The point is that all create incentives for everyone to behave in ways contrary to economic efficiency, social justice, and environmental sustainability
No No NO. It is a level playing field. Just take any "incentive" away from people to accept "handouts" and everyone will turn into a Sim City wealth generating entrepreneur. They just need a kick up the arse. You are not thinking. Think like ME!!! I know the answer is - people are intrinsically lazy parasites (except you and me of course) and if they can only be forced to act in a go getting manner everything will be fine. They aren't poor - they are lazy!! They aren't exiled from society or not given a fair chance in a very wealthy society - they are feckless!!! Why can't you see this???!! You aren't thinking like me!!!!
The real villains are at the heart of our economic and cultural life. They are the dynastic families who own the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve and associated cartels. They also control the World Bank and IMF and most of the world's Intelligence agencies. Their identity is secret but Rothschild is certainly one of them. The Bank of England was "nationalized" in 1946 but the power to create money remained in the same hands.
England is in fact a financial oligarchy run by the "Crown" which refers to the "City of London" not the Queen. The City of London is run by the Bank of England, a private corporation. The square-mile-large City is a sovereign state located in the heart of greater London. As the "Vatican of the financial world," the City is not subject to British law.
On the contrary, the bankers dictate to the British Parliament. In 1886, Andrew Carnegie wrote that, "six or seven men can plunge the nation into war without consulting Parliament at all." Vincent Vickers, a director of the Bank of England from 1910-1919 blamed the City for the wars of the world. ("Economic Tribulation" (1940) cited in Knuth, The Empire of the City, 1943, p 60)
It’s Official: The Crash of the U.S. Economy has begun
by Richard C. Cook
Global Research, June 14, 2007
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
It’s official. Mark your calendars. The crash of the U.S. economy has begun. It was announced the morning of Wednesday, June 13, 2007, by economic writers Steven Pearlstein and Robert Samuelson in the pages of the Washington Post, one of the foremost house organs of the U.S. monetary elite.
Pearlstein’s column was titled, “The Takeover Boom, About to Go Bust” and concerned the extraordinary amount of debt vs. operating profits of companies currently subject to leveraged buyouts.
In language remarkably alarmist for the usually ultra-bland pages of the Post, Pearlstein wrote, “It is impossible to predict when the magic moment will be reached and everyone finally realizes that the prices being paid for these companies, and the debt taken on to support the acquisitions, are unsustainable. When that happens, it won't be pretty. Across the board, stock prices and company valuations will fall. Banks will announce painful write-offs, some hedge funds will close their doors, and private-equity funds will report disappointing returns. Some companies will be forced into bankruptcy or restructuring.”
Further, “Falling stock prices will cause companies to reduce their hiring and capital spending while governments will be forced to raise taxes or reduce services, as revenue from capital gains taxes declines. And the combination of reduced wealth and higher interest rates will finally cause consumers to pull back on their debt-financed consumption. It happened after the junk-bond and savings-and-loan collapses of the late 1980s. It happened after the tech and telecom bust of the late '90s. And it will happen this time.”
Samuelson’s column, “The End of Cheap Credit,” left the door slightly ajar in case the collapse is not quite so severe. He wrote of rising interest rates, “As the price of money increases, borrowing and the economy might weaken. The deep slump in housing could worsen. We could also discover that the long period of cheap credit has left a nasty residue.”
Other writers with less prestigious platforms than the Post have been talking about an approaching financial bust for a couple of years. Among them has been economist Michael Hudson, author of an article on the housing bubble titled, “The New Road to Serfdom” in the May 2006 issue of Harper’s. Hudson has been speaking in interviews of a “break in the chain” of debt payments leading to a “long, slow economic crash,” with “asset deflation,” “mass defaults on mortgages,” and a “huge asset grab” by the rich who are able to protect their cash through money laundering and hedging with foreign currency bonds.
Among those poised to profit from the crash is the Carlyle Group, the equity fund that includes the Bush family and other high-profile investors with insider government connections. A January 2007 memorandum to company managers from founding partner William E. Conway, Jr., recently appeared which stated that, when the current “liquidity environment”—i.e., cheap credit—ends, “the buying opportunity will be a once in a lifetime chance.”
The fact that the crash is now being announced by the Post shows that it is a done deal. The Bilderbergers, or whomever it is that the Post reports to, have decided. It lets everyone know loud and clear that it’s time to batten down the hatches, run for cover, lay in two years of canned food, shield your assets, whatever.
Those left holding the bag will be the ordinary people whose assets are loaded with debt, such as tens of millions of mortgagees, millions of young people with student loans that can never be written off due to the “reformed” 2005 bankruptcy law, or vast numbers of workers with 401(k)s or other pension plans that are locked into the stock market.
In other words, it sounds eerily like 2000-2002 except maybe on a much larger scale. Then it was “only” the tenth worse bear market in history, but over a trillion dollars in wealth simply vanished. What makes today’s instance seem particularly unfair is that the preceding recovery that is now ending—the “jobless” one—was so anemic.
Neither Perlstein nor Samuelson gets to the bottom of the crisis, though they, like Conway of the Carlyle Group, point to the end of cheap credit. But interest rates are set by people who run central banks and financial institutions. They may be influenced by “the market,” but the market is controlled by people with money who want to maximize their profits.
Key to what is going on is that the Federal Reserve is refusing to follow the pattern set during the long reign of Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan in responding to shaky economic trends with lengthy infusions of credit as he did during the dot.com bubble of the 1990s and the housing bubble of 2001-2005.
This time around, Greenspan’s successor, Ben Bernanke, is sitting tight. With the economy teetering on the brink, the Fed is allowing rates to remain steady. The Fed claims their policy is due to the danger of rising “core inflation.” But this cannot be true. The biggest consumer item, houses and real estate, is tanking. Officially, unemployment is low, but mainly due to low-paying service jobs. Commodities have edged up, including food and gasoline, but that’s no reason to allow the entire national economy to be submerged.
So what is really happening? Actually, it’s simple. The difference today is that China and other large investors from abroad, including Middle Eastern oil magnates, are telling the U.S. that if interest rates come down, thereby devaluing their already-sliding dollar portfolios further, they will no longer support with their investments the bloated U.S. trade and fiscal deficits.
Of course we got ourselves into this quandary by shipping our manufacturing to China and other cheap-labor markets over the last generation. “Dollar hegemony” is backfiring. In fact China is using its American dollars to replace the International Monetary Fund as a lender to developing nations in Africa and elsewhere. As an additional insult, China now may be dictating a new generation of economic decline for the American people who are forced to buy their products at Wal-Mart by maxing out what is left of our available credit card debt.
About a year ago, a former Reagan Treasury official, now a well-known cable TV commentator, said that China had become “America’s bank” and commented approvingly that “it’s cheaper to print money than make cars anymore.” Ha ha.
It is truly staggering that none of the “mainstream” political candidates from either party has attacked this subject on the campaign trail. All are heavily funded by the financier elite who will profit no matter how bad the U.S. economy suffers. Every candidate except Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich treats the Federal Reserve like the fifth graven image on Mount Rushmore. And even the so-called progressives are silent. The weekend before the Perlstein/ Samuelson articles came out, there was a huge progressive conference in Washington, D.C., called “Taming the Corporate Giant.” Not a single session was devoted to financial issues.
