2008 capitalism died: Money Scam, cornerstone of our slavery

[TonyGosling]

Who owes how much to whom in Europe and will they ever be able to pay it back? Clarke and Dawe ask the million dollar questions
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/05/20/2905304.htm

[acrobat74]

^^ Hilarious


The most important intellectual globally:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABXPICWjFIo[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk4TgUxX0fQ[/youtube]


There is no money:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north850.html

[item8]

"What's the solution?" she asked at one point. My tuppenceworth is as follows. Get the government to print a pretty piece of paper with the Queen's profile on it and a bit of silvery stuff running through it and full of swirls and colours and (the most important bit!) state on it that it is worth ONE GAZILLION POUNDS!!! Present this to the banks as payment for all debts "owed" to them and tell them to keep the effing change! Its pretty much what they have done to us.

[TonyGosling]

Hilarious - Bird and Fortune on 'market sentiment' and the absurdity of it all
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g

[Disco_Destroyer]

Hilarious - Bird and Fortune on 'market sentiment' and the absurdity of it all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g

Minus the Racism

[item8]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-bro ... 15813.html

Deficit Terrorists Strike in the United Kingdom: United States of America Next?

Last week, England's new government said it would abandon the previous government's stimulus program and introduce the austerity measures required to pay down its estimated $1 trillion in debts. That means cutting public spending, laying off workers, reducing consumption, and increasing unemployment and bankruptcies. It also means shrinking the money supply, since virtually all "money" today originates as loans or debt. Reducing the outstanding debt will reduce the amount of money available to pay workers and buy goods, precipitating depression and further more economic pain.

The financial sector has sometimes been accused of shrinking the money supply intentionally, in order to increase the demand for its own products. Bankers are in the debt business, and if governments are allowed to create enough money to keep themselves and their constituents out of debt, lenders will be out of business. The central banks charged with maintaining the banking business therefore insist on a "stable currency" at all costs, even if it means slashing services, laying off workers, and soaring debt and interest burdens. For the financial business to continue to boom, governments must not be allowed to create money themselves, either by printing it outright or by borrowing it into existence from their own government-owned banks.

Today this financial goal has largely been achieved. In most countries, 95% or more of the money supply is created by banks as loans (or "credit"). The small portion issued by the government is usually created just to replace lost or worn out bills or coins, not to fund new government programs. Early in the twentieth century, about 30% of the British currency was issued by the government as pounds sterling or coins, versus only about 3% today. In the U.S., only coins are now issued by the government. Dollar bills (Federal Reserve Notes) are issued by the Federal Reserve, which is privately owned by a consortium of banks.

Banks advance the principal but not the interest necessary to pay off their loans; and since bank loans are now virtually the only source of new money in the economy, the interest can only come from additional debt. For the banks, that means business continues to boom; while for the rest of the economy, it means cutbacks, belt-tightening and austerity. Since more must always be paid back than was advanced as credit, however, the system is inherently unstable. When the debt bubble becomes too large to be sustained, a recession or depression is precipitated, wiping out a major portion of the debt and allowing the whole process to begin again. This is called the "business cycle," and it causes markets to vacillate wildly, allowing the monied interests that triggered the cycle to pick up real estate and other assets very cheaply on the down-swing.

The financial sector, which controls the money supply and can easily capture the media, cajoles the populace into compliance by selling its agenda as a "balanced budget," "fiscal responsibility," and saving future generations from a massive debt burden by suffering austerity measures now. Bill Mitchell, Professor of Economics at the University of New Castle in Australia, calls this "deficit terrorism." Bank-created debt becomes more important than schools, medical care or infrastructure. Rather than "providing for the general welfare," the purpose of government becomes to maintain the value of the investments of the government's creditors.
England Dons the Hair Shirt


England's new coalition government has just bought into this agenda, imposing on itself the sort of fiscal austerity that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has long imposed on Third World countries, and has more recently imposed on European countries, including Latvia, Iceland, Ireland and Greece. Where those countries were forced into compliance by their creditors, however, England has tightened the screws voluntarily, having succumbed to the argument that it must pay down its debts to maintain the market for its bonds.

Deficit hawks point ominously to Greece, which has been virtually squeezed out of the private bond market because nobody wants its bonds. Greece has been forced to borrow from the IMF and the European Monetary Union (EMU), which have imposed draconian austerity measures as conditions for the loans. Like a Third World country owing money in a foreign currency, Greece cannot print Euros or borrow them from its own central bank, since those alternatives are forbidden under EMU rules. In a desperate attempt to save the Euro, the European Central Bank recently bent the rules by buying Greek bonds on the secondary market rather than lending to the Greek government directly, but the ECB has said it would "sterilize" these purchases by withdrawing an equivalent amount of liquidity from the market, making the deal a wash. (More on that below.)

Greece is stuck in the debt trap, but the UK is not a member of the EMU. Although it belongs to the European Union, it still trades in its own national currency, which it has the power to issue directly or to borrow from its own central bank. Like all central banks, the Bank of England is a "lender of last resort," which means it can create money on its books without borrowing first. The government owns the Bank of England, so loans from the bank to the government would effectively be interest-free; and as long as the Bank of England is available to buy the bonds that don't get sold on the private market, there need be no fear of a collapse of the value of the UK's bonds.

The "deficit terrorists," however, will have none of this obvious solution, ostensibly because of the fear of "hyperinflation." A June 9 guest post by "Cameroni" on Rick Ackerman's financial website takes this position. Titled "Britain Becomes the First to Choose Deflation," it begins:

David Cameron's new Government in England announced Tuesday that it will introduce austerity measures to begin paying down the estimated one trillion (U.S. value) in debts held by the British Government. . . . [T]hat being said, we have just received the signal to an end to global stimulus measures -- one that puts a nail in the coffin of the debate on whether or not Britain would 'print' her way out of the debt crisis. . . . This is actually a celebratory moment although it will not feel like it for most. . . . Debts will have to be paid. . . . [S]tandards of living will decline . . . [but] it is a better future than what a hyperinflation would bring us all.

