1) We are living in a state of law. Supposedly.
2) That state is democracy, the rule of the demos, the people.
3) Political leaders have recently given PRIVATE unelected individuals, the bankers, the means, and the right to create money, the money everybody uses, through debt, starting from PUBLIC funds.
3) Contradicts the union of 1) and 2).
Thus, the present system incite, big, money creating BANKERS TO BECOME GANGSTERS, and OUTLAWS.
It is as simple as that. Thus one needs to get rid of the private fractional reserve PUBLICLY funded money creating system.
PA
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Punish China For The Right Reasons.
Paul Krugman has been the instigator of what is now a vast chorus to view the underevaluation of the Chinese currency as a serious problem. I do agree, sort of, but I extend the critique to the US dollar: it, too is undervalued.
So, according to Paul, China has got to be punished, because it exports its savings, and we are so incompetent, we do not know what to do with them, because we are not expansionary enough... As it is, this reminds me a bit of punishing people, because they saved too much, and were too industrious, thus owning too much, in part thanks of an alleged conspiracy of them... Hmmm... Was not that exactly the Nazis' main drift against a particular minority?
Being also as bad as they come, I also want to punish the Chinese, but only to encourage them to become better planetary citizens. I do think that the technological and economic, not to say social stagnation of the West is the West's problem, not China, and China ought not to be punished for it. Instead the West ought to be punished for not striving to stay on top of the existing hierarchy, and on top of the planetary problems we have.
Not to preserve the existing hierarchy will lead to instability, hence war. Same with not solving the drastic ecological problems (acidification, water, climate change, population growth).
If China manipulates its currency, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. First. Also the duties ought to correspond to the minimum of the proven depreciation; if the renminbi is undervalued by 10% minimum, then impose 10% minimum duties, etc.
China working hard and saving is a good thing. We ought to emulate it. What we ought to not emulate, and encourage China to get out of, is its carbon solution. Reigning in our plutocrats, in bed with the Chinese dictatorship, is our problem, not China's. Just as the plutocrats out-maneuvered the Nazis, in the end, they will out-maneuver China at the first occasion. They out-maneuvered us on health care, and with the on-going existence of their vampiric financial scheme. We do not want them to out-maneuver us again, using China as a trampoline.
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
So, according to Paul, China has got to be punished, because it exports its savings, and we are so incompetent, we do not know what to do with them, because we are not expansionary enough... As it is, this reminds me a bit of punishing people, because they saved too much, and were too industrious, thus owning too much, in part thanks of an alleged conspiracy of them... Hmmm... Was not that exactly the Nazis' main drift against a particular minority?
Being also as bad as they come, I also want to punish the Chinese, but only to encourage them to become better planetary citizens. I do think that the technological and economic, not to say social stagnation of the West is the West's problem, not China, and China ought not to be punished for it. Instead the West ought to be punished for not striving to stay on top of the existing hierarchy, and on top of the planetary problems we have.
Not to preserve the existing hierarchy will lead to instability, hence war. Same with not solving the drastic ecological problems (acidification, water, climate change, population growth).
If China manipulates its currency, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. First. Also the duties ought to correspond to the minimum of the proven depreciation; if the renminbi is undervalued by 10% minimum, then impose 10% minimum duties, etc.
China working hard and saving is a good thing. We ought to emulate it. What we ought to not emulate, and encourage China to get out of, is its carbon solution. Reigning in our plutocrats, in bed with the Chinese dictatorship, is our problem, not China's. Just as the plutocrats out-maneuvered the Nazis, in the end, they will out-maneuver China at the first occasion. They out-maneuvered us on health care, and with the on-going existence of their vampiric financial scheme. We do not want them to out-maneuver us again, using China as a trampoline.
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Main Points About The Regalian Banking System We Have.
The first key point about finance as it exists is that private, unsupervised, unelected financial establishments are able to create most of the money in use in the realm. It is a major misleading omission to behave as if this was compatible with democracy (see what Rothschild thought about it below).
The second key point is that they are allowed to create it through debt, in other words, serfdom.
