Tuesday, September 30, 2014
   
Text Size

Search our Site or Google

The Cheque-Kiting Economy

Articles & Blogs - US Commentary

User Rating: / 11
PoorBest 

To date, I and every other economic commentator have failed dismally in our efforts to communicate the insane manner in which all Western economies have been mismanaged (and effectively bankrupted). Specifically, we have failed to convey to the average person the inherent fraud of the Western (and now global) monetary system.

The reason for this failure is obvious. Decades of saturation-brainwashing have programmed the ordinary person to regard our current monetary system as “normal”, or even “proper”. Thus any efforts to explain this fraud have been doomed to failure. What is needed is a real-world analogy to pierce this brainwashing, and fortunately such a perfect analogy already exists: “kiting” cheques.

Most people are familiar with this colloquialism, as it is an expression which is frequently encountered along-side another, ever more present Western colloquialism: “deadbeat”. Deadbeats kite cheques – it’s as natural to them as breathing. They write one (bad) cheque to supposedly “cover” another one. And as long as people are foolish enough to accept cheques from a deadbeat, the deadbeat can continue to delay his (or her) own bankruptcy.

Since Western economies went off of the gold standard and began a new era of permanent deficits, all Western economies have been “cheque-kiting economies”. The only way in which all of these economies have been able to delay their own bankruptcy is by “kiting” ever larger cheques.

There are literally only two differences between how Western governments kite cheques versus how ordinary deadbeats do so. First of all, unlike the average deadbeat, our governments are literally able to get away with writing cheques to themselves. Indeed, that is the exact process for creating every single “dollar” of our worthless paper currencies.

Our government “writes a cheque” to its own central bank – with absolutely nothing to back/cover the cheque – the central bank hands our government “money” (i.e. worthless fiat currency which they print out of thin air), and suddenly everyone is “rich”. Without our governments kiting these cheques, and without our governments “conjuring money” out of thin air every Western economy would have already been bankrupted decades earlier. However, as horrible/fraudulent as this monetary system has been for all of these years, our crooked and fiscally irresponsible governments have literally made their fraud ten times worse since the Crash of ’08 and the creation of a new bankster euphemism: “quantitative easing”.

Understand that in previous years our governments retained enough of a shred of integrity to try to hide their cheque-kiting, that is they managed to dupe all of the idiot-economists into believing that their new “monetary model” of creating all of our “money” from debt was economically valid. In other words, they convinced the idiot-economists that it was somehow “different” when our governments kited cheques versus an ordinary deadbeat endeavouring to do so. All that has changed with quantitative easing.

Quantitative easing” is nothing but openly and shamelessly cheque-kiting. Instead of our governments quietly writing a series of (small) bad cheques to themselves to cover each year’s incremental deficit; our criminal central banks and morally/intellectually bankrupt governments trumpet the news that they are kiting huge cheques to (supposedly) “fund economic expansion”.

In this one respect the politicians and banksters have been totally transparent: they are kiting these cheques (to themselves) to “create money”, at which point they take all of this funny-money and go around buying-up assets to drive up prices, and supposedly generate economic growth through what they absurdly call a “wealth effect”.

Here again we see the deadbeat mentality of bankster and politician alike clearly on display. Only the most ignorant or shameless deadbeat could actually assert that you can “create wealth” by kiting cheques. Rather, all that can be created by kiting cheques are Ponzi-schemes: pumping up a particular asset or market with bogus flows of “money”.

Obviously with any/all deadbeats there comes a time (usaually in a matter of days) when the fraud (and resultant Ponzi-scheme) collapses, the deadbeat is exposed to the world – and no one ever trusts the deadbeat again in terms of accepting any of their “credit”.

This brings us to the second difference between the ordinary deadbeat and Western deadbeat-governments (and deadbeat-bankers): unlike the ordinary deadbeat, the government/banker deadbeats are allowed to make up their own rules. And thus we have the Western monetary system: a regime where cheque-kiting is not only perfectly legal, but is deemed the only “proper” manner in which to finance economies. Because the fat-cat deadbeats can make up their own rules, and call their fraud, cheque-kiting, and Ponzi-schemes “legitimate banking”, this is the only reason they have been able to delay the fate of all deadbeats – bankruptcy and disgrace.