Hyperinflation or Deflation?


The dreaded threat of hyperinflation is invariably trotted out to defeat proposals to solve the budget crises of governments by simply issuing the necessary funds, whether as debt (bonds) or as currency. What the deficit terrorists generally fail to mention is that before an economy can be threatened with hyperinflation, it has to pass through simple inflation; and governments everywhere have failed to get to that stage today, although trying mightily. Cameroni observes:

[G]overnments all over the globe have already tried stimulating their way out of the recent credit crisis and recession to little avail. They have attempted fruitlessly to generate even mild inflation despite huge stimulus efforts and pointless spending.

In fact, the money supply has been shrinking at an alarming rate. In a May 26 article in The Financial Times titled "US Money Supply Plunges at 1930s Pace as Obama Eyes Fresh Stimulus," Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writes:

The stock of money fell from $14.2 trillion to $13.9 trillion in the three months to April, amounting to an annual rate of contraction of 9.6pc. The assets of institutional money market funds fell at a 37pc rate, the sharpest drop ever.

"It's frightening," said Professor Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research. "The plunge in M3 has no precedent since the Great Depression. The dominant reason for this is that regulators across the world are pressing banks to raise capital asset ratios and to shrink their risk assets. This is why the US is not recovering properly," he said.

Too much money can hardly have been pumped into an economy in which the money supply is shrinking. But Cameroni concludes that since the stimulus efforts have failed to put needed money back into the money supply, the stimulus program should be abandoned in favor of its diametrical opposite -- belt-tightening austerity. He admits that the result will be devastating:

t will mean a long, slow and deliberate winding down until solvency is within reach. It will mean cities, states and counties will go bankrupt and not be rescued. And it will be painful. Public spending will be cut. Consumption could decline precipitously. Unemployment numbers may skyrocket and bankruptcies will stun readers of daily blogs like this one. It will put the brakes on growth around the world. . . . The Dow will crash and there will be ripple effects across the European union and eventually the globe. . . . Aid programs to the Third world will be gutted, and I cannot yet imagine the consequences that will bring to the poorest people on earth.

But it will be "worth it," says Cameroni, because it beats the inevitable hyperinflationary alternative, which "is just too distressing to consider."

Hyperinflation, however, is a bogus threat, and before we reject the stimulus idea, we might ask why these programs have failed. Perhaps because they have been stimulating the wrong sector of the economy, the non-producing financial middlemen who precipitated the crisis in the first place. Governments have tried to "reflate" their flagging economies by throwing budget-crippling sums at the banks, but the banks have not deigned to pass those funds on to businesses and consumers as loans. Instead, they have used the cheap funds to speculate, buy up smaller banks, or buy safe government bonds, collecting a tidy interest from the very taxpayers who provided them with this cheap bailout money. Indeed, banks are required by their business models to pursue those profits over risky loans. Like all private corporations, they are there not to serve the public interest but to make money for their shareholders.
Seeking Solutions


The alternative to throwing massive amounts of money at the banks is not to further starve and punish businesses and individuals but to feed some stimulus to them directly, with public projects that provide needed services while creating jobs. There are many successful precedents for this approach, including the public works programs of England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, which were funded with government-issued money either borrowed from their central banks or printed directly. The Bank of England was nationalized in 1946 by a strong Labor government that funded the National Health Service, a national railway service, and many other cost-effective public programs that served the economy well for decades afterwards.

In Australia during the current crisis, a stimulus package in which a cash handout was given directly to the people has worked temporarily, with no negative growth (recession) for two quarters, and unemployment held at around 5%. The government, however, borrowed the extra money privately rather than issuing it publicly, out of a misguided fear of hyperinflation. Better would have been to give interest-free credit through its own government-owned central bank to individuals and businesses agreeing to invest the money productively.

The Chinese have done better, expanding their economy at over 9% throughout the crisis by creating extra money that was mainly invested in public infrastructure.

The EMU countries are trapped in a deadly pyramid scheme, because they have abandoned their sovereign currencies for a Euro controlled by the ECB. Their deficits can only be funded with more debt, which is interest-bearing, so more must always be paid back than was borrowed. The ECB could provide some relief by engaging in "quantitative easing" (creating new Euros), but it has insisted it would do so only with "sterilization" -- taking as much money out of the system as it puts back in. The EMU model is mathematically unsustainable and doomed to fail unless it is modified in some way, either by returning economic sovereignty to its member countries, or by consolidating them into one country with one government.

A third possibility, suggested by Professor Randall Wray and Jan Kregel, would be to assign the ECB the role of "employer of last resort," using "quantitative easing" to hire the unemployed at a basic wage.

A fourth possibility would be for member countries to set up publicly-owned "development banks" on the Chinese model. These banks could issue credit in Euros for public projects, creating jobs and expanding the money supply in the same way that private banks do every day when they make loans. Private banks today are limited in their loan-generating potential by the capital requirement, toxic assets cluttering their books, a lack of creditworthy borrowers, and a business model that puts shareholder profit over the public interest. Publicly-owned banks would have the assets of the state to draw on for capital, a clean set of books, a mandate to serve the public, and a creditworthy borrower in the form of the nation itself, backed by the power to tax.

Unlike the EMU countries, the governments of England, the United States, and other sovereign nations can still borrow from their own central banks, funding much-needed programs essentially interest-free. They can but they probably won't, because they have been deceived into relinquishing that sovereign power to an overreaching financial sector bent on controlling the money systems of the world privately and autocratically. Professor Carroll Quigley, an insider groomed by the international bankers, revealed this plan in 1966, writing in Tragedy and Hope:

[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.

Just as the EMU appeared to be on the verge of achieving that goal, however, it has started to come apart at the seams. Sovereignty may yet prevail.

