torstai 30. lokakuuta 2008

Talouskriisi ja pankkijärjestelmä

Mietin tässä sitä että kun tämän talouskriisin ympärillä pyörii niin monenlaisia "pelastuspaketteja" ja ratkaisumalleja niin mikä sitten ratkaisee sen saavuttaako jokin yksittäinen ratkaisuehdotus julkisuutta ja mahdollista poliittista tukea. Mikä ratkaisee sen huomioiko media sen edes?

Tämä median huomio on hyvin krittinen kysymys koska ellei media raportoi jostain ajatuksesta palstoillaan - niin idea pian näivettyy ja kuihtuu pois ihmisten mielistä - tai jää jonnekin cyberavaruuden piiloihin - riippumatta siitä oliko ehdotus hyvä vai huono.

Tietysti hallituksen oma "pelastuspaketti" on aina se jota runnotaan voimalla läpi - sitä pidetään "ainoana keinona" ja sitä kiitetään etukäteen median torvilla.

Talouspoliittiset kommentaattorit vaativat kumma kyllä meitä aina menemään tähän valtavirtaekonomistien pikajunaan - vaikka kaikille on ilmeistä että samaiset ekonomistit olivat hiirenhiljaa kun nyt paljastuvia rikollisia luovia luototusratkaisuja hiottiin jopa fysiikan ja matematiikan kaavojen avulla jotta riskit saatasiin piilotettua useiksi vuosiksi.

Samat Wahlroosit, Tyrvänäiset ja Korkmanit kollegoineen olivat mukana pelissä ahneuden puolella - kansalaisia vastaan. Onko poliittinen muisti niin lyhyt ettemme muista tätä kun kumartaen juoksemme pyytämään samoilta herroilta haastatteluja ja neuvoja.

Olisi todella aika tajuta että pankit ovat aina olleet tavallisen kansalaisen vihollisia. Tämän tietää jokainen joka on pelannut Monopolia. Tai jos sana vihollinen tuntuu vaikealta hyväksyä niin esitetään asia toisin - se on vastustaja. Ja molemmat eivät voi pitemmän päälle voittaa.

Pankki on se liituraitapukuisten temppeli missä salamyhkäisten tekopyhien luotottamistemppujen avulla pieni kansallinen finanssieliitti on onnistunut siirtämään meiltä muilta mahdollisimman paljon vaurautta itselleen - euro eurolta kautta vuosikymmenten.

Tämä kiertokirjettä tai pyramiidipeliä pitkälti muistuttava mutta pankkitoimiluvin laillistettu loismainen liiketoiminta on tietenkin aina ollut kytkyssä myös ulkomaiseen finanssieliittiin.
(viittaan tässä kuvaan yllä)

Eli korkovirta Suomesta on aina ollut kohti Tukholmaa, Moskovaa, New Yorkia, Hampuria - useimmin kuitenkin kohti Lontoota.

Koko itsenäisyytemme ajan raha on virrannut ulkomaille. Sotavarustelu ja epätoivoinen sodankäynti ylivoimaista vastustajaa vastaan lainarahalla - puhumattakaan infrastruktuurin tuhoamisesta ja jälleenrakentamisesta. Voiko pankeille edes kuvitella parempia apajia.

Väärin perustein tuomitut sotakorvaukset Neuvostoliitolle olivat lisälottovoittoja niille pankeille jotka alunperin olivat rahoittaneet bolshevismin valtaan. Sotakorvaukset maksettiin, karjalaiset ja porkkalalaiset evakkolaiset istutettiin minne istutettiin valtion piikkiin. Velkaantuminen vaati jo silloin rajua talouskasvua, rahamäärän paisuttelua ja tästä seurauksena inflaatiota - ja 1963 ei ollut muuta keinoa kuin leikata markasta kaksi nollaa pois. Sadasta tuli yksi uusi vaivainen, tuhannesta markasta uuskymppi.

Pankkilaitos rahasti meitä tasaisen varmasti 70 - ja 80-luvun ilman suurempia ihmeellisyyksiä.
Tekaistu öljykriisi tosin nosti pankkien katteita mukavasti. Kunnes sitten - 1990-1993 ns pankkikriisin myötä pankkijärjestelmä pääsi kerralla rahastamaan meitä ainakin 68 mrd euron (400 miljardin markan) edestä. Tästä shokista emme ole vielä toipuneet vaan valtionvelkaa on runsaassa 15 vuodessa onnistuttu lyhentämään vain vajaat 20% . Vuosittainen korkovirta Suomesta ulkomaisiin finanssikeskuksiin on ollut luokkaa 2 miljardia euroa. Huippuvuosina jopa 5 mrd. Valtiokonttorin sivuilta voi hakea vahvistusta tähän.

Näin meitä suomalaisia on vuodatettu energiasta valtiovelan avulla. Ja ehtymätön korkovirta on aina tarvinnut kaverikseen vastaavankokoisen talouskasvun jotta talousarvioyhtälöt eivät menisi miinukselle. Nyt kun jokaisessa uutislähetyksessä puhutaan " talouskasvun hiipumisesta" (uusi Yleisradion toimittajien muoti-ilmaisu nr 1.) se tarkoittaa että lisälainat tulevat jälleen ajankohtaisiksi. Näin ainakin vallitsevan talousparadigman puitteissa.

Olisi hieno saada kuulla samaisilta toimittajilta myös jotain niistä syistä miksi järjetöntä ja kestämätöntä talouskasvua tarvitaan. Mutta ilmeisesti toivon liikaa - sellainen kai menee poliittisesti korrektin dialogin ulkopuolelle. Joku vielä joutuisi toteamaan tai jopa myöntämään että koko nykysysteemi on tahallisesti rakennettu tällaiseksi.

Vielä turmiollisempaa olisi kai se että joku julkisesti kysyisi - että eikö jotain muuta systeemiä ja siis parempaa voisi kehitellä ?" Tällaisella kysymyksellä astutaan jo pankkijärjestelmän rahastusautomaatin kannalta epäpyhälle maalle ja kaikki moiset kysymykset tulisi ohimennen kuitata jonain jörghaiderin hulluuksina tai vaihtaa aihetta.

Väitän että kaikista "asiantuntijoiden" vuodatuksista riippumatta nykyisen finanssi- tai talouskriisin todellinen syy on nykyisessä velkaperusteissa pankkijärjestelmässä.
(Lukekaa Margrit Kennedyn kirja korottomasta taloudesta niin ymmärrätte tämän.)

Tästä syystä esim Yhdysvalloissa ajatukset keskuspankin lakkauttamisesta tai kansallistamisesta ovat ensiarvoisen tärkeitä jotta päästäisiin edes askel kohti parempaa huomista. Se on varmin keino ajaa "moneychangerit" pois temppelin pihalta.

Tämä oli yksi syy miksi viime vuonna koin tärkeäksi tuoda julki niitä talousajatuksia mitä eräs esivaaliehdokas Ron Paul esitti ja edelleenkin esittää. Tietysti myös osa hänen muista teemoista tuntuivat tärkeiltä ja ovat edelleenkin tärkeitä. Näistä mainittakoon jenkkien sotaryöstöretkien lopettaminen ja liittovaltiobyrokratian alasajo. Samasta syystä vastustan itse jyrkästi sekä Natoon liittymistä että Brysselin Mörköä ja sen nousevaa hirmuvaltaa joka jyrää alleen kaiken.

Tässä muuten ote mielenkiintoisesta artikkelista missä tarjotaan finanssikriisin ratkaisun avaimia Yhdysvalloille:

By the evidence, the Federal Reserve Bank has functionally served as a front organization for the Rothschild (City of London) interests since its inception in 1914.

All U.S. currency since 1914 has been the private property of the Federal Reserve and hence of the Rothschild interests. You do not own any of the money in your U.S. bank account or the U.S. dollars in your wallet.
Palaan lähiaikoina tähän artikkeliin ja sen esittämiin ratkaisuihin. Taloudellisen demokratian ajatuksia nousee nyt kuin sieniä sateella. Yhä useampi tajuaa että korkoperusteinen vanha järjestelmä on susi eikä sen muokkaaminen ei ole kestävä ratkaisu. Tarvitaan jotain aivan muuta. Tarvitaan uutta ajattelua - sellaista mistä pankkiparrat eivät halua kuulla. Tästä syystä heidän neuvojaan ei kannata kuunnella ratkaisua mietittäessä.

Presidentti Thomas Jeffersson tiesi mistä puhui kun sanoi näin:

Quote of the Week:

"I believe banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies!