What is likely to happen? I’d suggest four possible scenarios:
Acceptance by the U.S. population of diminished prosperity and a declining role in the world. Grin and bear it. Live with your parents into your 40s instead of your 30s. Work two or three part-time jobs on the side, if you can find them. Die young if you lose your health care. Declare bankruptcy if you can, or just walk away from your debts until they bring back debtor’s prison like they’ve done in Dubai. Meanwhile, China buys more and more U.S. properties, homes, and businesses, as economists close to the Federal Reserve have suggested. If you’re an enterprising illegal immigrant, have fun continuing to jack up the underground economy, avoid business licenses and taxes, and rent out group houses to your friends.
Times of economic crisis produce international tension and politicians tend to go to war rather than face the economic music. The classic example is the worldwide depression of the 1930s leading to World War II. Conditions in the coming years could be as bad as they were then. We could have a really big war if the U.S. decides once and for all to haul off and let China, or whomever, have it in the chops. If they don’t want our dollars or our debt any more, how about a few nukes?
Maybe we’ll finally have a revolution either from the right or the center involving martial law, suspension of the Bill of Rights, etc., combined with some kind of military or forced-labor dictatorship. We’re halfway there anyway. Forget about a revolution from the left. They wouldn’t want to make anyone mad at them for being too radical.
Could there ever be a real try at reform, maybe even an attempt just to get back to the New Deal? Since the causes of the crisis are monetary, so would be the solutions. The first step would be for the Federal Reserve System to be abolished as a bank of issue and a transformation of the nation’s credit system into a genuine public utility by the federal government. This way we could rebuild our manufacturing and public infrastructure and develop an income assurance policy that would benefit everyone.
The latter is the only sensible solution. There are monetary reformers who know how to do it if anyone gave them half a chance.
Richard C. Cook is the author of “Challenger Revealed: An Insider’s Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age.” A retired federal analyst, his career included work with the U.S. Civil Service Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Carter White House, and NASA, followed by twenty-one years with the U.S. Treasury Department. He is now a Washington, D.C.-based writer and consultant. His book “We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform,” will be published later this year. His website is at www.richardccook.com.
I also expect a crash. Long term stock charts show massive negative divergence. But the clamour has been one of impending doom for some time. Perhaps there is not enough complacency yet for a coup de grace. Also, the NAZ will likely lead the DOW down. So far the NAZ has been playing catch up. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:33 am Post subject: RECOVERING OUR LOST "SEIGNIORAGE"
Alistair McConnachie explains how we are losing out
on billions of pounds worth of debt-free public income
The government obtains money in 3 ways.
One: Seigniorage Revenue
The Issue Department of The Bank of England sells banknotes to the banking system at face value.
The "seigniorage" is the term used to describe the profit after we have subtracted the cost of printing and distributing this cash.
In other words, it creates this money out of nothing and the public purse enjoys the profit. That is perfectly proper and fine for it to do so. We need cash to exchange, and a publicly-owned body of the State is the proper authority to be tasked with this necessity.
These notes are printed on demand -- which is to say, as the public's demand for cash goes down, because of the rise in electronic methods of payment, then less are printed and there is less seigniorage revenue.
To recap: It creates these notes out of nothing, sells them to the banking system, and the profits of this issue go direct to the Treasury.
According to the Bank of England's Annual Report for 2006 we can see that "the profits of the note issue were £1,698 million. These profits are all payable to HM Treasury." 1
So, the important point here to grasp is that in 2006, almost £1.7billion came into society simply as a result of the State printing it. It didn't borrow it from anybody. It simply created it, and we enjoy the profit. That's a good deal!
The only constraint on that source of revenue is demand. If there is no demand for notes, then they won't get printed and we won't enjoy the profit.
Now, when we consider that just after WW2, almost half the total money stock was cash and when we compare that with today, where, with the rise of cheque book and electronic forms of payment, only around 3% is physical notes and coins -- then we can see that we are being cheated out of a massive amount of debt-free public revenue.
The government raises money for public spending projects through taxation.
The government borrows money. This is because it always fails to raise enough through taxation in any given year and so the shortfall has to be borrowed.
For example, in 2006/2007, the shortfall, according to the government's Budget 2006 report was £36 billion.
It borrows from individuals, financial institutions and from the private banking system by selling bonds, which are basically IOUs which promise, "If you buy this bond, we'll pay it back to you, with interest, at some future date."
The national debt is the total outstanding on previous years' borrowing requirements. The "interest on the national debt" refers to the interest which must be paid to these bond holders.
From whence does money come to pay the national debt?
It is we taxpayers who foot the bill when the time comes for repayment. It also comes from further government borrowing. That is to say, the government is indebting us all to the private banking system and other financial interests.
THE 480 BILLION POUND QUESTION
Now you might be thinking, "Well, if the government has the power to create money, which it does when it creates notes and coins which it sells to the private banking system, and for which we enjoy the profits, then why doesn't it just create all, or a proportion of, the money to make up for the taxation shortfall?
"Why does it borrow from the private banking system, and add to this national debt, which is indebting us all, and which means that our taxes have to continuously rise?"
And that would be a very good question! In fact, it is the £480 thousand million pound question, which is the UK national debt as we write, in August 2006.
It was the question that Thomas Edison, inventor of the light bulb, answered when he said, "If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good." 2
WE NEED MORE SEIGNIORAGE
We've seen that the public purse acquires the seigniorage revenue on the cash issue. This is debt-free as far as the public purse is concerned.
We are saying that we need more debt-free money coming into society. We are not saying that we need more notes and coins -- unless there is a demand for them.
So we say, "Extend this Seigniorage principle!"
If the government is creating cash money debt-free, it can and should create non-cash money debt-free - that is, the account-entry money which exists only in electronic format.
If it does this, it can slowly pay off the national debt and eventually dispense with it entirely. This debt-free money which it created would be spent, not lent, into society.
We call it publicly-created debt-free money -- to distinguish it from privately-created debt-based money. Money by the people, for the people -- the democratic imperative!
SPENDING, NOT LENDING, MONEY INTO EXISTENCE
Creating money in this way and spending it into society is a perfectly reasonable suggestion.
Vincent Vickers, Governor of the Bank of England between 1910 and 1919, made that exact suggestion when he advocated in his book Economic Tribulation, that, "Any additional supply of money should be issued as a clear asset to the State; so that money will be spent into existence, and not lent into existence." 3
Two main policies are presently "on the table" and both are intended to deliver this reform. Those are, Michael Rowbotham's "Publicly-Created Money"4 proposal and James Robertson's "Seigniorage Reform"5 proposal, which we discuss briefly here.
(1) www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/annualreport/2006report.pdf at p.35.
For the previous year, The Bank of England Annual Report 2005 states that for the year 2004/2005, "the profits of the note issue were £1,618 million (2003/2004 £1,234 million). The change was the net effect of more notes in circulation on average during the year and higher interest rates. These profits are all payable to HM Treasury." (p.34). The 2005 Annual Report is online at www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/annualreport/2005report.pdf
We see, therefore, that the Bank of England is quite open about the fact that the profit from its note issue -- the difference between what it earns by selling the notes at face value to the commercial banks, minus its cost of printing and distributing them -- goes to the Treasury. The profit goes right into the public purse as an effective debt-free input -- the benefit of which is traditionally termed "seigniorage".
