STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
With New Study, BOE Tries to Revive Occupy Wall Street
By Staff News & Analysis - March 19, 2014

The truth is out: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it … The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning". Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. – UK Guardian

Dominant Social Theme: It's true, according to the BOE. Central banks are unimportant. Occupy Wall Street had the right idea. The problem is capitalism and greed, not the modern central banking economy.

Free-Market Analysis: There are two main props to the authoritarian force of modern capitalism, so far as we can tell. One is monopoly central banking and the other is corporate personhood. Both of these are enforced by law, which means if you somehow try to undermine either of these you may end up in jail.

But now, in yet another desperate attempt to revive the neo-French Revolution that is Occupy Wall Street, the Bank of England has released a study attempting to show that modern capitalism is the result of private bank lending and that monopoly central banking is effectively blameless for modern, serial economic catastrophes.

We arrive at this viewpoint courtesy of one of Occupy Wall Street's chief philosophers, the anarchist-socialist David Graeber. In the Guardian, he seizes on a recent BOE study to show that those who minimized central banking in the past were correct. Central banking, after all, is merely a technocratic monetary methodology of little interest to anyone except a fringe group of Austrian economists intermingling with a larger pool of loony libertarians.

Here's more from Graeber:

To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise.

… What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits … "

In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits." In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards.

When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes.

There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again.

So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.

… What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all).

… Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.

banner1

We've quoted at length because it shows clearly how dominant social themes can be threaded together with the goal of creating further globalism. As bizarre as it sounds, the BOE has now decided to create a theoretical justification to support a radical opponent of capitalism – OWS.

Yet it is not so bizarre as it sounds if it one peers beneath the surface. In fact, there is little doubt that Occupy Wall Street, which has mercifully receded, was a creation of internationalism.

It emerged from nowhere with apparent ties to George Soros. The meme was simple: One percent of the Western world was obscenely wealthy and ought to "pay the penalty" for creating that wealth. The "people" ought to control the creation of money, not "bankers."

But this was a kind of disinformation, as we and others pointed out. The problem with the world's wealth was likely restricted to a handful of the world's wealthiest individuals who control central banking via the Bank for International Settlements and other globalist entities.

Eventually, because of its radicalism and misinformation, Occupy Wall Street became less and less of a force. But we never believed that the malevolent intent motivating it would entirely subside.

This is because the power elite behind OWS is desperate to blame modern economic problems on something other than central banks. Central banking is where elite power lies. Absent monopoly central banking, elites lose money power and its incalculable benefits.

And thus in this Internet Era, they have created an endless array of faux-economic analysis and movements. The main one is, of course, the idea of the "national bank" that is supposed to provide an alternative to "private" central banking. Again, the idea is that if the "people" control money printing, then its abuses will be lessened.

In reality, this is nonsense. Money only works well if it is private, if no one group of individuals – whether representing the "people" or not – controls the creation and issuance of money. Money through the ages has been gold and silver and has often been subject to marketplace competition, as it should be.

But in creating its false memes, globalist money power seeks to confuse the issue. It wants us to believe that the problem with money creation lies with US. We demand loans from our banks and this creates the boom/bust cycle that is so destructive.

The top central banking elite has nothing to do with it. They are just passive observers trying to maintain a stable monetary system, but one that is regularly sabotaged by the greed of the larger population.

The power elite never lets a meme die. When the global warming meme was fizzling, we were introduced to "climate change." When the war on terror looked less believable, the Middle East and Northern Africa suddenly went up in flames.

And now this: If there are business cycles, we ourselves are to blame, not monopoly central banking. It is commercial banking that is the tool we use to sabotage our economies.

If we focus on central banking, we are focusing on the wrong target. We need to target commercial banks and their Wall Street henchmen.

Hear the central banking elites exhaling in relief?

Just to ensure that anger will be focused where it ought to be, the Bank of England issued a fatwa informing investors that they will be responsible for "too big to fail" banks in the future.

Here is how the UK Telegraph described it:

The deputy governor of the Bank of England has declared an end to the era of taxpayer bail-outs for the world's giant lenders. Almost five years to the day since the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, Paul Tucker claimed that America's biggest banks are now in a position to go bust without state intervention.

Britain and the rest of Europe are "not far behind" but draft laws still need to be ratified. In future, the cost of a bank bail out will be borne by its investors rather than nurses and teachers, Mr Tucker said.

Isn't this fairly obvious? The BOE releases a paper blaming money creation on commercial banks. At the same time, its deputy governor makes clear that individual investors will bear the losses of large banks in the future.

Confuse the monetary mechanism with cleverly created "studies" and incite tension and anger (divide and conquer) by setting individuals against commercial banks.

The net effect of these manipulations is to remove central banking from the proverbial line of fire. Perhaps this is the reconfiguration we've been waiting for. David Graeber certainly believes it is.

There are larger ramifications as well from an investment standpoint. In the short – or shorter – term, a Wall Street Party is taking place. In the longer term, the power elite is laying the groundwork for a great crash and the advent of a truly international monetary system with a consolidated currency and central bank.

OWS is to provide philosophical cover for the eventual dismantling of the current system. That's why it is important and that is why the BOE is releasing studies that people like Graeber can seize upon.

After Thoughts

Will OWS soon rise phoenix-like from its own ashes? If so, its wings will point the blame anywhere and everywhere except at central banking.

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Bill Ross

    our slavers have zero ability to innovate / create or, to tolerate change (evolution) without attempting to control. The memes they “flog” are marketed by their minions, such as Soros / OWS and the winds of political “tolerance” are sniffed by those who use the mighty megaphone of the MSM to crowd control the 95% of “followers” (go along to get along, monkey see, monkey do), on behalf of the 5% psychopaths / predators in (especially law) society.

    The “criteria” for meme selection is maximal profit for the enforcers / providers, ready scapegoats for when the “endeavor” implodes, maximal loss for the marks. Those who “flog” the memes hardest intend to be well compensated, such as Keynes.

