A Loophole Allows Banks – But Not Other Companies – to Create Money Out of Thin Air
The central banks of the United States, England, and German - as well as 2 Nobel-prize winning economists - have all shown that banks create money out of thin air ... even if they have no deposits on hand.
The failure of most governments and most mainstream economists to understand this fact - they instead believe the myth that people make deposits at their bank, and these deposits are then lent out to new borrowers - is the main cause of our rampant inequality and economic problems.
But how do banks actually make loans before they have sufficient deposits on hand?
Economics professor Richard Werner - the creator of quantitative easing - noted in September that the field of economics has been lost in the woods for an entire century because it has failed to understand how banks actually create money.
Professor wrote an academic paper in 2014 concluding:
What banks do is to simply reclassify their accounts payable items arising from the act of lending as ‘customer deposits’, and the general public, when receiving payment in the form of a transfer of bank deposits, believes that a form of money had been paid into the bank.
***
The ‘lending’ bank records a new ‘customer deposit’ and informs the ‘borrower’ that funds have been‘deposited’ in the borrower's account. Since neither the borrower nor the bank actually made a deposit at the bank—nor, in connection with this transaction, anyone else for that matter, it remains necessary to analyse the legal aspects of bank operations. In particular, the legality of the act of reclassifying bank liabilities (accounts payable) as fictitious customer deposits requires further, separate analysis. This is all the more so, since no law, statute or bank regulation actually grants banks the right (usually considered a sovereign prerogative) to create and allocate the money supply. Further, the regulation that allows only banks to conduct such creative accounting (namely the exemption from the Client Money Rules) is potentially being abused through the act of‘renaming’ the bank's own accounts payable liabilities as ‘customer deposits’ when no deposits had been made, since this is also not explicitly referred to in the banks' exemption from the Client Money Rules, or in any other statutes, laws or regulations, for that matter.
Professor Werner explained:
Although the implementation of banking services relies heavily on accounting, hardly any scholarly literature exists that explains in detail the accounting mechanics of bank credit creation and precisely how bank accounting differs from corporate accounting of non-bank firms.
***
It can be deduced that this ability of banks is likely derived from the operational, that is, accounting conventions and regulations of banking. These either differ from those of non-banks, so that only banks are able to create money, or else non-banks have missed out on the significant opportunities money creation may afford.
In order to identify the difference in accounting treatment of the lending operation by banks, we adopt a comparative accounting analysis perspective.
***
When the non-financial corporation, such as a manufacturer, grants a loan to another firm, the loan contract is shown as an increase in assets: the firm now has an additional claim on debtors — this is the borrower's promise to repay the loan. The lender purchases the loan contract, treated as a promissory note. Meanwhile, when the firm disburses the loan (and hence discharges its obligation to make the money available to the borrower), it is drawing down its cash reserves or monetary deposits with its banks. As a result, one gross asset increase is matched by an equally-sized gross asset decrease, leaving net total assets unchanged.
In the second case, of a non-bank financial institution, such as a stock broker engaging in margin lending, the loan contract is the claim on the borrower that is added as an asset to the balance sheet, while the disbursement of the loan – for instance by transferring it to the client or the stock exchange to settle the margin trade conducted by its client – reduces the firm's monetary balances (likely held with a bank). As a result, total assets and total liabilities remain unchanged.
While the balance sheet total is not affected by the granting and disbursement of the loan in the case of firms other than banks, the picture looks very different in the case of a bank. While the loan contract shows up as an increase in assets with all types of corporations, in the case of a bank the disbursement of the loan ... appears as a positive entry on the liability side of the balance sheet, as opposed to being a negative entry on the asset side, as in the case of non-banks. As a result, it does not counter-balance the increased gross assets. Instead, both assets and liabilities expand. The bank's balance sheet lengthens on both sides by the amount of the loan (see the empirical evidence in Werner, 2014a and Werner, 2014c). Thus it is clear that banks conduct their accounting operations differently from others, even differently from their near-relatives, the non-bank financial institutions.
***
Surprisingly, we find that unlike the other firms whose balance sheets shrank back in Step 2, the bank's accounts seem in standstill, unchanged from Step 1. The total balance sheet remains lengthened. No balance is drawn down to make a payment to the borrower.
So how is it that the borrower feels that the bank's obligation to make funds available are being met? (If indeed they are being met). This is done through the one, small but crucial accounting change that does take place on the liability side of the bank balance sheet in Step 2: the bank reduces its ‘account payable’ item by the loan amount, acting as if the money had been disbursed to the customer, and at the same time it presents the customer with a statement that identifies this same obligation of the bank to the borrower, but now simply re-classified as a ‘customer deposit’ of the borrower with the bank.
The bank, having ‘disbursed’ the loan, remains in a position where it still owes the money. In other words, the bank does not actually make any money available to the borrower: No transfer of funds from anywhere to the customer or indeed the customer's account takes place. There is no equal reduction in the balance of another account to defray the borrower. Instead, the bank simply re-classified its liabilities, changing the ‘accounts payable’ obligation arising from the bank loan contract to another liability category called ‘customer deposits’.
While the borrower is given the impression that the bank had transferred money from its capital, reserves or other accounts to the borrower's account (as indeed major theories of banking, the financial intermediation and fractional reserve theories, erroneously claim), in reality this is not the case. Neither the bank nor the customer deposited any money, nor were any funds from anywhere outside the bank utilised to make the deposit in the borrower's account. Indeed, there was no depositing of any funds.
In Step 1 the bank had a liability — an obligation to pay someone. How can it discharge this liability? A law dictionary states:
“The most common way to be discharged from liability … is through payment.” 1
And yet, no payment takes place in Step 2 (and hence in the entire ‘lending’ process), which is why the bank's balance sheet in total remains stuck in Step 1, when all lenders still owe the money to their respective borrowers. The bank's liability is simply re-named a 'bank deposit'. However, bank deposits are defined by central banks as being part of the official money supply (as measured in such official ‘money supply’ aggregates as M1, M2, M3 or M4). This confirms that banks create money when they grant a loan: they invent a fictitious customer deposit, which the central bank and all users of our monetary system, consider to be ‘money’, indistinguishable from ‘real’ deposits not newly invented by the banks. Thus banks do not just grant credit, they create credit, and simultaneously they create money.
***
Instead of discharging their liability to pay out loans, the banks merely reclassify their liabilities originating from loan contracts from what should be an ‘accounts payable’ item to ‘customer deposit’ (in practise of course skipping Step 1 entirely and thus neglecting to record the accounts payable item). The bank issues a statement of its liability to the borrower, which records its liability as a ‘deposit’ of the borrower at the bank.
***
What enables banks to create credit and hence money is their exemption from the Client Money Rules. Thanks to this exemption they are allowed to keep customer deposits on their own balance sheet. This means that depositors who deposit their money with a bank are no longer the legal owners of this money. Instead, they are just one of the general creditors of the bank whom it owes money to. It also means that the bank is able to access the records of the customer deposits held with it and invent a new ‘customer deposit’ that had not actually been paid in, but instead is a re-classified accounts payable liability of the bank arising from a loan contract.
***
What makes banks unique and explains the combination of lending and deposit-taking under one roof is the more fundamental fact that they do not have to segregate client accounts, and thus are able to engage in an exercise of ‘re-labelling’ and mixing different liabilities, specifically by re-assigning their accounts payable liabilities incurred when entering into loan agreements, to another category of liability called ‘customer deposits’.
What distinguishes banks from non-banks is their ability to create credit and money through lending, which is accomplished by booking what actually are accounts payable liabilities as imaginary customer deposits, and this is in turn made possible by a particular regulation that renders banks unique: their exemption from the Client Money Rules. [Werner gives a concrete example on British law for banking and non-banking institutions.]
***
It would appear that those who argue that bank regulations should be liberalised in order to create a level playing field with non-banks have neglected to demand that the banks' unique exemption from the Client Money Rules – a regulation benefitting only banks – needs to be deregulated as well, so that banks must also conform to the Client Money Rules.