"This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."

Any thoughts on who would organise such "secret meetings"? Perhaps .... Bilderberg??? Any others???

[acrobat74]

The more indebted a government is, the more under control it finds itself.

The game is simple: lure politicians into borrowing heavily to create redundant public sector jobs and offer services the public can't really afford to have.

The people will be happy for a while, but when the bill arrives...

If you're a weak Euro country, you will depend on the whims of the oh-so-enlightened credit rating agencies.

If you're lucky enough to control your own currency, you will inflate the debt away (see historic lows for BoE rates).

And so on and so forth.

[Disco_Destroyer]

all semblance of Democracy in the UK is now dead, the Bank Of England will be taking over the regulatory role of the FSA. So Governance will be totally controlled by our beloved Central Bank!

[item8]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUmQbf1AyA8&[/youtube]

[acrobat74]

^^^ Corbett is a bit populist in this one and mixes a lot of disparate issues.
It's much more preferable to live in the reality of 'within your means' than in the imaginary debt bubble of 'the gov't will take care of us with benefits'.
Too much debt only empowers those who underwrite it. Always has, always will. And too much government leads to big brother.


Here's another guy who's worth reading:

http://www.johnkay.com/2010/06/20/sir-j ... -of-banks/

Sir John Vickers will hear a lot of tosh on separation of banks

20 June 2010, The Independent

The Independent Commission on Banking headed by Sir John Vickers which the coalition Government has established will be told that such a separation between utility and casino can’t be done – although it was done in Britain for most of the 20th century.


The financial services industry is as much part of the national infrastructure as the electricity grid or the water supply. And the financial products that individuals and ordinary businesses outside the finance industry use every day – savings accounts, mortgages and credit cards, overdrafts – are provided by this “utility”.

The past two decades have seen the emergence of large financial conglomerates. In these, the basic functions of a banking system are combined with institutional gambling for high stakes. Traders take large positions in securities markets and may gain or lose large amounts of money, not just from movements in economic fundamentals, like currencies or interest rates, but from differential movements in the prices of assets. Bonuses, which seem incomprehensibly large to ordinary people, come mostly from sharing the profits from these trades, though also from the chunky fees investment bankers charge corporations for advice.

In 2007-8, most financial conglomerates came unstuck. Problems began with losses on assets based on the securitisation of US mortgages. These created doubts about the financial stability of all institutions that had positions in these markets, which meant the supply of all forms of credit simply dried up. Institutions such as RBS, Citigroup and AIG had to be rescued by taxpayers.

Advocates of reform of the trading system do not propose that the casino should be closed down: only that it should be separated from the utility. Supporters of change don’t want to stop trading in complex securities and exotic derivatives – they just want to ensure that the people who do it do it with their own money, or the money of people who have explicitly subscribed for that purpose, and that the cash individuals and businesses deposit at their high street bank is not used to support a gambling habit.

Supporters of change also suspect that the poor service that banks offer has something to do with a basic incompatibility between the service-oriented culture required for customer-oriented retail banking and the buccaneering attitude appropriate to trading. An emphasis on one-off transactions over long-term relationships is the result of the dominance of investment over retail bankers.

The Independent Commission on Banking headed by Sir John Vickers which the coalition Government has established will be told that such a separation between utility and casino can’t be done – although it was done in Britain for most of the 20th century. The commission will be told that if banks can’t gamble with their customers’ money, they won’t be able to give competitive rates of interest, or clear cheques for free. The commission will be told that if the City of London can’t get its hands on people’s savings, it won’t be able to compete in global markets. And the commission will be told that problems like the 2007-8 credit crunch will not recur; better risk management and more effective regulatory supervision will keep the pesky traders in check. We’ll see if Sir John and his colleagues find these arguments more persuasive than I do.

[Disco_Destroyer]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMkXA6kqNsw[/youtube]

The Video BP & Big Oil Don't Want You to See


Ha this seems to back this idea up!!

US approves sanctions against Iran (and countries with companies doing business with Iran)
*Cue Star Wars' Imperial March*Reuters:Congress on Thursday approved tough new unilateral sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, which could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran.The House of Representatives passed the bill 4
source: joshfulton.blogspot

http://networkedblogs.com/5dcY0

[outsider]

'Hall of Infamy'; Cpngressmen and wommen who voted against auditing the Fed:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/mater ... e-List.pdf

[Disco_Destroyer]

Fitting also for War Against Children this one: Welcome to your Slavery!

Baby's first credit card pounded by debt counsellors | The Daily Telegraph
www.dailytelegraph.com.au
A CREDIT card teether for babies has sparked cries of outrage from experts and financial counsellors.


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/money/ ... 5886905363

[item8]

http://www.bushstole04.com/monetarysyst ... _fraud.htm

Use World Currency to Renounce the Debt!

July 5, 2010, By Henry Makow Ph.D.


In upcoming years, cities, states & nations will have one overwhelming choice:

1. Renounce all debt created by bankers out of nothing, or due to compound interest. This is probably 50-80% of all government debt.

2. Or accept the unbearable burden and be willing accomplices in our enslavement and destruction.

The central banking cartel wants a one-world currency. We keep seeing reminders. For example, today we read, "The dollar is an unreliable international currency and should be replaced by a more stable system, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs said in a report released Tuesday."

What if that new currency was not based on central banking cartel (i.e. IMF) debt? What if most of the old debt was abolished?

THE BIG PICTURE

The human experiment is in danger of failure because our forefathers were too weak, feckless or corrupt to get money creation right.

Money has no inherent value. It is a medium of exchange like sea shells or beads. It is simply a convenient method for billions of people to exchange millions of disparate products and services.

Nobody can own a medium of exchange. It must be public.

But a network of private Illuminati families do own it. They produce the medium of exchange in the form of a debt to them. And they charge compound interest on this "debt" created out of thin air. We are being strangled by these debts.