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, 1st by inflation, then by deflation, the banks & corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

- Thomas Jefferson 1802

Dollarista ameroon sammutetuin ajovaloin

Jaa-a.. Hal Turnerin mukaan amerikkalaiset ovat jo nyt toimittaneet uusia "ameroja" Kiinan Kehityspankkiin. Rahat on lyöty Denverin rahapajassa jo 2007. Hal arvioi että US-dollari poistetaan käytöstä viimeistään helmikuussa 2009. (samoin kuin Suomen markka aikanaan)
Hallinto tulee viittaamaan "force majeure"-syihin. (koska korollisen velkaperusteisen dollarin pyramidihuijaus ei enää onnistu)
Jokainen jolla on dollareita tulisi kiireen vilkkaasti vaihtaa ne muihin valuttoihin - ei kuitenkaan euroon. (euro on epävarma...) Tämä dollarin alasajo tulee olemaan maailmanhistorian suurin ryöstö. Ja tähän viranomaiset USA:ssa tarvitsevat armeijan tukea. Tästä syystä sotilaita on tuotu takaisin Irakista - ja näille annettu "ei-tappavien sähköshokkiaseiden" pikakoulutusta.
Ilmankos Joe Biden "ennustaa" vaikeita aikoja heti Obaman esimmäisinä kuukausina....

U.S. Ships 800 Billion "AMEROS" to China, Prepares to De-Monetize U.S. Dollar



The US Secretary of the Treasury has informed the China Development Bank that the US has shipped $800 Billion of a new currency called the Amero, which is to be based upon the merging of the economies of The United States, Mexico and Canada into what is termed as The North American Union.


Päivitys: Amero on kyllä tosiasia

Järjetön isku Syyriaan

Mitä amerikkalaiset oikein haluavat? Yrittääkö CIA kaikin keinoin provosoida kaikkia mahdollisia mahdollisia "vihollisia" lähtemään kostotoimiin? Tarvitseeko USA uusia vihamiehiä ja siten sopivia "syyllisiä" uudelle 9/11-tyyppiselle false-flag-iskulle jotta talouden surkean tilan uutisointi loppuisi ja pelästynyt kansa ryhmittyisi asettuisi sopivamman sotapresidentin taaksi. Onko tämä Valkoisen Talon tukitoimi John McCain´in kampanjalle ?

Amerikkalaiset helikopterit hyökkäsivät tällä kertaa Syyriaan. Viime viikolla Pakistaniin.
Kummallakin kerralla ammuttiin umpimähkäisesti siviilikohteita. Jenkkien selitykset tuntuvat tekaistuilta. Uutisten mukaan tällä kertaa amerikkalaiset seurasivat (muka) joitain al-qaeda taistelijoita. Tällaista ihme touhua seuraa kerta toisensa jälkeen. Tässä meille suomalaisille makupaloja siitä mihin työnnämme nokkamme jos edes harkitsemme Natoon liittymistä. Varmin keino saada vihollisia kaikkialta ympäri maailmaa on lähteä USA-Naton kelkkaan.

Kotimaan media ei näytä olleen kovin epäilevä mitä tähän järjettömään iskuun tulee. Tasapainon vuoksi postitan tämän link-tv:n 30 min uutiskoosteen Lähi-Idästä. Osa kuvista on raakoja ja verisiä eivätkö sovellu heikkohermoisille. Sisällösta luettelo alla.


http://linktv.org

“Syria Condemns US Attack,” Dubai TV, UAE
“Victims of US Attack Mostly Cement Workers,” Syria TV, Syria
“Another Activists Boat Heading to Gaza,” Al Jazeera TV, Qatar
“Israel Releases Longest Held Female Palestinian Prisoner,” Nile TV, Egypt
“Israeli Knesset Sets Election Date,” IBA TV, Israel
“Britain and Fatwas,” Press TV, Iran
“Iran Reaches Out to GCC,” Abu Dhabi TV, UAE
“Arab World and Water Shortage,” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
Produced for Link TV by Jamal Dajani.

Prison planet kirjoittaa tapahtuneesta:

It should probably come as no surprise the CIA led the recent attack on Syria that allegedly killed an “al-Qaeda commander” who supposedly “oversaw the smuggling into Iraq of foreign fighters whose attacks claimed thousands of Iraqi and American lives,” according to McClatchy, citing “U.S. officials, who all spoke on the condition of anonymity because the operation was classified.”
Dennis Kucinich toteaa: "We must question the timing" - ja viittaa siihen että USA:n presidentinvaaleihin on alle viikko aikaa.

Onko kaikki tämä Bush-Cheney hallinnon viimeisten kuukausien epätoivoista valtapolitiikkaa?

**
Päivitys: Rand Corporation lobbaa uuden suursodan puolesta - se pelastaisi talouden. Alex Stubbin paras kaveri Carl "Calle" Bildt istuu Rand Corporationin johtokunnassa joka siis nyt suosittelee suursotaa. Kiina, Venäjä, Iran tai Japani kelpaisi maalitauluiksi Rand Corporationille.
Japani siksi että sillä on kaikkein eniten USA:n valtion velkapapereita.
According to reports out of top Chinese mainstream news outlets, the RAND Corporation recently presented a shocking proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession.

Current directors of RAND include Frank Charles Carlucci III, former Defense Secretary and Deputy Director of the CIA, Ronald L. Olson, Council on Foreign Relations luminary and former Secretary of Labor, and Carl Bildt, top Bilderberg member and former Swedish Prime Minister.

One would hope that good people, or at least sane people who don’t wish to start a global nuclear war, will oppose the RAND proposal, such as top the military generals who threatened to quit if Bush ordered an attack on Iran. Admiral William Fallon, the head of US Central Command, quit in March last year as a result of his opposition to Bush administration policy on Iran.

China’s biggest media outlet, Sohu.com, speculated that the target of the new war would probably be China or Russia, but that it could also be Iran or another middle eastern country. Japan was also mentioned as a potential target for the reason that Japan holds the most U.S. debt.

keskiviikko 29. lokakuuta 2008

Trickle-up economics

Richard C. Cook ei ole ainoa joka ehdottaa rahan ohjaamista alhaalta ylös eikä ylhäältä alas. Tämä alhaalta ylös siis tarkoittaa että valtio rahoittaisi kansalaisia siten että raha liikkuisi kulutuksen kautta "ylös" liike-elämälle ja sieltä vielä "ylös" pankkeihin - eikä toisinpäin.

Edgar J. Steele on monessa ristiriitainen henkilö mutta hän oli viime vuonna Ron Paul´in innokkaimpia tukijoita - ja ottaa juristina usein kantaa myös talouspolitiikan asioihin. Hänen tuorein panoksensa yhteiskuntakeskusteluun on artikkeli otsikolla Trickle-up economics.

Edgar on tapansa mukaan myös nauhoittanut sen miellyttävällä äänellään varsin selkopuheiseksi äänitiedostoksi.

Muutama poiminta tekstistä:

How did things go so bad, so quickly? Again, we must look back to the Reagan Administration, during which so many things went wrong, as I believe history will show. First and foremost, Reagan legitimized and institutionalized the concept of "trickle-down economics," in which one confers all economic largesse upon big government, big companies and the fat cats, depending upon them then to spend money in such a way that it "trickles down" to the working man. (...)

I submit that what we should try is "trickle-up economics." Let's support the common man and depend upon him to spend his money in such a way that it trickles up to the companies, government and less-fat cats. Yes, let's "spread the wealth."

Socialism, as preached by Obama? Perhaps, but I have seen the alternative and it clearly has not worked. Instead, it has produced what I believe that history will dub Depression II, an economic downturn so bad that we begin to number them, as we already number major wars. We need a change.

Sivuhuomautuksena toteaisin että tässä olisi sopiva idea jota voisi kokeilla Islannin pahoihin talousongelmiin. Valtion voucherit kuukausittain kansalaisille jotta perustoimeentulo varmistuisi. Voucherit päätyisivät pikkuhiljaa pankkeihin missä ne loisivat pohjan uusille luotoille. Tämä olisi y.m trickle-up taloutta.
Pankkien vakaavaraisuusvatimukset tulisivat jatkossa olla ne täydet 100%.

Miksi ihmeessä Islannin pitäisi lainata tyhjästä luotua IMF-rahaa ja maksaa siitä korkoa ja vielä antaa IMF:n sanella jotain muutakin. Tiedämme kokemuksesta että IMF:n on sekä susi lampaan vaatteissa että Troijan hevonen - ja ajaa kansainvälisten suurpankkien asiaa - ei varmaankaan islantilaisten. IMF tulisi lakkauttaa ja kaikki sen nykyprojektit laittaa puolueettoman tutkimuskomission tarkastukseen.

Yhtä hullua on lähteä lainaamaan Venäjältä tai muualta. Se joka pakottaa islantilaisia tällaiseen on vuorenvarmasti CFR-Bilderberg-Davos-TR-tahojen provisiopalkkainen juoksupoika.

tiistai 28. lokakuuta 2008

Etelä-Kalifornian painajainen


http://www.kcet.org/socal/2008/09/foreclosure-alley.html


Asuntojen pakkolunastukset ja huutokaupat on rankka todellisuus miljooonille. Vaikea tajuta miten moni kokee täydellisen menetyksen kun vuosien työn hedelmä - oma asunto menetetään eikä mitään saa tilalle.
Video on 12 min ja sisältää sellaista mitä ei voisi edes kuvitella todeksi. Ihmettelen itse eniten sitä että upouutta vastahankittua kunnon täyarvoista irtaimistoa pitää tuhota ja viedä kaatopaikalle.

