Business Insider published an article entitled "This is how a central bank could kill off cash and bring in negative interest rates on your savings." According to that article,

"Since the financial crisis, the world's understanding of economics has been undergoing a lot of rapid change. Ideas that would have been considered crazy just a decade ago are now seen as much more likely."

The balance of the Business Insider article focused on "negative interest rates" as one of those "crazy" ideas. Negative interest rates are undoubtedly "interesting" but, for now, I'm more interested in asking why "crazy" ideas are becoming "more likely"?

Part of my inquiry deals with "crazy" and another part deals with "more likely".

"More likely" implies that the new "crazy" ideas will be more like unproven guesses than scientifically-tested principles. We're not going to discover new economic truths and principles. Instead, people in positions of power will implement and even impose new ways of seeing and understanding economics. Forget science. We're going to learn new, unproven, economic beliefs. As with other concepts that depend on public confidence, the fundamental issue is not whether a core idea is technically valid, but whether enough people actually believe in that idea and therefore supply the confidence needed to sustain even a potentially "crazy" idea.

For example, is the core idea of a "debt-based monetary system" rational or crazy? The answer is less important than the number of people who accept the idea. So long as enough people "believe" and have "confidence," the idea will seem to work and therefore be presumed to be valid.

In the context of conventional economic theory, many new "beliefs" may seem "crazy," but who knows? Maybe there's a chance that they'll work.

The "maybe" in this scenario points to the "more" (or less) "likeliness" that a new, unproven and even untested "belief" will or won't work. Increasingly, the issue may be less about whether a new belief works and more about do you believe?

Q: Why are we entering an era where economists propose new, "crazy" ideas that only have a chance of working?

A: Because established, conventional economic theories and control mechanisms are no longer working.

For example, lowering the prime interest rate to near zero has failed to stimulate the economy. Something's not working.

Solution? Lower the prime rate below zero into a negative level. Sounds crazy, but who know? Maybe it will work.

* "Crazy" ideas are gaining popularity because the basic assumptions and premises that previously supported conventional economic theory are failing and/or being shown to be false.

For example, former Federal Reserve chairman "Helicopter" Ben Bernanke spent his life studying the Great Depression. Mr. Bernanke concluded that if he were faced with another economic depression, he'd stimulate" the economy and prevent the depression by showering the country with massive quantities of currency as if dropping that cash from a "helicopter".

Well, we came close a depression in A.D. 2008-2009 and Helicopter Ben issued hundreds of billions (then trillions) of dollars in fiat currency in order to "stimulate" the US and global economies. His shower of trillions of dollars succeeded insofar as he did avoid (or at least postpone) another Great Depression. He helped to put the US economy into a state of semi-stable stagnation. Yay!

However, the injection of those trillions of fiat dollars into the economy did little to achieve positive stimulus. Most Americans aren't much better off than they were in six years ago and very few of us have legitimate reasons to suppose we'll be much better off next year or even five years from now.

* Mr. Bernanke's failed attempt to stimulate the US economy with a shower of cash raised several implications:

First, although Mr. Bernanke spent much of his adult life studying the causes of the Great Depression (A.D. 1929 - 1939), his understanding and conclusions may be mistaken. For example, he believed that the remedy for depression was to flood the economy with cash (Quantitative Easing; QE). He engineered that flood, but the effects were so marginal and disappointing that they cast doubt on his conclusions.

If Quantitative Easing didn't work, maybe it couldn't work because the underlying theory was flawed. If so, the solution to a Greater Depression must be something other than QE. Therefore, the Fed would be justified in searching for new ideas (even "crazier" than QE) to reestablish control of the economy and prevent another depression.

Second, Mr. Bernanke's theory (that the depression could be permanently avoided by flooding the economy with cash) might be generally correct but flawed in one or more details. For example, what if there were something fundamentally different about today's cash as compared to the cash that might've prevented the Great Depression?

I.e., during the Great Depression, all of the paper dollars in circulation were backed by gold or silver. We had an asset-based monetary system. Physical gold backed our gold certificates from before the Great Depression began in A.D. 1929 until gold coins were removed from domestic circulation in A.D. 1933. Silver dollars backed the remainder of our currency throughout the Great Depression and on into A.D. 1968 when government stopped redeeming paper dollars with silver.

All of the cash of the Great Depression had an intrinsic value. It was all backed by either gold or silver and therefore commanded real respect.

Today, all of our cash is pure fiat. It's not redeemable in gold or silver. It has no intrinsic value and therefore commands no significant respect.