The third key point is that modern financial creators are allowed to give said money they created to whoever, and whatever they please. "Whoever" they call that "talent", and "whatever" is the derivative universe, which, as its name indicates, is not the real universe. The derivative universe is just a way to claim imaginary revenue, imaginary profits, and, thus, all too real bonuses, and manipulative powers onto the world of economics, politics, and sociology.
The fourth key point is that they avoid supervision, election, and, in general the entire democratic process; this is called the 'independence" of the Federal Reserve bank. "independence" from democracy, that is.
All these powers of modern finance are regalian.
As Rothschild said: "I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ...The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply."
But kings, especially non elected ones, become arrogant, because they want to celebrate their power. Thus now they have forced the people to humiliate itself by forking over all its economies, and then by making it plain that they could get away with anything. Hence the criminality, and blatant influence peddling.
None of this has to be. making banks into the realm's money creator is an extraordinary privilege that was not accorded during most of civilization, for the reason that, as Rothschild said, it makes the king into a puppet. Thus Obama is a puppet, says Rothschild.
One could revert to the earlier system used in feudal times and times before that: banks lend what has been deposited with them, and not more. Governments would then create money as needed. To insure that enough money would be created for valid projects and investments, banking officials would be rewarded reasonably according, and proportionally to the long term profitability of said projects and investments. In other words, the more leveraged a bank is, the more governmentalized it ought to be.
The only banks who are truly private are those using strictly no leverage. Others ought to be viewed as the government institutions they truly are, meaning that the government is not what conventional wisdom assumed it to be.
PA
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
The second key point is that they are allowed to create it through debt, in other words, serfdom.
The third key point is that modern financial creators are allowed to give said money they created to whoever, and whatever they please. "Whoever" they call that "talent", and "whatever" is the derivative universe, which, as its name indicates, is not the real universe. The derivative universe is just a way to claim imaginary revenue, imaginary profits, and, thus, all too real bonuses, and manipulative powers onto the world of economics, politics, and sociology.
The fourth key point is that they avoid supervision, election, and, in general the entire democratic process; this is called the 'independence" of the Federal Reserve bank. "independence" from democracy, that is.
All these powers of modern finance are regalian.
As Rothschild said: "I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ...The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply."
But kings, especially non elected ones, become arrogant, because they want to celebrate their power. Thus now they have forced the people to humiliate itself by forking over all its economies, and then by making it plain that they could get away with anything. Hence the criminality, and blatant influence peddling.
None of this has to be. making banks into the realm's money creator is an extraordinary privilege that was not accorded during most of civilization, for the reason that, as Rothschild said, it makes the king into a puppet. Thus Obama is a puppet, says Rothschild.
One could revert to the earlier system used in feudal times and times before that: banks lend what has been deposited with them, and not more. Governments would then create money as needed. To insure that enough money would be created for valid projects and investments, banking officials would be rewarded reasonably according, and proportionally to the long term profitability of said projects and investments. In other words, the more leveraged a bank is, the more governmentalized it ought to be.
The only banks who are truly private are those using strictly no leverage. Others ought to be viewed as the government institutions they truly are, meaning that the government is not what conventional wisdom assumed it to be.
PA
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
The Really Unfair Chinese Economic Advantage
If currency intervention with the aim of undervaluing the Chinese currency can be proven, there are official avenues to make that official through the IMF. This ought to be the next step. Guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before punishment can be envisioned.
The real problem with China is somewhere else: western plutocrats have used it as an avenue to avoid Western various regulations, especially about pollution. Thus an unfair trade practice and a world pollution (Chinese pollution strikes the USA). The way out is to install a carbon tax, as France is in the process of doing. Then it could go worldwide, and China will lose an enormous comparative advantage of the criminal type (coal Chinese pollution poisons the Arctic with condensing mercury vapor, for example).
Plutocrats used Nazism in a similar way, starting 90 years ago (yes plutocratic intervention and procreation of Nazism preceded its existence). In that case, American plutocrats, starting in the 1920s were able to turn around American anti-monopoly laws, and, later many other laws. Plutocracy fed fascism, and reciprocally. When fascism died, plutocracy thrived even more, and here we are…
PA
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
The real problem with China is somewhere else: western plutocrats have used it as an avenue to avoid Western various regulations, especially about pollution. Thus an unfair trade practice and a world pollution (Chinese pollution strikes the USA). The way out is to install a carbon tax, as France is in the process of doing. Then it could go worldwide, and China will lose an enormous comparative advantage of the criminal type (coal Chinese pollution poisons the Arctic with condensing mercury vapor, for example).