So why have all these $trillions which were printed to (supposedly) generate “economic growth” done absolutely nothing to “stimulate” these deadbeat-economies? Because the banksters and politicians have been lying to us, as usual. In fact none of this quantitative easing was ever intended to “create economic growth”. Indeed as the writers of all of these bad-cheques, no one knows better than the banksters and politicians that you can’t simply invent “wealth” out of thin air.

The real purpose of all these $trillions was to prop-up the hopelessly insolvent big-banks. This is why every penny of these trillions has been funneled directly through the banking oligopolies. However our puppet-governments aren’t funneling these $trillions through the criminal banking syndicate to make them rich. Rather, they are trying to “re-inflate” the banksters’ Ponzi-schemes which have already been rendered worthless by their reckless gambling. It is the economic equivalent of “trying to put Humpty-Dumpty together again” – and naturally it has failed.

All the big-banks remain hopelessly insolvent, and if/when they are ever taken off their monetary life-support they will fold as fast as an umbrella in a hurricane. But there is one (tiny) group that is getting fatter and richer off of all this quantitative easing: the bond parasites. In precisely the same manner in which water can be relied upon to flow downhill, all Western economies have been economically “tilted” so that all wealth flows into the pockets of these shadowy billionaires and trillionaires – who have dubbed themselves “The Pilgrims”.

While our criminal bankers and puppet-governments have bankrupted themselves as a consequence of their greed, corruption, and gross incompetence; all of the rest of us have been squeezed dry by a fundamentally flawed form of taxation: income taxation. As I have explained on many previous occasions, as a necessary fact of arithmetic all income-taxation systems will (over time) transfer all of the wealth of a society into the hoards of the ultra-wealthy – The Pilgrims.

Consequently, our governments have been rendered structurally insolvent by this combination of serial theft (by taxation) and gross economic mismanagement. With all of the wealth having been squeezed out of the bottom 80% there is no level of government services/spending which could ever be funded out of tax revenues from the bottom-80%. You can’t “tax” wealth which does not exist. Thus the reason why our puppet-governments in North America have not even tried to begin moving toward a “balanced budget” is that the only possible source of revenue which could close these structural deficits is through taxing the $100+ trillion being hoarded by The Pilgrims, but sadly our traitor-governments refuse to tax the wealth of their Masters..

Indeed, Europe provides the empirical proof for this assertion: the more “austerity” that Greece’s traitor-government imposed on the bottom-80%, the more the economy shrank – and the larger its deficits got. This form of economic fascism (popularized by the demonic Milton Friedman) has consistently destroyed economies around the world for 40 years. And once Europe’s cheque-kiting Ponzi-schemes have finished imploding, we’re next.

Trackback(0)
Comments (36)Add Comment
 1 2 > 
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, January 26, 2012
Jeff,

My question was intended to elicit your comment on the proper use of publicly owned banks over debt to private banks for money creation. I just threw in the link to the court case as back ground info.

Could you revisit this question interpreted as above?


Brian, one of the MANY "big lies" from the right is that the private sector "always" does things better than government.

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The number #1 reason that government is GENERALLY inefficient in performing functions is because it is a big, bloated behemoth.

In past ERAS, our private corporations were NOT "big, bloated behemoths". However, that has all changed over the past 25 years. Now roughly 90% of the global economy is dominated by oligopolies and monopolies - i.e. big, bloated behemoths - which are GROSSLY inefficient and provide ZERO economic benefit for society.

So YES, having "public banking" (where the PROFITS go to the people) is about ONE MILLION times better than allowing these parasitic, financial Oligarchs to blood-suck the global economy dry...
uxhamby
...
written by uxhamby, January 25, 2012
Jeff,

My question was intended to elicit your comment on the proper use of publicly owned banks over debt to private banks for money creation. I just threw in the link to the court case as back ground info.

Could you revisit this question interpreted as above?

Thanks,

Brian H.
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, January 19, 2012
Thanks for the link Brian! I think any/all initiatives like this are WONDERFUL examples of the sort of bottom-up "democracy" that is necessary to regain control of our own governments.

That said, I must honestly say that I think the legal action has little chance of success. Given the level of corruption already present in the Canadian political system, I can't see an action of this nature being ALLOWED to succeed.

Instead, it's value is in "consciousness-raising". The ONLY way that we can ever rouse the MAJORITY into rejecting the fascist political model which now exists ACROSS the West is via making noise - continuing to EXPOSE the perversions of democracy and our economies now taking place.
uxhamby
...
written by uxhamby, January 19, 2012
Hi Jeff,

I was wondering if you could expand your piece abit to talk about the impact of aspects like the pre 1974 use of the Bank of Canada per the Bank of Canada act (http://www.globalresearch.ca/i...&aid=28292) and the Bank of North Dakota and their impact if any on the situation you describe. I will read with interest.

