Economist James K Galbraith gave a presentation to the Senate Judiciary Committee in which he speaks of “financial fraud” as the cause for the “crisis”.
But that’s not enough:
- Central Bankers create “currency” as “public debt” from thin air, charge interest to the Government (in the UK as much as the military budget) and call it “quantitative easing“
- Bankers create “credit” from thin air, charge interest for their sort of “money” and get bailed out by Government
- The Treasury prints notes and mints coin, as Cash, free of interest, but still believes it has to “borrow” money from the Bank of England…
Enter we, the taxpayers:
- we believe that the Government runs the economy, when, in fact, their budget represents maybe around 40% of the whole money supply
- we believe that the Bank of England supervises banks and does it for the benefit of the country, when, in fact, it works for the benefits of its shareholders, like all other central banks
And what about taxes?
Before the creation of the Bank of England in 1694, monarchs created money and demanded taxes. However, the first “national debt” consisted of £1.2 million at 8% for the King to fight a war with France.
This pattern continued such that more and more Credit was issued as “money”, while the need for Cash was more and more reduced:
- since WWII 47% Cash went down to 3% Cash
So the Government colludes in the central bankers’ game of ruling the world with currencies (and the loss of their value) and credit money (and the loss of its value), while the real economy, with its real values is exploited and oppressed.
In theory, neither taxes nor spending cuts are necessary.
In practice, it seems to depend on who influences whom with what kind of knowledge and understanding or beliefs and myths…
In our efforts to stage a Public Inquiry into White Collar Crime, we need to include the creation of “money” as the ultimate institutionalised white collar crime… But who cares???
Justice for All are campaigning against spending cuts regarding legal advice. Maybe they’ll realise where spending cuts fit into the larger picture of creating “credit” from thin air and calling it “money”…
Posted in Bailout money, Borrowing, Credit, Credit Crisis, Credit Crunch, Debt, Government budgets, Money supply, Quantitative easing
Tagged Bank of England, Central Bank, Credit, Government, Monetary Policy Committee, Quantitative easing
This press release from HM Treasury gives you the whole speeach verbatim.
A speech that does mention what used to be unfamiliar:
- the sovereign debt
- its interest payment
- the budget deficit.
But it glorifies the “independence” of the Office for Budget Responsibility whereas it means control of Downing Street by the City.
The tripartite system of Bank of England, Financial Services Authority and Treasury will be changed such that the Bank of England has yet more powers.
A new Financial Policy Committee will be created at the Bank.
A new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority is supposed to regulate financial firms.
A single agency is supposed to take on the work of tackling serious economic crime!
A bank levy will be introduced (the Robin Hood Tax???)…
An independent Commission on the banking industry will check the structure of banking under Sir John Vickers, former chief economist at the Bank of England.
This article in the Independent is entitled “Bailout money is flowing abroad”. It illustrates how journalists don’t analyse deeply enough and how language has always been used by the bankers and central bankers to make it sound acceptable what they are doing.
For the money that the Bank of England has been “printing” by “quantitative easing” has not been created in the same way as the “bailout money” that the Treasury provided.
By buying government bonds, the Bank of England has bought yet more control over the state. As H M Government, it feels powerless to create money, because its individuals have been ‘bought’, each in their own way, by ‘higher powers’, so that, gradually, the wrong institutions perform and follow the wrong procedures, e.g. the Debt Management Office and the FSA.
Their Majesties’ subjects were meant not to be oppressed by the Corporation, as the Bank of England Act 1694 says.
But Her Majesty’s Senior Correspondence Officer passes my letters to No. 10 where Mr. S. Caine passes them to the Treasury from where I don’t get an answer…
For those who can recognize it, the trend towards more and more concentration of controlling by money, is becoming more and more apparent. But let us trust that the connectivity of the web and between people with good intentions will help us!
Just in case you might think I’m wrong with my analysis, here is an American voice that explains it in market terms.
And The Independent formulates the Big UK question: Could the government bailout of the banks bankrupt the country?
In both countries it is clear that and how governments have given up their loyalty to their citizens in favour of their banks.
According to this article Bailouts expected to add £1.5 trillion to national debt as tax take tumbles in Times Online on February 20, 2009, “official accountancy rules”, few of the nationalised banks’ assets can be counted in the Government’s books.
The big number game continues to be played, to camouflage what is really going on.