What's it all about the turmoil in the Middle East? Follow the money trail to the rising influence of Islamic Banking where money IS NOT created out of thin air and usury is still a sin. In Tunisia Ben Ali's son-in-law El Materi opens the first home grown Islamic bank. The Tunis Financial Harbour to vie for $1.5 trillion in investments. The Central Bank cartel of the Rothschilds is under threat. Regime change is required. Seven of the top ten Islamic Banks are in Iran. Rothschild's puppets say bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Soros funded organizations behind the colour revolutions past and present. American professor wrote the book on non-violent regime change. Protests leaders trained and equipped by the banksters. Rumour Gadaffi shot, gravy train filmed leaving Tripoli, was there a double Gadaffi left behind, pipeline routes fought over, Middle East leaders stroked, CIA man in Pakistan part of elite team delivering WMD to Al Qaida, End of the fiscal road in Washington, massive asian arms race, 7/7 inquest counsel a shill, Gulf still a threat, they're watching your privates at missing your weapons with the scanner at the airport, TV patent controls your mind, will you be the Borg? On Conspiracy Cafe it's BANK WARS in the Middle East.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Keiser Report: Fed's Reign of Terror
This time Max Keiser and co-host, Stacy Herbert, talk about the Fed's reign of terror and an economist's warning of revolution in America as Obama's budget robs from the poor to give to the rich. In the second half of the show, Max talks to William D. Hartung, author of Prophets of War, about the cost of corporate welfare to the U.S. military industrial complex and the role of this welfare in the current Middle East unrest.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
WTC Hard Drives Show $100 Million In Criminal Credit Transfers Before Towers Fell
There was a sharp rise in credit card transactions moving through some computer systems at the WTC shortly before the planes hit the twin towers. This could be a criminal enterprise-in which case, did they get advance warning? Or was it only a coincidence that more than $100 million was rushed through the computers as the disaster unfolded?
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
How To Fake An Economic Recovery
Neithercorp Press – 2/16/2011
This may be a highly distasteful proposition, but just for a moment, I want you to sit back, and imagine that you are a member of the corporate banking elite. You are a walking talking disease ridden power mad pustule who naively believes himself intellectually superior to the vast majority of humanity and above the inherent laws of conscience, honor, and general good taste. You are a villain in the purest sense, in that you not only do great harm to the world, you actually SEEK to do great harm to the world, if only to benefit yourself and your exclusive circle of “friends”; a clan of degenerate blood thirsty sociopaths with delusions of omnipotence that stalk the night like Armani wearing Chupacabra exsanguinating the joy from poor unsuspecting cultures. You are capable of anything, and sadly, you take “pride” in this fact…
You aren’t “rich” in the traditional sense. You aren’t a “Bill Gates” or a “Donald Trump” (I’m beginning to wonder if Donald Trump is even solvent, or if his entire fortune is a special-effect courtesy of NBC). No, you don’t “make” money, you MAKE the money. You are a global financier. You are a central banker. You create the fiat that the rest of the country uses to sustain its fantasy economy. You dominate trade through monopoly and corporate fraud. You control the flow of currency through an economic system using fractional reserve banking, artificially pegged interest rates, and your ever trusty printing press. You put your substantial monetary clout behind BOTH major political parties, and groom presidential candidates to your globalist standards. Any politician who desires to climb the ladder of power turns to you for assistance, not the voting public. You have a tremendous financial stake in every corporate news provider in the country, if not own them outright. You invite their top reporters to posh banquets, give them unlimited access to prominent social figures and high rollers, and fly them to private alcohol addled orgies in the middle of the California Redwoods (I wish this was all made up). Forget responsible journalism, they love hanging out with you, and would probably write whatever you tell them to.
Now that you have placed yourself in the tight fitting shoes of the “enlightened few”, I want you to imagine that you have engineered an implosion in national credit sectors using ultra-low interest rates to fuel mortgage and derivatives bubbles that would contract at an unprecedented pace once it is revealed to the wider investment world that those equities which they prized only days before are now “toxic”, essentially worthless, due to mass debt defaults on loans which never should have been made in the first place. Yeah, you’re a real dirtbag.
Of course, you aren’t finished yet! Your ultimate goal is centralization, and the key to centralization is to remove all options available to the masses but one; the option which garners you the greatest amount of dominance. A global economic system based on a single world currency and a single unaccountable governing body would be ideal. What would you call this world currency? I don’t know, how about something innocuous sounding like….Special Drawing Rights (SDR’s), which you can then label as a mere “basket of currencies” when it is really a parasitic financial instrument meant to absorb currencies until it replaces them completely:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/markets/dollar/index.htm
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0214/g20-business.html
In order to begin instituting this world currency, you would first need to remove the standing world reserve currency from its exalted position, that currency being the U.S. dollar. This seems rather impossible to many mainstream analysts who cannot fathom the possibility of a breakdown in the mighty Greenback, but you have already set the stage. You have created a progressive debt singularity so immense that no amount of fiat, no amount of taxation, no amount of austerity could ever satiate its hunger. You now have the perfect excuse to print the dollar with wild abandon until its withered, corpsified remains are six feet underground, leaving the door wide open for the tap dancing fast-talking SDR to take its place.
The issue is, how do you convince the general public that all is well until you are ready to unleash hyperinflation and fiscal Armageddon? How do you make them believe with all their hearts that they are not in the midst of a debt meltdown and the end of their financial sovereignty, but basking in a full-on economic recovery?!
You can’t stop wealth destruction now that the avalanche has been set in motion. You can’t stop inflation and dollar devaluation (nor would you want to. Hey, you’re evil incarnate, remember?). The effects on mainstreet are beyond your ability to hide, but, what you CAN manipulate, are the statistics and indices that Americans rely on for psychological comfort. You give everyone a blindfold and a cigarette and you do what you do best; lie!
Here is a step by step guide to fabricating an economic recovery out of thin air….
Don’t Count The Unemployed, Discount Them: Jobless people are a real downer and a pesky nuisance because they represent living breathing proof that a recovery is not taking place. By most standards, a recovery in jobs markets can be claimed if meaningful evidence shows a return to unemployment standards (normal unemployment) set before the recession / depression was triggered. If you are a global banker today, however, this will not do. Instead, you simply change the definition of “normal unemployment”. Thus, the debilitating jobless rate which was originally thought of as “bad”, is now thought of as “natural”. You must then publish long-winded white papers using more subjective statistics devoid of common sense while feigning a logical pretense:
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2011/el2011-05.html
This only satisfies a small portion of the populace, though. Next, you must rig the manner in which unemployment is calculated to always overlook certain subsections of jobless. Never count those people who have been unemployed so long that they no longer receive benefits. Always count people who are underemployed as fully employed, even if they are only able to scrape together ten hours a week through part time McSlavery. After this, change the manner in which raw data on unemployment is actually collected.