Videon esittelyteksti:

Episode 101

Foreclosure Alley

For the past few years, the Inland Empire in Riverside County has been one of the fastest growing counties in the state - home to a major housing boom. But now the Inland Empire is pretty much the poster child for the foreclosure crisis. In the newer developments, house after house sits vacant - either up for auction, for sale by a bank or going for what’s called a “short sale” which is when the owner owes more than the house is worth.

SoCal Connected tracked down some surreal sights associated with the crisis - a company that specializes in removing whatever people leave behind in their foreclosed homes. The process is called a “trashout” - a term the company came up with because it perfectly describes what happens. Everything that’s left is dumped in a trailer and taken to the landfill.
Then there’s the guy who started a business to spray-paint dead lawns. That’s right. He paints brown lawns green. We also tag along with a couple of code enforcement officers who are spending more and more of their time having to drain slimy, abandoned pools.

Kenraalit ja Königstedt

Viime viikollahan uutisissa oli se yllättävä suurvaltojen sotilasjohdon kahdenkeskinen tapaaminen Suomessa 22. lokakuuta 2008.

Kaikessa lyhykäisyydessään amerikkalainen amiraali Mike Mullen lensi Suomeen ja tapasi venäläisen kenraalin Nikolai Makarovin Vantaalla, Königstedtin kartanolla puhuakseen suurvaltojen huonoista suhteista johtuen mm alkusyksyn Georgian kriisistä.

Ensi reaktioni oli että tämä kuulosti minusta sepitetyltä peitetarinalta.

Muistanette että jokunen päivä aikaisemmin 18. lokakuuta 2008, iso joukko lännen sotilasjohdon kenraaleja kokoontui Adirondacksiin, (Adirondack State Park) luonnonpuistoon joka sijaitsee New Yorkin osavaltion pohjoisosassa. Samainen amiraali Mike Mullen isännöi siellä.

Mitä mahtaa olla tekeillä? Mike Mullen tapaa ensin lännen sotilasjohtoa ja heti perään lentää tapaamaan Venäjän korkeinta sotilasjohtoa. Mikä oli niin ensiarvoisen tärkeätä että henkilökohtainen tapaaminen Suomessa oli tarpeen? Minusta tämä oli niin poikkeuksellista että olisi voinut olettaa että median puolelta seuraisi kaikenlaisia spekulaatioita. Mutta ei - näyttää siltä kuin median verikoirat olisivat tyytyväisiä tuohon peitetarinaan.

Tässä ohella on kuitenkin moni tuttavani esittänyt arvioita siitä että jotain isoa olisi tekeillä. On esitetty että ehkä Iran tai Pohjois-Korea pian olisi jonkin lännen sotilasoperaation kohteena ja että tapaamalla venäläistä kenraalia haluttiin varmistaa että Venäjä ymmärtää lännen motiivit.
Spekulaatiota tietysti - mutta sellainen on sallittua - ainakin tällä blogilla.

Toisaalta on esitetty että (1.44 quadrillion derivatives bubble) johdannaiskuplan alaskirjaaminen johtaisi niin suureen maailmanlaajuiseen taloudelliseen ahdinkoon että tämä uhka olisi voinut vaatia tällaisia sotilasjohdon tapaamisia. Spekulaatiota tämäkin - vaikka mainittu johdannaiskupla onkin tosiasia joka jossain vaiheessa tulee kaatumaan läntisen hyvinvoinnin niskaan.

Uusi selitys tuli tänään kun satuin lukemaan mitä eräs Sorcha Faal kirjoittaa:

A most stunning report is circulating in the Kremlin today stating that some of the most Senior Generals in the United States Military are ‘pleading’ for ‘immediate’ help from both Russian and European Military to prevent their current President from starting World War III in the coming weeks.

Even more shocking, this plea for help by the America Military Establishment came from their most senior military officer Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, and who in an unprecedented secret meeting, held this past weekend in the neutral country of Finland, met with General Nikolai Makarov, the head of Russia’s General Staff.

This meeting between the United States and Russia’s top Military Officials followed an equally unprecedented meeting held also this past week in the Adirondack Mountain Region of New York State between these US Generals and all of the top Military Officers and Staff of Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Japan, Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands and South Korea.


Eli suomeksi sanottuna: sotilasjohdon tapaaminen liittyi Sorcha Faalin kuuleman huhun mukaan pyrkimykseen estää George W Bushia aloittamasta "kolmatta maailmasotaa" - ehkä jo tällä viikolla ennen Yhdysvaltojen presidentinvaaleja.

Amiraali Mike Mullen olisi siis lentänyt ympäri maailmaa ja pyytänyt apua sekä eurooppalaisilta että venäläisiltä.

Itse olen hyvin kriittinen mitä Sorcha Faalin väittämiin tulee. Mutta - seurataan tilannetta. Tietysti tämä blogipostaus on silkkaa spekulaatiota - ainakin sieltä kotisohvan näkökulmasta.

maanantai 27. lokakuuta 2008

Todelliset kannatusprosentit

Tämä löytyi UusiSuomen sivuilta erään näkökulmakirjoituksen kommenttien joukosta. Vaalivoittaja-kokoomuksella siis oikeasti vain reilut 14 % äänioikeutettujen äänistä ja silti tuuletetaan "voittoa". "Suurvoittaja" Timo Soini ja Perussuomalaiset saivat oikeasti vain 3,28 % äänioikeutettujen äänistä. Hyviä huomioita.

Otsikko: Todelliset kannatusprosentit

Äänioikeutettuja 4191949 henkilöä.

Tässä todelliset kannatusprosentit(ei siis annettujen äänien prosentit):

38,80 % "Haistakaa P*ska" eli äänestämättä jättäneet (ei sis. hylättyjä)
14,26 % Kokoomus
12,90 % SDP
12,23 % Keskusta
5,43 % Vihreät
5,34 % Vasemmistoliito
3,28 % Perussuomalaiset
2,86 % RKP
2,54 % KD

38,80 %!!!!! Onnittelut voittajille! Kansa ei mene halpaan, ja luule, että joku valtuustoon valittu tötterö puolihomo pukupelle tai jakkupukufeministi valtuustossa pystyisi vaikuttamaan.

Tässä vielä voittajien kunniaksi heidän laulunsa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD6zQqlrWEQ

lauantai 25. lokakuuta 2008

Eduskunnasta kuultua - Uusipaavalniemi puhuu asiaa !

Kiitos vihjeestä anonymi. Markku Uusipaavalniemi osoittaa olevansa tilanteen tasalla. Hienoa. Olen lähes liikuttunut.



99. PERJANTAINA 24. LOKAKUUTA 2008 kello 15.26

1) Hallituksen esitys Kaupthing Bankin Suomen sivuliikkeeseen tehtyjen talletusten maksuun liittyvästä valtiontakuusta. Ainoa käsittely

Hallituksen esitys HE 182/2008 vp

Valtiovarainvaliokunnan mietintö VaVM 15/2008 vp

Markku Uusipaavalniemi /kesk:
Arvoisa puhemies! Vaikka meille vakuutetaankin, että kyseessä on erillistapaus ja tästä ei tule ennakkotapausta, niin mielestäni tämä asia pitää käsitellä niin kuin tulevassa rytinässä muutkin tulemme käsittelemään. Sen vuoksi olen ottanut sen kannan, mitä tässä otan.

Pankkijärjestelmä on romahtamassa omaan mahdottomuuteensa. Suomen kansalaisten tappio romahduksessa tulee minimoida ja Suomen valtio pitää hyvinvointivaltiona jatkossakin. Suomen valtio ei saa lähteä romahtavan järjestelmän takuu- ja sitä kautta maksumieheksi. Mikäli pankki ajautuu nykyisen lain määrittelemiin vaikeuksiin, voi Suomen valtio puuttua siinä vaiheessa tilanteeseen ja ottaa pankkitoiminnan johdettavakseen. Uusia valtiota ja sitä kautta Suomen kansalaisia sitovia lakeja ja vastuita ei tarvita. Tuleva romahdus on ollut jo pitkään ilmeinen ja laskettavissa. Asunto-, kiinteistö- ja osakekupla on Suomen päättäjien ja eläkevarojen hallinnoijien toimesta jätetty huomiotta, ja miljardeja on tämän johdosta jo hukattu. Lisätappioita on turha virheellisillä lakipäätöksillä kansalaisille tuottaa.

(...)

Arvoisa puhemies! Talous on matematiikkaa. Pankkijärjestelmä romahtaa. Suomen kansalaista on turha laittaa maksumieheksi päättäjien virheiden peittelemiseksi. Taloutta olen tutkinut 1,5-2 vuotta. Koska ennustajissa ja päättäjissä on monia, joille rahatalous oikeastaan ei olekaan tuttua, se, mistä se raha tulee, otetaan lyhyt kertaus.

Kansalainen marssii pankkiin ja pyytää 100 000 euroa lainaa asunnon ostamista varten. Pankki saa lapun, jossa on kansalaisen nimi. Tämän lapun arvo on 100 000 euroa. Samainen 100 000 siirtyy bitteinä käteiseksi rahaksi myyjän tilille. On syntynyt 100 000 euroa uutta rahaa. Myyjälle maksetaan korkoa talletustaan vastaan 2 000 euroa vuodessa, kansalaiselta peritään 5 000 euroa korkoa, joten pankille jää 3 000 euroa. Siistiä ja helppoa, toteaa pankinjohtaja.