(2) Thomas Edison, quoted in The New York Times, December 6, 1921, in its report "Ford Sees Wealth in Muscle Shoals".
(3) V.C. Vickers, Economic Tribulation, originally published in Great Britain: John Lane The Bodley Head Ltd, 1941, Ch.7, p.75 and reprinted in the USA: Omni Publications, 1974, p.67.
(4) Michael Rowbotham, The Grip of Death: A study of modern money, debt slavery and destructive economics, (Charlbury, Oxon: Jon Carpenter Publishing, 1998).
(5) Joseph Huber and James Robertson, Creating New Money: A monetary reform for the information age (London: New Economics Foundation, 2000). Free download at www.jamesrobertson.com/books
Alistair McConnachie is the author of recently released Clarifying our Money Reform Proposals,
a complete 40-page, A4 manual explaining the concept of Money Reform, which can be purchased here.
He has spoken on these issues in the House of Lords, Toronto, Chicago and Dublin
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:35 am Post subject: THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEBT-BASED MONEY SYSTEM
THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
OF THE DEBT-BASED MONEY SYSTEM
by Richard Greaves
Prosperity, November 2001
1) GOODS AND SERVICES ARE MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE
The cost of borrowing by producers, manufacturers, transporters, and retailers all has to be added to the price of the final product.
2) CONSUMERS HAVE MUCH LESS MONEY TO SPEND
They are burdened by the cost of mortgages, overdrafts, credit cards, personal loans and as a result of 1 and 2 above ...
3) THERE IS A SURPLUS OF GOODS AND SERVICES
... because the population can't afford to buy up all the goods and services being produced. This in turn creates ...
4) CUT THROAT COMPETITION
Businesses try to cut prices and costs to grab a share of this limited purchasing power in the economy, as illustrated by:
(i) Wages being held down as much as possible.
(ii) Shedding of jobs.
Both of these reduce people's spending power even more.
(iii) Retailers importing cheap products from abroad where wages are much lower.
(iv) Production of cheaper goods that don't last as long.
(v) Protection of the environment a low priority.
(vi) Mergers and take-overs -- corporations get bigger and bigger, driven to search out new markets.
(vii) Big companies shifting production to poorer countries which have cheap non-unionised labour and the least stringent safety and environmental laws or ...
(viii) Demanding large government subsidies and tax free incentives as the price for setting up new production or not relocating abroad.
- This is guaranteed because producers constantly have to borrow more, and must add the cost of that increased borrowing to the price of the goods produced.
- Why is it that when the bankers hike their prices (ie put up interest rates) this is supposed to reduce inflation?
- It doesn't. It's just that there's a delay in industry putting up prices.
- Initially, industry is forced to hold or even reduce its prices with its profits down, or even sustain losses, in a desperate bid to sell its products in an economy where the money available for spending has been reduced, because of higher interest payments being made to the banks.
- Inflation may be held in check or even reduced temporarily, but eventually industry must put its prices up in order to recover these higher costs.
- This most readily happens when interest rates come down, more people borrow, and money supply and consumer spending increases. Inflation then races ahead.
- The fact that -- in a debt based economy -- levels of borrowing/money creation have to keep on rising, and thereby adding to the overall burden of interest payments, guarantees that inflation will be present as long as we have an economy based on an increasing burden of debt.
6) NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE
- Surplus goods in the national economy have to be disposed of somehow. The obvious way to do this is to try to export them!
- The absurdity is that every nation is trying to do this, because of the same fundamental problem at home.
- This creates frenzied competition in world markets and masses of near identical goods madly criss-crossing the globe in search of an outlet.
- Instead of international trade being based on reciprocal mutually beneficial arrangements where nations supply each others' genuine needs and wants, the whole thing becomes a cut-throat competition to grab market share in order to stay solvent in a debt based economy.
- Big corporations demand unrestricted access to every nation's market -- so called "free" trade.
- The European Union "single market", the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organisation are the best examples of the drive to open up all national markets.
Exporting is good for a nation's economy because when exported goods are paid for, this brings money into the exporting nation’s economy free of debt.
- The money to pay for them was borrowed from banks in the importing nation.
- That money is lost to the importing nation's economy, but the debt that created that money still has to be repaid by the importer out of the remaining money in the importing nation's economy.
- If a nation can become a big net exporter, for a time its economy will boom with all the debt-free money coming in -- a trade surplus will exist.
Importing is not so good for a nation's economy because if some nations are building up trade surpluses in this way, others must be net importers and building up trade deficits.
- Ultimately, those with big deficits can no longer afford to import, since so much money is sucked out of their economies leaving a proportionally increasing burden of debt behind.
7) THIRD WORLD DEBT
- The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was set up to provide an international reserve of money supposedly to help nations with big deficits.
- In practice it makes matters worse. A nation with a big deficit has to seek a bail out from the IMF.
- But this comes in the form of a loan, repayable with interest.
- Like loans from a commercial bank, IMF loans are money created out of nothing, based on a cash reserve pool, which is provided by western nations who go into debt to provide it (see "National Debt" below).
- The nation with the deficit goes even more heavily into debt.
- It will however be able to carry on trading and importing goods from the wealthier nations.
- As a result, much of this borrowed IMF loan money flows into the economies of wealthier Western nations.
- However, the repayment obligation, including the interest payments, remains with the debtor nation.
- This is the horror of third world debt -- the poorest nations borrow money to bolster the money supply of the richer nations. In order to secure income to pay the loan and interest, and redress the trade balance, these poorest nations must export whatever they can produce.
- Thus they exploit every possible resource -- stripping forests for timber, mining, giving over their best agricultural land to providing luxury foodstuffs for the West, rather than providing for local needs.
- Today, for nations in Africa, Central and South America and elsewhere, the revenue from their exports does not even meet the interest payments on these IMF loans (and other loans from Western banks).
- The sums paid in interest over the years far exceed the amounts of the original loans themselves.
- The result is a desperate shortage of money in their economies -- resulting in cutbacks in necessities such as basic health and education programmes.
- Grinding poverty exists in nations with a great wealth of natural resources.
- Structural Adjustment Programmes -- these are now attached to IMF loans and include conditions that recipient countries will reduce or remove tariff barriers and "open up their markets to foreign competition" -- in other words take surplus goods off another country that can't be sold at home.
- War means enormous increases in national debt and enormous profits for the banks
- Massive government borrowing and money creation by banks is required to fund a war effort.
- Financiers and bankers have covertly funded both sides in both World Wars and many other conflicts before and since.
- Having profited from war leaving nations with massive debts and more beholden than ever to them, the banks then fund reconstruction.
9) NATIONAL DEBT
- British national debt now stands around £400 billion -- the annual interest on that debt is around £25-30 billion. The government can only pay it by taxing the population as a whole, so we pay! National debt is up from £26 billion in 1960 and £90 billion in 1980.
- Successive governments have borrowed this money into existence over the years.
- Instead of creating it themselves and spending it into the economy on public services and projects, boosting the economy and providing jobs, they get banks to create it for them and then borrow it at interest. And we pay it back in our taxes!
- It all started in 1694 when King William needed money to fight a war against France. He borrowed £1.2 million from a group of London bankers and goldsmiths.
- In return for the loan, they were incorporated by royal charter as the "Bank of England" which became the government's banker. Interest at 8% was payable on the loan and taxes were imposed on a whole range of goods to pay the interest.