Plutocrats used Nazism in a similar way, starting 90 years ago (yes plutocratic intervention and procreation of Nazism preceded its existence). In that case, American plutocrats, starting in the 1920s were able to turn around American anti-monopoly laws, and, later many other laws. Plutocracy fed fascism, and reciprocally. When fascism died, plutocracy thrived even more, and here we are…
PA
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Monday, March 8, 2010
What's Fundamentally Wrong With Banking Today
What is fundamentally wrong is that bankers are the ones allowed to create capital in the fractional reserve system AND directly profit, without any reservation, from that capital creation. Money creation by private, unelected, unsupervised, intrinsically biased and interested bankers is a REGALIAN function. For millennia that regalian function was exerted by the rex, the king, namely the state.
Money creation is NOT intrinsic to banking: originally banking did not have that regalian function, and just loaned money which was deposited in banks, one on one.
So what we have in front of our eyes is a worldwide CIVILIZATIONAL REGRESSION. (By the way, to claim that some countries escaped the crisis is a bit silly, because it may simply be that the crisis is better hidden there, or, thanks to derivatives, was exported somewhere else (in Canada the Whistler resort is bankrupt, maybe a symptom of something bigger).)
The crisis has reinforced bankers as rulers. Even France is having severe problems with the increased arrogance of powerful bankers: major profitable French companies could not get loans recently for specific obviously profitable projects. They complained to the presidency, which convoked the bankers. But BNP, the giant French bank, thanks to derivatives, and the like, made nearly 6 billion euros profit in 2009: hard to argue with such success in a system where bankers are kings to start with: who is going to reduce the size of their crowns? (Disclosure: I bank at BNP and has known some top executive there.)
The problem is not just to resist powerful bankers, or protecting financial consumers (after all many of the later profited from the crisis, and are now living rent free in their ill gotten properties, and the bankers are the first consumers of their own banks!). The problem is HOW to PUT BANKING UNDER DEMOCRATIC SUPERVISION.
As Baron Nathan Rothschild (yes, from the Rothschild family) put it: "I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, …The man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply."
In the USA, the Federal Reserve Bank is independent of democracy. It depends only upon bankers. Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan Chase, for example, sits on the board of the New York Fed. Obama probably dreams every day of having this good friend who impresses him so much, Secretary of the Treasury: after all, Rubin, Clinton's first Sec of Treasure served at Goldman Sachs for 26 years prior.
Economy Nobel Laureate Stiglitz recently called the (financial) system in the USA "corrupt". Because of the size and leadership of the USA, it's the entire civilization which is now "corrupt". Time to review the basics, and it's not just about making consumerism of a few wiser. it's time to all get wiser, and more moral.
PA
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/greed-cant-lead/
Money creation is NOT intrinsic to banking: originally banking did not have that regalian function, and just loaned money which was deposited in banks, one on one.
So what we have in front of our eyes is a worldwide CIVILIZATIONAL REGRESSION. (By the way, to claim that some countries escaped the crisis is a bit silly, because it may simply be that the crisis is better hidden there, or, thanks to derivatives, was exported somewhere else (in Canada the Whistler resort is bankrupt, maybe a symptom of something bigger).)
The crisis has reinforced bankers as rulers. Even France is having severe problems with the increased arrogance of powerful bankers: major profitable French companies could not get loans recently for specific obviously profitable projects. They complained to the presidency, which convoked the bankers. But BNP, the giant French bank, thanks to derivatives, and the like, made nearly 6 billion euros profit in 2009: hard to argue with such success in a system where bankers are kings to start with: who is going to reduce the size of their crowns? (Disclosure: I bank at BNP and has known some top executive there.)