Pankkiin marssii sijoittaja, joka haluaa rakentaa 100 miljoonan ostoskeskuksen. Pankinjohtaja lisää päässä laskien kolme nollaa lukuihin, joita kansalaisen papereihin laitettiin. 30 miljoonaa vuodessa pankille, bonukset johtajalle, joten ei kun nimeä paperiin. Taas syntyi 100 miljoonaa euroa uutta rahaa. Pankinjohtaja hymyilee ja onnittelee itseään. Hälytyskellot soivat päässä, mutta johtaja tyynnyttelee itseään. Älköön kukaan laskeko taustalla piilevää matemaattista mahdottomuutta. Älköön kukaan marssiko pankkiin nostamaan rahojaan. No, tämän tullessa vastaan sysätään syy ja maksut kansalaiselle. Kyllä kansa maksaa.


Päivitys 1: Talouskasvu lainarahalla rakennettu 22.2.2008

Kansanedustaja Markku Uusipaavalniemen mielestä Suomessa on varauduttava tulevaan talouden kriisiin muun muassa kasvattamalla valtion omistusta energiantuotannossa.

Luottojen lisääntyminen, niin sanotun ”bittirahan” syntyminen on ollut vuosia kestämätöntä. Suomessa puhutaan vain Yhdysvaltojen subprime-kriisistä, vaikka euroalueen omatkin ongelmat realisoituvat noin vuoden kuluttua. Koko karmeus näkyy vasta parin vuoden päästä. Tuolloin ihmiset ehkä muistavat, että eurooppalaiset pankit kilvan ilmoittivat olevansa turvassa Yhdysvaltojen ongelmilta. Surullisena seuraan kuinka media toistaa virheellistä totuutta tilanteesta. (lue loput)

Päivitys 2: Esko Seppäsen blogi -Ahneus on tauti, joka tarttuu.

...vain viisi suoraselkäistä kansanedustajaa vastusti ahneuden palkitsemista. He olivat Esa Lahtela, Markus Mustajärvi, Markku Uusi-Paavalniemi, Unto Valpas ja Jyrki Yrttiaho. Itse olisin ollut kansanedustajana siinä joukossa ja eri joukossa kuin mm. Martti Korhonen, Paavo Arhinmäki ja Esko-Juhani Tennilä.Pankkitukea äänekkäästi arvostellut Timo Soini pinnasi äänestyksestä. Hän pyrki - ja pääsi - Espoon kaupunginvaltuustoon. Espoo oli yksi eduskunnan antamien takuiden hyödynsaajista suomalaisen valtiovallan otettua takausvastuulleen myös Kaupthingin suurtallettajien korot. Se siitä Soinin periaatteellisuudesta.


(lue loput)

Kahdentoista askeleen rahauudistusratkaisu

Tässä mielenkiintoinen rahauudistusohjelma joka löytyy edellisen blogipostuksen tästä linkistä.

Kirjoitus on pitkähkö joten tämä tässä alla on vain pieni poiminta.

Silti - eräänlainen ratkaisu tämäkin. Se näyttää seuraavan Margrit Kennedyn ajatuksia jossain määrin. 1930-luvun Wörgl, Itävalta ja negatiivisen koron kokeilu tulee mieleen myös. Ja joo - valitan - englanniksi tämänkin...

Tämä ei siis ole minun kirjoittama vaan jutun kirjoittaja on Bart Klein Ikink ja jutun alkuperäinen otsikko on:

Twelve Steps to New Financial Structure - Money of the Natural Economic Order

The Solution in 12 Steps

1. Interest on money should be banned. This is the only prohibition. Return on capital is a good thing, and should not be abolished.

2. Raise a tax on money, for example, one percent per month. This is not a tax on wealth, so shares, real estate and money lent, are not taxed

3. Do not print more money, so there will be no inflation.

4. Because there is a tax on money, people will soon use the money to:
- to invest;
- to consume;
- to lend without interest.

5. Because on money lent, no interest may be charged:
- money will not be lent to unreliable individuals, businesses and structures.
- less money will lent and more money will be directly invested in equities and real estate.
- money will only be lent to reliable people, people with collateral and well-financed companies can borrow without interest.

6. Therefore there will never be an economic crisis, because money is spent directly and there are no bad loans.

7. Because all money is directly used for investment or consumption, everyone is at work and the economy grows steadily at maximum speed.

8. The financial sector is largely superfluous, and that is a good thing, because this sector produces nothing and destabilises the economy. People working in financial services will get another job quickly, because the economy grows steadily at maximum speed.

9. Governments also need much less to interfere with the economy. The people who did this work, get another job quickly.

10. As the economy grows constantly at maximum speed, and because no more money is printed, prices will fall. Therefore loans with zero percent interest will have a return that is probably higher than the interest rate you will get at the bank now. The money you lent will be worth more when the loan matures.

11. If one country chooses to apply this system, it will attract capital from other countries since the return of loans with zero percent interest rate is higher than the yield on interest in other countries (bizarre but true!). Therefore, all other countries will need to do this, if one country has changed its money system in this way.

12. Now everyone is free. There is no fear in the economy and there will always be work for the workers and there will always be customers for viable businesses. Nobody has debts.

*
A call to action

If you understand the message and you understand the situation we are in, you see that our society is in great danger. Bankers and governments may ward off collapse, but this comes with a staggering price tag of ever increasing inflation and moral hazard. This will in the end eat away the fabric of our society. Therefore the time for action is now. First of all, the knowledge must be spread. What to do next, is up to you.

Zahir Ebrahim: miten rahauudistus viedään läpi ?

Valitettavasti tämäkin on englanniksi. Mutta näin se menee - kaikki alkuperäinen ja tärkeä on aina ensin luettavissa jollain maailmankielellä. Onneksi moni suomalainen osaa hyvin tai melko hyvin englantia.
Etsin melkein koko illan jotain uutta mikä tuntuisi tärkeältä. Tämä artikkeli teki minuun vaikutuksen ja siksi haluan antaa muillekin mahdollisuuden lukea se. Kirjoittaja oli minulle ennestään täysin tuntematon samoin järjestö nimeltä Project Humanbeingfirst.

Monetary Reform: Who will bell the cat?


This is Project Humanbeingsfirst's response to many people's great ideas on fundamental Monetary Reforms.

*
We already know, since time immemorial, that permitting the monopolistic coining of money and paying interest on it to private bankers, has no commonsensical, no intellectual, no rational, and no moral grounds whatsoever. Except of course, when one's intent is to actually fill the coffers of the moneychangers. Then indeed, privatizing this most essential public common, the privilege of coining public money and charging the public gratuitous interest, is the most rational, commonsensical, and intellectual approach. For indeed, the power of debt upon a people is an intoxicatingly absolute power.

*
Why do sophisticated and revered economists like Ben Bernanke, and Paul Krugman, not know this? Why does the MIT department of Economics, course 14, not teach this in its courses, but it has poverty alleviation labs which look at lack of population planning as the biggest source of poverty? How about debt to bankers? Or as EHM John Perkins revealed, faking mathematics to get the developing world to believe that taking mega-loans from the World Bank is the cure to their developmental problems [8]. My first introduction to macro economics at MIT was 14.02 – and unremarkably, I never learnt all that I know today. I am glad I was only “imperfectly educated” then, for it has been easier to throw off my own yoke of ignorance.

*

Woodrow Wilson:
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. This is the greatest question of all, and to this statesmen must address themselves with an earnest determination to serve the long future and the true liberties of men.

*

There you have it. The American President who signed the Federal Reserve System into existence, lamenting the power granted to the money trust. Time to take it back. But who and how? That is the question. Not what reforms to make – at least to the first order.

The following commonsensical elaboration of this blatant point was again reiterated by Project Humanbeingsfirst to yet another new proposal for monetary reform, pointing out that to bell the cat is the issue, not which bell to use.

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/5435/81/

*

(Video:Money Masters) As the video also narrates: these central banks are now deeply entrenched in the world's power structures, with a history of at least 300 years of legal legitimacy and institutionalized experience. These are now global institutions protected by entrenched laws in every nation, protected by paid politicians and media. They are owned by the richest families in the world which control them from their central headquarters – the Bank of International Settlements (bis.org) through an opaquely interlocking and complex ownership structure that no one can penetrate through.

So find me a “Jesus” courageous enough to alter that reality, who will cleanse the lawmaking bodies of the world of the presence of the moneychangers' influence, and bring forth new legislation which will effectively repeal those laws which originally gave power to coin money out of thin air to the moneychangers.

Unless a proposal for monetary reform addresses these issues of the grotesque reality of immeasurably entrenched global power, as an integral part of their implementation architecture, it's like I read on some website once (probably globalsecurity.org): “dreams without funding [power] are hallucinations”

I keep repeating, that there is really no shortage of solutions. Julius Caesar knew it, Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, and JFK knew it. You know it. G. Edward Griffin Knows it. Norman Dodd knew it when he made a proposal to the Morgan Bank to return to sound banking practice in the aftermath of the Great Depression of 1930, WebOfDebt knows it, MoneyAsDebt knows it, MoneyMasters know it, monetary.org and mises.org both know it. Richard Cook seems to know it too. Even Alex Jones knows it. Certainly [Congressmen] Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich [apparently know it] too. And I say – very good. Hallelujah.