***
Alternatively, one could argue that it would level the playing field, if the banks' current exemption from the Client Money Rules was also granted to all other firms — in other words, if the Client Money Rules themselves were abolished. This would allow all firms to also engage in the kind of creative accounting that has become an established practise among banks. It would certainly ensure that competition between banks and non-bank financial institutions would become more meaningful, since the exemption from the Client Money Rules, together with the banks' deployment of this exemption for the purpose of re-labelling their liabilities, has given significant competitive advantages to banks over all other types of firms: banks have been able to create and allocate money – virtually the entire money supply in the economy – while no other firm is able to do the same.
***
Basel rules were doomed to failure, since they consider banks as financial intermediaries, when in actual fact they are the creators of the money supply. Since banks invent money as fictitious deposits, it can be readily shown that capital adequacy based bank regulation does not have to restrict bank activity: banks can create money and hence can arrange for money to be made available to purchase newly issued shares that increase their bank capital. In other words, banks could simply invent the money that is then used to increase their capital. This is what Barclays Bank did in 2008, in order to avoid the use of tax money to shore up the bank's capital: Barclays ‘raised’ £5.8 bn in new equity from Gulf sovereign wealth investors — by, it has transpired, lending them the money! As is explained in Werner (2014a), Barclays implemented a standard loan operation, thus inventing the £5.8 bn deposit ‘lent’ to the investor. This deposit was then used to ‘purchase’ the newly issued Barclays shares. Thus in this case the bank liability originating from the bank loan to the Gulf investor transmuted from (1) an accounts payable liability to (2) a customer deposit liability, to finally end up as (3) equity — another category on the liability side of the bank's balance sheet. Effectively, Barclays invented its own capital. This certainly was cheaper for the UK tax payer than using tax money. As publicly listed companies in general are not allowed to lend money to firms for the purpose of buying their stocks, it was not in conformity with the Companies Act 2006 (Section 678, Prohibition of assistance for acquisition of shares in public company). But regulators were willing to overlook this. As Werner (2014b) argues, using central bank or bank credit creation is in principle the most cost-effective way to clean up the banking system and ensure that bank credit growth recovers quickly. The Barclays case is however evidence that stricter capital requirements do not necessary prevent banks from expanding credit and money creation, since their creation of deposits generates more purchasing power with which increased bank capital can also be funded.
In other words, banks have been granted a loophole - not available to other businesses - to use a fiction that the banks' liabilities are really assets -which has given them a huge competitive advantage over everyone else.
No wonder banks now literally own the country ... including the entire political system.
But why don't mainstream economists understand how banks actually create money?
Economics professor Steve Keen explained last week in Forbes:
In any genuine science, empirical data like this would have forced the orthodoxy to rethink its position. But in economics, the profession has sailed on, blithely unaware of how their model of “banks as intermediaries between savers and investors” is seriously wrong, and now blinds them to the remedy for the crisis as it previously blinded them to the possibility of a crisis occurring.
A wit once defined an economist as someone who, when shown that something works in practice, replies “Ah! But does it work in theory?”
Mainstream economic models are fundamentally wrong. The theories taught in economics programs are riddled with errors. For example, they don't take into account such basic factors as private debt.
That's why the 2008 crash happened ... and that's why the economy is heading south now.
So things are going to get worse and worse until the actual manner in which money and credit are created is taken into account.
(24 votes)
»
- George Washington's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
If everybody declared themslves a Bank, then all their problems would be solved, and nobody would have to work. Working would be optional, like if you wanted a car, you have to go make it, of course you don't get paid, you just create your own money and pay yourself.
I have been saying that for a long time.
To a bank, the difference between an asset and a liability is what side of the ledger page it's on.
Can someone with finance knowledge clarify an issue for me?
Take a system where $20 is lent by private banks to society @ 5% interest.
After one year, society has a $1 interest liability and the private bankers earn $1 interest asset, therefore, after one year:
Society (excepting the private banking cartel) has $20 (principle) in assets and $21 in liabilities ($20 principle liability and $1 accrued interest).
The private banks have $1 asset earned as interest.
Assets and liabilities for the entire system balance at $21, but society is at a disadvantage because they have $20 to pay $21 and they will lose their real, tangible assets when they can't pay through no fault of of their own (other than being so gullible as to allow monetary fraud destroy them from within).
My question is simple... is the $1 interest asset on the bank balance sheet directly convertible to cash? In other words, can the bank simply spend it as cash even though the $20 debt hasn't been paid?
Or does $1 in actual money need to be paid to the private bank in order for the bank to monetize the asset?
Thanks in advance...
You need to be more precise with your terminology to understand the scenario you paint. Base money is either currency, which is either in circulation or bank vault Federal Reserve notes (in your terms both are "cash"), or Fed reserves (think banks' deposits at the Federal Reserve) which can be converted by banks to currency. Broad "money" also includes bank customers' deposits, which can be converted into currency right up until the point the bank runs out of vault cash and Fed reserves, and after that you're out of luck unless the Federal Reserve runs to the rescue with newly printed currency and bails out the bank.
To pay off your loan, you either walk into the bank with a wad of currency (and get flagged as a potential black market criminal), or more likely write or deposit a check written on another bank. In the second scenario the lending bank winds up with more Fed reserves after the interbank settlement process (which could be converted to currency if the bank so desired), while the bank on which the check was written winds up with fewer Fed reserves. No new base money is created under either way of paying the loan.
Prior to payment the loan and unpaid interest are neither cash nor money from the bank's perspective, but could be sold for cash or for "money", and in the latter case the selling bank once again winds up with more Fed reserves after the interbank settlement process takes place. But once again, no new base money is created in the process. Only the Fed can either create (by buying bonds with new Fed reserves) or destroy (by selling bonds from its portfolio for outstanding Fed reserves) base money (with the limited exception of your ability to burn your own currency if you so choose).
The allure of gold as money is the Fed has yet figured out how to create it, though it is uncertain if the Fed is creating paper proxies of it (various derivatives) to fool the masses into thinking gold supply is not constrained by mining's inabilty to find enough of it to grow outstanding global stock of it faster than global population growth.
My question is simple... is the $1 interest asset on the bank balance sheet directly convertible to cash? In other words, can the bank simply spend it as cash even though the $20 debt hasn't been paid?
Or does $1 in actual money need to be paid to the private bank in order for the bank to monetize the asset?
The $1 interest is considered a receivable on the bank balance sheet.
It is not cash.
Once the interest receivable has been paid by the debtor, then the bank has "cash".
If you've never seen it...watch it now!
MONEY MASTERS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4wU9ZnAKAw
MOAR?
http://arcticbeacon.com/books/Eustace_Mullins-SECRETS_of_the_Federal_Res...
it's commonly known as FRAUD!, the Bank never, I mean NEVER has any skin in the game, your promise to pay the "note" is deposited as CASH see tilte 12 USC 1813(L) that's little L(l), anyways that is why all mortgages are fraud, the bank deposits your promissory note as CASH, they use it to fund the "loan"(sic) pay the seller then tell you you owe them when in fact they loaned NOTHING, NO CONSIDERATION as noted earlier by another poster, to get to the bottom you need only look at FASB 95, FASB 140(that's the off balance sheet book) and then goto OMB 2046, 2049 and OMB 2099- also FinCEN 104, which all banks must file along with IRS 8300 which shows YOU as the depositor, problem, you forgot to ask the bank for your receipt at closing, a simple look at the title company closing abstract will show you that no money is owed EVER, but hey, folks need to learn this stuff and leanr about the UCC, that's Uniform Commercial Code, whcih all banks must follow and is International Law, on commerce, but I digress-
nice to finally see Tyler and co. post something about the TRUTH of it all, no one should ever be foreclosed upon but that is another long story...
Correct !!!. They are FRAUDCLOSURES.