Could it be that Dr. Bernanke's study of the Great Depression was generally correct in concluding that the solution to depression was to flood the economy with cash? Could it be that Dr. Bernanke's conclusion was nevertheless mistaken in supposing that flooding today's economy with debt-based, intrinsically-worthless fiat cash would have the same effect as flooding the US economy of the 1930s with asset-based, intrinsically-valuable cash backed by gold or silver?

* Of course, that's a really "crazy" idea.

In fact, although "crazy" ideas about the economy may soon be in vogue, the idea that debt-based, fiat dollars can't save us from a depression while asset-based dollars could is guaranteed to be officially rejected as "too crazy".

Why?

Because the powers of the Federal Reserve, big government and the New World Order are all built on the cornerstone of debt-based, fiat currency. The Powers That Be can't abandon the debt-based monetary system without also abandoning most of their financial and political powers. They won't do it. They won't voluntarily surrender their powers and dreams of one-world government-even if clinging to the debt-based monetary system means global and US economic depression.

The only way the "Powers" will surrender the debt-based monetary system is if, by keeping that system, the central banks, national governments and the New World Order lose all public trust and confidence. Faced with a complete loss of public confidence in the central banks and the existing monetary system, they might devolve back into an asset-based monetary system.

Why? Because without public confidence, those institutions have no real power or control. If they only way they can maintain public confidence is by restoring an asset-based monetary system, they'll do it. But they won't like it and they'll plan to dump it as soon as the public becomes dumb enough to tolerate another transition to a debt-based monetary system. But to maintain the public confidence required to sustain the confidence game we call banking and government control, the Powers That Be might even restore an asset-based monetary system.

* While we wait for the looming depression to either happen or be permanently prevented, the Powers will propose one new "crazy" idea after another to try to hang onto public confidence without resorting to an asset-based monetary system. (Japan's "Abenomics" is a good example of "craziness" masquerading as an economic remedy.)

But, why must we consider "crazy" ideas? Probably because they're the only kind of ideas that will ultimately support and sustain the fundamental insanity of a debt-based monetary system.

Y'see, although the Business Insider article implies that "crazy ideas" in the field of economics are a new phenomenon, they're not.

Our domestic economy has been based on the "crazy idea" that we can prosper with a debt-based, fiat currency ever since we abandoned silver-backing in A.D. 1968. We've been operating on the "crazy idea" that we can continue to prosper in the global economy with a debt-based, fiat-dollar/petro-dollar ever since Nixon stopped redeeming foreign-held dollars with gold in A.D. 1971.

The essential concept of fiat, debt-based currency is crazy. Once we traded our asset-based money for a fiat, debt-based monetary system, our economy and perhaps our nation became "crazy".

* Here's why:

Remember the old definition of "insanity": Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Well, according to some researchers, throughout human history there've been over 250 attempts by governments to impose fiat currencies. All of those attempts have failed except for five or six that are recent (like the US dollar). Those fiat currency failures led to economic collapse and political destruction of the nations (or at least governments) that succumbed to the temptation of intrinsically-worthless currency.

Knowing that 98% of all previous fiat currencies had not only failed but contributed to national decline or destruction (and only a handful of recent fiat currencies were still operating as they waited for their inevitable collapse) the geniuses in the Federal Reserve and US government nevertheless decided to subject the American people, economy and nation to yet another fiat currency.

Presumably, our "masters of the universe" thought that "this time it's different". This time, our genius economists, bankers and politicians were so much smarter than all the previous fools who'd tried fiat currencies that this time, the result would not be national poverty, collapse or destruction.

Well, the idea that this time it's different is just another way of saying that insanity means doing the same thing over and over and expecting different result.

Result? Damned by its mad embrace of a fiat, debt-based currency, the US is now approaching the same sort of collapse that has so far plagued 98 to 99% of all previous nations that tried fiat currency.

Of course, maybe our "masters of the universe" weren't crazy. Maybe they knew all along that by imposing a fiat currency, they might destroy The United States of America. Maybe national destruction was their intended objective all along. If so, they weren't crazy-they were treasonous and should be tried for that offense, and if found guilty, hanged by the neck until dead.

* If "crazy" economic policies are becoming more common, there's still plenty of precedent. For example,

Dropping money out of helicopters. Yes, that's only a figure of speech, but it implies that the currency "dropped" is as worthless as chaff. How crazy is that?

Never paying our national debt. How crazy is that?

Imposing 2% annual inflation to allow government to rob its creditors and the American people. How crazy is that?