Thanks and best regards,


Brian H.
bobbbny
...
written by bobbbny, January 17, 2012
Pat wrote:

Since banknotes have so drastically depreciated from their original market worth, when we convert them in real physical terms, to their true present equitable expression, the material involved in such conversion is amazingly negligable. For example, in the American case, the original 1912 Dollar was represented by 100 copper cents. As the banknote now stands at 3% of its original market worth in purchase power, the appropriate conversion of the present American banknote is expressed with a 10 gram copper piece. There is enough domestic copper inventory (ignoring 'scrap' altogether), to replace every single note and electronic digit ... with copper to spare.

Since the depreciation engendered by the fractional central banking system is clearly acknowledged by all, whether by design or by necessity (I scoff at the latter), what we see here is nothing other than an attempt to immortalize it by another round of devaluation, and an inevitable repeat of Greshams Law.

The Coinage act of 1792 decreed that a US cent shall be 1.7 grams of copper, or 100 cents equaling 170 grams of copper. Since copper is transacted in standard measure, that is 10.625 ounces per dollar.
At todays price of $3.65 per pound of copper, that would mean replacing each dollar with $1.50 worth of copper, an instant 50% inflation.
Notwithstanding the difficulties and impracticality of this, it is better than this proposal.

The above proposal would replace each dollar with an arbitrary 10 grams of copper, absurdly valuing copper at $49 per pound, and presenting a Gresham tidal wave that would drive down both the value of copper, but also of the US dollar, to a fraction of the newly minted value.
This would be an instant hyper inflationary event, and a global catastrophe.

This is where the true value of gold & silver can be found.
Rejecting the absurd currency revaluation suggested above does not preclude one from finding the true value of the historic repositories of wealth, gold and silver.

Using only the available data for the M2 money supply, it can be shown that at a price a little above $10,000 per ounce, a convertible, sound currency could be created.
Silver would find its own ratio, determined by the market, and by whether or not it was monetized.

As for all the unbacked fiat, data entry "money", derivatives, et al, let them work that out amongst themselves.
Dylan
...
written by Dylan, January 17, 2012
Mr Nielson, it breaks my heart to have to point out to you my obvious superior intellect and reveal the solution. The global debt could easily be paid off with ......ELECTRONS! Yes, enough electrons exist in the universe to easily pay off this meagre amount and MOST importantly the EXISTING superstructure can stay intact and nobody`s head has to leave their shoulders.
Oh no! Wait a moment, fiat money is already backed by electrons. Ah, however, waffle, waffle, pseudo-intellectual babble, blah, blah.
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, January 17, 2012
Nice try Pat!

1) Copper is not/could not ever be "good money". http://www.bullionbullscanada....Itemid=147
Simply finding ANOTHER material for your currency which can be DEBASED almost as much as paper is obviously NOT a "solution".

2) The simple fact that we can FIND substances abundant enough to REPRESENT our mountains of insolvent debt by no means implies that you have "backed" those debts. LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Presumably if our debts were already in the QUADRILLIONS rather than trillions you would be arguing we could "make ourselves solvent" by switching to ZINC as "money" (lol!!!).

3) There is no plausible UNIVERSE where the (roughly) $14 trillion U.S. economy can SERVICE a $200+ TRILLION mountain of debts/liabilities, thus if you want to portray yourself as a SERIOUS commentator you must talk about the POST-DEFAULT U.S. economy.
Pat Fields
...
written by Pat Fields, January 17, 2012
Mr. Nielson, sadly I'm afraid I have to raise another matter in opposition. I rather contend that all debt is payable, both on the 'national' level and, in due course, on the private level as well. Moreover, that this can be accomplished within a matter of months.

Since banknotes have so drastically depreciated from their original market worth, when we convert them in real physical terms, to their true present equitable expression, the material involved in such conversion is amazingly negligable. For example, in the American case, the original 1912 Dollar was represented by 100 copper cents. As the banknote now stands at 3% of its original market worth in purchase power, the appropriate conversion of the present American banknote is expressed with a 10 gram copper piece. There is enough domestic copper inventory (ignoring 'scrap' altogether), to replace every single note and electronic digit ... with copper to spare.