They know this lucrative fraud is unsustainable unless they enslave mankind, mentally and spiritually, if not physically.

These Illuminati banking families have used their position to control all major corporations and governments. Do you know that it takes only 3-4% of shares to control most widely-held corporations? These corporations in turn buy the executives and politicians, pundits and professors that run the world for the bankers.

Everybody in a position of power and influence today is indirectly employed by these dynastic banking families. Their primary role, whether they understand it or not, is to protect the fraudulent credit system. They are traitors and collaborators, and as long as we support them, we are all complicit in our own destruction.

Our perception of reality is controlled by these bankers through ownership of the mass media. We see through "spectacles they arrange on our noses."

ONE LIE IS THE BASIS OF THEM ALL

Mankind is living a lie because our currency is based on a fraud. Our history is really the story of how these bankers have set countries against each other in pointless wars in order to kill our best men and destroy and demoralize humanity. These wars are endemic because they create enormous profits and debts which are used to enslave us.

Illuminati bankers are financing the "insurgents" in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. When will we understand that they have been waging a war on humanity for centuries?

We are being gender neutered in the same way horses are gelded, to be obedient to their owners.

We are being morally degraded, dumbed down and distracted to paralyze us. Many believe we are being poisoned by chem trails, fluoride or by drugs and foods. Certainly our minds and spirits are poisoned by the mass media.

They have unleashed a pernicious satanic conspiracy on humanity in the form of Communism in its many manifestations. Barack Obama and Elena Kagan are Communists. The Illuminati bankers are responsible for assassinating JFK, for 9-11 and probably for the Gulf of Mexico disaster. They are responsible for most of mankind's woes.

To get back on course, we need to nationalize credit and money creation. We need to nationalize banks.

Who should own the medium of exchange, a private cartel or democratic governments?

If the bankers want a new currency, give it to them, as long as it is debt and interest-free and administered by a body that represents the best interests of humanity.

Then mankind can regain its path, and begin to fulfill its amazing promise.
http://www.henrymakow.com/

[item8]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0k2PmF-o5Q&[/youtube]

All the main culprits named.

[item8]

http://www.bollyn.com/slaying-the-debt-spider

Slaying the Debt Spider

July 17, 2010

The webs of deception and debt are controlled by an evil spider that is seldom seen.

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt."
- U.S. President John Adams

"Britain is the slave of an international financial bloc."
- British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, June 20, 1934

"If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning."
- U.S. President Andrew Jackson, 1829

"The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or so dependent upon its favors that there will be no opposition from that class while, on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending…will bear its burdens without complaint."
- The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863

"There is a much larger group behind these [9/11 attacks] which is the international banking cartel which controls trillions of dollars and which has an interest in controlling countries in the Middle East which are not under their control."
- Professor Steven E. Jones on KUER (Salt Lake City's NPR affiliate), September 5, 2006

I have recently been listed in something called the Encyclopedia of American Loons, which is being put together (in alphabetical order) by Ryan Nathaniel Lake, a 33-year-old post-graduate student of philosophy at the University of Miami. Lake, originally from Muskegon, Michigan, lives in Miami Beach and teaches on the virtual college website of Miami Dade College.

By definition, a loon is one of the fish-eating, diving birds of the genus Gavia of northern regions, but "loon" is also used informally to mean a person who "is crazy or deranged", which is apparently how Ryan Lake views me. At the bottom of my entry he provides this "diagnosis".

Diagnosis: Complete loon and master at interpreting the fact that anyone disagrees with him, for whatever reason, as evidence for the truth of his conspiracy theories. Specific impact uncertain, but his views are apparently relatively widespread and must be considered dangerous.

Dangerous to whom? Exactly to whom are my views dangerous? To the American people who are suffering under a mountain of debt and whose loved ones are made to fight an utterly fraudulent war in Afghanistan and Iraq? My views about what happened on 9-11 are based on documented facts and evidence that are in the public domain. The evidence from 9-11, such as the discovery of super-thermite in the dust of the World Trade Center, is certainly dangerous to the Zionist criminals who carried out the false-flag terror attacks and the Elders of Zion from the House of Rothschild who control them, because it liberates us from their web of deception about what really happened - and why.

A large amount of super-thermite was found in the dust of the pulverized World Trade Center. This extremely powerful explosive coating was made using nanotechnology and evidently applied to the floor pans of the Twin Towers. This scientific evidence exposes the government and media explanation of 9-11 as nothing but a pack of lies. Who profits from America's extremely costly wars in the Middle East? Ask the Rothschild Debt Spider.

Although he is clearly hostile to my thesis, Lake does a fair job summing it up:

9-11 was the product of a Zionist conspiracy (in particular organized by the Rothschild family) – the Zionist conspiracy that controls the US government and media. They have also infiltrated the Senate, as shown by Bollyn’s razor-sharp and fearless investigations, e.g. “Arlen Specter - The Elder of Zion in the U.S. Senate”. Henry Kissinger is at the top of the conspiracy, and “still a key player in the crimocracy as seen by the conspicuous fact that he was sent by the new Obama administration to meet with the leadership of Russia, although the nominal Secretary of State was Hillary Clinton.” I guess you can’t argue with evidence like that.

SLAYING THE DEBT SPIDER

The second part of "The Coming American Revolution" will be my next article. It may be titled "Slaying the Spider" because it will deal with identifying the spider which has woven the web of deception and debt in which we find ourselves and our nation(s) trapped.

The American people are clearly enraged by the Rothschild criminal "banksters" and their corruption of the government and media monopoly. Even the most conservative Encyclopedia Britannica article on the Rothschild family describes it as a criminal enterprise.

Americans are deeply enraged and the revolutionary zeal is clearly palpable. The U.S. population was against the bail-out of Zionist banksters 1,000 to 1, but public opinion didn't slow down the trillion dollar transfer of wealth to the criminals for one minute. How do we wage a revolution if we don't even know who we are fighting against? We need to know exactly who the enemy is before we can take effective action of any kind.

