Nexus - 1103 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

accumulated via the depreciated value of the lender's fractional term "money stock" takes on a new meaning! money—inflation. Ergo, pseudo-lending. The tragic absurdity of the situation has reached epic In short, in this situation, all money-holders' assets denominated proportions worldwide. All the complex economic theory, in terms of the banknotes depreciate relative to the ratio of ban- terminology and mathematics could simply be dropped for the knotes issued to the bank's assets. If the banknotes are universally following explanation. The government has delegated its standardised as with a central bank (i.e., legislated as the [sole] responsibility of ensuring public monetary integrity to private "official legal tender), then for simplicity the three distinct groups bankers. But the arrangement has devolved and degenerated to (a) "money-holders", (b) "taxpayers", (c) "citizens" can all be negligence and abdication. Those bankers have reneged on the taken to overlap and be roughly interchangeable. implicit promise of providing monetary integrity. Their system Even more shocking, in the modern, privately owned money- correctly meticulously keeps track of "blip" ownership and its expansion system, the lending bank is essentially allowed to count transfer, except that, via the delegated ownership and the "loan" as an asset, immediately, and is not administration of the blip system, and under required to wait until the end of the the guise of specious, distorted and flawed repayment period of the pseudo-loan to do so. economic science, the bankers can arbitrarily Hence debt is "monetised" as a "security". "The money power preys and unrestrictedly create and own new "blips", 4 A oH and thereby a greater share of real national BLIP CORRUPTION on the nation in times of | weaith! Over the centuries, many commentators peace, and conspires What has occurred is an unequivocal cor - and authorities have struggled to articulate against it in times of ruption in the integrity of the money. Money these ideas using vocabulary that itself has . . is a representation means for scarcity. been correspondingly debased. adversity. It is more Holders utilise it precisely for that property. The process of money expansion is despotic than monarchy, Any entity that can allocate scarcity units typically called "creating money", and the more insolent than without exerting economic work by definition pseudo-money that is pseudo-lent by the pseudo-bank is typically referred to as "credit". But also within the literature, dire confusion or obfuscation reigns on the "razor-sharp" cui bono, caveat emptor distinction set out here between publicly owned versus privately owned money expansion. This intellectua error has potentially catastrophic consequences. The former case can be a legitimate means for collection of government revenue. Because of widespread public ignorance, the latter stands currently as unexposed embezzlement. The manufacturing of abstract credit is a means for real wealth has debased the scarcity units relative to all other holders; the units are not scarce for the embezzler. Somewhere along the line, the implicit promise of integrity has been trashed. The holders of the scarcity units deter- mine the definition of economic work. Legitimate government services are included. The government is established partly to protect scarcity unit ownership and regulate legal and illegal scarcity unit transfer. Privately owned expansion is equivalent to siphoning or leeching of money-energy, with dollar-holders "left out in the cold". autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes." — Abraham Lincoln extraction! ECONOMIC PARASITISM Banking authorities make a distinction between deposits and Mere belief in a religion may have a relatively innocuous effect loans in the same way they distinguish between money and credit. on practitioners if it doesn't demand major "sacrifices"—except In the nonphysical fractional reserve blip-based money system, that, as history shouts, economic policy according to superstition the distinction is invalid. Creation of credit is equivalent to the is inescapably disastrous. Slavery, in contrast, is today regarded creation of money. Whoever has or is given the authority to cre- as a moral horror or even poison. But even these disturbing ate credit has the authority to extract wealth from the economy by charges may pale in capturing the accurate reality of a corrupt blip that same mechanism. Moreover, there is no meaningful distinc- system. tion between fractional reserve banking and money expansion. Smith noted an "invisible hand", Keynes noted the "invisible The analogy of counterfeiting looms large, as the mathematics tax", and prior sections of this paper [not reprinted here; Ed.] con- reveals [covered elsewhere in the full paper; Ed.]. In many ways, sidered the possibility of an "invisible caste system" promoting the only difference between illegal counterfeiting and legal, pri- "invisible slavery". Invisibility can be especially treacherous. A vately owned money expansion is that gains by the recipient in more diabolical metaphor is required. the latter case are officially sanctioned, not indiscriminate, and Invisibility is a common theme in the earlier descriptions. limited based on the expansion rate. Therefore, paradoxically, Rothschild noted the "class of the few who can understand the privately owned money expansion is basically equivalent to system, interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours". legalised counterfeiting, i.e., a surreptitious, state-sanctioned Abraham Lincoln referred to the "money power that conspires and plundering of money-holder wealth by private bankers! preys on the state". ("Conspire" means "to plan together secretly Perhaps the simplest explanation for this situation is that new to commit an illegal or wrongful act or accomplish a legal shares of the economy are issued, but they are owned by private _ purpose through illegal action".) In the strongest indictment bankers at the expense of the ownership by all other shareholders _ possible, Thomas Jefferson referred to "maniacal, delusional, (i.e., money-holders, taxpayers, citizens). Via mere money corrupt, swindling bank-mongers". Jefferson attempted to make a manipulation, the private bankers own a greater real share of the careful distinction between banks with seigniorage fees and those entire economy (e.g., GDP denominated in dollars). Hence the practising fractional reserve banking via "foisting their own paper "The money power preys on the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes." ECONOMIC PARASITISM Mere belief in a religion may have a relatively innocuous effect on practitioners if it doesn't demand major "sacrifices"—except that, as history shouts, economic policy according to superstition is inescapably disastrous. Slavery, in contrast, is today regarded as a moral horror or even poison. But even these disturbing charges may pale in capturing the accurate reality of a corrupt blip system. Smith noted an "invisible hand", Keynes noted the "invisible tax", and prior sections of this paper [not reprinted here; Ed.] con- sidered the possibility of an "invisible caste system" promoting "invisible slavery". Invisibility can be especially treacherous. A more diabolical metaphor is required. Invisibility is a common theme in the earlier descriptions. Rothschild noted the "class of the few who can understand the system, interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours". Abraham Lincoln referred to the "money power that conspires and preys on the state". ("Conspire" means "to plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action".) In the strongest indictment possible, Thomas Jefferson referred to "maniacal, delusional, corrupt, swindling bank-mongers". Jefferson attempted to make a careful distinction between banks with seigniorage fees and those practising fractional reserve banking via "foisting their own paper 14 = NEXUS APRIL — MAY 2004 — Abraham Lincoln www.nexusmagazine.com