Nationalistisk ekonomi

In 1720 every colonial Royal Governor was instructed to curtail the issue of colonial money. This was largely unsuccessful. In 1742 the British Resumption Act required that taxes and other debts be paid in gold. This caused a depression in the colonies - property was seized on foreclosure by the rich for one-tenth its value.

Benjamin Franklin was a big supporter ofthe colonies printing their own money. In 1757, Franklin was sent to London to fight for colonial paper money. He ended up staying for the next 18 years - nearly until the start of the American Revolution. During this period, ignoring Parliament, more American colonies began to issue their own money.

Called Colonial Scrip, the endeavor was successful, with notable exceptions. It provided a reliable medium of exchange, and it also helped to provide a feeling of unity between the colonies. Remember, most Colonial Scrip was just paper money - debt-free money - printed in the public interest and not really backed by gold or silver coin. In other words, it was a fiat currency.

Officials of the Bank of England asked Franklin how he would account for the new-found prosperity of the colonies. Without hesitation he replied:

"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and tndustry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers…

In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."

This was just common sense to Franklin, but you can imagine the impact it had at the Bank of England. America had learned the secret of money, and that genie had to be returned to its bottle as soon as possible.

Bankers Own the World
And are ultimately destroying it

By Chris Martenson

PeakProsperity

July 26, 2013

In every era, there are certain people and institutions that are held in the highest public regard as they embody the prevailing values of society. Not that long ago, Albert Einstein was a major public figure and was widely revered. Can you name a scientist that commands a similar presence today?

Today, some of the most celebrated individuals and institutions are ensconced within the financial industry; in banks, hedge funds, and private equity firms. Which is odd because none of these firms or individuals actuallymake anything, which society might point to as additive to our living standards. Instead, these financial magicians harvest value from the rest of society that has to work hard to produce real things of real value.

While the work they do is quite sophisticated and takes a lot of skill, very few of these firms direct capital to new efforts, new products, and new innovations. Instead they either trade in the secondary markets for equities, bonds, derivatives, and the like, which perform the ‘service’ of moving paper from one location to another while generating ‘profits.’ Or, in the case of banks, they create money out of thin air and lend it out – at interest of course.

Quote:
Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.

~ Josiah Stamp – Bank of England Chairman, 1920s
Because these institutions and individuals accumulate vast sums of money for their less-than-back-breaking efforts, they are well respected if not idolized by most. Many of the most successful paper-accumulators are household names. They get invited to the best parties, are lured by major networks to appear on their shows, speak at the biggest conferences, and their views and words find an easy path to the ears of millions.

But this is more than just an idle set of observations for the curious. It’s actually a critically important phenomenon to be aware of. For the current configuration of financially powerful entities has, at the tail end of a decades-long debt-based money experiment, achieved an astonishing concentration of power, money, and influence.

We raise this topic because our work centers on changing the conversation towards the things that really matter while there is still time to engineer a better outcome, and that requires illuminating the status quo and having a conversation about whether it needs to be modified. Unfortunately, those at the center of the status quo are not at all interested in having any such conversation, because all of their accumulated power depends on maintaining things as they are.

Money is power.

And history has shown that power is never ceded spontaneously or willingly.

The Network That Runs the World

A couple of years ago, I came across a study that has stuck with me ever since and I want to share it with you. It’s really important if we want to understand the likelihood of a graceful transition for our current society into a future of prosperity.

Unlike prior studies seeking to quantify the degree of concentration of wealth and influence, this study simply pored through all of the available public data to build an empirical map of the network of power. Its findings are quite startling and deserve a bit of pondering:

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world

Oct 2011

AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters’ worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations (TNCs) has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, withdisproportionate power over the global economy.

(…)

Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world’s economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy – whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.

The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company’s operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

The work, to be published in PLoS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20.

What’s more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large blue chip and manufacturing firms – the “real” economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. ”In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

Just 147 companies control over 40% of the wealth of the entire network of companies. It should be pointed out that such a network does not have any borders and operates on a global basis, meaning that regional analyses –such as how Germany compares with the U.S. – might be less relevant than typically portrayed.

After all, if decisions being made by a tightly knit group of companies are being made to benefit a network that has no borders, then actions by the German or U.S. governments are only a part of the story. And perhaps a minor one, compared to those made the entities that actually control the real wealth of each nation.

It wasn’t that many decades ago that a list of the top companies with the most wealth and influence would have been dominated by companies that produced real, tangible products – that is, those that created wealth by adding value to goods by transforming resources into products. Companies like GE, GM, IBM, Exxon, and other industrial giants would have been the wealthiest, because, well, they create actual wealth.

