IMF Teaches Governments How to Wage War on Cash


Creepy IMF Paper Teaches Governments How to Wage War on Cash

by Peter Schiff

There’s been another shot fired in the “war on cash.” Recently, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published a working paper offering governments suggestions on how to move toward a cashless society even in the face of strong public opposition.

Over the last several years, we’ve seen a steady push to eliminate, or at least limit, the use of cash around the world. In May of 2016, the European Central bank announced it will stop producing and issuing 500-euro notes by the end of 2018. Not long before the EU announcement, a former Obama economic adviser/ex-Treasury secretary floated the idea of eliminating the $100 bill in the US.

Banks have also gotten in on the act. Last year, Chase capped ATM withdrawals for non-Chase customers at $1,000 per day. Recently, ATMs in Mexico stopped issuing 500-peso notes, leaving the 200-peso note as the highest denomination available. CitiBank Australia stopped handling cash transactions altogether late last year.

Indians also felt the squeeze last fall. On Nov. 8, the Indian government declared that 1,000 and 500 rupee notes would no longer be valid. They gave the public just four hours notice. Why? To force so-called “black money” into the light.

About 90% of all transactions in India are in cash. It is an overwhelmingly cash economy and virtually every Indian has currency stashed away in their home. The government can’t tax transactions using black money. By making the 1,000 and 500 rupee notes valueless, government officials hope to force the black money into the economy so they can get their cut.

Officials always justify their war on cash with talk about “customer preference,” and fighting terrorism and drugs, but the drive toward a cashless society is really about control.

By controlling access to your own money, banks and governments increase their control over you. They can collect maximum taxes and fees, they can track purchases, and they can even manipulate your spending habits by imposing negative interest rates that effectively charge you for saving.

Needless to say, many everyday people like cash and the relative freedom it provides. In a worst-case scenario, they can at least shield their wealth by shoving cash under their mattresses. You can’t do that if there isn’t any cash.

Well, the IMF wants to help governments crack down on cash in a kinder and gentler way. In “The Macroeconomics of De-Cashing,” IMF analyst Alexei Kireyev explains how governments can overcome the objections of their citizens as they wage their war on cash.

“Although some countries most likely will de-cash in a few years, going completely cashless should be phased in steps. The de-cashing process could build on the initial and largely uncontested steps, such as the phasing out of large denomination bills, the placement of ceilings on cash transactions, and the reporting of cash moves across the borders. Further steps could include creating economic incentives to reduce the use of cash in transactions, simplifying the opening and use of transferrable deposits, and further computerizing the financial system.”

Kireyev suggests governments will encounter less resistance if private institutions lead de-cashing efforts. After all, governments don’t want to give the impression they are trying to control their populace.

“In any case, the tempting attempts to impose de-cashing by a decree should be avoided, given the popular personal attachment to cash. A targeted outreach program is needed to alleviate suspicions related to de-cashing; in particular, that by de-cashing the authorities are trying to control all aspects of peoples’ lives, including their use of money, or push personal savings into banks. The de-cashing process would acquire more traction if it were based on individual consumer choice and cost-benefits considerations.”

Note: the paper does include a disclaimer. “The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF.”

Nevertheless, the suggestions in the working paper are creepy, to say the least. They certainly confirm the powers-that-be are very interested in limiting your access to cash and exercising maximum control over you.

One way to protect yourself from becoming a victim in the war on cash is to just buy gold and silver. The intrinsic value of precious metals can never truly be condemned by any government.

___
https://tabublog.com/2017/04/14/imf-plans-for-cashless-society-disclosed/

..

Advertisements

How the Government Conditions Citizens to Obey


The Daily Bell

Can you count how many ways the government manipulates people to be the type of citizen they can easily control?

I think that would be impossible to come up with an actual number when every facet of government is dedicated to shaping the citizen in ways contrary to his or her nature.