First, the Labor Department derives most of its raw data on unemployment not through any traditional mathematical means, but through two separate surveys which are open to wide interpretation; an establishment survey, and a household survey. The establishment survey is what we hear about at the beginning of every month, while the household survey tends to float under the mainstream radar. In 2009 and 2010, the Labor Department deemed the household survey data (a phone driven survey of 60,000 households) “more reliable” for indicating job growth, because it was supposedly accurate in counting small business hiring and self-employment. So, you have two separate surveys (unscientific indicators of employment) combined together to produce a job growth rate number, and an unemployment percentage, both of which represent, at the most, a GUESS on the current state of jobs in this country.
While the establishment survey showed only 36,000 jobs created, the household survey somehow showed around 600,000 new jobs created!?:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Basically, the BLS is asking you to believe that over 600,000 people either started their own businesses, or were hired by home based businesses in the month of January alone. I’m curious as to where all the capital inflows are coming from to launch such a revolution in home entrepreneurship in the middle of the greatest credit crisis in history. Oh well, if the Labor Department says it’s true, it must be…
The juxtaposition of odd data collection methods is the reason why the government was able to claim a drop from 9.4% to 9% in the jobless rate while announcing only 36,000 jobs created! The household survey has become an incredibly useful tool for generating arbitrary employment data which can be molded to say whatever government officials and central bankers want it to say. Anyone who controls the source data for a calculation controls the outcome of that calculation. It’s that simple.
What I wouldn’t want, if I was the Labor Department, is for some outside independent citizens group to monitor my survey methods while in progress. That would make life for a statistical huckster very difficult indeed.
As Long As Stocks Are Green, The World Is Golden: Near zero interest rates can be very useful if a central bank wishes to throw a tidal wave of fiat into a particular index in order to make it appear healthy. Certainly, the Fed has avoided admitting to any manipulation of the stock market. QE measures are all “above the board”, and all is well in Bernanke’s Mayberry. A question arises here though that desperately begs to be answered; if the stock market’s meteoric rise from near destruction to the 12,000 point mark is “real”, and completely in tune with a legitimate recovery, then why is the Fed still keeping interest rates at near zero after almost three years, and why are they continuing quantitative easing measures? Could it be that without constant liquidity injections from the Fed, the stock market would once again collapse like a wet paper sack? We know that in 2009, it was revealed that bailout funds which were supposed to go towards muting the effects of toxic bank assets were actually being pumped into the equities of healthy banks instead, meaning,the money has not been allocated to the areas promised:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1436061/more_shocking_news_on_2009_bailout.html
We also know that top hedge fund managers have openly stated that stocks will remain bullish because QE funds are propping up the market:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tepper-tells-cnbc-fed-will-prop-up-market-2010-09-24
And, frankly, if you are a global banking cartel intent on keeping the American people in the dark, it makes perfect sense to prop up stocks. A Dow in the green is like a mass dose of fiscal lithium; it calms investors into a stupor. Even people who are otherwise unconcerned about economics will keep track of the Dow as if it is a solid indicator of their personal financial safety. A great test would be to observe market reactions to a Federal Reserve interest rate hike and a freezing of QE in order to counter inflation. Will the Dow stand on its own two feet then? I seriously doubt it, but then again, I don’t know that the Fed will ever raise interest rates again…
Inflation? What Inflation?: Unmitigated inflation spells doom for any society. It’s like some monetary based animal instinct deep down in our collective unconscious. The moment we hear the word “inflation” or see prices rise dramatically, we revert to survival mode and begin honing our mammoth bone battle mallets. Governments and central banks throughout history have made it their top priority to hide the effects of inflation from the citizenry at all costs.
To mask inflation is nearly impossible, especially where commodities and base goods are concerned. That’s why our government and private central bank calculate the Consumer Price Index (CPI) without counting food or energy. Most grains and crude oil have doubled in price over the past year alone, and this does not reflect well on the safety of the dollar, or the effectiveness of liquidity measures by the Fed. China, whose inflation is but a prequel to our own, is also distancing food and energy price surges from its CPI numbers, giving the false impression of leveling markets:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/china-lowers-weighting-surging-food-prices-cpi
Corporate retail chains have a tendency to absorb rising prices of base goods to avoid alienating their customer foundation, hoping that the increases are temporary. When retailers realize that prices are not going to drop back down, they eventually relent, and shelf costs skyrocket. The bottom line is clear; overall worldwide food averages were up over 28% in 2010:
http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/FoodPricesIndex/en/
Crude oil prices continue to hover near the $90 mark even though inventories are at a 20 year high:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gasoline-inventories-jump-20-year-high-gas-price-surges
The World Bank is now warning of possible disasters (which they helped create) in the wake of “dangerous price levels”:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/15/us-worldbank-food-idUSTRE71E5H720110215
Our government’s response? Complete denial that there is any significant threat of inflation. Denial that overprinting of the dollar and its subsequent devaluation has anything to do with rising prices. Scapegoating everything from weather, to speculators, to the fake “recovery” itself for price spikes. The longer they keep the terminology of inflation out of the mainstream, the less Americans are likely to prepare for an onslaught of the dollar.
Create Debt To Pay Off Debt: This is pretty self explanatory. If foreign investors want nothing to do with you, your explosive national debt, or your depreciating currency, where is your government going to get the money to continue spending like a drunken trophy wife at Macy’s? If you default, the jig is up, and no one will buy your recovery yarns. Instead, print even more fiat and use it to purchase your own Treasury bonds! This serves two purposes; first, it props up the federal bureaucracy which gives the impression of stability (at least for a time), and, it furthers your goal of squeezing the dollar like a grape.
Remove All Checks And Balances: If you plan on decimating an economy, you can’t very well have people pointing fingers at you while you do it. That would be inconvenient. It’s funny, but for years, ratings agencies like Moodys helped global banks facilitate the mortgage and derivatives crisis by categorizing worthless assets as AAA securities. Without them, no one would have invested in such garbage in the first place, and the banking fraud would have been immediately exposed. Now that ratings agencies are finally doing their job and downgrading the creditworthiness of banks and countries that possess extreme liabilities, the SEC is moving to marginalize them:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/09/us-financial-regulation-creditraters-idUSTRE7180OD20110209
Interesting that as the U.S. nears a possible credit downgrade, we suddenly no longer care what ratings agencies have to say.
The SEC in itself is one enormous joke, and in no way a practical overseer of banking activity. The organization has shown itself to be either fantastically incompetent, or deliberately indifferent to ongoing financial fraud. I never thought I would find myself agreeing with a cretin like Bernie Madoff, but according to the middle-weight Ponzi artist, global banks he dealt with, like JP Morgan and HSBC, had to be perfectly aware of the scam he was undertaking, otherwise, it could not have been possible:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/us-madoff-interview-idUSTRE71F0QD20110216
Likewise, the SEC’s complete lack of proper investigation into such activities turned Wall Street into a globalist playground where much bigger conmen than Madoff have nested and bred like fleas. It’s not that the system needs more regulation, or more legal wrangling; this would accomplish nothing, because the system is regulated by the criminals! Therefore, new laws can be enacted in concert, and the government can deem the system reformed and recovered, all while the underlying corruption remains untouched. If the poison that instigated the fall of the markets is not uprooted, treachery will continue to reign supreme, and healthy markets a childish illusion.