    DB has recently noted pushback (blame deflection) by two “scapegoats”, Rating Agencies and BOE in this article.

    Perhaps we should all calm down, objectively THINK this out, finger the correct perps:

    http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/33

    …and, defensively impose justice (those who do the actions, face the consequences, good or bad):

    http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/34

    as opposed to accepting the inevitable “$hit happens”, we win, you lose in this never ending sequence of smash and grab serial assaults / frauds against civilization and the civilized (those who engage in productivity, peaceful, mutually agreed division of labor)

    … before the nukes start to fly as very dangerous organized predators attempt to “trade, by other means”

  • “Paul Tucker claimed that America’s biggest banks are now in a position to go bust without state intervention. Britain and the rest of Europe are “not far behind” but draft laws still need to be ratified. In future, the cost of a bank bail out will be borne by its investors rather than nurses and teachers, Mr Tucker said.”

    Can you see the Progressive Movement at work here? Progressively taking IOU creation out of the hands of the economic producer. The progressive take over of commerce, livelihoods, lives.

    First bigger and bigger gigantico Government produces the bulk of IOUs (deficit), spending them and calling THAT an economy, until the mountain of IOUs by its sheer size begins losing credibility, trust, value.

    Second, mostly by legislation, regulation and graft, create economic crises after crises that only gigantico Government can bail out (TARP), falsely called the taxpayer. See how government claims to be ‘the people’? Government is really claiming to be ‘the economy’, real producing people be damned. Welfare recipients are only useful in help moving the IOUs into circulation.

    Third, gigantico Government (false economy) claims to be in trouble (debt ceiling, sequester, etc) needing ‘extraordinary measures’ and unprecedented and highly unethical if not illegal QE. And more QE with a hint of ‘tapering’, maybe, ‘forward guidance’ will tell. Forward guidance is only a measurement of the wrath and contempt of the People over their stolen identity, their stolen economy.

    Forth, after so benevolently helping gigantico Government, the crony Banks are now getting into trouble. And being so big hearted, the Banks couldn’t possibly ask the People, the shot and left for dead real economy for help. No, gigantico owes them a favor, more legislation, regulation and graft.

    It doesn’t matter if a ‘private’ Central Bank or a ‘public’ Government Bank presides over IOU (currency) creation, its volume and rate of interest. Either way is a method of capture of the free market, the free market economy, commerce in general, the People.

    • Bill Ross

      Laws and opinions are mere words, to interpret as the “blessors of truth” see fit. Reality is action inevitably leads to consequence, not subject to “interpretation” or spin, and certainly not “caring”.

      Ask Comical Ali:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf

      The consequences of enslaving the productive, or, in general violating people’s “rights to life” (and fruits thereof), independent of rationalizations, false pretexts are final and, non-negotiable blowback:

      http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/32

      In general, what has happened is due to educational subversion resulting in a lobotomized public. This has dramatically decreased the percentage of the population that is aware of the vast amount of proven knowledge regarding mankind, civilization, economics, law. Since the sphere of permeation of knowledge has decreased, the sphere of subjective, unproven opinion (politics) has increased in society. I’m sure “they” will claim: “oops, accident”. More like “we, the people” dropping the ball regarding vigilence and, “predators on the bench” becoming “control freaks”.

      hate to say it, but the intelligent are a very small minority, up against those who demand to control our free choice and thus, human evolution. Any intelligent change and insistence on acknowledging proven reality will continue to result in “shoot the messanger” by the powers than be, as an impediment to their “divine right to prey” and “smash and grab” whatever they can and, to hell with peace, civilization, or, for that matter collective survival:

      http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/36

      …know you know this Dave. Sometimes, just gotta rant. Only other option, apart from ongoing “thwarting them” is to run amok, not quite there yet.

      • Ha, “running amok” better describes the behavior of the sociopath demanding respect for exercising authority. As authority is increasingly abused, the respect evaporates revealing the vicious personality of the self-aggrandizing, career ‘official’ – the authoritarian. For You or I to run amok would only strengthen the perceived need of their existence. We can’t fight them, especially on their turf. They would love for us to run amok. But we can walk away. And they will follow, stalk, they have to. You do good enough in ‘thwarting them’ by pointing at the folly of their methods. They can not be eradicated, and they follow their instinct only because they can. Because sooo many feed them. There is the battle line if there is one. Do I get to freely associate with my fellow man, or is He or I compromised?

        • Bill Ross

          “The phrase is often used in a less serious manner when describing something that is wildly out of control or causing a frenzy (e.g., a dog tearing up the living room furniture might be termed as “running
          amok.”)”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok

          Well, maybe I (and most other genuine human beings here) already are. I’m not after the furniture, but a significant chunk of fake “decreed reality”, starting with “might is right”, rationalized by “necessary evil” , the primary “feeding method”.

          As to “wildly out of control”, well, not from the dog’s perspective, but from the perspective of those deluded as to being “in control” of others. As to “causing a frenzy”, well, I’m all in.

  • Danny B

    I often have a different timeline perception than most people. While our economy has been compared to a train wreck in slow motion, it is only slow if you don’t take a historical perception. It is only recently that a large part of mankind has tried to escape the agrarian economy. He tries to move into an industrial economy. This transition could have been well managed but, it wasn’t. Man’s amplified power created by machinery is/was directed at transitory destruction rather than lasting creation. The criminal minds have taken over.
    The industrial economy is failing. Trust, cooperation, innovation and credit are/were it’s necessary lifeblood. Generalized automation was the promise of the future. This was not to be,,, at least this time around. As mechanization created ever more riches, we engaged in ever more creative destruction. Productive ability and consumptive ability are so imbalanced that the system is imploding. Bankers and bureaucrats siphon off wealth from the production / consumption cycle. Substituting creative destruction for

    consumption has warped the system to where it is no longer viable.

    People in high places see this coming. They are soul-searching. They are preparing to assign blame. They are searching for a system that would be the magic bullet for the economy and still allow them to maintain power.

