According to an exchange in Hansard a few years ago the split between 'real' UK money (i.e. notes and coins) and made-up UK money (created from nothing by bank loans) was something like 3% vs. 97%.
Which means that 97% of British money was created with an associated interest charge.
Which means that unless more money is made up every year there isn't enough money in circulation to pay the interest charges off.
So the banks make-up more money every year. Lots of it
And if you create money at a faster rate than people can create goods and services to buy with that money prices go up
Which goes a long way to explaining all those funky exponential graphs we've been seeing - house prices, personal indebtedness, stuff like that
I remember travelling in Italy years ago, in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The rate of money creation and consequent devaluation of that money had got so out of hand that the scrap value of metal Lire coins was worth far in excess of their face value. Metal money disappeared virtually overnight. Even the smallest value coins were replaced by banknotes printed on grades of paper that made toilet roll feel durable in comparison. Attendants at motorway toll boths gave out boiled sweets instead of change. The situation was, to put it mildly, silly.
I only mention this because I couldn't help noticing that, as of December last year, the scrap value of US 5 cent coins was.... 7 cents. As with all the other recent commodity price rises this has been explained as being the result of a rise in the market price of copper not a fall in the inherent value of the dollar but, fuck it, nickels could be made out of cheetos or virtually anything else and they'd still end up being worth more dead than alive.
-
Of course, most politicians, bankers and economists will argue that the causes of inflation, recession/ depression and the resulting (and sneaky) wealth transfer are a lot more complex and less deliberate than a small group of decision makers simply running up, then running down the amount of money in circulation.
But they would.
And you can always make the Bankers Control the World!!! model sound less conspiratorial by making it sound more deterministic. Instead of claiming that powerful Financiers deliberately get together to mug the world by ramping up money supply and forcing debt onto ordinary people (and national governments of developed and developing countries), only to pull the plug on them later on, you can just say to yourself 'Well, these people come from the same backgrounds, thrive in the same kind of institutions and consequently just happen to think the same way. There's nothing co-ordinated about it'. Easy peasy, no conspiracy.
The end result is the same though. Take the 'independent' group of people who meet every month to set the base UK interest rate for example. Whose interests are they primarily concerned with? Who are they answerable to?
And then there are all those other spooky groups and get-togethers that people like our chancellor definitely don't attend, no sirree.
Anyway, if Bankers really do Control the World!!! and if we really are near the end of a deliberate inflationary cycle there's lots and lots to look forward to - housing crashes, lots of unemployment, social unrest and maybe exciting new forms of government.
Because if there's one thing people need after losing their job, their home and their savings it's having someone to blame (usually the wrong someone), and leaders willing to feed that need...
Extract from "Money: Whence it came, where it went" by John Kenneth Galbraith
"That the great German inflation, like the ones elsewhere in central Europe, produced a large transfer of wealth from those who possessed saving accounts, money, securities or mortgages to those who had debts or tangible property is assumed. And, despite a shortage of affirming statistics, that such transfer occurred does seem plausible. The loss so involved, the parallel lost by people of their stake in the social order and the companion anger and frustration were, in turn, thought to have much to do with the rise of Fascism or Communism. These are matters on which there is no proof, and it is unbecoming, however customary, to substitute certainty of statement for hard evidence. But the simple facts are worth a glance. All of the countries of central Europe that suffered a collapse of their currencies following the First World War were eventually to experience Fascism, Communism or in most cases - Poland, Hungary, East Germany - both. The countries that did not experience such a breakdown in their money were almost uniformly more fortunate.
What is not in doubt is that the German inflation left Germans with a searing fear of its recurrence. And whatever the effect of inflation in paving the way for Fascism, measures taken later out of fear of inflation were certainly not without effect. We have noticed, and will see again, that the strongest action is taken against inflation when it is least needed. On 8 December 1931, with one-sixth of the total German labour force out of work, the government of Heinrich Bruning decreed a reduction of from 10 to 15 per cent in most wages, this being a rollback to the level of four years earlier. It decreed also a reduction in industrial prices of 10 per cent, a similar reduction in rents, railway fares, rail freight charges and charges for municipal services. Earlier, wages of public employees had been reduced by a fifth, and taxes on wages, salaries and on incomes had been sharply increased. Unemployment benefits were also reduced. In the following year unemployment rose to one-fifth of the German labour force, and in the next year came Hitler"
.
9 comments:
There's no IF about it, Stef.
Bankers do control the world.
Lord Josiah Stamp, at one time the Director of The Bank of England (when it was a privately-owned bank) had this to say about banks;
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The 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 deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money ."
It makes total sense really. While you and I work and work and work in a system that forces man against man, then granting yourself the power to create money for yourself and your pals in on the scam would give you an undeserved advantage.