- This marked the birth of national debt. Ever since then, the world over, governments have borrowed money from banks and taxed the population to pay the interest.
How the Government Borrows Money
- When governments borrow money, in return they issue to the lender, exchequer or treasury bonds -- otherwise known as government stocks or securities.
- These are basically IOU's -- promises by government to repay the loan by a particular date, and to pay interest.
- They are taken up by banks, but also by individuals with money to spare, including wealthy ones in the banking fraternity and, in more recent years, pension and other investment funds.
- When government securities are taken up by banks, this is money creation, out of nothing, at the stroke of a pen.
- Banks are creating money as loans, out of nothing, by lending it into existence to the government in very much the same way as they do to individuals and companies.
- The government now has new money in the form of loans to spend on its requirements, such as public services.
- If this money were not borrowed into existence in this way, there would be less economic activity as a result.
- Under this system national debt is money issued to the government and, as such, has become a vital part of the total money supply of any modern nation.
- The government constantly tells us that "there isn’t enough money", because it knows that the cost of borrowing money this way has to be passed on to the taxpayer.
- Instead, it sells off state assets and now gets the private sector to fund public services instead.
The Constant Increase in National Debt
- In the same way that under the present system, industry and individuals must keep borrowing more and more to enable interest payments to be kept up on their existing loans, so government must constantly borrow more and more to keep up interest payments on its existing loans.
- Furthermore, when a particular government stock is due for repayment, the government simply borrows more by issuing new government stocks.
- And it's we who pay for it in our taxes!
AN ALTERNATIVE -- PHASING OUT THE NATIONAL DEBT
"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good." Thomas Edison, The New York Times, December 6, 1921.
- Government could stop borrowing money at interest, and start creating it itself by spending it -- debt free -- into the economy on public projects and services, at the same time creating jobs and stimulating the economy.
- It already does this to a limited extent -- the amount it receives from banks when it sells cash to them is added to the public purse and is available for spending on public services and projects.
- For a start we could, at least, fund the interest payments on the National Debt by government created debt-free money, instead of by taxation -- as advocated by James Gibb Stuart in his book The Money Bomb (available for £5 payable to Prosperity, at the address below).
A DEMOCRATIC IMPERATIVE
Seeking to redistribute what money there is by taxing the rich to pay for services for the less well off does nothing to solve the problem of the overall shortage of money in the economy caused by the debt based money supply -- a problem which most socialists have yet to recognise.
The nation's economy is our economy. We create the real wealth through our ingenuity, enterprise and hard work. The current banking system operates as a massive drain on that public wealth as well as concentrating power and control in the hands of a tiny, private minority.
Money is the means of facilitating the exchange of goods and services.
There is nothing wrong with creating it out of nothing, because this is the only way to provide the means of exchange.
What is wrong is that the right to do this has been allowed to pass to private interests who create it as loans for private profit.
Can we not ultimately incorporate the humanitarian principles of a fair distribution of wealth that underlies socialism with the dynamic benefits of a free enterprise economy that lies at the heart of capitalism?
For as long as the power to create money is in the hands of private interests who do it for profit and control, we can never say that we live in a democracy.
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:04 am Post subject: When could releasing information cause prejudice to the econ
Recent government policy has been consistent with bringing greater transparency to economic and financial policy-making. This has been to enhance the credibility and public understanding of policy-making (e.g. the disclosure Monetary Policy Committee meeting minutes); to reduce the long-term cost of the government borrowing (e.g. the annual borrowing plans and gilt auction calendar); and to improve regulatory decision-making (e.g. the Financial Services Authority's obligation to consult on rule changes). Where disclosure is believed not to damage the economic interests of the UK or the financial interests of the government, government policy has been towards transparency (e.g. publication of foreign currency intervention). Recent disclosure policy therefore provides a baseline against which to consider the potential of disclosure to cause prejudice.
2.3 The economic interests of the UK, or of a part of the UK, covers a broad spectrum of subject matter, and could typically be prejudiced, for example, by the disclosure of sensitive information about:
Tax, National Insurance and benefits policy;
IMF loan programmes;
Financial stability discussions and support operations;
Firm-specific financial regulatory information;
Discussions with overseas financial authorities;
Analysis of macro-economic policy;
Market trends including:
Interest rates and the framework of monetary policy;
Forecasts of Government borrowing; and
Analyses of the effects of increases in public spending on wage and inflation pressures.
2.4 Many of the disclosures that have a clear potential to cause prejudice will be time-sensitive, and may be made as a matter of routine after a particular event. Typical examples would include information relating to the Budget, which must be withheld until the Chancellor has delivered the Budget (or Pre Budget report) statement(s), or information relating to changes to interest rates. Premature release could cause market instability (prejudicing the economic interests of the UK) or the use of improper arrangements to minimise the effect of forthcoming tax changes (prejudicing the financial interests of the government).
2.5 The financial interests of an administration in the UK again covers a broad spectrum of subject matter, and could typically be prejudiced by, for example, the disclosure of sensitive information about:
Allocation of gilts and Treasury bills at auctions/tenders to particular investors or market-makers;
Government cash dealing and banking arrangements;
UK reserves and foreign currency liabilities management and foreign exchange dealings;
Timing of large cash and stock transactions in the future;
Intended investment strategies;
Contract details of PFI and PPP deals;
Auction bidding details (e.g. gilts, spectrum licenses); and
Finances of public corporations.
2.6 Disclosure of options that have not been, or are not being, pursued might also cause prejudice. The knowledge that certain options have been under active consideration could generate harmful uncertainty about the future course of policy, especially if options have either been deferred or put back on the shelf rather than being rejected outright. Were it to be disclosed that certain changes to the tax system were under consideration, that could lead people to alter their financial arrangements so as to pre-empt the possible changes, to the detriment of the financial interests of the government. Similarly, were it to be known that serious consideration were being given to fundamental changes to the monetary framework, that could lead to financial instability prejudicial to the economic interests of the UK. If policy decisions against change to the monetary framework were known to be finely balanced, with a reasonable prospect of the scales tipping the other way at some point in the future, then this could materially damage the credibility (and hence effectiveness) of monetary policy, which could ultimately damage the economic interests of the UK. Clearly, section 35 (information relating to the formulation or development of government policy) will also be relevant here.
2.7 Care also needs to be taken when considering the release of, for example, information concerning auction bidding and tendering processes. In some instances, disclosure of information encourages active bidding by competitors, reduces risks to bidders and contributes to a better financial outcome for the government (and, therefore, for the taxpayer). However, on other occasions, if bidders know that competitors will see details of their bidding strategies, this can permit collusive or domineering signalling by counterparties during the process or introduce increased risks to bidders in future competitions if their strategies are revealed, so leading to a worse financial outcome in the long run for the government. Section 43 (Commercial interests) may also be relevant here.
2.8 The following is a non-exhaustive list of some examples of potentially prejudicial disclosures capable of falling within the terms of this exemption.
Information contained in Standing Committee and financial stability papers (of HM Treasury, Bank of England, Financial Services Authority): Indications that a particular institution, group of institutions or a country's financial system were being discussed could prompt a reaction that resulted in financial instability which would have a detrimental impact upon the economic interests of the UK or of part of the UK. Such instability might require action (for example the Bank of England acting as lender of last resort), which would also have a detrimental impact on the financial interests of the government. It could in addition lead unnecessarily to financial losses to the institutions being discussed, investors or depositors, in which case section 43(2) would be relevant since disclosure of the information would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person.