Our American republic is in an extreme debt crisis that has been caused by the Rothschild bankers who control the world by controlling the money supply and keeping the governments of the world in deep debt. Ellen Hodgson Brown, the author of an excellent book entitled The Web of Debt, says this about the coming revolution in the chapter "Stepping from Scarcity into Abundance":

Wars, competition and strife are the inevitable results of this scarcity-driven system. The obvious solution is to eliminate the parasitic banking scheme that is feeding on the world's prosperity. But how? The Witches of Wall Street are not likely to release their vice-like grip without some sort of revolution, and a violent revolution would probably fail, because the world's most feared military machine is already in the hands of the money cartel. Violent revolution would just furnish them with an excuse to test their equipment.

I agree with Ellen Brown, who refers to the familiar Wizard of Oz allegory throughout her most readable work, that it is the Debt Spider that must be vanquished. Our nation(s) and our lives are stuck fast in a very sticky web of debt while our minds are trapped tightly in the controlled-media web of deception. These webs both belong to a spider that remains out of sight. Although we can see those who are caught in the web, we don't see the spider.

In the allegorical Wizard of Oz, the courageous Lion killed the great spider, who symbolizes the head of the international banking cartel: "With one blow of his heavy paw, all armed with sharp claws, he knocked the spider's head from its body."

To free ourselves from the ocean of debt that is drowning our nation and killing prosperity we must kill the Debt Spider. How is the Rothschild debt spider to be slain in the real world?

Hans Schicht, author of "The Death of Banking and Macro Politics", explains how:

If prime ministers and presidents would only be blessed with the most basic knowledge of the perversity of banking, they would not go onto their knees to the Central Banker and ask His Highness for loans…With a little bit of brains they would expropriate all banking institutions.

The first banking institution that needs to be nationalized is the Federal Reserve System. To return the control over the supply and value of money to the U.S. government is the only realistic solution to the debt crisis.

As financial writer John Hoefle wrote:

This is not an academic question, as the Fed is actively involved in looting the American population for the benefit of giant U.S. and global financial institutions, and the global casino. Few Americans have any idea the extent to which the Fed and its system reach into their pockets on a daily basis, and the extent to which their standard of living has been eroded by the financier-led deindustrialization of the United States.

VULTURE CAPITALISM

Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee filed a Petition for Articles of Impeachment against the Federal Reserve Board in 1934. He told Congress:

This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.

The struggle between the people of the United States and the House of Rothschild is older than the American republic. The Rothschild banking cartel and its desire to control the money supply was actually behind the American Revolution of 1776, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. This same international banking cartel is certainly behind the current debt crisis and the costly wars in the Middle East, which are the root causes of the revolutionary fervor in America today. The coming revolution is not against the U.S. government per se but should be targeted against the specific agent which has corrupted our government. As Ellen Brown says, "What has allowed government to become corrupted today is that it is actually run by the money cartel."

William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic candidate for the presidency in 1896, won the nomination with his famous "Cross of Gold" speech, in which he aimed his criticism squarely at the international banking cartel. Bryan explained the problem - and the solution - in plain English:

I stand with Jefferson…and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business...when we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, and...until that is done there is no reform that can be accomplished.

[item8]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNtIsSWVJBI&[/youtube]

[item8]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ&[/youtube]

[Thermate911]

Yep, that is a very effective clip and well inside the attention span of even the most fluoride damaged.

Here's an interesting facet recently come to light:-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 89x9025200

"Gold 2008! JP Morgan Fixes Prices and the Saudis Snag 180 Tons, Cheap"

Briefly, the author of this article believes that the Banksters at JP Morgan and HSBC conspired to keep down gold prices for a few months in 2008. Why? So they could steal more of our money. Though demand for the metal was high all through 2008, and the supply was low, the price fell and remained artificially depressed.

You don’t believe that JP Morgan would or could manipulate the precious metals market? Here is a whistleblower who described how they do it earlier this year:

http://www.gata.org/node/8466

[acrobat74]

Inside Job trailer (out in Oct 2010 in the US):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_%28film%29

Take a look at the 'Press Kit' link on the official site of the film:
http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzrBurlJUNk[/youtube]


Gillian Tett from the FT talks about the key role JP Morgan played in the debt markets before the tsunami struck (she refers to the relevant people as 'the Morgan mafia'):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HKEDmNjOII&NR=1[/youtube]

[Disco_Destroyer]

Keiser Report №74: Attacking Bilderberg

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M6Cmz7dQVs[/youtube]

[acrobat74]

The bankers' victory dance

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ments=true

[item8]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsk4An54bmQ&[/youtube]

[TonyGosling]

Businessman furious at banks' refusal to lend bricks up Barclays branch in protest

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... otest.html

[item8]

Whatever next?? The Telegraph coming out as a 9/11 truther??

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/am ... l-reserve/

Time to shut down the US Federal Reserve?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has covered world politics and economics for 25 years, based in Europe, the US, and Latin America. He joined the Telegraph in 1991, serving as Washington correspondent and later Europe correspondent in Brussels. He is now International Business Editor in London.


By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Economics Last updated: June 29th, 2010

Like a mad aunt, the Fed is slowly losing its marbles.

Kartik Athreya, senior economist for the Richmond Fed, has written a paper condemning economic bloggers as chronically stupid and a threat to public order.

Matters of economic policy should be reserved to a priesthood with the correct post-doctoral credentials, which would of course have excluded David Hume, Adam Smith, and arguably John Maynard Keynes (a mathematics graduate, with a tripos foray in moral sciences).

Adam Smith didn't have an economics PhD

“Writers who have not taken a year of PhD coursework in a decent economics department (and passed their PhD qualifying exams), cannot meaningfully advance the discussion on economic policy.”

