Banksters have been conspiring with governments, and now we learn that we can just say NO, we are not going to take it anymore!

Date:   10/25/2012 4:25:42 PM ( 12 y ago)

* See the Video and Article below.
                    
    Freedom From Financial Tyranny -  IMF comes onside with the 99%

     Did'ja ever have one of those lives where everything you thought you knew turned out to be false?  Well, here it is, you and I have been living it.

    For starters, where is the money? Six decades of mass production since WWII ended, and the world is in DEBT, without any signs of PROSPERITY?? The roads are crumbling, the bridges are rusting!! Personal and government debt is growing and HINT - if it is constantly growing that means the debt is beyond our ability to pay it back.

    Keeping in mind that our economic system is supposed to be creating WEALTH for everyone who works and lives modestly, but instead it has created DEBT The facts are reported openly - in every nation on earth, the combined household debt is greater than the GDP ["Gross Domestic Product"], and on top of that our governments have amassed huge  debts through annual budget deficits [as if the taxes we pay are not enough to cover the tiny little benefits returned to the people through government*[1]].

   After several decades of working and producing and working and producing, there is an overall DEBT.This is not wealth, we are not prosperous, this is debt, this is financial tyranny!!

  Who do we owe it to? The banks...the Banksters, the gangsters of banking.

   Now don't throw up your hands and give up, we can beat this conspiracy of banking and government because we have an advantage that we could call "NATURAL DEMOCRACY" - an idea the Occupy Wall Street movement touched on - where WE are the 99% and the banksters and their henchmen are just 1%. We have on our side a huge majority. WE can say NO.

And NOW is the time for us to stand up and say NO -
   "No, we do not want to pay for the  failed dealings of the big bankers and their conspiring with our government and the government regulators that were supposed to regulate the bankers."   

  Iceland did just that - they decided to say NO... See the article over the page... but first Icelanders had to boot out their old-line government, hold an election where only average people were candidates, and then their new government decided that instead of bailing out the bankers and putting every citizen into debt that they would arrest the bankers... except that the bankers had fled by then. The Banksters knew that their only hope was that the government would back them up, but with a new "government of the people" in power, the Banksters fled Iceland.

-----------------Video

Featuring Max Keiser  [oh that Max... I suggest  we call him "Our Loud and Saviour"] LINK -
http://beforeitsnews.com/banksters/2012/10/max-keiser-how-to-defeat-the-banking-mafia-2432078.html
 

-------------------------------------------Article - Iceland leads the way:

LINK -
 http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/iceland-busts-the-banksters

This Crisis May Be Our Best Chance: Why prop up the Wall Street system when we can build a new economy that puts money and business in the service of people and the planet—rather than the other way around?

by John Nichols, Mar 10, 2010

                                           Iceland Busts the Banksters

  Democracy trumps capital as Icelanders say "no" to big bank bailouts.

What if Americans had been asked whether they wanted to bail out big bankers and Wall Street speculators?

How many would have voted "no"?

A measure of patriotism feeds the hope that they would have made their opposition known as resoundingly as have the voters of Iceland, who on Saturday rejected demands by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands—working hand-in-hand with the rapacious International Monetary Fund—that the people of the tiny island nation cover losses triggered by the failure of a private bank.

A "yes" vote on Saturday's referendum would have saddled each citizen of Iceland with $16,400 of debt, with the money to be paid to compensate the British and Dutch governments for expenditures to cover depositor losses stemming from the failure of the Icelandic bank Icesave.

The overall debt of $5.3 billion, or 45 percent of Iceland's economic output for last year, would have impoverished the country.

As Icelandic President Olafur R. Grimsson explained this week: "Ordinary people, farmers and fishermen, taxpayers, doctors, nurses, teachers, (were) being asked to shoulder through their taxes a burden that was created by irresponsible greedy bankers."

Fortunately, Iceland is a democracy. So those farmers and fishermen, taxpayers, doctors, nurses, teachers got to decide whether they were inclined to pay for a bank bailout.

They shouted "no" as loudly as that word could be uttered.

An early analysis suggests that roughly 98 percent of the Icelanders who cast valid ballots rejected the "deal."

Only two percent supported it, while five percent of ballots were invalidated.

London's Telegraph newspaper put the vote in the proper perspective when it declared: "On Saturday Icelanders became the world's first rebels against the idea of clearing up after the mess made by a reckless private bank. This popular insurrection has been watched anxiously by the governments in Greece, Ireland, eastern Europe—and even Britain—concerned that this defiance could become contagious."

It should become contagious.

Despite the threats made against Iceland by the economic powers that be, the reality is that the rejection of this particular agreement will result in a dramatically better deal being reached.

Indeed, in anticipation of the "no" vote, officials in the U.K. and the Netherlands had penned a letter to Iceland's Finance Minister, Steingrimur Sigfusson, in which they committed themselves to seek a more equitable solution that is in line with international standards.