For while your debtors are having to work and work and work to repay a mortgage which was, in the words of Lord Stamp, created with a flick of a pen you have time to think up plans to take control of the world. And you'd better believe that the bankers haven't failed in that;
they financed world war 1 through The privately-owned Federal Reserve, part controlled by the Rockefellers. World War 1 resulted in The League of Nations, a world government. The Rockefellers donated the land in Geneva for The League of Nations HQ.
But the USA voted out of the League. So another world war was planned. Hitler received substantial financial and technical support from Wall Street to build up the Wehrmacht. Soviet Russia was also built by Wall Street (see Antony Sutton's "Wall Street" trilogy and another trilogy of his, "Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development"). So basically Wall Street and the Federal Reserve created BOTH Hitler and Stalin. They both fight in WW2, joined by the USA after the really dodgy Pearl Harbour, thus forcing a war-hungry USA to get lots of money from the privately-owned Federal Reserve ie the Rockefellers who just created the money "with the flick of a pen". After WW2 the UN was created, and guess who donated the land for the HQ of the UN? Yep, the Rockefellers.
So
1. the Rockefellers finance WW1 through the Federal Reserve and donate land to the resulting world government.
2. the Rockefellers finance WW2 through the Federal Reserve, as well aiding Hitler with technology and eugenics, and donate land to the resulting world government.
The phrase "follow the money" should be applied by all historians. Major events such as world wars don't happen without lots and lots of money. And bankers, such as the Rockefellers, Rothschilds etc can create virtually unlimited amounts of "the stuff". And they have, but only for their benefit.
The Federal Reserve was the culmination of decades of war and economic manipulation by the bankers of London and Paris. When you understand how the Federal Reserve works and the power it has you begin to understand why its architect Paul Warburg was paid $500,000 in 1913 by Kuhn, Loeb to lobby for it.
I ask you, and your readers, what would you do if you could create virtually unlimited amounts of money?
Would you write off 3rd world debt? Give a massive cheque to Cancer Research?
Or would you finance dictators and world wars to persuade the world it needs a world government under your control to stop all the world wars which you financed? Because that is basically what has happened.
Ah, the Josiah Stamp quote - I know it well
To be honest, ten years ago I didn't buy any of this stuff but, as a model, it fits recent events well and I am personally willing to entertain the possibility that this is what is going on.
A couple of problems though...
First off, this view of the world has been used to justify race hate. And I don't buy that stuff for a second. The model stands without blaming an entire people but my experience is that the two have gone hand in hand.
Another problem, and I was discussing this with some people a few weeks ago, is that the model disregards the achievements of ordinary people in securing a fairer society (in some countries anyway) over the last 200-300 years. If banking control of our institutions was so powerful and pervasive how is it that, for a time anyway, we saw the introduction of national healthcare, pensions and other welfare reforms? How were these achievements possible?
Regarding the first point, the race point, the powers in the Bank of England when it was private were, and the powers in the US Federal Reserve currently are, the Rothschilds. They claim to be Jewish. The second power in the Fed are the Rockefellers, who are not Jewish. Then you have the Schiffs, who are Jewish. So there is an element of religion about the Federal Reserve. But I am not accusing "the Jews". I actually have sympathy for "the Jews" because they've been set up for a big war (this Iraq/Iran/Syria/Lebanon thing was planned centuries ago). If the powers in the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve were called X and were Hindu I would still accuse X and not the whole of the Hindu religion. The whole Jew thing is due to WW2 and the holocaust. Now one cannot criticise a Zionist or Israel without being accused of being a Nazi. Hitler accused the Jews of creating the Treaty of Versailles. He would have been more acurate to accuse the Rothschilds. I do not deny the holocaust, but do question why Hitler gained so much support from Wall Street, why offers of a ransom were refused (a ransom which could easily be conjured up using fractional reserve banking), and why attempts to establish Jewish homelands other than Palestine were rejected by the Zionist hierarchy, thus leading to the deaths of millions of Jews which was then used to demand Palestine. The Rothschilds were also powers in the Zionist movement, and it was to the Rothschilds that the Balfour Declaration was addressed.
Regarding gains from individual efforts, we were once serfs, then we were granted "freedom" but without any representation while wealthy landowners, merchants and kings had the vote and power. Man desires freedom, and will rise against despotism to fight for it. But we do have some freedoms, thanks to our ancestors. We can vote, but we only get to vote for people who will serve the bankers and their projects. But ocassionally we do get what we want. It gives us a sense that we do have some power and are isolated from the political process. But there is one thing that cannot be mentioned or questioned; fractional reserve banking.
The problem for them is that we are getting too much freedom and happiness. Freedom of the press has allowed certain authors to expose alot of the manipulation that has occured. Hence the global war on terror which is designed to take away the rights and liberties that many men and women risked their lives for. Blair is actively stripping those freedoms from us. You mentioned Bilderberg. There's not many European political leaders who do not attend Bilderberg. And who runs Bilderberg? David Rockefeller, a member of the same family which (a) part controls the Federal Reserve, (b) donated free of charge and by other charitable means gave the Nazis the technology to prosecute a long world war, and then (c) donated the land for the HQ of the world governing body resulting from WW2.