Don’t you just love that throw-away line “decent”? Dr Athreya hails from the University of Iowa.

“The response of the untrained to the crisis has been startling. The real issue is that there is an extremely low likelihood that the speculations of the untrained, on a topic almost pathologically riddled by dynamic considerations and feedback effects, will offer anything new. Moreover, there is a substantial likelihood that it will instead offer something incoherent or misleading.”

You couldn’t make it up, could you?

“Economics is hard. Really hard. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mind-boggingly hard it is. I mean you may think doing the Sunday Times crossword is difficult, but that’s just peanuts to economics. And because it is so hard, people shouldn’t blithely go shooting their mouths off about it, and pretending like it’s so easy. In fact, we would all be better off if we just ignored these clowns.”

I hold my hand up Dr Athreya and plead guilty. I am grateful to Bruce Krasting’s blog for bringing this stinging rebuke to my attention.

However, Dr Athreya’s assertions cannot be allowed to pass. The current generation of economists have led the world into a catastrophic cul de sac. And if they think we are safely on the road to recovery, they still fail to understand what they did.

Central banks were the ultimate authors of the credit crisis since it is they who set the price of credit too low, throwing the whole incentive structure of the capitalist system out of kilter, and more or less forcing banks to chase yield and engage in destructive behaviour.

They ran ever-lower real interests with each cycle, allowed asset bubbles to run unchecked (Ben Bernanke was the cheerleader of that particular folly), blamed Anglo-Saxon over-consumption on excess Asian savings (half true, but still the silliest cop-out of all time), and believed in the neanderthal doctrine of “inflation targeting”. Have they all forgotten Keynes’s cautionary words on the “tyranny of the general price level” in the early 1930s? Yes they have.

They allowed the M3 money supply to surge at double-digit rates (16pc in the US and 11pc in euroland), and are now allowing it to collapse (minus 5.5pc in the US over the last year). Have they all forgotten the Friedman-Schwartz lessons on the quantity theory of money? Yes, they have. Have they forgotten Irving Fisher’s “Debt Deflation causes of Great Depressions”? Yes, most of them have. And of course, they completely failed to see the 2007-2009 crisis coming, or to respond to it fast enough when it occurred.

The Fed has since made a hash of quantitative easing, largely due to Bernanke’s ideological infatuation with “creditism”. QE has been large enough to horrify everybody (especially the Chinese) by its sheer size – lifting the balance sheet to $2.4 trillion – but it has been carried out in such a way that it does not gain full traction. This is the worst of both worlds. So much geo-political capital wasted to such modest and distorting effect.

The error was for the Fed to buy the bonds from the banking system (and we all hate the banks, don’t we) rather than going straight to the non-bank private sector. How about purchasing a herd of Texas Longhorn cattle? That would do it. The inevitable result of this is a collapse of money velocity as banks allow their useless reserves to swell.

And now the Fed tells us all to shut up. Fie to you sir.

The 20th Century was a horrible litany of absurd experiments and atrocities committed by intellectuals, or by elite groupings that claimed a higher knowledge. Simple folk usually have enough common sense to avoid the worst errors. Sometimes they need to take very stern action to stop intellectuals leading us to ruin.

The root error of the modern academy is to pretend (and perhaps believe, which is even less forgiveable), that economics is a science and answers to Newtonian laws.

In any case, Newton was wrong. He neglected the fourth dimension of time, as Einstein called it, and that is exactly what the new classical school of economics has done by failing to take into account the intertemporal effects of debt – now 360pc of GDP across the OECD bloc, if properly counted.

There has been a cosy self-delusion that rising debt is largely benign because it is merely money that society owes to itself. This is a bad error of judgement, one that the intuitive man in the street can see through immediately.

Debt draws forward prosperity, which leads to powerful overhang effects that are not properly incorporated into Fed models. That is the key reason why Ben Bernanke’s Fed was caught flat-footed when the crisis hit, and kept misjudging it until the events started to spin out of control.

Economics should never be treated as a science. Its claims are not falsifiable, which is why economists can disagree so violently among themselves: a rarer spectacle in science, where disputes are usually resolved one way or another by hard data.

It is a branch of anthropology and psychology, a moral discipline if you like. Anybody who loses sight of this is a public nuisance, starting with Dr Athreya.

As for the Fed, I venture to say that a common jury of 12 American men and women placed on the Federal Open Market Committee would have done a better job of setting monetary policy over the last 20 years than Doctors Bernanke and Greenspan.

Actually, Greenspan never got a Phd. His honourary doctorate was awarded later for political reasons. (He had been a Nixon speech-writer). But never mind.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/am ... d-part-ii/

Shut Down the Fed (Part II)

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Economics Last updated: September 27th, 2010

I apologise to readers around the world for having defended the emergency stimulus policies of the US Federal Reserve, and for arguing like an imbecile naif that the Fed would not succumb to drug addiction, political abuse, and mad intoxicated debauchery, once it began taking its first shots of quantitative easing.

My pathetic assumption was that Ben Bernanke would deploy further QE only to stave off DEFLATION, not to create INFLATION. If the Federal Open Market Committee cannot see the difference, God help America.

We now learn from last week’s minutes that the Fed is willing “to provide additional accommodation if needed to … return inflation, over time, to levels consistent with its mandate.”

NO, NO, NO, this cannot possibly be true.

Ben Bernanke has not only refused to abandon his idee fixe of an “inflation target”, a key cause of the global central banking catastrophe of the last twenty years (because it can and did allow asset booms to run amok, and let credit levels reach dangerous extremes).

Worse still, he seems determined to print trillions of emergency stimulus without commensurate emergency justification to test his Princeton theories, which by the way are as old as the hills. Keynes ridiculed the “tyranny of the general price level” in the early 1930s, and quite rightly so. Bernanke is reviving a doctrine that was already shown to be bunk eighty years ago.
Inflation targeting: is Bernanke the new Von Havenstein, head of the Weimar Reichsbank?