By engaging this solution, all debt can be eliminated and end the interest accruals. Of even greater importance, is that all financial superstructure remains unchanged and undisturbed. Wages, prices, account balances all reflect precisely the same numerical relationships except that those digits afterward are substantiated with copper pieces ... 1 for 1.

With a copper base establishes, the free market will determine an optimum copper to silver ratio and the world will be 'off to the races'.
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, January 17, 2012
Norbull, a 'Gold Standard' is merely one step back from virtual 'money' because if it's fully valued, coinage would have to be impossimly tiny...


Pat, we've stumbled upon a point of agreement!

Yes, I agree with you 100% that the massive/unrepayable debts of the Western deadbeat-debtors can't be "backed" with gold (or anything else). However, if we look at the WORST of the deadbeat-debtors (the U.S.) and note its $200+ TRILLION mountain of debts and liabilities, we immediately note that the U.S. could not "back" its debts with ANYTHING.

Thus we arrive at the inescapable conclusion that the return to "good money" (and some form of gold standard) can only take place AFTER the deadbeat-debtors default...
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, January 17, 2012
Hi Jeff,
Not sure whether this is the right place to post this, but take a look at the latest pdf article on Prof. Fekete's website.
He is obviously one of your fans!

http://www.professorfekete.com/articles.asp


Yes, Norbull, this is the right place to post not only the "kudos" but also the criticisms - LOL!!

In the case of Professor Fekete, we have a VERY well-informed ACADEMIC - yet one who is obviously subject to "ivory tower syndrome". This is a PARTICULARLY prevalent affliction among economists.

It is characterized by the inability to tear one's mind away from a SINGLE theory or strategem on which the particular academic is obsessing. It is WORSE than mere "tunnel vision" because as we see with Professor Fekete, sufferers PRETEND to be aware of other viewpoints - when it fact it is obvious they NEVER seriously consider alternative perspectives.

The idea that the Fed and U.S. government WANT higher interest rates is hysterical!!! smilies/grin.gif

As I've pointed out in MANY previous commentaries, raising U.S. interest rates by even 1% would BANKRUPT the U.S. economy in very short order. The ONLY way to meet interest payments with U.S. interest rates higher would be to immediately crank-up the money printing to a hyperinflationary level.

Yes, the Fed and the U.S. government would LIKE higher interest rates (in some perfect FANTASY world). But anyone capable of operating a calculator knows the U.S. economy cannot AFFORD higher interest rates.
Pat Fields
...
written by Pat Fields, January 17, 2012
Norbull, a 'Gold Standard' is merely one step back from virtual 'money' because if it's fully valued, coinage would have to be impossimly tiny, making continuation of paper instruments a fait-a-complit. Worse still, because it's so heavily concentrated in banks, it will continue to be suseptible to manipulation of its market worth. In order to most fully distribute economic empowerment across the full spectra of society, there isn't ant concept that supercedes polly-metallism. This is the point where Prof. Fekete and I encounter our difference. Otherwise, I hold him in very high regard.
Norbull
...
written by Norbull, January 17, 2012
Hi Jeff,
Not sure whether this is the right place to post this, but take a look at the latest pdf article on Prof. Fekete's website.
He is obviously one of your fans!

http://www.professorfekete.com/articles.asp
Dylan
...
written by Dylan, January 17, 2012
Norbull

Under a true gold standard (one without fractional reserve banking and quantitive easing) the problem of compounding interest would simply not exist as it does today.
This is because gold cannot be borrowed into existence and the pseudo-interest on that "debt" can never start compounding in the first place.
This kind of "borrowing" (through quantitive easing and fractional reserve lending) was never truly "borrowing" to begin with as how can you lend something you don`t have? It is simply counterfeiting. So the "interest" on that fake "debt" is not interest at all - it is a compounding percentage taken as tribute from fraud, the financial mafia`s CUT from their protection racket.
The original idea of lending at interest harked back to the days when money was units of grain and so there was always the potential for growing more to pay off the interest on debts. People also believed that gold and silver grew in the earth, even Isaac Newton was a subscriber.
Norbull
...
written by Norbull, January 17, 2012
OK!
So a gold standard limits government borrowing/ manipulation and also maintains the value of the gold money over time. However there will be a slowly developing problem due to the payment of interest, and the inevitable fractional reserve banking system that will develop using paper certificates/ notes for gold.
On the question of Bills and Clearing Houses, Prof.Antale Fekete has written a lot about his view that the failure to re-establish the bill clearing system created a lot of our problems (but benefitted the banks).
As Dennis Healey (a former very able UK Labour Chancellor with a double first from Oxford) once said when asked why he hadn't sought an economics qualification..... "It always looked too much of a Black Art"!
bobbbny
...
written by bobbbny, January 16, 2012
[/quote...isn't the argument that if we had a fixed amount of gold/ silver in use as money, the payment of interest would inevitably lead to the system falling over because there would be no gold or silver to cover the interest payments that would compound over time?