Today the top fifty companies in the ‘super-entity’ list of 147 from the above study is concerning. Out of the fifty, 17 are banks, 31 are an assortment of investment, insurance, and financial services companies, and only 2 are non-financial companies (Walmart and China Petrochemical)

The English officials asked how it was the Colonies managed to collect enough taxes to build poor houses, and how they were able to handle the great burden of caring for the poor. Franklin's reply was most revealing: "We have no poor houses in the Colonies, and if we had, we would have no one to put in them, as in the Colonies there is not a single unemployed man, no poor and no vagabonds." Think long and hard about this. In the American colonies before the American Revolution, there was "not a single unemployed man, no poor and no vagabonds". -- no one on Welfare, no one on Social Security, no homeless, no income tax, no alphabet agencies, No IRS, BATF, FBI, DEA, CIA, HEW, OSHA, SBA, and on and on and on to provide for the "general welfare" of our villages, towns, cities and states. How did Benjamin Franklin explain this to the British officials of his day?
How would he explain it to today's lawyers, judges, politicians and other government officials? "It is because, in the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. We call it Colonial Script, and we issue only enough to move all goods freely from the producers to the Consumers; and as we create our money, we control the purchasing power of money, and have no interest to pay."

"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been that England took away from the Colonies their money, which created unemployment and dis-satisfaction." -

In 1652 Massachusetts allowed a mint for gold coinage, but the coins quickly found their way back to England, hardly circulating in the colonies. Guarding its monetary prerogative, the Crown called the mint treason, and it was closed.
From 1675 to 1739 several privately owned land banks were formed, issuing paper money backed by land. But the colonists shunned this privately issued money, considering that currency should be a function of government, as it was in England until 1694.

In 1816 its sea walls were crumbling, its roads were muddy and only 4 1/2 feet wide. Guernsey's debt was 19,000 pounds. The island's annual income was 3,000 pounds of which 2,400 had to be used to pay interest on its debt. Not surprisingly, people were leaving Guernsey and there was little employment. Then the government created and loaned new, interest-free state notes worth 6,000 pounds. Some 4,000 pounds were used to start the repairs of the sea walls. In 1820, another 4,500 pounds was issued, again interest-free. In 1821, another 10,000; 1824, 5,000; 1826, 20,000. By 1837, 50,000 pounds had been issued interest free for the primary use of projects like sea walls, roads, the marketplace, churches, and colleges. This sum more than doubled the island's money supply during this thirteen year period, but there was no inflation. In the year 1914, as the British restricted the expansion of their money supply due to World War I, the people of Guernsey commenced to issue another 142,000 pounds over the next four years and never looked back. By 1958, over 542,000 pounds had been issued, all without inflation. [Web of Debt, p. 100]

Kung Henry I började använda Tally Sticks år 1100, och systemet fortsatte att användas i hela 726 år innan de brändes på bål av privata bankirer.

När Kung Henry I besteg tronen upptäckte han att korstågen hade suget ut det mesta guldet och silvret som kunde användas som pengar. Han befann sig i en situation

där han antingen lånade stora summor pengar, eller skapde ett eget system av pengar.

Precis som president Lincoln använde Greenbacks , som inte var lånade och var ränte fria, skapade Kung Henry I Tally sticks en fiat valuta som inte backades av något guld

och var ränte fria.

SKillnaden är stor de båda valutorna emellan, Greenbacks användes enbart för att köpa krigsmaterial och förstördes efter kriget, medan tally sticks fortsatte att användas

för att financiera jordbruk, kyrkbyggen och handel som hjälpte folket bli rikare.

Tally sticks spenderades in i ekonomin som soldat löner, till bönder för deras mat, till smedjor för deras arbete osv.

Det fanns ett antal fördelar med Tally sticks.

1) De kunde användas som pengar men var räntefria

2)De var i princip omöjliga att falskmynta. Varje tally stick var unik och för att vara laglig behövde din halva mätas med kungens halva.

3)De behövde inte guld eller silver till backning, utan backades av handelsvaror som inte ens fanns vid utgivningstiden. Det kunde vara framtida handelsvaror, något tillverkat

eller t.o.m guld eller silver som personen hoppas skaffa sig.

4)De var i princip inflations säkra. De kunde inte produceras i oändliga mängder. Antalet tally sticks begränsades till den förväntade produktionen av folket. Sedan när

tally sticks användes för att betala skatt fanns de ej i systemet något mer och nya behövde tillverkas/ ges ut. Det kunde bara bli en ökning utav tally sticks


om det var en motsvarande ökning av förväntad produktion, och eftersom varje person var ansvarig för värdet av hans tally stick så fanns det lite vilja att inflera dess

värde.

5)Kungen gjorde tally sticks värdefulla genom att man betalade skatt med dessa, dessutom använde kungarna tally sticks själva.

Mängen tally sticks översteg vida mängen guld och silver i omlopp, och levde i slutet av sin tillsammans med guld silver och pappers pengar i omlopp.


Ännu ett bevis på räntefria skuldfria pengar som SPENDERAS in i samhället för samhällets nytta.