How could all this charity be afforded by the Rockefellers and their ilk? Because they can create virtually unlimited amounts of money.
Blair attended Bilderberg in 1993. But before him was Gordon Brown in 1991. Both were opposition MPs. Now look at them! 10 years in Downing Street.
Bilderberg works towards a big European government. There will be similar projects in Africa, South America etc so that 200+ sovereign nations relinquish that sovereignty to the intermediate level of world government where there are only say 5 or 6 bodies and not 200+. Then when the current world war 3 finishes and we've had multiple nuclear explosions and deaths in the billions a true one world government will willingly be accepted by the survivors.
I agree, it is an attractive model
I also agree that there are strong grounds to believe that many key events in history are either under or misreported.
And I'm absolutely 100% certain that we are systematically lied to about the way money works and how it is used to manipulate all of us.
But the association of Jews with the large scale manipulation of our financial system got going long before the Nazis. The Protocols of Zion date back to long before Hitler, as do the periodic expulsions of Jews from Spain, England and elsewhere.
And until people can find a way to decouple theories about money manipulation away from their historic antisemitic associations there will always be a stigma attached to those theories about money.
Which, of course, many would argue was the clever trap laid by the Bankers in the first place
Once you start looking into our financial system it is so easy to find yourself following a well-trodden path that leads to a rabbit warren of beliefs - some rational, others irrational and sometimes self-contradictory
At best you get bogged down in that maze of beliefs, at worst supporting a belief system that more unscrupulous, or less intelligent people, would use to justify hate that is almost invariably directed at completely the wrong people.
If someone does buy into the Bankers Control the World worldview, a potentially fruitful way of thinking may be to identify those times when and, more importantly, how their plans have been thwarted in the past and find ways to repeat those victories. That might even yield some scope for finding common cause with people who do not share that particular view as to why the world is the way it is but who do agree on threats we all face.
Once we understand how the money works and how wall street finance the holocaust, if you want to understand how a complete, free and advanced society as the German did something like the holocaust you should search for the Milgram Psychology experiments... the answer to the worst question.
I don't want to come anywhere close to the "blame it on the Jew" camp, but... I sometimes ask myself if this is not "The Jews control the money", but "The Jews were forced to control the money" instead.
The Crusades routinely attacked Jewish communities, and increasingly harsh laws restricted them from most economic activity and land ownership, leaving open only moneylending and a few other trades.
Wikipedia - Jews - Middle Ages
At the same time, Christians were prohibited to lend money, as far as I know. So if anybody is to be blamed, it is the Catholic Church, giving some Jews a better starting position, back in days were nobody understand the real importance of money.
So, as I see it, (some) people of Jewish faith were forced into this position. Once in this position, they did their best to stay there, as anybody else (or at least most) would with a bit of sense.
But coming back to the main problem, this is not a thing of race or religion, it is the simple urge of people to improve their situation. If you are in position X, and I want to take your position, I have to remove you from that position. You, on the other hand, want to hinder me from that. So simply to keep you position, you have to work against me.
Another thing is the natural tendency to flock together with other people who share the same interests and goals. "Oh, you are in the oil business? So am I! Wouldn't it be good to increase the oil prices a bit?" No need to have a formal secret government. "And by the way, I know somebody who runs a country who would interested in invading an oil rich nation." Just a couple of friends, doing some shady business. "And a friend of mine could help us, he's interested in sell some military goods." I think they plan this like we mortals plan a dinner party.
And there is the "once your part of the family, there is no way leaving the family". So you and I have done some shady business together, and now I ask you to do something you don't want to do. Wouldn't be so wise.
The law that forbade Christians (and Muslims) from practicing usury certainly contributed to antisemitism.
But I just don't think fixating on race is either morally acceptable or productive
The Nazis came to power largely because of the 'shame' of the Versailles treaty and the economic collapse of Germany in the 1920s.
Jewish people were blamed for these events and were consequently persecuted - not the handful of powerful bankers or industrialists (some of whom were Jewish, some of whom were not) who may genuinely have been responsible but thousands upon thousands of ordinary, blameless people.
And business carried on as normal
Aside from being morally wrong, fixing on race as an issue was a distraction, a very useful one...
good post stef, also - if you melted down the British 1p and sold the copper to America you would make about 4 percent profit everyday under current $ exchange rates, may not seem a great deal but there is 365 days in a year. Melting down a £1,000 in pennies each day would net £14,600 yearly. Down the HSBC with a wheelbarrow and a blow torch me!
@Lord Bevy
Any chance of a 'k' then?
Post a Comment