So all those hillsmen in Idaho, with their Colt 45s and boxes of krugerrands, who sent furious emails to the Telegraph accusing me of defending a hyperinflating establishment cabal were right all along. The Fed is indeed out of control.

The sophisticates at banking conferences in London, Frankfurt, and New York who aplogized for this primitive monetary creationsim – as I did – are the ones who lost the plot.

My apologies. Mercy, for I have sinned against sound money, and therefore against sound politics.

I stick to my view that Friedmanite QE ‘a l’outrance‘ is legitimate to prevent a collapse of the M3 broad money supply, and to prevent outright deflation in economies with total debt levels near or above 300pc of GDP. Not in any circumstances, but where necessary, and where conducted properly by purchasing bonds outside the banking system (not the same as Bernanke “creditism”).

The dangers of tipping into a debt compound trap – as described by Irving Fisher in Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depresssions in 1933 – outweigh the risk of an expanded money stock catching fire and setting off an inflation surge later. Debt deflation is a toxic process that can and does destroy societies as well as economies. You do not trifle with it.

But deliberately creating inflation “consistent” with the Fed’s mandate – implicitly to erode debt – is another matter. Nor can this be justified at this particular juncture. M3 has been leveling out. M2 has begun to rise briskly. The velocity of money has picked up. The M1 monetary mulitplier has jumped.

We have a very odd world. The IMF has doubled its global growth forecast to 4.5pc this year, and authorities everywhere have ruled out a serious risk of a double dip recession.

Yet at the same time the Bank of Japan has embarked on unsterilised currency intervention, which amounts to stimulus, and both the Fed and the Bank of England are signalling fresh QE.

You can’t have it both ways. If the US is not in deep trouble, the Fed should not be thinking of extra QE. It should step back and let the economy heal itself, if necessary enduring several years of poor growth to purge excess leverage.

Yes, U6 unemployment is 16.7pc. But as dissenters at the Minneapolis Fed remind us, you cannot solve a structural unemployment crisis with loose money.

Fed is trying to conjure away the hangover from the last binge (which Greenspan/Bernanke caused, let us not forget), as if to vindicate its prior claim that you can always clean up painlessly after asset bubbles.

Are the Chinese right? Are the Americans and the British now so decadent that they will refuse to take their punishment, opting to default on their debts by stealth?

Sooner or later we may learn what the Fed’s hawkish bloc of Fisher, Lacker, Plosser, Hoenig, Warsh, and Kocherlakota really think about this latest lurch into monetary la la land, with all that it implies for moral hazard and debt contracts.

If I have written harsh words about these heroic resisters, I apologise for that too.

[acrobat74]

Most journalists and commentators know and understand what's happening, they're just not eager to make their views known publicly as they depend on the system for subsistence/survival.

Here's what a Guardian commentator posted the other day during a discussion about the banking system:

Truth be told we already have authoritarian capitalist dictatorship...although it's still bolted onto a faux-democracy so it appears to the casual observer as being otherwise...banks already do own governments...

Regarding Niall Ferguson: a section in his 'Ascent of money' covers the credit creation process in some detail.
He doesn't of course discuss the political repercussions of this.

Here's an email exchange we had earlier this year:

Dear Dr. Ferguson,

I hope you are well.

“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.”

This quote by Galbraith came to my mind as I read how you described the fractional-reserve money creation process in the first chapters of your otherwise excellent book.
Personally, I find it hard to describe the process as anything other than legal counterfeiting, pure and simple.



from Niall Ferguson <xxxxxx@fas.harvard.edu>
date Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:38 AM
subject RE: Regarding your 'Ascent of money'
mailed-by fas.harvard.edu
signed-by fas.harvard.edu

Feb 20

Well, I tried my best to keep it simple …

Best wishes,
Niall.

Finally, here's an interesting insight from another commentator:

Regarding the Bank of England:

A little preliminary research reveals muddied waters. now there's a surprise!

Here's what wikipedia says:

In 1977, the Bank set up a wholly owned subsidiary called Bank of England Nominees Limited, (BOEN), a private limited company, with 2 of its 100 £1 shares issued.

According to its Memorandum & Articles of Association, its objectives are:

- “To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them….”

Bank of England Nominees Limited was granted an exemption by Edmund Dell, Secretary of State for Trade, from the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 , because,

“it was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders.”

The Bank of England is also protected by its Royal Charter status, and the Official Secrets Act.

Here's what the BoE said themselves in 2008:

The Bank is a public sector institution, wholly-owned by the government, but accountable to Parliament

Seems very clear but note the word "bank".

Are they being clever with words?

What is this Bank of England Nominees Limited why was it created as a subsidiary & who owns it?

If they won't say who owns it it must be pretty important. I smell an FOI issue bubbling up here.
Why would the subsidiary of a central bank be so secretive?


Interestingly Mervyn King appears amenable to reform of fractional reserve banking see
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/2010/08 ... e-banking/

Second, you suggest that banks should be forced to conform to the underlying purpose of the 1844 Bank Reform Act.

You might be aware that I have said publicly that I think ideas in this spirit – such as those advocated by John Kay – certainly merit serious consideration in the debate as to how we reform our financial system.

I remain sympathetic to these views.

But as I said in my previous letter, I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the Banking commission’s deliberations. Now the Commission has been set up, I think we all should wait to see its conclusions.”

The 1844 Bank Charter Act (‘Reform’ is a typo) was a piece of legislation that prohibited commercial banks from printing paper notes (£1, £5, £10 and so on). Before this law was passed, banks were permitted to print as many paper notes as they wanted, up to the point where they printed too many and went bankrupt (as everyone cashed in their paper notes at once).