    It is possible that an Austrian train with a locomotive of gold could still be implemented before another cycle of war is unleashed. It depends if the PTB are wiling to relinquish power to save the planet.

    • Bill Ross

      People in high places see this coming. They are soul-searching.

      hah! If they had souls, they would not have forcefully locked “civilization” on on this course, or, for that matter intentionally subverted / corrupted the “rule of law”, our only hope.

      “PTB are wiling to relinquish power to save the planet”

      can predators forsake prey? No way, their sorry existence and “perks of god” is far more valuable to them than the balance of humanity. They are locked on course and, when there is no more civilization or prey and, they start to run out of hoarded supplies in their bunkers, they will, per their natures as predators war on each other.

      The last one will have an epiphany: oops, no prey, shoulda taken an animal husbandry course. Bye

      what a sorry end for humanity. We coulda been colonizing space by now without the “god imposed” dark ages and crippling predator taxes that so hobbles those who seek to compete “by excellence” as opposed to “destroying the competition”

      Unless of course, a sufficient number of us “grow cohones” and acknowledge the FACT: “reason has FAILED”, time for “Plan B”.

      • Danny B

        Bill, look at the Amish. They have a very efficient society. They work hard and conserve their resources.

        They don’t engage in resource wasting wars. Prosperity is a matter of working hard and conserving resources.
        Society is populated by sheep, wolves AND shepherds. You can’t leave the shepherds out of the equation. The Amish don’t allow outsiders to join and have done a pretty good job of keeping control. In mainstream society, the shepherds have been sidelined and drowned out by MSM.

        Like the scorpion who stung the frog, the wolves know no other way. Like the pride of lions that set up their den next to the only waterhole, it all seems so easy. But, lions can’t eat grass and sheep can.

        The PTB are scrambling now. Day by day, the % of the population who have nothing left to lose gets bigger and bigger. It is very difficult to control people who have nothing to lose.

        • Bill Ross

          “freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose” – Kris Kristofferson / Janis Joplin

          …and, bullies prey by threatening / stealing what you have. When your property is all gone, that leaves your life as their only “leverage”, thing to threaten. This is the general trend, unless opposed:

          http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c8/42

          …as to the Amish, their “refusal to associate” just makes them higher hanging fruit. They are still on “the list”, to be targeted when other prey (pockets of productivity) is exhausted.

  • The idea presumed above, that a tiny percent ‘create’ vast wealth is one I find ludicrous.
    Actual wealth is sucked out into cash liquidity that is then used to buy more assets to harness or strip out.
    Symbolically debt is guilt. As long as guilt can be used to leverage power over, will the system operate as a coercion upon rather than a networking of.

    • Jon_Roland

      The problem comes with defining “wealth” as assets denominated in units of a fiat currency that has the legal status of being legal tender for the payment of debts. Fiat currency can be created out of thin air in unlimited amounts. Real wealth is tangible goods and infrastructure. A handful of people can indeed create vast “wealth” of fiat currency by just adding zeroes to accounts stored in computers. What uis needed is to separate the financial sector from the production sector, letting the financial sector play games with their imaginary wealth but not allowing them to buy goods and services with it.

      • Bill Ross

        That’s why the game monopoly was invented – to let unproductive losers “feel” “triumph” and, leave the adults alone.

      • “The problem comes with defining “wealth”…”

        Exactly. If currency were an accepted IOU for a producer, the way it used to be, then it wouldn’t be considered wealth. For example, after putting in 40 hours of labor, and all that can be shown for it is a handful of paper IOUs, where’s the wealth? But when currency can be created without any effort, backing or collateral; well, for THOSE creators it is a well spring of wealth backed by the producers who accept it. And that attitude and acceptance gets handed down and readily adopted by the plebes, now all accessories in the crime of counterfeiting.

  • Jon_Roland

    People who argue that the problem is corporate personhood are clueless about the basics of law and what “personhood” is. In law since ancient Rome (and even before in the Greek and Hebrew legal traditions), the entities that can have rights, powers, and duties in law were not the human actors, but the roles they played, because it was early recognized that one individual actor can play many separate legal roles, often at the same time, each with different combinations of rights, powers, and duties. One of those roles was representing others, including groups of others. In Latin, the roles are called “persons”, and representing others is a trust, or, when the beneficiaries are replaceable, the trust may be called a “corporation”. There is nothing new about corporations being persons. Indeed, they could not exist unless they are. Corporations include not just for-profit enterprises, but governments, churches, universities, trade guilds, marriage and other partnerships, custody of children. There are even one-man corporations, each called a corporation sole.

    Central banks are also not the problem. Fiat currency is, and it is created by every bank that loans more such currency than it holds in deposits. As long as fiat currency can be created out of thin air, backed by nothing, the threat of global economic collapse will continue to loom over us. It matters little for that whether each country has one central bank or thousands. We must totally eliminate the use of fiat currency as legal tender for the payment of debts. If that is done all else will work itself out. If not, the situation will be hopeless.

    • Bill Ross

      “fiat currency as legal tender for the payment of debts”

      let us, as individuals, print it, as “equals under law”. we can use it for payment of taxes, which, IMHO, are “not a debt”, but a decree of servitude. It’s a bonus if fiat cannot buy anything real, there goes a lot of unearned power (ability to coerce).

    • Andrew Buckley

      No one is suggesting that corporations shouldn’t be subject to different liabilities from your average Joe. What those railing against corporate personhood want is a bit more liability for the corporations, and a bit less impunity when ruining the lives of actual human individuals.

      Fiat money is not the problem. Money is by agreement (be it by decree or mutual convenience). The problem is that we TRUST commercial banks enough to accept their IOUs as money. No entity other than the government deserves that kind of responsibility when spread over the entire society. If we had many small banks, and no giant ones, then one could certainly make an argument for giving banks money creation powers, but the matter is complicated endlessly by whether government chooses to accept a particular bank’s IOU as money. These are problems of power, and misplaced trust, as usual. Reverting to heavy money is not going to help anyone.

