Posts

Posted on

The Chancellors’ Debate

Ho hum. I didn’t hear a word about creating an alternative money supply, one where the government exercises its prerogative to create money debt-free and distribute it appropriately to business as it’s needed. I didn’t hear anything about ending the three-hundred-year tyranny of the banking orders. All I can gather is that we’re going to go on borrowing money from banks that create it out of thin air under license from the government as none of the candidates for future government seem keen on discussion of this arrangement, let alone changing it in favour of the electorate that elects them. Vince Cable, Alastair Darling and George Osborne are all of them proposing that as a nation we simply carry on being wholly dependent upon the banks alone for our money supply, thus all of last night’s so-called debating was simply empty theatrical posturing. The most important issue was never addressed.

BB

Posted on

Investment Capital Punishment

On investing, I’d just like to add that venture capitalists, mutual funds et al only have money that’s in circulation because  someone, somewhere borrowed it from a privately-owned bank. If the private banks withdrew all their loans, our current civilisation would have no money in its accounts or its pockets. In fact, all the private banks have to do to cripple civilisation is to not renew the loans they have existing and slowly the money supply contracts. This is a ludicrous situation when we have governments with sovereign right to create money themselves and also one they should never have allowed to develop, not if they genuinely worked on behalf of the electorate. We need public money in circulation, not private money. Good grief – they only make the damn stuff up anyway!

Post-birthday BB

Posted on

Yvette! Yvette! You Stupid Woman!

I saw Yvette Cooper on tv last night stoutly declaring Labour had saved thousands of Britons from losing their life savings by bailing out the banks – this as if it were a good thing! The British people, all people in fact, should clearly understand that lodging their money with a bank is a gamble and that sometimes, if you gamble, you lose.  This is a matter of simple education and the job of education is in the hands of government, in particular a government who got elected on a mantra of “Education, education, education”. The banks that should have gone bankrupt were that way because they were incompetent, dishonest or both. If they’d been bankrupted as they should have been (and no doubt still should be) then they’d be gone and the system would be purged and could rebuild itself cleanly. Now, they’re still there! Permanently too if the polticians have anything to do with it! All Yvette and her pals, all of them no doubt with their eyes on a cosy seat in a boardroom somewhere when they retire, have done is to lumber the Britih people, all of them, with an entire banking system that’s both corrupt and incompetent and glories in the sure knowledge that whatever scrapes it gets into the politicians will use taxpayer money to bail them out so they can all of them collectively, bankers and politicians both, carry on with the serious business of getting their snouts back in the trough. I mean, the budget: who cares? Was there anything in the budget to address this situation – or did it, in fact, by refusing to address any of the issues at the heart of the problems, merely preserve and extend the circumstances that have given rise to those problems in the first place? It’s the election coming up very soon, and we’re all supposed to trot along and vote like good little sheeple. Who is there to vote for with a policy of letting bankrupt banks fail when they need to and damn the cost to their political careers? Who is there, in fact, that there’s any point in voting for at all?

BB

Posted on

A Tangled (And Uninformative) Web We Weave

I’ve been noticing for a while that events of significance for the UK are sometimes ignored in the UK press until after they’ve been widely covered in the US press and vice versa. It’s difficult to hide things from the public in an internet-enabled world. However, I believe most people are still largely in the dark about the state of the economy as no country I know of reports in any depth on it in the mainstream. Fractional reserve banking is still a complete mystery to many, discussion of it being almost completely absent. I’ve read nothing at all in the UK press, for example, about banks being sued for selling sub-prime finance under the banner of an entirely unjustified triple-A rating, yet I understand from the brief mentions it has in the American press it is indeed happening. I suspect this is a case of media content being dictated by its advertisers, as many of the larger more powerful banks wouldn’t like to see their adverts carried next to a story about their being sued for either incompetence, dishonesty or both. This renders the media irrelevant for news-gathering, a fact which seems to have escaped many. I use the web myself, favouring Twitter.

BB

Posted on

The Budget At The End Of The Universe

Budget day but I’m not at all excited. We don’t need a budget to do this or to do that, we need something now that’s utterly beyond the scope of any budget. The environment in which any kind of budget would make a perceivable difference is gone now. No-one seems to be addressing this, probably because they’ve got no idea what to do – witness both main parties accusing the other of lack of detail in their policies on how to deal with the deficit. The pretence is that it’s business as usual, but it isn’t, and I doubt it ever will be again. Buy your tickets now for the end of the world… as we’ve known it…

BB

Posted on

Force Majeures, Argues Myners

Hilarious watching Myners on tv this morning declaring that Labour won’t be doing anything to upset the process of recovery from recession, which, he remembered to mention, was a global problem in the first place.