I think logic would dictate that as the people come to lose faith in the stability of fiat currency as a store of wealth, that first these commodity currencies would skyrocket, and then the fiat systems will implode.
This is already happening, but it is unwinding at a slow motion speed that makes it difficult for most to detect.
It is apparent in the negative real rate of interest, which is an added tax on the people able to store wealth.

The government makes up numbers, like the CPI, to maintain this illusion, but it is simply a matter of time before people begin to shun the fiat in favor of tangible assets and barter.
The first sign of this will be the shortage and eventual unavailability of basics, like gasoline, at anything but black market (free market) prices.

We are all bullion bulls for a reason.
Pat Fields
...
written by Pat Fields, January 16, 2012
Norbull, it’s great that your hesitation didn’t dissuade you from posing your question because it’s a good one. You’re correct. In an entirely specie monetary system the mechanism of loan-interest in fact does harm the economy by interest’s increasing absorption of circulating media away from trading. That’s why earlier societies prohibited ‘usury’ altogether, until the recognition that loan MUST derive interest due to money’s ‘time value’. From that point, right up to the late 1950’s, loan interest was near-universally capped at 5 to 6%. Another ‘crime’ that bankers are guilty of perpetrating, is to have completely suppressed the use of self-liquidating Real Bills, by taking control of their clearing mechanisms, then slowly supplanting them with Loan. Now, almost no one even knows what a Real Bill is and that it offers an alternative means of handling credit without interest; rather compensating investors through discount on their face value, which has no erosive effect on circulation.

There’s a chart on the Bureau of Labor Statistics that illustrates America’s money supply back to 1776, which was a fairly flat line up to the mid-1960s, where it began moving up dramatically. That said, when we consider America’s historically unparalleled growth in the 1800s … on a fairly flat money supply … it begs question as to how that was accomplished. It was Real Bill finance, in deference from Loan!

Also, the amount of money metals isn’t a static quantity. Money metals are constantly being dug from the ground, yet actually do intrinsically appreciate in value at about a quarter percent per year, because their recovery from mines lags the population growth of humankind by that much on average. So, by limiting loan-interest credit finance within the constraints of naturally occurring inflation, offset by the population’s accretive demand factor, if we rebuild the Real Bill clearing network to its former predominance, we can again re-create our former high level rate of productive capacity and general affluence on Honest Money of copper, silver and gold.
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, January 16, 2012
...isn't the argument that if we had a fixed amount of gold/ silver in use as money, the payment of interest would inevitably lead to the system falling over because there would be no gold or silver to cover the interest payments that would compound over time?


Norbull, yes, in fact that is one of the KEY arguments of the gold-haters/banker-lovers. To re-phrase it slightly, the "reason" (we are told) that a gold standard "won't work" is because it won't allow our governments to act like DEADBEATS - i.e. live with permanent deficits.

So the actual "reason" why a gold standard "won't work" (according to those now in charge of our governments) is because a gold standard forces governments to PAY THEIR BILLS - and NONE of our deadbeat Western governments has the slightest desire/intention of paying their bills.

Why is this? Because the ONLY way that structurally insolvent Western economies could start paying their bills (i.e. NOT be structurally insolvent) is to START to tax the $100+ TRILLION in secret wealth-hoards of the ultra-wealthy.
Dylan
...
written by Dylan, January 16, 2012
Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight!

Pretty Pat

I`m pretty sure that the “officially sanctioned “ history of money does not put central banks in a negative light so read my comment again without your arrogant blinders on.

“Now, my Dad taught me that 'No idea is ever advanced by agreement”

Why did you AGREE with HIM then? Just highlights the inherent contradictions in your arguments.
I don`t claim to have invented the wheel and I don`t feel the compulsion to reinvent it either.
What OTHER way to engage in discourse is there than to present the ideas of others? How they are assembled and whether those ideas stand up to scrutiny or not is what debate is about. Let us put aside the question of whether these are YOUR ideas for now and take a look.