It ranges from tax credits for having kids to increased welfare for being a single mom; from subsidies for growing corn to mandates to eradicate invasive species. The government is changing citizens’ behavior with incentives and disincentives, which destroys the natural spontaneous order society would otherwise fall into.

The government has basically turned society into a pinball machine which bounces citizens from here to there, taking away control of their destiny. And then, they use their own coercion as an example of why we need more coercion: because people cannot control their own outcomes in life!

Governments and corporations alike know that the best way to mold a person is to start in childhood.

That is why children younger than 6 are being prescribed anti-depressants by the government health care system in Great Britain. Almost 200,000 prescriptions for antidepressants are handed out to children under 18 in Great Britain, almost 13,000 of which go to kids from 7-12 and over 600 go to children under 6 years old!

Yet as disconcerting as these figures are, the UK isn’t the first country to have them. In 2009, five deaths have already been linked to antidepressants in Australian children aged 10 to 19; moreover, 89 recorded adverse reactions in children under nine were associated with antidepressants. Dr. Joe Tucci, Chief Executive of the Australian Childhood Foundation, said: “I cannot think of a good reason why any six-year-old, or younger, should be treated with antidepressants. I think it’s gone up because medication is being used to treat the symptoms and not the cause.”

The actual cause is where the story starts. Why are children so young depressed?

Coercion is arguably the leading cause of all mental health issues. In modern society, children start to feel this coercion as soon as they are born into a society shaped like a cattle pen.

Increasing suicide attempts by children are concentrated around the times when school is in session. The unnatural environment in which they are placed causes extreme stress for many children. The “well-adjusted” ones take to the authority like good sheep, and everyone else gets loaded up with drugs to make them a better citizen.

Later in life, a good citizen will take this lesson to heart. Don’t feel like you fit in? Not happy with your job, spouse, environment? Anxiety, depression, helplessness, anger over things that you cannot control because you feel forced into a life you don’t want?

Drugs. Do illegal drugs and enrich the CIA (and give the government an option to lock you up if they want), or do legal drugs and enrich the government connected pharmaceutical corporations.

It is, however, encouraging to see an increase in home-schooling in the USA, (which could actually be inadvertently fueled by forced vaccination for any children attending public school). About 40 years ago, 40 million children attended public school and under 100,000 were homeschooled. By 2005 48 million children attended public school, and a whopping 2 million were being homeschooled.

Parents who raise their kids to not blindly follow authority are doing a great service. It is tempting for parents to snap, “Because I said so!” to children, but it is better to explain why the rules are what they are whenever possible.

The kids rewarded in school are the ones best at following directions, and the teacher always hates the kid that asks why they have to do what they are told when it doesn’t make any sense. I once had to write a letter home because I didn’t wear my coat at recess. My parents responded by letting the teacher know that at the age of 12, my nerve endings had developed enough so that I could choose if a coat was necessary while running around in 50-degree temperatures for 15 minutes.

But police do the same thing to adults conditioned by the public school system.

If you get pulled over or are otherwise unfortunate enough to come into contact with the police, your life is literally in serious danger if you do not immediately and obediently follow all their orders, even when they have no legal standing to make those demands. Moving your hands out of site, asking why you are being arrested, or simply not hearing or understanding an officer are all offenses worthy of execution in the United States.

The teachers and police who expect blind obedience simply because they are an authority figure are programming the same thing into citizens: that the state must be obeyed, or there will be consequences.

And this same philosophy of shaping the citizen is seen everywhere to varying degrees and molded for different types of people. The newest trend is to police thought crimes by claiming that hate speech is not protected free speech. If you offend anyone, you have committed a crime, if you have a contrary opinion, it is fake news, if you desire any internet privacy, you are probably a terrorist.

Great Britain is especially intense on their push to socialize the citizens to behave exactly as the government wishes. The National Health Institute has been key to drugging up kids and programming the citizens to let the government choose when citizens live or die.Individuals must purchase licenses to watch television, and the government is super serious about ferreting out anyone without a license.

But without the little things, people would never have slipped to the point of letting the government decide who will get lifesaving medical procedures and who will be waitlisted to death.

One of these little things is that individuals must purchase licenses to watch television, and the British government is super serious about ferreting out anyone without a license.

 

Why do they make such a big deal about something so small? Because it trains the citizens to do exactly as they are told, and not bother with any pushback. It ingrains the idea that the state can and should regulate every facet of human behavior.

It is like the old marketing trick, where if you get someone used to saying yes, they will keep saying yes when you ask if they want to buy.

And of course, China has already gone full blown 1984 with their social credit system to regulate the behavior of citizens by taking away rights and extending privileges based on a citizenship score which takes into account what your neighbors think of you, what you say about the government online, and how involved in social life you are.

But the most extreme examples are only possible because for so long people have accepted the government’s authority to regulate the little things. Seatbelt laws, required permits, and even complying with the TSA for illegal searches are all ways that are more about control than keeping you safe.

That is why it is important to push back at every little rule and regulation, and question every authority. People may think you are making a big deal about nothing, but unless you push back on the little things, you will be unable to resist when it comes to the important issues.

..

Governments create ‘laws’ to make you a criminal.


minivanjack

How Much Criminalization Will You Tolerate From Your Government?

It doesn’t matter how hard you try to not be a criminal. Your government has turned you into you one anyway. They want it that way, and you have no choice.

..

The Myth of the Rule of Law


MisesInstitute

by

Any state, no matter how powerful, cannot not rule solely through the use of brute force. There are too few rulers and too many of us for coercion alone to be an effective means of control. The political class must rely on ideology to achieve popular compliance, masking the iron fist in a velvet glove. Violence is always behind every state action, but the most efficient form of expropriation occurs when the public believes it is in their interest to be extorted.

Mythology is necessary to blunt the violent nature of state power in order to maximize the plunder of property — and, most importantly, provide an aura of legitimacy. The perception of legitimacy “is the only thing distinguishing a tax collector from an extortionist, a police officer from a vigilante, and a soldier from a mercenary. Legitimacy is an illusion in the mind without which the government does not even exist.”1

State authority, and public obedience to it, is manufactured through smokescreens of ideology and deception. These myths sustain the state and offer an illusion of legitimacy, where orders, no matter how immoral or horrific, are followed because they are seen as emanating from a just authority. The state cannot implement violence against everyone everywhere and overwhelm the host, so the battle is waged against the hearts and minds of the public. Fear is exploited, language is distorted, and propaganda is spread, while narratives and history are tightly controlled. The gulag of state power, first and foremost, always exists in the mind.

If the mythology of state power is smashed, then the state is exposed for what it is: institutionalized violence, expropriator of the peaceful and productive, and entirely illegitimate.

The Myth of the Rule of Law

In order for a society to have peace and order, there needs to be a set of largely uniform and neutral laws in which the vast majority of the public agree are fair and just. Throughout the history of Western law, a decentralized process of trial-and-error, competing courts, and private arbitration achieved these rules. A monopoly power was not necessary, nor desirable. Before the rise of the modern bureaucratic, democratic nation-state, the monarch was the symbol of monopolistic order, and his power consisted mostly in enforcing the private common-law tradition that had already developed over centuries.2

Eventually, the nation-state model we see today grew and absorbed this decentralized tradition into a monolithic, top-down coercive regime imposed by legislatures, state police, and bureaucracies. The “rule of law” became the propaganda term used to justify this radical departure from the Western tradition of common-law and private arbitration. The law was now political in nature, subject to the usual array of corruption and disincentives inherent in any political order. With the monopoly state now in charge of law, the idea that a coercively imposed system of justice — in which everyone is governed by neutral rules that are objectively applied by judges — became a powerful myth for states to exert control over society.

As a myth, however, the concept of the rule of law is both powerful and dangerous. Its power derives from its great emotive appeal. The rule of law suggests an absence of arbitrariness, an absence of the worst abuses of tyranny. The image presented by the slogan “America is a government of laws and not people” is one of fair and impartial rule rather than subjugation to human whim. This is an image that can command both the allegiance and affection of the citizenry. After all, who wouldn’t be in favor of the rule of law if the only alternative were arbitrary rule? But this image is also the source of the myth’s danger. For if citizens really believe that they are being governed by fair and impartial rules and that the only alternative is subjection to personal rule, they will be much more likely to support the state as it progressively curtails their freedom.

The rule of law, imposed by the state, is simply a myth. There is no such thing as “a government of laws and not people.” Legislative edicts are always subject to the biases and agendas of those who interpret them, and will be imposed in this manner by whoever currently wields the power of the monopoly state over society.

For example, despite the US Constitution’s very clear language in most of its passages (there are some dangerously vague sections, of course), the most trained and brilliant legal minds can come to completely opposite conclusions over the exact same clause. Whether it is a particular amendment in the Bill of Rights or the particular language of executive or legislative power, a liberal and conservative judge could use sound reasoning and cite historical precedent to make their case — and they would both be right. “[B]ecause the law consists of contradictory rules and principles,” argues John Hasnas, “sound legal arguments will be available for all legal conclusions, and hence, the normative predispositions of the decision makers, rather than the law itself, determine the outcome of cases.”

The law, then, is not a neutral body of rules to help keep order and govern society; it is merely an opinion with a gun. Whenever the state is in charge of anything, the outcomes, process, and administration are always political in nature. There can never be a system of definite, consistent rules that produce determinate results because these laws, no matter how they are written, will always be subjected to the biases, prejudices, and discrimination of those who interpret and enforce them.

The idea that the law is not neutral or determinant is not a revolutionary doctrine and should not be entirely shocking. Over a century ago, former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that certainty in law is an illusion; judicial decisions rely more on the language of logic than they do on objective enforcement. Since at least the 1970s, the Critical Legal Studies movement has recognized this, and even they are just reviving the legal realists who made these same insights decades before them. The idea of determinate law is actually an undesirable feature — even if we were to overcome the impossibility of making it so — as the strength of an effective legal system lies in its ability to have certain amounts of flexibility. This is why the decentralized, private law tradition was able to produce several codes of uniform laws — do not murder, steal, assault, or initiate aggression in general — while providing the room to adapt to social change and distinct cultures.

When the law is under the dominion of a top-down, coercive state it is transformed from a system of governance to a body of expropriation. Whether through the use of logic or emotional appeals, whoever wields the state apparatus says what the law is and they will dispense their armed enforcers to make sure their law is fulfilled.

If an objective rule of law is impossible, then why does this myth persist? To ask the question is to answer it. “Like all myths,” notes Hasnas,

it is designed to serve an emotive, rather than cognitive, function. The purpose of a myth is not to persuade one’s reason, but to enlist one’s emotions in support of an idea. And this is precisely the case for the myth of the rule of law; its purpose is to enlist the emotions of the public in support of society’s political power structure.

If the public views the law as a neutral and objective arbiter, then they are more willing to support state power and its violent expropriation and parasitism. We are more willing to accept the comfortable delusion of objectivity and the need for predictable laws than deal with the frightening alternatives of supposedly unpredictable anarchy. “Once they believe that they are being commanded by an impersonal law rather than other human beings,” people “view their obedience to political authority as a public-spirited acceptance of the requirements of social life rather than mere acquiescence to superior power,” notes Hasnas. Tyrants of the past used to claim that their rule was inspired by Divine Right to mask the fact that their rule was an exercise of naked aggression over their subjects. When this doctrine became discredited, a new myth was needed, and the rule of law was born.

No matter how impossible the rule of law may be, the state has a heavy interest in promoting this myth.

Before the rise of legislative law, the private, decentralized, and polycentric common-law system was effective at promoting peace and public order because it lacked the monopoly power of a centralized state. Under both models, laws are never determinate or universally objective. But under a private law system, bad decisions that were not accepted by the public or viewed as overreaches could not be coercively imposed on society. This system of checks and balances allowed laws beneficial to the protection of private property to flourish while weeding out the bad laws.

Under a state system, however, it is much harder, if not impossible, to fix bad laws as there now exists a political incentive to keep the law on the books, while most judges serve lengthy or even life terms. If the judge, legislature, and police are all part of the state apparatus, they will tend to find expansive definitions for state power with limited definitions of individual freedoms.

“The myth of the rule of law does more than render the people submissive to state authority; it also turns them into the state’s accomplices in the exercise of its power,” concludes Hasnas. “For people who would ordinarily consider it a great evil to deprive individuals of their rights or oppress politically powerless minority groups will respond with patriotic fervor when these same actions are described as upholding the rule of law.” While the state does indeed provide some law and order under its jurisdiction, the “rule of law” has been used as a propaganda tool in order to help cement and legitimize state power.

 

..

How Government Literally Makes People Go Insane


TheDailyBell

By Joe Jarvis – May 07, 2017

The most effective way to change the world if you have kids is to treat them right. Everything could change in one generation if there were a radical shift in parenting.

Unfortunately, some indicators suggest things are getting worse. For instance, there has been an increase in kids hospitalized for attempted suicide or suicidal indicators.

Now we can just hope that parents are becoming more alert to the warning signs and are therefore properly identifying them early in order to prevent suicide.

But the most concerning thing is that these incidents tend to be concentrated at certain times of the year. One of the most likely times for a kid to need a hospital visit because of suicidal tendencies or attempts is in the fall when school starts back up.

There are two probable reasons for this. One, being ridiculed and bullied by their peers makes kids feel like social outcasts, and transitioning to a new school year could increase that. Evolution has programmed the human mind to want acceptance of the group for survival reasons, so being ostracized can make you literally feel like you are going to die because if this was 10,000 years ago, you probably would.

And then there are the drugs. You know, the legalized forms of cocaine and heroine that we give to kids to make them alert, focused, or calm, and manageable. There are all sorts of side effects to the drugs, and based on the spiking and dropping levels of dopamine and other chemicals in the brain, this can cause erratic behavior.

But either way, the school system seems to be the root of the problem, whether it is exposing kids to negative people they don’t need in their lives, drugs to help them function “normally” in an abnormal school environment, or just the unnatural environment itself where one is trapped, caged, and coerced in order to prepare them for an equally coercive society afterwards.

Coercion is Ruining Society

It turns out coercion is a serious problem that can lead to mental health issues. Coercion might even cause most of the ills we see in society today. The same thing that makes a teenager lash out and act erratically in opposition to strict rules is what makes people do crazy things in a society dominated by arbitrary and oppressive government edicts.

According to Bruce Levin, PhD, in his article, Societies With Little Coercion Have Little Mental Illness:

Coercion—the use of physical, legal, chemical, psychological, financial, and other forces to gain compliance—is intrinsic to our society’s employment, schooling, and parenting. However, coercion results in fear and resentment, which are fuels for miserable marriages, unhappy families, and what we today call mental illness.

It Starts With Your Kids

Most parents have their kids’ best interests at heart when parenting, yes some still treat their child like a wild animal that must be broken. So many people in our society would have no idea what to do with freedom because all they have ever known is oppression. It starts in childhood, and evidence suggests that a more free child leads to a happier adult.

Levin points out that some cultures see very little mental illness, and he suggests it is because of the way the children are reared.

For many indigenous peoples, even the majority rule that most Americans call democracy is problematically coercive, as it results in the minority feeling resentful. Roland Chrisjohn, member of the Oneida Nation of the Confederacy of the Haudenausaunee (Iroquois) and author of The Circle Game, points out that for his people, it is deemed valuable to spend whatever time necessary to achieve consensus so as to prevent such resentment. By the standards of Western civilization, this is highly inefficient. “Achieving consensus could take forever!” exclaimed an attendee of a talk that I heard given by Chrisjohn, who responded, “What else is there more important to do?”

Among indigenous societies, there are many accounts of a lack of mental illness, a minimum of coercion, and wisdom that coercion creates resentment which fractures relationships.

How could we expect coercion to yield results as positive as agreement? All interaction should be voluntary; you cannot have positive ends if you do not use positive means to achieve those ends. I am not a parent, and I don’t expect perfection from anyone, but parents should at least try to solve issues with their kids without being so forceful and coercive.

Let kids be who they want to be, with the steady hand of your guidance, not an iron fist. Clearly, a child cannot always get what they want, and I am not advocating giving in to any random whim. Just realize how important freedom is for children in order to grow and learn.

This is why the public school system is horribly damaging to a large percentage of children. That is not the only nor best way to learn, and in fact really just teaches obedience to authority. Public schooling sets children up to be mindless drones in the work world, where they will be used to the coercion, but not happy about it.

[Jared] Diamond, in The World Until Yesterday (2012), reports how laissez-faire parenting is “not unusual by the standards of the world’s hunter-gatherer societies, many of which consider young children to be autonomous individuals whose desires should not be thwarted.” Diamond concludes that by our society’s attempt to control children for what we believe is their own good, we discourage those traits we admire:

“Other Westerners and I are struck by the emotional security, self-­confidence, curiosity, and autonomy of members of small-scale societies, not only as adults but already as children. We see that people in small-scale societies spend far more time talking to each other than we do, and they spend no time at all on passive entertainment supplied by outsiders, such as television, videogames, and books. We are struck by the precocious development of social skills in their children. These are qualities that most of us admire, and would like to see in our own children, but we discourage development of those qualities by ranking and grading our children and constantly ­telling them what to do.”

Bravo to home-schoolers and free range parenting. They are ahead of the curve by going back to the basics.

Then It’s Your Job…

I don’t believe the reason so many hate going to work is not the work itself, but the fact that we cannot act like ourselves when at work. We feel coerced in one way or another into not being who we want to be. This is a mild form of coercion, one that often doesn’t go beyond venting over a beer after work, or every once in a while both middle fingers and: “I quit!” screamed at the boss.

But is the quiet desperation of a 9-5 you hate–saving for retirement, but probably drinking yourself to death before you get to enjoy it–really the way to live? What if we couldn’t afford cable, couldn’t afford a new car, or a perfect house–but were happy?

Critics of schooling—from Henry David Thoreau, to Paul Goodman, to John Holt, to John Taylor Gatto—have understood that coercive and unengaging schooling is necessary to ensure that young people more readily accept coercive and unengaging employment. And as I also reported in that same article, a June 2013 Gallup poll revealed that 70% of Americans hate their jobs or have checked out of them.

Unengaging employment and schooling require all kinds of coercions for participation, and human beings pay a psychological price for this. In nearly three decades of clinical practice, I have found that coercion is often the source of suffering…

In all societies, there are coercions to behave in culturally agreed-upon ways. For example, in many indigenous cultures, there is peer pressure to be courageous and honest. However, in modernity, we have institutional coercions that compel us to behave in ways that we do not respect or value. Parents, afraid their children will lack credentials necessary for employment, routinely coerce their children to comply with coercive schooling that was unpleasant for these parents as children. And though 70% of us hate or are disengaged from our jobs, we are coerced by the fear of poverty and homelessness to seek and maintain employment.

In our society, we are taught that accepting institutional coercion is required for survival. We discover a variety of ways—including drugs and alcohol—to deny resentment.

And the government is perfectly happy with the arrangement because it is easier to control–and tax–“normal” people who just go to work every day.

Government Enforces and Exacerbates the Problem

We cannot even live on a piece of land without being coerced by government to earn some money in order to pay the property taxes. But we have to earn more than the amount owed in property taxes because we are taxed on our earnings as well. We are taxed on the vehicle and gas that gets us to work, which require more work to pay off–earnings, again, that must go above and beyond what we need because it will be taxed.

Could this be the overlooked factor that makes America more violent than some other developed nations? Has the American government piled so many laws, regulations, and statutes on top of each other that American citizens can’t just go through life without being told perfectly normal, non-violent behavior is wrong?

I think this highlights the problem with mass shootings that many have been pointing out. Whoever the shooters feel they are being oppressed by, they are correctly identifying that they are being coerced. Of course, their response is insane, and probably related to the drugs they take (some of which we also give kids), but there would never be a need for drugs if a coercive society had not reared them.

The hopelessness felt when being forced to spend money, behave a certain way, or notdo something you want to do, is one of those gut wrenching deep feelings of despair that grow inside some people until they burst.

But now imagine that the government has taken everything from you. Imagine if they took your car as a civil asset forfeiture? What if your tax burden is 50%? What if you give up on that business you want to start because of the pile of paperwork and extra costs required by the government?

What if they take your kids because they are home schooled, or shoot your dog for no reason whatsoever? All these things happen, unfortunately relatively regularly, in America.

Many of us are baffled by why someone would become a terrorist, especially a suicide bomber. Again, this is the coercion the Middle East is smothered in by the USA. Imagine losing your childhood because you could not go outside because of the American drones. Imagine family members having been murdered by laughing soldiers. Imagine all your hopes and dreams bombed away in the blink of an eye. Again, this is the unfortunate reality for many people today.

In the 1970s, prior to the domination of the biopsychiatry-Big Pharma partnership, many mental health professionals took seriously the impact of coercion and resentful relationships on mental health. And in a cultural climate more favorable than our current one for critical reflection of society, authors such as Erich Fromm, who addressed the relationship between society and mental health, were taken seriously even within popular culture. But then psychiatry went to bed with Big Pharma and its Big Money, and their partnership has helped bury the commonsense reality that an extremely coercive society creates enormous fear and resentment, which results in miserable marriages, unhappy families, and severe emotional and behavioral problems.

..

The Hunt for Taxes is Global


ArmstrongEconomics

Taxes are the root of all evil for this is the confrontation against the people that historically leads to civil unrest and then revolution. The American and French Revolutions were over taxes. Historically, even the Roman Empire was forced from time to time to grant tax amnesty as was the case in 119AD. You even have Roman Emperors such as Trajan (98-117AD) engaging in social legislation known as the Alimenta, which was a welfare program that helped orphans and poor children throughout Italy. The Alimenta provided general funds, food and subsidized education for children. The funding came from the Dacian War booty initially. When that ran out, it was funded by a combination of estate taxes and philanthropy.The state provided loans like Fannie Mae providing mortgages on Italian farms (fundi). The registered landowners in Italy received a lump sum from the imperial treasury. In return, the borrower was expected to pay yearly a given proportion of the loan to the maintenance of an Alimentary Fund – a kickback so to speak. Taxes and social programs have been around a very long time.

Today, debts are never reduced. Consequently, governments only raise taxes continually. We see this in some of the richest countries in the world. Now Singapore is passing three amendments expanding the power of the Ministry of Finance (MOF) under the Property Tax Act. This new legislation is one that will hand the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) more enforcement and investigative powers. Singapore government is using the law to force people to pay more in taxes. There will be no privacy. Under this legislation, the tax authorities will be able to summon people to appear personally before them and to provide all information. They will be interrogated orally for investigation be it their own taxes, or another person’s property/properties.

Governments are moving ever more closer to totalitarian states eliminating privacy and human rights. This is a global trend that will come to a head because governments will never reduce their costs and will always demand more and more taxes from the people until the bubble bursts.

..

…of bank$ter$, government$, fine$ and the mulberry bush.


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??


ST

US Fed fines Deutsche Bank US$156.6m for forex violations

Deutsche Bank US


CNBC

7 years on from crisis, $150 billion in bank fines and penalties

cnbc

…and the list goes on round the mulberry bush.

..