The Creeping Terror
Two years ago I was in my local Borders bookstore and noticed that they had downsized their stock selection by what looked to be nearly a third. I made a point to ask if this was a chain wide phenomenon. Most employees I talked with said yes. I then asked if they had begun cutting employee hours by significant margins and specifically laying off longtime workers that had built up substantial pay increases. Again, the consensus was yes. Finally, and most importantly, did Borders discuss these changes with their staff in a manner that was informative and open, or, was there a lot of confusion amongst employees as to what exactly was going on? The response was that they were overwhelmingly bewildered by Borders’ lack of clear communication as to the direction of the corporation.
My suggestion to them was to start looking for another job, because their company was about to declare bankruptcy. They, of course, denied this was remotely likely:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704329104576138353865644420.html
It may sound like a stretch, but the reason I bring up Borders’ impending chapter 11 is because, to me, it represents a microcosm of the creeping nature of economic collapse, especially when that collapse is being wielded and delegated.
Borders has been on the verge of default for quite a while. Did they refuse to relay this information openly to their employees because they selfishly wanted to maintain profit margins just a little longer until they were ready to pull the plug? Of course! Do global bankers with aspirations of a centralized currency keep the true destabilization of the market spectrum and the coming international dollar dump to themselves because in the end they will benefit from our shock and awe? Of course!
Whether a person loses everything all at once, or a piece at a time, the end result is the same, however, there is something especially cruel in the idea of fiscal theater; the act of inspiring false hope that a financial environment is sound when it has, in truth, already suffocated. Why would our modern day robber barons put so much energy into constructing a fake recovery? There are many reasons, but first and foremost, to create apathy. To lure us towards inaction. To swindle us into assuming the storm will blow over, and all will return as it was. Unfortunately, recovery without intense restructuring of our economic system is impossible. The fundamentals do not support the suggestion in the slightest. The question is, who will be at the helm when the dust settles and this restructuring does eventually occur? Will the American people take the lead, as they should, and commit to a concrete free market rejuvenation of our financial environment? Or, will we sit back yet again, and let the banksters set us up for the next grand disaster?
You can contact Giordano Bruno at: giordano@neithercorp.us
Monday, February 14, 2011
THE EGYPTIAN TINDERBOX: HOW BANKS AND INVESTORS ARE STARVING THE THIRD WORLD
by Ellen Brown
Underlying the sudden, volatile uprising in Egypt and Tunisia is a growing global crisis sparked by soaring food prices. But what caused the recent jump in food prices remains a matter of debate . . . .
“What for a poor man is a crust, for a rich man is a securitized asset class.”
–Futures trader Ann Berg, quoted in the UK Guardian
Underlying the sudden, volatile uprising in Egypt and Tunisia is a growing global crisis sparked by soaring food prices and unemployment. The Associated Press reports that roughly 40 percent of Egyptians struggle along at the World Bank-set poverty level of under $2 per day. Analysts estimate that food price inflation in Egypt is currently at an unsustainable 17 percent yearly. In poorer countries, as much as 60 to 80 percent of people’s incomes go for food, compared to just 10 to 20 percent in industrial countries. An increase of a dollar or so in the cost of a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread for Americans can mean starvation for people in Egypt and other poor countries.
Follow the Money
The cause of the recent jump in global food prices remains a matter of debate. Some analysts blame the Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing” program (increasing the money supply with credit created with accounting entries), which they warn is sparking hyperinflation. Too much money chasing too few goods is the classic explanation for rising prices.
The problem with that theory is that the global money supply has actually shrunk since 2006, when food prices began their dramatic rise. Virtually all money today is created on the books of banks as “credit” or “debt,” and overall lending has shrunk. This has occurred in an accelerating process of deleveraging (paying down or writing off loans and not making new ones), as the subprime housing market has collapsed and bank capital requirements have been raised. Although it seems counterintuitive, the more debt there is, the more money there is in the system. As debt shrinks, the money supply shrinks in tandem.
That is why government debt today is not actually the bugaboo it is being made out to be by the deficit terrorists. The flipside of debt is credit, and businesses run on it. When credit collapses, trade collapses. When private debt shrinks, public debt must therefore step in to replace it. The “good” credit or debt is the kind used for building infrastructure and other productive capacity, increasing the Gross Domestic Product and wages; and this is the kind governments are in a position to employ. The parasitic forms of credit or debt are the gamblers’ money-making-money schemes, which add nothing to GDP.
Prices have been driven up by too much money chasing too few goods, but the money is chasing only certain selected goods. Food and fuel prices are up, but housing prices are down. The net result is that overall price inflation remains low.
While quantitative easing may not be the culprit, Fed action has driven the rush into commodities. In response to the banking crisis of 2008, the Federal Reserve dropped the Fed funds rate (the rate at which banks borrow from each other) nearly to zero. This has allowed banks and their customers to borrow in the U.S. at very low rates and invest abroad for higher returns, creating a dollar “carry trade.”
Meanwhile, interest rates on federal securities were also driven to very low levels, leaving investors without that safe, stable option for funding their retirements. “Hot money” – investment seeking higher returns – fled from the collapsed housing market into anything but the dollar, which generally meant fleeing into commodities.
New Meaning to the Old Adage “Don’t Play with Your Food”
At one time food was considered a poor speculative investment, because it was too perishable to be stored until market conditions were right for resale. But that changed with the development of ETFs (exchange-traded funds) and other financial innovations.
As first devised, speculation in food futures was fairly innocuous, since when the contract expired, somebody actually had to buy the product at the “spot” or cash price. This forced the fanciful futures price and the more realistic spot price into alignment. But that changed in 1991. In a revealing July 2010 report in Harper’s Magazine titled “The Food Bubble: How Wall Street Starved Millions and Got Away with It,” Frederick Kaufman wrote:
The history of food took an ominous turn in 1991, at a time when no one was paying much attention. That was the year Goldman Sachs decided our daily bread might make an excellent investment. . . .
Robber barons, gold bugs, and financiers of every stripe had long dreamed of controlling all of something everybody needed or desired, then holding back the supply as demand drove up prices.