“Prior to temples were barter markets”

No argument there, no one here is unaware of how free markets originated, even the “officially sanctioned” history pays lip service to it. A STRAWMAN if ever there was one.
I was talking of the origin of centralised enslavement of the free market principle.

“Contrary to popular presumption, then, depreciation of coin was an ‘accounting adjustment’ to offset its growing worth in static alignment with the numerals stamped on them.”

This is where you have it totally ass-backwards. Numerals instead of fineness of weight PRESUPPOSE that DEPRECIATION HAS ALREADY OCCURRED.
Otherwise why dispense with weights and measures?
Your`s is just the same old shyster`s argument that they were FORCED to engage in fraud. You could sit on Bernanke`s shoulders and squawk in his ear with that one.

“While depreciation was convenient for government’s consistancy of records and tax assessments,”

Stop! So the universe is imploding all because of anal-retentive book keepers?

“the periodic depreciation of coin engendered anger and suspicion among their Peoples”

You don`t say? Those hopeless, foolish conspiracy theorists, not realising that the “system” forced the hopeless, foolish government to balance its books.
Norbull
...
written by Norbull, January 16, 2012
But to continue in that vein..... if interest is due but the gold/ silver amount is fixed... does the system eventually fall over, or does the gold/ silver just become more valuable in the hands of fewer and fewer.......
Norbull
...
written by Norbull, January 16, 2012
I really hesitate to enter the debate here!
However, isn't the argument that if we had a fixed amount of gold/ silver in use as money, the payment of interest would inevitably lead to the system falling over because there would be no gold or silver to cover the interest payments that would compound over time?
Pat Fields
...
written by Pat Fields, January 15, 2012
Dylan, all you accomplished in your 'retort' was to parrot the standardized 'officially sanctioned' history of money and banking. Prior to temples were barter markets. Prior to government sealed coinage, were similar lumps of refined copper and electrum privately produced by metal-smiths, who were simultaneously revered and feared.

Anyone who seriously studies this subject is equally adept at rattling off the same 'data' you've taught yourself to repeat. I don't want to join anyone's 'Mutual Admiration Society'. echoing each other's dogma to reinforce the contention of veracity in it. That sort of ego stroking only succeeds in forming rocks as excuses for brains in each other's heads.

Now, my Dad taught me that 'No idea is ever advanced by agreement'. So, I expect challenges to my contentions, in fact I welcome them as soft steel welcomes the tempering of cold water. If you have logically formed ... on point ... disagreements, plese put them out. It makes no sense, however, to simpply run off tape-machine like rhetoric in pretension of discourse.
Dylan
...
written by Dylan, January 15, 2012
The original banks were temples where everyone kept their goods - cattle (primal unit of currency), grain, precious metals. The temple took a cut from this as an offering to the gods. In return it protected the wealth entrusted to it from raiders. There is nothing new about "In God we trust" and doing "God`s work". The original kings were priests and so government was intimately connected with the temples from the start. This seamless entity naturally had power (power ENTRUSTED to it by the 99%)over the markets. THIS is where Original Sin comes in and the reason why Christ turned over the rigged tables outside THE TEMPLE. Not for nothing do Central Banks today look like TEMPLES.

The original true "coins" were lumps of electrum that a king stamped with their weight and used to pay off his mercenaries - people that you didn`t want to be messing around with. Precious metals weren`t just some useful matrix to hold numerical units - precisely the opposite was the case - the values guaranteed the WEIGHT plus seignorage costs of the coins and you could always get out the scales if you didn`t trust the king.
When the king started decreeing that scales were inferior to the executioner`s axe, you would know that trouble was down the road.
To call this FRAUD an "accounting adjustment" is Orwellian doublespeak on STEROIDS.

As for today`s thieves and vipers, it may be that these front men have no choice in the sense that there is no leaving the mafia.
As Catherine Austin Fitts says "(I) have never met a person who did not function as if they were a prisoner of the system. Often, that "system" did not permit them to function on a lawful basis."