      • Jon_Roland

        Corporations are very much liable for injuries they may cause, just as individuals are. The liability limitation is for members, shareholders, and lenders. Do you really want someone who buys a share in a corporation that commits negligent homicide to go to prison for that? The employees who directly cause the injury can go to prison, and sometimes do. And a corporation can be “killed” by ordering it dissolved and its assets sold off at auction.

        The problem with corporations is not that they are corporations but that they are large. A large sole proprietorship or a large labor union, church, or trade association can be a problem even though they are non-profits, not because they have a corporate character but because the agents control too much power. A wealthy individual presents the same kind of problem.

        Note that I did not say fiat currency was the problem, but fiat currency as legal tender, meaning that it has to be accepted in payment for debts. The misplaced trust is codified into law that way, by trusting what is declared to be legal tender.

        • Andrew Buckley

          Your point about corporations makes sense. Corruption and big-money is obviously at the heart of the issue.

          What is your alternative to fiat money as legal tender? All legal tender is an agreement among a group of people. “Has to be accepted in payment for debts.” Fair enough. The same system that declares legal tender also enforces that debt-contract. Unless you want to remove all contract enforcement, then I’m not seeing your point.

    • The issue is whether or not the “personhood” is voluntary or not. If it is not voluntary, then it is a price fix. This is elemental logic. And over time price fixes are distortive. So is monopoly central banking enforced by the state …

    • “…the entities that can have rights, powers, and duties in law were not the human actors, but the roles they played,…”

      Maybe that is a problem, and coming all the way back from Roman days doesn’t automatically make it right or true. It is the fantasy of shape-shifting and elitist ploys. I hope you will give it some more thought.

      • Bill Ross

        worked out well for the Romans:)

    • Philip

      Jon Roland,”There is nothing new about corporations being persons”. Because it isn’t new that justifies personhood and corporations? Under that premise what about slavery, central banking,the list is never ending. Unequal Protection-The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights= Thom Hartmann is a good read on the subject.

  • Andrew Buckley

    The Daily Bell has completely misrepresented the arguments of David Graeber and “OWS” etc:

    “The top central banking elite has nothing to do with it. They are just passive observers trying to maintain a stable monetary system, but one that is regularly sabotaged by the greed of the larger population.” – simply not what we think at all!!!

    Central banks were set up purely for the benefit of commercial banking operations and their owners. These commercial bankers and the central bankers… I’m sorry, what exactly is the difference? The commercial banks own The Federal Reserve.

    We take issue with central banking, just like The Daily Bell does. Where we differ, is the proposed solution. We don’t believe that a market for money is immune to central banking problems, because central banking is really just government-sanctioned collusion among.

    Claiming that understanding the most fundamental aspects of the financial system (bank lending creates NEW deposits) is tantamount to adopting a globalist agenda is sensationalist scaremongering. As a “monetary nationalist”, the sentiment is rather alarming, and reeks of a desperate attempt to cast confusion over this most significant of events.

    • At the top, OWS is apparently a Soros organization. The top OWS people are determined to ensure that central banking remains untouched within this larger paradigm. To this end they will do ANYTHING to minimize the role of MONOPOLY central banking.

      As for commercial banks … absent monopoly central banking, corporate person-hood and other regulatory advantages, commercial banks would subside into voluntaryist facilities that would compete with each other and provide market-appropriate services.

      Commercial banking is NOT the problem and never was and never will be … of itself. OWS wants to make commercial banking into society’s “most wanted” to pursue an anti-market agenda and to sow violence and hopelessness that will support more globalist consolidation. This is actually the agenda of the true manipulators of money power …. the .0001 percent. OWS is their false flag, one of many.

      That is OWS ultimate function and the reason it gets so much mainstream media attention. They wouldn’t cover it if it weren’t “one of their own.”

      • alaska3636

        I get how someone could take a look around at what we’ve got and come to the conclusion that the inmates should run the asylum. It never occurs that the asylum would better serve by being torn down. Maybe then we’d realize that everyone only acted as crazy as the incentives of their environment. But sure, let the inmates run the asylum, and let them eat cake too.

        • Sometimes I feel like an inmate. And I like cake too! But given the chance to run the asylum, the first thing I’d do is leave. OH OH! Now what?

          • alaska3636

            If people like Buckley took charge, they might not let you leave. But hey! At least there will be cake!

          • Andrew Buckley

            Interesting sentiment… I feel that way about those willing to protect private goals above all else. Tyranny can be found in both public-heavy, and private-heavy systems. Systems do exist, and always will exist. Sadly, we can all advocate our perceived solutions, but without having complete control (and I agree that would be a bad thing) we can’t be sure which way our partially received “policies” would go. This is where I see the major problem with free market approaches. Do you want a government-sanctioned, privately enforced free-market, or do you want zero enforcement of contracts altogether? If you want the former (private security etc.) then you’re just asking for private tyranny, which is the only thing worse than government tyranny. We currently have a sort of hybrid where government provides the muscle and private entities compete to fund the government muscle.

            Governments should not borrow money.

      • Andrew Buckley

        “absent monopoly central banking, corporate person-hood and other regulatory advantages, commercial banks would subside into voluntaryist facilities that would compete with each other and provide market-appropriate services.”

        You know I agree with this. I don’t necessarily think it’s a recipe for the best society but I think it’s better than what we have now.

        The problem will continue with market money as far as I can tell. It won’t be as bad, but you’ll still have bank COLLUSION which will result in monopoly-like behaviour. The quantity of money in the economy will continue to see-saw all over the place, and people will seek profit in speculatively switching between available currencies (as they already do, with devastating consequences on an international level).

        Just because OWS might be “infiltrated” by “money masters” doesn’t mean the majority of people involved in the movement share their views, sentiments, or outlook. If I were to claim that The Tea Party was comprised of mercantile free-market dogmatists devoid of any social responsibility, then I’d be making a radical generalisation which is unlikely to be true. No one has complete information. Until recently, very few accepted that most money in the economy was created by commercial banks.