That fact has caused some to suggest that the referendum vote did not have much meaning.

In fact, as Iceland's former Health Minister, Ogmundur Jonasson, who resigned last fall in protest of Icesave deal-making, said: "This is a dispute between people and capital, property rights and human rights. Maybe we need a little bit of revolution—this is why many people in finance dislike the referendum, because it is symbolic. It is people questioning the rights of capital."

The debt demands on Icelanders amounted to nothing less than "economic warfare," said Birgitta Jonsdottir, who was elected to parliament last year as an anti-bailout candidate.

On Saturday, Iceland fought back.

Their "little bit of revolution" should spread to other countries—including the United States, which has saddled taxpayers with huge debts in order to bail out big banks and bad speculators.

The point here is not to say that there must be no consequences for bad policies on the parts of banks and governments. Of course, there are some responsibilities that must be met.

But the people who pay the taxes have a right to be a part of the decision-making process. And, in a democracy, voters have a right to say "no" when they recognize that they are being forced to pay for the dirty deals of the big bankers and the failures of governments and international agencies that were supposed to regulate the bankers.

"What you are seeing here is an outcome of 97 percent in some districts—98 percent in others—voting no," said Eirigur Svavarsson, a lawyer who headed a group that opposed efforts to impose a deal on Iceland, as the results of the referendum vote were reported.

"Democracy is a strong tool," explained Skulason. "We are saying this is an unreasonable agreement and we want a new agreement."

That's a reasonable demand—for Icelanders and Americans.

John Nichols bio picJohn Nichols is a Washington correspondent for The Nation magazine.

Copyright © 2010 The Nation—distributed by Agence Global


---------------------------------------------------2nd Article - IMF retaliates against Banksters


So there is a magic wand after all. A revolutionary paper by the International Monetary Fund claims that one could eliminate the net public debt of the US at a stroke, and by implication do the same for Britain, Germany, Italy, or Japan

 The IMF reports says the conjuring trick is to replace our system of private bank-created money.


 IMF’s epic plan to conjure away debt and dethrone bankers

Monday, 22 October 2012

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

One could slash private debt by 100pc of GDP, boost growth, stabilize prices, and dethrone bankers all at the same time. It could be done cleanly and painlessly, by legislative command, far more quickly than anybody imagined.

The conjuring trick is to replace our system of private bank-created money — roughly 97pc of the money supply — with state-created money. We return to the historical norm, before Charles II placed control of the money supply in private hands with the English Free Coinage Act of 1666.

Specifically, it means an assault on “fractional reserve banking”. If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air.

The nation regains sovereign control over the money supply. There are no more banks runs, and fewer boom-bust credit cycles. Accounting legerdemain will do the rest. That at least is the argument.

Some readers may already have seen the IMF study, by Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof, which came out in August and has begun to acquire a cult following around the world.

Entitled “The Chicago Plan Revisited”, it revives the scheme first put forward by professors Henry Simons and Irving Fisher in 1936 during the ferment of creative thinking in the late Depression.

Irving Fisher thought credit cycles led to an unhealthy concentration of wealth. He saw it with his own eyes in the early 1930s as creditors foreclosed on destitute farmers, seizing their land or buying it for a pittance at the bottom of the cycle.

The farmers found a way of defending themselves in the end. They muscled together at “one dollar auctions”, buying each other’s property back for almost nothing. Any carpet-bagger who tried to bid higher was beaten to a pulp.

Benes and Kumhof argue that credit-cycle trauma – caused by private money creation – dates deep into history and lies at the root of debt jubilees in the ancient religions of Mesopotian and the Middle East.

Harvest cycles led to systemic defaults thousands of years ago, with forfeiture of collateral, and concentration of wealth in the hands of lenders. These episodes were not just caused by weather, as long thought. They were amplified by the effects of credit.

The Athenian leader Solon implemented the first known Chicago Plan/New Deal in 599 BC to relieve farmers in hock to oligarchs enjoying private coinage. He cancelled debts, restituted lands seized by creditors, set floor-prices for commodities (much like Franklin Roosevelt), and consciously flooded the money supply with state-issued “debt-free” coinage.

The Romans sent a delegation to study Solon’s reforms 150 years later and copied the ideas, setting up their own fiat money system under Lex Aternia in 454 BC.

It is a myth – innocently propagated by the great Adam Smith – that money developed as a commodity-based or gold-linked means of exchange. Gold was always highly valued, but that is another story. Metal-lovers often conflate the two issues.

Anthropological studies show that social fiat currencies began with the dawn of time. The Spartans banned gold coins, replacing them with iron disks of little intrinsic value. The early Romans used bronze tablets. Their worth was entirely determined by law – a doctrine made explicit by Aristotle in his Ethics – like the dollar, the euro, or sterling today.

Some argue that Rome began to lose its solidarity spirit when it allowed an oligarchy to develop a private silver-based coinage during the Punic Wars. Money slipped control of the Senate. You could call it Rome's shadow banking system. Evidence suggests that it became a machine for elite wealth accumulation.