What would happen if they stopped feeding the debt monster?
Well, apart from them gaining concrete shoes, I concur with Cliff Droke, that not a leaf would fall from a tree. Simply because the debt itself is entirely fraudulent and fictional, just a means to hand currency units to the special interests which they can hoard up during the busts and watch people starve, then buy up real wealth on the cheap during the next boom and so on until the system really implodes. There is no "necessity" for the "system" to continue, its just a way to fool people into believing the sky will fall if they don`t go along - just a cheque kiting protection racket.
The only thing left that needs to fall into place is the guillotine.
Pat Fields
...
written by Pat Fields, January 15, 2012
Dylan, if one reconstructs the earliest procedural ‘difficulties’ that governments and bankers perceived to inhibit their functions, one can more logically step through history as it developed toward the present monetary scenario. Far into antiquity, these groups have always both relied on commerce from which to derive their revenues.

Primitive ’bankers’ were organizers and regulators of market-bazaars and at the advent of coinage, they simply exchanged goods of the arriving market-participants for the coins, which they in turn then used to ‘buy’ the goods of other participants as their needs dictated. Over time, the market-goers saved coins they didn’t use for their immediate needs. Concurrently, government identified a ‘benefit’ it could offer to justify its taxation and ‘regulated’ the coins by unitized weight and fineness. The ‘service’ was so well received, that it became a universal practice by all governments in all lands.

Still, after a few centuries a natural disparity surfaced between the rates of recovery of the money metals from the mines and the growth of populations. The former, ever so slightly, lagged the latter on average. We can call this phenomenon the ‘Population Demand Factor’. As the numbers of people grew, their increasing demand for coins proportionally raised their useful worth. The market operators accommodated the appreciation in coin by bidding coincidentally lower exchange rates for goods. But, governments had accustomed their impositions in percentages on trade … according to the numerical unit ‘values’ of coins … not their effective worth in trade. The natural accretion in the worth of coin meant that governments’ percentage ‘take’ shrank.

Contrary to popular presumption, then, depreciation of coin was an ‘accounting adjustment’ to offset its growing worth in static alignment with the numerals stamped on them. We might think of that practice as government’s ‘Original Economic Sin’. A whole lot of problems through the ages could have been circumvented, if government had rather abandoned the numerals and re-oriented to market worth by weight and fineness as basis for tax accounting, because while depreciation was convenient for government’s consistancy of records and tax assessments, the periodic depreciation of coin engendered anger and suspicion among their Peoples.

Of course a disgruntled People was a new ‘problem’ to be dealt with and at length, when Marco Polo reported the Chinese innovation of paper ‘money’, some sharper pencils understood that this device could be invisibly inflated, so as to cause rising prices, yielding greater revenues on steady tax rates! The People would be inclined to rather blame the Merchants than government!

The rest of the tale is largely as it’s generally known … up to 1962.

0
...
written by surfeit, January 15, 2012
Good one Jeff,

Ahhh Pat, it's a shame isn't it... the poor wee sad daft bastards at Red Shield House didn't know what they were doing, and neither did their little buddies, the Kuhns, Loebs, Schiffs, Warburgs, Lazards, other wasters, giant squid, et al.!

So for the past couple of hundred years their ilk hasn’t paid their fair share. It is now due. And it's a whopper.

The Rothschild Brothers of London — in a June 25, 1863 communiqué to associates in New York, wrote, “The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on 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 the tremendous advantages... will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests.”

Oh dear. As Utah Philips famously quipped, "The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses.”

Yes. And I feel that as long as they owe us, we’ll never be broke. But time is getting short – don’t you agree? I hope it’s peaceful when it comes.
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, January 15, 2012
...a reaction to a necessity, rather, [than] willful proaction...


You crack me up Pat!

That is EXACTLY the line that any/all Ponzi-scheme operators would use once someone started sniffing around their house-of-cards. They're not DELIBERATELY pumping-up something that they KNOW will implode (in horrific fashion), rather they are "reacting to a necessity": their lust to CONTINUE their serial stealing-via-currency-dilution.
bobbbny
...
written by bobbbny, January 15, 2012
Oh my God!
Pat is really Alan Greenspan!
Pat Fields
...
written by Pat Fields, January 15, 2012
Mr. Nielson, regarding Bernanke and 'QE II', you're presuming that what was in reality a reaction to a necessity, rather, as willful proaction. If you'd follow more closely, you'd recognize your misperception.