The problem is not just to resist powerful bankers, or protecting financial consumers (after all many of the later profited from the crisis, and are now living rent free in their ill gotten properties, and the bankers are the first consumers of their own banks!). The problem is HOW to PUT BANKING UNDER DEMOCRATIC SUPERVISION.
As Baron Nathan Rothschild (yes, from the Rothschild family) put it: "I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, …The man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply."
In the USA, the Federal Reserve Bank is independent of democracy. It depends only upon bankers. Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan Chase, for example, sits on the board of the New York Fed. Obama probably dreams every day of having this good friend who impresses him so much, Secretary of the Treasury: after all, Rubin, Clinton's first Sec of Treasure served at Goldman Sachs for 26 years prior.
Economy Nobel Laureate Stiglitz recently called the (financial) system in the USA "corrupt". Because of the size and leadership of the USA, it's the entire civilization which is now "corrupt". Time to review the basics, and it's not just about making consumerism of a few wiser. it's time to all get wiser, and more moral.
PA
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/greed-cant-lead/
Friday, February 12, 2010
Mediterranean Union As Israel Palestine Solution
Roger Cohen in Hard MidEast Truths, opines on the Palestine-israel problem that: "If there are not two states, there will be one state, and very soon there will be more Palestinian Arabs in it than Jews."
In other words, Cohen says that the present Jewish supremacist strategy leads to the extinction of Israel.
Cohen calls onto Obama to rise to the occasion. But...
Considering that Obama cannot see the simplest thing, such as the present big banking sector having nothing to do with the free market, it is dubious he can do anything useful about Israel and Palestine. His Cairo discourse, much admired, was pure demagogy with no concrete content anywhere, whatsoever.
Many are happy about the creeping annexation. Many do not see the hatred, and it is a truth that a lot starts in religious texts.
The USA was not a force behind the creation of Israel. All it probably sees about the area is oil, oil, oil, and the strategy of dividing to conquer, to get ever more oil. The 250,000 troops on the ground put there by Bush and Obama are clear enough a symbol.
Ultimately the only pacific way out is to extend a variant of the European construction, a Mediterranean Union, to the entire region (as Sarkozy initially proposed). This dialogue worked well in Europe, there is no reason it would not work as well around the Mediterranean. A target for conceptual destruction ought to be superstitions and their associated racisms (clearly, for example, some part of the Qur'an are as offensive against the Jews as possible; even the Nazis in their worst state did not talk about the people they hated the most in such an absurdly violent fashion.)
Indeed the last time the Mediterranean area was united was under the Roman empire. It is the rise of superstition, even well before, centuries before the invention of Islam, that originated the present problems (by leading for example to the destruction of the gigantic Jewish temple in Jerusalem and then spreading aggressive heresies of Judaism, namely Christianism and Islamism).
If we want peace, we need to go back to some somewhat similar situation to that which existed under Rome (but with more national freedom, as exists in the European Union.) So the Mediterranean Union is the solution. Anything else is a waste of time, and should lead to an orgy of destruction, especially when some youth understand better the game of the USA.
Patrice Ayme
In other words, Cohen says that the present Jewish supremacist strategy leads to the extinction of Israel.
Cohen calls onto Obama to rise to the occasion. But...
Considering that Obama cannot see the simplest thing, such as the present big banking sector having nothing to do with the free market, it is dubious he can do anything useful about Israel and Palestine. His Cairo discourse, much admired, was pure demagogy with no concrete content anywhere, whatsoever.
Many are happy about the creeping annexation. Many do not see the hatred, and it is a truth that a lot starts in religious texts.
The USA was not a force behind the creation of Israel. All it probably sees about the area is oil, oil, oil, and the strategy of dividing to conquer, to get ever more oil. The 250,000 troops on the ground put there by Bush and Obama are clear enough a symbol.
Ultimately the only pacific way out is to extend a variant of the European construction, a Mediterranean Union, to the entire region (as Sarkozy initially proposed). This dialogue worked well in Europe, there is no reason it would not work as well around the Mediterranean. A target for conceptual destruction ought to be superstitions and their associated racisms (clearly, for example, some part of the Qur'an are as offensive against the Jews as possible; even the Nazis in their worst state did not talk about the people they hated the most in such an absurdly violent fashion.)