As Kaufman explained this financial innovation in a July 16 interview on Democracy Now:
Goldman . . . came up with this idea of the commodity index fund, which really was a way for them to accumulate huge piles of cash for themselves. . . . Instead of a buy-and-sell order, like everybody does in these markets, they just started buying. It’s called “going long.” They started going long on wheat futures. . . . And every time one of these contracts came due, they would do something called “rolling it over” into the next contract. . . . And they kept on buying and buying and buying and buying and accumulating this historically unprecedented pile of long-only wheat futures. And this accumulation created a very odd phenomenon in the market. It’s called a “demand shock.” Usually prices go up because supply is low . . . . In this case, Goldman and the other banks had introduced this completely unnatural and artificial demand to buy wheat, and that then set the price up. . . . [H]ard red wheat generally trades between $3 and $6 per sixty-pound bushel. It went up to $12, then $15, then $18. Then it broke $20. And on February 25th, 2008, hard red spring futures settled at $25 per bushel. . . . [T]he irony here is that in 2008, it was the greatest wheat-producing year in world history.
. . . [T]he other outrage . . . is that at the time that Goldman and these other banks are completely messing up the structure of this market, they’ve protected themselves outside the market, through this really almost diabolical idea called “replication” . . . . Let’s say, . . . you want me to invest for you in the wheat market. You give me a hundred bucks . . . . [W]hat I should be doing is putting a hundred bucks in the wheat markets. But I don’t have to do that. All I have to do is put $5 in. . . . And with that $5, I can hold your hundred-dollar position. Well, now I’ve got ninety-five of your dollars. . . . [W]hat Goldman did with hundreds of billions of dollars, and what all these banks did with hundreds of billions of dollars, is they put them in the most conservative investments conceivable. They put it in T-bills. . . . [N]ow that you have hundreds of billions of dollars in T-bills, you can leverage that into trillions of dollars. . . . And then they take that trillion dollars, they give it to their day traders, and they say, “Go at it, guys. Do whatever is most lucrative today.” And so, as billions of people starve, they use that money to make billions of dollars for themselves.
Other researchers have concurred in this explanation of the food crisis. In a July 2010 article called “How Goldman Sachs Gambled on Starving the World’s Poor – And Won,” journalist Johann Hari observed:
Beginning in late 2006, world food prices began rising. A year later, wheat price had gone up 80 percent, maize by 90 percent and rice by 320 percent. Food riots broke out in more than 30 countries, and 200 million people faced malnutrition and starvation. Suddenly, in the spring of 2008, food prices fell to previous levels, as if by magic. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, has called this “a silent mass murder”, entirely due to “man-made actions.”
Some economists said the hikes were caused by increased demand by Chinese and Indian middle class population booms and the growing use of corn for ethanol. But according to Professor Jayati Ghosh of the Centre for Economic Studies in New Delhi, demand from those countries actually fell by 3 percent over the period; and the International Grain Council stated that global production of wheat had increased during the price spike.
According to a study by the now-defunct Lehman Brothers, index fund speculation jumped from $13 billion to $260 billion from 2003 to 2008. Not surprisingly, food prices rose in tandem, beginning in 2003. Hedge fund manager Michael Masters estimated that on the regulated exchanges in the U.S., 64 percent of all wheat contracts were held by speculators with no interest whatever in real wheat. They owned it solely in anticipation of price inflation and resale. George Soros said it was “just like secretly hoarding food during a hunger crisis in order to make profits from increasing prices.”
An August 2009 paper by Jayati Ghosh, professor at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Dehli, compared food staples traded on futures markets with staples that were not. She found that the price of food staples not traded on futures markets, such as millet, cassava and potatoes, rose only a fraction as much as staples subject to speculation, such as wheat.
Nomi Prins, writing in Mother Jones in 2008, also blamed the price hikes on speculation. She observed that agricultural futures and energy futures were being packaged and sold just like CDOs (collateralized debt obligations), but in this case they were called CCOs (collateralized commodity obligations). The higher the price of food, the more CCO investors profited. She warned:
[W]ithout strong regulation of electronic exchanges and the derivatives products that enable speculators to move huge proportions of the futures markets underlying commodities, putting a bit of regulation into the London-based exchanges will not alleviate anything. Unless that’s addressed, this bubble is going to take more than homes with it. It’s going to take lives.
What Can Be Done?
According to Kaufman, the food bubble has now increased the ranks of the world’s hungry by 250 million. On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed a Wall Street reform bill that would close many of the regulatory loopholes allowing big financial institutions to play in agriculture commodity futures markets, but Kaufman says the bill’s solutions are not likely to work. Wall Street innovators can devise new ways to speculate that easily dance around cumbersome, slow-to-pass legislation. Attempts to ban all food speculation are also unlikely to work, he says, since firms can pick up the phone and do their trades through London, or arrange over-the-counter (private) swaps.
As an alternative, Kaufman suggests a worldwide or national grain reserve, so that regulators can bring wheat into the market when needed to stabilize prices. He notes that we actually kept a large grain reserve in the Clinton era, before the mania for deregulation. President Franklin Roosevelt pledged to maintain a large grain reserve in his second Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1938.
Chris Cook, former director of a global energy exchange, maintains:
The only long term solution is to completely re-architect markets. Firstly, cutting out middlemen — which is a process already under way. Secondly, a new settlement between producer and consumer nations — a Bretton Woods II.
Speculative markets today are driven more by fear, says Cook, than by greed. Investors are looking for something safe that will give them an adequate return, which means something they can live on in retirement. They need these investments because their employers and the government do not provide an adequate safety net.
At one time, federal securities were a safe and adequate investment for retirees. Then federal interest rates plunged, and investors moved into municipal bonds. Now that market too is collapsing, due to threats of bankruptcy among bond issuers. Cities, counties and states floundering from the credit crisis have been denied access to the quantitative easing tools used to bail out the banks — although it was the banks, not local governments, that caused the crisis. See “The Fed Has Spoken: No Bailout for Main Street.”
Meanwhile, pensions are being slashed and social security is under attack. Arguably, along with the grain reserves institutionalized under Franklin Roosevelt, we need an Economic Bill of Rights of the sort he envisioned, one that would guarantee citizens at least a bare minimum standard of living. This could be done through job guarantees when people were able to work and social security when they were not. The program could be funded with government-created credit or government-bank-created credit, and this could be done without causing hyperinflation. To support that contention would take more space than is left here, but the subject has been tackled in my book Web of Debt. In the meantime, the credit needed to get local economies up and running again can be furnished through publicly-owned banks. For more on that possibility, see http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.
Underlying the sudden, volatile uprising in Egypt and Tunisia is a growing global crisis sparked by soaring food prices. But what caused the recent jump in food prices remains a matter of debate . . . .
“What for a poor man is a crust, for a rich man is a securitized asset class.”
–Futures trader Ann Berg, quoted in the UK Guardian
Underlying the sudden, volatile uprising in Egypt and Tunisia is a growing global crisis sparked by soaring food prices and unemployment. The Associated Press reports that roughly 40 percent of Egyptians struggle along at the World Bank-set poverty level of under $2 per day. Analysts estimate that food price inflation in Egypt is currently at an unsustainable 17 percent yearly. In poorer countries, as much as 60 to 80 percent of people’s incomes go for food, compared to just 10 to 20 percent in industrial countries. An increase of a dollar or so in the cost of a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread for Americans can mean starvation for people in Egypt and other poor countries.