As I explained, because all banknote and digital currency is loaned into existence as principal at interest, where the only recourse for raising the interest servicing funds is to further borrow it too into existence ... as new principal ... at interest; both currency and interest are therefore reciprocally co-generating each other automatically. The scheme is self-inflating by reason of accruing interest (which is unavoidable, because any money's time-value has to be accounted for). Regardless of where present interest rates are set, the extant complex compounding on the gross float of currency negates any desired effect of the 'new' rate ... even at zero percent. Moreover, at length, any interest rate at all causes a leveraged exacerbation of the underlying progression toward hyper-inflation.

Consequently, when 'debt saturation' moves individuals and business entities en masse, to not only reject incurrence of more debt, but to aggressively liquidate debt altogether, government is circumstantially forced to borrow the interest service into existence (on The People's tab, of course).

So, government's issuance of Treasury Bonds and Bernanke's loan of currency on those bonds, proves in closer analysis to have been involuntary on both parts. Had they not ... responded ... to the necessary imperative of bringing interest service funds into existence, the 'system' would in fact have imploded. All currency is loaned principal. The interest 'obligation' it incurs, grows by the moment.

So, you see, the Administration and Bernanke were speaking truthfully, but their crime and fraud was by omission and refusal to explain exactly why and how it cam to be that the 'system' was (and is constantly in the inexorable process of) imploding.

Oh, and I'll add that though I've been mulling this question over for about fifty years, it really only 'all fell into place' for me about three or four years ago. If I can candidly admit I was wrong for forty-six years, you might relax a bit about the possibility of having been supplied insufficient tools by your educators to recognize the realities of this 'thing' for a mere four years.
bobbbny
...
written by bobbbny, January 15, 2012
Hold on here just a minute.
Pat is absolutely right.
Despite the best intentions of Alan "my belief system was flawed" Greenspan, Ben BS Bernanke, tiny Timmy Geitner, the IMF, and the World Bank, there are larger forces at work here.
While it is true that we desperately need to flood the world with fiat currency in order to achieve true economic prosperity, Pats observation that it is beyond anyones control is irrefutable.
The fiat, it seems, has achieved the status of a living organism, much like the "Blob" in the sci-fi classic.
Thus, no well meaning quantitative easing, or acts of kindness to humanitarian central bankers, can possibly stop this menace.
No matter how much they fight the good fight to prop up our economies through the endless printing of money, how could they possibly know that the endless printing of money has a life of its own, which even they cannot control?
I say fight fire with fire!
Knowing that the money printing is a living, breathing thing, we must unite and fight it with a massive preemptive printing of money.
This is where the true genius of the Bernanke, the IMF, and the EMU reside, and it will only become apparent to us mere mortals when we are drowning in an ocean of beautiful, green fiat.
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, January 15, 2012
The reciprocation between creation of currency and debt is such that no one can control it. Not the politicians, not the bankers and not the economists.


Pat, that statement is fundamentally FALSE, proving that you either don't KNOW enough to "teach", or are being intentionally dishonest.

With "QE II" Ben Bernanke was EXPLICITLY:

1) Printing money;
2) "Buying" the U.S.'s own debt with this funny-money;
3) And thus MANIPULATING interest rates lower and bond prices UP.

He DID exactly what you said "can't be done". And that was on a RARE occasion when B.S. Bernanke was actually ADMITTING his crooked, market-rigging behavior.

I spent four years studying economics, and then I came to this sector and got a REAL education about our monetary system. I think it's pretty clear which of us is in need of further "teaching".
Dylan
...
written by Dylan, January 15, 2012
I have heard it all now!

Oh those poor banksters, helpless before the "thing" (which they originally created for altruistic purposes of coursesmilies/grin.gif)as it sucks all the wealth out of the massses and transfers it into their accounts.

BUT WAIT! they only meant to do the right thing, don`t lop their heads off please! Poor, helpless fools, Whoops! there goes the future of humanity, but lets concentrate on the "system."

Whatever you do don`t turn your gaze upon the parasites that blight the root of the tree in the first place! We don`t need to worry about them coming up with a new form of BS to fool us into believing the "system" has been changed, lol.
 1 2 > 

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy

Latest Commentary

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

Latest Comments

Disclaimer:

BullionBullsCanada.com is not a registered investment advisor - Stock information is for educational purposes ONLY. Bullion Bulls Canada does not make "buy" or "sell" recommendations for any company. Rather, we seek to find and identify Canadian companies who we see as having good growth potential. It is up to individual investors to do their own "due diligence" or to consult with their financial advisor - to determine whether any particular company is a suitable investment for themselves.

Login Form