Now go fund a political action group, an economics think-tank, some newspaper editorialists in the New York Times and the Washington Post, and at least [a majority of] Congresspersons' election campaigns who would [effectively] vote 'Yes' on the monetary reform Bill, and bring to power an occupant in the White House willing to sign it even at the risk of assassination, with a Vice President and a House Speaker who will not rescind it if the abhorrence comes to pass, if you want to stop hallucinating.

This is how the banksters did it – and all the time their well meaning antagonists, and at least since 1913, have only been spouting platitudes. Nothing new is being said today, that has not been stated tens of times before. And I can now verify this because I have spent considerable time researching this topic. But this is hardly news to anyone who can write such an outstanding proposal as the one in this article.

The game is lost in the current round my friends. And I pray that I am entirely wrong, that indeed, the sheer think-system invented by the “Music Man”, and the platitudes of the prophets of antiquity, do win out in the real world at some point – not today though.

Only access to, and harnessing of, real power, to minimally construct the balance of power, if not overwhelming victor's power, and fighting political power with political power, military power with military power, can alter any existent reality that is counter to the interests of those presently wielding the power. Sorry to be stating a blatant truism to make the obvious point.

Hope this helps clarify matters and helps focus or redirect attention of those with the wherewithal and genuine stamina to endure the course, to how to politically instrument monetary reform. Of course this is intimately tied to what reforms, because that determines the level of inertia and opposition, but nevertheless, without political power (and access to wealth to get that power), it is meaningless to spend further time in researching what reforms to make.

There are plenty of known solutions, many are even proven solutions which need no further study to pick from as the first pass reform. Fine tuning can occur over time if suitable legislation is drafted.

Who will bell the cat?

How will the cat be belled?

We already have several shiny new and antique bells to choose from. It's pointless crafting any more new bells. That's all your proposal is, a new, or even an old, bell. Get to the next stage please.

Thank you.

Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
http://humanbeingsfirst.org

© Project HumanbeingsfirstTM. Permission granted to use freely as per copyright notice.

perjantai 24. lokakuuta 2008

”Valtioiden tarjoamaan tietoon luotetaan liikaa”

Tässä vihje parin sivun tekstistä missä Hannu Yli-Karjanmaan uuden kirjan sisältö esitellään.

Hannu Yli-Karjanmaan kirja Valtiot ja terrorismi on julkaistu! Kirja on laaja tietopaketti valtioitten ja terrorismin salatuista kytkennöistä. Aihetta tarkastellaan sekä teorian, että käytännön näkökulmasta.

Valtioiden tarjoamaan tietoon luotetaan liikaa

Lähettäjä: Elias Krohn
Aika: keskiviikko 22. lokakuuta 2008 20.53

On yleisesti tunnustettua, että terrorismi on suurvaltojen valtaeliiteille hyvä vihollinen ja keppihevonen omien tarkoitusperiensä ajamiseen. Valtioiden ja terrorismin suhteista kirjan kirjoittanut Hannu Yli-Karjanmaa väittää, että valtiokoneistot ovat tiedustelupalvelujensa kautta myös itse keskeisesti osallisina terroristijärjestöjen toiminnassa.

Lue loput (suosittelen)

Kuin kaksi papukaijaa

Lähde: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/439.html



Kuvitellaan että Australia ja Kanada ovat itsenäisiä valtioita.
Ilmeisesti eivät ole.

Videot näyttävät miten kummankin maan valtionpäämies lukee täsmälleen saman tekstin parlamentille - sana sanan perään - tukien Irakin miehitystä keväällä 2003.

Kuka tämän tekstin kirjoitti? Kuka hoiti jakelun? Kuka pakotti näitä papukaijoja lukemaan tekstin?
Englannin kuningatar kenties ? Vai CIA?
Kuka näitä ihmisiä ohjaa?

******

Who's in charge?

I was under the impression that Canada and Australia were sovereign countries.

I guess not.

This video shows the heads of both these states reading the same exact statement - word for word - supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Who wrote this thing?

Who distributed it?

Who compelled these obvious puppets to read it?

The Queen? The CIA? Who runs these people.

Note: Canada's Harper was not yet Prime Minister when he made this speech selling out his country for god knows who - but he is now.

torstai 23. lokakuuta 2008

Talouskriisin ja tulevaisuuden ratkaisu (englanniksi)

Olen juuri saanut luettua haastattelun missä Richard C Cook selittää miten talousdemokratia voidaan toteuttaa hallitusti ja oikeudenmukaisesti - ja ilman inflaatiota. Tämä on tavallaan jatkoa The Cook Plan ajatuksille. Julkaisin siitä oman blogipostauksen jokunen viikko sitten. Pettymyksekseni vain yksi lukija kommentoi. No oli miten oli tässä lisää - ehkä tämä tällä kertaa menee paremmin jakeluun. Olen itse ainakin nyt melko varma siitä että "tässä se on" - tässä ratkaisu on esitetty selkeästi, analyyttisesti ja perustellusti - ja mitä parasta ilman ekonomistien ammattislangia.

Tässä se osa haastattelua missä niin sanotusti mennään asiaan. Melko pitkä juttu kieltämättä - mutta sitä tärkeämpi. Ja lupaan että aion suomentaa tämän haastattelun pääkohdat. (kunhan ehdin)

(RC) Richard C. Cook is the author of Challenger Revealed, and the forthcoming, We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform. His work is widely disseminated on the Internet.

(GC) Gary Corseri has published novels and poetry collections, had plays produced on Atlanta-PBS and elsewhere, and has performed at the Carter Presidential Library. His work is widely disseminated on the Net.

GC: You don’t have an economics background, but you’re a whistle blower on the economy and the way our economic system works. How do you have credibility in economics?

RC: It just happened that I ended up in NASA … Well, after NASA, it just so happened that I ended up in the Treasury Department—the heart of the beast. I spent 21 years there studying the economic system of the US government—the financial system. I had a lot of time on my hands. I was a pretty good analyst and I could do what they wanted me to do pretty readily. So, I studied in depth. If you look at it going back to colonial days and the history coming out of England—the history of how the governments operated–corporate finance is a big part of Western history. These corporate financial systems really were developed through the Roman Catholic church. Western financial systems came out of the medieval papacy. They were the ones with the money—and they put together a very good system of public finance that has carried down through today.

GC: I’ve got to ask you—where do the Jews come into this? Because many people think it’s all controlled by the Jews.

RC: In medieval days, because the Church prohibited usury, the Jews became the ones who did the dirty work—handling finances for the Pope and the King. Having no religious prohibitions against finance and usury, the Jews became the financial class of Europe. They also became the gold merchants who were the first ones to practice fractional reserve banking. People would place their gold with the gold merchants who would then issue certificates against it, and then they would issue certificates against gold that they didn’t really have—the issuance would exceed the actual reserve.

GC: Fractional reserve is the idea that a bank can lend more than it actually has. Ten times or more. Isn’t it 30 times these days?

RC: It depends on what the reserve requirement is. Today it’s fairly low. … Anyway, that whole system came out of the Middle Ages … When William of Orange came over with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, he brought people with him who set up the Bank of England. The Bank of England has been the model for Central Banks to this day! It was created to loan money to the British government to fight its wars. That’s the model that we have today … it’s the system of our Federal Reserve when it was put in place in 1913. …

At Treasury, we worked very closely with the Fed. The Fed is the fiscal agent for the US Treasury. So, I learned about the Fed and how it worked in the trenches at Treasury. By the time I was getting ready to leave Treasury—around 2002/2003, I began to delve into the monetary reform movement that had existed in the US for a very long time, but which I had just begun to study in some detail. At the Carter White House, I had begun to learn about the British Social Credit Movement which came out of Britain in the 1920s and ‘30s as kind of the first monetary reform movement in the Western world. And all of this fit together in my mind around 2002-3, and I began to post some articles on the Internet under a pen name—though I still worked for Treasury. I also had gotten to know Stephen Zarlenga, the director of the American Monetary Institute, and I advised him on writing his monetary reform legislation—the American Monetary Act that he has in his brief to members of Congress. I also met Dennis Kucinich when he was running for President in 2004, and I gave some briefings to Dennis on US monetary history.

GC: Does Kucinich favor your monetary system?

RC: In fact, in the article I’m writing now, I note that Dennis just came out with a 16-point economic program—and one of the points focuses on the American Monetary Act on which I worked with Zarlenga.

GC: What’s the gist of it?

RC: It’s rather complex … but it starts with nationalizing the Federal Reserve system. Anyway, I never went to grad school in economics, but I learned monetary economics as a practitioner and a student of it in Treasury. I retired in January, 07, and that month I published the Challenger book. Then, I thought, What do I do now? Well, I’d written these Internet articles, I had my briefings for Kucinich, I had another article that I wrote that I posted at Global Research in January, and I thought, well, this is another book!—so I guess I’ll write a monetary book now. It turned out that Global Research, headed by Michel Chossudovsky up in Montreal, really liked my work. So, I had an outlet, and I became one of his chief economics writers. By April, I had digested the Social Credit ideas–based on the “dividend concept” that the way you release money into circulation is through a citizen’s dividend, not through bank-lending, which is the basic idea of the Alaska Permanent Fund. Well, by April, 2007, I had posted an article at Global Research titled, “An Emergency Program of Monetary Reform” because I felt very strongly that we were heading towards a collapse.