In our modern monetary paradigm, banks are allowed to create money to foster economic growth, by making loans to non-bank entities with corresponding deposit creation. This is limited only by bank capital requirements, as reserve requirements are no longer a constraint due to massive quantities of central bank reserves (e.g. Fed funds) brought forth through QE everywhere. The banks are generally not allowed to create money (make loans with corresponding deposit creation) to create a fictitious picture of their own solvency, but the Barclays/Gulf sovereign wealth fund transactions skate very close to that Frankenstein possibility. The loan to the sovereign wealth funds should only have been made based on the sovereign wealth funds' solvency independent of any future "investment" back into Barclays. The loan thus would reduce the future cash flows of the sovereign funds' economic activities which will go to the sovereign nations, as a portion of future cash flow will go to Barclays to pay off the loan. If Barclays was factoring into its underwriting of that loan cash flows that would stem from dividends paid to the wealth funds from Barclays stock, we have truly jumped the shark where banks are allowed to lend to themselves (i.e. create new money for their own use), facilitating banks ability to literally acquire all useful assets on the entire globe. If that is in fact the plan of central bankers, a citizen revolution is in order before the banks do exactly that and impoverish the entire global population.
Just get rid of all banking. It doesn't have any use, it's just mischief and theft.
Nothing wrong with loaning money.
Providing that it's yours to loan and that you actually HAVE it.
Sensible comment of the day. Absolutely nailed it.
http://canadafreepress.com/article/78227 NGOs, with their lobbyists, activists, volunteers, and supporters, are the busy workers of the ant colony of global progressivism working for billionaires, for financiers, for government regulatory and bureaucratic organizations
One of the main factors in creating systemic risk is that the power to create money out of thin air has been privatized, like so many things.
If this power would only be in the hands of state owned central banks, it could be used as a effective tool to control economies.
People are starting to see how expensive it is to society to have privately owned banks, often owned by dodgy characters, counterfeiting large amounts of money and using those funds for all kinds of projects, often designed and executed by absolute idiots.
Something needs to be done to fix this issue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/02/iceland-has-a-rad...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11999966/Switzerland-to-vot...
Banks always created money through double entry bookkeeping. This doesn't have anything to do with "loopholes". Even in the days when bank notes were redeemable for fixed weight of gold (i.e. gold standard), this is exactly how banks created new money, by taking the promissory note of the borrower (which goes on the asset's side of the bank's balance sheet) and giving them bank notes (which goes on the liabilities side of the bank's balance sheet). In those days the banks' leverage was determined by the reserve ratio, the ratio of the gold with the bank to the gold that can be claimed by the outstanding bank notes in circulation, since all bank notes whether issued against gold deposit or against a promissory note to repay were the same. Once off the gold standard, the reserves (the bank's deposit account balances with the Central Bank + vault cash) don't have much significance, since they can be created at will by the Central Bank unlike gold. In a fiat currency system, the leverage is determined not by reserves, but by capital adequacy ratio, which is the ratio of the shareholder capital (a term applicable to all businesses with a balancesheet) to the outstanding liabilities (deposit account balances). All the profits of the bank whih have not been disbursed as dividends increase the shareholder capital and depreciation of assets (non performing assets in the case of bank i.e. loan defaults) decrease the shareholder capital, just like any other business. One instance where banks differ from other businesses is the capital adequcy ratio requirement which demands that banks maintain a certain CAR to allow for sudden increase in non-performing assets (loans going bad). But that is not where banks are different from non-financial institutions. The major difference is in the obligation of the Central Bank to provide reserves on loan to any solvent bank (a bank whose shareholder capital is positive), meaning deposit acount balances can be converted to legal tender (cash) or transferred to another financial institution whenever a depositor chooses to. In the absence of this promise by a Central Bank, no institution can convert its liabilities (deposit account balances) into the liabilities of another (transfer to another institution or conversion to legal tender).
So it is not a loophole that allows banks to create money. It is a privilege extended to banks and only banks because they had been doing it even before Central Banking, legal tender laws etc and found to be desperately needed for a society with a growing economy that needed an expanding money supply to support the growth. Of course, that doesn't mean it is necessary in a fiat currency world. It is not too difficult to move to a system of 100% reserves where the banks must borrow every unit of currency from the Central Bank that they lend out, making the Central Bank the only institution to create money. All deposits can be moved to the Central Bank and commercial banks become pure lending institutions where any money lent is credited to the borrower's account at the Central Bank. No deposit insurance is needed, since all the deposits sit with the Central Bank, which by definition cannot fail. The way the Central Bank provides reserves to banks can also change. If it periodically creates reserves, uses part of it to pay interest on the deposits, credits some part of it to the government's account and uses the rest to buy the bonds of banks, proceeds from which they can use to lend, the banks' ability to blow up bubbles is seriously curtailed by lending recklessly, since the total volume of money available for them to lend is limited by what they can raise by selling their bonds, essentially draining liquidity from other players in the economy. There would be no systemically important banks, because regardless of their size, their failure impacts only those who bought their bonds and future lending to the economy can be routed through those banks that have not failed.
Was there ever really a need for more money because an economy was accidentally growing?
Economic growth requires more money or money changing hands faster (increased velocity of money). Money velocity does change, but is not a significant contributor to economic growth in the short run. Almost all economic growth comes from increased money supply, if, of course, there are resources available for economic growth. Mere increase in money supply without there being any resources available for growth results only in inflation.
Industrial revolution made rapid economic growth possible, but the supply of gold was inelastic. Banks, through fractional reserve lending, made the money supply elastic while the underlying supply of the metal remained inelastic. Everywhere this was adopted, industries could emerge and start producing on a large scale. Industrialisation would have been impossible without fractional reserve banking. That is why even as bank failures became common, industrialising societies did not shun banks, only tried to regulate them to avoid bank failures, because they performed a function indispensable to an industrialising economy. Of course, they couldn't have seen it then as I do today, but they realised that banks made possible all the new changes happening around and they wished to keep those changes and hence the banks.
So, if printing money isn't fraudulent conversion of wealth, why can't everybody do it?
Wouldn't that really help the economy?
It would certainly improve mine.
A "reserve ratio" is FRAUD. Pure and simple. No different than kiting a check hoping that your deposit makes it in on time to cover it.
Time demand can provide elasticity without fraud.
Actually everybody is doing it, when they borrow from a bank.
Credit has always been money. In the days before banks became popular, credit was how almost all local sales were made on and the credit was periodically extinguished by the more popular forms of money like gold and silver when the creditors came into their possession. However, the usefulness of credit was limited to the faith that a creditor had in the ability of the debtor to repay and this faith was not transferrable i.e. one creditor's faith in the ability of a debtor to repay was not useful if the debtor needed credit from a different creditor. Banks essentially acted as the institutions whose credit was transferrable i.e. a bank's credit was as good as payment for everyone else. Of course, they established this faith by promising to redeem their credit for gold upon demand, a promise that was beyond their capability to keep if all credit notes came back to them at the same time for redemption. But the key take away is not how they made money supply elastic to meet the demand for it, but that it was the elastic money supply that made greater commerce and greater wealth generation possible. That is why all societies to chose to go off the gold standard and drop the promise that cannot be kept rather than do away with banking altogether.
Money, whether gold, silver, paper or electronic, is not wealth (except in cases where gold and silver are used in jewellery, household wares and other items), it is what is used for commerce and makes wealth creation/acquisition possible. Wealth is what enriches one's life when holding it, using it or consuming it, not when disposing it off. The problem with most gold bugs is that they cannot differentiate between money's role as enabling commerce and the role of money, now defunct, in preserving purchasing power long into the future. All societies have realised that the supply of money needed for enabling commerce must be elastic for them to take advantage of the industrial age. This means it cannot be tied to the supply of anything that is not elastic. Income that doesn't need to be used immediately (only a small percentage for most people) can be used to acquire items that are likely to hold their value over long time. There is no reason why the entire money supply should be constrained by the need of a small percentage of it.
