To make dollar looks good is to make gold looks bad
Everything is about CREDIT…even flushing your toilets.
Its ALL a PONZI SCHEME!
To make dollar looks good is to make gold looks bad
Everything is about CREDIT…even flushing your toilets.
Its ALL a PONZI SCHEME!
Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush…
The bank$ loan money to governments so that the governments can govern.
If the governments default they’d be bankrupt.
The bank$ play dirty game$ and get caught with their finger$ in the jar.
The mother bank$, or the governments will punish and fine the naughty bank$
When the bank$ got into trouble the governments bail them out with the money the bank$ loaned them so that the bank$ could remain giving them loan$.
Can somebody tell me who created the mulberry bush??
…and the list goes on round the mulberry bush.
You don’t need a slide rule, a set of log tables or a high frequency trading algorithm to see the light. Everyone on Main Street now knows that the Western banking cartel’s fixation with debt colonisation is a busted flush. Debt does not work as the basis of a global financial system.
Behind the scenes, all the indications are that universal debt forgiveness is set to be announced. A global debt jubilee is waiting in the wings. The Doctrine of Odious Debts has been spectacularly revisited. The default position of the global financial system is to be permanently reset. The vaults are stocked. The precious metals are audited. The new gold-backed regional currencies are printed, minted and ready.
The most recent catalyst for change has been Iraq. Before the Western cabal’s US-UK war of occupation and plunder began in Iraq in March 2003, Iraqi exiles expressed the hope that in a post-Saddam democratic Iraq, there would be a fair and equitable disposition of Saddam’s debts.
These Iraqis wanted the future administration of Iraq and the international community to review the debts accumulated under Saddam’s régime. Those loans which had been used for benign purposes should be restructured and paid back by Iraq over a prudent time period. Those loans which were used for objectionable purposes and which did nothing to enhance the well-being or prosperity of the Iraqi population at large, should be struck off the record immediately and completely.
This illustrates one of the core principles of debt forgiveness. Why should Iraqis be forced to repay the US, the British, the French, the Germans, the Russians, and all the others who had financially supported Saddam’s oppression of them?
The Iraqi argument for debt forgiveness had a sound basis in law. It reflects the century-old legal principle of the Doctrine of Odious Debts.
The Doctrine of Odious Debts was created to further international finance by limiting the ability of governments to repudiate debts. Three conditions had to apply before a sovereign state could repudiate a debt:
(1) The debt must have been incurred without the informed consent of the citizenry of the state.
(2) The debt must not have benefitted the citizenry of the state.
(3) The lender must have been aware of conditions (1) and (2) at the time that the loan papers were signed.
The United States employed these principles after the Spanish-American War to repudiate the Cuban debts.
If a despotic power incurs a debt which is manifestly not for the needs of the State, or not in the plain interest of the State, but is a debt incurred solely to strengthen the position of the despotic cabal as a self-serving faction within that State, the debt is odious. The debt is not an obligation for the nation; it is a cabal debt, a personal debt of the cabal which incurred it. And the debt falls with the fall of the cabal.
The Doctrine of Odious Debts not only promotes accountability, it promotes democracy in the debtor state as, one by one, the nature of the inherited debts are articulated in a public legislature.
The Doctrine of Odious Debts also promotes democracy in creditor states. In Canada and most European nations, the lending of state enterprises is generally hidden from taxpayers. Canada’s export credit agency, Export Development Canada, for example, is exempt from Canada’s Access to Information law.
In the case of Iraq, state agencies from France, Germany and Russia may have made questionable loans. Under an odious debt process, they would need to establish that they acted with due diligence to be entitled to repayment. Knowing this, they would be less likely to make questionable loans in the future.
Debt forgiveness and the Doctrine of Odious Debts also applies to individuals. The same principles have legal traction on loans or structured financial inducements made by financial institutions such as banks, mortgage lenders, insurance companies, stock-trading entities, energy conglomerates and pharmaceutical firms.
If the intention of the financial transaction tied to the loan, or tied to the financial inducement, is extortion, if it is, in effect, an élite scheme to bamboozle the borrower with small print or to blind him with science, that loan or inducement, should be struck off the record immediately and completely. The debt was not incurred with the informed consent of the borrower. The debt did not benefit the borrower. And the lender was well aware of these facts when the loan papers were signed.