Vulnerability assessments: An assessment of the vulnerability of, for example, emerging market economies might well be released after a suitable period of time, but immediate release could contribute to financial instability and so prejudice the economic interests of (part of) the UK.
Gilt auctions: An example of short-term sensitivity is the size of offering at a gilt auction. Should details of planned issuance be released to one or more gilts counterparties ahead of the usual announcement to the wider market ahead of an auction, this could influence the price achievable at auction and, in turn, the cost of borrowing for the government, thus prejudicing the financial interests of the government. It could also prejudice the government's reputation for fairness and transparency, deterring some investors from future auctions, again prejudicing the financial interests of the government. Also, the allocation of stock at the auction at what price is commercially sensitive for the bidder - the release of such data would result in lower participation in UK auctions and higher interest rates, potentially harming the economic interests of the UK. Section 43 may again be relevant here.
Budget information: The release of any information from the Budget - ahead of its formal announcement - particularly in relation to changes to tax and National Insurance rates or in the taxation system, could enable people pre-emptively to amend their financial affairs, reducing the tax payable to government, thus prejudicing the financial interests of the government.
Government cash flows and borrowing requirements: Premature or limited disclosure of the government's cash flows or borrowing requirements would be market sensitive information. Disclosure of market sensitive information to a participant in a market in response to an application under the Act would put that participant at an advantage with respect to other market players, and could ultimately harm the UK economy by deterring less well-informed investors from investing in the UK in the future. Disclosure of the information that the government would be selling Sterling in order to make a large payment on a particular day, under a defence contract involving contractors in another country, would lead to pre-emptive selling of Sterling on the foreign exchanges, depressing the price that the government could obtain, thus prejudicing the government's financial interests.
Terrorism reinsurance: Information supplied by Pool Re, the government-backed terrorism reinsurer, would most likely be covered by section 43 (as prejudicing the commercial interests of any person) but there may be cases where disclosure of information about claims could prejudice the economic interests of (part of) the UK.
Public Interest Test
2.9 When applying the exemption, the public authority must clearly (and demonstrably) analyse the weight of the public interest that attaches to disclosing the information on the one hand, and withholding it on the other, and be able to articulate it. There is legitimate public interest in the UK's economic policy, taxation and financial management. Disclosure of some information will promote public understanding and allow informed dialogue. Whilst being alert to the risk of prejudice, information should be disclosed wherever possible. That said, there will be cases where, depending upon the particular facts relevant to the circumstances of the case, the disclosure of information could be covered by section 29.
2.10 Particular factors that will tend to point towards the public interest being served by disclosing the information include:
The need to hold public authorities to account for their stewardship of public resources; and
The objective of building public trust and establishing transparency in the operation of the economy so as to increase the credibility of economic policy decision-makers and enhance the UK's reputation as a fair and honest business environment.
2.11 Factors that will tend to point towards the public interest being served by withholding information relating to the economy include:
Where disclosure could result in financial instability of institutions or countries, either in the UK and abroad;
Where disclosure could pre-empt announcements on taxation, National Insurance or benefits;
Where selective disclosure of the information could affect financial markets. Financial regulation and government policy requires the transparent release of market-sensitive data simultaneously to the whole market. This reinforces confidence in market integrity by investors and liquidity providers, thereby reducing the cost of capital in financial markets. Selective or premature release of information undermines confidence in dealing in UK markets;
Where information has been obtained from confidential sources (e.g. overseas governments or regulators) who would be damaged by disclosure and who will not provide information in the future; and
Where the information consists of assessments of (an institution's/economy's) viability.
It would be difficult to argue that the public interest is best served by releasing information with these consequences.
The public interest is not static. The need to withhold information may increase or diminish as time passes, and the balance may tip either way.
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:46 am Post subject: WHERE'S THE MONEY TO COME FROM?
Under-investment is a problem in both rural and urban areas. We're always told, "There's no money" to fund vital investment, grants and subsidies.
What this really means is that the government does not want to borrow any more money from the banking system because it would have to raise taxes in order to pay it back.
Few people seem to ask why a sovereign government has to "borrow" money in the first place. And from where does the banking system get the money, anyway?
HOW GOVERNMENTS CREATE MONEY FOR NATIONAL NEEDS
Every year the government fails to collect enough money in taxes to pay for all its spending requirements. Therefore it has to borrow the money. The amount required is known as the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PSBR).
The National Debt is the total still outstanding on all past years' borrowing requirements.
The government borrows the money this way: It prints and sells "gilt edged securities", also known as stocks, bonds and Treasury bills. These are simply pieces of paper which promise an additional return to the buyer, sometime in the future. The securities are auctioned several times a year to meet the shortage of government revenue as it arises. They are bought by individuals, insurance companies, pension funds, trust funds, and banks. The government takes the money it has raised by these sales, and spends it on its public projects.
When the non-banking sector (individuals, insurance, pension and trust funds) buy government securities, then saved money is being recycled back into the economy through government spending.
However, when banks buy government securities, then entirely new money - which has been created out of nothing by the banks specifically for these purchases - is spent into the economy by the government.
These securities are becoming due, or "maturing" regularly. Servicing these securities is known as "paying the interest on the National Debt." The government has to find the money to repay them in full.
Of course, the government does not have the money to repay them - that is why it had to sell securities in the first place. Therefore, how does it repay them? Answer: It raises the money to repay the previous securities by selling even more securities and by putting up taxes even further!
That is to say: The government is raising money it doesn't have, by printing bits of paper and selling them to banks, which buy them with money they don't have either, but which they create out of nothing! The government then expects us, through our taxes, to pay back the banks with the real money that we've worked for!
The obvious question arises: Why doesn't the government simply just create the money in the first place? Why does the government indebt the population to the banking system?
Why doesn't the government - via a State institution - just print a £1000 note, instead of a £1000 security? That way, instead of borrowing the money from the banking system, and forcing us to pay it back in our taxes, it could simply create the money itself, spend it into society and not need to ask for it back.
IT'S THE PEOPLE'S MONEY
Clearly, if the government can issue a security for any amount, then it can issue the same amount of money directly, without recourse to any banks. Inventor Thomas Edison put it this way: "If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good.
"... It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people." (The New York Times, December 6, 1921. Article titled "Ford Sees Wealth In Muscle Shoals")
THE PROSPERITY PROPOSAL
We must establish the principle that the government can create debt-free money, without borrowing from the banks, and without indebting the taxpayers.
A basic policy to help achieve our aims is to ensure a proportion of the money supply is created debt-free by the government, and spent, not lent, into the economy.
By taking the creation of, at least, some money out of the hands of the banking system, it will go some way to establishing the principle that It's the People's Money, not the Banker's Money.
Some people wonder: "Surely, this will be inflationary?"
Inflation is caused by debts which, when assumed by individuals, lead to depressed incomes and demands for higher wages, and when assumed by companies, lead to price increases. Our proposal would not result in any such inflationary tendencies.
For example, say the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement required £10 billion to pay the Education budget. This money was previously to be raised by borrowing even more, at interest.
This debt would have worked its way through the economy and caused inflationary pressures -- for example, the tax increases necessary to repay the debt would lead to demand for higher wages, which would lead to higher prices, and so on.