Having banks and other institutions that are too big to fail, too big to jail, too big to be held accountable to the "laws" of economics or the laws of society. How crazy is that?

How 'bout having a debt-ceiling limit that's continually revised upward but never downward. What kind of "limit" is that? How crazy is that?

Having a near-zero interest rate for nearly eight years. How crazy is that?

"Crazy" isn't new. There's already plenty of "crazy" to be found in our government and banking systems. Business Insider is only warning that more "craziness" is on its way.

* Crazy ideas aren't limited to the US. They proliferate in any nation that's embraced the fundamental madness of debt-based monetary system.

One of the most "craziest ideas" on the global level is the repeated use of Quantitative Easing (pumping trillions of fiat dollars into various national economies) to stimulate their economies..

Despite conventional belief that QE would provide positive stimulation to the economies of Japan, US, EU and now China, QE has largely failed to produce anything more than stagnation. Again, that failure implies that some of the fundamental premises on which central banks have relied are false.

More, those repeated QE failures (in Japan, US, EU and China) imply that the world's central banks don't have any more tricks up their sleeves that can be construed as "conventional". Therefore, they must either keep trying the same old failed strategies in order to appear to be "doing something" and therefore still in control-or, they must "innovate" and come up with some new, even "crazy" ideas in order to at least maintain illusion of control over their national economies.

Look! The Federal Reserve (or Bank of Japan, or European Central Bank or People's Bank of China) is doing something! That means they must still be in control, right?

Doing something, doing anything, even doing something crazy, seems to inspire public confidence. At least for a while. "Doing something" implies that someone is in control.

After a while, however-after the people begin to see that nothing the central banks do actually succeeds at improving the public's standard of living-the people begin to despair and lose confidence in their leaders and institutions.

If public confidence dies, so will the governments, banks and institutions that depend on, feed off, and exploit that confidence.

* The Federal Reserve's failure to advance the whole economy over the past seven years has exposed the previous system of economic controls as flawed and ineffective. If control is to be maintained or even just claimed, the Federal Reserve and federal government will need to devise some strategies that are new and perhaps so far removed from our ordinary understanding of conventional economics that these new strategies sound "crazy".

If these strategies are seen to be potentially "crazy," they'll inspire some questions.

First, will these new strategies be evidence of bold thinking and genius that will save us and our economy? Or will these strategies be shown to be truly "crazy" and therefore certain to make matters even worse?

Second, if the new, "crazy" strategies don't work, why not? What are we missing in that both conventional economic theory and new-and-improved "crazy ideas" can't save us?\

Third, what's the real cause for our economic distress? Have our economic gurus really identified our fundamental problem or are they driven to adopt "crazy" ideas in order to conceal that fundamental problem?

Could it be that our fundamental problem is a debt-based monetary system? Couild it be that a system that presumes debt to be wealth is inherently insane? Could it be that the Powers within the central banks, US government and New World Order derive their power from the debt-based monetary system? Could it be that therefore these Powers have a vested interest in preserving the debt-based monetary system? Could it be that these Powers' very survival depends on maintaining a debt-based monetary system? If so, could it be that the "Powers" will resort to any measure-even the support and implementation of "crazy" ideas-in order to protect the debt-based monetary system?

I believe that the answers to the previous six questions are: Yes; Yes; Yes; Yes; Yes; and-you guessed it-Helck, yes.

I'm convinced that our economic problems persists because we won't face our fundamental problem.

I'm convinced that once we embraced the insanity of a debt-based monetary system, that the only way that insanity could be "normalized" was by creating and adopting more "crazy" ideas.

I'm convinced our monetary madness feeds upon itself in the sense of "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive". In other words, the idea that debt can be treated as wealth is crazy. Once we adopt that "crazy" idea, the only way it could be supported was by adopting more "crazy ideas" like ZIRP, QE and Abenomics. Thus, it's no surprise that Business Insider is predicting that our economic future will be populated by (more) "crazy ideas".

I'm convinced that the real solution to our economic problem not to devise and implement some new, "crazy" idea that will somehow allow the existing monetary system to continue-but to face and excise the "craziness" that we've already adopted: the debt-based monetary system.

That system is the mother of all modern economic madness.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in our premises.

The presumption that debt can be wealth (and especially, money) is madness. Those who advocate that premise are crazy. Those who accept that premise will become crazy. The only way to sustain that premise is by adopting even more "crazy ideas".

We won't resolve our economic problems and return to economic sanity until we face the fundamental problem: the fiat, debt-based monetary system-and then remove it and replace it with a constitutional, asset-based money like silver or gold.