Meh. If the economic growth hinges on funny money than it is bad economic growth.
Then all the economic growth seen since the beginning of the industrial revolution was bad, because it was all dependent on "funny" money.
At last someone has got it....well done George. Now revisit Bank Bail Ins and what emerges is that they are a completely unnecessary tool that is only useful if you want to steal the public wealth.
Revealed: The truth about Barclays and the Abu Dhabi investment
Amanda Staveley earned an astonishing £30 million fee for her role in helping to secure Abu Dhabi’s £3.5 billion investment in Barclays in 2008, a deal on which Sheikh Mansour made a profit of more than £3 billion. Euromoney reveals the extraordinary tale behind that trade, the battle for £110 million in fees paid by Barclays to Mansour, and just how close-run a deal which saved the bank from part-nationalization was – which is currently the subject of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.
Full article: http://www.euromoney.com/Article/3198637/Revealed-The-truth-about-Barclays-and-the-Abu-Dhabi-investment.html?p=1©rightInfo=true
Philosophical
QUESTIONS:
Do the vast majority of people deserve to have been reduced to acting like impotent, incompetent political idiots?
Corollary
question:
Do the children, and their children's children, deserve to suffer the consequences of their parents, and their parent's parents, having acted like incompetent political idiots?
I state those as "philosophical questions," because the answers will make no practical difference. The vast majority of people will never bother to understand the valid points made in the article above, such as:
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/silent_weapons_quiet_wars.htm
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars
"Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping. ... In this structure, credit, presented as a pure element called "currency," has the appearance of capital, but is in effect negative capital. Hence, it has the appearance of service, but is in fact, indebtedness or debt. ... if balanced in no other way, will be balanced by the negation of population (war, genocide)... They must eventually resort to war to balance the account, because war ultimately is merely the act of destroying the creditor ... War is therefore the balancing of the system by killing the true creditors (the public ...)"
Since the debt controls are backed by the death controls, while the established debt slavery systems have generated numbers that have become debt insanities, we are headed towards that provoking death insanities, as was outlined in this article: Financial Collapse Leads To War
Given that the most probable futures are going to be the eruptions of death insanities, the only theories that might be remotely relevant to that situation would be those which might be able to survive through those eruptions of death insanities, in ways which could eventually result in the development of better death control systems, that enabled better debt control systems, within the context of radically transformed combined murder/money systems.
While the article above was superficially correct, it tends to grossly understate the seriousness of the situation that has developed for the following reasons, as historian Carroll Quigley wrote in Tragedy and Hope:
"powers of financial capitalism
had another far-reaching goal,
nothing less than to create a
world system of financial
control in private hands
able to dominate the
political system of
each country and
the economy of
the world as
a whole ..."
The powers of the sovereign states, which were originally made and maintained by the surviving War Kings, have been captured by the international bankers, who have become the Fraud Kings. Although the international bankers were able to persistently apply the principles and methods of organized crime through the political processes in order to make and maintain the astonishing "loophole" that they can legally counterfeit the public "money" supplies, while public governments enforce those frauds by private banks, by and large, NOBODY is in control of the resulting runaway systems of globalized electronic monkey money frauds, backed by the threat of force from apes with atomic bombs.
Meanwhile, the article above appeared to raise the possibility of this bogus "solution:"
Such an alternative does not come remotely close to understanding the underlying situation that all private property was based on backing up claims with coercions, whose most abstract form was that money is measurement backed by murder. For many profound reasons, we are living inside of Wonderland Matrix Bizarro Worlds, where everything has become as absurdly backwards as possible, due to governments necessarily being the biggest forms of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals, BUT, which almost totally get away with publicly presenting themselves, and everything they do, in the most diametrically opposite ways possible, compared to what they are really doing.
What they are really doing matters. However, pretty well nobody understands that, nor wants to understand that! Civilization was always necessarily based on being able to back up lies with violence, which became more sophisticated and integrated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, within which social pyramid systems the private banks, that can make the public "money" supplies out of nothing as debts, which frauds are enforced by governments, are the pyramidion people, who collectively are a group of trillionaire mass murderers.
Mostly for my own amusement, I have collected links to several dozen Excellent Videos on Money Systems. At the end of that list is a link to my collection of comments upon Some Monetary System Articles. Anyone interested could scroll through that, glancing at the bold and coloured bold fonts, to see the ideas which I have highlighted regarding:
VICIOUS SPIRALS OF
POLITICAL FUNDING
ENFORCING FRAUDS.
However, I concede that there appears to be no practical point to that, since it surely seems to be politically impossible to change anything. Rather, the more one learns, the worse it gets, because the overwhelming preponderance of rational evidence and logical arguements indicate that civilization has already become terminally sick and insane, and therefore, one can only watch and wait, as that situation automatically deteriorates at an exponential rate ...
Of course, I AGREE
However, in my view, the article above was another of the typical kinds of superficially correct analysis of the problems with the political economy, which then suggest superficial "solutions." ... I recommend deeper analysis, and then more realistic resolutions of the real problems, which is consistent with that deeper analysis ... However, what is most probably going to happen instead is that the runaway systems of debt slavery, generating numbers which become debt insanities, are going to provoke death insanities ... Given that, any better theoretical understanding of the combined money/murder systems appears to be practically pointless. Fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems are not only driving irreconcilable social polarization, they are also driving irreparable destruction of the natural world.
That the EXISTING situation has become globalized electronic frauds, backed by the threat of force from atomic bombs, is trillions of times more criminally insane than anyone could fully imagine. Not only do the overwhelming vast majority of people not comprehend that, because they have been conditioned to not want to comprehend that, but also, even the few who do think more deeply about the central social facts, that public governments are enforcing frauds by private banks, almost always then recommend bogus "solutions" to those problems, based on the same bullshit that enabled those problems to become psychotic runaways in the first place.
I REPEAT the quote above:
While human beings and civilization live as entropic pumps of environmental energy flows, the almost total triumph of the established political economy systems being based upon public governments ENFORCING FRAUDS by private banks MEANS that almost everyone deliberately ignores and/or misunderstands natural energy in the most absurdly backward ways possible, due to the degree that social energy is controlled through VICIOUS SPIRALS OF POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS.
After devoting the past few decades to working on the issue of POLITICAL FUNDING, I have been forced to come to the conclusion that civilization has become too criminally insane to recover from its vicious spirals, (whereby sociopolitical institutions are dominated by the best available professional hypocrites), other than by going through series of psychotic breakdowns, after which it is not clear that such a technologically based civilization will survive its contradictions, due to it being based upon being able to back up lies with violence, being amplified to astronomical sizes, due to the original systems of paper frauds, backed by gunpowder weapons, becoming globalized electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs.
My current conclusion is that the astonishing "loophole," through which public governments enforce frauds by private banks, has created such totally fraudulent financial accounting systems that the final consequences will be that those will drive the human species to commit collective suicide, and go extinct. While I do NOT agree that they deserve that fate, at the present time, I find no good grounds to doubt that will be what eventually happens, since anything else would require series of scientific and technological miracles, which were surpassed by even greater political miracles.
RM, I read all of your comment. I don't mind being criticized for being superficial, and I am always open to learning ...
But I've never gotten your point that we need better "death controls". What are you talking about?
Thanks.
I have answered that question at least a dozen times in previously posted replies on Zero Hedge. Many of those answers I have copied into the forum thread that I linked above, Some Monetary System Articles, which I use like my personal diary, as I develop the articulation of my ideas regarding those topics.
First, some extremely abstract notions that the only things which actually exist are energy transformations, through which energy is conserved. From that point of view, there is no death, there is only the transformation of energy. Everything exists as a toroidal vortex of energy. Human beings are tubes of flesh, which are composed of infinite loops through the environment. I.e., like whirlpools or tornadoes. There is no water in the center of a whirlpool, and no wind in the eye of a tornado. Rather, there is the appearance of a toroidal vortex, which channels the flow of energy, which is perceived and defined by what it is not, as the imaginary axis which runs through it, to give apparent form to the flow.