Well! If the problem’s global, the inference being there wasn’t anything they could do about it, why are we paying them to do nothing? If they’re going to get elected and do nothing, why do we need them at all? I mean, what exactly IS the business of government? 

BB

Posted on

Fun You Can Have With Gold Bullion

Fractional reserve banking, where in theory the banks don’t actually have to have the money they lend you and in practice means they don’t actually have to have any at all, doesn’t just apply to money. They can do it with gold too;

http://www.gata.org/node/8388

Proof once again that while it might make the mattress lumpy keeping gold where you can get your fist on it in an emergency is the only way to buy gold.

This is how it all began with the original goldsmiths, so we seem to have come full circle.

BB

Posted on

The Government – New Balls Please.

It was asked on one of the forums today, “Why don’t I ever hear any good news, or tales of government intelligence coming from the UK?” 

Because the idiots we elect (being idiots ourselves, for the most part) are busy churning out reams of ineffective legislation in an effort to disguise their overall impotence. They can’t control the money supply, they can only tinker with the economy, not fix it or make it work for us. Further, they can only tinker with it to a limited degree because their powers to do that are limited by Brussels. They are little more than figureheads in the same manner the Queen’s a figurehead. Just as the Queen has no authority but has a lifestyle many would envy, today’s would-be politicians aspire to a life of merely token authority but a wealth of privilege.

Want anything done, you’ve got to do it yourself. The government are just another tribe of predators these days.

BB

Posted on

Orange Jumpsuits For Barclays?

Good evening, Mr. Geithner, sir… is that a bailout under your arm? Is it yours, sir? Because, you see, we’ve had reports… ah, I see sir… it was a gift… well in that case, would you mind coming with us to the station, sir? It’s just routine…

Timmy Geithner’s in serious danger of getting booted out of favour with the Obama regime – and worse – as the stink surrounding the AIG bailout does its imitation of a spot that simply will not go away. It sounds as of the law are finally starting to get pro-actively interested in the precise legalities – or absence of same – when AIG was bailed out and passed the monies on to favoured clients. What no-one is bringing up at the moment is that Barclays were one of those clients. Barclays have made a great deal out of their not having had to be bailed out by the British taxpayer but have kept very quiet about their either beiongbailed out be the American taxpayer or being the beneficiary of outright fraud. This fruad might well be being dragged out from the shadows (banking shadows) into the generally-perceived limelight, where it will be widely understood. If Barclays are found to be in receipt of stolen, as I’ve always thought them to be, what will the likely consequences be for them as a company and the British banking system as a whole? One could argue that without the American bailout Barclays might have gone in the general confusion of the crunch. If they have to return the bailout billions, plus pay some kind of genuinely punitive fine on top, how would they survive? Who would bail them out? Who’s left to turn to? Gordon Brown can’t realistically pull another stunt along the LLoydsTSB/HBOS lines, who would fill the LLoydsTSB role? There are those who still try to suggest that what goes on over the Atlantic has no bearing on us here but the indications are that repercussions there will have resounding effects here.

Anyhoo, read about the latest goings on in this article from Ellen Brown.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/aig-gate-the-worlds-great_b_451445.html

Who knows? At this rate maybe the new Barclays uniform will be orange jumpsuits… 🙂

BB

Posted on

Springtime For The Mafia

I’m reading in the papers that in the absence of available finance from the banks businesses are getting funding from the Mafia, who are thriving as a consequence. It’s perhaps ironic to note that if you borrow money from the Mafia, they actually have the money to lend you. They practice what amounts to full reserve banking, whereas the legal banking system will have to counterfeit it, practicing as they do fractional reserve banking. It’s further interesting to note that again, the Mafia here can actually lay proper claim to interest, being genuinely deprived of the use of any monies they genuinely lend and so therefore entitled fairly enough to compensation. The legal banks, who make up the money they ‘loan’ out of thin air, obviously aren’t entitled to any ‘interest’ of any kind.
In this instance, then the Mafia woud seem to be more honest, if you will, than the banks are.
This reminds us that just because a procedure’s legal doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily in any way socially beneficial or morally superior even though such procedures often like to masquerade as such. One bunch of malevolents is much the same as another, whether they have a a sign hanging around their necks saying legal or not. Antisocial people are antisocial people, (banks/mafia) whether they have signs on them saying Legal/Illegal or not. Are their interests social, ie, coincident with that of the broader community, or antisocial? If you want your community to survive and prosper, you need to note distinctions.

BB