Follow the Money
The cause of the recent jump in global food prices remains a matter of debate. Some analysts blame the Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing” program (increasing the money supply with credit created with accounting entries), which they warn is sparking hyperinflation. Too much money chasing too few goods is the classic explanation for rising prices.
The problem with that theory is that the global money supply has actually shrunk since 2006, when food prices began their dramatic rise. Virtually all money today is created on the books of banks as “credit” or “debt,” and overall lending has shrunk. This has occurred in an accelerating process of deleveraging (paying down or writing off loans and not making new ones), as the subprime housing market has collapsed and bank capital requirements have been raised. Although it seems counterintuitive, the more debt there is, the more money there is in the system. As debt shrinks, the money supply shrinks in tandem.
That is why government debt today is not actually the bugaboo it is being made out to be by the deficit terrorists. The flipside of debt is credit, and businesses run on it. When credit collapses, trade collapses. When private debt shrinks, public debt must therefore step in to replace it. The “good” credit or debt is the kind used for building infrastructure and other productive capacity, increasing the Gross Domestic Product and wages; and this is the kind governments are in a position to employ. The parasitic forms of credit or debt are the gamblers’ money-making-money schemes, which add nothing to GDP.
Prices have been driven up by too much money chasing too few goods, but the money is chasing only certain selected goods. Food and fuel prices are up, but housing prices are down. The net result is that overall price inflation remains low.
While quantitative easing may not be the culprit, Fed action has driven the rush into commodities. In response to the banking crisis of 2008, the Federal Reserve dropped the Fed funds rate (the rate at which banks borrow from each other) nearly to zero. This has allowed banks and their customers to borrow in the U.S. at very low rates and invest abroad for higher returns, creating a dollar “carry trade.”
Meanwhile, interest rates on federal securities were also driven to very low levels, leaving investors without that safe, stable option for funding their retirements. “Hot money” – investment seeking higher returns – fled from the collapsed housing market into anything but the dollar, which generally meant fleeing into commodities.
New Meaning to the Old Adage “Don’t Play with Your Food”
At one time food was considered a poor speculative investment, because it was too perishable to be stored until market conditions were right for resale. But that changed with the development of ETFs (exchange-traded funds) and other financial innovations.
As first devised, speculation in food futures was fairly innocuous, since when the contract expired, somebody actually had to buy the product at the “spot” or cash price. This forced the fanciful futures price and the more realistic spot price into alignment. But that changed in 1991. In a revealing July 2010 report in Harper’s Magazine titled “The Food Bubble: How Wall Street Starved Millions and Got Away with It,” Frederick Kaufman wrote:
The history of food took an ominous turn in 1991, at a time when no one was paying much attention. That was the year Goldman Sachs decided our daily bread might make an excellent investment. . . .
Robber barons, gold bugs, and financiers of every stripe had long dreamed of controlling all of something everybody needed or desired, then holding back the supply as demand drove up prices.
As Kaufman explained this financial innovation in a July 16 interview on Democracy Now:
Goldman . . . came up with this idea of the commodity index fund, which really was a way for them to accumulate huge piles of cash for themselves. . . . Instead of a buy-and-sell order, like everybody does in these markets, they just started buying. It’s called “going long.” They started going long on wheat futures. . . . And every time one of these contracts came due, they would do something called “rolling it over” into the next contract. . . . And they kept on buying and buying and buying and buying and accumulating this historically unprecedented pile of long-only wheat futures. And this accumulation created a very odd phenomenon in the market. It’s called a “demand shock.” Usually prices go up because supply is low . . . . In this case, Goldman and the other banks had introduced this completely unnatural and artificial demand to buy wheat, and that then set the price up. . . . [H]ard red wheat generally trades between $3 and $6 per sixty-pound bushel. It went up to $12, then $15, then $18. Then it broke $20. And on February 25th, 2008, hard red spring futures settled at $25 per bushel. . . . [T]he irony here is that in 2008, it was the greatest wheat-producing year in world history.
. . . [T]he other outrage . . . is that at the time that Goldman and these other banks are completely messing up the structure of this market, they’ve protected themselves outside the market, through this really almost diabolical idea called “replication” . . . . Let’s say, . . . you want me to invest for you in the wheat market. You give me a hundred bucks . . . . [W]hat I should be doing is putting a hundred bucks in the wheat markets. But I don’t have to do that. All I have to do is put $5 in. . . . And with that $5, I can hold your hundred-dollar position. Well, now I’ve got ninety-five of your dollars. . . . [W]hat Goldman did with hundreds of billions of dollars, and what all these banks did with hundreds of billions of dollars, is they put them in the most conservative investments conceivable. They put it in T-bills. . . . [N]ow that you have hundreds of billions of dollars in T-bills, you can leverage that into trillions of dollars. . . . And then they take that trillion dollars, they give it to their day traders, and they say, “Go at it, guys. Do whatever is most lucrative today.” And so, as billions of people starve, they use that money to make billions of dollars for themselves.
Other researchers have concurred in this explanation of the food crisis. In a July 2010 article called “How Goldman Sachs Gambled on Starving the World’s Poor – And Won,” journalist Johann Hari observed:
Beginning in late 2006, world food prices began rising. A year later, wheat price had gone up 80 percent, maize by 90 percent and rice by 320 percent. Food riots broke out in more than 30 countries, and 200 million people faced malnutrition and starvation. Suddenly, in the spring of 2008, food prices fell to previous levels, as if by magic. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, has called this “a silent mass murder”, entirely due to “man-made actions.”
Some economists said the hikes were caused by increased demand by Chinese and Indian middle class population booms and the growing use of corn for ethanol. But according to Professor Jayati Ghosh of the Centre for Economic Studies in New Delhi, demand from those countries actually fell by 3 percent over the period; and the International Grain Council stated that global production of wheat had increased during the price spike.
According to a study by the now-defunct Lehman Brothers, index fund speculation jumped from $13 billion to $260 billion from 2003 to 2008. Not surprisingly, food prices rose in tandem, beginning in 2003. Hedge fund manager Michael Masters estimated that on the regulated exchanges in the U.S., 64 percent of all wheat contracts were held by speculators with no interest whatever in real wheat. They owned it solely in anticipation of price inflation and resale. George Soros said it was “just like secretly hoarding food during a hunger crisis in order to make profits from increasing prices.”
An August 2009 paper by Jayati Ghosh, professor at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Dehli, compared food staples traded on futures markets with staples that were not. She found that the price of food staples not traded on futures markets, such as millet, cassava and potatoes, rose only a fraction as much as staples subject to speculation, such as wheat.