    • Here comes Andrew Buckley again with a poison cure for a fever. “Monetary Nationalist” is an oxymoron, fraught full of tyrannical plunder, poverty and misery for all but a militarily ordained few. Proclaiming that unproportionally, nasty people occupy private offices while those in the public tend toward superior morals is unfounded. Is it a pacified upbringing, lack of real world experience, both or a sinister agenda that forms such a world view of accounting. What business does unwarranted law enforcement, bureaucratic meddling and hired guns have in the life blood of commerce?

      • Andrew Buckley

        You guys are so hostile. Calm down. I’m not proclaiming that public offices are devoid of the scourge of human greed. I’m saying that removing the profit motive from the core of money creation would be a good idea.

        You could remove the central bank, but what good would it do practically? How could you stop private banks from colluding to support each other’s near-unlimited IOU generation capacity (money creation)?

        When you can answer these questions without resorting to “make it illegal” and “government violence” then I’ll take you seriously. Will we not just end up with shadow central banking if the government doesn’t take government-currency creation exclusively into its own hands?

        • “How could you stop private banks from colluding to support each other’s near-unlimited IOU generation capacity (money creation)?”

          The same way I would be stopped from unlimited IOU generation if they weren’t redeemable. A ‘run’ on a bank or currency doesn’t require government violence.

          “Will we not just end up with shadow central banking if the government doesn’t take government-currency creation exclusively into its own hands?”

          No. It takes colluding Government involvement to put and keep competition at bay in order to create monopolies. When government got involved in 1913, that is when we got a monopoly central bank. But they had to play by the government rules, which gradually got changed / is changing (progressivism). Can you honestly say that with increasing economic rules, laws and regulations, things are getting better? The answer is to retreat from monetary / economic centralization, the opposite of which you advocate.

  • Philip

    “Paul Tucker claimed that America’s biggest banks are now in a position to go bust without state intervention. Britain and the rest of Europe are “not far behind” but draft laws still need to be ratified. In future, the cost of a bank bail out will be borne by its investors rather than nurses and teachers, Mr Tucker said.” Sir Paul Tucker in the New Years ‘dishonour’ list.

    former Deputy Governor B of E, retired age 55, nice work if you can get it. WJ wrote involved with Barclay’s in the Libor scandal. But why nurses (let’s include doctors) and teachers? Certainly in Britain and Canada and possibly in the US they are paid for by the taxpayers and have very strong unions. In my association with these groups knowledge of the present Keynesian monetary is almost non-existent and willingness to change this attitude is not forthcoming. Could Sir Paul’s statement be for future political plans. He lost out to Carney when trying for Governor of the B of E. PM would be higher up the scale. His statement individual investors will bear the cost of bank bailouts is rather late in the day. Perhaps I’m too mistrusting. Philip

  • Phyl

    A birth certificate application is signed by your parents which is used by Corporate Government to commence a Trust in your name. This Trust is used as collateral, and a collateral account is created and funded in your name. You are the Beneficiary of this Trust… but no-one tells you it exists. If you do not complete a Will by the age of 7, Corporate Government declares you deceased – under admiralty law of all things! – and you are officially considered by the system to be “lost at sea”. Seriously. Corporate Government then assumes financial control of your estate, and they – aware that most of us do in fact live beyond 7 – continue to treat us as living slaves. The funds generated by monetizing your life – using you as collateral – are loaned to you when you apply for bank finance, mortgages etc. You are then forced to work to repay those funds – plus interest – back to the system. Legally, you have no rights because you’re considered “dead” by the age of 7. You lose.

    http://wakeup-world.com/2013/02/18/all-corporations-banks-and-governments-lawfully-foreclosed-by-oppt/%5D

    You pay taxes in EVERY way shape or form to the Vatican, our governments are its middle-men, Vatican’s revenue collectors. Admiralty/Maritime law – (corporate) law, which was brought in from the sea to be used on land is the law judges use NOT the Common Law. Much has been hidden from the “common people” research further for when you THINK you have found the answer to all these problems -wham! from around corner comes another hidden truth, endless…

  • Gina

    I appreciate all of the comments submitted. I appreciate also the points provided by TDB. Also consider that the banks don’t actually loan anything. They don’t have “money” sitting in the back room. They create a “debt” when they get you to sign a piece of paper. They draw the digits to put into their computers from your credit and your treasury account. Boom, payment received from the central banksters, based upon your value established at your birth. Then, that same bank tells you that you must repay them for your credit they received. This is fraud, undeclared, and undisclosed…. until about now. The BOE has just told you that money deposited in a bank is a “loan” to the bank. And, they create money when they loan it. It is all circular, and it is all based upon our value, our work.

    So, the productive supply the 1% elite with their existence, and the productive get shafted at every step. I don’t know whether the originators of Bitcoin are sincere, or merely tools of the banksters, but the idea has merit. We need to side-step the banking institutions and trade peer to peer. At the very least, withdraw all digits from the big banks and starve them.

    • “They (banks) create a “debt” when they get you to sign a piece of paper.”

      No, YOU create debt when you sign a piece of paper and put up the collateral. You pay off the loan to retrieve the collateral and thereby extinguish the debt. At least that is the way it used to be.

      “Boom, payment received from the central banksters, based upon your value established at your birth.”

      What value? We’re talking monetary value. Who gets paid for simply existing? This smacks of conspiracy theory.

      Now lets trade peer to peer? YES!! That is how it works. But then service providers crop up. Good. Vault services, accounting services, checking services, wire services, credit services all under commercial banking services. Just keep Government and their Cronies out of being a third party in every transaction and dictating the value of money by setting volume and interest rate. Government has its place in law enforcement, and arbitrage for contract resolution and this is as close as we should allow it to get to OUR money. Make Government live within a budget and earn its taxes.