Also, this looks very interesting:

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/2010/09 ... e-banking/

Douglas Carswell's UK banking reform bill, first reading (2010-09-15)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGr-OuXihg[/youtube]

[item8]

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/fo ... ead=183812

Federal Reserve Note to be Devalued in Next Few Days - Stock in Food NOW

Posted By: Rayelan. Date: Wednesday, 29-Sep-2010 13:56:50

Note from Rayelan:

This arrived from one my long time friends who never passes on info unless he's pretty sure it's true.

Folks,

In the last 24 hours I have had reports that the Government is about to devalue the Federal Reserve Note in the next several days. If the information I received is correct then the reduction is going to be major, approximately 10% of its present value.

If this happens there will be major increases in the cost of food, gasoline and almost everything that is real product, not paper. Therefore I recommend that you consider buying some food ahead of this change. That means that you need to do it today or at the latest tomorrow.

Obviously this could be an error, but I do know that the 82nd Airborne has been put on 18 hour alert for deployment in this country and that I have verified. The only reason I can see to do that is to help control populations in big cities where we could see major rioting. At the time I first found out about that I could not figure out why, but this currency change could be the explanation.

In any case being prepared with some additional food is wise I believe. Most of us can't do anything about the fuel cost, but we can do what we can with the other things that are going to change in price if this devaluation occurs.

Dave

[item8]

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/man-wh ... pression-2

Man Who Listened To Fred Mishkin's Advice, Will Be First To Be Criminally Charged For Great Depression 2

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/28/2010 15:14 -0500

The place where the global crisis, culminating as a result of 30 years of cheap money, began, Iceland, may well be the place which sees the first ever criminal conviction stemming from the Depression v2. Globe and Mail reports that Iceland's former prime minister has been referred to a special court, which could make him the first world leader to be charged in connection with the global financial crisis.

Lawmakers voted 33-30 to refer charges against former prime minister Geir Haarde for allegedly failing to prevent Iceland's 2008 financial crash that toppled the government, brought protests and crippled the national currency.

The special court has never before been convened. The court handles cases in which the parliament, the Althingi, decides to act against ministers on their handling of duties.

Mr. Haarde, former prime minister and ex-leader of Independence Party, is no longer in parliament. He did not run in the 2009 elections.

Iceland, a volcanic island with a population of just 320,000, went from economic wunderkind to fiscal basket case almost overnight when the credit crunch took hold.

After dizzying economic growth that saw banks and companies in this tiny Nordic nation snap up assets around the world for a decade, the global financial crisis wreaked political and economic havoc in Iceland. Its banks collapsed within a week in October, 2008.

Frankly we couldn't care less about Mr. Haarde. We are confident he will get his just deserts. What we would like to know is when will someone finally charge his "advisor", former New York Fed, and current Columbia professor Fred Mishkin, in the Hague, for hate crimes against world leverage, and for providing precisely the advice followed by the Iceland PM, that resulted in not just the collapse of the tiny Volcano-riddled country, but was the first domino to set off the discovery that all of the European periphery is now completely and totally insolvent. We refer of course to Mr. Mishkin's 2006 report "Financial Stability in Iceland" in which the then-Fed member observes: "The economy has already adjusted to financial liberalization, which was already completed a long time ago, while prudential regulation and supervision is generally quite strong." Less than two years later the country was bankrupt.

For much more on Mishkin's involvement in the financial crisis, we can not recommend enough the upcoming movie Inside Job, which destroys not only Napoloen Dynamite Sr.'s reputation, but that of his current boss, the Dean of Columbia Business School, one Glenn Hubbard, in a way that has to be seen to be believed.

The clip below is from Inside Job.

Visit link above to view video clip

[acrobat74]

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/man-wh ... pression-2

The clip is from Inside Job.

Visit link above to view video clip

And what an excellent clip it is. Astounding.

'Inside job' looks really good.

[item8]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oc ... protesters

Iceland's politicians forced to flee from angry protesters

Thousands take to the streets of Reykjavik as anger erupts over the impact of the financial crisis

Jill Treanor, guardian.co.uk, Friday 1 October 2010 20.12 BST

Protesters took to the streets of Reykjavik today, forcing MPs to run away from the people they represent as renewed anger about the impact of the financial crisis erupted in Iceland.

The violent protest came amid growing fury at austerity measures being imposed across Europe. Disruption in more than a dozen countries this week included a national strike in Spain and a cement truck driven into the Irish parliament's gates.

Witnesses said up to 2,000 people caused chaos at the state opening of the Icelandic parliament, with politicians forced to race to the back door of the building because of the large number of protesters at the front. Eggs were said to have hit the prime minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, other MPs and the wife of the Icelandic president, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson.

Árni Páll Árnason, the minister of economics affairs, who was caught up in the protests, said: "We have a difficult economic situation and this is something to be expected in a democratic country."

A UN agency has warned of growing social unrest because of a long "labour market recession" that could last until 2015. The International Labour Organisation revised down its forecast and estimated that 22m new jobs were needed to return to levels before the banking crisis.

Juan Somavía, director general of the ILO, said social cohesion would be at risk, adding: "Governments should not have to choose between the demands of financial markets and the needs of their citizens."

The protests came in the same week as demonstrations in Greece, Portugal, Slovenia and Lithuania.

According to the writer Hallgrímur Helgason, anger has flared in Iceland because of the increasing numbers losing their homes and fury that only the former prime minister Geir Haarde has been charged with negligence over the financial crisis. The parliament voted this week to charge Haarde, who has said he is confident he will be vindicated, but not three others facing similar charges.

Iceland was at the centre of the financial crisis and took out loans from the International Monetary Fund and its Nordic neighbours after the collapse of three main banks in 2008.

Birgitta Jónsdóttir, one of three MPs to join the protesters, said: "There is a realisation that the IMF is going to wipe out our middle classes."

Árnason said that while the economy was still difficult, the government was convinced it was taking the correct measures to put the county on track for a balanced budget by 2012. "We expect 3.2% growth next year and we believe unemployment has peaked at 8.3%," he said.