Nomi Prins, writing in Mother Jones in 2008, also blamed the price hikes on speculation. She observed that agricultural futures and energy futures were being packaged and sold just like CDOs (collateralized debt obligations), but in this case they were called CCOs (collateralized commodity obligations). The higher the price of food, the more CCO investors profited. She warned:
[W]ithout strong regulation of electronic exchanges and the derivatives products that enable speculators to move huge proportions of the futures markets underlying commodities, putting a bit of regulation into the London-based exchanges will not alleviate anything. Unless that’s addressed, this bubble is going to take more than homes with it. It’s going to take lives.
What Can Be Done?
According to Kaufman, the food bubble has now increased the ranks of the world’s hungry by 250 million. On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed a Wall Street reform bill that would close many of the regulatory loopholes allowing big financial institutions to play in agriculture commodity futures markets, but Kaufman says the bill’s solutions are not likely to work. Wall Street innovators can devise new ways to speculate that easily dance around cumbersome, slow-to-pass legislation. Attempts to ban all food speculation are also unlikely to work, he says, since firms can pick up the phone and do their trades through London, or arrange over-the-counter (private) swaps.
As an alternative, Kaufman suggests a worldwide or national grain reserve, so that regulators can bring wheat into the market when needed to stabilize prices. He notes that we actually kept a large grain reserve in the Clinton era, before the mania for deregulation. President Franklin Roosevelt pledged to maintain a large grain reserve in his second Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1938.
Chris Cook, former director of a global energy exchange, maintains:
The only long term solution is to completely re-architect markets. Firstly, cutting out middlemen — which is a process already under way. Secondly, a new settlement between producer and consumer nations — a Bretton Woods II.
Speculative markets today are driven more by fear, says Cook, than by greed. Investors are looking for something safe that will give them an adequate return, which means something they can live on in retirement. They need these investments because their employers and the government do not provide an adequate safety net.
At one time, federal securities were a safe and adequate investment for retirees. Then federal interest rates plunged, and investors moved into municipal bonds. Now that market too is collapsing, due to threats of bankruptcy among bond issuers. Cities, counties and states floundering from the credit crisis have been denied access to the quantitative easing tools used to bail out the banks — although it was the banks, not local governments, that caused the crisis. See “The Fed Has Spoken: No Bailout for Main Street.”
Meanwhile, pensions are being slashed and social security is under attack. Arguably, along with the grain reserves institutionalized under Franklin Roosevelt, we need an Economic Bill of Rights of the sort he envisioned, one that would guarantee citizens at least a bare minimum standard of living. This could be done through job guarantees when people were able to work and social security when they were not. The program could be funded with government-created credit or government-bank-created credit, and this could be done without causing hyperinflation. To support that contention would take more space than is left here, but the subject has been tackled in my book Web of Debt. In the meantime, the credit needed to get local economies up and running again can be furnished through publicly-owned banks. For more on that possibility, see http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.
Hitler’s freedom from International Debt Slavery
It is always difficult to have a discussion on the topic of WW II Germany, and Hitler, without having emotions run high. And understandably so. We do not believe that there is a world plot in place by those of the Jewish faith to dominate the world. We do however suspect that there is a plot in place by the major financiers and financial institutions, to control. We don’t necessarily agree with all the points made in the article you are about to read, but it certainly does raise some interesting points. We offer this article to our readers as an alternative viewpoint, intended to stimulate discussion. PTE
An article excerpted from:
http://www.webofdebt.com/
Article Author Unknown
History is written by the victors” – W. Churchill
An interesting perspective on World War II, and the players involved.
Many people take joy in saying Wall Street and Jewish bankers “financed Hitler.” There is plenty of documented evidence that Wall Street and Jewish bankers did indeed help finance Hitler at first, partly because it allowed the bankers to get rich (as I will describe below) and partly in order to control Stalin. However, when Germany broke free from the bankers, the bankers declared a world war against Germany.
When we look at all the facts, the charge that “Jews financed Hitler” becomes irrelevant. Los Angeles Attorney Ellen Brown discusses this topic in her book Web of Debt…
When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people, demanding that Germans repay every nation’s costs of the war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in Germany. Private currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms were lost to speculators and to private banks. Germans lived in hovels. They were starving.
Nothing like this had ever happened before – the total destruction of the national currency, plus the wiping out of people’s savings and businesses. On top of this came a global depression. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power.
At that point the German government thwarted the international banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by declaring a global boycott against Germany. Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no longer came from the private international bankers.
The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. To pay for this, the German government (not the international bankers) issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates. In this way the National Socialists put millions of people to work, and paid them with Treasury Certificates. Under the National Socialists, Germany’s money wasn’t backed by gold (which was owned by the international bankers). It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said, “For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.” The government paid workers in Certificates. Workers spent those Certificates on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the international bankers.
Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and Germany was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, with no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries (controlled by international bankers) were still out of work. Within five years, Germany went from the poorest nation in Europe to the richest. Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the international bankers’ denial of foreign credit to Germany, and despite the global boycott by Jewish-owned industries. Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system that cut the bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits. (Venezuela does the same thing today when it trades oil for commodities, plus medical help, and so on. Hence the bankers are trying to squeeze Venezuela.)
Germany’s economic freedom was short-lived; but it left several monuments, including the famous Autobahn, the world’s first extensive superhighway. Hjalmar Schacht, a Rothschild agent who was temporarily head of the German central bank, summed it up thus… An American banker had commented, “Dr. Schacht, you should come to America. We’ve lots of money and that’s real banking.” Schacht replied, “You should come to Berlin. We don’t have money. That’s real banking.” (Schacht, the Rothschild agent, actually supported the private international bankers against Germany, and was rewarded by having all charges against him dropped at the Nuremberg trials.)
This economic freedom made Hitler extremely popular with the German people. Germany was rescued from English economic theory, which says that all currency must be borrowed against the gold owned by a private and secretive banking cartel — such as the Federal Reserve, or the Central Bank of Europe — rather than issued by the government for the benefit of the people. Canadian researcher Dr. Henry Makow (who is Jewish himself) says the main reason why the bankers arranged for a world war against Germany was that Hitler sidestepped the bankers by creating his own money, thereby freeing the German people. Worse, this freedom and prosperity threatened to spread to other nations. Hitler had to be stopped!
Makow quotes from the 1938 interrogation of C. G. Rakovsky, one of the founders of Soviet Bolshevism and a Trotsky intimate. Rakovsky was tried in show trials in the USSR under Stalin. According to Rakovsky, Hitler was at first funded by the international bankers, through the bankers’ agent Hjalmar Schacht. The bankers financed Hitler in order to control Stalin, who had usurped power from their agent Trotsky. Then Hitler became an even bigger threat than Stalin when Hitler started printing his own money. (Stalin came to power in 1922, which was eleven years before Hitler came to power.)