This £10 billion has to be created anyway, and it is presently done by methods proven to be inflationary.
Our method of creating this money will be no more inflationary than the present method of funding, and indeed, it will be less inflationary because there will be no debt and interest obligations, working their way through the economy and causing the repayment demands which push inflation. Debt-free money causes no inflationary push.
Inflation could result if too much debt-free money came into society too fast, leading to everything losing its "paper" value.
However, we are presuming a monetary authority would be established to ensure debt-free money was created in a measured manner.
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND THE EUROPEAN
1.How does the EU affect levels of public expenditure?
The EU has a sizeable impact on public expenditure throughout the Union in three main ways. First, the Union spends significant sums of money itself, and the amounts spent by Brussels have been growing in recent years much more rapidly than EU economic output as a whole. Secondly, the borrowing and spending criteria laid down in the Maastricht Treaty put substantial constraints on the spending policies of all Member States, whether or not they are members of the euro zone, not least in Britain. Thirdly, the restrictive monetary policies pursued by the Union as a whole bear down heavily on the economic performance of the EU, slowing growth, raising unemployment, and thus increasing the need for public expenditure while at the same time restricting the means for financing it. This is why public services are under severe strain across the whole of the EU.
2.How much does the EU spend, and who pays?
The EU is currently restricted to spending no more than 1.27% of the aggregate output of all the EU economies, although moves are already afoot to raise this ceiling, as Commission ambitions expand. The total EU budget is currently £84bn. This sum is raised from VAT, import duties and other levies contributed by Member States. Some Member States pay in more than others, however, in relation to what they get back. Britain, in particular, has lost out every single year bar two since we joined in 1973. Last year, our gross contribution was £8.2bn, but crucially we paid in £3.5bn more than we received back. Our total net contribution from 1973 to 1998, uprated for inflation, has been £53bn. How many hospitals and schools could have been built for this sum of money?
3.Is the EU’s money well spent?
Of the sums paid to Brussels, just over £1bn is spent on administration. Of the total budget, almost half is spent on the Common Agricultural Policy. The remainder is spent on a variety of social and economic programmes throughout the Union. Is this money well used? There are few people, at least in Britain, who believe that the Common Agricultural Policy — let alone its even more disastrous relation, the Common Fisheries Policy — is anything other than a scandalous waste of public money. The Regional, Structural and Social Funds have more acceptable objectives, but there is no reason why almost any of them needs to be run by Brussels rather than by the Member States, particularly as so many of them are poorly administered. The scale of fraud and mismanagement of EU budgets is hard to credit. Even the EU Court of Auditors estimates that 5% of the entire budget - about £4bn a year - is lost to fraud and other forms of malfeasance, while another 5% is misappropriated by being spent on objectives for which it was not intended.
4.Is the Common Agricultural Policy likely to be radically reformed?
While attempts have been made to reduce the costs and increase the rationality of the CAP, fundamental reform has always foundered on the bedrock of national interests and the political power of the farming lobby. As a result, EU expenditure on agriculture is still rising. Most of the benefit goes to large scale agri-businesses in high income countries which damage the environment, rather than to small scale farmers in poorer countries, and those in scattered communities on poorer land, where spending is needed to look after the countryside. The CAP is now the largest single obstacle to expanding the EU to the East. The high cost agricultural regime entailed by the CAP has always cost Britain heavily because our farming industry is relatively small and efficient, and therefore attracts less subsidy than the average. It is also extremely expensive for the consumer — with food costs for a four member family estimated to be as much as £28 a week higher than they would be if we were not part of the CAP.
5.What has the Maastricht Treaty done to public expenditure patterns?
The major reasons why countries across the EU are bearing down on public expenditure are the commitments to which they all agreed in the 1991 Maastricht Treaty, as part of the run up to the establishment of the Single Currency. These entailed that annual borrowing as a percentage of national income should not be more than 3% of GDP, whilst total government borrowing as a percentage of GDP had to be maintained at 60% or less. Fears by Germany that other countries might not stick to these rules led to the Stability Pact, agreed to subsequently at the Dublin summit meeting, which established draconian penalties to be applied to any countries which did not comply. Since then, massive efforts have been made by all EU economies, including Britain since the election of our Labour government, to rein back public spending which in consequence, fell some 3% as a percentage of GDP across the whole of the EU between 1994 and 1997 alone. This is why there have been marches, rallies and demonstrations all over the EU, even in such heartland countries as France and Germany.
6.How have Member States reacted to borrowing controls?
Some of the cuts in public expenditure which have taken place have undoubtedly been real, but many have involved one off, unsustainable book-keeping adjustments. More have been designed to get what should clearly be public spending off the governments’ books in ways which have been expensive, inefficient and which have distorted priorities. During the run up to the introduction of the euro, the French reduced their public expenditure ratio by selling off France Telecom pension assets, while the Italians raised nominal levels of taxation only by promising to pay the money back after the Single Currency had been launched. More seriously, the pressure to reduce spending has forced governments across the EU to sell public assets wholesale, to avoid the cost of maintaining them, while those that are retained now have to have improvement works financed by partnerships with the private sector, such as the much derided "Private Finance Initiative" programme. Invariably, these entail both higher borrowing costs than would be necessary if the state raised the money, and a profit stream for the private sector partners which would not need to be paid if the public sector did the work. They also tend to be very complex and expensive to establish. The inevitable results — as the state of the London Transport network shows only too clearly — is delay, penny pinching and under-funding.
7.What have the Maastricht Criteria done for growth in the EU?
The combination of tight fiscal controls in the EU and monetarist policies to bear down on inflation implemented by the European Central Bank and its precursors before the establishment of the Single Currency, has been to produce very slow rates of economic growth in the EU during the 1990s - an average of less than 1.5% per annum between 1991 and 1997. The inevitable result is that unemployment, which was already painfully high at the beginning of the decade, is still almost 10% across the whole of the EU, although higher, on average, in the euro-zone countries and lower among the non Single Currency members, such as Britain. The published unemployment figures, however, only tell part of the story. As the ILO Employment Survey statistics show, the true number of people who could work if the jobs were there, but who are presently out of work, is currently closer to 30m than the more familiar 16m in the published unemployment statistics.
8.How does slow growth affect public expenditure?
The slow economic growth which the EU has experienced in recent years has both increased the need for public expenditure, and reduced the capacity of the tax system to pay for it. Much of the need for public spending has arisen from the fact that the ratio between those in work and those who are either unemployed, or who have withdrawn from the labour force, is bound to be lower in deflationary conditions. In these circumstances, dependency on the state inevitably increases. The only way of then squaring the circle between more claimants and less funds is to reduce entitlements and to toughen the criteria for state assistance by means testing. This trend is clearly evident not only in Britain but in many other EU countries, not least in Germany, where moves to cut DM20bn from pensions and welfare spending have plunged the Social Democrats into losing one election after another at local level.
9.What about Job Security and the Labour Market?
During the 1950s and 1960s, there was almost no unemployment in Europe. Nearly everyone who wanted a job could find one. Employment was secure, and levels of skill and training were rising rapidly. Nowadays, we are told that the only way of making EU countries more competitive and prosperous is to have more deregulation, privatisation and job insecurity, to attack trades unions, and to drive people into working - even if they have good reasons for not wanting to do so - by cutting benefits. Something has to be wrong with this argument, however, because all the EU economies performed much better in the decades after World War II than they are doing at present. Nor was inflation particularly high then. The truth is that the sort of policies being implemented across the EU nowadays to destabilise and deregulate the labour market only seem necessary because the deflationary, monetarist policies which are now so fashionable make it look - quite wrongly - as if there is no alternative to them.