Universal debt forgiveness is on the way as an essential precursor to the planet’s new gold-backed financial system. It has deep historical roots and powerful support in natural law. This imminent global debt jubilee is organically related to the disbursement of The World Global Settlement Funds, to the long-planned public NESARA announcements, and to the opening of Pandora’s Suitcase.
More background about the concept of the Odious Debt can be found here (pdf – 11 pages – Jayachandran and Kremer) and, in the specific context of Greece in 2011, here. Murray Rothbard’s original 2004 piece on Repudiating the US National Debt can be found here. And The Center for Global Development’s 2010 review entitled: “Whatever Happened to the Jubilee? A 10th Anniversary Assessment of the Debt Relief Movement” is linked here.
Citing both Keen and Hudson, Yiamouyiannis is persuasive. When debt is fraudulent, debt forgiveness is both the logical and the only remedy for the situation. Whatever the name you give to the process – erasure, repudiation, abolishment, cancellation, jubilee – debt forgiveness will eventually have to emerge at the forefront of global efforts to solve the ongoing systemic financial crisis.
The only way to erase counterfeit money and counterfeit assets amounting to hundreds of trillions of dollars is to erase the debts associated with these fake assets. They are not toxic assets. They are fake assets.
Debt forgiveness accomplishes two important things. First, it eliminates the increasing and outsized portion of productive enterprise which is being employed to pay off unproductive obligations. Second, it clears the ground for new opportunities, new thinking, creative invention and positive entrepreneurialism.
Stentorian calls for austerity are nothing more than the delusional efforts of a fraudulent bankster status quo to avoid the consequences of its own error and fraud. The élite demands for austerity are a self-serving effort to kick the profit-can down the road in perpetuity. So bedazzled by the false wealth created by debt multiplication and its concomitant fantasy of ever-higher returns, the fraudulent bankster status quo continues to be stupidly amazed that ordinary people in the street are not spending money, and that the national economy is not picking up.
Productive human wealth has been trapped by establishment banksters in a web of parasitic theft, counterfeiting, liability evasion, non-regulation, and prosecutorial non-accountability. All the fundamental attributes of a functioning exchange economy have been warped to reward creative criminals.
Fabricated or parasitic so-called “wealth” destroys value by diluting the value of real productive wealth. Debt or credit which cannot be paid back is never an asset; it is always a liability. That some people in the market can be fooled into buying such liabilities and thus generate sale profits and transaction fees is risible.
The operating models upon which the modern debt nexus is historically based have no organic contact with reality. They assume unlimited growth and an unlimited ability to pay. When matched against the reality of real people paying ten times their salary for mortgages, which actually add more money owed to their principal (with negative amortization), require no money down, and set up balloon payments – large step-ups in payments after a few years – there is no possible way such people could not default within a predictable timespan.
Systemically, all debt which charges a percentage originates in delusion. Debt grows exponentially indefinitely; income and other growth cannot do this. This leads to a widening condition where the fruits of productive growth devoted to interest payments increase until those fruits are entirely consumed. Once this happens, stores of wealth (hard assets) begin to be cannibalised to make up the difference. You can see this now in Middle America where, absurdly, people are having to liquidate their retirement accounts to pay for their current cost of living.
The problem is compounded by a privately owned Federal Reserve syndicate which lends money into circulation at interest, and then allows the multiplication of this consumer debt-money liability through fractional reserve banking.
The total amount of money in circulation today can pay for only a tiny fraction of the total private and public debt. This fact alone is evidence of a kind of systemic fraud. This is why debt forgiveness makes not only moral, but also rational and mathematical sense. Finances require balancing to be coherent. There has to be some way to redress the systemic imbalance in Western macrofinance. There has to be some way to zero the scales in order to get an accurate weight of value, and to re-establish healthy value creation.
The problem with debt is that it creates scarcity. Scarcity stimulates fear. Fear drives manic competition. And manic competition favors opportunism, collusion, and concentrations of power. These élite concentrations of power translate into establishment abuse. The inevitable result is a visible collapse of legitimacy within the economic system. This is what is being seen now, all over the Western World, by Joe Public and his missus.