Rakovsky said:
“Hitler took over the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones. He took over the machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the people. Can you possibly imagine what would have come if this had infected a number of other states?” (Henry Makow, “Hitler Did Not Want War,” March 21, 2004).
Economist Henry C K Liu writes of Germany’s remarkable transformation:
“The Nazis came to power in 1933 when the German economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.” (Henry C. K. Liu, “Nazism and the German Economic Miracle,” Asia Times (May 24, 2005).
In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented:
“Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for Germany’s startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers.”
These facts do not appear in any textbooks today. What does appear is the disastrous runaway inflation suffered in 1923 by the Weimar Republic, which governed Germany from 1919 to 1933. Today’s textbooks use this inflation to twist truth into its opposite. They cite the radical devaluation of the German mark as an example of what goes wrong when governments print their own money, rather than borrow it from private cartels.
In reality, the Weimar financial crisis began with the impossible reparations payments imposed at the Treaty of Versailles. Hjalmar Schacht [who was never a Nazi Party member either and now it appears clear why that was the case] – the Rothschild agent who was currency commissioner for the Republic — opposed letting the German government print its own money…
“The Treaty of Versailles is a model of ingenious measures for the economic destruction of Germany. Germany could not find any way of holding its head above the water, other than by the inflationary expedient of printing bank notes.”
Schacht echoes the textbook lie that Weimar inflation was caused when the German government printed its own money. However, in his 1967 book The Magic of Money, Schacht let the cat out of the bag by revealing that it was the PRIVATELY-OWNED Reich bank, not the German government, that was pumping new currency into the economy. Thus, the PRIVATE BANK caused the Weimar hyper-inflation.
Like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Reich bank was overseen by appointed government officials, but was operated for private gain. What drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation was speculation by foreign investors, who sold the mark short, betting on its decreasing value. In the manipulative device known as the short sale, speculators borrow something they don’t own, sell it, and then “cover” by buying it back at the lower price.
Speculation in the German mark was made possible because the PRIVATELY OWNED Reich bank (not yet under Nazi control) made massive amounts of currency available for borrowing. This currency, like U.S. currency today, was created with accounting entries on the bank’s books. Then the funny-money was lent at compound interest. When the Reich bank could not keep up with the voracious demand for marks, other private banks were allowed to create marks out of nothing, and to lend them at interest. The result was runaway debt and inflation.
Thus, according to Schacht himself, the German government did not cause the Weimar hyperinflation. On the contrary, the government (under the National Socialists) got hyperinflation under control. The National Socialists put the Reich bank under strict government regulation, and took prompt corrective measures to eliminate foreign speculation. One of those measures was to eliminate easy access to funny-money loans from private banks. Then Hitler got Germany back on its feet by having the public government issue Treasury Certificates.
Schacht , the Rothschild agent, disapproved of this government fiat money, and wound up getting fired as head of the Reich bank when he refused to issue it. Nonetheless, he acknowledged in his later memoirs that allowing the government to issue the money it needed did not produce the price inflation predicted by classical economic theory, which says that currency must be borrowed from private cartels.
What causes hyper-inflation is uncontrolled speculation. When speculation is coupled with debt (owed to private banking cartels) the result is disaster. On the other hand, when a government issues currency in carefully measured ways, it causes supply and demand to increase together, leaving prices unaffected. Hence there is no inflation, no debt, no unemployment, and no need for income taxes.
Naturally this terrifies the bankers, since it eliminates their powers. It also terrifies the internationalists, since their control of banking allows them to buy the media, the government, and everything else.
An article excerpted from:
http://www.webofdebt.com/
Article Author Unknown
History is written by the victors” – W. Churchill
An interesting perspective on World War II, and the players involved.
Many people take joy in saying Wall Street and Jewish bankers “financed Hitler.” There is plenty of documented evidence that Wall Street and Jewish bankers did indeed help finance Hitler at first, partly because it allowed the bankers to get rich (as I will describe below) and partly in order to control Stalin. However, when Germany broke free from the bankers, the bankers declared a world war against Germany.
When we look at all the facts, the charge that “Jews financed Hitler” becomes irrelevant. Los Angeles Attorney Ellen Brown discusses this topic in her book Web of Debt…
When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people, demanding that Germans repay every nation’s costs of the war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in Germany. Private currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms were lost to speculators and to private banks. Germans lived in hovels. They were starving.
Nothing like this had ever happened before – the total destruction of the national currency, plus the wiping out of people’s savings and businesses. On top of this came a global depression. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power.
At that point the German government thwarted the international banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by declaring a global boycott against Germany. Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no longer came from the private international bankers.
The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. To pay for this, the German government (not the international bankers) issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates. In this way the National Socialists put millions of people to work, and paid them with Treasury Certificates. Under the National Socialists, Germany’s money wasn’t backed by gold (which was owned by the international bankers). It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said, “For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.” The government paid workers in Certificates. Workers spent those Certificates on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the international bankers.
Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and Germany was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, with no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries (controlled by international bankers) were still out of work. Within five years, Germany went from the poorest nation in Europe to the richest. Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the international bankers’ denial of foreign credit to Germany, and despite the global boycott by Jewish-owned industries. Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system that cut the bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits. (Venezuela does the same thing today when it trades oil for commodities, plus medical help, and so on. Hence the bankers are trying to squeeze Venezuela.)
Germany’s economic freedom was short-lived; but it left several monuments, including the famous Autobahn, the world’s first extensive superhighway. Hjalmar Schacht, a Rothschild agent who was temporarily head of the German central bank, summed it up thus… An American banker had commented, “Dr. Schacht, you should come to America. We’ve lots of money and that’s real banking.” Schacht replied, “You should come to Berlin. We don’t have money. That’s real banking.” (Schacht, the Rothschild agent, actually supported the private international bankers against Germany, and was rewarded by having all charges against him dropped at the Nuremberg trials.)
This economic freedom made Hitler extremely popular with the German people. Germany was rescued from English economic theory, which says that all currency must be borrowed against the gold owned by a private and secretive banking cartel — such as the Federal Reserve, or the Central Bank of Europe — rather than issued by the government for the benefit of the people. Canadian researcher Dr. Henry Makow (who is Jewish himself) says the main reason why the bankers arranged for a world war against Germany was that Hitler sidestepped the bankers by creating his own money, thereby freeing the German people. Worse, this freedom and prosperity threatened to spread to other nations. Hitler had to be stopped!
Makow quotes from the 1938 interrogation of C. G. Rakovsky, one of the founders of Soviet Bolshevism and a Trotsky intimate. Rakovsky was tried in show trials in the USSR under Stalin. According to Rakovsky, Hitler was at first funded by the international bankers, through the bankers’ agent Hjalmar Schacht. The bankers financed Hitler in order to control Stalin, who had usurped power from their agent Trotsky. Then Hitler became an even bigger threat than Stalin when Hitler started printing his own money. (Stalin came to power in 1922, which was eleven years before Hitler came to power.)