GC: And you foresaw this last year?

RC: Yes. … I continued to write these theoretical articles for the next two or three months. Then, in June, based on all of that plus signals I was getting from the Washington Post (which I call the newsletter of the financial elite), I posted an article entitled, “It’s Official: The Crash of the US Economy Has Begun.” That was 07. And, I can tell you, people who began to follow my writing at that time saved themselves a lot of money! I know people who started to get out of the stock market then.

GC: So … why didn’t you let me know?

RC: (Laughs …) Anyway, suddenly, I was now being called the whistle-blower on the US economy! I just had this compulsion to lift up the rocks and see what’s under them.

GC: And you’re looking at the slimy, crawling things. … You remind me again that autodidacts are among my favorite people … because they’re not “institutionalized,” they’re looking at things from the outside, and often are the best truth-tellers. That’s what you were doing at NASA—and now you’re doing it in the economic field. … So, you’ve done the research going back to the Middle Ages and how we’ve evolved this crazy system. You probably go back to colonial times—Hamilton setting his system up, and back to 1913 and the Federal Reserve. You’ve no doubt studied the Great Depression. … So, where are we now? We hear that we’re in the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression; others say this could be worse because it’s now global. Where are we in your analysis? And then we’ll get to “The Cook Plan.”

RC: I think we’re at the beginning of a terrible global depression, a terrible collapse. The problem is not just that the economic indicators point to that. The leading indicator in economics is purchasing power; that is, how much money do members of the economy have to purchase the necessities of life, and where do they get that money? Obviously, one way you get purchasing power is through your job—you earn it; another way is through dividends; another is capital gains; another is to borrow it. An increasing amount of purchasing power, not just for our nation, but for people around the world, has been through borrowing. So, if there’s a collapse in lending—it isn’t just that you can’t get a loan and you need to postpone some purchases; for many people, that means that you can’t live. If you’ve been living off your home equity loans, for example, and that’s gone, what’s going to replace it? Right now, we’re seeing not just a failure of the monied powers—because they’re so over-leveraged—we’re seeing a collapse of purchasing power among the people of the world. If that purchasing power can’t be replaced—the purchasing power that has entered the economy through lending over the past 10, 20, 30 years—where’s it going to come from? There’s no other source of purchasing power; so people can’t pay their mortgages or their utility bills, or buy food. If that happens on a global basis … and the credit economy isn’t filling the gap anymore because they realize that the loans they’re putting out aren’t going to be repaid—that’s the big problem. It’s not that the credit isn’t available because banks and governments can create as much credit as they want. Just off of ledgers. They can conjure up as much money to lend as they want to. The problem is paying the loans back. If people don’t have the money to pay the loans back, where’s it going to come from?

GC: And the housing crisis precipitated all of this?

RC: It was the trigger. It was the spark that lit something that was ready to blow up.

GC: Because a lot of these people were dependent on home equity loans, they’re using their houses as their credit cards, and then the value of their houses declines, and the banks don’t want to extend more credit—is that the way these dominoes have fallen?

RC: Well, yeah, but there are other twists and turns. For example, when the dot.com bubble burst in 2001—that was the Clinton bubble—it was created deliberately; that’s why Clinton looked so good because he made it all the way to 2000 on that bubble. His Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, engineered that bubble by pulling in huge amounts of foreign capital. When that bubble crashed and George W. Bush was sitting there looking at a long-term recession/depression at the beginning of his term and he was in the process of the first tax-cut for the rich in March of 01—he’s wondering what to do (the Bush Administration). They’ve given away money to the rich and they’re going to fight some really big wars. So, where’s the money coming from? In walks Alan Greenspan. Now, I’ve documented that once Bush became president, Greenspan’s visits to the White House rapidly accelerated. Greenspan began lowering interest rates and that began to free up capital for mortgage lending. People found they could much more easily get money to buy houses. But, also in 2001, I had a long interview that I conducted with a mortgage broker who told me that at that time the word came down through the mortgage industry to start falsifying applications for mortages; to start lying about the applicants’ income. One of my contacts who was borrowing money to buy a house at that time told me that on the mortgage applicant’s income—they would write in a number that was considerably above her real income.

GC: Where do you think word was coming down from? Ultimately from Greenspan?

RC: And Bush. The Bush administration and Greenspan. There was collusion between the Bush White House and the Federal Reserve.

GC: Did they know exactly what they were doing?

RC: Exactly.

GC: They had to finance their wars, make up for the tax cuts to the wealthy. …

RC: It was the economic engine of 2001 to 2006. You know, when Eliot Spitzer–just before he had to resign–he came out with a report that said when he was the attorney general in New York, he and the other attorneys general of the state decided that he had to crack down on mortgage fraud. They were prevented from doing so by a regulation that was put out at that time by the US Treasury Department. There’s also a report about Washington Mutual—it was on ABC of all places … all of their risk analysts who had prevented WM from getting caught up in these bad loans were suddenly told to stop—stop monitoring. The word was passed down: start lending at a much higher rate than before. Now, there’s no way these actions can be done without the regulators knowing it … without the Federal Reserve knowing. At some point, the whole system became a fraud to produce the economic engine for the Bush administration.

GC: And did they not know that there would be a reckoning at some point?

RC: What really triggered the collapse? Well, we say that at some point the sub-prime mortgages simply became untenable. But, what triggered that? It was triggered by two things: One is that part of the lending that was done was through these adjustable rate mortgage escalators where your rate was good for two or three years and then you suddenly find yourself paying $1,000 more each month. Borrowers were told, don’t worry, the value of the house will keep rising and you can sell your house and make some money. So, the fraud was built in not only by falsifying income, but through these adjustable rate mortgages (ARMS) that were time-bombs in the system. Allan Greenspan was behind that; he told people these ARMS were fine. Then, knowing that the ARMS were going to explode, the Fed under Greenspan began to raise interest rates in 2006. He started the bubble and then he blew it up.

GC: To protect the assets of the wealthy?

RC: We don’t quite know yet.

GC: And what about inflation and purchasing power? Doesn’t that kick into this also?

RC: Inflation came through the house values.

GC: And the wealthy hate inflation, right? Because it spoils the value of their assets.

RC: The inflation was in housing assets, and the wealthy were the lenders; so they didn’t care. Because once the plug is pulled and these houses are in foreclosure—and we’re over 4 million now since 2006—it’s the wealthy who come in and buy these houses at the crash prices.

GC: Those who have liquid assets.

RC: Yes … or the banks. The banks now own millions of houses.

GC: You talk about a “gap” … and you don’t mean the clothing store. … What is the gap between prices and purchasing power?

RC: This is the whole theory of Keynsian economics. (I learned a lot more about it on my own than I would have learned in college.) Basically, the problem in modern economics is poverty in the midst of plenty. You would think, with modern industrial methods, you could produce enough for everybody. For decades and longer, people would talk about the “leisure dividend”—everything could be mechanized to produce wealth, people won’t have to work so hard, they’ll have more time off … and it just never happened. Poverty in the midst of plenty has plagued our world ever since the Industrial Revolution really got rolling. Keynes set out to explain the problem. I’ll try to make it simple. … Everything that you produce has a price attached to it. You’re going to charge whatever you need to cover your costs and make a little profit. Profits are not high. In most industries, profits run somewhere between 5 and 10 percent. Part of that is paid in dividends and part is saved. The part that is saved is called “retained earnings.” Retained earnings are a necessity. Because of entropy—or the Law of Diminishing Returns. The idea is that, when you produce something, you’re producing at an efficiency rate that can’t be maintained indefinitely. Because, everything you buy, you’re buying at the best price you can get … but, over time, it gets more expensive because the easy stuff to sell comes first; but, over time, you’re going to incur more costs when you sell it. For example, when you hire people to work for you, you’re going to hire the most capable people and they’ll be the most productive. If you hire more people, they’ll probably need more training or are less capable—so you’ve got a Law of Diminishing Returns—your costs are going to rise. So, in order to cover those cost increases, you need to hold back payment (as retained earnings). That means that the money you pay out—that’s the purchasing power of the community; so the prices that the community is going to pay are always going to be higher than the purchasing power. That’s the gap, that’s the gap that I write about.

GC: And the savings–

C: That’s in the bank. And the bank generally lends for asset purchase, not investment. It’s a storage function, it’s not a capital investment function. In fact, in the last 30 years there’s probably been no growth at all in capital investment in the United States. All of the money that’s gone into the banks has gone into asset appreciation—because they make money on capital gains; that’s the chief source of wealth in our modern banking system—capital gains, which means inflation. At any rate, there’s this gap between prices and purchasing power. Keynes said that the whole system can collapse back to purchasing power, but then you’ll develop another gap and the whole system will keep ratcheting down—and that’s called a depression. During the Great Depression, there wasn’t purchasing power in the system to buy what was produced at the price that had to be charged in order to assure the continuation of the process.