  • Contrarianism

    It is truely amusing to watch the OWS protesters burn calories railing against capitalism, when capitalism doesn’t exist anymore. We don’t have capitalism in the US today – we have a fascist system where the FED funnels money to their subsidiary banks, preventing failure everwhere while enriching friends at the expense of the taxpayers. Mussolini defined this as fascism, which is state power combined with corporate power. This is what we have in America today.

    In a capitalist system the invisible hand of free market balanced the scales. Today, the invisible hand has been replaced by the hand out – where a banking cartel leans on the scales tilting them in favor of it’s friends in high places. Some call this perversion “crony capitalism” however if the shoe fits, then fascism would be a better definition, and this is what is embedded within our system today.

    All of this is reminiscent of George Orwell’s Animal Farm commandment: “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal then others.”

  • Hugo

    Hi DB,

    Totally OT but think you find this interesting

    ”BEIJING – Crown Prince Salman Bin Abdul Aziz, Deputy Premier and Minister of Defense, will arrive here on Thursday on an
    official visit aimed at further strengthening the bilateral strategic partnership and economic cooperation.

    During the first visit to China as the Crown Prince, Salman will hold wide-ranging talks with top Chinese leaders, including President Xi Jinping, Vice President Li Yuanchao, Premier Li Keqiang, and Defense Minister Gen. Chang Wanquan.

    Chinese leaders pin great hope on the high-profile visit of the Crown Prince as it comes eight years after the historic visit of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah that contributed in enhancing bilateral ties to the level of strategic partnership.”

    Yes, you read that well, Strategic partnership.
    http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20140313198527

    They also now include New Zealand in their swap deals

    China has allowed direct domestic trading of the yuan against the New Zealand dollar to encourage such trading as it internationalizes the Chinese currency.
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101505319

    Italy watch

    Voting has begun in Venice and the surrounding region on whether to break away from Italy.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26604044

    In the mean time the Bundesbank wants its gold back faster…..

    Mr. Weidmann also said that the Bundesbank would step up efforts to repatriate half its gold reserves that it has built up through its trade surpluses at overseas central banks to Frankfurt, with the rest remaining in New York and London. In a nod to the public support for the move, the Bundesbank president quoted Goethe’s Faust: “The lure of gold has power over all.” (behind subscription wall at the FT)
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/72fa600e-aa9e-11e3-9fd6-00144feab7de,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F72fa600e-aa9e-11e3-9fd6-00144feab7de.html%3Fsiteedition%3Dintl&siteedition=intl&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caseyresearch.com%2Fgsd%2Fedition%2Fbundesbanks-president-says-it-aims-to-hasten-gold-repatriation#axzz2wRHqnOmp

  • In a Monetarily Sovereign entity (Examples: the U.S., China, Japan, Canada, Australia, the UK), money is created in two ways and destroyed in two ways:

    1.a. Money is created by central government spending.
    1.b. Money is created by lending.

    2.a. Money is destroyed by central government taxes.
    2.b. Money is destroyed by repayment of loans.

    Monetarily Sovereign entities have the unlimited ability to create their own sovereign currency.

    In a monetarily non-sovereign entity (Examples: Illinois, Chicago, General Electric, France, you and me), money is created in one way and destroyed in one way:

    1. Money is created by lending.
    2. Money is destroyed by repayment of loans.

    Monetarily non-sovereign entities, having no sovereign currency, do not have the unlimited ability to create sovereign money.

    • 2.a. isn’t destroyed. It recycles into 1.a. In this scenario a Government run economy by selective spending gets bigger and bigger and crowds out a private economy by reducing its selective spending. But that’s good because Government is more righteous, right on?

      If I were marooned on an island with a few others, I could be a monetary sovereign by simply wielding the badest weapon. No different than being marooned under a national monetary sovereign. A controlled means of trade. What kind of life is that Rodger?

      • Even if taxes paid to a Monetarily Sovereign government (2a) were $0, that would not affect Monetarily Sovereign government spending by even one penny.

        However if taxes paid to an monetarily non-sovereign government (2) were $0, that would have a profound effect on monetarily non-sovereign government spending.

        Federal spending does not “crowd out” private spending. Quite the opposite. Federal spending adds dollars to the economy, which allows for more private spending. If federal spending were $0, there would be no money at all for private spending.

        Where do you think dollars come from, Dave Jr.?

        • alaska3636

          Where do you think production comes from RMM? Do dollars spend production into existence? Do dollars nourish a farmer while his crop is growing? Do dollars give entrepreneurs incentive for taking risk? Or do people produce things because they expect to consume things? Do androids dream of electric sheep?

          • Where do you think production comes from RMM?
            From people who are paid dollars to produce

            Do dollars spend production into existence?
            Yes.

            Do dollars nourish a farmer while his crop is growing?
            Yes, that is how he buys food. Also, he used dollars to buy seed, equipment and labor.

            Do dollars give entrepreneurs incentive for taking risk?
            Of course.

            Or do people produce things because they expect to consume things?
            People produce things to be paid dollars, which they use to buy things for consumption.

            Do androids dream of electric sheep?
            That may be your expertise.

          • I won’t disagree, it’s just the other view of the transaction. But why should government be artificially placed at the head of production, farming, entrepreneurship and consumption by creating fiat currency? Monetary sovereignty is the stuff of Kings. You can’t deny it is derived from the power of the sword.

          • Why do people create governments and laws to restrict their own freedoms?

          • Oh Wow.

          • alaska3636

            Thank you. I think your response will suffice for those new to your “solution.”

        • Where do I think money comes from? You could read 2 or 3 of my earlier posts in this thread if you really wanted to know.

          • Too much trouble to search for, so I’ll answer the question. The federal government created the laws that created the dollar. Without the government, there would be no dollar.

            It’s difficult to have a nation without a common currency. The euro nations surrendered their Monetary Sovereignty — their ability to create a common currency — the worst financial mistake a nation can make. They pay for that mistake every day.

          • “Too much trouble to search for, so I’ll answer the question.”