FIRST POINT, there is no ultimate death. There are only an infinite range of possible perceptions of death, depending upon how one may relatively subtract any particular toroidal vortex from the ocean of energy in which it manifests, and which manifests through that form. The BASICS are that the death controls are central to human ecology, and the political economy is inside that human ecology. Human beings live through the alternation of generations, from egg and sperm, through fertilization, through growth to more eggs and sperm, all of which are the flow of toroidal vortices of energy systems. Civilization is much more rudimentary in its structure than the life cycle of advanced mammalian life forms. However, both human beings and civilizations live as entropic pumps of environmental energy flows. To the best of current human knowledge, and indeed, in the only way that world could be intelligible, there is conservation of energy. The only things which appear to be born, live and die are the toroidal vortices of energy flows, which may give rise to more of the same.
Whatever says "yes" to a potential is true birth control. Whatever says "no" to a potential is real death control.
Paradoxically, inside of a social reality dominated by the biggest bullies’ bullshit world view, everything gets inverted and perverted, on level after level, as one travels through infinite tunnels of deceits. Metaphorically, one may ask: “How far down the rabbit hole does Alice go?” OR “How far up the tornado does Dorothy go?”
ATTEMPTING TO UNDERSTAND HUMAN BEINGS AND CIVILIZATION AS GENERAL ENERGY SYSTEMS, MANIFESTING THROUGH TOROIDAL VORTICES, REQUIRES USING MORE UNITARY MECHANISMS, RATHER THAN RELYING UPON VARIOUS DUALITIES.
HOWEVER, MOST HUMAN LANGUAGE TAKES THOSE DUALITIES FOR GRANTED. One of the ways that language tends to be misleading is that most of what we call "birth controls" are actually forms of death controls. Hence, "family planning" tends to be euphemistically discussed in ways which do not admit and address that its "birth controls" are actually saying "no" to a potential, and thus, really death controls. Those who insist that abortion is murder may be somewhat aware of that. However, they usually are not being systematic enough to then offer what alternative death controls there should be instead. Indeed, preventing conception, i.e., the death of eggs and sperm, is also a form of death control. Overall, family planning should be placed inside the context of militarism, or the ideology of the murder systems, because everything actually is ...
The examples of real death controls are everywhere one looks. The issue is whether or not one perceives those there ... That issue is extremely problematic because all the established systems (and their controlled opposition groups) owe their relative social successes to being able to be deceitful about the real death control systems. I approach the issue of the death controls in the human cultures of artificial selection as being developed from the death controls which were always present in natural selection. At every phase of life, there are conditions which can cause relative deaths, and therefore, those conditions could be influenced in ways which change the relative death controls. However, almost all of the ways that our civilization does that is by operating through the language of the biggest bullies' bullshit, which has a deep vested interest in making sure that most people do not understand that, and moreover, feel like they do not want to understand that.
In general, as paradoxical as it may initially seem, of the two most important topics that cause social controversies (namely sex and money), money is now actually a more taboo topic than sex. The same as how, from a biological point of view, sex and death come as a package deal, so too, money and murder come as a package deal. Our society has developed a criminally insane attitude towards the ways that money is measurement backed by murder, because those who most benefit from that being the case have the most interest and means to try to make sure that the vast majority of people do not understand that, and do not want to understand that, which is why I assert that militarism is the supreme ideology, while economics is actually a subset of militarism. Obviously, the access to resources is dominated by the economic systems, and therefore, the old saying that people are controlled by food, and food is controlled by money, applies throughout, as some of the most basic ways that death controls actually operate. Mainstream economics tends to generally ignore environmental ecology, because it desperately wants to deliberately ignore human ecology.
The problem of having a genuinely more scientific society raises the issues about whether enough human beings could face the facts about death controls enough to deal with those better. Perceiving that political economy is INSIDE human ecology appears to be scientifically possible. However, all of the established systems, and their controlled opposition, are obstacles in the way of being able to do that, which is why I focus upon attempting to understand the history of warfare better, in order to promote paradigm shifts in militarism, that then would apply to the monetary system.
Militarism was always the best developed social science, with the most significant applications of social engineering. However, the degree to which success in warfare depended upon deceits and treacheries has made more scientific progress in the understanding of the death control purposes extremely problematic! Although, basically, that is as simple as that human beings kill to live, by eating other animals and plants.
One of the first sociological studies was by Durkheim, regarding how the rates of suicides in a large enough group of people followed regular patterns. That is, the rates of suicide could be studied as scientific facts. When all the conditions in a large enough group of people are included in the study, then the death controls manifested through suicides produce patterns, which theoretically could enable influencing those conditions in ways which would change those patterns regarding suicides. Similarly, with every other possible set of social facts, such as fatalities in the work places, and so on and so forth. Every decision that is ever made that changes the conditions under which people live changes the death controls. However, our society operates with a language of false fundamental dichotomies, such as by promoting the illusions that there is some magical thresholds of "safety," when there really are no such thresholds. A more scientific study of death controls is quite possible, from a theoretical point of view. However, that is in a head-on collision with the established systems of death controls which operate through the maximum possible deceits, (and that includes the controlled opposition groups, who stay within the same frame of reference.)
A vital point that I would repeat is that what we call "birth controls" are actually forms of death controls, which illustrates the ways that it is extremely difficult, within the ways that most people use language, to discuss what better death controls would be. Some of the most effective and efficient death controls are what we call "birth controls." However, obviously, that is not generally understood, and when it partially is, then the meaning of that tends to continue to be inverted. For instance, I agree that abortion is "murder." However, I assert that murder is necessary, which is the context in which I look at abortion, as well as all other forms of "birth controls." The wide-spread absurdly backward ways that most people think about "birth controls" has resulted in a lot of absurdly backward final consequences for civilization so far!
I REPEAT the abstract definitions: true birth controls are to say "yes" to something, and back that up, while real death controls are to say "no" to something and back that up. Unfortunately, a more scientific understanding of those things would require people to change the ways that they use language, to stop presuming so much upon the false fundamental dichotomies that they take for granted, while instead thinking using UNITARY MECHANISMS. I.e., life does not begin at birth, but rather alternates generations, which it has been continuing to do through evolution for hundreds of millions of years of the life of sexually reproducing animals. Therefore, from a biological point of view, life and death come as a package deal, while what our culture calls "birth controls" are actually death controls done before birth (which enables typical kinds of hypocrisies and deliberate ignorance to surround those kinds of death controls.)
There are extremely profound problems which developed as natural selection was internalized as human intelligence. After life exists, then the evolutionary ecologies which develop depend upon the death controls. That applied to how human beings and civilizations developed their forms of artificial selection, which emerged out of the history of natural selection pressures acting through human beings. As I said, the history of successful warfare based on deceits then morphed to become successful finance based on frauds. The most important form of labour was the labour that soldiers and spies did to kill each other. POSSIBLE POLITICAL PROBLEMS BECOME MOST INTENSE WHEN SOME HUMAN BEINGS KILL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.
The ultimate problems are the death control systems, while the de facto solutions to those problems have been as deceitful as possible. The greatest of realistic political miracles would be human beings negotiating better death controls. Theoretically, those are made increasingly imperative by the convergence of the limits to exponential growth, along with the already achieved exponential growth of the development of weapons of mass destruction. BY DEFINITION, what stops exponential growth ARE the death control systems. By definition, the limits to growth must necessarily mean changes in the death control systems.
To return to the topic of the combined money/murder systems, what makes the fiat money made out of nothing as debts by private banks have value is that governments demand payment of taxes using that form of "money" being deemed to be legal tender. Therefore, it is the power of governments to collect taxes which makes that "money" valuable. However, the power of governments to collect taxes is fundamentally based upon the ways that those governments have the forces of the police and military to be ultimately able to kill anyone who resists being taxed.