Debt forgiveness recognises the inherent, systemic, mathematical inability to make good on debts, and (or) the naked fact that the debt itself was manufactured through fraudulent means.
The foregoing twelve paragraphs précis some of the ideas which Zeus Yiamouyiannis has suggested in his writing on debt forgiveness. The best brief summary of his thoughts is probably here (01.09.11).
The situation is plain. You cannot solve the debt problem by issuing more debt. You solve the debt problem by cancelling, completely, all national, corporate and personal debt. You do this simultaneously across the planet, and you do it permanently. And then you recapitalise the whole bangshoot using an established resource base such as The World Global Settlement Funds and the associated US Dollar Refunding Project.
This next bit sounds exotic. But in future years it may well sound like a blinding glimpse of the obvious. You don’t establish the value of something by sticking it in a market. You establish the value of something by giving it away free and seeing what social value accrues as that something is used locally to energise cooperative livelihoods and free barter.
Interestingly, the core idea of global debt forgiveness is not restricted to the benevolent ivory towers of economic utopians. It is beginning to be talked about, in public, by national parliamentarians.
At the end of August 2011, in Ireland, the Irish Finance Minister, Michael Noonan, had to respond to organised calls for debt forgiveness in connection with his EuroZone nation’s struggling mortgage borrowers. The story was run prominently in the Business section of the Irish Times on Friday 2nd September 2011. Its headline was: “Minister rules out ‘free-for-all’ debt forgiveness. Noonan insists there is no magic bullet.” The article, by Simon Carswell and Colm Keena, can be found here.
The LIBOR scandal reemerged yesterday as the BBC’s Panorama uncovered a secret recording implicating the Bank of England in the interest rate manipulation saga.
According to the BBC the central bank pressured commercial banks during the 2008 financial crisis to lower their settings for LIBOR.
In a telephone recording, aired last night in the UK, a senior Barclays manager, Mark Dearlove, can be heard instructing Libor submitter Peter Johnson, to lower his rates.
Mr Johnson: “So I’ll push them below a realistic level of where I think I can get money?”
Mr Dearlove: “The fact of the matter is we’ve got the Bank of England, all sorts of people involved in the whole thing… I am as reluctant as you are… these guys have just turned around and said just do it.”
The Barclays submitter, Peter Johnson, who is featured in the phone call was jailed in 2016 after pleading guilty to accepting requests to manipulate LIBOR.
Previous assurances from the Bank of England that they were not involved in LIBOR fixing have now come under question again.
It has long been rumoured that the LIBOR fixing went higher than the banks and individuals that were originally implicated.
In 2012, a 2008 telephone note came to light which recorded a phone call between Paul Tucker, executive at the Bank of England at the time and Barclays’ boss Bob Diamond.
The note refers to what is apparently LIBOR not needing to be ‘so high’ as instructed.
The telephone note was taken on the same day that the Panorama aired phone call between Johnson and Dearlove, took place.
Despite the published telephone note, Bob Diamond told the Treasury Select Committee in 2012 that he had only recently became aware of the manipulations.
Last week there were also new revelations in a newly published book by David Enrich, ‘The Spider Network’ in which Tom Hayes of UBS tells Enrich “This goes much much higher than me and a lot of what I know…”
Tom Hayes’ bosses were happy to accept his LIBOR fixing in exchange for higher commissions until the CFTC investigation came along. They promptly threw him under a bus and he rightly ended up in prison. However there was little implication for seniors at UBS and of course, the Bank of England.
It is amazing how many times junior employees seem to take the rap by themselves – as if there has been no instruction or oversight from their managers. In the banking world, the lone ‘rogue trader’ is a very common little beast indeed.
Hayes has repeatedly claimed that the real culprits are not the executors of the rigging but those higher up the chain who had instructions to do so.
As a result very little was done at the BOE following the fallout to LIBOR. Some staff quietly left their jobs but there were no charges brought against BOE employees.
By manipulating LIBOR, bankers (and seemingly central bankers) pushed up the cost of borrowing for ordinary people. LIBOR was not regulated in either the UK, US or anywhere else. This appears to be an almost line of defence for the Bank of England who only have to provide information on a voluntary basis to the Serious Fraud Office, as part of a new investigation.