            Too much trouble to scroll down? Are all your fingers broken?

            “The federal government created the laws that created the dollar.”

            That is a flat out lie. The federal government is helpful, though not necessary in creating a unit, a definition of the dollar through standard weights and measures. Not in creating them. Laws and regulation up to a point help preserve value and is powerless in creating it. The power of the sword creates absolutely nothing.

          • So how was the dollar created?

          • volatile chemicals

            “The word dollar is much older than the American unit of currency. It is an Anglicised form of “thaler”, (pronounced taler, with a long “a”), the name given to coins first minted in 1519 from locally mined silver in Joachimsthal in Bohemia.”

            http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/dollar.html

            The dollar was created as a measure of silver.

          • Thanks, but the for the info.

            The subject was: How was (the American unit of currency known as) the “dollar” created?

            One person on this blog thinks the U.S. government didn’t do it.

            When I said, “The federal government created the laws that created the dollar,” he responded, “That is a flat out lie.”

            What do you think?

    • Phyl

      They more like sneaked it in:—- excerpt — The criminal global banking cartels have destroyed our monetary system
      by eliminating “real paper money” and replacing it with fake paper money.

      You’ll notice the dollar bill on the top is called a “Silver Certificate.” This paper bill was a receipt that could be exchanged ONE SILVER DOLLAR stored in the U.S. Treasury. The idea of the silver certificate is that it could not be printed unless there was a corresponding amount of silver actually in the U.S. Treasury. Sadly, the government didn’t actually have a one-to-one amount of silver in the Treasury to back up the Silver Certificates but at least you can see how real paper money is supposed to work.
      http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-Silver_Certificate_Fed_Note

      The Federal Reserve Note on the bottom is nothing but a piece of paper. It represents nothing of tangible value.
      The only reason it has any value at all is because none of us realized our real paper money eliminated. Nobody realized it because the bankers made sure the fake paper money looked almost identical to the real paper money (the backs of these bills are identical). They just slipped it right in while nobody was looking. All a Federal Reserve Note represents is a “belief” that it’s real money.

      The real money at the top has to have real silver behind it. The fake money at the bottom doesn’t have anything behind it. The real money at the top will always have value because it silver will always have value. The fake paper money at the bottom can be made totally worthless. When the Federal Reserve bankers did their little switcheroo, a Federal Reserve note had the same buying power as a Silver Certificate. Nobody knew the difference because very few people actually turned the bills in for silver.

      When the first Federal Reserve Note was printed back in 1913 it had the purchasing power of a real dollar. Today, it has lost 95% of it’s purchasing power due to the fact the Fed has created so many of them. Due to inflation what you could buy for a nickel back in 1913 will cost you a dollar today.

      It’s also possible for the government to create its own fiat paper money just like the Federal Reserve can only it can do so interest free. President Kennedy did just that by authorizing the printing of billions of United States dollar notes. It makes absolutely no sense why a government should hand over the power to print money to a private institution like the Federal Reserve and then “borrow” that money at interest when the government has the power to print all the money it needs interest free.
      http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-Silver_Certificate_Fed_Note

      • And yet it would make even more sense to get the government out of the money business entirely and let the private sector handle money competitively.

        • Phyl

          Aren’t they doing that already? haven’t they been doing that for centuries? All governments around the world are corporate governments – middle men for the Nazi ‘s running the Vatican. Did you know that you have TWO CONSTITUTIONS? you should look that one up, the reason why you have two constitutions. Do you know that your congress are actually corporate managers for this second constitution? which is why you people of America are having such a hard time in getting those in your congress to implement their responsibility towards their American constituents instead of kowtowing to the Vatican, crikey you people will surely need to look outside of your own little world and do so quickly before they really hang you out to dry!

          • Aren’t they doing that already? haven’t they been doing that for centuries?

            No, Phyl, we only had something approaching a free market in money in the US before the Civil War. It was a much better system than we have today. You want Leviathan to run money? Well that happened in Germany under Hitler and in Italy under Mussolini. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. But you keep singing that authoritarian song … It seems to satisfy you for some reason …

      • “The real money at the top has to have real silver behind it.”

        How much silver?

        • Phyl

          How much silver? How much silver? How much silver? How much silver? is that ALL you can come up with? is How much silver? blimey instead of asking such a dumb question go seek and ye shall find the answer instead of relying on others to do it for you

  • Jim Johnson

    Wow. What an education. A ‘person’ (in Law) is not a human being, but rather a role played BY a human being. (A personification?) Got it. ‘Wealth’ is the energy that whirls about an actual product, usually in the form of labor? That a weight of gold or silver can represent a certain amount of that energy/labor? I have to explain this stuff to kids, and I need to be right, at least on a basic level, speaking in ways they can understand. All of my life, economics has seemed like watching a foreign movie in a language I can not follow, with no subtitles, and done so intentionally. To wake up is to understand.

  • Investor

    Oh, come on DB! People explain to you how banking works (a pure description of the mechanism ) and you really jump the shark with conspiracy thoeries on the link of this to OWS. Whether there is a link or not, it is not a major topic of the article.

    Central banks are a problem, and the system should be cleared from them. But they are not the root of the problem. True power lies with commercial banks creating money through lending – a fact that the sheeple do not realize and thus do not revolt against. Getting rid of central banks will deal only with the tip of the iceberg.

    Now that you have some insiders tell you how the system works in reality, why not try to reconfigure your thesis? Otherwise you sound like some dogmatic ideologues.

    • Why did we focus on Occupy Wall Street? Because we smell a reoccurring dominant social theme and Graeber has made himself part of it. He is a spokesperson for better or worse – and he wrote a high profile article in a high-profile newspaper.

      1. Yes, the Bank of England has informed the financial community that commercial banks create “money” through lending: but this is not a startling fact. Graeber seizes on this point as do you because it justifies an all-out attack on what is left of a market-based system.

