Why Spending Cuts are another variation of “institutionalised white collar crime”

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”…

Quantitative Easing: the BoE explains and I comment

Quantitative easing explained the American way on a 6-minute video.

First, I contributed to quantitave easing on Wikipedia.

Now, Ask the Deputy Governor offers the following 16 questions addressed to the Bank of England with their answers.

Aware of the Bank of England Act 1694, I comment not as an economist, but from the perspective of a mathematician, systems analyst and software diagnostician, formerly at CERN, looking at “money” and its purpose:

1. Given inflation has only just fallen below the Government’s 2% target, why is the Bank of England adopting such a large unconventional policy measure?

The effects of monetary policy on prices and real activity only come through after long and somewhat variable lags.

Comment: 2% inflation of consumer prices is only possible when measuring inflation extremely short-term. The Office of National Statistics keeps writing about annual inflation, while also gathering monthly data.

Inflation as “price inflation” is only one aspect. The real inflation is the supply of money as currency for the nation as a whole, which should be called “monetary inflation”.