Whoever was responsible for LIBOR, no-one is debating the fact that what went on was highly illegal and yet another example of financial institutions manipulating a market at the expense of investors and the public.
LIBOR should not have come as the surprise that it did. It took place in an environment that almost encouraged such behaviour. As we wrote back in 2012 ( LIBOR Manipulation Leads To Questions Regarding Gold Manipulation )
“A lack of transparency, a lack of enforcement of law and a compliant media which failed to ask the hard questions and do basic investigative journalism led to the price fixing continuing and the manipulation continuing unchecked on such a wide scale for so long.”
However, more scandals continue today. Not only have we had LIBOR but we see gold and silver manipulation, foreign exchange rate rigging, the London Whale scandal and money laundering assistance from big banks. Just to name a few.
There are others that are carried out in full public view and with the complete sanction of the press, regulators and the uninformed general public.
Today we have record low interest-rates (of which some are actually negative) as instructed by the Bank of England and other banks and governments around the world. This, combined with quantitative easing and other money creation policies, has prompted major stock market inflation.
In countries such as the UK we see the full-effect of low-interest rates and high levels of real inflation trickle down to the public in the form of house prices which are beyond affordable for the average earner, pushing them into further debt and a lifetime of mortgage repayments.
There are also property bubble in many major cities around the world and global debt levels continue to surge to astronomical levels sowing the seeds of the next financial crisis.
Central bank’s actual policies are to attempt to “rig” bond markets in order to keep bond prices high and interest rates low. This is seen in QE and how record low interest rates is supporting and arguably “rigging” or at least artificially boosting the stock market and the even more interest rate sensitive property market.
Given this policy to intervene in markets such as LIBOR and interest rate markets, is it not very likely that central banks may have been attempting to rig the gold market in recent years as alleged by the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA)?
Banks have already been found guilty of rigging gold and silver and there is much evidence. However, the question is whether the central banks are using banks as proxies to push gold and silver prices lower.
The quotation from Eddie George of the BOE above strongly suggests this was the case and likely remains the case.
Artificially suppressing the prices of markets can work in the short term but in the long term it rarely works as the powerful forces of global supply and demand tend to overcome even the most determined interventions of central planners.
What does all this mean for those of us who are just trying to protect our wealth and own the financial insurance of gold and silver?
It underlines the continuing fragility and risks in the banking and the financial system where there is little transparency and little accountability.
It underlines the importance of fading out short term noise in markets in the form of frequent inexplicable concentrated selling of gold and silver futures prices. Market interventions that push prices lower in the short term despite no negative market news or deteriorating fundamentals.
It underlines the importance of not having all your wealth in the banking system where it may be subject to negative interest rates, bank ‘holidays’, capital controls and of course bail-ins.
Internet Data mining expert Clif High’s latest report says, ““The emotions at the moment are projecting a crash of the ability of the state to function. . . . We have the projection that there is going to be some sort of big government crash. It concerns funding, interruption or something. . . . We have something akin to a definition change relative to bonds. . . . One way to think about this is there is going to be a human collective or re-understanding, or new understanding, about the whole bond market as we go forward in August, September and October. This is going to cause huge disruptions for governments, which basically depends on the bonds as its source of funds. I don’t know what that definition is going to mean, but the way the language is presenting itself, it’s very much like the same language that appeared in newspapers ahead of the Bretton Woods conference. . . . At that time, a bunch of countries got together around WWII and talked about how to deal with gold, money and the dollar after the war was over. . . . We have that same kind of language now relative to the bonds. . . .This redefinition is going to cause real problems relative to governments. If I had to guess, I don’t think we will have a stock market crash, but a government crash or Fed crash or bank crash. I don’t think a stock market crash will be meaningful because by the time it crashes, nobody will care because before we get there, the Fed will crash. The Fed is the market.”
First, Iceland, and now Spain has taken on the Big Bankers responsible for financial calamity, as the country’s highest national court charged the former head of Spain’s central bank, a market regulator, and five other banking officials over a failed bank leading to the loss of millions of euros for smaller investors.
This, of course, markedly departs from the mammoth taxpayer giveaway — commonly referred to as the bailout — approved by the U.S. government ostensively to “save” the Big Banks and, albeit unstated, allow the enormous institutions to continue bilking customers without the slightest fear of penalty.