Rakovsky said:
“Hitler took over the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones. He took over the machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the people. Can you possibly imagine what would have come if this had infected a number of other states?” (Henry Makow, “Hitler Did Not Want War,” March 21, 2004).
Economist Henry C K Liu writes of Germany’s remarkable transformation:
“The Nazis came to power in 1933 when the German economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.” (Henry C. K. Liu, “Nazism and the German Economic Miracle,” Asia Times (May 24, 2005).
In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented:
“Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for Germany’s startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers.”
These facts do not appear in any textbooks today. What does appear is the disastrous runaway inflation suffered in 1923 by the Weimar Republic, which governed Germany from 1919 to 1933. Today’s textbooks use this inflation to twist truth into its opposite. They cite the radical devaluation of the German mark as an example of what goes wrong when governments print their own money, rather than borrow it from private cartels.
In reality, the Weimar financial crisis began with the impossible reparations payments imposed at the Treaty of Versailles. Hjalmar Schacht [who was never a Nazi Party member either and now it appears clear why that was the case] – the Rothschild agent who was currency commissioner for the Republic — opposed letting the German government print its own money…
“The Treaty of Versailles is a model of ingenious measures for the economic destruction of Germany. Germany could not find any way of holding its head above the water, other than by the inflationary expedient of printing bank notes.”
Schacht echoes the textbook lie that Weimar inflation was caused when the German government printed its own money. However, in his 1967 book The Magic of Money, Schacht let the cat out of the bag by revealing that it was the PRIVATELY-OWNED Reich bank, not the German government, that was pumping new currency into the economy. Thus, the PRIVATE BANK caused the Weimar hyper-inflation.
Like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Reich bank was overseen by appointed government officials, but was operated for private gain. What drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation was speculation by foreign investors, who sold the mark short, betting on its decreasing value. In the manipulative device known as the short sale, speculators borrow something they don’t own, sell it, and then “cover” by buying it back at the lower price.
Speculation in the German mark was made possible because the PRIVATELY OWNED Reich bank (not yet under Nazi control) made massive amounts of currency available for borrowing. This currency, like U.S. currency today, was created with accounting entries on the bank’s books. Then the funny-money was lent at compound interest. When the Reich bank could not keep up with the voracious demand for marks, other private banks were allowed to create marks out of nothing, and to lend them at interest. The result was runaway debt and inflation.
Thus, according to Schacht himself, the German government did not cause the Weimar hyperinflation. On the contrary, the government (under the National Socialists) got hyperinflation under control. The National Socialists put the Reich bank under strict government regulation, and took prompt corrective measures to eliminate foreign speculation. One of those measures was to eliminate easy access to funny-money loans from private banks. Then Hitler got Germany back on its feet by having the public government issue Treasury Certificates.
Schacht , the Rothschild agent, disapproved of this government fiat money, and wound up getting fired as head of the Reich bank when he refused to issue it. Nonetheless, he acknowledged in his later memoirs that allowing the government to issue the money it needed did not produce the price inflation predicted by classical economic theory, which says that currency must be borrowed from private cartels.
What causes hyper-inflation is uncontrolled speculation. When speculation is coupled with debt (owed to private banking cartels) the result is disaster. On the other hand, when a government issues currency in carefully measured ways, it causes supply and demand to increase together, leaving prices unaffected. Hence there is no inflation, no debt, no unemployment, and no need for income taxes.
Naturally this terrifies the bankers, since it eliminates their powers. It also terrifies the internationalists, since their control of banking allows them to buy the media, the government, and everything else.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America
HERE'S THE LIBERATING TRUTH IN A NUTSHELL:
http://www.losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf
The income tax is a benign, Constitutional tax that simply doesn't apply to the earnings of most people; the law, scores of United States Supreme Court rulings, and every other relevant authority all say so in no uncertain terms.
Knowing that fact, along with how the tax works, how it can be misapplied, and what can and should be done when it has been misapplied is the difference between being an exploited victim of a decades-old scheme that is a national disgrace and being a responsible, grown-up citizen of the Constitutionally-limited American republic that the Founders of this great country established for themselves and their posterity.
I say "responsible, grown-up citizen" because one of the key mechanisms the Founders provided in their federal Constitutional design in order to ensure that the "dangerous servant and terrible master" they were reluctantly creating stayed within its intended limits was leaving control over how much wealth the government could take directly from the citizenry entirely in the hands of each individual American. The Founders relied upon each American to use this control to enforce the limits on our servant government.
This Constitutional mechanism remains intact (the 16th Amendment notwithstanding), and all income-tax-related federal and state laws conform to that mechanism and its purpose faithfully and precisely.
I know that sounds fantastic (as in, "a fantasy"). However, the federal and state governments have been steadily acknowledging the truth of what I say for years now. Since 2003, readers of 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' (CtC), my first of three books on the law so far, have been learning the complete and accurate truth about the tax. The many thousands of these good and honorable Americans who have acted on what they have learned about the often well-concealed but nonetheless reigning laws of the land have retained or taken back well over
from those governments-- including Social Security and Medicare 'contributions'. In more than a few cases, strenuous efforts have been made by these governments to resist, evade or discourage these educated citizens before finally surrendering to the plain truth about the tax and the law.
http://www.losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf
The income tax is a benign, Constitutional tax that simply doesn't apply to the earnings of most people; the law, scores of United States Supreme Court rulings, and every other relevant authority all say so in no uncertain terms.
Knowing that fact, along with how the tax works, how it can be misapplied, and what can and should be done when it has been misapplied is the difference between being an exploited victim of a decades-old scheme that is a national disgrace and being a responsible, grown-up citizen of the Constitutionally-limited American republic that the Founders of this great country established for themselves and their posterity.
I say "responsible, grown-up citizen" because one of the key mechanisms the Founders provided in their federal Constitutional design in order to ensure that the "dangerous servant and terrible master" they were reluctantly creating stayed within its intended limits was leaving control over how much wealth the government could take directly from the citizenry entirely in the hands of each individual American. The Founders relied upon each American to use this control to enforce the limits on our servant government.
This Constitutional mechanism remains intact (the 16th Amendment notwithstanding), and all income-tax-related federal and state laws conform to that mechanism and its purpose faithfully and precisely.
I know that sounds fantastic (as in, "a fantasy"). However, the federal and state governments have been steadily acknowledging the truth of what I say for years now. Since 2003, readers of 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' (CtC), my first of three books on the law so far, have been learning the complete and accurate truth about the tax. The many thousands of these good and honorable Americans who have acted on what they have learned about the often well-concealed but nonetheless reigning laws of the land have retained or taken back well over
from those governments-- including Social Security and Medicare 'contributions'. In more than a few cases, strenuous efforts have been made by these governments to resist, evade or discourage these educated citizens before finally surrendering to the plain truth about the tax and the law.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)