employer of economists in the USA is the Federal Reserve. That's a severe distortion of the academic market. Most economists get their funding, directly or indirectly, from the State.

If I wrote a blog post insisting "2+2=5", no State insider would feel threatened. The dangerous articles are the ones that mention a suppressed truth. "The Federal Reserve is one huge price-fixing cartel!" is an idea that the banksters don't want to spread.

This is an important point. People are not offended by things that are an obvious lie. People are offended by things that mention a suppressed truth.

Even non-State insiders will frequently defend the Federal Reserve. It's a type of "Stateholm Syndrome", where the slave identifies himself with the master. For all I know, the Federal Reserve may have hired full-time propaganda artists to post pro-State troll comments on various blogs and forums! If I were a Federal Reserve bureaucrat, infiltrating economic discussion forums would be a high priority!

Federal Reserve insiders feel that the Internet threatens their credibility. That is true because the Federal Reserve has no credibility.

State parasites are threatened by the Internet. The Internet threatens their information monopoly. The evils of the Federal Reserve are one of the key components of the State control mechanism.

It's very important to realize that the USA has a corrupt monetary system. Once you understand the corruption of the taxation system and monetary system, you realize that Congress has effectively sold all Americans into tax slavery. Once you understand that there is severe corruption that Congress refuses to fix, becoming an anarchist is the only reasonable conclusion.