Hence, the value of the "money" made out of nothing as debts by private banks, through those legal "loopholes" that allow them to "lend" that "money" to someone who agrees to "borrow" that "money," although that "money" did not exist before the borrower agreed to take out that loan. Even in ancient times, such as ancient Greece, the value of gold and silver money was backed by the death penalty for those who debased that money. Similarly, at the beginning of the American monetary system backed by gold and silver, that was also ultimately backed by the death penalty for those who dared to debase that form of money.
When one looks at all the social facts, the most consistent and complete definition of money is measurement backed by murder. Furthermore, I REPEAT, that fits within the view that all private property is based on backing up claims with coercions, and that no private property exists outside of some system of public violence. In turn, I REPEAT, that tracks back to perceiving and defining human beings as separate from their environment and each other. To the degree that subtraction is relatively correct, then those groups of human beings necessarily live as robbers in their environment.
The only things that actually exist are the dynamic equilibria between different systems of organized lies operating robberies, as various toroidal vortices, whose transformations take form as entropic pumps of environmental energy flows. All of those are metaphorically like whirlpools in the ocean of energy. That energy, to the best of current human understanding, is not created out of nothing, nor disappears to nothing, but only transforms, and transforms again ... Furthermore, without some such principle of conservation, then the world would be utterly unintelligible, and present no patterns whatsoever.
Presumably, what we are endeavouring to do is built better mental models of our world, with better mental models of ourselves within our models of our world, so that, in turn, those better understandings could enable better behavior. However, doing that runs into extreme difficulties due to the history of successful warfare based on deceits and treacheries, morphing to become successful finance based upon public governments enforcing frauds by private banks.
Social pyramid systems based upon being able to back up lies with violence have developed the biggest bullies' bullshit world views, which have become the banksters' bullshit regarding the political economy. The ruling classes have engaged in war against the consciousness of those they ruled over. That has been remarkably successful, as the manifestation of an oxymoronic scientific dictatorship, which has primarily applied all of the various advances in areas from psychology to physics, in order to get better at backing up lies with violence.
Therefore, the overwhelming vast majority of people do NOT understand how the monetary and taxation systems work, and moreover, have been conditioned to feel like they do not want to understand. That manifested through the history of POLITICAL FUNDING, whose patterns of social facts have been roughly that less than 1% of the population has pretty well paid for all the political activities, while 99% of the people have pretty well paid for none of the political activities directly (although, indirectly, they paid for the vast majority of the final effects of those political systems.)
In general, I find George Washington's articles to be well-researched and documented. I enjoyed reading the article above, as well as looking through to the embedded links. However, those articles are quite typical of almost all of the content published on Zero Hedge, which generally tends to be superficially correct, but, still profoundly wrong, due to the degree to which there continues to be too much taking for granted of the various dualities, manifesting as false fundamental dichotomies and the related impossible ideals.
What I am attempting to do is make political science more consistent with physics and biology, both of which attempt to understand everything as manifestations of general energy systems, and whose progress has primarily been based on series of profound paradigm shifts that tended to replace previously presumed upon dualities with deeper understandings based on unitary mechanisms.
Of course, when one does that enough, then that returns to my FIRST POINT above, that post-modernizing physics is re-converging with ancient mysticism. In general, it should be obvious that human beings and civilization are operating through thermodynamics and information theory, along those continua of power and information, through various cybernetic systems, whose feedback structures enable purposeful behaviors. However, not only are mistaken presumptions regarding relative dualities being treated as fundamental dichotomies common throughout all of the dominate natural languages, but also, the biggest bullies' bullshit world views have forced the history of the philosophy of science to again and again compromise with that bullshit.
Money as measurement backed by murder is a manifestation of information theory and thermodynamics. Therefore, it is of extreme philosophical importance that the entropy equations in those theories had arbitrary minus signs inserted, which has inverted the ways that almost everyone thinks about the meaning of the concept of entropy. In turn, that is extremely important due to the existence of globalized electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs, because those depend upon the mathematical physics found in quantum mechanics and the special theory of relativity. Furthermore, that is also extremely important from the philosophical view that Energy IS Spirit, while Entropy is the scientific approach to Evil.
In particular, the most essential problem is how to operate the human murder systems after the development of weapons of mass destruction. In my view, the only possible answers to those questions would have to be approached by thinking about those political problems in ways whereby profound paradigm shifts integrated and surpassed those already achieved in physical science. In particular, the special theory of relativity, which made atomic bombs possible, was based on demonstrating that the ways we had been thinking about time and space was totally backwards. Since electromagnetic light was a form of energy, time and space changed in order that energy would be conserved. Colours existed, while light was all colours combined, while pure black was nothing. Thus, understanding electromagnetic energy through mathematical physics enabled better unitary mechanisms, which incorporated and transcended the previous dualities.
It should have also been noted that since entropy was the distribution of energy in time and space, the conceptualization of entropy ought to be inverted, or rather, we ought to have recognized that the ways that we were accustomed to thinking about entropy had already been inverted, when arbitrary minus signs were inserted into the entropy equations of information theory, following after the pattern that has been first adopted in thermodynamics.
The degree to which governments are the biggest forms of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals, as manifesting through the vicious spirals of political funding enforcing frauds, has been built deeply into the structure of the dominate natural languages and philosophy of science. Similarly, attempting to discuss "death controls" is extremely difficult, due to the language that people use being about as absurdly backwards as it could be. For instance, I repeat, people use the false fundamental dichotomy between "birth control" versus "death control" in ways which make no biological sense, but rather, those social conventions tend to deliberately ignore biology as much as possible.
All across the board, prodigious progress in physical science has had nothing comparable happen in political science. Indeed, just as sex and death come as a package deal from the point of view of biological evolution, so too, from a sociological point of view, money and murder come together as a package deal. Furthermore, at the present time, more radical truths about money and murder are even more socially taboo topics than more radical truths about sex and death.
As I pointed out in the famous quote above taken from Quigley, the monetary and taxation systems, whereby public governments enforce frauds by private banks, were originally made and maintained by the international bankers persistently applying the principles of organized crime through the political processes, by their paying for every possible kind of political activity, both legal and illegal, from bribery and intimidation, through to the occasional assassination of those who could not be bribed or intimidated. The legal "loophole" that exists now, as described in the article above, has deep, DEEP ROOTS!
Certainly, metaphorically speaking, it goes back to the days of Babylon. However, what I am asserting is that it goes back and BACK to the natural selection pressures which were internalized as human intelligence, which was then applied to the most important selection pressures, which were other groups of human beings, giving rise to the history of successful warfare based on backed up deceits with destruction, that gradually morphed to become the currently entrenched systems whereby public governments enforce frauds by private banks.
The effects of social success based upon enforcing frauds has resulted in civilization becoming more and more Wonderland Matrix Bizarro Worlds, where everything is dominated by professional hypocrites, in ways which become more and more absurdly backwards. The excessively successfulness of controlling civilization through the methods of organized crime has driven civilization towards manifesting runaway criminal insanities, i.e., globalized electronic frauds, backed by the threat of force from atomic bombs!
In my view, the problem with superficially correct analyses is that those then tend towards promotion of superficially correct "solutions," which actually are still based on the same old-fashioned bullshit that made those problems in the first place. In general, the prodigious progress, made through series of profound paradigm shifts in physical science, including biology, etc., have not been allowed to develop in political science.
After all, anyone who actually thinks about the astonishing "loophole" that private banks are allowed to make the public "money" supply out of nothing as debts, while that fraud is enforced by governments, is going to be driven from recognizing that on through to deeper understanding of many of the other points which I have raised above. However, the ruling classes certainly do not want that to happen, and most of those who are ruled over have already been successfully conditioned to be so ignorant and afraid that they also feel afraid to stop being so ignorant.
