Banksters, other financial criminals and the greedies

Key parts of the world’s financial affairs have been hi-jacked by self-serving financial organisations, bureaucracies, country leaders and individuals.   The outlook is dire.

Scroll to end to view previous articles

Get Ready for a World Currency by 2018

Get Ready for a World Currency by 2018  By Jay Syrmopoulos, 13 July 2017

The Economist magazine published an article almost thirty years ago, discussing the prospect of a world currency that should be expected around the year 2018.

The 1988 article foreshadows a methodical movement towards a centralized world currency that we have, in many ways, seen play out over the past few decades.

One must also keep in mind that the controlling interest of The Economist is held by the powerful Rothschild family, who regard themselves as the “custodians of The Economist magazine’s legacy.”

In essence, the magazine operates as a quasi-propaganda arm for the Rothschild banking empire and related businesses and, is in many ways, meant to prime the pump of public opinion for the globalist agenda to be implemented.
The excerpt below appeared in the print magazine on January 9, 1988, in Vol. 306, pp 9-10.
Ready for the Phoenix

THIRTY years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix.

The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century.

At the beginning of 1988 this appears an outlandish prediction. Proposals for eventual monetary union proliferated five and ten years ago, but they hardly envisaged the setbacks of 1987.

The governments of the big economies tried to move an inch or two towards a more managed system of exchange rates – a logical preliminary, it might seem, to radical monetary reform. For lack of co-operation in their underlying economic policies they bungled it horribly, and provoked the rise in interest rates that brought on the stock market crash of October.

These events have chastened exchange-rate reformers. The market crash taught them that the pretence of policy co-operation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (i.e., until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder. (…)

The New World Economy

The biggest change in the world economy since the early 1970’s is that flows of money have replaced trade in goods as the force that drives exchange rates. as a result of the relentless integration of the world’s financial markets, differences in national economic policies can disturb interest rates (or expectations of future interest rates) only slightly, yet still call forth huge transfers of financial assets from one country to another.

These transfers swamp the flow of trade revenues in their effect on the demand and supply for different currencies, and hence in their effect on exchange rates. As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still. With unco-ordinated economic policies, currencies can get only more volatile. (…)

In all these ways national economic boundaries are slowly dissolving. As the trend continues, the appeal of a currency union across at least the main industrial countries will seem irresistible to everybody except foreign-exchange traders and governments.

In the phoenix zone, economic adjustment to shifts in relative prices would happen smoothly and automatically, rather as it does today between different regions within large economies (a brief on pages 74-75 explains how.) The absence of all currency risk would spur trade, investment and employment. (…)

The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF.

The world inflation rate – and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate- would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit.

With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today.

This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case.

Even in a world of more-or-less floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy independence checked by an unfriendly outside world. (…)

As the next century approaches, the natural forces that are pushing the world towards economic integration will offer governments a broad choice. They can go with the flow, or they can build barricades.

Preparing the way for the phoenix will mean fewer pretended agreements on policy and more real ones. It will mean allowing and then actively promoting the private-sector use of an international money alongside existing national monies.

That would let people vote with their wallets for the eventual move to full currency union. The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today.

In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power. (…)

The alternative – to preserve policymaking autonomy- would involve a new proliferation of truly draconian controls on trade and capital flows. This course offers governments a splendid time.

They could manage exchange-rate movements, deploy monetary and fiscal policy without inhibition, and tackle the resulting bursts of inflation with prices and incomes polices.

It is a growth-crippling prospect. Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.

Only ten years later, in 1998, The Economist was once again engaging the public in an effort to forward the globalist agenda, with an article entitled “One world, one money.”

Very much in line with the 1988 piece, the publication attempts to explain why a much more centralized and controlled system would be beneficial to the global economy, while wholly ignoring the fact that such a centralized global currency would be a massive coup for the international banking cartel, and the Rothschild banking empire’s financial bottom line.

Additionally, it must be noted that the creation of a global currency would give an inordinate amount of geopolitical capital to unelected international bankers, and subsequently take power away from the citizens of each nation and their respective governmental representatives.

Does anyone really want international bankers to have such a vast amount of political power on top of the massive financial influence and sway they already hold in the halls of power?

People want more say in their own lives, not having policy dictated to them by international banksters and bureaucrats.

Control over a nation’s money supply is, for all intents and purposes, the lifeblood of a state’s sovereignty – without this independence, the state only exists in name but is subservient to supranational powers whose interests lie outside of domestic and national political/economic concerns.

“Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws,” said Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty.

Although the Rothschild family now generally keep a very low public profile, they still have significant business operations across a wide spectrum of sectors.

While you may not find any one particular Rothschild on the Forbes’ most rich list, the family is estimated to control $1 trillion dollars in assets across the globe, thus having a strong voice across the geopolitical spectrum that many perceive as a hidden hand manipulating events silently from behind a veil of secrecy and silence.

===================

Without Glass-Steagall America Will Fail

Without Glass-Steagall America Will Fail  By Paul Craig Roberts, 10 June 2017

 

For 66 years the Glass-Steagall act reduced the risks in the banking system. Eight years after the act was repealed, the banking system blew up threatening the international economy. US taxpayers were forced to come up with $750 billion dollars, a sum much larger than the Pentagon’s budget, in order to bail out the banks. This huge sum was insufficient to do the job. The Federal Reserve had to step in and expand its balance sheet by $4 trillion in order to protect the solvency of banks declared “too big to fail.”

The enormous increase in the supply of dollars known as Quantitative Easing inflated financial asset prices instead of the consumer price index. This rise in bond and stock prices is a major cause of the worsening income and wealth distribution in the United States. The economic polarization has undercut the image and reality of the US as a land of opportunity and has introduced political and economic instability into the life of the country.

These are huge costs and for the benefit only of the rich who were already rich.

So, what we can say about the repeal of Glass-Steagall is that it turned a somewhat egalitarian democracy with a large middle class into the One Percent vs. the 99 percent. The repeal resulted in the destruction of the image of the United States as an open prosperous society. The electorate is very much aware of the decline in their economic situation, and this awareness expressed itself in the last presidential election.

Americans know that the nonsense from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics about a 4.3% unemploment rate and an abundance of new jobs is fake news. The BLS gets the low rate of unemployment by not counting the millions of discouraged workers who cannot find employment. If you haven’t looked for a job in the last 4 weeks, you are not considered unemployed. The birth/death model, a purely theoretical construct, accounts for a large percentage of the non-existent new jobs. The jobs are there by assumption. The jobs are not really there. Moreover, the replacement of full time jobs with part time jobs proceeds. Pension and health care benefits that once were a substantial part of the pay package are being terminated.

It makes perfect sense to separate commercial from investment banking. The taxpayer insured deposits of commercial banking should not serve as backing for investment banking’s creation of risky financial instruments, such as subprime and other derivatives. The US government understood that in 1933, but no longer did in 1999. This deterioration in government competence has cost America dearly.

By merging commercial banking with investment banking, the repeal of Glass-Steagall greatly increased the capability of the banking system to create risky financial instruments for which taxpayer backing was available. So, we have the extraordinary situation that the repeal of Glass-Steagall forced the 99 percent to bail out the One Percent.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall has turned the United States into an unstable economic, political, and social system. We have a situation in which millions of Americans who have lost full time employment with benefits to jobs offshoring, whose lower income employment in part time and contract employment leaves them no discretionary income after payment of interest and fees to the financial system (insurance on home and car, health insurance, credit card interest, car payment interest, student loan interest, home mortgage interest, bank charges for insufficient minimum balance, etc.), are on the hook for bailing out financial institutions that make foolish and risky investments.

This is not politically viable unless Congress and the President are going to resign and turn over the governance of America to Wall Street and the Big Banks. A growing cresendo of voices are saying that this has already happened.

So, where is there any democracy when the One Percent can cover their losses at the expense of the 99 Percent, which is what the repeal of Glass-Steagall guarantees?

Not only must Glass-Steagall be restored, but also the large banks must be reduced in size. That any corporation is too big to fail is a contradiction of the justification of capitalism. Capitalism’s justification is that those corporations that misuse resources and make losses go out of business, thus releasing the misused resources to those who can use them profitably. Capitalism is supposed to benefit society, not be dependent on society to bail it out.

I was present when George Champion, former CEO and Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank testified before the Senate Banking Committee against national branch banking. Champion said that it would result in the banks becoming too large and that the branches would suck savings out of local communities for investment in traded financial assets. Consequently, local communities would be faced with a dearth of loanable funds, and local businesses would die or not be born from lack of loanable funds.

I covered the story for Business Week. But despite the facts as laid out by the pre-eminent banker of our time, the palms had been greased, and the folly proceeded.

As Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury in the Reagan Administration, I opposed all financial deregulation. Financial deregulation does nothing but open the gates to fraud and sharp dealing. It allows one institution, even one individual, to make a fortune by wrecking the lives of millions.

The American public is not sufficiently sophisticated to understand these matters, but they know when they are hurting. Few in the House and Senate are sufficiently sophisticated to understand these matters, but they do know that to understand them is not conducive to having their palms greased. So how do the elected representatives manage to represent those who vote them into office?

The answer is that they seldom do.

The question before Congress today is whether they will take the country down for the sake of campaign contributions and cushy jobs if they lose their seat, or will they take personal risks in order to save the country.

America cannot survive if excessive risks and financial fraud can be bailed out by taxpayers.

US Representatives Walter Jones and Marcy Kaptur and members of the House and staff on both sides of the aisle, along with former Goldman Sachs executive Nomi Prins and leaders of citizens’ groups,  have arranged a briefing in the House of Representatives on June 14 about the importance of Glass-Steagall to the economic, political, and social stability of the United States.  Let your representative know that you do not want the financial responsibility for the reckless financial practices of the big banks.  Let your representative know also that you do not want big banks that dominate the financial arena. Let them know that you want the return of Glass-Steagall.

The effort to reduce the financial risks arising from the commingling of commercial and investment banking by requiring stronger capital positions of financial corporations is futile. The 2007-08 financial crisis required the taxpayers and the printing press and an amount of money that exceeded any realistic capital and liquidity requirements for financial institutions.

If we don’t re-enact Glass-Steagall, the risks taken by financial greed will complete the economic destruction of America.

Congress must serve the people, not Mammon.

=============

Creating another ‘crash of 1929’

Creating another ‘crash of 1929’  By Jeff Thomas, Editor, International Man, 20 April 2017

 

Regarding the Great Depression… we did it. We’re very sorry… We won’t do it again.

– Ben Bernanke

Waiting too long to begin moving toward the neutral rate could risk a nasty surprise down the road—either too much inflation, financial instability, or both.

– Janet Yellen

In his speech above, future Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledged that, by raising interest rates, the Fed triggered the stock market crash of 1929, which heralded in the Great Depression.

Yet, in her speech above, Fed Chair Janet Yellen announced that “it makes sense” for the Fed to raise interest rates “a few times a year.” This is a concern, as economic conditions are similar to those in 1929, and a rise in interest rates may have the same effect as it did then.

So let’s back up a bit and have a look at what happened in 1929. In the run-up to the 1929 crash, the Federal Reserve raised rates to 6%, ostensibly to “limit speculation in securities markets.” As history shows, this sent economic activity south rather quickly. Countless investors, large and small, who had bought stocks on margin, would be unable to pay increased interest rates and would be forced to default. (It’s important to understand that the actual default was not necessary to crash markets. The knowledge that investors would be in trouble was sufficient to send the markets into a tailspin.)

Mister Bernanke was quite clear in 2002 when he stated that the Fed would not make the same mistake again that it made in 1929, yet, then, as now, there’s been a surprise victory by a Republican candidate for president. Then, as now, a wealthy man who had never held elective office was unexpectedly in the catbird seat and had the potential to endanger the control of the political class, at a time when that political class had been complicit in damaging the system by creating massive debt.

Then, as now, conditions were ideal for the Deep State to create a solution to all problems: An economic crash was inevitable; therefore, create a trigger for it to occur and blame the collapse on the conservative political outsider. Demonstrate to all that the collapse was due to the greed of the outsider and those who were of like mind. Use that leverage to demonstrate to the hard-hit populace that what was needed was the opposite of what the outsider had proclaimed. Recommend far greater control by a new government that was staunchly liberal—a government that would change the political landscape in such a way that all those who suffered would be saved by a benevolent collectivist government.

And, of course, when it’s stated that way, it’s an easy sell. In 2017, it will be an even easier sell than it was in 1929, as the new president has already set himself up for a fall. In his inauguration speech, he focused on a single topic—the return of power to the people and away from Washington’s bureaucracy.

Beginning by decrying Washington for what it truly is, he stated that “for too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished—but the people did not share in its wealth.”

He then went on to describe that his presidency would bring about a metamorphosis:

I will never, ever let you down. America will start winning again, winning like never before. We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams. We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation. We will get our people off of welfare and back to work—rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor… We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones—and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth… We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.