Och ränta är visst ett problem, eftersom det leder till att de som äger mest, suger ut de som äger minst i längden. Återigen, se länkarna i första inlägget. Detta beror på ren matematik, ränta är en form av exponentialfunktionen. Låt oss betrakta ett nollsummespel med två deltagare, person A och person B. Person A börjar med 45% av alla tillgångarna i spelet. Person B börjar med 55% av alla tillgångarna i spelet. Person A lånar av vilken som helst anledning 5% av persons B tillgångar, och struntar i att betala tillbaka lånat utan betalar istället enbart ränta på 5% årligen till person B. Efter 100 år kommer person A besitta 20% av tillgångarna i spelet medans person B besitter 80%. Efter 170 år kommer person A besitta 3% av tillgångarna medans person B besitter 97% av tillgångarna. Känns mönstret igen från verkligheten? Är det inte så att några judiska bankfamiljer i princip äger hela västvärlden, och att befolkningarna, staterna och företagen är belånade, och enbart blir mer och mer belånade. Det är på grund av räntesystemet, och det är just precis därför Hitler ville bryta räntesystemet, och det är därför judarna har slagit ned mot alla regimer som försökt slita sig loss ifrån sitt räntebaserade ekonomiska system och fortsätter så att göra.

Du behöver inte vara orolig, jag har inga ambitioner om att bryta mig in hos dig för att stjäla ditt guld. Mina ambitioner handlar om att kunna erbjuda ett ekonomiskt system som inte har framtagits utav judar, och bevisligen så kom Hitler m.fl. ganska långt, och av det drar jag slutsatsen att vi har mycket att lära av just de ekonomiska systemen, och desto mindre att lära utav system framtagna av judar som placerar all makt i handen på judarna.

3) Why should we give the government even more power?
Because our money system belongs to society as a whole. It is too important to trust to unrepresentative and unaccountable private hands, preoccupied with private gain, with little regard for the detrimental consequences of their actions on the country, and outside our system of checks and balances. Just look what they have done!

Alla dessa länkar du postar kritiserar dagens ekonomiska system. Där är vi som sagt överens. Däremot missar man ju helt att dagens system är allt annat än privat.
Det är stater som genom centralbanker och skatter möjliggjort detta bisarra och vidriga människofientliga system. Det är en global planekonomi bestående av en elit av politiker och bankirer med diverse allierade storföretag och det militärindustriella komplexet.

Det är ofta samma personer som sitter i regeringar som sitter i styrelserna för olika banker och företag. Ta Hank Paulson, Wall Street-horan med titlar som amerikansk finansminister och VD för Goldman Sachs på CV:et. Eller Erik Åsbrink, finansminister, ordförande i Riksbanksfullmäktige och rådgivare för Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs ingår i Rothschild-koncernen.

Jag anser att Sverige bör ha ett starkt militärt försvar som skyddar våra gränser. Men varför ska svenskarnas pengar och egendomar kontrolleras av politiker? Har nationalister gått och blivit demokrater helt plötsligt?

...
It starts with a short introduction of Modern History, rewritten to show how the bankers managed to conquer Europe via Holland and Britain. This serves as an excellent primer for those looking for a heads up on these fundamental issues in their reeducation.

He describes how the current financial system came to be and what problems it brings.

But where the book really takes off is his vivid description of the public discourse of the thirties in reaction to the Great Depression. It transpires that very concrete opposition to the financial system itself was universal throughout the industrialized nations. Social Credit activists were active throughout the west. The dominions saw major Social Credit movements. But also other financial systems were both promoted and, what is more, even implemented.

New Zealand, for instance, implemented financial policies that were very similar to those of Hitler’s Germany. A large scale social housing project financed with State Credit solved 75% of unemployment during the Great Depression. This iconic project has disappeared in a memory hole. Canada also printed its own Government money from the mid thirties up to the early seventies. Here is an eye-opening account of the Canadian economy with Government money.

The level of public involvement in these discussions seem to have been huge. They were talking banking and monetary reform in pubs and on street corners, all over the West.

In Britain itself there were the ‘Green Shirts for Social Credit’, started by John Hargrave, who had met C.H. Douglas in 1923. The Green Shirts kicked off in 1930 and 1932 Hargrave realized that nothing could be done through Parliament and that a fully devoted agitation was necessary. Bolton:
“Hargrave advocated a militant campaign that would break the media blackout. The Green Shirts took to the streets on marches, behind drums and banners, held street corner meetings, and sold newspapers on the street, delivering the Social Credit message in a cogent manner. Facing the violent opposition of the Left, they were noted for their discipline in the face of provocation. They were also noted for throwing green painted bricks through the windows of banks and using the consequent court cases to publicize their views.”

Bolton analyzes the struggle for monetary reform in all major western nations, including Father Coughlin, who at his peak was followed by 40 million Americans, and Japan.

I must say that this comprehensive overview was actually eye opening for me. Such large scale agitation for- and implementation of real monetary reform on such a level, I never really realized what kind of trouble the Money Power faced back then.

It also shows that the system may not be quite so unassailable as it often looks. True, while today’s depression is probably not much less worse than 80 years ago, its consequences have been much milder. Millions of people actually starved or were close to starvation back then. However we may feel about the much dreaded well fare state, it has prevented that kind of mass suffering during this crunch. On the other hand: we can also be sure that this is a vital part of the Money Power’s calculations this time round. Because hunger is a powerful motivator and the usurers have learned to sedate us to the nastiest side effects of our hidden slavery.
...