10.What have all these policies done for the distribution of Wealth, Income and Life Chances?
The sad fact is that over the last quarter of a century, since the start of serious attempts to integrate the EU economies, particularly by monetary union, the slow growth and lack of tax buoyancy which has resulted, have had a hugely negative effect on building the sort of society which most left of centre people would like to see. The distribution of wealth, income and life chances have all become more unequal. The improvement in average living standards which has taken place masks the fact that the rich have become much richer, those in the middle have not done very well, and the poor have become relatively, - and in the worst cases - absolutely poorer than they were a quarter of a century ago. The plain fact is that a major consequence of all the efforts to achieve economic and political integration in the EU has been to make the whole Union a less fair place in which to live and work. All the polls show that a large majority of ordinary trade union members and working people instinctively understand what is happening, and - rightly - do not like what they see.
Why does it borrow from the private banking system, and add to this national debt, which is indebting us all, and which means that our taxes have to continuously rise?"
And that would be a very good question! In fact, it is the £480 thousand million pound question, which is the UK national debt as we write, in August 2006.
Ask the Rothschilds. They were the ones who got us into this mess, during the Napoleonic Wars and especially upon the conclusion of the Battle of Waterloo. Google 'Rothschild Waterloo'
As for banks putting up interest rates to counter inflation - yes they do, because as they inflate the money supply other competing currencies become more desirable. Interest rate hikes have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with controlling prices. Interest rate hikes PUT COSTS UP!!!
Interest rate hikes are also used by the bankers after a nice run of 'cheap money' has encouraged debt. By sharply raising rates they can then bankrupt swathes of borrowers with failing business and negative equity. Then they clean up offering pennies to the pound.
These days its not so much they want your house, its YOU and YOUR OFFSPRING they want - as indentured slaves. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:51 am Post subject: The Money Scam: the cornerstone of our slavery
The money scam is so humongous that it's hard to conceive; it's the cornerstone of our slavery.
Money nowadays (i.e. the fiat currency we have learned to identify as money) is nothing more than debt.
And this for the mere reason that 95% of the money supply (i.e. the total amount of money in the economy) is created out of thin air by the commercial banks as debt whenever a new loan or mortgage is signed.
Banks don't lend money; they simply create it as debt.
However, it is much more significant to note that whilst the Bank of England is now state-owned the fact is that our money supply is once again almost entirely in private hands, with 97% of it being in the form of interest bearing loans of one sort or another, created by private commercial banks.
Indeed this is now where the real power resides -- with commercial banking.
The Bank of England is now essentially a regulatory body that supports and oversees the existing system. It is sometimes referred to as "the lender of last resort" in so far as one of its functions as the bankers' bank is to support any bank or financial institution that gets into difficulties and suffers a run on its liquid assets. In these circumstances, it is not obliged to disclose details of any such measures, the reason being so as to avoid a crisis in confidence -- confidence being something on which the current system is very dependent.
Joe Bloggs goes to borrow £1,000; when his loan is accepted, his account is credited with £1,000 generated out of thin air.
Joe will of course need to pay the principal plus the interest on his loan; but where will the money for the interest come from?
But from the overall money supply of the economy itself of course.
Note that at this stage the existing money supply needs to be increased for Joe to be accommodated, for the interest money does not yet exist.
Note also that there are many other Joe's chasing for other chunks of interest money that do not yet exist and need to be created.
All these Joe's need additional bank credit to be injected into the economy and increase the money supply or they will default on their loans.
Thus, our economies are absolutely dependent on new bank credit being injected into them as debt money by the commercial banks.
If the bank credit (i.e. new loans and mortgages) were to stop flowing, there would be a huge amount of foreclosures and a recession.
Thus the bankers hold the keys to our very existence.
No debt = no money.
It is a well known fact the 1929 US crash was caused by the Fed: the money supply was violently contracted by about 30% (i.e. no more bank credit was injected into the economy).
Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton (Friedman) and Anna (Schwartz):
Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.
Here is the excellent 'Money as debt' video (45 minutes) that goes into detail into all these issues:
Joined: 10 Aug 2007 Posts: 74 Location: Qld. Australia
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:20 pm Post subject:
The money scam is the heart of the beast.
Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England (1928-1941)
The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented.
Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin.
Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough money to buy it back again.
Take this great power from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in.
But if you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.
I'm quoting from a quote from a review. Bear with me here.
According to this quote from Naomi Kleins book "The Shock Doctrine"
about the lucrative dealings generated from war, it appears that
vice-president dick cheney was very clever sticking with Halliburton.
He sold some Halliburton shares, but kept 189,000, together with some 500,000 options. These share prices rose from $10.00 before the war
to $41.00 three years later.
Rumsfeld retained a large shareholding in another company called
Gilead Sciences, which had the patent for a vaccine purchased by the
Pentagon and the US Department of Health. These shares rose in price
from $7.45 when he became defence secretary to $67.60 when he left.
Yes, we are definitely letting the world go on in the completely wrong
direction in which we are meant to be going.
Why are the ignorant flat-earthers, the voters, letting this happening!
Giving powers to idiots!
And they do - because greed, selfishness, fear and incomprehension is the order of the day.
There's only one remedy to this:
You, who knows better, must lift these buggers up. Use the opposite.
There's no other way.
Do one really need to tell you all how this is so, and why it is so!!
The thing is, even if we somehow send the real perpetrators of 9/11 to jail, we will still have to eventually take on the bankers.
Eventually?? Surely it must be every awakening persons' prime responsibility? THE imperative of our post JFK/911 era?
All is controlled by debt.
Get out of debt, wholesale, and the 'problem' evaporates.
As a non-pacifist so succinctly put it to me recently:-
'Seems you're down to two choices: Either stop shopping or start shooting'
Exactly why they are keen to extend education to 18 and supply student loans!
Enslaved before passing go _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
I have said this elsewhere that there is enough of us we should be in a position to help each other (to a degree we do printing etc) but to look over each others shoulder as it were Also we could try a small barter system within our own network I have ten DVDs for your sack of spuds? _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
I have said this elsewhere that there is enough of us we should be in a position to help each other (to a degree we do printing etc) but to look over each others shoulder as it were Also we could try a small barter system within our own network I have ten DVDs for your sack of spuds?
Communication is the biggest obstacle but we have the technology if not the time _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
This is the kind of thread that should be translated in every language and distributed with vigour. The control of money is in the hands of too few.
There needs to be a critical mass of humanity that is aware of fiscal paradigm which has the inspiration and intent to stimulate and establish a balanced system of exchange! _________________ In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.
A good background article where Richard Cook correctly predicts the stock market crash of Dec 2007:
Richard C. Cook is the author of “We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform,” scheduled to appear by September 1, 2007.
A retired federal analyst, his career included service with the U.S. Civil Service Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Carter White House, and NASA, followed by twenty-one years with the U.S. Treasury Department.
His articles on monetary reform, economics, and space policy have appeared on Global Research, Economy in Crisis, Dissident Voice, Arizona Free Press, Atlantic Free Press, and elsewhere.