Errant bankers and financiers, it would seem, typically manage to either evade actually being charged, or escape hefty fines and time behind bars.
Spain’s Supreme Court last year ruled “serious inaccuracies” in information about the listing led investors to back Bankia in error, thus the bank has since paid out millions of euros in compensation.
But Spanish authorities could not abide the telling findings of a yearslong investigation into the failed listing, as Wolf Street explains,
“As part of the epic, multi-year criminal investigation into the doomed IPO of Spain’s frankenbank Bankia – which had been assembled from the festering corpses of seven already defunct saving banks – Spain’s national court called to testify six current and former directors of the Bank of Spain, including its former governor, Miguel Ángel Fernández Ordóñez, and its former deputy governor (and current head of the Bank of International Settlements’ Financial Stability Institute), Fernando Restoy. It also summoned for questioning Julio Segura, the former president of Spain’s financial markets regulator, the CNMV [National Securities Market Commission] (the Spanish equivalent of the SEC in the US).
“The six central bankers and one financial regulator stand accused of authorizing the public launch of Bankia in 2011 despite repeated warnings from the Bank of Spain’s own team of inspectors that the banking group was ‘unviable.’”
As AFP reports, “The National Court validated conclusions made by prosecutors who concluded that when ‘an unviable entity has been listed on the stock market, its administrators or auditor should not shoulder all the responsibility.’”
Specifics of the charges have not yet been made apparent, but as The Economist reports:
“The court is questioning why they allowed Bankia to sell shares in an initial public offering in 2011, less than a year before Bankia’s portfolio of bad mortgage loans forced the government to seize control of it. It said there was evidence the regulators had ‘full and thorough knowledge’ of Bankia’s plight. After its nationalisation, it went on to report a €19.2bn ($24.7bn) loss for 2012, the largest in Spanish corporate history.”
Internal emails and documents played a crucial role in ultimately bringing the central banking officials to task for the failure of Bankia — inspectors bringing issues to the attention of superiors were allegedly ignored. One email cited by the Economist came from an inspector who warned Bankia was “a money-losing machine,” for which an IPO would not solve.
Another report, deemed “devastating by the court,” saw an inspector advise Bankia to seek a private buyer rather than proceed with the listing.
An inquiry into “the participation of other players, such as officials in the central bank,” was also urged by the National Court.
As the Economist points out, Spanish judges are generally reluctant to sentence first-time financial criminals to prison; though five Novacaixagalicia executives had five-year suspended sentences — levied for embezzlement in 2015 — abruptly enforced in January.
Meanwhile, taxpayers in the United States have yet to see Big Bankers criminally responsible for the financial ruin of so many Americans brought to any semblance of justice for their wrongdoing.
I don’t normally post any financial/investment articles as I have no interest in this particular subject either to become a player or market observer. What attracted me to this article was its headline.
Michael Lewitt is a well known financial and market expert, and author. He’s made spot on predictions of the market trends and what’s interesting to me is his anti-establishment stance and how he gets to profit by it from looking and finding the bugs in the system and passing it on to his clients to take advantage of the information and enrich themselves.
I like the opening lines which fit my own view of the establishment and the overview of the rotten system as a whole.
January 12, 2017
We live in an inauthentic world, yet people perceived to be telling the truth are demonized and shunned by the establishment. The fact that it took everybody so long to figure out that mainstream media promoted “fake news” to support their own political agenda is testimony to the fact that we claim to seek authenticity but settle for insincerity, falsehood and duplicity in our personal, business and civic relationships. Those of us who refuse to settle are considered “difficult.”
The question I keep asking (because I am decidedly “difficult”) is whether these people are wrong because they are stupid or because they are lying. I’ve come to conclude that the two alternatives are not mutually exclusive though one of the worst sins our society commits against itself is confusing educational achievement and wealth for intelligence or good intentions.
The U.S. government is a major promoter of fake news. It lies to its citizens about virtually everything, but one of its specialties is the publication of phony economic statistics to justify failed economic policies. Whether this will change under the new administration remains to be seen (I’m not holding my breath and neither should you), but the last eight years were characterized by one false narrative after another bolstered by phony government statistics.
These two outright lies should concern you the most.