GC: Again, there’s something systemic here … in the entropy. Is there any way around this?

RC: Keynes’ solution was to fill the gap by government debt—by pump-priming. Beginning in the 1930’s, we see Roosevelt running government deficits to fund things like job creation, the civil conservation corps, Works Progress Administration—that type of thing. He also used it to capitalize the Reconstruction Finance Corporation which began to lend at very low rates of interest into the private sector and into state and local governments and into the hands of farmers. Roosevelt essentially took over the credit creation function of government, he took it from the banks. The New Deal was created by government deficit financing. Additionally, he had very high marginal tax rates. The rich paid through the nose during the New Deal. … All of this really took off during World War II. The borrowing there shot up to the highest level we’ve ever had. Even today, we’re not that high, though we may get there in the next year or two! Now, another way you can fill the gap is through a positive trade balance. Because if you’ve got money coming into your system because we’re selling more stuff than we import—that becomes income. So, every nation wants to use trade—and that’s why you’ve got trade rivalries—

GC: Beggar your neighbor.

RC: Exactly. And, of course we saw that before World War I when Britain was fighting a trade war with Germany. After World War II, the US had a tremendous surplus in our balance of trade, which we lost in the 60’s and 70’s. So that was another thing that floated the economy. Still another way to close the gap is through economic growth. Because if you can outgrow your gap or outspend it through the velocity of money you can close it. And, you can close the gap through inflation! If you’ve got $100 in debt and you inflate the currency so it’s only worth $80, then it’s easier to pay off. So, inflation has been a bedrock of government fiscal policy since the 30’s. Why does the government have a cost of living every year for social security and for federal employees? Not to keep up with inflation, but to create inflation. Because its cumulative. Even if inflation is only 3 or 4 percent a year, you’re going to create an exponential curve; so, that’s one reason why—yeah, we may have just given away $750 billion to the banks, but we’re going to inflate the currency so much, we’ll get back $200 billion by the time we’re done … Another thing inflation does—and we saw this with the alternative minimum tax—it drives people into a higher tax bracket. … Now, one other thing about the gap—the gap was known when Keynes was writing, and the Social Credit Movement in Britain knew about it fifteen years earlier. Their solution was to fill the gap through dividends. Because the theory is that the gap is going to exist no matter what you do; but you modify it in some way. That’s what borrowing does in today’s system. You borrow money to modify retained earnings.

GC: Now we’re getting deeper into this. … So, monetizing the gap … I have to admit I’m getting a little fuzzy here … I had a conversation with Stephen Shafarman a month or so ago and he explained some of this, but I wondered: Here’s a government which will not finance universal health care, does not invest in education, and yet, Shafarman and you are proposing that this government will give us $1,000 a month for every adult and $500 a month for every child … where’s the money coming from? I thought money was about having some kind of tangible asset behind it—gold or a house, some kind of collateral. And therefore you could say that more money means more value in the asset. But your proposal is based on something else. You’re saying, print the money and give it to everyone. What am I missing?

RC: We’re not talking about money, we’re talking about credit. Credit is the producing potential of an economy. It’s a way of calling forth production. For example, if I give you—and this is why I’m doing it through vouchers, not cash payments because I don’t want people to take their cash and buy lottery tickets—it’s not productive. But if I give you a voucher, let’s say it’s for $10—let’s say it’s a food stamp. You can take that to the market place, and people will raise food because they’ll get $10 from you. That becomes an incentive for them to produce. What you’re doing when you introduce money into circulation this way, you’re monetizing future production—in response to that, people will do something they didn’t do before. This is the way a huge part of the US economy functioned during the 19th century. Gold and silver were monetized then at a ratio of 12 to 1, gold to silver. The government didn’t buy gold and silver and turn it into coins. The government ran a mint. In that mint, people who owned gold or silver—they brought it into the mint, and the mint would then take your gold and they’d stamp it into coins. And the mint would give it back to you—it was a free service. Now, you had a bag of gold bullion and now you have a hundred dollars in gold coins. You then go and spend that into the economy; and because you have gold now and you’re spending it, that incentivizes production; a whole system of production builds up because now there’s something of value that can be earned. This was why, for example, the California Gold Rush became such a spur to production in the US. … This was why the new cyanide process of extracting gold ore around 1900 was such a tremendous economic boon for the world—because it called forth production. It’s the same reason why the mining of gold and silver by the Spanish in the Americas in the 1500s brought into existence the modern productive economy. Because they were bringing gold and silver back. The government didn’t create that. It was brought back as a monetary commodity, and now suddenly people began to produce and produce and produce. The dividend is exactly the same principle. …

GC: Something you said turned a light on in my head. This phrase: “monetizing future production”. … These vouchers represent the future, they are a stake in the future! I’m going to give you this voucher and you’re going to spend it and this is going to call forth future production. So, how come we’re not already doing that?

RC: Because the banks control the system. The banks would rather loan you the money and extract interest from you than give you a voucher. For example, if you go down to U Street here in D.C., and you see the urban blight; if you began to hand out vouchers to the people who live there that place would be transformed—probably in a few months. It would be based on small business, you would have food products coming in, you would have a lot of new things being done. … This actually happened during the 70s when the community services administration was introducing grants into the inner cities to vitalize the local economy. But, as the 70s progressed, and all of those social programs were killed—that’s when the center cities fell back into the poverty that we see today. And when the Federal Reserve raised interest rates in the early 70s to a tremendously high level and killed off our producing economy, they did the same to the inner cities by withdrawing a source of credit that had begun to fuel commerce in those areas and had begun to transform our urban landscape.

GC: So, the banks have been making money on the system as it exists. But, now, the banks are in trouble. They’ve come to the taxpayers for a bailout … to perpetuate the whole system.

RC: The banking system is a parasite that is killing the host.

GC: And, this goes back to the Middle Ages. … You’re talking revolution, aren’t you?

RC: Yeah.

GC: And you’re talking real socialism. And maybe you can get into this a little bit because I think Americans are extremely confused about what socialism is. So, we hear this banter on right wing talk radio about how we’re becoming a socialist country because our government is involved in helping the banks, and taking over A.I.G. and so forth. But I say that’s more about National Socialism—which is what Hitler was all about. Or about Corporatism which is what Mussolini called his system—and it’s really Fascism, but you never hear the right using that term. What you’re talking about, I call it socialism with a small “s.” It’s real socialism that helps people where they live; helps them with the essentials and leads to survival and a thriving community.

RC: These right wingers should read Article One of the Constitution. Article One says that Congress shall regulate interstate commerce. It also says that Congress shall coin money and establish the value thereof. That Congress has not just the right, but the duty to regulate the economy, to regulate the monetary system. To what end? Well, then you go back to the Preamble of the Constitution—

GC: “To insure domestic tranquility”—

RC: “and promote the general welfare.” The people who wrote the Constitution knew that to promote the general welfare, Congress—the elected representatives—had to have the right to regulate interstate commerce and to coin money and establish its value. That’s what we’ve thrown away! For the sake of this right-wing, market nonsense that has totally failed and that has produced a catastrophe.

GC: And it works by creating bubbles, bursting bubbles, creating another bubble. …

RC: The banks really began to take over the economy in a big way in the 70s. That was the transition decade.

GC: When we went off the gold standard?

RC: That opened the door to unlimited inflation of money through the petro-dollar, and allowed the dollar to become the world reserve currency. But, also, interest rates began to climb, began to burst, in the 70s. By the end of the Volker recession interest rates were over 20 percent, which destroyed the US producing economy—and that was deliberate. From then on, every period of economic growth in this country has been a bubble!

GC: What you’re calling the “producing economy,” I’ve heard called the “real economy,” as opposed to the financialized economy.

RC: The guy who’s really defined this best is Dr. Michael Hudson. The producing economy is where people like you and I go to work every day and make stuff. The financial economy is money that’s leant into circulation or that is manipulated for profit without any productive value being created. Hudson calls it the FIRE economy—finance, insurance and real estate. The FIRE economy has killed the producing economy.

GC: As we start our last tape, I want to thank you for this tutorial! There’s a lot more we can talk about, but I’m hearing “time’s wing’d chariot” at my ear, so as we move towards the fire exits, let me ask you, since you’re talking revolution, What are you going to do when they come after you?

RC: (Laughs …) I really don’t think about that. I just do what I feel I’m supposed to do.

GC: It’s your moral commitment. …

RC: Yeah.

GC: You did mention that you studied comparative religions at William and Mary, so this is an important part of who you are. And, along those lines, you’ve also thought about what kind of future communities we might be living in in the US in twenty years. …Tell me about your vision of the future.