Unchallenged sovereign or Papal control over currencies persisted through the Middle Ages until England broke the mould in 1666. Benes and Kumhof say this was the start of the boom-bust era.

One might equally say that this opened the way to England's agricultural revolution in the early 18th Century, the industrial revolution soon after, and the greatest economic and technological leap ever seen. But let us not quibble.

The original authors of the Chicago Plan were responding to the Great Depression. They believed it was possible to prevent the social havoc caused by wild swings from boom to bust, and to do so without crimping economic dynamism.

The benign side-effect of their proposals would be a switch from national debt to national surplus, as if by magic. "Because under the Chicago Plan banks have to borrow reserves from the treasury to fully back liabilities, the government acquires a very large asset vis-à-vis banks. Our analysis finds that the government is left with a much lower, in fact negative, net debt burden."

The IMF paper says total liabilities of the US financial system - including shadow banking - are about 200pc of GDP. The new reserve rule would create a windfall. This would be used for a "potentially a very large, buy-back of private debt", perhaps 100pc of GDP.

While Washington would issue much more fiat money, this would not be redeemable. It would be an equity of the commonwealth, not debt.

The key of the Chicago Plan was to separate the "monetary and credit functions" of the banking system. "The quantity of money and the quantity of credit would become completely independent of each other."

Private lenders would no longer be able to create new deposits "ex nihilo". New bank credit would have to be financed by retained earnings.

"The control of credit growth would become much more straightforward because banks would no longer be able, as they are today, to generate their own funding, deposits, in the act of lending, an extraordinary privilege that is not enjoyed by any other type of business," says the IMF paper.

"Rather, banks would become what many erroneously believe them to be today, pure intermediaries that depend on obtaining outside funding before being able to lend."

The US Federal Reserve would take real control over the money supply for the first time, making it easier to manage inflation. It was precisely for this reason that Milton Friedman called for 100pc reserve backing in 1967. Even the great free marketeer implicitly favoured a clamp-down on private money.

The switch would engender a 10pc boost to long-arm economic output. "None of these benefits come at the expense of diminishing the core useful functions of a private financial system."

Simons and Fisher were flying blind in the 1930s. They lacked the modern instruments needed to crunch the numbers, so the IMF team has now done it for them -- using the `DSGE' stochastic model now de rigueur in high economics, loved and hated in equal measure.

The finding is startling. Simons and Fisher understated their claims. It is perhaps possible to confront the banking plutocracy head without endangering the economy.

Benes and Kumhof make large claims. They leave me baffled, to be honest. Readers who want the technical details can make their own judgement by studying the text here.

The IMF duo have supporters. Professor Richard Werner from Southampton University - who coined the term quantitative easing (QE) in the 1990s -- testified to Britain's Vickers Commission that a switch to state-money would have major welfare gains. He was backed by the campaign group Positive Money and the New Economics Foundation.

The theory also has strong critics. Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research says banks are in a sense already being forced to increase reserves by EU rules, Basel III rules, and gold-plated variants in the UK. The effect has been to choke lending to the private sector.

He argues that is the chief reason why the world economy remains stuck in near-slump, and why central banks are having to cushion the shock with QE.

"If you enacted this plan, it would devastate bank profits and cause a massive deflationary disaster. There would have to do `QE squared' to offset it," he said.

The result would be a huge shift in bank balance sheets from private lending to government securities. This happened during World War Two, but that was the anomalous cost of defeating Fascism.

To do this on a permanent basis in peace-time would be to change in the nature of western capitalism. "People wouldn't be able to get money from banks. There would be huge damage to the efficiency of the economy," he said.

Arguably, it would smother freedom and enthrone a Leviathan state. It might be even more irksome in the long run than rule by bankers.

Personally, I am a long way from reaching an conclusion in this extraordinary debate. Let it run, and let us all fight until we flush out the arguments.

One thing is sure. The City of London will have great trouble earning its keep if any variant of the Chicago Plan ever gains wide support.
 

Source: Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/9623863/IMFs-epic-plan-to-conjure-away-debt-and-dethrone-bankers.html
 

-------------------------------Note:

   If you need a little bit of superstition to give yourself the confidence to see through this evil money game, try this on for size:

  - 1666 was the year Charles the 2nd created "The "Private Coinage Act", and
  - 66,600 is the number of years in the Mayan Long Cycle and it starts/ends THIS YEAR

   Furthermore, this year, 2012, is exactly 346 years since the Coinage Act was created, which is 4152 months, or 126,290 days, and divide 126,290 by 4152... go ahead, do it.... SEE?? You get endless 6s [after the 30.41].

  See it and BELIEVE IT - the Devil is at work with all those 6s!!

  {okay, I am just kidding around here, lighten up eh?}
 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Popularity:   message viewed 20371 times
URL:   http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=2000278

<< Return to the standard message view