To sum up, in most ways, death controls are simply common sense. However, deeper understanding of those death controls requires deeper understanding of basic physics and biology, etc., in ways which can then be more consistently applied to understanding human beings and civilization. Although that is theoretically quite possible, at the present time, it continues to be politically impossible, because the entire political economy is based upon governments enforcing frauds by private banks, and that system depends upon the vast majority of people not only NOT understanding that, but also, feeling like they do NOT want to understand that.
Within that context, I commend articles like the one above, which attempt to communicate the existence of that astonishing "loophole."
HOWEVER, AS SEVERAL PREVIOUS COMMENTS ALREADY POINTED OUT, THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, SO FAR, ARE NOT INTERESTED, DESPITE DEBT SLAVERY "LOOPHOLE" SYSTEMS MEANING THAT THEY ARE BEING ROBBED BLIND, WHILE THAT IS AUTOMATICALLY ACCELERATING TO ROB YOUNG PEOPLE AND FUTURE GENERATIONS EVEN WORSE!
THOSE DEBT SLAVERY SYSTEMS ARE BACKED BY WARS BASED ON DECEITS, WHICH ARE ALSO AUTOMATICALLY ACCELERATING, TO BECOME WORSE IN THE FUTURE ...
Meanwhile, one might wish that progress in physical sciences would have some better effects than only magnifying by many orders of magnitude the already existing scientific dictatorship, which is deliberately as unscientific about itself as it can possibly be. The wealth and power of the ruling classes is based upon their ability to continue to drive the vicious spirals of political funding to enforce frauds. Those "loopholes" are definitely NOT something that they want other people to better understand. Therefore, the schools and mass media do everything possible to promote fake education, within a fake democracy, in order that "We the People" will not be able to recapture control over the public monetary and taxation systems.
Therefore, AGAIN I AGREE:
However, my previous comments were about the deeper levels of the theory regarding "money." The social facts are that when public governments enforce frauds by private banks, then that "money" is measurement backed by murder, since those debt controls are backed by those death controls.
Better death controls should mean greater use of information, enabling higher consciousness. In turn, that should mean that enough people have a better understanding of the previous systems of paper frauds, backed by gunpowder weapons, having become globalized electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs, and that in turn should be based upon better understanding of quantum mechanics and the special theory of relativity. Similarly, better understanding of the ways that political economy exists inside human ecology ought to be based upon better understanding of the general energy systems of environmental ecologies.
HOWEVER, AT THE PRESENT TIME, ALL OF THAT IS POLITICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, BECAUSE THE RULING CLASSES' POWER AND WEALTH IS BASED UPON THEM CONTINUING TO ENJOY THEIR "LOOPHOLE" OF MAKING THE PUBLIC "MONEY" SUPPLY OUT OF NOTHING AS DEBTS FOR EVERYONE ELSE!
Since those ruling classes have more and more enjoyed going through that "loophole" for generation after generation, while those they ruled over were more and more brainwashed to believe in the bullshit of those banksters and their buddies, the big corporations that grew up around those banksters being able to issue the public "money" supplies, the people who have been thus ruled over for generation after generation are almost totally NOT INTERESTED in understanding that "loophole." Indeed, they are generally even less interested in understanding that in any deeper and DEEPER ways.
That is mainly why the most probable predictions are that there are NOT going to be any better death control systems. Rather, what is much more likely to happen is that the debt slavery "loophole," driving runaway debt insanities, will provoke death insanities. Indeed, such death insanities are far more probably going to be the actual death control systems in the foreseeable future.
However, I do NOT want to present that as being just another articulation of the typical false fundamental dichotomies, and another call for bogus "solutions" based upon somehow realizing impossible ideals. Rather, what I am asserting and promoting are attempts to better understand how the real death control systems work, so that, perhaps, the eruptions of death insanities might develop into better death control systems.
For about 50 years I have been working upon the theory of artificial selection operating within natural selection. I do NOT regard those as being a duality, but rather, as operating through unitary mechanisms. Natural selection pressures drove the development of artificial selection systems to become based upon the maximum possible deceits and frauds. That is intensely paradoxical, because as soon as we perceive human beings as relatively separated from their environment and each other, then they must necessarily live as gangs of robbers. Therefore, governments becoming the biggest forms of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals, was consistent with the basic laws of nature. However, of course, that the only connection between human laws and natural laws is the ability to back up lies with violence is NOT something that the ruling classes want those they rule over to understand!
"A Loophole Allowing Banks to Create Money Out of Thin Air" is based upon integrated and sophisticated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which operate as enforced frauds driven by the vicious spirals of political funding. HOWEVER, those in turn are based upon thousands of years of human history, and that, in turn, is based upon millions of years of the evolution of the human species.By definition, after there is life, then the death control systems necessarily direct the evolution of that life, and direct that towards developing evolutionary ecologies within their environment. Of course, human beings and civilization have done that. HOWEVER, that has been driven by natural selection pressures to become the currently existing social pyramid systems, where the pyramidion people, as the ruling classes, specialize in being dishonest and violent, while those they rule over adapt to become ignorant and afraid, and do so in ways whereby they get stuck deeper and deeper into those ruts, so that they eventually feel too afraid to stop being so ignorant.
Therefore, the current situation that there is almost nothing but a core of organized crime (bankster controlled government) surrounded by layers of controlled opposition groups (who stay inside the same bullshit frame of reference.) Theoretically, citizens should understand that their country is necessarily an organized crime gang, operating through larger and larger scales as military organizations. Ideally, citizens should exert more control over the combined money/murder systems. Ideally, the death control systems ought to be operated by using more information, enabling higher consciousness. However, in reality, we are rushing faster and faster towards the debt slavery systems generating debt insanities, which will provoke death insanities. Of course, by definition, even such death insanities would still be death control systems.
When I discuss that there should be "better death control systems" what I mean is that there must be some death control systems, due to the chronic political problems inherent in the nature of life. Ideally, people should understand themselves better, in order to operate better death control systems. That would require better biological and sociological understanding, etc. ... However, at the present time, what actually exists are deeply entrenched systems based upon being able to continue to back up lies with violence, whereby the ruling classes have already succeeded in turning the vast majority of those they rule over into acting like incompetent political idiots, behaving like Zombie Sheeple.
If one more thoroughly understands the degree to which we are living inside of Wonderland Matrix Bizarro Worlds, where everything is publicly presented in the most absurdly backward ways by the best available professional hypocrites that dominate all of the established sociopolitical systems, which includes BOTH the ruling classes, AND the controlled opposition groups that they rule over, then it will become clearer that almost all of the bogus "solutions" proposed by BOTH the ruling classes, AND the controlled opposition groups that they rule over, are absurdly backwards.
Developing any better death control systems is stuck inside of that problematic situation. Almost all of the publicly significant debates are between different groups of professional hypocrites. Almost everything they say is based upon false fundamental dichotomies and the related impossible ideals. Therefore, the actual death control systems, as operated by the ruling classes, tend to be based upon the maximum possible deceits, while the bogus "solutions" promoted by the controlled opposition groups, which are ruled over, tend to be based upon promoting the same sorts of impossible ideals, such as that there ought not be any death control systems, or at least none that human beings are conscious of operating.
Of course, all of that repeats the same fractal patterns through the debt control systems, whereby private banks are going through the "loophole" that allows them to legally create the public "money" supply, that everyone else must use, out of nothing as debts. The rulings classes (bankster controlled governments) are professional hypocrites, that publicly present everything they are doing in the most absurdly backward ways to what they are actually doing, while the controlled opposition groups that they rule over are also professional hypocrites, that stay within the same sets of fundamentally fraudulent attitudes, so that that such controlled opposition groups promote nothing but more bullshit-based, bogus "solutions."