      2. This is in fact to the Bank of England’s advantage. Those behind central banking will do ANYTHING to shift the blame for the current Great Recession from central banking to private sector banking. This is surely why Soros apparently funded OWS and it certainly can be suggested credibly that this is why this “study” has now appeared and why OWS is immediately exultant.

      3. At the same time as the BOE is demonizing its commercial banking subsidiaries, other powerful officials are making it clear that future banking difficulties will be cleared by INVESTORS, thus creating further antagonism between bank consumers and the banking system. What we call convenient coincidences, you describe as “jumping the shark.”

      4. In fact, a renewed OWS movement will no doubt use this conclusion – that commercial banks create money for lending – to try to focus with all the rhetorical power at their disposal on shredding the private sector’s use of banking and finance.

      5. All one needs to do is to look at the rhetoric of OWS and its use of the “one percent” to demonize competitive marketplace systems. The system was not created by one percent nor is it run by it. The system is the responsibility of .0001 percent – basically a handful of people. But telling the truth would not be to the advantage of those globalists who have actually set up this central banking economy and profit from it in unfathomable ways.

      6. The crime of modern finance is at least twofold: monopoly central banking and corporate personhood. Get rid of the state force sanctioning these unholy paradigms and you will have immediately a freer and more prosperous society.

      7. Commercial banks are NOT the root of the problem; in fact, were central banking and corporate personhood done away with, they would likely not be a problem at all. They would subside back into their mostly transactional functionality.

      8. There is REASON why there were about five central banks 100 years ago and now there are 150 or so, most of them “coordinated” by the BIS. Monetary policy is made and enforced by central banks, not commercial banks. Central banks tighten and loosen money flows at will via interest rate manipulation. A powerful central bank can cause a ruinous boom or freeze economic growth with the push of a button.

      9. To use this study to attack commercial banking (and banking in general) when the focus should be relentlessly on central banking is to support what is obviously an emergent dominant social theme. We don’t support elite dominant social themes. We point them out.

  • Phyl

    The criminal global banking cartels have destroyed our monetary system by eliminating “real paper money” and replacing it with fake paper money. http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-Silver_Certificate_Fed_Note
    You’ll notice the dollar bill on the top is called a “Silver Certificate.” This paper bill was a receipt that could be exchanged ONE
    SILVER DOLLAR stored in the U.S. Treasury. The idea of the silver certificate is that it could not be printed unless there was a corresponding amount of silver actually in the U.S. Treasury. Sadly, the government didn’t actually have a one-to-one amount of silver in the Treasury to back up the Silver Certificates but at least you can see how real paper money is supposed to work.

    The Federal Reserve Note on the bottom is nothing but a piece of paper. It represents nothing of tangible value. The only
    reason it has any value at all is because none of us realized our real paper money eliminated. Nobody realized it because the bankers made sure the fake paper money looked almost identical to the real paper money (the backs of these bills are identical). They just slipped it right in while nobody was looking. All a Federal Reserve Note represents is a “belief” that it’s real money. http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-Silver_Certificate_Fed_Note

    The real money at the top has to have real silver behind it. The fake money at the bottom doesn’t have anything behind it. The real money at the top will always have value because it silver will always have value. The fake paper money at the bottom can be made totally worthless. When the Federal Reserve bankers did their little switcheroo, a Federal Reserve note had the same buying power as a Silver Certificate. Nobody knew the difference because very few people actually turned the bills in
    for silver.

    When the first Federal Reserve Note was printed back in 1913 it had the purchasing power of a real dollar. Today, it has lost 95% of it’s purchasing power due to the fact the Fed has created so many of them. Due to inflation what you could buy for a nickel back in 1913 will cost you a dollar today. http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-Silver_Certificate_Fed_Note

    It’s also possible for the government to create it’s own fiat paper money just like the Federal Reserve can only it can do so interest free. President Kennedy did just that by authorizing the printing of billions of United States dollar notes. It makes absolutely no sense why a government should hand over the power to print money to a private institution like the Federal Reserve and then “borrow” that money at interest when the government has the power to print all the money it needs interest free. http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-Silver_Certificate_Fed_Note

  • Phyl

    True what they say about humans (especially the men) being so stupid, so ego driven –
    http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-Silver_Certificate_Fed_Note
    You’ll notice the dollar bill on the top is called a
    “Silver Certificate.” This paper bill was a receipt that could be
    exchanged ONE SILVER DOLLAR stored in the U.S. Treasury. The idea of
    the silver certificate is that it could not be printed unless there was a
    corresponding amount of silver actually in the U.S. Treasury. Sadly,
    the government didn’t actually have a one-to-one amount of silver in the
    Treasury to back up the Silver Certificates but at least you can see
    how real paper money is supposed to work.

    http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-Silver_Certificate_Fed_Note

    The need to feed one’s ego has been mankind’s greatest downfall more so now than ever before. Like it or not we are shifting out of this bs man-made reality so you lot can hang on to this bs illusional world of yours, but it will not survive into the next.

  • Alice Maxwell

    You should be very pleased that the BOE has sponsored this group of economists and then published their report. It is an admission that the BOE’s jig is up. They have allowed credits to get out of hand and get into the wrong hands so now the reckoning will begin.

    We shall see how societies rebuild themselves when our’s goes through this crucible. Will it be gold and silver that regenerates the deposits that allow banks to lend or will it be what people produce that has to get to market assisted by loans to ease its travels that generates renewal. According to the historians, it was the Crusaders coming back from the Mid East with lines to the products of the Orient and the 90 day forgiveness of payment that enabled those returning veterans to transform Medieval Europe into the Renaissance, a practice that has continued to this day to market what man makes for sale to others. That brief “loan” or “beneficence”is what was so misunderstood by kings et al who only knew gold, silver and gems as wealth and why those leaders instituted such bloodbaths trying to extract where these new entries to “business” kept their real wealth. Who knows our leaders now may resort to the same tactics like the rack to try to get treasure maps again!

    It is amazing how Man repeats his stupidity, his misunderstanding of what creates wealth.

loading