Of course, new presidents are prone to making big promises when they first take office. However, Mister Trump has, in his brief speech, effectively declared himself the enemy of the Washington bureaucracy. In so doing, he’s left himself wide open to be the fall guy if the economy does not rebound, if the average American’s lot does not improve, and if the US does not dominate the world through an expanded military.

In short, the Deep State and their cronies, who were instrumental in creating the economic, social, and political house of cards that now exists, have the perfect opportunity to bring on the collapse and blame the new president for it.

Were Mister Trump to have honestly stated that the US is effectively a house of cards and that he’ll begin the laborious job of trying to salvage what’s left of it and begin to rebuild it, he would have provided himself with a justifiable excuse when the house of cards does collapse. However, by making such lofty claims to “Make America Great Again,” he’s lost this opportunity.

In the last year, whenever I was asked who I hoped the Americans would elect as their president, I replied, “Bernie Sanders.” To those that were shocked by this answer, I would add, “An economic collapse is inevitable. No one, no matter how capable, can prevent it. The best that can happen is that the collapse occurs under a president who’s an avowed socialist. That would ensure an eventual return to smaller government and more conservative economics.”

As unfair as it may be, a nation’s people almost always blame whoever is on watch when a collapse occurs. It matters little who or what is actually at fault. People need a “face” to vilify for the disaster and the sitting leader is almost always spontaneously chosen by a nation as that face.

And, of course, the opposing party invariably makes the most of the situation. Just as in 1929 and for years thereafter Herbert Hoover received the lion’s share of the blame for a Wall Street crash and the subsequent Great Depression, even though he was not at fault, so too will the US come to blame the new president who made promises that were far beyond what he could deliver.

The die is cast. The patsy-in-chief is now installed. The media will do all they can to discredit Mister Trump and civil unrest will be funded by his opponents. The US economy is more debt-laden than any country in the history of the world and, historically, this has always resulted in economic collapse. At present, there are scores of triggers that could bring about collapse. Any one of these black swans could do the job, but it’s entirely possible that the Federal Reserve will serve once again as the trigger, as it did in 1929.

This is unquestionably the smart way to play the game. Rather than wait for a random occurrence, if a date is set for a controlled collapse, those connected to the Deep State will have a brief time to disconnect their wealth from the system, as was done in 1929.

The trigger would be pulled by the Fed and the US economy would go down in as controlled a fashion as Building Seven in the World Trade Center.

When is this likely to occur? Herbert Hoover was given just under eight months. The date for the next collapse could be earlier or later. But the question is not when that date might be, but whether we’ve prepared ourselves for the eventuality.

Crux note: The Fed could start its controlled demolition of the US economy any day now.

This collapse will be much worse and last much longer than the Great Depression or the 2008 financial crisis.

Doug Casey and his team have critical, time-sensitive information about preparing for this economic meltdown. They’re sharing need-to-know details in this urgent video. Click here to watch it now.

================

Previous articles

About Peter Senior

I'm a very experienced and pragmatic management consultant. I've reviewed and led the restructuring of many organisations - large and small corporations and Government Departments, much of the time as President of the New Zealand Institute of Management Consultants. Before that I was General Manager of a major NZ newspaper; earlier, an analyst for IBM UK. I gained an honours degree in engineering at London University, and studied management at Cambridge University. This wide range of experience has left me frustrated: I continue to see too many examples of really bad management. Sometimes small easily fixed issues; sometimes fundamental faults; and sometimes really tricky problems. Mostly these issues can be fixed using a mixture of common sense, 'management 101' and applying lessons from years of management experience. Unfortunately, all too often, politics, bureaucracy and daft government regulations get in the way; internal factors such as poor culture and out-of-date strategies are often evident. So what's gone wrong, and why, and most importantly, how to fix 'it'? I hope there are like-minded people 'out there' who will share their thoughts enabling 'us' to improve some significant management failures that affect the general public. If you just accept bad management, you don't have the right to complain! If you'd like to share thoughts on any aspects of management, send me an email to petersenior42@gmail.com . My latest project has the interim title 'You’ve been conned. Much of what you were taught and read is largely irrelevant, misleading or plain wrong – this is the REAL story of life: past, present and our possible future.' The working paper so far comprises 105 pages, many listing references and interim conclusions. The main problem is finding sufficient credible evidence, and realising the more Iearn, the more I realise I don't know!
This entry was posted in World finance: when will the bubble burst?. Bookmark the permalink.