Since the actually existing monetary and taxation systems are debt controls backed by death controls, the only realistic resolutions to those real problems must be changes in how debt controls are backed by death controls. Indeed, that is already the case, although it currently manifests mainly as "the malignant, symbiotic relationship between big corporations and big government," as was explained in these two articles:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/how-corrupt-american-government
How Corrupt Is the American Government?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-08/empires-us-fall-when-corruption-becomes-rampant
Empires (Like the U.S.) Fall When Corruption Becomes Rampant
I refuse to be stereotyped as just another "toroidal vortice of energy flow".
Given the time-space continuum, there is the point, the plane, the spiral and the toroidal vortex, as one, two, three dimensions, with the fourth as time.
Although there may be more dimensions (and possible alternative co-ordinate systems or frames of reference) given the obvious first three dimensions plus time, then that time space continuum demands that every energy system necessarily operates as a toroidal vortex. Of course, those toroidal vortices can be nested inside of others, such as the individual human being is a toroidal vortex living inside of a civilization which is a much greater toroidal vortex. Furthermore even the planet Earth, as well as the solar system, and onward to the galaxy are again bigger and bigger toroidal vortices. Similarly, the cells inside the body of the individual, and so forth, on down, are more levels of toroidal vortices nested inside the human individual.
I regard that as living stereotypes.
P.S.
The first half hour section of this two hour long video has an interesting presentation of the universal significance of the toroidal vortex structure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s
Thrive
http://thrivemovement.com/
People tend to have trouble seeing equilibria and other poetry in motion. Change in a state over time is a difficult concept for people who have been trained to see things moment by moment, each drop of time its own self-contained world.
The idea of death controls versus birth controls as energy states (or the void in the middle) tied to human volition is an interesting one. And the reversal of thought brought on by subterfuge and the limited language that results from it is probably one of the most important points of the time that has gone unexamined since Orwell.
In barter town the death controls would be rather straight forward. Produce or starve to death. Its realy not all that complicated and need not be either.
The need for death controls is a result of the system being set up as a slaveery system. A system built from the ground up on lies,treachery and deciets. A system built around free choice would not need these death controls. But instead would have this thing that does not really exsist now. That thing is something called a justice system. This death control system exsists inplace of a true justice system.
There is more than one way to skin that cat. But make no mistake the death controls RM speaks of should be replaced by a justice system.
We been forced every step of the way. At some point we must find a way to go with the free choice system based on true justice.
The stall. Barter Town. Then a truely free society based not on faith and force but on love and truths.
The issue is consent. Justice systems and other uses of force against people are a complete non-starter because they forego consent of the individual.
Consent was not given for this sytem to be put in place. Even if it was no person had the right to speak for people not even born yet. It was forced on us.
Besides the free shit army aint going to be happy when they have to work like a big boy for their own food.
But alas why should they have any say in any of my or your buis?
Death controls y'all
WE WERE ALWAYS TAUGHT that we lived in "the best of all possible worlds." The Watchmaker ruled from Crown City through the Regulators; the alchemist-priests gave us coldfire for power and light, and everything was well ordered. We accepted our various individual fates as inevitable, for we had also been taught, "Whatever happens to us must be what we deserve, for it could not happen to us if we did not deserve it." None of it seemed right to me...
RUSH / Clockwork Angels / BU2B - 12JUN2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfuHPBUEbpo
Banks cannot create money by themselves. We create money as banking customers when we sign a loan agreement saying we will pay back the money plus interest for bank money created out of thin air. The bank brings nothing to the agreement in equal consideration therefore with an unsecured loan you do not have to worry about paying the bank back. There is a lot of other stuff here to do with commercial acts and statutes or maritime-admiralty law and consent and common law or law of the land and copyrighting your name as a human so as not to be confused with the registered (consent) corporate created at your birth with the filing a birth certificate et cetera.
Banks cannot create money by themselves. We create money as banking cistomers when we sign a loan agreement saying we will pay back the money plus interest for bank money created out of thin air. The bank brings nothing to the agreement in equal consideration therefore with an unsecured loan you do not have to worry about paying the bank back. There is a lot of other stuff here to do with commercial acts and statutes or maritime-admiralty law and consent and common law or law of the land and copyrighting your name as a human so as not to be confused with the registered (consent) corporate created at your birth with the filing a birth certificate et cetera.
They do. They give you deposit account balances which allowed you to purchase what you did.
Sure, but you can do that only once. After that, banks will not lend you anymore of the money "created out of thin air".
Are everyone's posts delayed when posting or just mine? They show as posted when I am signed in, but when I sign out, they are not show for a while ... curious (or maybe not).
Accounting is a protection racket. Accountants sell legitimacy certifications. A successful accountant needs to hired for next year's audit, aka as a moral hazard. Trust in government, bankers, accountants, economists or their rules/laws is a fool's folly.
If this were the case, the deposits would grow in sync with loans outstanding, which they don't.
Prove it ...
Actually, bank credit creation is not shrouded in mystery as this article seems to imply. It is absolutely totally straight forward. The whole thing is a consequence of the 10% fractional reserve requirement. When somebody makes a deposit, the bank has to 'reserve' 10% of it, but they can immediately loan out the other 90%. The trick is that the loan is funded as a new deposit. Because that deposit is exactly like any other deposit, they can loan 90% of that too. Keep going (geometric series) and the original deposit gives rises to 9 times as much in new debt. One of the most elegant yet truly perverse things you'll ever encounter.
Bankers quickly realize that they don't have to go through the elborate series of loans and deposits, they can keep your deposit as the reserve and loan out 9 times as much immediately. Since they only have report their reserves quarterly, they actually go ahead and make the loan and worry about the reserves later (this is also from Steve Keen). If they come up a little short, they just borrow what they need.
Effectively banks are allowed to create money out thin air, and everyone invovled knows it. Heck, that's why you become a banker in the first place. Who needs a money tree? Picking all those bills is too much work!
That is what the economics texbooks teach and that is what the banks want you to believe. But this is what the Bank of England admitted under duress:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/...
The BoE says that bankers can extend the loan first and cover it up with deposits later, and it deosn't matter. Or may be they can forget to cover up. Electronic crediting of loan helps a lot. Banks need not have to even print IOUs!
Actually, that whole "money multiplier" theory as you've conveyed, is a proven crock of shit, a fiction, a lie.
Banks are neither deposit or reserve constrained in their fraudulant "loan" creation. All "loans", as with all "deposits", are book keeping entries, there is no money as defined by law involved.
Neither the Fed or the banks have the legal authority to create money, and they don't, they create credit denominated in money.
There is no law anywhere that designates the credit they do create as being a money, a currency or even a medium of exchange.
It's not money, it's debt, even when it is in your credited bank account.
http://carl-random-thoughts.blogspot.com/
Related.
Charades
When BEN FRANKLIN invented the lightning rod and gave it to the public instead of keeping it a privately-owned invention, the grateful British decided to honor him with a Doctorate. He sailed to England and gave a speech to the Lords and Ladies. Someone asked him how the colonies were doing, since there was at the time a Depression going on in Britain, and high unemployment. He answered that in the colonies there was full employment and no Depression. The audience was aghast, and someone asked how colonists paid for such full employment. He answered that colonists created their own IOUs, which were passed around from hand to hand until someone presented them for payment. Since everyone paid, everyone was able to issue IOUs. The audience was even more aghast, as this clearly meant that the colonists were creating their own money out of thin air. Immediately, Parliament responded by passing the first taxes on the colonists. So the American Revolution was a colonial war fought by Britain on the behalf of the Bank of England, with the purpose of keeping the Bank's monopoly on making money out of thin air.
When the colonists won the war, the Bank immediately struck back by getting ALEXANDER HAMILTON to push through the First Bank of the USA, which reestablished the Bank of England's monopoly, through its surrogate banks in the new USA, which banks are still with us and still own the Fed.
THOMAS JEFFERSON figured all this out, and schooled JAMES MADISON, who let the First Bank's charter expire, whereupon Britain promptly attacked the USA again, in the War of 1812.
George excellent article.
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Like Microsoft Windows 8. Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with the product.