Looking for causes is like peeling an onion. What we are really seeing are the terminal throes of a failed financial system almost a century old. It’s happening because, since the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913—even during the period of the New Deal with its Keynesian economics aimed at full employment—our economy has been based almost entirely on fractional reserve banking.
This means that under the regime of the world’s all-powerful central banking systems, money is brought into existence only as debt-bearing loans. Interest on this lending tends to grow exponentially unless overtaken by real economic growth.
Remember that every instance of bank lending, from purchase of Treasury Bonds, to credit cards, to home mortgages, to billion-dollar loans to hedge funds for leveraged buyouts or sheer speculation, must eventually be paid back somewhere, somehow, sometime, by somebody, with interest. In the end, it all comes back to people who work for a living, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere, because that is the only way the world community ever creates real wealth.
In an anemic economy like that of the U.S., growth cannot catch up with interest in a deregulated financial marketplace where interest rates are high. Rates may not seem high compared with, say, the twenty percent-plus rates of the early 1980s, but they are high in an economy with, at best, a two percent GDP growth rate.
And they have been high on average since the 1960s, as the banking industry became increasingly deregulated. Interestingly, since 1965, the U.S. dollar has lost eighty percent of its value, which tends to validate the contention by some observers that higher interest rates not only do not reduce inflation, as the Federal Reserve contends, but actually cause it.
The situation today is worse in many respects than 1929, because the debt “overhang” vs. real economic value is much higher now than it was then. The U.S. economy was in far better shape in the 1920s, because so much of our population was gainfully employed in factories or on farms.
The question is not when will the system start to come down, because this has already begun. It’s shown most clearly by the fact that according to Federal Reserve data, M1, the part of the money supply most readily available for consumer purchases, is not only lagging behind inflation but has actually decreased in eleven of the last twelve months. This means that the producing economy is already in a recession.
The federal government is trying to figure out what to do. Their biggest concern is that foreign investors have started to pull out of dollar-denominated markets.
The government’s “plunge protection team”—known officially as the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets—is trying to engineer what they call a “soft landing.” It’s been likened to the process by which you cook a frog in a pot where you raise the temperature one degree a day. The frog doesn’t hop out because the heat goes up gradually, but before long it’s too late. The frog has been cooked.
Even if the plunge protection team succeeds, and the frog cooks slowly, there will be a massive de facto default on dollar-denominated debt and a long-term degradation of the U.S. standard of living. The inside word is that we are likely to see major monetary shocks and a possible stock market crash as early as December 2007.
The worst off will be people locked into retirement funds which have a heavy load of mortgage-related securities. Entire investment portfolios are likely to disappear overnight.
The banks, along with the bank-leveraged equity and hedge funds, are preparing for the biggest fire sale in at least a generation. Insiders are going liquid to get ready. If you think Enron was “the bomb,” you won’t want to miss this one.
Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Posts: 56 Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject:
Great thread. I thought I would revive it with a question.
We know that the Fed is privately owned and it dominates the US government, but is this the case with the Bank Of England? I know it was 'nationalised' in 1946, but did this really nullify its private commercial stronghold?
I was debating with a friend over the money scam and how money = debt, but he said the Treasury in Britain is more powerful and ensures we get a better deal than the Yanks as we're not as 'privatised'. However, I thought the financial strings in this country were pulled by the same hands that rule America. Surely Rothschild would not cede his sway over this country when our petty Parliament decided things needed to be 'nationalised'. Was this nationalisation just to pacify the people or does the Bank Of England actually look out for our best interests?
Forgive my ignorance, but it's a crucial issue and I'm sure there are many money-wise folks on here that can point me towards answers.
Chris _________________ The promise of freedom will only come about when the last man to walk this earth lives out his days in dreadful solitude. Only then will we see the end of war.
It was nationalisation in name only and 95% of it remained in the hands of private bankers. It takes little research to find articles on the events of post war Bank of England matters and it is easy to find on the Internet.
Recently there was a one hour documentary on channel 4 about the current financial crisis and apparently it is all Gordon Brown's fault for giving the bankers the freedom to run the Bank of England. He should have known they were very naughty little boys who would misbehave and mess things up so it is all his fault. That is the nature of the creatures we are up against. Rein them in and we are strangling the economy. Let them manage and we are responsible for giving them the power to mess things up. You really couldn't script the nonsense they come out with. _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
The actual ownership structure of central banks, though still significant, is a bit beside the point.
What is at fault is the money system itself, as it is operated on fractional reserve banking principles.
I would give central bankers the benefit of doubt; after all they're just stewards of the overall system, and their main goal is price stability.
- In a fractional reserve banking world, the central bank regulates the the money supply, i.e. the total amount of money in the economy.
- This is important, as the only thing that gives value to our money is how much of it is in circulation.
- The central bank sets a target for the total money supply (i.e. it decides 'by how much' it wants to increase the money supply);
it then emits 'base money' to achieve this target;
this is an electronic / accounting entry only (i.e. 'money' is generated out of nothing) that creates a credit entry in the account of a commercial bank (e.g. via the purchase of government bonds by the central bank).
- Commercial banks then use this credit and, as per fractional reserve banking practices, give out loans with money generated out of thin air as interest-bearing debt, in the process generating 95-97% of the additional money supply.
- Money (i.e. today's fiat paper currency) = debt.
- All debt re-payments diminish the actual money supply (as they 'un-create' debts); hence, no debt = no money in the economy.
- If bank credit stops being injected into the economy (i.e. if commercial banks stop giving loans) a recession occurs, as it is mathematically impossible for all debtors to find the interest they need to re-pay in a shrinking money supply.
Hence, we have a system that is absolutely dependent on bank credit being perpetually injected into the economy, or else.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:03 pm Post subject:
The actual ownership structure of central banks, though still significant, is a bit beside the point.
What is at fault is the money system itself, as it is operated on fractional reserve banking principles.
Well yes, the system is at fault...
....but saying ownership is 'beside the point' cannot be right.
The power of control over a system of money-creation is surely the greatest earthly power a person or persons can have. The morality and motives of these people is surely, then, of the utmost importance.
Why is it that throughout history usury (the lending of money at interest) has been seen as a great moral peril? Why did Christ drive the moneylenders from the temple?
Surely because the kind of people who are drawn into this activity are generally the most self-serving, conniving, manipulative types. It is inevitable that this should be so.
Power will mostly get what it wants (in the short term at least). If the real powers that control all aspects of our society (including our 'democratically elected' parliament) were benign and working for the common good of all......
....we would have no problem.
There would have been no 9/11 and no "war on Terror' in spite of the 'system'.
Unfortunately the controllers (or owners) of the money-creation system are anything but benign. They hate Christ (the principle of Universal Love) and they hate us and we, the masses, are the primary targets of their 'War on Terror'.
They want total control of everything and everybody and these Luciferians think they can achieve it. They intend to RFID chip us all under a one-world government controlled by them. Their money scam is at the centre of everything.
We are approaching some sort of final conflict that they must not win.
...so is ownership of the central banks 'beside the point'?.....that's like saying that who these people are and their aims and objectives are beside the point.
Their agents (often unwitting) everywhere dominate our lives.
Enough of these people and their rotten agenda.
This system needs to be broken but, more than that, when a new system takes its place humanity must make sure that these fiends have nothing to do with its implementation.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum