|
|
What You Should Know About Central Banking And War
 Ragnarok.Zeig
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1848
By Ragnarok.Zeig 2015-06-09 14:48:49
Shall we change the thread title to something DMV-related?
[+]
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4014
By Odin.Godofgods 2015-06-09 14:57:02
I think clearly the only way to respond to a enormous OP is another huge reply !
Introduction Though Central Bank is viewed as one of the primary mechanisms of macroeconomic stabilization there are a number of arguments about other areas of Central Bank’s involvement. This paper will explore the different areas, including the role of Central Bank in effecting monetary policy and intervening body in exchange rate trades, Central Bank as a Last Lender Resort (LLR), and Central Bank as a regulatory body of the financial sector. Prior to further discussion, it is important to stress that the role of Central Bank and the scope of its involvement may vary due to the effect of different legislations and the presence of various stakeholders. Thus, US Central Bank does not act as a regulatory body of the financial sector (Driffill et al., 2005), whereas the intervention activity of Japan Central Bank requires the approval of other governmental bodies (Fujiwara, 2005). This paper discusses the importance of Central Bank’s publications of economic forecasts and other information related to Central Bank’s views of the further state of macroeconomic trends. The discussion shows that this information is highly important for other market players and forecasting agencies as it reduces the information asymmetry. The role of Central bank in macroeconomic stabilization Chandavarkar (1996 cited in Geraats, 2002) claims that macroeconomic stabilization is the pivotal role of the Central Bank. The stabilization duties include such aspects as the stabilization of the domestic price level and exchange rate as well as domestic payment systems. The entry and operations of MNEs on the domestic market as well is the growing interdependence of the domestic economy on the business cycles of other leading global players might create serious financial repression (Geraats, 2002). The challenge is that these distortions of prices, including interest rates and foreign exchange rates, might cause severe fluctuations, create insolvency, and threat and disrupt the domestic economy (Beine et al., 2005). Beine & Bernal (2005) state that financial stability is critically important for the economic development of the country. They claim that in the absence of stability, economy becomes fragile, causes a moral hazard and reduces agents’ confidence. As a result, potential borrowers obtain lower wealth relative to the size of the projects. Whereas unpredictability and low confidence give rise to the agency costs and undermines the performance in the investment sector. Driffill et al. (2003) draw a parallel line between monetary policy and financial stability. They claim that the Central Bank’s activities designed to smooth interest rates and stabilize the price fluctuations lead to greater stability without disrupting market equilibrium. Speaking of foreign exchange rates stabilization, Beine & Bernal (2005) differentiate between secret and open interventions. Referring to the practice of the Central Bank of Japan they state that these interventions are designed to minimize negative development of foreign exchange trades. Beine & Bernal (2005) claim that the reason for resorting to secret interventions (a practice which is used by a large number of developed countries) is to avoid sending the wrong signals to other market agents. As in Beine et al. (2005) the activity of the Central Bank is closely monitored by other market agents who form their expectations on the degree of the consistency of these interventions with the earlier data supplied by the Central Bank. In this case, if there is a controversy between intervention and prior activities of the Central Bank, market players can get confused and increase the overall noise on the market. As a result, it can cause higher fluctuations of rates and a greater degree of information asymmetry between the market agents. Hence, the objective of the Central Bank is to undertake stabilization measures which are consistent with the rational expectations of market agents. The failure to do so may increase the level of noise and cause severe market failures. The national agenda and the reasons behind the changes of the inclusion policy One of the main reasons directing changes for the inclusion policy was the social changes that the UK has been going through over the past two decades. The rise of the immigration flow has changed the British society and culture, and the schools should be ready to face this change. The Race Relation (Amendment) Act in 2002 sets guidelines for every school to have a policy which values diversity and challenges racism. What is more, the national curriculum regarding the taught information given to students needed to be changed in order to promote inclusion. Another factor which brought changes to the agenda regarding inclusive learning was the demand for lifelong learning (Shapiro and Rich, 1999). David Blunkett’s Green Paper in 1998 put emphasis on lifelong learning and it requested the educational system to broaden the learning age. The policy of inclusion had to be changed once again so that for the educational system to consider adults as people who were willing to learn and as people who were actually in need of further education. The fact that adults were broadly entering the educational system has also brought changes to the national agenda and to the national curriculum. Because of increasing social competitiveness and subsequently the need for employment, the inclusion policy and the national curriculum were changed so as to provide to adult learners job-related learning opportunities. In this manner, the taught subjects were changed so as to include the ‘newcomers’ and their needs (Shapiro and Rich, 1999). Finally, it should be noted that the national agenda cannot remain static (Halliday, 1998). Changes need to be made so as to address the needs of different students in a better manner. School curricula need to be responsive to social changes and should be ready to adapt to the differences which the several groups of students bring into the school environment (Halliday, 1998). Central Bank’s forecasts and publications According to Fujiwara (2005) the publications and forecasts of Central Bank are highly important. Having analysed the behaviour of other forecasting agencies prior to and after Central Bank’s publications, Fujiwara (2005) inferred that they adjust their predictions in line with Central Bank’s information. Geraats (2002) argues that market agents do not posses the wealth of information which might be accumulated by Central Bank. Carroll (2003) claims that most economic agents may be considered to form rational expectations based on professional forecasts, whereas professional agents base their forecasts on the data from the Central Bank’s reports. Romer & Romer (2000) state that Central Bank possesses information about the future development of the economy which is far beyond what is known to market participants. Hence, their predictions of future market development are based on asymmetric information which they have at their disposal. Under such conditions, the publications of Central Bank reduce the information asymmetry. And it is optimal for commercial forecasters to modify their forecasts and adopt the data of Central Bank. Geraats (2002) adds that Central Bank’s publications also act as a signal about the way Central Bank views the macroeconomic situation. On the basis of this information, market agents might predict the future steps of Central Bank and adjust their strategies accordingly. However, Geraats (2002) notes that this effect takes place only if market agents act rationally and have confidence in Central Bank’s consistency. As Huanga & Weib (2005) put it, rational expectation theory only works when the Central Bank as well as other authorities act consistently and have sufficient public credibility. With regards to developing economies and those in transition, the situation might differ. Huanga & Weib (2005) claim that, due to corruption, macroeconomic instability and weak governmental institutions, Central Bank might lack credibility. When discussing the effect and role of Central Bank’s forecasts on expectation formation Geraats (2002) claims that the issues of transparency and credibility of Central Bank’s forecasts are crucial. Whereas transparency is defined as “the absence of asymmetric information between monetary policy makers and other economic agents” (Geraat, 2002). He claims that transparency, credible and consistent information reduces the likelihood of heterogeneous behaviour resulting from different expectations of the further macroeconomic development. Referring to the practice of developed countries, Geraats (2002) states that the Central Banks of New Zealand, Canada, the UK and Sweden specifically adopted new procedures to increase the level of transparency, known as explicit inflation targeting. The similar approach was also adopted by the Central Banks of Brazil, the United States, Japan and Switzerland. With regards to credibility of the information supplied by the Central Bank employees, Cechetti & Krause (2002) note that this information shall create the proper set of expectations and reduce the noise which might stem from the Central Bank’s interventions and other activities. In other words, one of the major roles of information coming from the Central Bank is to create a set of expectations which will enable rational market agents to respond accordingly to the given information. As a result, the Central Bank might predict the possible behaviour of other agents and plan its policy accordingly. Moreover, the consistency of information coming from the Central Bank with its steps, promotes the potential efficiency of markets. Central Bank as Last Lender Resort Humphrey & Keleher (2002) believe that Central Banks traditionally played the role of LLR. Both Humphrey & Keleher (2002) and Gerdrup (2005) state that acting as LLR Central Bank minimizes the potential risk of disruption of the whole banking system. As Gerdrup (2005) makes it clear, under certain situations, the market and interest rate volatility might create a problem of insolvency where a single bank might fail to meet its obligations in intra-bank relations. This case might create a domino (knock-on) effect, creating a negative impact on the whole banking system. At the same time, Driffill et al. (2003) argue that the excessive support of banks in terms of LLR activities might induce a form of moral hazard. Referring to the case of the US banks, they claim that commercial banks and other financial institutions may overestimate the favourability of stable macroeconomic climate and the Central Bank support. As a result, these players might commit to risky portfolios of loans and deposits failing to take into account present market risks. Consequently, the short-term exchange rate fluctuation might create the insolvency problem and create a necessity for Central Bank to bail-out the banks which are in trouble. The threat for macroeconomic stability is that the mass insolvency might undermine the Central Bank’s capacity to cover all insolvency issue, meaning the whole financial system might face a crisis. To avoid the development of a similar scenario, the Federal Reserve System warns market participants in advance about its capacity to act as LLR (Driffill et al., 2003). In other words, in periods of high interest volatility banks have to adopt a risk aversive approach. In this respect Borchgrevink & Moe (2004) call for tighter monitoring by Central Bank’s of banks’ and financial institutions’ risk management policies. Gerdrup (2005) notes that in Norway the Central Bank collaborates with the Financial Supervisory Authority with regards to monitoring the activities of individual institutions. The latter body is granted with broad powers to intervene in case it foresees that the activity of a certain financial institution (private and public) might create a threat to stability. Borchgrevink & Moe (2004) suggest that the Central Bank should limit LLR activities and force market agents to be more prudent. Driffill et al. (2003) take the opposite stance. They claim that certain types of risks are not predictable due to the fact that banks borrow short and lend long. Hence, the sudden inflation scare might cause a dramatic short-term change of rates; induce a tightening of monetary policy and cause insolvency issue of the number of banks. Central Bank as regulatory and monitoring body of financial system Ioannidou (2003) believes that in a large number of countries Central Banks combine functions of macroeconomic stabilization with the management of a financial system. Borchgrevink & Moe (2004) claim that in many transition economies the Central Bank acts as the backbone of the financial system, combining both macroeconomic stabilization and micro control of the emerging financial system. Such a combination creates various debates. The comparative studies of Heller (1991) and Goodhart & Schoenmaker (1992) showed that Central Banks’ macroeconomic decisions might be affected by its involvement in the management of the financial system. The roots of this influence might stem from the conflict of interests. Whereas the desires for certain levels of interest rates (to resolve inflation issues or exchange rate matters) might go against the policy of increasing the profitability of the banking sector. The problem is that due to the nature of banks’ activities (borrow for short periods and lending for long periods) the banks might suffer from the adverse effects of higher interest rates on the solvency. In this regard, Russia’s crisis of 1998 demonstrates the adverse outcomes of this combination. In Russia, the Central Bank’s involvement in the management of the financial system undermined its prudence on the macroeconomic scale and led to an extensive financial crisis. According to Ioannidou (2003), policymakers in the UK, Japan, and several Scandinavian countries recently removed their Central Bank from its role in bank supervision, whereas the European Central Bank was given no supervisory responsibilities, to avoid a conflict of interest. Goodhart & Schoenmaker (1992) claim that the conflict of interest between different duties of the Central Bank stem from the different nature of regulatory and monetary functions. The regulatory functions might require the microeconomic decisions of short-term nature. Quite to the contrary, the macroeconomic activities are long run and might go at the cost of short-term losses. Ioannidou (2003) put it in the following way: “Monetary policy is usually countercyclical, while the effects of regulation and supervision tend to be procyclical, offsetting to some extent the objectives of monetary policy”. The other side effect of the Central Bank’s combination of different duties is the issue of credibility. If a bank failure occurs when the Central Bank holds responsibility for bank monitoring and control, the market agents might reduce their level of perceived trust towards that bank. Conclusions This paper outlined the role of Central Bank and the degree of its involvement in the macro and microeconomic development of a country. The discussion showed that Central Bank is the pivotal element which provides the macroeconomic stabilization of a country by adjusting interest rates and undertaking the foreign currency exchange interventions. Such activities prevent possible disruption and minimize the side effects of the activities of both global and large local market agents. The discussion also highlighted the role of Central Bank as the disseminator of the economic forecasts regarding the future development of the economy. The closer investigation of the essence of these forecasts revealed that Central Bank needs to be greatly involved in collecting information about the market. The data regarding business cycles, economic trends and other important dimensions of a country’s development serves for Central Bank’s employees as the basis to develop future forecasts, devise its policy and spread information to other market agents. As a result, this data minimizes information asymmetry and provides a more fruitful basis to make the Central Bank procedures more effective. The discussion outlined the role of Central Bank as the LLR. It showed that under certain conditions, Central Bank becomes the last ditch resort for banks which experience insolvency problems. The support of Central Bank prevents the crisis spreading into and affecting other market agents and the whole economy of a country. At the same time, the paper stressed the importance of a prudential approach as excessive support might cause the effect of moral hazard and lead to an extensive financial crisis. This paper considered the regulatory function of Central Bank. The considered views of various academics showed that under certain conditions Central Bank might shape the development of the financial system. Nevertheless, the possible conflict of interests might arise and affect the prudence of its macroeconomic policy or its ability to handle microeconomic issues. Hence, the governments of the developed countries tend not to endow Central Banks with confronting obligations and rights. References Beine, M., & Bernal, O. (2005) Why do central banks intervene secretly? Preliminary evidence from the BoJ. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. Beine, M., Bénassy-Quéréc A., and MacDonald, R. (2005) The impact of central bank intervention on exchange-rate forecast heterogeneity. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies. Borchgrevink, H. & Moe, T.G. (2004) Management of financial crises in cross-border banks. Economic Bulletin 4/04, Norges Bank. Carroll, C. (2003) Macroeconomic expectations of households and professional forecasters. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 118, pp. 269–298. Driffill, J., Rotondi, Z., Savona, P. and Zazzara, P. (2003) Monetary policy and financial stability: What role for the futures market?, Journal of Financial Stability, March. Fujiwara, I. (2005) Is the central bank’s publication of economic forecasts influential? Economic Letters, Vol. 89, Iss. 3, pp. 255–261. Geraats, P. M. (2002) Central Bank Transparency, The Economic Journal, Vol. 112, Issue 483, pp. F532 – F565. Gerdrup, K.R. (2005) Norges Bank’s role in the event of liquidity crises in the financial sector. Economic Bulletin, Q2, pp.80 – 89. Huanga, H. & Weib, S, J. (2005) Monetary policies for developing countries: The role of institutional quality, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 1016, pp. 1–14. Humphrey, T. M. and R. E. Keleher (2002) The Lender of Last Resort: A Historical Perspective, in Goodhart, C.& Illing G. (ed.) Financial Crisis, Contagion, and the Lender of Last Resort. Oxford University Press. Ioannidou, V.P. (2005) Does monetary policy affect the Central Bank’s role in bank supervision? Journal of Financial Intermediation, Vol. 14, Issue 1, Jan., pp. 58–85. Romer, C. & Romer, M. (2000) Federal reserve information and the behavior of interest rates. American Economic Review, Vol. 90, pp. 429–457
Read more at: http://www.ivoryresearch.com/samples/economics-essay-example-the-role-of-central-bank/I would take the time to put in paragraph breaks but no one is going to read that anyways !
i honestly just skip over most any post i see from you so dont worry about it'
 Valefor.Sehachan
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-06-09 14:58:34
Shall we change the thread title to something DMV-related? No one's going to read the op anyway.
By fonewear 2015-06-09 14:59:49
I think clearly the only way to respond to a enormous OP is another huge reply !
Introduction Though Central Bank is viewed as one of the primary mechanisms of macroeconomic stabilization there are a number of arguments about other areas of Central Bank’s involvement. This paper will explore the different areas, including the role of Central Bank in effecting monetary policy and intervening body in exchange rate trades, Central Bank as a Last Lender Resort (LLR), and Central Bank as a regulatory body of the financial sector. Prior to further discussion, it is important to stress that the role of Central Bank and the scope of its involvement may vary due to the effect of different legislations and the presence of various stakeholders. Thus, US Central Bank does not act as a regulatory body of the financial sector (Driffill et al., 2005), whereas the intervention activity of Japan Central Bank requires the approval of other governmental bodies (Fujiwara, 2005). This paper discusses the importance of Central Bank’s publications of economic forecasts and other information related to Central Bank’s views of the further state of macroeconomic trends. The discussion shows that this information is highly important for other market players and forecasting agencies as it reduces the information asymmetry. The role of Central bank in macroeconomic stabilization Chandavarkar (1996 cited in Geraats, 2002) claims that macroeconomic stabilization is the pivotal role of the Central Bank. The stabilization duties include such aspects as the stabilization of the domestic price level and exchange rate as well as domestic payment systems. The entry and operations of MNEs on the domestic market as well is the growing interdependence of the domestic economy on the business cycles of other leading global players might create serious financial repression (Geraats, 2002). The challenge is that these distortions of prices, including interest rates and foreign exchange rates, might cause severe fluctuations, create insolvency, and threat and disrupt the domestic economy (Beine et al., 2005). Beine & Bernal (2005) state that financial stability is critically important for the economic development of the country. They claim that in the absence of stability, economy becomes fragile, causes a moral hazard and reduces agents’ confidence. As a result, potential borrowers obtain lower wealth relative to the size of the projects. Whereas unpredictability and low confidence give rise to the agency costs and undermines the performance in the investment sector. Driffill et al. (2003) draw a parallel line between monetary policy and financial stability. They claim that the Central Bank’s activities designed to smooth interest rates and stabilize the price fluctuations lead to greater stability without disrupting market equilibrium. Speaking of foreign exchange rates stabilization, Beine & Bernal (2005) differentiate between secret and open interventions. Referring to the practice of the Central Bank of Japan they state that these interventions are designed to minimize negative development of foreign exchange trades. Beine & Bernal (2005) claim that the reason for resorting to secret interventions (a practice which is used by a large number of developed countries) is to avoid sending the wrong signals to other market agents. As in Beine et al. (2005) the activity of the Central Bank is closely monitored by other market agents who form their expectations on the degree of the consistency of these interventions with the earlier data supplied by the Central Bank. In this case, if there is a controversy between intervention and prior activities of the Central Bank, market players can get confused and increase the overall noise on the market. As a result, it can cause higher fluctuations of rates and a greater degree of information asymmetry between the market agents. Hence, the objective of the Central Bank is to undertake stabilization measures which are consistent with the rational expectations of market agents. The failure to do so may increase the level of noise and cause severe market failures. The national agenda and the reasons behind the changes of the inclusion policy One of the main reasons directing changes for the inclusion policy was the social changes that the UK has been going through over the past two decades. The rise of the immigration flow has changed the British society and culture, and the schools should be ready to face this change. The Race Relation (Amendment) Act in 2002 sets guidelines for every school to have a policy which values diversity and challenges racism. What is more, the national curriculum regarding the taught information given to students needed to be changed in order to promote inclusion. Another factor which brought changes to the agenda regarding inclusive learning was the demand for lifelong learning (Shapiro and Rich, 1999). David Blunkett’s Green Paper in 1998 put emphasis on lifelong learning and it requested the educational system to broaden the learning age. The policy of inclusion had to be changed once again so that for the educational system to consider adults as people who were willing to learn and as people who were actually in need of further education. The fact that adults were broadly entering the educational system has also brought changes to the national agenda and to the national curriculum. Because of increasing social competitiveness and subsequently the need for employment, the inclusion policy and the national curriculum were changed so as to provide to adult learners job-related learning opportunities. In this manner, the taught subjects were changed so as to include the ‘newcomers’ and their needs (Shapiro and Rich, 1999). Finally, it should be noted that the national agenda cannot remain static (Halliday, 1998). Changes need to be made so as to address the needs of different students in a better manner. School curricula need to be responsive to social changes and should be ready to adapt to the differences which the several groups of students bring into the school environment (Halliday, 1998). Central Bank’s forecasts and publications According to Fujiwara (2005) the publications and forecasts of Central Bank are highly important. Having analysed the behaviour of other forecasting agencies prior to and after Central Bank’s publications, Fujiwara (2005) inferred that they adjust their predictions in line with Central Bank’s information. Geraats (2002) argues that market agents do not posses the wealth of information which might be accumulated by Central Bank. Carroll (2003) claims that most economic agents may be considered to form rational expectations based on professional forecasts, whereas professional agents base their forecasts on the data from the Central Bank’s reports. Romer & Romer (2000) state that Central Bank possesses information about the future development of the economy which is far beyond what is known to market participants. Hence, their predictions of future market development are based on asymmetric information which they have at their disposal. Under such conditions, the publications of Central Bank reduce the information asymmetry. And it is optimal for commercial forecasters to modify their forecasts and adopt the data of Central Bank. Geraats (2002) adds that Central Bank’s publications also act as a signal about the way Central Bank views the macroeconomic situation. On the basis of this information, market agents might predict the future steps of Central Bank and adjust their strategies accordingly. However, Geraats (2002) notes that this effect takes place only if market agents act rationally and have confidence in Central Bank’s consistency. As Huanga & Weib (2005) put it, rational expectation theory only works when the Central Bank as well as other authorities act consistently and have sufficient public credibility. With regards to developing economies and those in transition, the situation might differ. Huanga & Weib (2005) claim that, due to corruption, macroeconomic instability and weak governmental institutions, Central Bank might lack credibility. When discussing the effect and role of Central Bank’s forecasts on expectation formation Geraats (2002) claims that the issues of transparency and credibility of Central Bank’s forecasts are crucial. Whereas transparency is defined as “the absence of asymmetric information between monetary policy makers and other economic agents” (Geraat, 2002). He claims that transparency, credible and consistent information reduces the likelihood of heterogeneous behaviour resulting from different expectations of the further macroeconomic development. Referring to the practice of developed countries, Geraats (2002) states that the Central Banks of New Zealand, Canada, the UK and Sweden specifically adopted new procedures to increase the level of transparency, known as explicit inflation targeting. The similar approach was also adopted by the Central Banks of Brazil, the United States, Japan and Switzerland. With regards to credibility of the information supplied by the Central Bank employees, Cechetti & Krause (2002) note that this information shall create the proper set of expectations and reduce the noise which might stem from the Central Bank’s interventions and other activities. In other words, one of the major roles of information coming from the Central Bank is to create a set of expectations which will enable rational market agents to respond accordingly to the given information. As a result, the Central Bank might predict the possible behaviour of other agents and plan its policy accordingly. Moreover, the consistency of information coming from the Central Bank with its steps, promotes the potential efficiency of markets. Central Bank as Last Lender Resort Humphrey & Keleher (2002) believe that Central Banks traditionally played the role of LLR. Both Humphrey & Keleher (2002) and Gerdrup (2005) state that acting as LLR Central Bank minimizes the potential risk of disruption of the whole banking system. As Gerdrup (2005) makes it clear, under certain situations, the market and interest rate volatility might create a problem of insolvency where a single bank might fail to meet its obligations in intra-bank relations. This case might create a domino (knock-on) effect, creating a negative impact on the whole banking system. At the same time, Driffill et al. (2003) argue that the excessive support of banks in terms of LLR activities might induce a form of moral hazard. Referring to the case of the US banks, they claim that commercial banks and other financial institutions may overestimate the favourability of stable macroeconomic climate and the Central Bank support. As a result, these players might commit to risky portfolios of loans and deposits failing to take into account present market risks. Consequently, the short-term exchange rate fluctuation might create the insolvency problem and create a necessity for Central Bank to bail-out the banks which are in trouble. The threat for macroeconomic stability is that the mass insolvency might undermine the Central Bank’s capacity to cover all insolvency issue, meaning the whole financial system might face a crisis. To avoid the development of a similar scenario, the Federal Reserve System warns market participants in advance about its capacity to act as LLR (Driffill et al., 2003). In other words, in periods of high interest volatility banks have to adopt a risk aversive approach. In this respect Borchgrevink & Moe (2004) call for tighter monitoring by Central Bank’s of banks’ and financial institutions’ risk management policies. Gerdrup (2005) notes that in Norway the Central Bank collaborates with the Financial Supervisory Authority with regards to monitoring the activities of individual institutions. The latter body is granted with broad powers to intervene in case it foresees that the activity of a certain financial institution (private and public) might create a threat to stability. Borchgrevink & Moe (2004) suggest that the Central Bank should limit LLR activities and force market agents to be more prudent. Driffill et al. (2003) take the opposite stance. They claim that certain types of risks are not predictable due to the fact that banks borrow short and lend long. Hence, the sudden inflation scare might cause a dramatic short-term change of rates; induce a tightening of monetary policy and cause insolvency issue of the number of banks. Central Bank as regulatory and monitoring body of financial system Ioannidou (2003) believes that in a large number of countries Central Banks combine functions of macroeconomic stabilization with the management of a financial system. Borchgrevink & Moe (2004) claim that in many transition economies the Central Bank acts as the backbone of the financial system, combining both macroeconomic stabilization and micro control of the emerging financial system. Such a combination creates various debates. The comparative studies of Heller (1991) and Goodhart & Schoenmaker (1992) showed that Central Banks’ macroeconomic decisions might be affected by its involvement in the management of the financial system. The roots of this influence might stem from the conflict of interests. Whereas the desires for certain levels of interest rates (to resolve inflation issues or exchange rate matters) might go against the policy of increasing the profitability of the banking sector. The problem is that due to the nature of banks’ activities (borrow for short periods and lending for long periods) the banks might suffer from the adverse effects of higher interest rates on the solvency. In this regard, Russia’s crisis of 1998 demonstrates the adverse outcomes of this combination. In Russia, the Central Bank’s involvement in the management of the financial system undermined its prudence on the macroeconomic scale and led to an extensive financial crisis. According to Ioannidou (2003), policymakers in the UK, Japan, and several Scandinavian countries recently removed their Central Bank from its role in bank supervision, whereas the European Central Bank was given no supervisory responsibilities, to avoid a conflict of interest. Goodhart & Schoenmaker (1992) claim that the conflict of interest between different duties of the Central Bank stem from the different nature of regulatory and monetary functions. The regulatory functions might require the microeconomic decisions of short-term nature. Quite to the contrary, the macroeconomic activities are long run and might go at the cost of short-term losses. Ioannidou (2003) put it in the following way: “Monetary policy is usually countercyclical, while the effects of regulation and supervision tend to be procyclical, offsetting to some extent the objectives of monetary policy”. The other side effect of the Central Bank’s combination of different duties is the issue of credibility. If a bank failure occurs when the Central Bank holds responsibility for bank monitoring and control, the market agents might reduce their level of perceived trust towards that bank. Conclusions This paper outlined the role of Central Bank and the degree of its involvement in the macro and microeconomic development of a country. The discussion showed that Central Bank is the pivotal element which provides the macroeconomic stabilization of a country by adjusting interest rates and undertaking the foreign currency exchange interventions. Such activities prevent possible disruption and minimize the side effects of the activities of both global and large local market agents. The discussion also highlighted the role of Central Bank as the disseminator of the economic forecasts regarding the future development of the economy. The closer investigation of the essence of these forecasts revealed that Central Bank needs to be greatly involved in collecting information about the market. The data regarding business cycles, economic trends and other important dimensions of a country’s development serves for Central Bank’s employees as the basis to develop future forecasts, devise its policy and spread information to other market agents. As a result, this data minimizes information asymmetry and provides a more fruitful basis to make the Central Bank procedures more effective. The discussion outlined the role of Central Bank as the LLR. It showed that under certain conditions, Central Bank becomes the last ditch resort for banks which experience insolvency problems. The support of Central Bank prevents the crisis spreading into and affecting other market agents and the whole economy of a country. At the same time, the paper stressed the importance of a prudential approach as excessive support might cause the effect of moral hazard and lead to an extensive financial crisis. This paper considered the regulatory function of Central Bank. The considered views of various academics showed that under certain conditions Central Bank might shape the development of the financial system. Nevertheless, the possible conflict of interests might arise and affect the prudence of its macroeconomic policy or its ability to handle microeconomic issues. Hence, the governments of the developed countries tend not to endow Central Banks with confronting obligations and rights. References Beine, M., & Bernal, O. (2005) Why do central banks intervene secretly? Preliminary evidence from the BoJ. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. Beine, M., Bénassy-Quéréc A., and MacDonald, R. (2005) The impact of central bank intervention on exchange-rate forecast heterogeneity. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies. Borchgrevink, H. & Moe, T.G. (2004) Management of financial crises in cross-border banks. Economic Bulletin 4/04, Norges Bank. Carroll, C. (2003) Macroeconomic expectations of households and professional forecasters. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 118, pp. 269–298. Driffill, J., Rotondi, Z., Savona, P. and Zazzara, P. (2003) Monetary policy and financial stability: What role for the futures market?, Journal of Financial Stability, March. Fujiwara, I. (2005) Is the central bank’s publication of economic forecasts influential? Economic Letters, Vol. 89, Iss. 3, pp. 255–261. Geraats, P. M. (2002) Central Bank Transparency, The Economic Journal, Vol. 112, Issue 483, pp. F532 – F565. Gerdrup, K.R. (2005) Norges Bank’s role in the event of liquidity crises in the financial sector. Economic Bulletin, Q2, pp.80 – 89. Huanga, H. & Weib, S, J. (2005) Monetary policies for developing countries: The role of institutional quality, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 1016, pp. 1–14. Humphrey, T. M. and R. E. Keleher (2002) The Lender of Last Resort: A Historical Perspective, in Goodhart, C.& Illing G. (ed.) Financial Crisis, Contagion, and the Lender of Last Resort. Oxford University Press. Ioannidou, V.P. (2005) Does monetary policy affect the Central Bank’s role in bank supervision? Journal of Financial Intermediation, Vol. 14, Issue 1, Jan., pp. 58–85. Romer, C. & Romer, M. (2000) Federal reserve information and the behavior of interest rates. American Economic Review, Vol. 90, pp. 429–457
Read more at: http://www.ivoryresearch.com/samples/economics-essay-example-the-role-of-central-bank/I would take the time to put in paragraph breaks but no one is going to read that anyways !
i honestly just skip over most any post i see from you so dont worry about it'
Well I'll give you a kudos for not reading then !
 Bismarck.Misao
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 22620
By Bismarck.Misao 2015-06-09 15:00:12
tl;dr
 Fenrir.Atheryn
Server: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1665
By Fenrir.Atheryn 2015-06-09 15:50:49
Please take time to inform yourself with the information provided thank you for your time. Go Big or Go Home
All Wars are bankers Wars
Quote: "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." -- Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain Quote: I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
The United States fought the American Revolution primarily over King George III's Currency act, which forced the colonists to conduct their business only using printed bank notes borrowed from the Bank of England at interest. Quote: "The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing." -- William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694 Quote: After the revolution, the new United States adopted a radically different economic system in which the government issued its own value-based money, so that private banks like the Bank of England were not siphoning off the wealth of the people through interest-bearing bank notes. Quote: " The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution."-- Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father Quote: Following the revolution, the US Government actually took steps to keep the bankers out of the new government! Quote: "Any person holding any office or any stock in any institution in the nature of a bank for issuing or discounting bills or notes payable to bearer or order, cannot be a member of the House whilst he holds such office or stock." -- Third Congress of the United States Senate, 23rd of December, 1793, signed by the President, George Washington Quote: But bankers are nothing if not dedicated to their schemes to acquire your wealth, and know full well how easy it is to corrupt a nation's leaders. Quote: Just one year after Mayer Amschel Rothschild had uttered his infamous "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws", the bankers succeeded in setting up a new Private Central Bank called the First Bank of the United States, largely through the efforts of the Rothschild's chief US supporter, Alexander Hamilton. Quote: Founded in 1791, by the end of its twenty year charter the First Bank of the United States had almost ruined the nation's economy, while enriching the bankers. Congress refused to renew the charter and signaled their intention to go back to a state issued value based currency on which the people paid no interest at all to any banker. This resulted in a threat from Nathan Mayer Rothschild against the US Government, "Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war." Congress still refused to renew the charter for the First Bank of the United States, whereupon Nathan Mayer Rothschild railed, "Teach those impudent Americans a lesson! Bring them back to colonial status!" The British Prime Minister at the time, Spencer Perceval was adamantly opposed to war with the United States, primarily because the majority of England's military might was occupied with the ongoing Napoleonic wars. Spencer Perceval was concerned that Britain might not prevail in a new American war, a concern shared by many in the British government. Then, Spencer Perceval was assassinated (the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated in office) and replaced by Robert Banks Jenkinson, the 2nd Earl of Liverpool, who was fully supportive of a war to recapture the colonies. Quote: "If my sons did not want wars, there would be none." -- Gutle Schnaper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and mother of his five sons Quote: Financed at virtually no interest by the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, Britain then provoked the war of 1812 to recolonize the United States and force them back into the slavery of the Bank of England, or to plunge the United States into so much debt they would be forced to accept a new private central bank. And the plan worked. Even though the War of 1812 was won by the United States, Congress was forced to grant a new charter for yet another private bank issuing the public currency as loans at interest, the Second Bank of the United States. Once again, private bankers were in control of the nation's money supply and cared not who made the laws or how many British and American soldiers had to die for it. Quote: Once again the nation was plunged into debt, unemployment, and poverty by the predations of the private central bank, and in 1832 Andrew Jackson successfully campaigned for his second term as President under the slogan, "Jackson And No Bank!" True to his word, Jackson succeeds in blocking the renewal of the charter for the Second Bank of the United States. Quote: "Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!" -- Andrew Jackson, shortly before ending the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. From the original minutes of the Philadelphia committee of citizens sent to meet with President Jackson (February 1834), according to Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States (1928) by Stan V. Henkels Quote: Shortly after President Jackson (the only American President to actually pay off the National Debt) ended the Second Bank of the United States, there was an attempted assassination which failed when both pistols used by the assassin, Richard Lawrence, failed to fire. Lawrence later said that with Jackson dead, "Money would be more plenty."
President Zachary Taylor opposed the creation of a new Private Central Bank, owing to the historical abuses of the First and Second Banks of the United States.
"The idea of a national bank is dead, and will not be revived in my time." -- President Zachary Taylor
Taylor died on July 9, 1850 after eating a bowl of cherries and milk rumored to have been poisoned. The symptoms he displayed are consistent with acute arsenic poisoning. Quote: President James Buchanan also opposed a private central bank. During the panic of 1857 he attempted to set limits on banks issuing more loans than they had actual funds, and to require all issued bank notes to be backed by Federal Government assets. He was poisoned with arsenic and survived, although 38 other people at the dinner died. Quote: The public school system is as subservient to the bankers' wishes to keep certain history from you, just as the corporate media is subservient to Monsanto's wishes to keep the dangers of GMOs from you, and the global warming cult's wishes to conceal from you that the Earth has actually been cooling for the last 16 years. Thus it should come as little surprise that much of the real reasons for the events of the Civil War are not well known to the average American. Quote: "The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." -- The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863 Quote: When the Confederacy seceded from the United States, the bankers once again saw the opportunity for a rich harvest of debt, and offered to fund Lincoln's efforts to bring the south back into the union, but at 30% interest. Lincoln remarked that he would not free the black man by enslaving the white man to the bankers and using his authority as President, issued a new government currency, the greenback. This was a direct threat to the wealth and power of the central bankers, who quickly responded. Quote: "If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." -- The London Times responding to Lincoln's decision to issue government Greenbacks to finance the Civil War, rather than agree to private banker's loans at 30% interest. Quote: In 1872 New York bankers sent a letter to every bank in the United States, urging them to fund newspapers that opposed government-issued money (Lincoln's greenbacks). Quote: "Dear Sir: It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers... as will oppose the issuing of greenback paper money, and that you also withhold patronage or favors from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the Government issue of money. Let the Government issue the coin and the banks issue the paper money of the country... [T]o restore to circulation the Government issue of money, will be to provide the people with money, and will therefore seriously affect your individual profit as bankers and lenders." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler
"It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler
"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care for the laborer, while the European plan, led on by England, is for capital to control labor by controlling the wages. THIS CAN BE DONE BY CONTROLLING THE MONEY." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler Quote: Goaded by the private bankers, much of Europe supported the Confederacy against the Union, with the expectation that victory over Lincoln would mean the end of the Greenback. France and Britain considered an outright attack on the United States to aid the confederacy, but were held at bay by Russia, which had just ended the serfdom system and had a state central bank similar to the system the United States had been founded on. Quote: Left free of European intervention, the Union won the war, and Lincoln announced his intention to go on issuing greenbacks. Following Lincoln's assassination, the Greenbacks were pulled from circulation and the American people forced to go back to an economy based on bank notes borrowed at interest from the private bankers. Tsar Alexander II, who authorized Russian military assistance to Lincoln, was subsequently the victim of multiple attempts on his life in 1866, 1879, and 1880, until his assassination in 1881.
With the end of Lincoln's Greenbacks, the US could no longer create its own interest free money and was manipulated during the term of President Ruthford B. Hayes into borrowing from the Rothschilds banking system in 1878, restoring to the Rothschilds control of the US economy they had lost under Andrew Jackson. Quote: Messrs. Rothschild & Sons to Mr. Sherman.
[Cable message.]
April 12,1878.
Hon. John Sherman,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington D. C.:
Very pleased we have entered into relations again with American Government. Shall do our best to make the business successful.
ROTHSCHILDS. Quote: James A. Garfield was elected President in 1880 on a platform of government control of the money supply. Quote: "The chief duty of the National Government in connection with the currency of the country is to coin money and declare its value. Grave doubts have been entertained whether Congress is authorized by the Constitution to make any form of paper money legal tender. The present issue of United States notes has been sustained by the necessities of war; but such paper should depend for its value and currency upon its convenience in use and its prompt redemption in coin at the will of the holder, and not upon its compulsory circulation. These notes are not money, but promises to pay money. If the holders demand it, the promise should be kept. -- James Garfield
"By the experience of commercial nations in all ages it has been found that gold and silver afford the only safe foundation for a monetary system. Confusion has recently been created by variations in the relative value of the two metals, but I confidently believe that arrangements can be made between the leading commercial nations which will secure the general use of both metals. Congress should provide that the compulsory coinage of silver now required by law may not disturb our monetary system by driving either metal out of circulation. If possible, such an adjustment should be made that the purchasing power of every coined dollar will be exactly equal to its debt-paying power in all the markets of the world. --James Garfield
"He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation. -- James Garfield Quote: Garfield was shot on July 2, 1881 and died of his wounds several weeks later. Chester A. Arthur succeeded Garfield as President.
In 1896, William McKinley was elected President in the middle of a depression-driven debate over gold-backed government currency versus bank notes borrowed at interest from private banks. McKinley favored gold-backed currencies and a balanced government budget which would free the public from accumulating debt. Quote: "Our financial system needs some revision; our money is all good now, but its value must not further be threatened. It should all be put upon an enduring basis, not subject to easy attack, nor its stability to doubt or dispute. Our currency should continue under the supervision of the Government. The several forms of our paper money offer, in my judgment, a constant embarrassment to the Government and a safe balance in the Treasury." -- William McKinley Quote: McKinley was shot by an out-of-work anarchist on September 14, 1901, in Buffalo, NY, succumbing to his wounds a few days later. He was succeeded in office by Theodore Roosevelt.
In 1910, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip of National City (Citibank), Henry Davison of Morgan Bank, and Paul Warburg of the Kuhn, Loeb Investment House met secretly on Jekyll Island, Georgia, to formulate a plan for a US central bank, and created the Aldrich Plan, which called for a system of fifteen regional central banks, openly and directly controlled by Wall Street commercial banks. These banks would have the legal ability to create money out of thin air and represented an attempt to create a new Bank of the United States. Public reaction was swift.
Do to the intense public opposition to the Aldrich Plan, the measure was defeated in the House of Representatives in 1912. One year later the bankers would be back!
Following the defeat of the Aldrich Plan, in 1913, the Private Central Bankers of Europe, in particular the Rothschilds of Great Britain and the Warburgs of Germany, met with their American financial collaborators once again on Jekyll Island, Georgia to form a new banking cartel with the express purpose of forcing the United States to accept a private central bank, with the aim of placing complete control of the United States money supply once again under the control of private bankers. Owing to hostility over the previous banks, the name was changed from the Third Bank of the United States to "The Federal Reserve" system in order to grant the new bank a quasi-governmental image, but in fact it is a privately owned bank, no more "Federal" than Federal Express. Quote: In 2012, the Federal Reserve attempted to rebuff a Freedom of Information Lawsuit by Bloomberg News on the grounds that as a private banking corporation and not actually a part of the government, the Freedom of Information Act did not apply to the "trade secret" operations of the Federal Reserve. Quote: "When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check; but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money." -- From the Boston Federal Reserve Bank pamphlet, "Putting it Simply."
"Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a 'dollar' bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries." -- "Modern Money Mechanics Workbook" - Federal Reserve of Chicago, 1975
"I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people." -- Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924
"States, most especially the large hegemonic ones, such as the United States and Great Britain, are controlled by the international central banking system, working through secret agreements at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and operating through national central banks (such as the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve)... The same international banking cartel that controls the United States today previously controlled Great Britain and held it up as the international hegemon. When the British order faded, and was replaced by the United States, the US ran the global economy. However, the same interests are served. States will be used and discarded at will by the international banking cartel; they are simply tools." -- Andrew Gavin Marshall Quote: 1913 proved to be a transformative year for the nation's economy, first with the passage of the 16th "income tax" Amendment and the false claim that it had been ratified. Quote: "I think if you were to go back and and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, the income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." - U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, Sullivan Vs. United States, 2003. Quote: Later that same year of 1913, and apparently unwilling to risk another questionable amendment, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act over Christmas holiday 1913, while members of Congress opposed to the measure were at home. This was a very underhanded deal, as the Constitution explicitly vests Congress with the authority to issue the public currency, does not authorize its delegation, and thus should have required a new Amendment to transfer that authority to a private bank. But pass it Congress did, and President Woodrow Wilson signed it as he promised the bankers he would in exchange for generous campaign contributions. Quote: Woodrow Wilson later regretted that decision.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson 1919
Thomas Edison, arguably the most brilliant man of the age, was also well aware of the fraud of private central banks.
"People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People who supply all the material and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest ...But here is the point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold." -- Thomas A. Edison Quote: The next year, World War One started, and it is important to remember that prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, there was no such thing as a world war.
World War One started between Austria-Hungary and Serbia with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
Although the war started between Austria-Hungary and Serbia , it quickly shifted to focus on Germany, whose industrial capacity was seen as an economic threat to Great Britain, who saw the decline of the British Pound as a result of too much emphasis on financial activity to the neglect of agriculture, industrial development, and infrastructure (not unlike the present day United States). Although pre-war Germany had a private central bank, it was heavily restricted and inflation kept to reasonable levels. Under government control, investment was guaranteed to internal economic development, and Germany was seen as a major power.
So, in the media of the day, Germany was portrayed as the prime opponent of World War One, and not just defeated, but its industrial base flattened. Following the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was ordered to pay the war costs of all the participating nations, even though Germany had not actually started the war. This amounted to three times the value of all of Germany itself. Germany's private central bank, to whom Germany had gone deeply into debt to pay the costs of the war, broke free of government control, and massive inflation followed (mostly triggered by currency speculators) , permanently trapping the German people in endless debt.
When the Weimar Republic collapsed economically, it opened the door for the National Socialists to take power. Their first financial move was to issue their own state currency which was not borrowed from private central bankers. Freed from having to pay interest on the money in circulation, Germany blossomed and quickly began to rebuild its industry. The media called it "The German Miracle". TIME magazine lionized Hitler for the amazing improvement in life for the German people and the explosion of German industry, and even named him TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year in 1938. Quote: Once again, Germany's industrial output became a threat to Great Britain.
"Should Germany merchandise (do business) again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain." - Winston Churchill in The Times (1919)
"We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)
"Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it." - Winston Churchill (November 1936 speaking to US - General Robert E. Wood)
"This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany." - Winston Churchill (- Autumn 1939 broadcast)
Germany's state-issued value based currency was also a direct threat to the wealth and power of the private central banks, and as early as 1933 they started to organize a global boycott against Germany to strangle this upstart ruler who thought he could break free of private central bankers! Quote: As had been the case in World War One, Great Britain and other nations threatened by Germany's economic power looked for an excuse to go to war, and as public anger in Germany grew over the boycott, Hitler foolishly gave them that excuse. Years later, in a spirit of candor, the real reasons for that war were made clear.
"The war wasn't only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn't want to."- Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)
"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn't profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig." -Winston Churchill (The Second World War - Bern, 1960) Quote: As a side note, we need to step back before WW2 and recall Marine Major General Smedley Butler. In 1933, Wall Street bankers and financiers had bankrolled the successful coups by both Hitler and Mussolini. Brown Brothers Harriman in New York was financing Hitler right up to the day war was declared with Germany. And they decided that a fascist dictatorship in the United States based on the one on Italy would be far better for their business interests than Roosevelt's "New Deal" which threatened massive wealth redistribution to recapitalize the working and middle class of America.
So the Wall Street tycoons recruited General Butler to lead the overthrow of the US Government and install a "Secretary of General Affairs" who would be answerable to Wall Street and not the people, would crush social unrest and shut down all labor unions. General Butler pretended to go along with the scheme but then exposed the plot to Congress.
Congress, then as now in the pocket of the Wall Street bankers, refused to act. When Roosevelt learned of the planned coup he demanded the arrest of the plotters, but the plotters simply reminded Roosevelt that if any one of them were sent to prison, their friends on Wall Street would deliberately collapse the still-fragile economy and blame Roosevelt for it.
Roosevelt was thus unable to act until the start of WW2, at which time he prosecuted many of the plotters under the Trading With The Enemy act. The Congressional minutes into the coup were finally declassified in 1967, but rumors of the attempted coup became the inspiration for the movie, "Seven Days in May" but with the true financial villains erased from the script. Quote: "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service as a member of our country's most agile military force -- the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent more of my time being a high--class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. "I suspected I was just a part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that the Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals and promotion. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. I operated on three continents." -- General Smedley Butler, former US Marine Corps Commandant,1935 Quote: As President, John F. Kennedy understood the predatory nature of private central banking. He understood why Andrew fought so hard to end the Second Bank of the United States. So Kennedy wrote and signed Executive Order 11110 which ordered the US Treasury to issue a new public currency, the United States Note.
Kennedy's United States Notes were not borrowed from the Federal Reserve but created by the US Government and backed by the silver stockpiles held by the US Government. It represented a return to the system of economics the United States had been founded on, and was perfectly legal for Kennedy to do. All told, some four and one half billion dollars went into public circulation, eroding interest payments to the Federal Reserve and loosening their control over the nation. Five months later John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas Texas, and the United States Notes pulled from circulation and destroyed (except for samples held by collectors). Quote: John J. McCloy, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and President of the World Bank, was named to the Warren Commission, presumably to make certain the banking dimensions behind the assassination were concealed from the public.
As we enter the eleventh year of what future history will most certainly describe as World War Three, we need to examine the financial dimensions behind the wars.
Towards the end of World War Two, when it became obvious that the allies were going to win and dictate the post war environment, the major world economic powers met at Bretton Woods, a luxury resort in New Hampshire in July of 1944, and hammered out the Bretton Woods agreement for international finance. The British Pound lost its position as the global trade and reserve currency to the US dollar (part of the price demanded by Roosevelt in exchange for the US entry into the war). Absent the economic advantages of being the world's "go-to" currency, Britain was forced to nationalize the Bank of England in 1946. The Bretton Woods agreement, ratified in 1945, in addition to making the dollar the global reserve and trade currency, obligated the signatory nations to tie their currencies to the dollar. The nations that ratified Bretton Woods did so on two conditions. The first was that the Federal Reserve would refrain from over-printing the dollar as a means to loot real products and produce from other nations in exchange for ink and paper; basically an imperial tax. That assurance was backed up by the second requirement, which was that the US dollar would always be convertible to gold at $35 per ounce. Quote: The Federal Reserve, being a private bank and not answerable to the US Government, did start overprinting paper dollars, and much of the perceived prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s was the result of foreign nations' obligations to accept the paper notes as being worth gold at the rate of $35 an ounce. Then in 1970, France looked at the huge pile of paper notes sitting in their vaults, for which real French products like wine and cheese had been traded, and notified the United States government that they would exercise their option under Bretton Woods to return the paper notes for gold at the $35 per ounce exchange rate. The United States had nowhere near the gold to redeem the paper notes, so on August 15th, 1971, Richard Nixon "temporarily" suspended the gold convertibility of the US Federal Reserve Notes.
Later termed the "Nixon shock", this move effectively ended Bretton Woods and many global currencies started to delink from the US dollar. Quote: Worse, since the United States had collateralized their loans with the nation's gold reserves, it quickly became apparent that the US Government did not in fact have enough gold to cover the outstanding debts. Foreign nations began to get very nervous about their loans to the US and understandably were reluctant to loan any additional money to the United States without some form of collateral. So Richard Nixon started the environmental movement, with the EPA and its various programs such as "wilderness zones", Roadless areas", Heritage rivers", "Wetlands", all of which took vast areas of public lands and made them off limits to the American people who were technically the owners of those lands. But Nixon had little concern for the environment and the real purpose of this land grab under the guise of the environment was to pledge those pristine lands and their vast mineral resources as collateral on the national debt. The plethora of different programs was simply to conceal the true scale of how much American land was being pledged to foreign lenders as collateral on the government's debts; eventually almost 25% of the nation itself. All of this is illegal as the Enclave Clause of the Constitution limits the Federal Government to owning the land under Federal Government buildings and military bases, and that Enclave Clause was written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers to specifically to prevent the Federal Government simply seizing the land belonging to the people to sell off, pledge as collateral, or rent! Quote: With open lands for collateral already in short supply, the US Government embarked on a new program to shore up sagging international demand for the dollar. The United States approached the world's oil producing nations, mostly in the Middle East, and offered them a deal. In exchange for only selling their oil for dollars, the United States would guarantee the military safety of those oil-rich nations. The oil rich nations would agree to spend and invest their US paper dollars inside the United States, in particular in US Treasury Bonds, redeemable through future generations of US taxpayers. The concept was labeled the "petrodollar". In effect, the US, no longer able to back the dollar with gold, was now backing it with oil. Other peoples' oil. And that necessity to keep control over those oil nations to prop up the dollar has shaped America's foreign policy in the region ever since.
But as America's manufacturing and agriculture has declined, the oil producing nations faced a dilemma. Those piles of US Federal Reserve notes were not able to purchase much from the United States because the United States had little (other than real estate) anyone wanted to buy. Europe's cars and aircraft were superior and less costly, while experiments with GMO food crops led to nations refusing to buy US food exports. Israel's constant belligerence against its neighbors caused them to wonder if the US could actually keep their end of the petrodollar arrangement. Oil producing nations started to talk of selling their oil for whatever currency the purchasers chose to use. Quote: Iraq, already hostile to the United States following Desert Storm, demanded the right to sell their oil for Euros in 2000 and in 2002, the United Nations agreed to allow it under the "Oil for food" program instituted following Desert Storm. One year later the United States re-invaded Iraq under the lie of Saddam's nuclear weapons, lynched Saddam Hussein, and placed Iraq's oil back on the world market only for US dollars.
The clear US policy shift following 9-11, away from being an impartial broker of peace in the Mideast to one of unquestioned support for Israel's aggressions only further eroded confidence in the Petrodollar deal and even more oil producing nations started openly talking of oil trade for other global currencies.
Over in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi had instituted a state-owned central bank and a value based trade currency, the Gold Dinar.
Gaddafi announced that Libya's oil was for sale, but only for the Gold Dinar. Other African nations, seeing the rise of the Gold Dinar and the Euro, even as the US dollar continued its inflation-driven decline, flocked to the new Libyan currency for trade. This move had the potential to seriously undermine the global hegemony of the dollar. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world. So, the United States invaded Libya, brutally murdered Qaddafi ( the object lesson of Saddam's lynching not being enough of a message, apparently), imposed a private central bank, and returned Libya's oil output to dollars only. The gold that was to have been made into the Gold Dinars is, as of last report, unaccounted for. Quote: According to General Wesley Clark, the master plan for the "dollarification" of the world's oil nations included seven targets, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran (Venezuela, which dared to sell their oil to China for the Yuan, is a late addition).
What is notable about the original seven nations originally targeted by the US is that none of them are members of the Bank for International Settlements, the private central bankers private central bank, located in Switzerland. This meant that these nations were deciding for themselves how to run their nations' economies, rather than submit to the international private banks.
Now the bankers' gun sights are on Iran, which dares to have a government central bank and sell their oil for whatever currency they choose. The war agenda is, as always, to force Iran's oil to be sold only for dollars and to force them to accept a privately owned central bank. Malaysia, one of the few remaining nations without a Rothschild central bank, is now being invaded by a force claimed to be "Al Qaeda" and has suffered numerous suspicioous losses of its commercial passenger jets.
With the death of President Hugo Chavez, plans to impose a US and banker friendly regime on Venezuela are clearly being implemented. Quote: The German government recently asked for the return of some of their gold bullion from the Bank of France and the New York Federal Reserve. France has said it will take 5 years to return Germany's gold. The United States has said they will need 8 years to return Germany's gold. This suggests strongly that the Bank of France and the NY Federal Reserve have used the deposited gold for other purposes, most likely to cover gold futures contracts used to artificially suppress the price of gold to keep investors in the equities markets, and the Central Banks are scrambling to find new gold to cover the shortfall and prevent a gold run. So it is inevitable that suddenly France invades Mali, ostensibly to combat Al Qaeda, with the US joining in. Mali just happens to be one of the world's largest gold producers with gold accounting for 80% of Mali exports. War for the bankers does not get more obvious than that!
Mexico has demanded a physical audit of their gold bullion stored at the Bank of England, and along with Venezuela's vast oil reserves (larger than Saudi Arabia), Venezuela's gold mines are a prize lusted after by all the Central Banks that played fast and loose with other peoples' gold bullion. So we can expect regime change if not outright invasion soon.
You have been raised by a public school system and media that constantly assures you that the reasons for all these wars and assassinations are many and varied. The US claims to bring democracy to the conquered lands (they haven't; the usual result of a US overthrow is the imposition of a dictatorship, such as the 1953 CIA overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and the imposition of the Shah, or the 1973 CIA overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government of President Salvador Allende, and the imposition of Augusto Pinochet), or to save a people from a cruel oppressor, revenge for 9-11, or that tired worn-out catch all excuse for invasion, weapons of mass destruction. Assassinations are always passed off as "crazed lone nuts" to obscure the real agenda.
The real agenda is simple. It is enslavement of the people by creation of a false sense of obligation. That obligation is false because the Private Central Banking system, by design, always creates more debt than money with which to pay that debt. Private Central Banking is not science, it is a religion; a set of arbitrary rules created to benefit the priesthood, meaning the owners of the Private Central Bank. The fraud persists, with often lethal results, because the people are tricked into believing that this is the way life is supposed to be and no alternative exists or should be dreamt of. The same was true of two earlier systems of enslavement, Rule by Divine Right and Slavery, both systems built to trick people into obedience, and both now recognized by modern civilization as illegitimate. Now we are entering a time in human history where we will recognize that rule by debt, or rule by Private Central Bankers issuing the public currency as a loan at interest, is equally illegitimate. It only works as long as people allow themselves to believe that this is the way life is supposed to be. Quote: But understand this above all; Private Central Banks do not exist to serve the people, the community, or the nation. Private Central Banks exist to serve their owners, to make them rich beyond the dreams of Midas and all for the cost of ink, paper, and the right bribe to the right official.
Behind all these wars, all these assassinations, the hundred million horrible deaths from all the wars lies a single policy of dictatorship. The private central bankers allow rulers to rule only on the condition that the people of a nation be enslaved to the private central banks. Failing that, said ruler will be killed, and their nation invaded by those other nations enslaved to private central banks.
The so-called "clash of civilizations" we read about on the corporate media is really a war between banking systems, with the private central bankers forcing themselves onto the rest of the world, no matter how many millions must die for it. Indeed the constant hatemongering against Muslims lies in a simple fact. Like the ancient Christians (prior to the Knights Templars private banking system) , Muslims forbid usury, or the lending of money at interest. And that is the reason our government and media insist they must be killed or converted. They refuse to submit to currencies issued at interest. They refuse to be debt slaves.
So off to war your children must go, to spill their blood for the money-junkies' gold. We barely survived the last two world wars. In the nuclear/bioweapon age, are the private central bankers willing to risk incinerating the whole planet just to feed their greed?
Apparently so.
This brings us to the current situation in the Ukraine, Russia, and China.
The European Union had been courting the government of the Ukraine to merge with the EU, and more to the point, entangle their economy with the private-owned European Central Bank. The government of the Ukraine was considering the move, but had made no commitments. Part of their concern lay with the conditions in other EU nations enslaved to the ECB, notably Cyprus, Greece, Spain, and Italy. So they were properly cautious. Then Russia stepped in with a better deal and the Ukraine, exercising the basic choice all consumers have to choose the best product at the best price, dropped the EU and announced they were going to go with Russia's offer. It was at that point that agents provocateurs flooded into the Ukraine, covertly funded by intelligence agency fronts like CANVAS and USAID, stirring up trouble, while the western media proclaimed this was a popular revolution. Snipers shot at people and this violence was blamed on then-President Yanukovych. However a leaked recording of a phone call between the EU's Catherine Ashton and Estonia's Foreign Minister Urmas Paet confirmed the snipers were working for the overthrow plotters, not the Ukrainian government. Urmas Paet has confirmed the authenticity of that phone call.
This is a classic pattern of covert overthrow we have seen many times before. Since the end of WW2, the US has covertly tried to overthrow the governments of 56 nations, succeeding 25 times. Examples include the 1953 overthrow of Iran's elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh and the imposition of the Shah, the 1973 overthrow of Chile's elected government of Salvador Allende and the imposition of the Pinochet dictatorship, and of course, the current overthrow of Ukraine's elected government of Yanukovich and the imposition of the current unelected government, which is already gutting the Ukraine's wealth to hand to the western bankers. Quote: The path to true peace on Earth lies in the abolishment of all private central banking everywhere, and a return to the state-issued value-based currencies that allow nations and people to become prosperous.
"Banks do not have an obligation to promote the public good." -- Alexander Dielius, CEO, Germany, Austrian, Eastern Europe Goldman Sachs, 2010
"I am just a banker doing God's work." -- Lloyd Blankfein, CEO, Goldman Sachs, 2009
I want to share this information with you all because you really do deserve to know the truth
"Centralbanking...hoo...yeah... what is it good for? Absolutely nothin'"
Nope, not feelin' it.
[+]
Garuda.Chanti
Server: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 12088
By Garuda.Chanti 2015-06-09 15:53:30
Congrats Loldgrim, not a single Utube link! I knew you could do it.
I would take the time to put in paragraph breaks but no one is going to read that anyways ! Put in the paragraph breaks and you might be surprised.
Loldgrim's OP was quite readable and I did read all the way through it.
I'm just making an observation based on what appears to be an incredible amount of time spent wasted... not only compiling that... wall of quotes.....
but good god gravy all the time he thought about it before hand... /phew face and whistles.... You forget about all the time he spent viewing all those Utube vids he used to link.
Speaking of which, I am so sorry my friend mariide widmann who sings about this stuff has no Utube videos. The link goes to her website where you can download some of her music for free.
Loldgrim, you would love her stuff.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-06-09 18:28:59
wtf is this ***?
Seriously? What in the high holy hell is this babble about? I have seen monkeys defecate more attractive objects than this.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-06-09 18:31:22
Hell, I read those quotes of flowerhead's and about half of them are for centralized banking.
Seriously. Are you for or against it flowerhead?
[+]
By fonewear 2015-06-09 18:38:52
I was for centralized banking before I was against it.
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 88
By Siren.Fattynoob 2015-06-09 19:01:57
It's been known by many for years that nations live in economic slavery. Why do you think China is converting to capitalism. Most people are stupid enough to believe they are free under the mask of this slavery.
People can buy Iphones, so it doesn't matter that 80-90% of their income covers cost of living while someone else profits even more from their hard work. I got my candy crush saga, what else could I ever need?
When most people cannot protest, (for fear of losing their houses due to not working while standing on the picket lines, 76% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck), it is a beautiful thing for leaders.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-06-09 19:13:34
When most people cannot protest What again, are they protesting?
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 88
By Siren.Fattynoob 2015-06-09 19:55:42
Racial, social, income, and/or sexual inequalities?
Wars?
An 18 trillion dollar debt?
Shipping jobs overseas?
Securing borders?
Having to train in the cheaper Indian replacement for your job?
Displeasure with their representatives?
There are plenty of topics that need action and change, however, like you, alot of people think all is great in quantitative easing land where we saddle our children with a debt of $18 trillion and growing.
Banks do not need to have the complete assets of which they loan out. Meaning, they make money from nothing and profit off the citizens. If that isn't ***, I don't know what is.
Why won't the federal reserve allow an audit?
[+]
 Asura.Saevel
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10362
By Asura.Saevel 2015-06-09 20:14:31
When most people cannot protest What again, are they protesting?
He's trolling ya. Spraying nonsense hoping some of it sticks and you get defense and try to debate with him on his level.
The question of which was better, capitalism or socialism / communism was answered a long time ago. Socialism and the resulting communism results in the mass's being equally destitute with a handful of government elite living lavish lifestyles, quite literally on the backs of those mass's. While capitalism results in economic inequality, because humans are not equal, it also results in a quantitative raise in the quality of life for the mass's precisely because those in power require the mass's to continue consuming. Both systems create economic inequality, under socialism that inequality is enforced by the system itself, a serf will always be a serf, under capitalism those lines are not enforced, instead the powerful elite use entertainment to bribe the serfs into staying serfs.
Those socialists are just extremely pissed off at how successful capitalism has been at bribing the mass's. It's impossible to orchestrate a bloody, nation shattering revolution that deposes the enemy elite while further empowering your own friendly elite, when the very mass's you need to fool and manipulate are too busy enjoying reality TV, facebook and XBOX's to gather pitchforks and start burning things down. Make no mistake, the goal of every socialist is to burn down current capitalist based economies, kill off millions of people and starve millions more, and then institute themselves are permanent oligarchs with absolute power. Studying the various communist, socialist movements and then following their beliefs (it's a religion) to the ultimate logical conclusion always results in lots of dead people and a corrupt oligarchy that later transforms into a dictatorship.
I know of one country not too far from where I live that follows the belief that capitalism is evil and is banned by law, punishable by death of three generations. It's not too pretty in that place...
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-06-09 20:34:28
Racial, social, income, and/or sexual inequalities? Social issues, and people are already protesting. Problem is, they are focusing their energies at the wrong crowd.
An 18 trillion dollar debt? Go yell at the government
Having to train in the cheaper Indian replacement for your job?
Can you name a job that has been shipped overseas? Besides, there has been an influx of jobs coming to the US lately, so your argument is invalid. You might not see it if you live in a union heavy state though, nobody wants to invest in those areas.
What's wrong with our borders now?
Displeasure with their representatives? Don't vote for them.
Got any more?
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 88
By Siren.Fattynoob 2015-06-09 20:51:56
You are talking about free market true capitalism. Not capitalism with communist tendencies and an over bearing regulative government.
Yes, he is obviously a troll, no-one can be that naive over the age of 15.
Where is this influx of jobs? And they don't count when the jobs go to immigrants with work visa's instead of citizens of the nation.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-world-replaces-250-tech-800303
There is a clear path to citizenship. Granting millions of criminals amnesty to buy votes and further flood the unemployment pool is dangerous. Or you could just buy your visa from Clinton.
An 18 trillion dollar debt? Go yell at the government
That would be, wait for it, protesting. Derp.
[+]
By Voren 2015-06-09 21:15:08
Why does a job not count if it goes to an immigrant with a work visa over a citizen? Unless you're referring to jobs that are specifically designed for said immigrants, of which I'm not familiar with any.
Jobs that are available for all citizens to apply and an immigrant gets it doesn't mean it's not a job, it means either it's a job no one else wanted, the other applicants don't have what the employer is looking for, or there's too much criminal history, which does effect obtaining employment no matter what delusions naysayers suffer from.
Garuda.Chanti
Server: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 12088
By Garuda.Chanti 2015-06-09 21:47:31
H-1B visa
Pink Slips at Disney. But First, Training Foreign Replacements.
This is NOT how H-1Bs are supposed to work.
But this is EXACTLY what H-1B visas are used for.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13648
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-06-09 21:51:39
Way to go, Disney. Just go and reinforce that whole "evil corporation" reputation that you've built up.
[+]
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 88
By Siren.Fattynoob 2015-06-09 21:59:55
318,857,056 American Citizens
-23% for people under 18 even tho I joined the workforce at 13,
245,519,933 Working age citizens,
-36 million for disabled Americans
209,519,933 Able bodied American citizens of adult age,
-120,589,850 million people in the US are employed,
88,934,083 Unemployed Americans of working age without a disability.
= a true 28% unemployment rate.
Ask me again why employers should hire American workers as opposed to immigrants.
That also doesn't factor in the amount of underemployed citizens there are in the United States. I've had people with PHD's apply at my bookstore for part time work because they couldn't find anything else.
Perhaps the employer knows by hiring the immigrant they will be able to pay them much less than their American peer and increase their profit margin even more.
[+]
Asura.Saevel
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10362
By Asura.Saevel 2015-06-09 22:01:11
Yep, welcome to globalism. You wanted cheap products from outside the USA, well the side effect of that is you now compete with those same countries. The only way to avoid the issue is to mandate local hiring like Germany does, but this brings other complications like making your country not competitive in a global market. Germany deals with that by focusing on quality and being extremely careful about managing their brand name, Unions there have a radically different function then the ones here in the USA.
Anyhow technology has enabled a side step. Lets assuming you somehow get all H-1B visa's outlawed and force American companies to only hire American workers. Telecommuting technology is now such that it's possible for an American company to contract out technical support from an Indian firm with it's workers working in India and remotely operating the American companies systems. There will still be a need for a few local hires at the data center but their numbers, and costs, would dwarf what was contracted out. They also wouldn't need to be highly qualified and credentialed, instead they would only need basic skill-sets as the qualified engineer from India would be giving them instructions. I know this because I've engineered and built systems designed exactly to be run this way, 99% remotely with one guy who occasionally drives an hour to the site for any manual work that needs done.
Right now the only way to be safe in your job is to be highly skilled, credentialed and have a reputation within your industry. Never stay at a single employer for too long, always be ready and able to pack up and move to another employer at a pin drop. That's also the best way to get promotions and salary increases since big rollers are always looking to hire the top end of the skill pool.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-06-09 22:40:26
Now, I don't understand why this thread has been demained already.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 8022
By Shiva.Viciousss 2015-06-09 22:41:19
I don't understand why it was demained and not closed.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-06-09 22:45:57
Well, we are all getting a good laugh at these ideas....
We have somebody who doesn't remotely understand central banking, and a guy who doesn't remotely understand global economy.
Lakshmi.Rooks
Administrator
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1571
By Lakshmi.Rooks 2015-06-09 22:55:43
Sorry, was out of the house. Locking, and going through all the reports now.
Please take time to inform yourself with the information provided thank you for your time. Go Big or Go Home
All Wars are bankers Wars
Quote: "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." -- Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain Quote: I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
The United States fought the American Revolution primarily over King George III's Currency act, which forced the colonists to conduct their business only using printed bank notes borrowed from the Bank of England at interest. Quote: "The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing." -- William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694 Quote: After the revolution, the new United States adopted a radically different economic system in which the government issued its own value-based money, so that private banks like the Bank of England were not siphoning off the wealth of the people through interest-bearing bank notes. Quote: " The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution."-- Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father Quote: Following the revolution, the US Government actually took steps to keep the bankers out of the new government! Quote: "Any person holding any office or any stock in any institution in the nature of a bank for issuing or discounting bills or notes payable to bearer or order, cannot be a member of the House whilst he holds such office or stock." -- Third Congress of the United States Senate, 23rd of December, 1793, signed by the President, George Washington Quote: But bankers are nothing if not dedicated to their schemes to acquire your wealth, and know full well how easy it is to corrupt a nation's leaders. Quote: Just one year after Mayer Amschel Rothschild had uttered his infamous "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws", the bankers succeeded in setting up a new Private Central Bank called the First Bank of the United States, largely through the efforts of the Rothschild's chief US supporter, Alexander Hamilton. Quote: Founded in 1791, by the end of its twenty year charter the First Bank of the United States had almost ruined the nation's economy, while enriching the bankers. Congress refused to renew the charter and signaled their intention to go back to a state issued value based currency on which the people paid no interest at all to any banker. This resulted in a threat from Nathan Mayer Rothschild against the US Government, "Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war." Congress still refused to renew the charter for the First Bank of the United States, whereupon Nathan Mayer Rothschild railed, "Teach those impudent Americans a lesson! Bring them back to colonial status!" The British Prime Minister at the time, Spencer Perceval was adamantly opposed to war with the United States, primarily because the majority of England's military might was occupied with the ongoing Napoleonic wars. Spencer Perceval was concerned that Britain might not prevail in a new American war, a concern shared by many in the British government. Then, Spencer Perceval was assassinated (the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated in office) and replaced by Robert Banks Jenkinson, the 2nd Earl of Liverpool, who was fully supportive of a war to recapture the colonies. Quote: "If my sons did not want wars, there would be none." -- Gutle Schnaper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and mother of his five sons Quote: Financed at virtually no interest by the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, Britain then provoked the war of 1812 to recolonize the United States and force them back into the slavery of the Bank of England, or to plunge the United States into so much debt they would be forced to accept a new private central bank. And the plan worked. Even though the War of 1812 was won by the United States, Congress was forced to grant a new charter for yet another private bank issuing the public currency as loans at interest, the Second Bank of the United States. Once again, private bankers were in control of the nation's money supply and cared not who made the laws or how many British and American soldiers had to die for it. Quote: Once again the nation was plunged into debt, unemployment, and poverty by the predations of the private central bank, and in 1832 Andrew Jackson successfully campaigned for his second term as President under the slogan, "Jackson And No Bank!" True to his word, Jackson succeeds in blocking the renewal of the charter for the Second Bank of the United States. Quote: "Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!" -- Andrew Jackson, shortly before ending the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. From the original minutes of the Philadelphia committee of citizens sent to meet with President Jackson (February 1834), according to Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States (1928) by Stan V. Henkels Quote: Shortly after President Jackson (the only American President to actually pay off the National Debt) ended the Second Bank of the United States, there was an attempted assassination which failed when both pistols used by the assassin, Richard Lawrence, failed to fire. Lawrence later said that with Jackson dead, "Money would be more plenty."
President Zachary Taylor opposed the creation of a new Private Central Bank, owing to the historical abuses of the First and Second Banks of the United States.
"The idea of a national bank is dead, and will not be revived in my time." -- President Zachary Taylor
Taylor died on July 9, 1850 after eating a bowl of cherries and milk rumored to have been poisoned. The symptoms he displayed are consistent with acute arsenic poisoning. Quote: President James Buchanan also opposed a private central bank. During the panic of 1857 he attempted to set limits on banks issuing more loans than they had actual funds, and to require all issued bank notes to be backed by Federal Government assets. He was poisoned with arsenic and survived, although 38 other people at the dinner died. Quote: The public school system is as subservient to the bankers' wishes to keep certain history from you, just as the corporate media is subservient to Monsanto's wishes to keep the dangers of GMOs from you, and the global warming cult's wishes to conceal from you that the Earth has actually been cooling for the last 16 years. Thus it should come as little surprise that much of the real reasons for the events of the Civil War are not well known to the average American. Quote: "The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." -- The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863 Quote: When the Confederacy seceded from the United States, the bankers once again saw the opportunity for a rich harvest of debt, and offered to fund Lincoln's efforts to bring the south back into the union, but at 30% interest. Lincoln remarked that he would not free the black man by enslaving the white man to the bankers and using his authority as President, issued a new government currency, the greenback. This was a direct threat to the wealth and power of the central bankers, who quickly responded. Quote: "If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." -- The London Times responding to Lincoln's decision to issue government Greenbacks to finance the Civil War, rather than agree to private banker's loans at 30% interest. Quote: In 1872 New York bankers sent a letter to every bank in the United States, urging them to fund newspapers that opposed government-issued money (Lincoln's greenbacks). Quote: "Dear Sir: It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers... as will oppose the issuing of greenback paper money, and that you also withhold patronage or favors from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the Government issue of money. Let the Government issue the coin and the banks issue the paper money of the country... [T]o restore to circulation the Government issue of money, will be to provide the people with money, and will therefore seriously affect your individual profit as bankers and lenders." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler
"It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler
"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care for the laborer, while the European plan, led on by England, is for capital to control labor by controlling the wages. THIS CAN BE DONE BY CONTROLLING THE MONEY." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler Quote: Goaded by the private bankers, much of Europe supported the Confederacy against the Union, with the expectation that victory over Lincoln would mean the end of the Greenback. France and Britain considered an outright attack on the United States to aid the confederacy, but were held at bay by Russia, which had just ended the serfdom system and had a state central bank similar to the system the United States had been founded on. Quote: Left free of European intervention, the Union won the war, and Lincoln announced his intention to go on issuing greenbacks. Following Lincoln's assassination, the Greenbacks were pulled from circulation and the American people forced to go back to an economy based on bank notes borrowed at interest from the private bankers. Tsar Alexander II, who authorized Russian military assistance to Lincoln, was subsequently the victim of multiple attempts on his life in 1866, 1879, and 1880, until his assassination in 1881.
With the end of Lincoln's Greenbacks, the US could no longer create its own interest free money and was manipulated during the term of President Ruthford B. Hayes into borrowing from the Rothschilds banking system in 1878, restoring to the Rothschilds control of the US economy they had lost under Andrew Jackson. Quote: Messrs. Rothschild & Sons to Mr. Sherman.
[Cable message.]
April 12,1878.
Hon. John Sherman,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington D. C.:
Very pleased we have entered into relations again with American Government. Shall do our best to make the business successful.
ROTHSCHILDS. Quote: James A. Garfield was elected President in 1880 on a platform of government control of the money supply. Quote: "The chief duty of the National Government in connection with the currency of the country is to coin money and declare its value. Grave doubts have been entertained whether Congress is authorized by the Constitution to make any form of paper money legal tender. The present issue of United States notes has been sustained by the necessities of war; but such paper should depend for its value and currency upon its convenience in use and its prompt redemption in coin at the will of the holder, and not upon its compulsory circulation. These notes are not money, but promises to pay money. If the holders demand it, the promise should be kept. -- James Garfield
"By the experience of commercial nations in all ages it has been found that gold and silver afford the only safe foundation for a monetary system. Confusion has recently been created by variations in the relative value of the two metals, but I confidently believe that arrangements can be made between the leading commercial nations which will secure the general use of both metals. Congress should provide that the compulsory coinage of silver now required by law may not disturb our monetary system by driving either metal out of circulation. If possible, such an adjustment should be made that the purchasing power of every coined dollar will be exactly equal to its debt-paying power in all the markets of the world. --James Garfield
"He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation. -- James Garfield Quote: Garfield was shot on July 2, 1881 and died of his wounds several weeks later. Chester A. Arthur succeeded Garfield as President.
In 1896, William McKinley was elected President in the middle of a depression-driven debate over gold-backed government currency versus bank notes borrowed at interest from private banks. McKinley favored gold-backed currencies and a balanced government budget which would free the public from accumulating debt. Quote: "Our financial system needs some revision; our money is all good now, but its value must not further be threatened. It should all be put upon an enduring basis, not subject to easy attack, nor its stability to doubt or dispute. Our currency should continue under the supervision of the Government. The several forms of our paper money offer, in my judgment, a constant embarrassment to the Government and a safe balance in the Treasury." -- William McKinley Quote: McKinley was shot by an out-of-work anarchist on September 14, 1901, in Buffalo, NY, succumbing to his wounds a few days later. He was succeeded in office by Theodore Roosevelt.
In 1910, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip of National City (Citibank), Henry Davison of Morgan Bank, and Paul Warburg of the Kuhn, Loeb Investment House met secretly on Jekyll Island, Georgia, to formulate a plan for a US central bank, and created the Aldrich Plan, which called for a system of fifteen regional central banks, openly and directly controlled by Wall Street commercial banks. These banks would have the legal ability to create money out of thin air and represented an attempt to create a new Bank of the United States. Public reaction was swift.
Do to the intense public opposition to the Aldrich Plan, the measure was defeated in the House of Representatives in 1912. One year later the bankers would be back!
Following the defeat of the Aldrich Plan, in 1913, the Private Central Bankers of Europe, in particular the Rothschilds of Great Britain and the Warburgs of Germany, met with their American financial collaborators once again on Jekyll Island, Georgia to form a new banking cartel with the express purpose of forcing the United States to accept a private central bank, with the aim of placing complete control of the United States money supply once again under the control of private bankers. Owing to hostility over the previous banks, the name was changed from the Third Bank of the United States to "The Federal Reserve" system in order to grant the new bank a quasi-governmental image, but in fact it is a privately owned bank, no more "Federal" than Federal Express. Quote: In 2012, the Federal Reserve attempted to rebuff a Freedom of Information Lawsuit by Bloomberg News on the grounds that as a private banking corporation and not actually a part of the government, the Freedom of Information Act did not apply to the "trade secret" operations of the Federal Reserve. Quote: "When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check; but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money." -- From the Boston Federal Reserve Bank pamphlet, "Putting it Simply."
"Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a 'dollar' bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries." -- "Modern Money Mechanics Workbook" - Federal Reserve of Chicago, 1975
"I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people." -- Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924
"States, most especially the large hegemonic ones, such as the United States and Great Britain, are controlled by the international central banking system, working through secret agreements at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and operating through national central banks (such as the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve)... The same international banking cartel that controls the United States today previously controlled Great Britain and held it up as the international hegemon. When the British order faded, and was replaced by the United States, the US ran the global economy. However, the same interests are served. States will be used and discarded at will by the international banking cartel; they are simply tools." -- Andrew Gavin Marshall Quote: 1913 proved to be a transformative year for the nation's economy, first with the passage of the 16th "income tax" Amendment and the false claim that it had been ratified. Quote: "I think if you were to go back and and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, the income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." - U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, Sullivan Vs. United States, 2003. Quote: Later that same year of 1913, and apparently unwilling to risk another questionable amendment, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act over Christmas holiday 1913, while members of Congress opposed to the measure were at home. This was a very underhanded deal, as the Constitution explicitly vests Congress with the authority to issue the public currency, does not authorize its delegation, and thus should have required a new Amendment to transfer that authority to a private bank. But pass it Congress did, and President Woodrow Wilson signed it as he promised the bankers he would in exchange for generous campaign contributions. Quote: Woodrow Wilson later regretted that decision.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson 1919
Thomas Edison, arguably the most brilliant man of the age, was also well aware of the fraud of private central banks.
"People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People who supply all the material and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest ...But here is the point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold." -- Thomas A. Edison Quote: The next year, World War One started, and it is important to remember that prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, there was no such thing as a world war.
World War One started between Austria-Hungary and Serbia with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
Although the war started between Austria-Hungary and Serbia , it quickly shifted to focus on Germany, whose industrial capacity was seen as an economic threat to Great Britain, who saw the decline of the British Pound as a result of too much emphasis on financial activity to the neglect of agriculture, industrial development, and infrastructure (not unlike the present day United States). Although pre-war Germany had a private central bank, it was heavily restricted and inflation kept to reasonable levels. Under government control, investment was guaranteed to internal economic development, and Germany was seen as a major power.
So, in the media of the day, Germany was portrayed as the prime opponent of World War One, and not just defeated, but its industrial base flattened. Following the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was ordered to pay the war costs of all the participating nations, even though Germany had not actually started the war. This amounted to three times the value of all of Germany itself. Germany's private central bank, to whom Germany had gone deeply into debt to pay the costs of the war, broke free of government control, and massive inflation followed (mostly triggered by currency speculators) , permanently trapping the German people in endless debt.
When the Weimar Republic collapsed economically, it opened the door for the National Socialists to take power. Their first financial move was to issue their own state currency which was not borrowed from private central bankers. Freed from having to pay interest on the money in circulation, Germany blossomed and quickly began to rebuild its industry. The media called it "The German Miracle". TIME magazine lionized Hitler for the amazing improvement in life for the German people and the explosion of German industry, and even named him TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year in 1938. Quote: Once again, Germany's industrial output became a threat to Great Britain.
"Should Germany merchandise (do business) again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain." - Winston Churchill in The Times (1919)
"We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)
"Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it." - Winston Churchill (November 1936 speaking to US - General Robert E. Wood)
"This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany." - Winston Churchill (- Autumn 1939 broadcast)
Germany's state-issued value based currency was also a direct threat to the wealth and power of the private central banks, and as early as 1933 they started to organize a global boycott against Germany to strangle this upstart ruler who thought he could break free of private central bankers! Quote: As had been the case in World War One, Great Britain and other nations threatened by Germany's economic power looked for an excuse to go to war, and as public anger in Germany grew over the boycott, Hitler foolishly gave them that excuse. Years later, in a spirit of candor, the real reasons for that war were made clear.
"The war wasn't only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn't want to."- Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)
"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn't profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig." -Winston Churchill (The Second World War - Bern, 1960) Quote: As a side note, we need to step back before WW2 and recall Marine Major General Smedley Butler. In 1933, Wall Street bankers and financiers had bankrolled the successful coups by both Hitler and Mussolini. Brown Brothers Harriman in New York was financing Hitler right up to the day war was declared with Germany. And they decided that a fascist dictatorship in the United States based on the one on Italy would be far better for their business interests than Roosevelt's "New Deal" which threatened massive wealth redistribution to recapitalize the working and middle class of America.
So the Wall Street tycoons recruited General Butler to lead the overthrow of the US Government and install a "Secretary of General Affairs" who would be answerable to Wall Street and not the people, would crush social unrest and shut down all labor unions. General Butler pretended to go along with the scheme but then exposed the plot to Congress.
Congress, then as now in the pocket of the Wall Street bankers, refused to act. When Roosevelt learned of the planned coup he demanded the arrest of the plotters, but the plotters simply reminded Roosevelt that if any one of them were sent to prison, their friends on Wall Street would deliberately collapse the still-fragile economy and blame Roosevelt for it.
Roosevelt was thus unable to act until the start of WW2, at which time he prosecuted many of the plotters under the Trading With The Enemy act. The Congressional minutes into the coup were finally declassified in 1967, but rumors of the attempted coup became the inspiration for the movie, "Seven Days in May" but with the true financial villains erased from the script. Quote: "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service as a member of our country's most agile military force -- the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent more of my time being a high--class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. "I suspected I was just a part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that the Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals and promotion. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. I operated on three continents." -- General Smedley Butler, former US Marine Corps Commandant,1935 Quote: As President, John F. Kennedy understood the predatory nature of private central banking. He understood why Andrew fought so hard to end the Second Bank of the United States. So Kennedy wrote and signed Executive Order 11110 which ordered the US Treasury to issue a new public currency, the United States Note.
Kennedy's United States Notes were not borrowed from the Federal Reserve but created by the US Government and backed by the silver stockpiles held by the US Government. It represented a return to the system of economics the United States had been founded on, and was perfectly legal for Kennedy to do. All told, some four and one half billion dollars went into public circulation, eroding interest payments to the Federal Reserve and loosening their control over the nation. Five months later John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas Texas, and the United States Notes pulled from circulation and destroyed (except for samples held by collectors). Quote: John J. McCloy, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and President of the World Bank, was named to the Warren Commission, presumably to make certain the banking dimensions behind the assassination were concealed from the public.
As we enter the eleventh year of what future history will most certainly describe as World War Three, we need to examine the financial dimensions behind the wars.
Towards the end of World War Two, when it became obvious that the allies were going to win and dictate the post war environment, the major world economic powers met at Bretton Woods, a luxury resort in New Hampshire in July of 1944, and hammered out the Bretton Woods agreement for international finance. The British Pound lost its position as the global trade and reserve currency to the US dollar (part of the price demanded by Roosevelt in exchange for the US entry into the war). Absent the economic advantages of being the world's "go-to" currency, Britain was forced to nationalize the Bank of England in 1946. The Bretton Woods agreement, ratified in 1945, in addition to making the dollar the global reserve and trade currency, obligated the signatory nations to tie their currencies to the dollar. The nations that ratified Bretton Woods did so on two conditions. The first was that the Federal Reserve would refrain from over-printing the dollar as a means to loot real products and produce from other nations in exchange for ink and paper; basically an imperial tax. That assurance was backed up by the second requirement, which was that the US dollar would always be convertible to gold at $35 per ounce. Quote: The Federal Reserve, being a private bank and not answerable to the US Government, did start overprinting paper dollars, and much of the perceived prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s was the result of foreign nations' obligations to accept the paper notes as being worth gold at the rate of $35 an ounce. Then in 1970, France looked at the huge pile of paper notes sitting in their vaults, for which real French products like wine and cheese had been traded, and notified the United States government that they would exercise their option under Bretton Woods to return the paper notes for gold at the $35 per ounce exchange rate. The United States had nowhere near the gold to redeem the paper notes, so on August 15th, 1971, Richard Nixon "temporarily" suspended the gold convertibility of the US Federal Reserve Notes.
Later termed the "Nixon shock", this move effectively ended Bretton Woods and many global currencies started to delink from the US dollar. Quote: Worse, since the United States had collateralized their loans with the nation's gold reserves, it quickly became apparent that the US Government did not in fact have enough gold to cover the outstanding debts. Foreign nations began to get very nervous about their loans to the US and understandably were reluctant to loan any additional money to the United States without some form of collateral. So Richard Nixon started the environmental movement, with the EPA and its various programs such as "wilderness zones", Roadless areas", Heritage rivers", "Wetlands", all of which took vast areas of public lands and made them off limits to the American people who were technically the owners of those lands. But Nixon had little concern for the environment and the real purpose of this land grab under the guise of the environment was to pledge those pristine lands and their vast mineral resources as collateral on the national debt. The plethora of different programs was simply to conceal the true scale of how much American land was being pledged to foreign lenders as collateral on the government's debts; eventually almost 25% of the nation itself. All of this is illegal as the Enclave Clause of the Constitution limits the Federal Government to owning the land under Federal Government buildings and military bases, and that Enclave Clause was written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers to specifically to prevent the Federal Government simply seizing the land belonging to the people to sell off, pledge as collateral, or rent! Quote: With open lands for collateral already in short supply, the US Government embarked on a new program to shore up sagging international demand for the dollar. The United States approached the world's oil producing nations, mostly in the Middle East, and offered them a deal. In exchange for only selling their oil for dollars, the United States would guarantee the military safety of those oil-rich nations. The oil rich nations would agree to spend and invest their US paper dollars inside the United States, in particular in US Treasury Bonds, redeemable through future generations of US taxpayers. The concept was labeled the "petrodollar". In effect, the US, no longer able to back the dollar with gold, was now backing it with oil. Other peoples' oil. And that necessity to keep control over those oil nations to prop up the dollar has shaped America's foreign policy in the region ever since.
But as America's manufacturing and agriculture has declined, the oil producing nations faced a dilemma. Those piles of US Federal Reserve notes were not able to purchase much from the United States because the United States had little (other than real estate) anyone wanted to buy. Europe's cars and aircraft were superior and less costly, while experiments with GMO food crops led to nations refusing to buy US food exports. Israel's constant belligerence against its neighbors caused them to wonder if the US could actually keep their end of the petrodollar arrangement. Oil producing nations started to talk of selling their oil for whatever currency the purchasers chose to use. Quote: Iraq, already hostile to the United States following Desert Storm, demanded the right to sell their oil for Euros in 2000 and in 2002, the United Nations agreed to allow it under the "Oil for food" program instituted following Desert Storm. One year later the United States re-invaded Iraq under the lie of Saddam's nuclear weapons, lynched Saddam Hussein, and placed Iraq's oil back on the world market only for US dollars.
The clear US policy shift following 9-11, away from being an impartial broker of peace in the Mideast to one of unquestioned support for Israel's aggressions only further eroded confidence in the Petrodollar deal and even more oil producing nations started openly talking of oil trade for other global currencies.
Over in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi had instituted a state-owned central bank and a value based trade currency, the Gold Dinar.
Gaddafi announced that Libya's oil was for sale, but only for the Gold Dinar. Other African nations, seeing the rise of the Gold Dinar and the Euro, even as the US dollar continued its inflation-driven decline, flocked to the new Libyan currency for trade. This move had the potential to seriously undermine the global hegemony of the dollar. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world. So, the United States invaded Libya, brutally murdered Qaddafi ( the object lesson of Saddam's lynching not being enough of a message, apparently), imposed a private central bank, and returned Libya's oil output to dollars only. The gold that was to have been made into the Gold Dinars is, as of last report, unaccounted for. Quote: According to General Wesley Clark, the master plan for the "dollarification" of the world's oil nations included seven targets, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran (Venezuela, which dared to sell their oil to China for the Yuan, is a late addition).
What is notable about the original seven nations originally targeted by the US is that none of them are members of the Bank for International Settlements, the private central bankers private central bank, located in Switzerland. This meant that these nations were deciding for themselves how to run their nations' economies, rather than submit to the international private banks.
Now the bankers' gun sights are on Iran, which dares to have a government central bank and sell their oil for whatever currency they choose. The war agenda is, as always, to force Iran's oil to be sold only for dollars and to force them to accept a privately owned central bank. Malaysia, one of the few remaining nations without a Rothschild central bank, is now being invaded by a force claimed to be "Al Qaeda" and has suffered numerous suspicioous losses of its commercial passenger jets.
With the death of President Hugo Chavez, plans to impose a US and banker friendly regime on Venezuela are clearly being implemented. Quote: The German government recently asked for the return of some of their gold bullion from the Bank of France and the New York Federal Reserve. France has said it will take 5 years to return Germany's gold. The United States has said they will need 8 years to return Germany's gold. This suggests strongly that the Bank of France and the NY Federal Reserve have used the deposited gold for other purposes, most likely to cover gold futures contracts used to artificially suppress the price of gold to keep investors in the equities markets, and the Central Banks are scrambling to find new gold to cover the shortfall and prevent a gold run. So it is inevitable that suddenly France invades Mali, ostensibly to combat Al Qaeda, with the US joining in. Mali just happens to be one of the world's largest gold producers with gold accounting for 80% of Mali exports. War for the bankers does not get more obvious than that!
Mexico has demanded a physical audit of their gold bullion stored at the Bank of England, and along with Venezuela's vast oil reserves (larger than Saudi Arabia), Venezuela's gold mines are a prize lusted after by all the Central Banks that played fast and loose with other peoples' gold bullion. So we can expect regime change if not outright invasion soon.
You have been raised by a public school system and media that constantly assures you that the reasons for all these wars and assassinations are many and varied. The US claims to bring democracy to the conquered lands (they haven't; the usual result of a US overthrow is the imposition of a dictatorship, such as the 1953 CIA overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and the imposition of the Shah, or the 1973 CIA overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government of President Salvador Allende, and the imposition of Augusto Pinochet), or to save a people from a cruel oppressor, revenge for 9-11, or that tired worn-out catch all excuse for invasion, weapons of mass destruction. Assassinations are always passed off as "crazed lone nuts" to obscure the real agenda.
The real agenda is simple. It is enslavement of the people by creation of a false sense of obligation. That obligation is false because the Private Central Banking system, by design, always creates more debt than money with which to pay that debt. Private Central Banking is not science, it is a religion; a set of arbitrary rules created to benefit the priesthood, meaning the owners of the Private Central Bank. The fraud persists, with often lethal results, because the people are tricked into believing that this is the way life is supposed to be and no alternative exists or should be dreamt of. The same was true of two earlier systems of enslavement, Rule by Divine Right and Slavery, both systems built to trick people into obedience, and both now recognized by modern civilization as illegitimate. Now we are entering a time in human history where we will recognize that rule by debt, or rule by Private Central Bankers issuing the public currency as a loan at interest, is equally illegitimate. It only works as long as people allow themselves to believe that this is the way life is supposed to be. Quote: But understand this above all; Private Central Banks do not exist to serve the people, the community, or the nation. Private Central Banks exist to serve their owners, to make them rich beyond the dreams of Midas and all for the cost of ink, paper, and the right bribe to the right official.
Behind all these wars, all these assassinations, the hundred million horrible deaths from all the wars lies a single policy of dictatorship. The private central bankers allow rulers to rule only on the condition that the people of a nation be enslaved to the private central banks. Failing that, said ruler will be killed, and their nation invaded by those other nations enslaved to private central banks.
The so-called "clash of civilizations" we read about on the corporate media is really a war between banking systems, with the private central bankers forcing themselves onto the rest of the world, no matter how many millions must die for it. Indeed the constant hatemongering against Muslims lies in a simple fact. Like the ancient Christians (prior to the Knights Templars private banking system) , Muslims forbid usury, or the lending of money at interest. And that is the reason our government and media insist they must be killed or converted. They refuse to submit to currencies issued at interest. They refuse to be debt slaves.
So off to war your children must go, to spill their blood for the money-junkies' gold. We barely survived the last two world wars. In the nuclear/bioweapon age, are the private central bankers willing to risk incinerating the whole planet just to feed their greed?
Apparently so.
This brings us to the current situation in the Ukraine, Russia, and China.
The European Union had been courting the government of the Ukraine to merge with the EU, and more to the point, entangle their economy with the private-owned European Central Bank. The government of the Ukraine was considering the move, but had made no commitments. Part of their concern lay with the conditions in other EU nations enslaved to the ECB, notably Cyprus, Greece, Spain, and Italy. So they were properly cautious. Then Russia stepped in with a better deal and the Ukraine, exercising the basic choice all consumers have to choose the best product at the best price, dropped the EU and announced they were going to go with Russia's offer. It was at that point that agents provocateurs flooded into the Ukraine, covertly funded by intelligence agency fronts like CANVAS and USAID, stirring up trouble, while the western media proclaimed this was a popular revolution. Snipers shot at people and this violence was blamed on then-President Yanukovych. However a leaked recording of a phone call between the EU's Catherine Ashton and Estonia's Foreign Minister Urmas Paet confirmed the snipers were working for the overthrow plotters, not the Ukrainian government. Urmas Paet has confirmed the authenticity of that phone call.
This is a classic pattern of covert overthrow we have seen many times before. Since the end of WW2, the US has covertly tried to overthrow the governments of 56 nations, succeeding 25 times. Examples include the 1953 overthrow of Iran's elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh and the imposition of the Shah, the 1973 overthrow of Chile's elected government of Salvador Allende and the imposition of the Pinochet dictatorship, and of course, the current overthrow of Ukraine's elected government of Yanukovich and the imposition of the current unelected government, which is already gutting the Ukraine's wealth to hand to the western bankers. Quote: The path to true peace on Earth lies in the abolishment of all private central banking everywhere, and a return to the state-issued value-based currencies that allow nations and people to become prosperous.
"Banks do not have an obligation to promote the public good." -- Alexander Dielius, CEO, Germany, Austrian, Eastern Europe Goldman Sachs, 2010
"I am just a banker doing God's work." -- Lloyd Blankfein, CEO, Goldman Sachs, 2009
I want to share this information with you all because you really do deserve to know the truth
|
|
