Not the Economy but the Money-Changers, Dummy!
Unless you're talking about activities that don't involve money, which range from rare to non-existent, everything is the doing and the fault of the Money-Changers, i.e., the big central banks like the Federal Reserve. That is the message of a long and comprehensive article that can be found in the Downside World News and is a survey of central banks throughout history. Written by Albert Hitchcock, it is titled The History of the "Money-Changers."
Being not only economics-challenged but also money-challenged, I still have not read the whole article but I have used two sessions to read large chunks of it. For a discussion of finance it is written clearly enough, but the problem is the same that you might find if you like bread well enough, yet you can't possibly down a suitcase-sized loaf in one sitting.
To put what Money-Changers are up to in a very few words, they encourage citizens to get deeper and deeper into debt, at the end of which the bankers aim to profit twice, first by collecting on the loans one way or the other, and second, by gathering up the foreclosed properties that the foreclosees are obliged to give up nevertheless, and reselling those at higher prices.
Hitchcock interweaves his Money Changer ideas into world history in some interesting ways.
As I understand it, he maintains that because nothing can be done in business and politics without money and usually large quantities of it, it is the relatively few people who control the money supply that also control all the big decisions. Those high up in Congress and other parts of the power structure understand this and go along with the bankers' desires. But below that level people are basically unaware of what is happening, and they just follow along, secure in their confidence that all the big decisions are made for them by people with reasonably good judgment and reasonable intent, when in reality the people that they elect are all being paid off by the bankers, and those officials, too, just follow along, happily or unhappily as the case may be, as long as they themselves, their families, and their close associates are all well taken care off, and never mind the common good.
One especially chilling consequence of this is the author's contention that basically all wars are launched by the Money Changers, and from the start they have already decided who will win. They do this by letting the losers have just enough money to keep their hopes up, and they give the winners enough to win, with the proviso that they guarantee the loser's debts.
Once I read that I could hardly wait to get to the section, if any, that would explain something that has long puzzled me, and that is how, after the period immediately after WW 1, when Germany was almost strangled with runaway inflation, how in a very short time in the 1930's the Nazis got hold of enough real money to build not only fabulous non-military structures like the stadium in which the famous 1936 Olympics were held, but also a war machine that later took enormous expenditures of all kinds but especially in lives and in money to defeat.
Hitchcock's answer is simple -- almost too simple. Americans paid for a large part of the Nazi buildup and the subsequent nightmare, ordinary Americans, during the Great Depression.
The Depression was caused by the money-changers cutting off the supply of money. It was commonly thought that this money had simply been lost, vanished into thin air, but in reality it still existed, as good as gold, such as the gold that the English had had to send to the U.S. during WW1 and now desperately wanted returned. Money that ordinarily would have gone into American pockets as honest wages had instead been sent overseas by the bankers, who meanwhile had been persuaded by the German Central Bank that investment in Germany was the best deal around.
An article like this makes a great benchmark for looking at historical events that are unfolding now, which are too numerous to count, especially if you check out Downside every day. Do these events, like the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, and the new hostilities that various officials, especially in England, are trying to fan up now between the West and the Russians, fit in with what the central bankers might want, and if so, how?
This is an article whose propositions are definitely worth installing behind one's forehead, for ready reference. It's like knowing the code to a secret map, concerning which, however, we are largely restricted to reading and nothing else, because otherwise we seem to be caught in a tangle of traps that not even prayer can help us escape.
By "us" I mean you. :)
Being not only economics-challenged but also money-challenged, I still have not read the whole article but I have used two sessions to read large chunks of it. For a discussion of finance it is written clearly enough, but the problem is the same that you might find if you like bread well enough, yet you can't possibly down a suitcase-sized loaf in one sitting.
To put what Money-Changers are up to in a very few words, they encourage citizens to get deeper and deeper into debt, at the end of which the bankers aim to profit twice, first by collecting on the loans one way or the other, and second, by gathering up the foreclosed properties that the foreclosees are obliged to give up nevertheless, and reselling those at higher prices.
Hitchcock interweaves his Money Changer ideas into world history in some interesting ways.
As I understand it, he maintains that because nothing can be done in business and politics without money and usually large quantities of it, it is the relatively few people who control the money supply that also control all the big decisions. Those high up in Congress and other parts of the power structure understand this and go along with the bankers' desires. But below that level people are basically unaware of what is happening, and they just follow along, secure in their confidence that all the big decisions are made for them by people with reasonably good judgment and reasonable intent, when in reality the people that they elect are all being paid off by the bankers, and those officials, too, just follow along, happily or unhappily as the case may be, as long as they themselves, their families, and their close associates are all well taken care off, and never mind the common good.
One especially chilling consequence of this is the author's contention that basically all wars are launched by the Money Changers, and from the start they have already decided who will win. They do this by letting the losers have just enough money to keep their hopes up, and they give the winners enough to win, with the proviso that they guarantee the loser's debts.
Once I read that I could hardly wait to get to the section, if any, that would explain something that has long puzzled me, and that is how, after the period immediately after WW 1, when Germany was almost strangled with runaway inflation, how in a very short time in the 1930's the Nazis got hold of enough real money to build not only fabulous non-military structures like the stadium in which the famous 1936 Olympics were held, but also a war machine that later took enormous expenditures of all kinds but especially in lives and in money to defeat.
Hitchcock's answer is simple -- almost too simple. Americans paid for a large part of the Nazi buildup and the subsequent nightmare, ordinary Americans, during the Great Depression.
The Depression was caused by the money-changers cutting off the supply of money. It was commonly thought that this money had simply been lost, vanished into thin air, but in reality it still existed, as good as gold, such as the gold that the English had had to send to the U.S. during WW1 and now desperately wanted returned. Money that ordinarily would have gone into American pockets as honest wages had instead been sent overseas by the bankers, who meanwhile had been persuaded by the German Central Bank that investment in Germany was the best deal around.
An article like this makes a great benchmark for looking at historical events that are unfolding now, which are too numerous to count, especially if you check out Downside every day. Do these events, like the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, and the new hostilities that various officials, especially in England, are trying to fan up now between the West and the Russians, fit in with what the central bankers might want, and if so, how?
This is an article whose propositions are definitely worth installing behind one's forehead, for ready reference. It's like knowing the code to a secret map, concerning which, however, we are largely restricted to reading and nothing else, because otherwise we seem to be caught in a tangle of traps that not even prayer can help us escape.
By "us" I mean you. :)
posted by Carl (aka Sofarsogoo) | 11:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home