Indeed the last time the Mediterranean area was united was under the Roman empire. It is the rise of superstition, even well before, centuries before the invention of Islam, that originated the present problems (by leading for example to the destruction of the gigantic Jewish temple in Jerusalem and then spreading aggressive heresies of Judaism, namely Christianism and Islamism).
If we want peace, we need to go back to some somewhat similar situation to that which existed under Rome (but with more national freedom, as exists in the European Union.) So the Mediterranean Union is the solution. Anything else is a waste of time, and should lead to an orgy of destruction, especially when some youth understand better the game of the USA.
Patrice Ayme
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Banks As Government
The clueless Obama just claimed that bankers' bonuses are no more shocking than athletes' incomes. According to him, it would be against the free market to be against said bonuses.
But of course bankers are getting all their money from the government. Banks are not about the "free market". They are about the mechanism to create money that can be used in the market, and all over the economy. "Private" banks have recently been endowed with a prerogative governments kept for themselves for millennia. Apparently Obama does not know any of this.
A way to support banks has been by giving them hundreds of billions through TARP (which I mockingly called at the time: Transfering Assets To Rich People).
Another way has been to buy mortgages using taxpayer money to keep interest on mortgages low. This is not innocent as it looks. In connection with the FHA back-up of most new real estate loans, it is mostly a government run subprime program to the benefit of bankers and real estate flippers. What is the interest for the bankers and their White House? In light of a FEW transactions to flippers (or to the banks themselves!), it allows bankers and White House to claim houses are really worth a lot, therefore principals should not be lowered (a cornerstone of the friendly-to-bankers policy).
Another way to help banks is for the government to give them money at basically zero interest, and then allow them to re-invest the same money with the same government, at 3.5% interest.
More fundamentally, the main support to the banks has been the FRACTIONAL RESERVE SYSTEM. It allows private, unelected, unsupervised individuals called the bankers, to create the money society uses. Moreover, it is created under the form of debt. Thus it tends to increase and put the vast majority of People into two categories: those without money, completely out of society, a sort of underclass, and those who are over-indebted.
The Fractional Reserve System [FRS] makes bankers enormously powerful, because it makes them in control of most of the money (under a reserve requirement of 10% they control about 4/5 of it all; it can come arbitrarily close to 100% as the reserve requirement is allowed to go down to zero).
Rothschild actually explained, more than two centuries ago, that the FRS made bankers into the people who controlled nations.
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
But of course bankers are getting all their money from the government. Banks are not about the "free market". They are about the mechanism to create money that can be used in the market, and all over the economy. "Private" banks have recently been endowed with a prerogative governments kept for themselves for millennia. Apparently Obama does not know any of this.
A way to support banks has been by giving them hundreds of billions through TARP (which I mockingly called at the time: Transfering Assets To Rich People).
Another way has been to buy mortgages using taxpayer money to keep interest on mortgages low. This is not innocent as it looks. In connection with the FHA back-up of most new real estate loans, it is mostly a government run subprime program to the benefit of bankers and real estate flippers. What is the interest for the bankers and their White House? In light of a FEW transactions to flippers (or to the banks themselves!), it allows bankers and White House to claim houses are really worth a lot, therefore principals should not be lowered (a cornerstone of the friendly-to-bankers policy).
Another way to help banks is for the government to give them money at basically zero interest, and then allow them to re-invest the same money with the same government, at 3.5% interest.
More fundamentally, the main support to the banks has been the FRACTIONAL RESERVE SYSTEM. It allows private, unelected, unsupervised individuals called the bankers, to create the money society uses. Moreover, it is created under the form of debt. Thus it tends to increase and put the vast majority of People into two categories: those without money, completely out of society, a sort of underclass, and those who are over-indebted.
The Fractional Reserve System [FRS] makes bankers enormously powerful, because it makes them in control of most of the money (under a reserve requirement of 10% they control about 4/5 of it all; it can come arbitrarily close to 100% as the reserve requirement is allowed to go down to zero).
Rothschild actually explained, more than two centuries ago, that the FRS made bankers into the people who controlled nations.
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)