RC: Well, you can look at it in one of two ways, I think. One is economics that’s based upon the trickle down philosophy that we got starting with the Reagan years, which was that the rich will invest and produce, and the wealth that comes through that will somehow pass down into the hands of working people through jobs. And that whole idea of a top-down economy is not new; this was essentially what medieval feudalism was all about when the rich lived in their manors and had moats around their castles. (Of course, we see that today with our gated communities!) And the poor just fended for themselves. I think we’re going in that direction now. I think our culture is increasingly aristocratic, increasingly about passing wealth to the rich. We’ve seen this before in history, and we’re seeing it now. …And no better means of doing that has ever been invented than bank finance, where, through the magic of compound interest, I don’t work anymore but my money works for me; all the wealth of the community is sucked upward through that vortex up to the hands of the people at the top.

The other way is approaching it from the bottom up. It’s giving people who work for a living the ability not only to survive but to flourish. And to do that, there must be a way of providing access to people in the community for wealth creation—for savings, for investment. Why should we do that? Basically, I believe in the concept that all men are created equal, we’re all equal in the eyes of God, and that every human being has a right to live on this earth and to take part in the life that is possible to us through the opportunity to manifest our potential. I’m a democrat with a small “d,” and I think that those periods of history where that has been possible have been the times when America has truly been a great nation.

GC: When were those times?

RC: One was after 1800, when, through the Louisiana Purchase, the whole West was opened up and people were free to go out and establish a farm or a business. We opened ourselves up to immigration to people from all around the world and I think a tremendous force was unleashed for opportunity, for achievement and for genius that we haven’t had since then.

GC: That’s a long time back!

RC: I think the New Deal was that. My family were New Dealers. My parents got their education through New Deal programs. I got mine through the National Defense Education Act; programs were available so that students from the working or middle class could become part of our social life, part of our economy. And, those days are ending. Increasingly, the only students who can go to college are those who have money or can mortgage their futures with these tremendous student loans—and even those loans are disappearing with the credit crisis. I believe that the true genius of the human race can be unlocked from the bottom—from ordinary people being given the opportunity to fulfill their God-given destiny. I think that, essentially, for me, this is what the teaching of Jesus was about. The best economics is the one based on the principle of doing unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you. You don’t rob from your neighbor, you give to your neighbor. And I believe our present economic system is robbing from our neighbor. Taking what belongs from them, and essentially enslaving your neighbor into working not for him and his posterity and his family, but for you—because you’re the one who is living off the fat of the land through your compound interest, your financial lending system and all that comes with it.

GC: I agree with you, but let me play devil’s advocate. What I hear, more and more, is that we can’t afford this; because we have to compete with China, India. How can we possibly compete? They have so many more people; they can work so much cheaper. So, how does your system make sense in this emerging world market?

RC: We don’t have to compete with anybody. The reason that China and India appear so competitive is that they’re so poor to begin with. They’re able to throw millions of laborers into making our Christmas tree ornaments! For them to grow from abject poverty to where a portion of them are approaching middle class status looks like great economic growth. And because they’re willing to work so cheaply they can under-price us—if we’re dependent upon a competitive market place in order to earn the money that we need to keep our economy afloat because we’re so in debt to ourselves or our banking system that we can’t produce at that same level of efficiency. Now, a dividend-based economy … well, take farming for example: right now our family farm is dead; a family farm can’t afford to compete in the market place. But, if we were able to monetize our farming economy through dividends where you had the vouchers I’ve been talking about and you could take them down to the farmers’ market, if you could feed money into the system from that source—that would allow people who can’t afford to farm today to begin farming again.

So, the only reason you have these competitive relations between nations is because you have a global economy based upon top-down bank-financing which ultimately is usury and ultimately sucks the cream off the top of the productive system for the benefit and profit of the bankers, the bond-holders, the interest holders—and it impoverishes everyone else. Essentially you’ve got a bunch of starving people in China competing against a bunch of starving people in India competing against a bunch of people who soon are going to be starving in America to get that slight edge in order to allow a top-down, debt-based monetary system to live off the fat of the land. Once you get rid of that system and introduce currency at the grass-roots level, you create a whole new economic paradigm that will change everything.

And, you’re right.It’s a political revolution … because the only reason we don’t do that today is because of the increasing power in the hands of the financiers and the politicians they own.

GC: So how are we going to overturn this system? What’s it going to take? A Russian revolution? 20 million dead?

RC: Actually, the Russian revolution was a bankers’ revolution. Lenin and Trotsky were financed by Rothschild and Rockefeller and the big New York banks. Actually, the Romanovs did not have a central bank, the way there was a Federal Reserve or a Bank of England. The Russian economy was being financed by indigenous land banks out in the Russian countryside that would lend based on land mortgages at very little rates of interest. That was creating what was becoming one of the strongest economies in the world. And the Bolsheviks essentially made an agreement with the bankers in the West: if you finance us, we’ll put a central bank in Russia that you will own—and that’s exactly what happened. And Russia afterwards became dependent on Western banking and commerce. In fact, one of the biggest supporters of the growth of Russian industry under Stalin was the Rockefellers. The Rockefellers were granted leases in the Baku oilfields around the Caspian—

GC: Oh man!

RC: Yeah, it’s all very. … So, the kind of revolution I’m talking about is a monetary revolution that would place purchasing power directly in the hands of the people for them to spend as they wish at the local level. Then, once you begin to produce in that way, you do create a certain level of savings, and that savings can then capitalize true capital markets where people pool their resources and savings. We don’t have true capital markets anymore—that kind of pooling of resources by average people where they can make investments. What we have instead is speculators buying stocks on margin or buying whole companies through equity purchases on margin where 90-95%–or more–of capital used in the system is bank leveraging; it’s speculative money that has polluted and poisoned the capital markets.

GC: I understand what you’re saying about a peaceful monetary revolution. But … they’re not going to turn it over to you and to me.

RC: The people have to demand it!

GC: They’ll shoot us in the streets!

RC: I don’t have an answer for this. I can see in the last two years a big change in the number of people who have begun to see things in this way and to identify the banking and financial systems as the root of the problem. I think Ron Paul had a lot to do with it. He’s introduced legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve system. And, the Libertarians, as misguided as some of their solutions are—like, for example, the idea of returning to the gold standard, which is just a red herring—at least they have the idea that the people are capable of running their own affairs without government oversight or interference. That’s one reason I like the Alaska Permanent Fund so much. During the 70s when they were setting this up, the state government wanted to take these royalties from the oil companies and then distribute them to the people through social programs, etc. And there was an outcry among the people: Just give us the money and we’ll decide how to spend it! There was no reason to go through the government bureaucracies and then disburse the money to the people through means testing, etc. The Alaskans had a referendum, and now every year a cash payment is made to every resident there. This last year the payment was $3,269 per resident. Now, if you’re in a household with 4 people, you’re making $13,000 cash, a substantial amount of money that Alaskans have given to them to do whatever they want! There’s no reason why we can’t do that—or even more—for every resident of the United States. And that’s what we should be demanding. People shouldn’t be going up to Congress for more social programs. … When Bush gave out the $600 rebate during the second quarter of 2008, that’s one of the few right things he ever did. That’s what prevented the economy from going into recession during the second quarter. Even that piddling amount. We’ve got substantial movement in this country through the Basic Income Guarantee movement, through Shafarman’s movement, we’ve got the same thing in Europe; we have countries in Latin America which are moving in this direction. There is awareness that can be built on. But at some point the current has to tip in favor of the people over the banks. Who will run the economy of the world—the people who work and hope and sweat and have aspirations, or is it the banks that suck the life out of every economy they’ve ever been associated with? At a certain point people just have to say they’ve had enough. One way or another that’s happening. A lot of people are defaulting on their credit card debts, for example. My daughter was paying over 28% on her cards. She can’t pay it anymore. She doesn’t have the money. They’re gonna kill the economy; they’re gonna kill people who can’t continue to work to support the financial controllers. Something has to change. And if they drive the country into a collapse—and they will—then at some point, people who have the ability to say no are going to have to do it. Through whatever means is available.

GC: You think it’s imminent, or will they manage to pull themselves out again?

RC: I can’t see the system being rescued. Because it’s spread globally. The credit system has collapsed because people cannot pay their loans any more. I mean, if we have a winter where the grocery stores can’t put food on their shelves, people will be starving in this country. There’s already 35 million who are “nutritionally deprived”—the term they use nowadays. Food stamps applications are growing tremendously. Surplus food has declined. Something’s gotta give. This could become tragically serious in one to two years. Unless something is done to revitalize the local, producing economies.

GC: I think we’re especially vulnerable in the winter months.

RC: We could see real starvation coming in the next one to two years. The current level of population in the US exists because of our industrial economy. If that economy collapses, so will our population.

GC: Which has more than doubled in our lifetime.

RC: Yeah. The people who run our government understand the dangers, but they don’t know how to fix it because they’ve been taken over by this cancer which is the financial system.

GC: Maybe they understand, but they’re so vested in it, they’re like the people at NASA—they don’t want to stop it.

RC: I think that’s fair.

GC: Well, on that grim note, I guess we can wrap this up. Now, to go even deeper into this, the good folks ought to read your forthcoming book. The title was?

RC: WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS: THE HOPE OF MONETARY REFORM.

GC: And the press?

RC: Tendril Press.

GC: Thank you very much, Rick. You’ve given us a lot to ponder—and to act on!

Richard C. Cook is the author of Challenger Revealed, and the forthcoming, We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform. His work is widely disseminated on the Internet.